Universal National Service Act of 2003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Selective Service Initiative)

HR 163 (Universal National Service Act of 2003, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H.R. 163) was a bill to resume the military draft in the United States, introduced in the 2003 session of the United States House of Representatives. The bill would have provided that, as early as June 2005, young men and women ages 18–26 could be called to service. In addition, college would no longer have been a reprieve for young people wishing to forestall the draft.^{[citation needed]}

The measure was introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel, a leader in the US Democratic Party and co-sponsored by five other Democrats. On October 5, 2004, Republicans called for a vote on the bill. Because the bill was considered under a motion to suspend the rules, it required a two-thirds vote for passage. The roll call vote on the bill was 2 in favor, 402 against. The only Members voting "aye" were Jack Murtha and Pete Stark.

Observers largely believe that Rangel, knowing beforehand that the bill would never be passed by the House, introduced it only to make a point. Rangel himself argued that the point of his bill was to express his opposition to the war in Iraq. In an editorial in The New York Times, Rangel said “if those calling for war knew that their children were 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.” (See [1] and [2])

Some commentators opined that the bill figured in a "scare campaign" to convince US voters that Republicans (or specifically the White House) had secret plans to re-institute conscription after the Nov. 2 elections. For example, John Sutherland, a columnist for The Guardian, claimed on May 31, 2004 that the bill is "currently approved and sitting in the Committee for Armed Services".<ref>"Draft Dilemma" The Guardian, 31 May 2004</ref> William Hawkins, a columnist for The Washington Times, denies that the bill was ever approved and claims that when Republicans brought it to the floor on October 5, it was for the express purpose of killing it.".<ref>"Draft Duplicity" The Washington Times, 21 October 2004</ref>