The Universal National Service Act

Senate Bill S.89 and House Bill H.R.163 have passed
both houses of Congress and are now awaiting Executive Comment, meaning that the President will get the chance soon to add to it or simply sign it into law.

This Act will require ALL AMERICANS, male and female, between the ages of 18 and 26 to serve two years of military service (or
the equivalent).

There will be NO REGISTRATION necessary, and NO EXEMPTIONS(thus the term Universal).

Are you surprised that you may have never heard ofthis until now? Maybe you missed this story in the news between Scott Peterson
trail coverage or previews of Paris Hilton's new show. There were lots
of pictures of President Bush addressing the troops recently...but I don'tremember him mentioning it. Maybe it's just me, but doesn't this issue deserve morepublic discussion?

Damn that Liberal Media!

<http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:>

Not that I don't trust you (this isn't personal), but knowing the climate of lies and disinformation we live in, I am properly skeptical.

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:

No offense taken...I know what it's like being skeptical and having to check and double check all your info.

:shrug:

<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.163.IH:>

though the link doesn't show status of the bill.

<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89.IS:>

That doesn't work for me either.

Another giant leap forward in true equality for everyone. I applaud their foresight and fortitude in passing these bills.

There are no deferments or dismissals for us flamers. I wonder if they'll make us wear pink triangles or something really snappy on our uniforms. Looking forward to it . . . especially the first three one-nutted sonuvabitches who think they're big and badass enough to take me in a fight.

Plus, if they are willing to force you to serve, they have less of a solid footing for denying the good things that come with true equality.

Imagine the benefits to our country if:

(1) every adult went through what amounts to two years of physical fitness training (2) every adult learned first aid, and maybe some basic disaster-response training. (3) every adult had training in self-defense, and could serve in a military capacity at short notice

That's what I call *real* homeland security.

One possible drawback: It could also imply the possibility of every adult being exposed to militaristic propaganda at an impressionable age.

I had plenty of exposure to it and look how I turned out. OK, maybe we should worry but not in the way you were thinking originally. :)

what having all college aged students and new workers in the military would have on the economy? Even though its only 2 years, it could devastate the economy. The size of the military would balloon and it is not cheap to run a full functoning military, especially one as technologically advanced as ours. Every soldier enlisted, means you have to pay for training, salary, a rifle, ammo, BDUs, helmets, boots, grenades, packs and other equipment. That ain't cheap. Not to mention tanks, humvees, troop carriers, trucks, more planes, just to be able to move them and equip them. Then, there is the fuel issue. They can pay for this two ways, cut other programs, such as education and medicare, or they can raise taxes. Either way, you get screwed.

However, I bet it doesn't have to break the bank. For instance, increasing the number of people enlisted at any given time, by a factor of 10 (just to pick a number) does not mean we also have to have 10 times as many tanks, or 10x stealth bombers, etc.

It would mean probably 10x the rifles, uniforms, and housing, etc.

this is an issue that is serious enough that it might result in riots and other really bad public reaction, especially since it's clearly not "representative government" in action.

ONE THING IS FOR SURE if it has passed, then we will win back both houses AND the presidency in November.

Accept for, as far as I know, the people who introduced the bills into congress were both dems...

Yes, the House bill was proposed by Charles Rangel, and the Senate bill by Ernest Hollings.

Ok, maybe I just don't understand the process, but...

The Senate bill says: "Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services"

and

The House bill says: '2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD."

Doesn't look to me like either bill has gone to the President. The Senate bill says it was sent to committee, and the House sent theirs to the Department of Defense.

(1) I also agree that it's an idea of such far-reaching consequences that it should be a topic of major public debate.

(2) It's easy for me to say, since I never had to serve 2 manadtory years of military service.

Finland has this kind of thing in place, at least for males. I don't know about females. Might be interesting to look at them as an example of what it would be like.

country Israel is. And they are sooo careful of the Palestinians living there.

(1) I'm not sure I see the causal connection you're trying to make

(2) Lately, America hasn't exactly been a model of peace and compassion either. If this plan were in place, it would at least ensure some level of equality in service. I suspect this would increase people's political awareness and participation, since every family would have skin in the game.

someone, sometime who would feel the absolute need to use it somewhere. Someone like * comes to mind...

like a 400-pound gorilla with brain-bubbles, either.

Just sayin'.

college freepers deal with the news.

Nowehere anywhere has there even so much as been a debate, let alone a vote and passage.

This is total and complete bullshit.

Folks,

I just surfed over to the Census Bureau's web page. The
age demographics there are not broken out very conveniently
for my purposes, but --

according to the 1990 census, there were approximately
18.9 million citizens between the ages of 20 and 24.
Obviously, that doesn't include 18 and 19 year olds,
and the population has grown in 10 years, so the manda-
tory service population called for is larger than 18.9
million, but let's just go with this number for the sake
of argument.

This proposed law requires that everyone in that 6-year
age bracket serve in the military for 2 years. That
means that the armed forces will have to accomodate
more than 3 million new draftees each year. The current
number of active duty troops is about 1.5 million.

What the hell do we need with a 3 to 4.5 million person
armed force? How are we going to pay for it? And what on
Earth are we going to do with it? By way of comparison,
they are proposing an active-duty military of a size that
approaches that of the WWII era.

The only thing I'm certain of, is that with a military
that big, corporate america will find plenty of missions
for it.


J.

I feel that by being a RN (which I will be in 2 years), I'm serving my country JUST AS WELL as anyone who's in the armed services.

There's already a teaching and nursing shortage in this country. Why should I have to serve overseas, or at a military facility, when more "civlian" Americans are in need of quality, affordable health care, and decent, well-trained, compassionate health-care workers?

What about educators? Isn't one serving their country BETTER by being a teacher in a public school than learning how to shoot a gun in Germany? Or sitting in Boot Camp for 8 weeks?

I don't like the idea of mandatory public service. I like the idea that if you decide to volunteer for X years, then you get X years of free college tuition, or reimbursement of financial aid payments, or whatever.

As it stands now, when I get my RN degree, if I agree to work in an area of 'high need' (medically)---that can be on a Reservation, in a rural area without great health-care facilities, in a highly populated urban area---if I agree to work in an area of 'high need" for 2 years, they will repay my student loans.

Why isn't that considered "National Service"? Or are you only a REAL AMERICAN if you're trained to use a gun properly and taught how to throw a grenade? Or how to kill people more humanely?

See---I'm getting into nursing, and not the military (which would have paid for me to go to school and be a military nurse OR doctor) because frankly, I'm not into ending life. I'm into helping people live better, and die with dignity when necessary (note: this doesn't mean I'm getting into euthanasia---what I mean is that I prefer to be a comforting factor to family and patients in time of death, than to be the bringer of death).

No mandatory national service in the military. No mandatory national volunteerism. As it stands, I work 40 hours a week and am a full-time student. I don't have time to make dinner at my home, much less 'devote' a certain number of hours a week/month/year to volunteerism. I believe that the sheer NATURE of my job is basically paid volunteerism (which is an oxymoron, i know), but I'm helping people MORE in my job than I'd ever be allowed to do in a paper-pushing volunteer position.

I'm making more of a positive influence on not just Americans, but the WORLD by working in the medical profession.

Teachers don't just make an difference to the students they teach--they make an influence on those student's children, the community, the parents.

No to national service---in this capacity at least.

hr 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, Charles B. (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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)
1/7/2003:
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
2/3/2003:
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
2/3/2003:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Total Force.

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. (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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)
1/7/2003:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.