NEWS
Bill to reinstate federal military draft fails in Congress
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ryan Masse:
Related Stories:
- Collegiate partisans tackle topics of day (October 20, 2004)
- Over time, U.S. sees draft changes (December 7, 2004)
- State Assembly wrap up: A week of legislative activity (January 25, 2002)
- Money for first responders (February 5, 2003)
- Congress Clears Huge Federal Spending Bill (January 23, 2004)
Share This:
by Ryan Masse
Wednesday, October 6, 2004
The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to defeat a bill calling for the restoration of the military draft Tuesday.
By a 402-2 vote, the House shot down HR 163, otherwise known as the Universal National Service Act of 2003. The bill, introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, in January 2003, would have required all U.S. citizens aged 18 to 25, including women, to serve two years of military or civilian service.
With rumors of a potential conscription swirling on the Internet in the past few weeks, House Republicans sought to quell speculation that President George Bush will reinstate the draft to bolster flagging forces in Iraq. The Bush administration has adamantly denied any plan to reinstitute the draft is in the offing.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, hoped the lopsided vote would convince naysayers that Bush and Congress have no intention of making military service non-voluntary.
“Opponents of President Bush have tried for months now to spread fear among millions of college students and other young Americans by claiming that they may be drafted to serve in the Armed Forces,” Sensenbrenner said in a statement. “Today’s House vote will, I hope, put to rest this ill-founded rumor, and send the fear-mongers a message that their shameless and political tactics have failed.”
After letting the legislation sit dormant for over a year, the House brought the bill to vote under suspended rules late Tuesday. The chamber debated the measure for 40 minutes before taking the vote.
Despite authoring the bill, Rangel voted against the legislation, saying the suspended rules debate did not give the issue the discussion it deserves.
“There’s been no hearing, no expert testimony, we haven’t heard from the public,” Rangel press secretary Emile Milne said. “[Suspended rules hearings] are supposed to be for non-controversial issues, like naming post offices.”
Jerilyn Goodman, spokesperson for Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, questioned the timing of the vote.
“The process by which this was brought to the floor, with [Republicans] knowing full well that it was going to fail, clearly demonstrates that they are trying to quash rumors before the election that the draft might be reinstated,” Goodman said.
But Bush has been steadfast in saying there is no need for a draft, either before or after the election.
“We will not have a draft so long as I’m the president of the United States,” Bush proclaimed in Iowa earlier this week, saying a draft cannot, among other deficiencies, provide specialized forces.
One group particularly vocal about the possibility of a draft has been the non-partisan youth voter registration organization Rock the Vote.
Jay Strell, communications director for Rock the Vote, said the youth organization is not propagating rumors of the draft, but simply trying to open a dialogue about it with young people. He described the hastily scheduled House vote as “absurd” and said both major party candidates have skirted an issue potentially affecting millions of college students.
“The fact of the matter is neither candidate is talking about this,” Strell said. “The remarkable thing about the debate last week was that with all the talk about Iraq and Iran and North Korea, nobody mentioned the draft.”
Anonymous (October 6, 2004 @ 10:19am):
Who were the two Congressmen who voted in favor of the draft?
Anonymous (October 6, 2004 @ 11:14am):
This whole draft story is a complete pile of crap. There was never any intent to bring the draft back. Some liberals on the internet started this rumor to try to hurt the Republicans. Therefore, the House had to waste their time and vote on this to show that there was never any intent on bringing back the draft.
Anonymous (October 6, 2004 @ 12:00pm):
John Murtha (D) of Pennsylvania and Pete Stark (D) of California voted for reinstating the draft.
USAF MSgt (October 6, 2004 @ 12:11pm):
(Posted anonymously since I'm still on active duty.)
About time the draft proposal was terminated. As an active duty USAF NCO I bitterly oppose a draft.
I served through the 1980s as we rebuilt the Volunteer Force and fixed the damage done by the draft era. We were able to execute the Reagan Era buildup without conscription, and we can do it again, if senior leadership will authorise an appropriate force enlargement.
A draft answers precisely none of our military problems.
We need to recruit and retain career soldiers, sailors, and airmen, not a rotating pool of unwilling "one-termers".
The way to do this is easy. Expand the force so we don't burn out our people, and pay them enough that they continue to enlist. The active duty force needs to be permanently expanded back to Cold War levels, and the Reserves reduced in proportion.
Anonymous (October 7, 2004 @ 1:01am):
"Read my lips, no military draft!"
What happens when we run out of military resources? If the majority of people in this country support what the war is doing and what we are planning to do with the war, then shouldn't the majority fight it as well? I am under the impression that the US plans to set several more Middle East countries free. Don't you think we will need more than 1.4 million trips? Where will they come from? Its a democracy, if you vote for a war, then you should fight the war.
