Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 I went to the site you listed http://thomas.loc.gov/ and entered HR 163 It says this Bill was introduced in January 2003 to the house H.R.163 Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Rangel, B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (14) Related Bills: S.89 Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD. There is also a sentate bill S.89 Title: A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [sC] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (None) Related Bills: H.R.163 Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. Is there any more backgroup information that says one way or another what the true status of these bills is other than " in committee " ? - Becky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 In order to make informed choices it's necessary to have facts as they occured. Note date on article. the info. forwarded to the list is on a bill in committee since jan. 2003 also a list of the bills sponsers. Party affiliation isn't included but most of you who live in these states can chime in as to what party your states sponcer of this legislation belong...if you want. H.R.163 Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Rangel, B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (14) Related Bills: S.89 Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD. COSPONSORS(14), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date) Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/7/2003 Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 1/28/2003 Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 5/19/2004 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/28/2003 Rep Conyers, , Jr. [MI-14] - 1/7/2003 Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 1/28/2003 Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 1/28/2003 Rep , L., Jr. [iL-2] - 7/21/2004 Rep -Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/28/2003 Rep , [GA-5] - 1/7/2003 Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/7/2003 Rep Moran, P. [VA-8] - 1/28/2003 Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/7/2003 Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 1/28/2003 >>>> the italitized sentence that follows was from the forwarded message, the article is what the administration said when questioned. If you don't want a draft, it certainly looks like it's alot of democrats who are pushing it to me, not the administration. Makes you wonder if the democrats authors are trying to say that 'they' are holding the bill up in committee? Oh well, let the chips fall where they may. Just thought I'd share the info. so people can make informed choices based on more complete information. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately. Oh, really?? Rumsfeld: No Need for Draft; 'Disadvantages Notable' By Kathleen T. Rhem American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Jan. 7, 2003 -- The United States is not going to implement a military draft, because there is no need for it, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said today. Rep. Rangel said last week he was planning to introduce such legislation in the New Year. Rep. Conyers Jr. has since expressed support. " I believe that if those calling for war knew their children were more likely to be required to serve -- and to be placed in harm's way -- there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq, " Rangel wrote in a recent commentary in the New York Times. Rumsfeld dismissed the notion out of hand during a Pentagon press briefing. " I don't know of anyone in this building or in the administration who thinks that anyone ought to go to war lightly, " he said. " I know the president doesn't, and I know I don't. " The country doesn't need a draft because the all-volunteer force works -- in fact, the United States has the most effective military in the world precisely because it is all-volunteer, Joint Chiefs Chairman Air Force Gen. B. Myers said. " (The all-volunteer force is) efficient; it's effective; it's given the United States of America, the citizens of this great country, a military that is second to none, " Myers said. " The people that are in the armed services today … are there because they want to be there and are ready and willing and, without any question, capable of doing whatever the president may ask, " Rumsfeld added. The secretary described " notable disadvantages " to having a conscripted force. He said people are involuntarily forced to serve, some for less than they could earn on the outside. There are many exemptions, which change all the time, thus providing for unfair situations. Troops are " churned " through training, serve the minimum amount of time and leave -- thus causing more money to be spent to churn more draftees through the system. He also dismissed the notion that the all-volunteer force leads to a disproportionate number of blacks and other minorities being killed in battle. " I do not know that that's historically correct, " Rumsfeld said. " And I do not know that, even if it were historically correct, that it's correct today. " He and Myers kept coming back to their bottom line: America is better off for the force it has today. " We have people serving today -- God bless 'em -- because they volunteered, " Rumsfeld said. " They want to be doing what it is they're doing. And we're just lucky as a country that there are so many wonderfully talented young men and young women who each year step up and say, 'I'm ready; let me do that.' " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 " perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service " I guess " OR " is the operative word here.... so what's civilian service consist of? Di Re: Mandatory draft I went to the site you listed http://thomas.loc.gov/ and entered HR 163 It says this Bill was introduced in January 2003 to the house H.R.163 Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Rangel, B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (14) Related Bills: S.89 Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD. There is also a sentate bill S.89 Title: A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [sC] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (None) Related Bills: H.R.163 Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. Is there any more backgroup information that says one way or another what the true status of these bills is other than " in committee " ? - Becky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 Thank you Joy... File this along with the Neiman Marcus cookie recipe and " I need your help removing funds from a bank in Nigeria... " you can read about it at http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp and come to your own conclusion. The fact that it is an entirely Democrat sponsored effort is interesting as well....when I saw Sheila -Lee's name on it, I knew it was all about sticking it to the administration. Karla in Texas Re: Mandatory draft In order to make informed choices it's necessary to have facts as they occured. Note date on article. the info. forwarded to the list is on a bill in committee since jan. 2003 also a list of the bills sponsers. Party affiliation isn't included but most of you who live in these states can chime in as to what party your states sponcer of this legislation belong...if you want. H.R.163 Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Rangel, B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (14) Related Bills: S.89 Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD. COSPONSORS(14), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date) Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/7/2003 Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 1/28/2003 Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 5/19/2004 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/28/2003 Rep Conyers, , Jr. [MI-14] - 1/7/2003 Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 1/28/2003 Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 1/28/2003 Rep , L., Jr. [iL-2] - 7/21/2004 Rep -Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/28/2003 Rep , [GA-5] - 1/7/2003 Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/7/2003 Rep Moran, P. [VA-8] - 1/28/2003 Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/7/2003 Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 1/28/2003 >>>> the italitized sentence that follows was from the forwarded message, >>>> the article is what the administration said when questioned. If you >>>> don't want a draft, it certainly looks like it's alot of democrats who >>>> are pushing it to me, not the administration. Makes you wonder if the >>>> democrats authors are trying to say that 'they' are holding the bill up >>>> in committee? Oh well, let the chips fall where they may. Just >>>> thought I'd share the info. so people can make informed choices based >>>> on more complete information. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately. Oh, really?? Rumsfeld: No Need for Draft; 'Disadvantages Notable' By Kathleen T. Rhem American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Jan. 7, 2003 -- The United States is not going to implement a military draft, because there is no need for it, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said today. Rep. Rangel said last week he was planning to introduce such legislation in the New Year. Rep. Conyers Jr. has since expressed support. " I believe that if those calling for war knew their children were more likely to be required to serve -- and to be placed in harm's way -- there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq, " Rangel wrote in a recent commentary in the New York Times. Rumsfeld dismissed the notion out of hand during a Pentagon press briefing. " I don't know of anyone in this building or in the administration who thinks that anyone ought to go to war lightly, " he said. " I know the president doesn't, and I know I don't. " The country doesn't need a draft because the all-volunteer force works -- in fact, the United States has the most effective military in the world precisely because it is all-volunteer, Joint Chiefs Chairman Air Force Gen. B. Myers said. " (The all-volunteer force is) efficient; it's effective; it's given the United States of America, the citizens of this great country, a military that is second to none, " Myers said. " The people that are in the armed services today . are there because they want to be there and are ready and willing and, without any question, capable of doing whatever the president may ask, " Rumsfeld added. The secretary described " notable disadvantages " to having a conscripted force. He said people are involuntarily forced to serve, some for less than they could earn on the outside. There are many exemptions, which change all the time, thus providing for unfair situations. Troops are " churned " through training, serve the minimum amount of time and leave -- thus causing more money to be spent to churn more draftees through the system. He also dismissed the notion that the all-volunteer force leads to a disproportionate number of blacks and other minorities being killed in battle. " I do not know that that's historically correct, " Rumsfeld said. " And I do not know that, even if it were historically correct, that it's correct today. " He and Myers kept coming back to their bottom line: America is better off for the force it has today. " We have people serving today -- God bless 'em -- because they volunteered, " Rumsfeld said. " They want to be doing what it is they're doing. And we're just lucky as a country that there are so many wonderfully talented young men and young women who each year step up and say, 'I'm ready; let me do that.' " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 In a message dated 9/17/2004 7:01:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, collarbone@... writes: > The fact that it is an entirely Democrat sponsored effort is interesting as > > well....when I saw Sheila -Lee's name on it, I knew it was all about > sticking it to the administration. Well isn't it obvious to everyone that we're going to run out of volunteer soldiers, sailors and marines before this administration runs out of testosterone? Bringing back the draft will be required if we can't get along with other nations and gain their support to fight terrorism. Kathy, Liam's mom( 6) and a marine's daughter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.