[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 6453]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION RELATIVE TO THE REPEAL OF THE SELECTIVE 
    SERVICE ACT AND RELATED PORTIONS OF THE US CODE (APRIL 26, 2001)

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 26, 2001

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to repeal 
the Selective Service Act and related parts of the US Code. Also, I am 
placing the attached article from the Taipei Times in today's 
Congressional Record. I fear that this source is not widely read among 
many in this body or our nation, so I am hopeful this action will serve 
to bring this letter to a much wider audience. The person who writes 
this letter is a law student in Taiwan. His arguments against 
conscription are similar to those offered by people in the United 
States who oppose the draft. The student argues that conscription is a 
violation of civil liberties, a costly and ineffective system that 
harms society and the economy as well as the rights of the individual 
conscripted, and a system that harms national defense rather than 
helping it. While we do not currently have conscription in the US we do 
have draft registration and each argument against the draft is equally 
applicable to our current selective service system and the registration 
requirement. I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the arguments 
against conscription raised in this article and cosponsor my 
legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act.

          [Taipei Times on line edition, Thurs. Apr. 26, 2001]

                     Conscription is Harming Taiwan

                          By Chang Yung-chien

       Some time ago, the media reported on would-be conscripts 
     scrambling to grab a place in the ``alternative service'' to 
     military conscription. There is now an uproar over President 
     Chen Shul-blan's future son-in-law, who escaped doing his 
     term of military service because he had gout. The issue of 
     military service has again struck a sensitive chord in 
     Taiwan's society.
       Why do so many people feel disgruntled?
       This writer has always advocated a volunteer military 
     recruitment system. But this seems to be a politically 
     incorrect view in a country that faces external threats. The 
     difficulty of getting enough recruits and the increased 
     burden that would be imposed on government coffers are the 
     usual reasons given against a volunteer system. I find these 
     reasons totally incomprehensible.
       Military recruitment is a public policy matter. It needs to 
     undergo an analysis for cost-effectiveness. Why do we have 
     ``reserve officers'' and ``alternative service'' systems?
       We have them precisely so that skilled people can be more 
     valuable for the country if they are pulled out from the 
     ranks to serve as platoon leaders or as cheap labor for high-
     tech companies. Once this point is clear, then the 
     alternative service system will seem quite strange. Someone 
     with a PhD in electrical engineering would be working in a 
     high-tech company anyway if he were not doing alternative 
     service. The only difference is that he would be getting a 
     reasonable salary for his work. The conscription system 
     forces conscripts to provide the same service for less pay. 
     By comparison, an outstanding female with a PhD in electrical 
     engineering can get paid according to her market value 
     because she does not have to do military service. Why should 
     we use a conscription system to provide cheap labor to 
     corporations?
       Moreover, society as a whole has paid an enormous invisible 
     price for the conscription system. Friends of mine waited 
     almost a year to be conscripted--doing nothing (of course, 
     two years of military service are also spent doing nothing). 
     Still more people see their lifetime plans interrupted. They 
     waste the most creative time of their lives writing military 
     reports that do not help the nation's economy or the people's 
     livelihood.
       How many people have left the country before conscription 
     age just to evade those two years, and come back only after 
     they are too old for conscription? How many people have cut 
     their fingers, damaged their eyesight, or otherwise harmed 
     their bodies? How can it be beneficial to the country? How 
     many mutinies have we had in the armed forces?
       Our president, who can carry his wife to and from her 
     wheelchair every day, did not have to do military service 
     because of a problem with his ``hands.'' And the president's 
     future son-in-law is busy running in
       I would also like to ask: Why can't I finish my studies 
     before serving my country? Even if I have to serve two years 
     as a conscript, I will be of far more use to the country 
     providing legal services to ordinary citizens than just do 
     drills and jogging. How much more of its human resources can 
     Taiwan afford to waste?
       As for the question of not finding enough recruits, this 
     should not be a problem as long as the Ministry of National 
     Defense offers competitive salaries. If serving in the 
     military simply means loafing around, then such service may 
     be worth less than $10,000 a month. But there should be no 
     such ``profession.'' If being a soldier is a high-risk 
     profession, there should be a high salary to compensate for 
     that risk. That may increase expenditures for the government, 
     but it must be remembered that only people who can freely 
     enter various professions on the job market can maximize 
     their value.
       Unless we believe that the average productivity of 
     conscription-age males is worth less than $10,000 or so per 
     month (the monthly salary of an ordinary soldier), we cannot 
     but agree that society as a whole would gain more wealth 
     without conscription than the government coffers have to 
     lose. Such losses might even be offset by increased 
     government revenue from taxes on the gains made by those 
     conscription-aged men who would be working in society 
     instead.
       No talk about ``honor'' solves any problems. Everyone sets 
     out from a rational, self-interested standpoint. What the 
     state should do is maximize the benefits for society as a 
     whole, not limit its thinking to military service. 
     Maintaining a conscription system certainly does more harm 
     than good. Those who wear the badge ``being a soldier is a 
     good experience'' should ask themselves whether they would be 
     willing to do it again.

     

                          ____________________