[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 126 (Thursday, October 7, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 UNIVERSAL NATIONAL SERVICE ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 6, 2004

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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?

                          ____________________