Universal National Service Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, great interest has been generated by the publication of a document from the 11th of February 2003 entitled ``Topical Agenda''. It involves the Department of Defense Personnel and Readiness Undersecretary and the Selective Service System and its Acting Director.

This document appears on the web site of ``Rock the Vote''. The interest is intense because of the content of the agenda. It involves a review of selective service major policy issues since 1973; a synopsis of Department of Defense Policy regarding the draft and a detailed proposal for the renewal of the draft and conditions attendant to it.

The participation of the Department of Defense in the discussion associated with the agenda has been confirmed by the Secretary of Defense. The DOD contention is that the meeting on the agenda was for purposes of discussion only and that it took place off Pentagon premises. Obviously, the location of the discussion and the origination of the agenda for discussion purposes is immaterial to the issue at hand. The point is the Department of Defense from the Secretary on down has vigorously denied that any such discussions have ever taken place let alone been contemplated. This document shows that a detailed proposal for a new draft involving men and for the first time women has been under consideration and discussion by the Department of Defense. It also clearly indicates that consideration has been given to drafting not only for military needs but for purposes associated with the Department of Homeland Security. In addition it proposes that the draft age be extended from 18 to 34. It includes a proposition that a ``self- declaration'' of skill sets be required of all potential draftees to be periodically updated until the age of 35.

It is not enough for the Department of Defense to say it rejects the proposal and its findings. Saying ``no'' doesn't make it so. Denials that any such consideration has even been given let alone presently extent ring hollow in the wake of the implications of this agenda and the Department of Defense's participation in discussing it.

Given the broad and deep concern of the public about the draft and the possibility of its being reinstituted it is imperative that the public be enabled to see, understand and analyze what the Department of Defense has had under consideration. The public, of course, can draw its own conclusions. The ``Agenda'' report follows.

Topical Agenda

DoD Participants: Hon. Charles S. Abell, Principal Deputy

Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Mr.

William Carr, Acting Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for

Military Personnel Policy; Colonel David Kopanski, Deputy

Director, Accession Policy.

SSS Participants: Mr. Lewis C. Brodsky. Acting Director of

Selective Service; Mr. Richard S. Ftahavan, Director of

Public & Congressional Affairs.

1. Review 30-year time-line--SSS major policy issues

A. Draft ends in 1973; Agency placed in ``Deep Standby''

from 1976 to 1980. Ninety-eight ``record-keepers'' remain to

SSS, part-time Reserve Officers kept on board, but no

registration, no Board Members.

B. 1980--Cold War continues. President Carter decides to

revitalize SSS after Soviets invade Afghanistan and MOBEXs

indicate need. No draft, but resumes registration program for

men. Wants to include women but Congress says no. 10,000

Board Members appointed and trained. DoD sets preparedness

goal for SSS: ``Be ready to provide first draftees to MEPS at

M+13 and 100,000 by M+30.''

C. 1988--Congress reacts to military medical shortages

(``war stoppers''). Language inserted in the Defense

Authorization Act telling SSS to develop a ``structure''

which would allow the registration and induction of health

care personnel in an emergency. DoD identifies more than 60

health care specialities to include in the SSS Health Care,

Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS). Planning calls for first

HCPDS draftees by M+42. HCPDS becomes a paper and computer

exercise lasting many years.

D. 1989-1991--End of Cold War, Desert Storm, no draft, and

SSS remains in standby status with flat-lined annual budgets.

E. 1893 and 1994--Detractors in the Congress challenge need

for continuing to fund SSS and peacetime registration.

Section 647(b), FY 1993 DOD Authorization Act requires

SECDEF, in concert with SSS, to report on continuation of

peacetime registration. This was accomplished, registration

is retained, and an interagency task force review was formed,

led by the NSC. Conclusion is announced by President

Clinton: preserve SSS and peacetime registration in

current standby status for three reasons.

1. A hedge against underestimating the number of soldiers,

needed to fight a future war;

2. A symbol of national resolve to potential adversaries;

and,

3. A link between the all-volunteer Armed Forces and

society-at-large.

Clinton also instructs SSS to increase operational

efficiency. Instructs DoD to update MOB requirements for SSS,

re-examine timelines, and review arguments for and against

continuing to exclude women from registration.

F. 1994--Defense issues new ``post-Cold War'' guidance to

SSS: ``provide first untrained draftee to MEPS at M+193;

first Health Care draftee at M+222,'' DoD reaffirms that it

is not necessary to register or draft women (for a

conventional draft of untrained manpower) because they are

prohibited by policy from serving in ground combat

assignments. SSS recognizes women may have to be included in

a health care draft.

G. 1998--DoD Health Affairs says health care personnel

would be needed earlier than M+222 in a future conflict.

Guidance changed to M+90. Today, HCPDS can be implemented,

but ability to meet M+90 time frame is doubtful. Program not

fully tested and compliance aspects still not complete.

H. 1995 through 2000--Anti-SSS Members of Congress almost

successful in eliminating SSS through the appropriations

process. SSS undergoes structure and program reductions to

make ends meet. Readiness suffers.

I. 2000 and 2001--DoD and SSS plan and implement joint

mailing project to increase peacetime relevancy of SSS and

improve timeliness and address accuracy of DoD recruiting

direct mail campaigns.

J. 2002 and 2003--Administration says use of draft not an

option for war on terrorism or potential war with Iraq. Rep.

Rangel and Sen. Hollings introduce bills (H.R. 163 and S. 69)

call for reinstituting a draft for military and national

service. SECDEF adamant and vocal against using the draft for

any immediate or likely contingency. Most recently, Reps.

Paul, DeFazio and Frank introduce H.R. 487, calling for

repeal of the Military Selective Service Act and an end to

the SSS within six months of the bill becoming law.

Synopsis: With known shortages of military personnel with

certain critical skills, and with the need for the nation to

be capable of responding to domestic emergencies as a part of

Homeland Security planning, changes should be made in the

Selective Service System's registration program and primary

mission.

Situation: Currently, and in accordance with the Military

Selective Service Act (MSSA) [50 U.S.C., App. 451 et seq.),

the Selective Service System (SSS) collects and maintains

personal information from all U.S. male citizens and resident

aliens. Under this process, each man is required to ``present

himself for and submit to registration'' upon reaching age

18. The methods by which a man can register with Selective

Service include the Internet, mail-back postcard, checking a

box on other government forms, and through the driver's

license applications process in many states. The collected

data is retained in an active computer file until the man

reaches age 26 and is no longer draft eligible. It consists

of the man's name, address, Social Security number, and date

of birth. Currently, 91 percent of all men, ages 18 through

25, are registered, enabling the SSS to conduct a timely,

fair, and equitable draft in the event the Congress and the

President decide to reinstate conscription during a crisis.

However, the Secretary of Defense and Department of Defense

manpower officials have stated recently that a draft will not

be necessary for any foreseeable crisis. They assume that

sufficient fighting capability exists in today's ``all-

volunteer'' active and reserve Armed Forces for likely

contingencies, making a conventional draft of untrained

manpower somewhat obsolete. Yet, Defense manpower officials

concede there are critical shortages of military personnel

with certain skills, such as medical personnel, linguists,

computer network engineers, etc. The costs of attracting and

retaining such personnel for military service could be

prohibitive, leading some officials to conclude that while a

conventional draft may never be needed, a draft of men and

women possessing these critical skills may be warranted in a

future crisis, if too few volunteer.

Proposal: In line with today's needs, the SSS' structure,

programs and activities should be re-engineered toward

maintaining a national inventory of American men and (for the

first time) women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on

identifying individuals with critical skills.

An interagency task force should examine the feasibility of

this proposal which would require amendments to the MSSA,

expansion of the current registration program, and inclusion

of women. In addition to the basic identifying information

collected in the current program, the expanded and revised

program would require all registrants to indicate whether

they have been trained in, possess, and professionally

practice, one or more

skills critical to national security or community health

and safety. This could take the form of an initial ``self-

declaration'' as a part of the registration process. Men

and women would enter on the SSS registration form a

multi-digit number representing their specific critical

skill (e.g., similar to military occupationa1 specialty or

Armed Forces Specialty Code with Skill Identifier), taken

from a lengthy list of skills to be compiled and published

by the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.

Individuals proficient in more than one critical skill

would list the practiced skill in which they have the

greatest degree of experience and competency. They would

also be required to update reported information as

necessary until they reach age 35. This unique data base

would provide the military (and national, state, and

municipal government agencies) with immediately available

links to vital human resources . . . in effect, a single,

most accurate and complete, national inventory of young

Americans with special skills.

While the data base's ``worst-case'' use might be to draft

such personnel into military or homeland security assignments

during a national mobilization, its very practical peacetime

use could be to support recruiting and direct marketing

campaigns aimed at encouraging skilled personnel to volunteer

for community or military service opportunities, and to

consider applying for hard-to-fill public sector jobs. Local

government agencies could also tap this data base to locate

nearby specialists for help with domestic crises and

emergency situations.

With the changes described above, SSS programs would be

modified to serve the contemporary needs of several

customers: Department of Defense; Department of Homeland

Security (FEMA. U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs, INS).

Corporation for National Service, Public Health Service, and

other federal and state agencies seeking personnel with

critical skills for national security or community service

assignments. The SSS would thus play a more vital, relevant,

and immediate role in shoring up America's strength and

readiness in peace and war.

II. Are today's SSS capabilities in sync with DoD needs?

A. Is there a need to preserve the capability of conducting

a draft of untrained manpower? If so, is the time frame still

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 163) 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.

Is that a parliamentary inquiry?

I know the gentleman thinks it is. I am waiting for direction from the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I would say I support the consideration of the this bill at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support the consideration of this bill at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I would say, if I may, in response to the gentleman's claim, that I am disappointed he has less faith in his power of persuasion than I do, because I came here prepared to be persuaded. But if I must decide now, I would vote no, so I do not claim to be a proponent of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, that leaves me where? I would claim the time in opposition.

Under the rules of the House, I would claim that time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the time has already been claimed.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of comity, I would be happy to split the time in opposition with the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much controversy here. Nobody is going to vote for this bill. If it were controversial, I think we would have a very close vote here. I doubt we will. In fact, I was not going to raise a point of order. I will not. I would ask the Chair rhetorical without expectation of a response, what happens when the sponsor claiming the time in support of the bill actually will vote against it? It will be interesting to see how the final tally is actually taken.

I am fascinated. I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from New York, my fellow New Yorker, but I find it a bit amusing at best to hear him claim that the reason that this is a controversial issue is we read about it on the Internet. The only thing we read about on the Internet is what some of his colleagues are planting with respect to that.

The basis for our being here today is simply to answer the concerns of the

American people that have been created by political forces who are trying to create controversy where none should exist. The administration clearly, the Department of Defense clearly, and I suspect that at the end of this vote it will be shown the House of Representatives clearly rejects the fact, either before an election, at election or after election, that there is a need, there is a rationale, for returning to mandatory conscription by the United States military.

I would say to the gentleman from New York that he is the only sponsor of a bill in my 12 years in the House that is complaining that his bill has been brought to the floor. We have a great deal of respect for the gentleman. I suspect and I strongly believe he put together his bill with a great deal of conviction and belief, and we felt it time, given the Internet discussion and all the other absolutely baseless charges that were floating about, that this issue be put to rest, not for the issue and not for the concern of politics, but for the comfort of the American people who have been whipped into a frenzy unnecessarily about this issue.

Now some may say today that this legislation is really about the need to establish a system of national service--an attempt to instill in our youth a sense of responsibility and a clearer understanding of the sacrifices made over many years to win our freedoms--and what it takes to better secure our future. And I would say--that is a legitimate topic of discussion--an area that perhaps merits exploration.

But the clear objective of this bill--and the undeniable intent of recent claims of secret plans and post election plots is focused on a return of the draft--forced military conscription.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Michigan feels it is inevitable, he has a chance to vote for the resumption of the draft, if that is what he wants. By the way, he said the bill was introduced 2 days ago. I suspect he misspoke. It was introduced in January of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am stunned by the fact that my friend from New York stands up in his beginning comments and sites the reason we have to deal with this is because the Internet is saying so, and then criticizes people that it is an Internet rumor. He seems to be very comfortable with his Presidential candidate's position of being everywhere at every time.

Also, I would just say to the gentlewoman from California, who complained about her bill and increasing end-strength, the House Committee on Armed Services which, as we will remember, has already passed a bill into the House and we are in conference with the Senate, would increase end-strength by almost 40,000 troops. So we have responded to that this year and have for the past 2 years as well. Frankly, we did not need her bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a distinguished member of the House Committee on Armed Services.

(Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and it proves perfectly why we are here tonight because that is what the message is the American people are listening to, what the gentlewoman just said. And there is one way to dispel this, and that is to defeat this. No President can impose a draft without the consent and the approval of the United States House of Representatives. It will not come tonight or at any other time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There are few people I have more respect for than the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He made a very eloquent argument, very correctly, for an increase in end strength, not to a return of the draft and for the problems that that would create.

We have an end strength increase of 40,000 in our bill in the House that has passed, and there is a conference with the Senate. Those are the people we need, and we should move on that and not a draft.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services.

(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman's heard of the 9/11 Commission.

I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a veteran of the first Gulf War.

(Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), a senior member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, very simply, this is a bill that is necessary to be dealt with in what I agree is perhaps an unconventional way, but nevertheless has caused great anxiety, great fear and concern amongst mothers, fathers, and children. This is a way to put the fear aside. That should be a primary duty of the House of Representatives. And, as I suspect even the proponents will, a ``no'' vote is the right vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill now under consideration, H.R. 163.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether the proponent of this motion to suspend supports the bill, and, if he does not, whether or not his motion is in order.

Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker, the question that I raised before I raised the point of order is not whether he supports consideration of the bill but whether he supports the bill.

Mr. Speaker, based on that, I raise a point of order, and I would like to claim the time in support of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because it gives this great august body an opportunity for the first time to discuss whether or not the administration or the party in the majority intends to have a draft.

I suspect that one of the reasons that this has to be cleared up before the election, the evidence clearly indicates that everyone in the Pentagon, the Defense Department, has indicated that we need a robust military force in Iraq. All of the evidence indicates that we have exhausted our active troops; we are exhausting the Reserves; we are exhausting the National Guard.

We have a back-door draft, where we do not let people who enlisted and have finished their term get out. In addition to that, the Army is over there in combat. Where the normal term is 1 year, the Pentagon has indicated they are going to reduce it to 6 months, to go along with what the Marines do, because of fatigue.

It just seems to me as many times as the administration says that they are against a draft, all we hear on the Internet and around the country is that, after the election, they are going to have the draft.

If they are going to have the draft, I support this legislation, even though, quite frankly, I would have preferred that the bill be referred to the Committee on Armed Services, because I think it is important enough to have hearings on this matter and for the administration to really show why they really do not need to get people through an involuntary conscription.

But since they knew I had this bill and since they knew it was election time, I rise in support of the bill, even though I would gladly yield to the committees of jurisdiction, because it just seems to me that, if we abuse the system by continually taking legislation for the purpose of embarrassment and not in order to say that it is so noncontroversial that we should put it on the suspension calendar, then, no matter who is in the majority, we are violating every principle of the House, and that is the reason why the Parliamentarian and the Speaker have decided that I am in control of the time.

This system should be used only when there is no controversy. But I am not a Member of the House that runs away from controversy. Those who run away from it are those people who have the responsibility to discuss bills in the committee with hearings and bring the legislation so the American public can see what you do believe before an election.

But now you cannot even decide who is for the bill, who is for consideration, ``I want it up; I want it down.'' It is a political thing that you are using that determines the lives of people as to who fights in wars and who is exempt from wars and who should do national service.

It is a disgrace, what is going on here today, and you cannot find anyone to put the blame on. You are against your own bill. It came out of your Committee on Rules. You have the majority. But yet you need some way, some vehicle.

And just because justice does not cave in to people who are hypocritical in nature, we got the time to tell you why we support the bill and why we oppose the bill. But, unfortunately, we are doing this on the suspension calendar. The majority, I guess, will say that this is a noncontroversial issue, because if you do not admit that it is controversial, then you are saying that it should not have been on this calendar in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to applaud the candidness and the honesty of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services to admit that they are using the Rules of the House of Representatives to rebut the rumors on the Internet that President Bush wants to enact a draft. I thought we did this through the Republican National Committee. This is a political thing.

It may be vicious to believe that people do not trust the President when he says no, and they do not trust Rumsfeld, and they do not trust Republicans; that is a terrible political problem, but do not use my House of Representatives to correct it. Do not use the rules of this House to correct it. This place is a place for legislation and not to play political games.

If you do not have the trust of the American people when you say there is not going to be a draft, then you had better use the Republican National Campaign Committee to rebut it. But each time you think you have to run an election on the Rules of this House, after all of us are gone, we have an obligation to those who succeed us to abide by the Rules of the House that were left to us for one purpose: not to win elections, but to legislate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) who is an outstanding member of this House of Representatives, and he is in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, are we allowed to use the floor of the House to campaign and specifically name the Presidential candidate that we are supporting?

Did I frame my question correctly?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close, and so if I only have 1 minute remaining, I reserve it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

My Republican colleagues have convinced me they will not vote for a draft before this election, and I appreciate their sincerity in stating that. But I support my bill for the very reasons that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has done so.

If the issue is the protection of our country against an enemy, then all Americans should have the opportunity to fight and defend for all our freedom so that we can sit here. And there should be a plea for the rich and the poor, which is so eloquently stated but not followed, to be volunteering and joining and having the honor to say they defended our country at a time of war.

Mr. Speaker, that is not going to happen before the election, and because of my 34 years in the House and my respect for the rules, as much as I appreciate the fact that the leadership has brought my bill up, even though they did not support it, they have brought my bill up because they have a problem with the President's integrity on this issue.

So as much as I appreciate that, what I appreciate more are the standing committees that we have in this House, and so I would hope that my bill will be referred to the committee process for hearings so that the entire House of Representatives would understand the necessity for this legislation.

But on this I will vote ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, I hate to rise in opposition to both leaderships on both sides of the aisle. I am probably the only one that is going to vote for a draft. I believe we have to start looking at this right now. And I will tell you why it is a serious problem. We have 135,000 troops in Iraq right now. We are going to have to have 135,000 there for at least 2 years. We are training people, the Iraqis about 4,000 a month, and a lot of them are deserting. So there is no way that we have had cooperation with the international community. There is no way we are going to be able to do the fourth round of replacement without some kind of a draft.

Now, I remember the President of the United States asking to extend the National Guard in 1941, just a few months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. He extended it by one vote, and this is serious business here. We can get up and talk politics, we can get up and blame each other for what we are involved in here, but we have to have the personnel to do this job.

I go out to the hospitals every week, and I see these young people who are in their second and third tours in Iraq. I see them without legs and without arms, and I know how hard this is.

Now, let me tell you, on the street that I lived on when I was a kid, four people in my family, my father and three of his brothers, were involved in World War II. Some of them were drafted, and some of them were volunteers. And in the next house, there were seven from the same family. In the next house from that, there were six from the same family that went into World War II. Now, they went; some drafted, and some not drafted. We had 15 million people. We are in a war. And not only a small segment of the population should fight in that war.

I voted against the volunteer army in the first place because I said that I did not believe that, if we got into a crucial situation, we would be able to sustain our national security. This is a national security problem. This is something we have to face now.

I remember standing right over here when Jack Kemp was a Member, and he did not want to vote to extend registration because he believed it was not necessary. I said, Jack, we have to be prepared here. We have to be prepared in case something happens.

They have advertisements for the volunteer army, and they say, we want you to come in. We want you to get an education. We want you to better yourselves. We want you to come in, and you will have a steady job, and an

awful lot of people joined the military with that in mind.

I was talking to a father the other day. He said his father was in World War II. His uncle was in the Battle of the Bulge, and another uncle served in the Pacific. And he was in the Reserves, and his boy was just killed in Iraq. And he was so worried because they were sending people back for the second and third time.

I mean, we have got people in the National Guard who they have stopped letting out. His son was supposed to come home in August, and he was killed.

Now, that is the kind of thing we are facing. This should not only be borne by people who are volunteering because they could not find a job. This is something that every one of us across the board, rich and poor, everyone should be willing to serve in the armed services of the United States.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would take this seriously. I would hope that we would not get into a political debate about whether this is politics or not. I would hope we would look ahead.

What I said before, my colleagues have got to remember we have got 135,000 troops on the ground. We have sent some of these people back a couple of times. The Army is looking at the possibility of having a 6- month tour, and that will not help the situation because they are going to have to send them back sooner. Some of the people who are supposed to be home for a year are unable to stay home for a year.

I remember being in Europe talking to General Jones, and they extended the 1st Infantry Division. He was worried that the families, because they extended them, how many people would be killed and what a pressure that would put on the families. All of us worry about that. All of us have to worry about that. That is our job, and we have to look ahead.

We cannot just look ahead to the election. We have got to look ahead after the election at what it is going to mean to our troops.

I think that we make a mistake when we get up here and accuse each other when we are in a war. When we were in a war in World War II, we were attacked here, and everybody ought to be willing to serve. I mean, a draft is a fair way to cut, no deferments for anybody. We pick it by lottery; we take the number of people we need and send it down to the Armed Forces.

Let me tell my colleagues something. They are already taking category fours, and I think that is good for the country. I think it is good because the best training people will get in the world today is the military training. They will take category fours, and they will make those people into good citizens. They will work them, and the Army does not like it. The military does not like category fours because it is too much time to train those people.

Let me tell my colleagues something. All of us need everybody to go into the Armed Forces. From every level, from the rich and the poor, from the middle class, everybody needs to go, and we have to, and there is no question about it. If we are going to be there, if what the leaders on both sides are saying, both candidates are saying, we are going to be there. We are not going to leave there until the Iraqis can take over. They cannot take over overnight. It is going to take time to train those people; and if we are going to train those people, we have got to have somebody in the United States who can replace them.

It takes us a year to train. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman, and I put in the money for the extra 30,000 people because we knew they needed 30,000 people this year. I asked the personnel guy, are you going to ask for this in the budget this year? He said, no, sir, we are going to expect a supplemental to take care of it.

The point is, we needed an extra 30,000 people. We have got to face that we are in a war, and we have got to face that everybody should be bearing the burden of this war, not just the few volunteers that are time after time sacrificing and the young people are being so mangled by this war. Their spirit aside, they are doing a marvelous job and are so proud.

When I go out to the hospital every week, Bethesda one week and Walter Reed the next week, and I see these young people, and even then the fighting is so intense that they are saying to me, this is a tough war, Congressman, and we need help, we need support; and we are giving them support. In this Congress, we are giving them everything they need except we are not looking ahead to the very thing that we are going to need down the road and that is additional troops, and we are not meeting the requirement of the National Guard, and that is the first step.

So I would ask Members to reconsider this, and I would hope that a number of us would vote for a draft as a serious business rather than talking of politics and the whole thing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 163, a bill to re-instate the draft. I oppose the draft and do not want to see it brought back.

I added my name to this bill in order to promote an open, honest public discussion of the personnel crisis facing our military today, and in that sense I welcome today's vote. It is unfortunate, however, that H.R. 163 is being brought to the floor with only a few hours notice, depriving the American public of the extended exploration this problem deserves.

It is not a coincidence that today's vote is taking place as public uneasiness is rising with regard to the draft. It is obvious to everyone that the demands of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are narrowing the Administration's options. Our regular divisions and brigades are stretched to the limit. The Reserve and National Guard are being drawn upon to the point where they now comprise nearly half of all U.S. troops in Iraq. Stop loss is the order of the day, holding servicemen and women in uniform past their discharge dates. We're even dipping into the Individual Ready Reserve, calling up people who have completed not only their active duty obligations, but their active reserve obligations as well. Under these circumstances, the growing suspicions of the Administration's intentions in regard to a draft are well-founded.

In fact, I have found confirmation of those suspicions. KITV television news of Honolulu reported last night on a February 11, 2003, Selective Service System document which was provided to me recently and which I have shared with several of my colleagues. Judging from its contents, it appears to be a memo prepared for a meeting between the Acting Director of the Selective Service, the Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and other senior Defense and Selective Service officials. The document takes note of critical shortages of military personnel with certain skills and raises the idea of drafting them to alleviate the shortages.

Features of this ``bring back the draft'' memo include:

--Draft registration for women as well as men;

--Registration of all citizens and resident aliens between the ages of 18 and 34;

--Require registrants to submit periodic updates of their skills and education up to the age of 35;

--Draftees would be sent not only into the military, but also to the Department of Homeland Security, state, and municipal government agencies; and

--Suggests the House and Senate Armed Services Committees be asked to pass legislation to bring back this expanded draft.

The public deserves the chance to fully consider and discuss these radical ideas and participate meaningfully in any decision to adopt such drastic steps to address the very real personnel needs of our military forces stemming from the demands of multiple deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond. Bringing H.R. 163 to the floor for a vote without hearings, without warning, deprives the Nation and the Congress of an opportunity for that full consideration and discussion.

Right now we have a back door draft, euphemistically called stop loss orders, that keeps troops in uniform even after their enlistments are over. At the same time, we are putting our National Guard and Reserve under intolerable strain, keeping them on active duty far longer than they or their families could have anticipated.

One of the most frustrating aspects of these problems is that they were foreseeable. General Eric Shinseki, then Army Chief of Staff, accurately predicted we would need far more troops than the Administration was willing to commit to occupy Iraq. He was publicly condemned by the Administration for telling the truth. I voted against the Iraq war because, among other reasons, it was clear the Administration was unwilling to send enough troops to pacify that country after the initial military attack. Paul Bremer, the former chief of the Coalition Provisional Authority, just confirmed that fact in a speech yesterday.

If we are to meet this troop strength crisis, a serious and open discussion needs to take place involving the public, elected leaders, and senior national security officials. The Administration wants to operate in secret in order to hide that discussion from the public. Bringing H.R. 163 to the floor for a vote is a partial victory for public discussion, a reflection of the public's insistent concern over the issue. On the other hand, the furtive way in which it was brought to the floor is a partial victory for those who want to keep the issue in the shadows.

We have been dealing with this matter for years in the Armed Services Committee. During the 14 years that I have served on the Committee, the questions have never been as urgent as they are now:

--What happens if a quick victory in Iraq is elusive, and we remain there for years to come?

--What troop strength levels and mix of active, National Guard, and Reserves will be needed in the coming years?

--Can the all-volunteer military keep its ranks filled?

--If not, what options does the nation have?

--How can we get better pay, benefits, and quality of life improvements to attract and retain enough troops and their families?

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I work on a daily basis with my colleagues and military leaders in the search for answers. It is a long and often difficult process. Its worth is measured in improvements in the lives of our fighting men and women, their families, and our veterans.

I was proud to vote for badly needed equipment like Humvee armor protection and stronger body armor for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have championed better military family housing for troops based in my home state of Hawaii and around the globe. I was one of the authors of the Tricare for Life bill, which provides military retirees with the health coverage they were promised when they enlisted.

What solutions are offered by those who want to pretend we don't face a military personnel crisis? Do they support the Administration's covert moves--despite public denials--to restart the draft? What do they have to say about the stop loss orders that deny thousands of troops and their families the post-service opportunities they were led to expect? How do they propose to deal with our over-reliance on the National Guard and Reserves, which are already strained to the limit? Most importantly, will they discuss these issues fully and openly, or do they want them decided in secret?