H.R. 4752: Universal National Service Act of 2006

I just stumbled across this and don't recall it being covered here. If I'm incorrect please delete the thread.

109th CONGRESS
2d Session

H. R. 4752

To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to 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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 14, 2006
Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL

To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to 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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National Service Act of 2006'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. National service obligation.

Sec. 3. Two-year period of national service.

Sec. 4. Implementation by the President.

Sec. 5. Induction.

Sec. 6. Deferments and postponements.

Sec. 7. Induction exemptions.

Sec. 8. Conscientious objection.

Sec. 9. Discharge following national service.

Sec. 10. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 11. Relation of Act to registration and induction authority of military selective service Act.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

(a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act.

(b) Form of National Service- National service under this Act shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.

(c) Induction Requirements- The President shall provide for the induction of persons covered by subsection (a) to perform national service under this Act.

(d) Selection for Military Service- Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President shall--

(1) determine the number of persons covered by subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; and

(2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be inducted for military service under this Act.

(e) Civilian Service- Persons covered by subsection (a) who are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall perform their national service obligation under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 3. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) General Rule- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this Act shall be two years.

(b) Grounds for Extension- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this Act may be extended--

(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or

(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.

(c) Early Termination- The period of national service for a person under this Act shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:

(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reserve component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.

(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.

(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.


.............More here: www.theorator.com...

Someone help me out here - how is this different from a reinsitution of the draft??

....

This bill seems to be in the first steps of the legislative process. Let us hope that it gets shot down ASAP. However, a well timed war would force the issue wouldn't it?

Originally posted by Violent
Someone help me out here - how is this different from a reinsitution of the draft??

....

The difference? This includes women and men up to age 42. No more cut off 20s.

Oh also - it's got a *much* "nicer" ring to it.



[edit on 16-5-2006 by negativenihil]

it is legislation like this that just5 makes my skin crawl....WTF is wrong with these lawmakers...Who the hell do they think they are to try to force us into military service... I WILL NOT KILL.... EVEN IF MY OWN LIFE IS FORFEIT... AND THEY CANNOT MAKE ME... they can kill me or throw me in jail but they cannot force me to kill....I'll not damn my soul for any man, god, or country.

whewww.. thanks for letting me vent... good find jonna

im really sorry but i dont know how the heck i posted the same thing three times...mods please delete two of these...thanks... again sorry

MOD NOTE: Got 'em. No worries.

[edit on 5/16/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]

Originally posted by negativenihil

The difference? This includes women and men up to age 42. No more cut off 20s.

Oh also - it's got a *much* "nicer" ring to it.

[edit on 16-5-2006 by negativenihil]

Thanks. That makes me feel bett......wait.....

IS THIS ENOUGH NOW?

They will say it goes back to Clinton- the Democrats started it sure.

Let us see now-

I need comments before i go crazy. Is this supposed to be a surprise bill that passes through with no mention to the public???

You know what, i have had it. Why not throw in children and the mentally retarded also??

www.govtrack.us...

Introduced: Feb 14, 2006
Last Action: Feb 23, 2006: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

.......

I wanted to make sure this wasn't something made up and posted on a randon website, so I looked for H.R. 4752 in Google....

Charles Rangel introduced this bill, and he has done it before in 2003, not so much as a legitimate attempt to restart the draft, but as a political statement.

This is an article about the previous attempt:

Congressman Charles Rangel introduced legislation earlier this month calling for the reinstitution of "compulsory military service or alternate civilian service"--or in other words, the draft. According to the press release accompanying his legislation, the purpose for introducing the bill was two-fold. Rangel believes a draft would help deter unilateral, preemptive American action against Iraq by raising the political cost of war. A draft would also result in a more equitable class representation in the nation's military, which Rangel correctly describes as "Americans making the sacrifice for this great country."

Rangel has stated that his intention is not to bring back the draft. Rather, by using an issue that holds a deep emotional resonance for many Americans, he is addressing the class disparity between the Americans who serve in the military and the civilians responsible for leading them. Rangel's draft proposal has one key difference from its Vietnam War predecessor: in order to equitably spread the cost of military service, it carries no exemptions for students in college or graduate school.

www.columbiaspectator.com...

That bill was defeated 402-2.

We can only hope that this bill meets a similar fate!

p.s. thanks for the fix mods

[edit on 16-5-2006 by TONE23]

Thanks Logan - you are one of my favorite posters on this board for your ability to accurately research and post the truth. I was searching for HR 4752 but couldn't find any commentary which seems odd in itself. Good to know it's because it's a dead issue.

I actually appreciate the movement on a political statement level. That is interesting - thanks for clearing things up for me LoganCale.

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Violent]

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Violent]

Originally posted by Violent
Someone help me out here - how is this different from a reinsitution of the draft??

Its not. Well, technically its different. A draft is for a specific war, in a sense. THis is "National Service". Germany, for example, requires its citizens to go into the army for a few years, so do many other countries. I haven't heard people call it a 'draft;, but its compulsory serivce either way.

rasobasi420
Let us hope that it gets shot down ASAP

No one is going to pass such a bill, it'd be political suicide. Similar to Rangell's call for a new draft, no one would actually support it, and he was only able to get away with it by spinning it as an anti-war measure.

Charles Rangel introduced this bill,

Oh wow, how funny is that!

but this current introductions submitted in February is still in process?

its two seperate bills. Rangell wanted to reinsitute the draft. That got shot down. Now he is trying it again, but making it National Service, ie, even when the WOT is over, people still have to serve.

Mind you the resounding defeat from 2003 would probably be the same situation,

Indeed, and Rangell isn't stupid, he knows its going to be defeated just as badly. The introduction of the bill is a political measure.



The logic does make a good point. Shouldn't a person, in exchange for being a citizen, be required to serve in the military? As far as being a pacifist, there have been, for a long time, measures to protect pacifists, you'd register as a concientious objector. In previous drafts, peopel that did that still had to Serve, but they were organized into civlian works brigades, they'd pave roads or repair dams, etc, internally.

But I don't think that ultimately this sort of thing can work for America. In Europe, where this is very common, the State is the authority that dictates terms to the citizenry. But in the US, the state is purposely kept weak, and even put at odds with itself (checks, balances). Citizenship in the US is really just a matter of being born in the US, the State isn't supposed to have any real power over citizenship or personal liberty, such as requiring service in a federal army in order to 'prove' you are worthy of citizenship.

I mean, Heinlein ain't the president.

Rangel did something similar a few years ago in an attempt to sway public opinion away from military action in Iraq. This is more of the same and just like the last one, it will be soundly defeated if it ever even reaches the floor for a vote.

Originally posted by dgtempe
They will say it goes back to Clinton- the Democrats started it sure.

Of course, dgtempe, because it is true.
Did you happen to see this mention from the above?

February 14, 2006
Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

Mr. Charlie Rangel is a democrat.
Seems he is rather persistant too, being his continued reintroduction of a draft proposal has been repeatedly rebuked and voted down.
Bush's draft - DEBUNKED!!!
Charles Rangel Votes Against His Own Bill!
Rangel To Reintroduce Draft Bill

ATS search: Rangel







seekerof

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Seekerof]

~~

you know something....it just might pass this time around

? Why so?
in the 1st qualifier the proposed bill says...
...citizens of the United States, and other persons residing in (America)

to my reckoning, that would make all 12-20 million illegal immigrants
eligible for the mandatory 'National Service',
all they have to be is 18 to 42 years old,

with public sentiment the way it is regarding the border crossers,
i think the vote will be much closer than that 402-2 loss, on the last vote

it might even pass because the Repubs didn't think of it first !


[edit on 16-5-2006 by St Udio]

Wow, good catch St Udio. This would make illegal immigrants and resident aliens subject to national service. Fascinating.

Let's make an oath to burn those draft cards or stuff them up the goon who delivers them to us. I know I'm not getting drafted until Jenna Bush is in my platoon.


IF a draft is reinstated (which will happen if there's war with Iran, however unlikely that is).

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Nakash]

Originally posted by St Udio
? Why so?
in the 1st qualifier the proposed bill says...
...citizens of the United States, and other persons residing in (America)

to my reckoning, that would make all 12-20 million illegal immigrants
eligible for the mandatory 'National Service',
all they have to be is 18 to 42 years old,
[edit on 16-5-2006 by St Udio]

I think youre onto something, maybe its a ploy to make all those illegals who are or are thinking of comming here want to run away back to Mexico or wherever else they came from.



[edit on 5/17/2006 by ludaChris]

Originally posted by dgtempe


IS THIS ENOUGH NOW?

They will say it goes back to Clinton- the Democrats started it sure.

Let us see now-

I need comments before i go crazy. Is this supposed to be a surprise bill that passes through with no mention to the public???

You know what, i have had it. Why not throw in children and the mentally retarded also??

Hey dgtemp,

Didn't WE try to tell people.... way back when......... that this was gonna happen ????????

What was it that the Republicans kept trying to say,... hummm lets see,......... I think it was, " There's no way Bush/ the Gov't will re-instate the draft ", wasn't that what WE were being told before the Elections ?????????

Funny how something come back around to" bite-some-in-the-buns", right dgtemp,lol.

Funny how WE were right, huh !!!!