[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20850-20863]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1800
                 UNIVERSAL NATIONAL SERVICE ACT OF 2003

  Mr. McHUGH. 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.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 163

       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 2003''.
       (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 Young Persons.--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 26 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 reverse 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 reverse 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 reverse 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.

     SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.

       (a) In General.--The President shall prescribe such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act.
       (b) Matter To Be Covered by Regulations.--Such regulations 
     shall include specification of the following:
       (1) The types of civilian service that may be performed for 
     a person's national service obligation under this Act.
       (2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian 
     service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian 
     service satisfactorily.
       (3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for 
     induction under this Act, including the manner in which those 
     selected will be notified of such selection.
       (4) All other administrative matters in connection with the 
     induction of persons under this Act and the registration, 
     examination, and classification of such persons.
       (5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect 
     to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction 
     under this Act, including questions of conscientious 
     objection.
       (6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons 
     performing their national service obligation under this Act 
     through civilian service.
       (7) Such other matters as the President determines 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
       (c) Use of Prior Act.--To the extent determined appropriate 
     by the President, the President may use for purposes of this 
     Act the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service 
     Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for 
     registration, selection, and induction.

     SEC. 5. INDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Every person subject to induction for 
     national service under this Act, except those whose training 
     is deferred or postponed in accordance with this Act, shall 
     be called and inducted by the President for such service at 
     the time and place specified by the President.
       (b) Age Limits.--A person may be inducted under this Act 
     only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not 
     attained the age of 26.
       (c) Voluntary Induction.--A person subject to induction 
     under this Act may volunteer for induction at a time other 
     than the time at which the person is otherwise called for 
     induction.
       (d) Examination; Classification.--Every person subject to 
     induction under this Act shall, before induction, be 
     physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as 
     to fitness to perform national service. The President may 
     apply different classification

[[Page 20851]]

     standards for fitness for military service and fitness for 
     civilian service.

     SEC. 6. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.

       (a) High School Students.--A person who is pursuing a 
     standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a 
     secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be 
     entitled to have induction under this Act postponed until the 
     person--
       (1) obtains a high school diploma;
       (2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; 
     or
       (3) attains the age of 20.
       (b) Hardship and Disability.--Deferments from national 
     service under this Act may be made for--
       (1) extreme hardship; or
       (2) physical or mental disability.
       (c) Training Capacity.--The President may postpone or 
     suspend the induction of persons for military service under 
     this Act as necessary to limit the number of persons 
     receiving basic military training and education to the 
     maximum number that can be adequately trained.
       (d) Termination.--No deferment or postponement of induction 
     under this Act shall continue after the cause of such 
     deferment or postponement ceases.

     SEC. 7. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.

       (a) Qualifications.-- No person may be inducted for 
     military service under this Act unless the person is 
     acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets 
     the same health and physical qualifications applicable under 
     section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons 
     seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the 
     Armed Forces.
       (b) Other Military Service.--No person shall be liable for 
     induction under this Act who--
       (1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six 
     months, in any component of the uniformed services on active 
     duty; or
       (2) is or becomes 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, the 
     United States Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy 
     accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior 
     Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation 
     college program, so long as that person satisfactorily 
     continues in and completes two years training therein.

     SEC. 8. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.

       (a) Claims as Conscientious Objector.--Any person selected 
     under this Act for induction into the uniformed services who 
     claims, because of religious training and belief (as defined 
     in section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 
     U.S.C. 456(j))), exemption from combatant training included 
     as part of that military service and whose claim is sustained 
     under such procedures as the President may prescribe, shall, 
     when inducted, participate in military service that does not 
     include any combatant training component.
       (b) Transfer to Civilian Service.--Any such person whose 
     claim is sustained may, at the discretion of the President, 
     be transferred to a national service program for performance 
     of such person's national service obligation under this Act.

     SEC. 9. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.

       (a) Discharge.--Upon completion or termination of the 
     obligation to perform national service under this Act, a 
     person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or 
     from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be 
     subject to any further service under this Act.
       (b) Coordination With Other Authorities.--Nothing in this 
     section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in 
     the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a 
     regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.

     SEC. 10. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILITARY SELECTIVE 
                   SERVICE ACT.

       (a) Registration Required.--Section 3(a) of the Military 
     Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``male'' both places it appears;
       (2) by inserting ``or herself'' after ``himself''; and
       (3) by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the person''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 16(a) of the Military 
     Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``men'' and inserting ``persons''.

     SEC. 11. RELATION OF ACT TO REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION 
                   AUTHORITY OF MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

       (a) Registration.--Section 4 of the Military Selective 
     Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting 
     after subsection (g) the following new subsection:
       ``(h) This section does not apply with respect to the 
     induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the 
     Universal National Service Act of 2003.''.
       (b) Induction.--Section 17(c) of the Military Selective 
     Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking 
     ``now or hereafter'' and all that follows through the period 
     at the end and inserting ``inducted pursuant to the Universal 
     National Service Act of 2003.''.

     SEC. 12. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) The term ``military service'' means service performed 
     as a member of an active or reverse component of the 
     uniformed services.
       (2) The term ``Secretary concerned'' means the Secretary of 
     Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine 
     Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the 
     Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to 
     matters concerning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, with respect to matters concerning the Public 
     Health Service.
       (3) The term ``United States'', when used in a geographical 
     sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, 
     Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
       (4) The term ``uniformed services'' means the Army, Navy, 
     Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and 
     commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Does the gentleman propose a 
parliamentary inquiry?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. RANGEL. 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.
  Mr. McHUGH. Is that a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. RANGEL. Yes, it is.
  Mr. McHUGH. I know the gentleman thinks it is. I am waiting for 
direction from the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the question of who controls 
time in favor of the motion is relevant.
  Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) favor the resolution?
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I would say I support the consideration of 
the this bill at this time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentleman repeat his comment?
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I fully support the consideration of this 
bill at this time.
  Mr. RANGEL. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XV, if the proponent of the 
resolution does not favor the resolution, then another Member may claim 
the 20 minutes in support of the motion.
  Mr. RANGEL. 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. McHUGH. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) may 
control 20 minutes in support of the bill.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, that leaves me where? I would claim the time 
in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair affirms that 20 minutes is 
reserved for a Member in opposition. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McHugh) may claim that time.
  Mr. McHUGH. Under the rules of the House, I would claim that time in 
opposition.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to this 
bill.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I believe the time has already been claimed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As a matter of recognition, the Chair would 
award the 20 minutes in opposition to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McHugh).
  Mr. McHUGH. 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. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, so I understand, am I entitled to the time 
in opposition? I am the ranking member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) will control 10 minutes, half of the time in 
opposition.

[[Page 20852]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I am claiming the entire time in 
opposition, as the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has awarded the 20 minutes in 
opposition to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who, by 
unanimous consent, has agreed to split the time with the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Just to summarize, the Chair would advise that the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) will control 20 minutes, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. McHugh) will control 10 minutes and the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. 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. McHUGH. 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. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have seen something that I have never seen in 28 
years in the House of Representatives, never; someone whom I respect 
and consider a good friend, someone bringing a bill to the House floor 
that they do not support. That is news. That is the first time ever and 
probably in the history of the United States House of Representatives.
  So I am in strong opposition to this bill. I am surprised that the 
Republican leadership would bring the bill to the floor. And why? Not 
to reinstate the draft.
  The fact that the Republican leadership would bring this bill to the 
floor suggests to me, as an observer, several reasons: The war in Iraq 
is not going well. The President's plan to handle this situation with a 
minimum number of troops is not working, and we need more in-strength, 
as Paul Bremer just told us. And this tacit allegation that the 
administration wants to reinstate the draft right after the election. 
One of those three.
  Americans should take notice of the fact that the House leadership 
thinks

[[Page 20853]]

we need to resume the draft by bringing it up.
  I have said before on occasion what Mark Twain once said, ``The more 
you explain it to me, the more I don't understand it.'' Why are we 
wasting our time, precious time, we ought to be talking about health 
care, be talking about the deficit, be talking about taking care of the 
troops. And, my goodness, I am so proud of them, and the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Hunter) and I have worked so hard to try to take 
care of those troops with body armor, to try to take care of them with 
pay raises, and I know he is disappointed as well in bringing this bill 
up.

                              {time}  1815

  And at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, to bring this bill to the 
floor is nothing more than a cynical election year political ploy. If 
you want to play politics, go rent yourself a truck bed and get 
yourself a microphone and get a crowd and talk there, but this is not 
an electionary place. This is where we make the laws of the United 
States of America. And for someone to bring this bill to the floor that 
does not support it, does not want it, and wants to make a political 
point, well, I need not finish that sentence.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, bringing up a bill today, nearly 2 days 
since it was introduced without a hearing, to anybody in any committee, 
nothing, to just bring it up today, 3 days before the end of the 
session, makes it very clear what is on the minds of the leadership in 
this House. This is a smoke screen to divert the focus from the real 
facts about the war in Iraq.
  The authors of this bill want a hearing. Why do you not want a 
hearing? Why do you want to bring it up out of nowhere? This was not 
even scheduled. Yesterday, this was not scheduled or noted for 
scheduling.
  But they do not want a hearing because they do not want the public 
thinking about the fact that, as of today, we have spent nearly $200 
billion on this war, the United States has lost over 1,000 lives, these 
figures represent 90 percent of the costs of the war, and more than 90 
percent of the casualties in what the President continues to paint as a 
global problem led by a willing coalition, when no coalition exists.
  Worse, the President sends our troops into Iraq without body armor, 
without sufficient troop strength, and without any discernible exit 
strategy, and guess what? We are running out of troops. It is not a 
secret, I say to my colleagues. We are continuing to keep National 
Guardsmen in the service beyond their career. We are taking Reservists 
and we are running out of volunteers. So let us not be astounded that 
what follows that is a draft. The only problem is that we cannot 
announce it until after the election.
  Bringing this bill up today--nearly two years since the day we 
introduced it--is nothing but a Republican attempt at a smokescreen to 
divert the focus from the real facts about the war in Iraq.
  The Republicans don't want the public thinking about the fact that as 
of today, we've spent nearly $200 billion on this war, and the United 
States has lost over 1000 lives. These figures represent ninety percent 
of the cost of this war and more than ninety percent of the 
casualties--in what the President continues to paint as a global 
problem led by a willing coalition. No such coalition exists. Worse, 
President Bush sends our troops into Iraq without sufficient troop 
strength, and without any discernable exit strategy or plan to win the 
peace. The Administration doesn't want the public to know that, when it 
comes to Iraq, this President has failed the American people.
  Even Paul Bremmer, the U.S. official who governed Iraq after the 
invasion, has admitted that the United States made a mistake in not 
deploying enough troops in Iraq, and then made a mistake in not 
containing the violence and looting after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
  The Administration doesn't want to call attention to the fact that 
the Pentagon has had to resort to the use of a ``stop loss'' policy to 
mask the fact that we do not have enough troops in Iraq. This policy is 
in a sense a military draft because it is used to keep tens of 
thousands of soldiers bound for Iraq and Afghanistan in their service 
beyond their originally scheduled discharge dates. Under this policy, 
the Army alone has blocked the retirements and departures of more than 
40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reservists who 
were eligible to leave the service this year. This just shows that 
politics has taken priority over readiness. The administration uses 
these policies to meet the needs in Iraq because they are expedient and 
convenient, but all it amounts to is playing politics with the lives of 
the men and women overseas, and with their families back home.
  And while the Administration likes to talk about what a good job it's 
doing in Iraq, it consistently fails to mention the other impending 
crises we will eventually have to deal with. Iraq does not scratch the 
surface when you consider the situation we're in with North Korea and 
Iran.
  No, rather than have the American people focusing on these facts and 
statistics, the Republican members of Congress want to use this bill as 
a political maneuver to kill rumors that the President plans to 
reinstate the draft after the election. The Republicans want to use 
this bill--a bill that strives to bring equality to our military--to 
shift the focus from their extreme and devastating shortcomings.
  What our bill does is address the growing disparity in socio-economic 
background between those who go to fight our nation's conflicts and 
those who send them. The statistics show that minorities and the 
working class segments of society constitute a disproportionate 
percentage of the military. African Americans represent 21 percent of 
the military as opposed to 13 percent of the civilian age population. 
Only 24 percent of the persons in the military have parents in white 
collar management jobs, while that is true for 34 percent of the 
general military population. It is plain fact that the military does 
not come from the higher socio-economic status of society.
  This bill deserves better than placement on the suspension calendar. 
It deserves serious consideration. As my colleague Mr. Rangel has 
stated, we should be hearing testimony and gaining an understanding of 
our needs in Iraq. But as it stands, the Republicans only care about 
his bill to divert attention from the true fact--that the President has 
made a colossal error in judgment that is costing American lives every 
single day.
  Mr. McHUGH. 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. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the question has been asked, why is this 
bill calling for a draft being offered on the floor when it is apparent 
that nobody on the Republican side wants it and the reason we are doing 
this is to expose the biggest hoax in show business. The hoax has been 
carried out through the Internet where millions of young people are 
being scared by some anonymous tipster who is claiming that somehow, 
there is a secret plan to reinstate the draft.
  So what are we going to do? We look over at the bill and the only 
bill that has been offered to reinstate the draft is offered by 
Democrats. It is offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott), it is offered by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie), it is offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), it is offered by Democrats and not a single Republican has 
cosponsored it.
  The President of the United States says in this message from the 
White House, he will veto this Democrat bill to reinstitute the draft. 
Mr. Rumsfeld says he will oppose this bill. He says, we are meeting our 
recruitment goals with both the Army and the Marine Corps, we do not 
need a draft, and he will oppose it; every Republican will vote against 
it.
  The reason we are doing this is to expose this hoax of the year, 
which has been needlessly scaring millions of young people, driven by a 
bill that not a single Republican has signed onto. And let me tell my 
colleagues, not a single Republican in my estimation will sign onto it 
and the bill will not

[[Page 20854]]

pass; and I invite the Democrats sponsoring this bill to carry out 
their position and vote for it tonight if they want to.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill to reinstate the draft, but I really 
want to thank the Republican leadership for bringing the bill to the 
floor, even though they oppose it, to highlight this administration's 
complete mismanagement of the war in Iraq.
  Imposing a draft is not the right solution, but it is time we 
recognized a real problem. Our military is overstretched, 
overcommitted, and close to the breaking point. Last week, Paul Bremer, 
the former Iraqi administrator, acknowledged that we should have had 
more troops in Iraq to deal with the counterinsurgency which has 
resulted in over 1,000 Americans dead. He is only the latest to call 
for an increase in the size of our military.
  From former Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, whose appeal for 
more troops in Iraq fell on deaf ears, to General John Riggs, the head 
of the Army's transportation efforts, who called for an increase in 
end-strength beyond 10,000 troops, to the Pentagon's own Defense 
Science Board, which warned last week that inadequate troop size means 
that the United States cannot sustain current and projected global 
stabilization commitments, the strain on our military is increasingly 
obvious.
  Guards and Reservists make up 40 percent of our mission in Iraq, and 
those who have served and survived are not able to come home because 
there is nobody to replace them. The Army Guard will fall short of its 
recruitment goal by 5,000 personnel for the first time since 1994.
  I have a bill to increase the end-strength of the military, which is 
a responsible way to reduce the stress on the force. But instead of 
scheduling my bill, the leadership has scheduled a vote on the draft 
that they do not even support.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and join me in calling on 
the Pentagon to substantially increase the size of our voluntary 
military.
  Mr. RANGEL. 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. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
and I put this bill in in January of 2003 because we knew that not 
every American was at equal risk, that the wealthy would not go, and 
the war would be like all the others. But no one wanted to talk about 
it then. They buried it over in the Defense Department. We have not 
heard about it until this very day, on the day the Vice President is 
going to get up and debate tonight. We will see.
  Now, why are we here today? We are here because you are afraid. You 
are afraid that the young people of this country are watching 
television. You are afraid that they do not believe the President, they 
do not believe Mr. Rumsfeld, they do not believe Condoleezza Rice, they 
do not believe anybody who tells them there is not going to be a draft, 
because they see what you are doing to the Guard and what you are doing 
to the Reserves and what you are doing to the individual Ready Reserves 
that you are pulling back in. They know you are not telling the truth.
  Now, these kids may have funny hair and they may look odd and have 
rings in their nose and whatever, but they know the truth, and they are 
on the Internet blogs and the telephone. Every time the President 
denies it, the phone calls pour into our offices: When is it going to 
happen?
  Now, we know that if Mr. Bush gets reelected and he comes up here and 
asks you for a draft, we have got to have more troops and we are going 
to do it this way or that way, you will roll over for him like butter 
in the hot sun. There will not be anything left of you but a puddle of 
butter, because you know that you will not be able to stand up to him. 
And the fact is that the kids have got it right, and now their parents 
are listening and are saying, Oh, my God, there might actually be a 
draft.
  It would not be hard to do. Let me tell my colleagues how it works. 
Just announce that there are not going to be any loans for college. You 
can get $80,000 if you enlist, but if you are not going to enlist, you 
are not going to get to go to college on government money. Rich mommies 
and daddies will take care of their boys, but poor ones will have to go 
to the military.
  Mr. McHUGH. 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. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McHugh) for bringing this to the floor. This is, I say in all 
disappointment, an incredible insult to the men and women who wear the 
uniform. Why is it an insult? Because our men and women are the best, 
brightest, best trained, best equipped, most effective that the world 
has ever known. They are a tribute to the education process in this 
country and the ability of young people to stand up and serve their 
country.
  My dear friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), whom I 
admire and trust and respect, raised the point, and I think it needs to 
be expanded a bit.
  People have gone all over this country in the beds of pickup trucks 
anywhere someone would stick a microphone in their face, and the 
minority political operatives have used it as an opportunity not just 
to scare youngsters, but to scare moms and dads and grandparents about 
something that does not exist.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do better. Support the bipartisan effort to 
increase our ROTC on college and high school campuses. Let us honor the 
young men and women who are fighting for us today with a degree of 
skill, accuracy, and commitment that we have never seen.
  Mr. Speaker, today we bring to the floor a matter of great importance 
to our troops, and

[[Page 20855]]

an issue about which there has been much misinformation. The 
legislation before us, H.R. 163, would essentially reinstate the draft, 
requiring all young persons, including women, to perform a period of 
military service.
  Those who are in favor of this legislation declare the draft is 
necessary for two reasons. They argue that recruiting and retention of 
our armed forces are falling at alarming rates and they asset that the 
military is disproportionately comprised of poorly-educated 
individuals.
  This is one of the greatest insults to our military I have ever 
heard. Today our armed forces are the most professional, best educated, 
most integrated and best trained in the world. All one needs to do is 
spend a few moments with our troops. Yesterday I was at Ft. Bragg in my 
district in NC. Talking with service members, is one of the most 
motivational things I ever experienced. These soldiers, often 
youngsters, are skilled, well-trained, articulate, intelligent, 
dedicated to their country, and model citizens. They endure hardships 
and sacrifice because they want to serve. Let me repeat: they want to 
serve. They are patriots who want to contribute to their country and 
serve their nation. They are proud of their service and we as a 
grateful nation should express nothing other than gratitude and praise 
for what they do. Our military today is not a repository for poor kids 
with little education and few opportunities in life. The U.S. military 
didn't get to be the most technically advanced fighting force in the 
world by relying on a collection of high school dropouts and 
underachievers.
  Simply stated, we have the finest and most professional military in 
the world. To suggest otherwise and argue that we need a draft to bring 
educated, skilled people into the military, is one of the most 
degrading insults to our troops that I have ever heard and furthermore 
is true not true.
  Secondly, I would like to point out that even though tours have been 
long, many sacrifices have been made and our troops have been called on 
for extraordinary missions, recruiting and retention is going well for 
all 5 services. Retention for the active component is over 100 percent 
and reserve retention rates are at 99 percent.
  The recent call for additional combat capability in Iraq and 
Afghanistan to conduct the global war on terror has fueled 
misconceptions that the United States will need to reinstate the draft 
to perform its military missions. There is only one reason that would 
justify conscription: if the military were unable to recruit enough 
volunteers to meet its personnel needs. This is not the case. Needed 
military personnel strength increases can be achieved through the 
existing recruitment and retention system. We should increase ROTC on 
high school and college campuses to highlight the high tech careers 
available through our military and further enhance our already 
successful recruitment efforts. No one in the Administration, at the 
Department of Defense, or at the Selective Service System has advocated 
for the reinstatement of the draft in any form.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is poor public policy, and pure 
politics and a disgrace to our troops. The all-volunteer force 
established the best and most professional military in the world. Our 
troops are disciplined, resilient and experienced, prosecuting the 
Global War on Terrorism and numerous other missions since 1973 with 
valor, bravery and honor. Continuing to uphold the high standards our 
military personnel embody everyday is only achieved through a voluntary 
force. I urge my colleagues to honor those who have individually 
decided to serve their country and vote against this election year 
legislation.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is insulting and disgusting for the Republican 
Majority to make a joke of serious war and peace policy by bringing 
draft legislation to the floor as a frivolous matter, as a joke.
  Every member of the House who is against the draft should join me as 
a co-sponsor of H.R. 4746, the Selective Service Registration 
Termination Act. The attached ``Dear Colleague'' letter of June 25, 
2004 provides a fuller explanation of H.R. 4746
  This bill proposes the termination of the selective service 
registration system which requires that all eighteen-year-old males 
register. This lost component of the system maintains a large manpower 
pool readily available for the quick implementation of a draft. This 
bill takes away the draft option and guarantees that future policy 
makers must confine their adventures to actions which can be launched 
and maintained with only a volunteer military force.
  H.R. 4746 clearly indicates that in the case of a full declaration of 
war by the Congress of the United States the Selective Service System 
may be reinstituted. Only as a last resort should a war be declared and 
mandatory proscription be authorized.
  In the case of a draft there must be no exemptions for the rich and 
the powerful. If a draft is implemented the rich and powerful should go 
first. Attached is a statement from the Congressional Record submitted 
on July 16, 2003 which expresses the conviction which must guide any 
future draft: Let the rich go first.
                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                                    Jun. 25, 2004.

 Working Families Need Jobs, Not Guns and Uniforms--We Must Terminate 
                     Selective Service Registration

       Dear Colleague: I have introduced the ``Selective Service 
     Registration Termination Act'' (H.R. 4746) in order to 
     dismantle the machinery of a draft which would suck American 
     youth deeper into the quagmire of the Iraq War and also 
     provide manpower for new preemptive wars. Our nation is at a 
     pivotal point with respect to the use of military force to 
     protect our vital interests around the world. The worship of 
     the false god of war would be lessened if we take clear and 
     careful steps to reduce the pool of potential combat troops. 
     Continuing a volunteer army policy will provide a strong 
     restraint and check on new violent adventures.
       Every presidential candidate must be made to pledge that 
     there will be no implementation of a draft after the 
     election. Working families need jobs, not guns and uniforms. 
     Preparations for a draft are presently an underground, 
     covert, ghost operation as we move toward election day; 
     however, there are distinct actions which point the way to a 
     future sudden ``common sense'' announcement that the 
     machinery of the draft must be reactivated. Please note that 
     the Senate recently authorized a twenty thousand soldier 
     increase for the Department of Defense. All experts have 
     agreed that unless circumstances change the size of the 
     occupying army in Iraq must be greatly increased. Instead of 
     the creation of a vast new pool of cannon fodder, we must 
     insist that ``the circumstances must be changed.''
       ``Shock and Awe'' invasions must not continue to be an 
     alternative for the unilateral confrontation of enemies in 
     the war against terrorists. The machinery of diplomacy; a 
     world wide network of coordinated intelligence; and the 
     maintenance of the capacity to execute swift, targeted 
     actions must replace the obsolete and costly total war 
     strategy. Ending the draft system is the most practical step 
     available to use to force the end of reckless war as an 
     alternative.
       Working families need jobs, not guns and uniforms. Support 
     a giant step toward lasting peace. Please join me by 
     cosponsoring H.R. 4746 by contacting Larry J. Walker at 225-
     6231.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Major R. Owens,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. Speaker, the July 10th vote to allow the expenditure of funds to 
implement radical changes in the overtime provisions of the Wage and 
Hour Act was an outrageous and devastating attack on working families. 
Compounding the horror of this action is the recent announcement that 
our present compliment of soldiers in Iraq, ninety percent of whom come 
from working families, will be forced into combat overtime for the 
indefinite future. Not even the one year rotation rule of Viet Nam will 
be applied to relieve their long ordeal under extreme heat and guerilla 
warfare duress.
  Overtime in the dangerous defense of the nation is being mandated 
without controls while at the same time overtime wages to feed working 
families is being subjected to new schemes which reduce take-home pay. 
This is an unacceptable continuation of the gross exploitation and 
oppression of working families by the Republican Scrooges who presently 
dominate the Congress and the White House. This nation faces a tragic 
predicament: An elite group of juvenile old men have plunged us into a 
war where great suffering and pain is being inflicted on working 
families who bear the brunt of the casualties on the front lines as 
well as the fallout from economic dislocations and recession here at 
home.
  It appears that the Republican well-to-do decision makers have great 
contempt for those who do the dangerous and dirty work for our nation. 
All Americans must remember the debt we owe to those who risk their 
last full measure of devotion. Or perhaps the powerful and the rich 
should go to the front lines first. The RAP poem below is a summary of 
my indignation on this critical action:

                         Let the Rich Go First

     Working Families
     Keep your soldiers at home,
     For overtime in Iraq
     No cash
     No comp time
     Not even gratitude,
     Republicans intrude

[[Page 20856]]

     To exempt all heroes,
     No combat rotation
     Life on indefinite probation
     Scrooges running the nation.
     To the front lines
     Let the rich go first--
     For blood they got a thirst,
     Let the superstars drink it
     In the glorious trenches;
     Leave the disadvantaged on the benches.
     Working Families
     Let the rich go first:
     The battlegrounds they always choose
     Their estates have the most to lose;
     Send highest IQs to
     Take positions at the front,
     Let them perform their best
     High tech warfare stunt;
     Working Families
     Keep your malnourished sons home--
     Harvard Yale kids should roam
     The world with guns and tanks,
     Reserve gold medals
     For the loyal Ivy League ranks.
     O say can you see
     Millionaire graduates
     Dying for you and me?
     Welfare Moms
     Have a message for the masters:
     Tell Uncle Sam
     His TANF pennies he can keep
     For food stamps we refuse to leap
     Through your hoops like beasts;
     Promise to leave our soldier alone
     And we'll find our own feasts.
     To Uncle Sam we offer a bargain--
     Don's throw us dirty crumbs
     Don't treat us like bums
     And then demand
     The full measure of devotion;
     Our minds are now in motion
     Class warfare
     Is not such a bad notion;
     Your swindle will not last
     Recruiters we won't let pass,
     Finally, we opened our eyes--
     Each family is a private enterprise.
     Each child a precious prize;
     We got American property rights,
     Before our children die in war
     This time we'll choose the fights.
     Let the rich go first:
     They worry about
     The overtime we abuse;
     The battlefields they always choose
     Their estates have the most to lose.
     Let the rich go first!

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I think this debate is pointing out 
something very important: This is a rich man's war and it is a poor 
man's fight. We have some of the finest young people in the world over 
there in the Mideast that are dying, better than 1,000 of them, and 
better than 8,000 have been wounded; but about 20,000 have had to be 
MedEvac'd out of there because of injuries and things of that kind.

                              {time}  1830

  We do not have enough troops in the field to prevail. We had enough 
to win a war, but we do not have enough to win the peace, and we do not 
have enough people to police and to control a situation which is 
getting worse and worse and worse.
  The question is, if you are not going to have a draft, and I am not 
going to sport legislation, but how do you propose over here to get our 
people the troops that they need, to get the levels of force that they 
need to win? It is easy to stand around here and talk about, oh, how we 
must support our troops, it sounds very patriotic. But let us get some 
people over there. Let us get the necessary levels of force. Let us get 
the equipment that we need over there for our people.
  I would note, there is not enough equipment like body armor. There is 
not enough armor for the Humvees. Our people are dying in good part 
because of this, and they are dying in good part because there are not 
enough of them to properly address the problem of a clever and well-
managed insurgency which is killing thousands of young Americans.
  I say that we are going to have to have a national debate on this. I 
commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for having forced this 
issue to the House floor. I say, rather than making political points on 
this, my Republican colleagues should start to address something more 
important: Address how you are going to win; address how you are going 
to get the number of troops; address how you are going to produce the 
levels of force that are going to enable us to win, to get our people 
home safely and to carry out our real duty to the American people.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, well, I just want to echo the 
dean, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for his courage.
  Frankly, let me say to my colleagues on the floor of the House, there 
is a secret plan for the draft. And there is nothing, there is nothing 
that this debate will do to dispense with that rule more and that 
secret plan. Let me tell you why. Because you have got 1,000-plus 
dying. You have 7,000-plus that are already wounded. You have the 
highest number of AWOL persons who are not returning. You have soldiers 
doing 24-hour duty. And I realize that, when you are in combat, you are 
at the subject of your commanders, but you are doing a 24-hour duty, 
and people are frustrated and tired and overwhelmed. You have people 
who cannot get medicine. And you have individuals who are National 
Guard and who are Reservists who are away from their families and are 
being told, just 2 more months, just 6 more months.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is imperative to those who are listening. To 
the young people, I am voting no. But this was a protest to say to the 
President and the administration in January of 2003 when this war was 
raging, what is your exit strategy? What is your strategy to win the 
peace?
  We have none.
  Secretary Rumsfeld can make a joke and talk about surprise all he 
wants. That is not befitting of a Secretary of Defense. The military 
brass have indicated they need more soldiers, and it is true they come 
from the inner cities and rural communities. My voice may be a little 
raspy, but these children went into this war because they wanted an 
education. That is what Jessica Lynch wanted. That is what so many 
wanted. That does not undermine their patriotism or their heroism or 
our honor to them or the ones that died; they died in vain. But this is 
a debate to pull the covers from those who want to hide from the fact 
that they need a draft.
  What you need to do is not send our troops into misdirected and ill-
directed wars. Then we will not have to have this debate. I will vote a 
resounding ``no,'' but there is a secret plan for a draft.
  Mr. McHUGH. 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. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, sometimes, not always, but sometimes a bill 
comes to the floor of this House after a long deliberative examination 
of the facts surrounding a difficult issue with compelling arguments on 
both sides, and we can all come together and find common ground. 
Sometimes a bill is the result of hard-nosed political wrangling, and a 
party-line vote pushes a controversial measure over the finish line.
  And sometimes, Mr. Speaker, on rare occasions like today, a bill is 
considered on the floor of the House as a practical exercise, to expose 
a fraud. For months now, the American people have been subjected to and 
had their intelligence insulted by a manipulative, dishonest and 
willful campaign of misinformation. This campaign, which started as a 
whisper and now is being supported on the floor of the House, but it 
has since been given voice by the leading Democrats in the country 
today, asserts without any evidence whatsoever that there is a secret 
Republican plan to reinstitute the military draft.
  This campaign is a baseless and malevolent concoction of the 
Democratic Party, and everyone in this chamber

[[Page 20857]]

knows it. It has one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to 
spread fear, to spread fear among an unsuspecting public, to undermine 
the war on terror, to undermine our troops, to undermine our cause and, 
most of all, to undermine our commander-in-chief in an election year.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a lie. And to prove it, all we had to do was 
to look in the Congressional Record. And lo and behold there it was, a 
plan. Not secret, but public. Not hidden by Republicans but openly 
touted by Democrats, H.R. 163, before us today. H.R. 163 is not the 
product of a Pentagon cabal, but it is sponsored by six of the most 
liberal and vociferous critics of the war on terror.
  The vote on this bill will not be close, and it will not be a party 
line. Instead, it will be an opportunity for Americans to see who takes 
the national security of the United States seriously, who respects our 
armed forces, who wants to win the war on terror, and who just wants to 
win the next election.
  This bill is a fraud, and so is the pernicious campaign of deception 
that has brought it to the floor today. I urge all my colleagues to 
vote no and expose to the light of truth the craven partisan whisper 
campaign now poisoning the national debate.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I rise in opposition of this bill, but I would like to clarify 
something. We are not trying to scare kids. This President's foreign 
policy is what is scaring the kids of this country. And people have 
said today, why are people believing this? Why are people believing 
this big Internet hoax?
  It is the same people who told us that Saddam Hussein had something 
to do with 9/11; the same people who told us Saddam Hussein had 
something to do with weapons of mass destruction; the same people who 
told us we would be able to use the oil for reconstruction money; the 
same people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, not 
occupiers; the same people, the same President who told us the Taliban 
is gone; the same President who told us that Poland is our ally 2 days 
before they pull out; the same President who tells us Iraq is going 
just great; the same President who tells us the economy is going just 
great; the same people who told us the tax cuts were going to create 
millions of jobs; the same people who told us that the Medicare program 
only cost $400 billion when it really cost $540 billion.
  So please forgive us for believing what you are saying. Please 
forgive the students of this country for not believing what you are 
saying. Not one thing, not one thing about this war that has been told 
to the American people or that has been told to these college students 
has been true. Not one thing. Bremer says we need more troops. The 
Pentagon says we need more troops, and this President cannot get them 
from the international community. There is only one option left. Let us 
be honest with the American people.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 
9 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) has 4\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RANGEL. 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. MURTHA. 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.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of the gentleman and support his position.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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.

[[Page 20858]]

  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. McHUGH. 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. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are voting on 
today has been used by Democrats to scare young voters and their 
parents with the lie of an impending draft.
  As a retired veteran of 31 years' service in the Army National Guard, 
with three sons serving today in the military, including one serving in 
Iraq, I agree with the Newsweek magazine expose of October 12 which 
discredits the rumor has having no basis in fact. Crying wolf about the 
need for a draft causes doubt about the ability of our Armed Forces and 
hurts our morale and recruitment.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote against H.R. 163 and end this 
false rumor.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill we are voting on today has been used by 
Democrats to scare young voters and their parents with the lie of an 
impending draft.

       In South Carolina, the Democratic Party sent out a 
     despicable campaign letter, disguised as a draft notice. The 
     Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry speaks 
     disingenuously about a ``back door draft.'' He has said to 
     elect him President because he ``will give us a foreign 
     policy that absolutely makes it unnecessary to have a 
     draft.'' Democrats' false rhetoric has helped fuel a 
     nationwide scare campaign.

  As a retired veteran of 31 years service in the Army National Guard, 
and with three sons today in the military, one of whom is serving in 
Iraq, I agree with the Newsweek magazine's expose (Oct. 12th) which 
discredited the rumors as having no basis in fact. Crying wolf about 
the need for a draft causes doubt about the ability of our Armed 
Forces, and hurts our morale and recruitment.
  Let's be clear. The all-volunteer American military is succeeding in 
the War on Terror, and retention remains high. We have the best-
trained, best-equipped, most competent military in history. We have a 
new greatest generation that I have visited three times in Iraq who are 
dedicated patriots protecting American families by taking the war to 
the terrorists. There is absolutely no need for a draft. Not one person 
in the executive branch supports or has talked about reinstating the 
draft.
  Clearly, by resorting to the politics of fear, Kerry and the 
Democrats have no positive agenda for America. Americans deserve more. 
President Bush and Republicans have a proud record of achievement in 
the last 4 years: of tax relief, better education for our children, 
improved health care through prescription drug coverage, and a strong 
national defense against terrorism.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote against H.R. 163, and end this 
false rumor.

                     [From Newsweek, Oct. 11, 2004]

               The Draft: Rumors, and That's All They Are

       For months, Democratic operatives have muttered that news 
     about a revived military draft could become the silver bullet 
     that stops President George W. Bush's re-election campaign. 
     But the White House and Pentagon emphatically deny any 
     intention to reinstitute conscription: in the first 
     presidential debate last week, Bush made sure to include a 
     reference in his closing remarks to the ``all-volunteer 
     Army.''
       Democratic presidential contender John Kerry carefully 
     limited his debate remarks to a factually supportable charge 
     that current Bush policies may constitute a ``backdoor 
     draft'' because some soldiers' tours of duty are being 
     involuntarily extended. But some Kerry supporters--and 
     prominent Kerry surrogates--are spreading more alarming 
     rumors about a reinstated draft. ``You do not have the draft 
     hanging over your heads--not yet. But pay attention, boys and 
     girls, to what you've got going on in Iraq,'' disabled 
     Vietnam vet and former U.S. Senator Max Cleland, an important 
     Kerry backer, recently told a student audience. At the 
     University of Colorado-Boulder last week, cafeteria tables 
     were littered with cards signed by self-described Students 
     for Kerry, warning YOU'RE GONNA GET DRAFTED. (In an ``open 
     letter'' to America's students, independent candidate Ralph 
     Nader recently claimed the ``machinery for drafting a new 
     generation of young Americans is being quietly put into 
     place.'') The most explicit claims about a Bush plan to 
     revive conscription have come from onetime Kerry rival Howard 
     Dean, who charged in a recent newspaper column that draft 
     boards ``have already been notified that 20-year-olds and 
     medical personnel will be called up first.'' Laura Gross, 
     Dean's spokeswoman, says Dean spoke with two draft-board 
     officials in different parts of the country who told him they 
     had been ``put on notice there is going to be a draft . . . 
     Bush has not denied that there's going to be a draft.''
       Rumors about a new draft were sparked when a Pentagon Web 
     site earlier this year posted a solicitation for volunteers 
     to man local draft boards. But officials say the ad has 
     appeared every year since 2001, and didn't signal a plan to 
     reactivate the draft. Two bills in Congress propose reviving 
     conscription, but both were introduced by anti-

[[Page 20859]]

     Iraq-war Democrats to highlight the fact that the burden of 
     military service falls disproportionally on poor people. The 
     bills have no chance of approval. Selective Service spokesman 
     Dan Amon says he has fielded ``hundreds'' of calls about the 
     possibility of a renewed draft, which he calls an ``urban 
     legend . . . If the White House is planning a draft, you'd 
     think they might have told us about it.'' The uniformed 
     military are among the last people who want to see the draft 
     revived. While U.S. forces are stretched by current 
     commitments--including Iraq--Army leaders don't want a draft, 
     don't think they need one and recognize that, politically, it 
     would be virtually impossible. Two-year waves of unwilling, 
     unskilled soldiers would contribute little except, the brass 
     fear, the same discipline problems the Army spent years 
     purging after Vietnam. Army lobby spokesman John Grady says: 
     ``Nobody wants to go there again.''

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I want my constituents to know 
that Congress is not going to legislate a draft today, but I also want 
to ask my constituents and all Americans to read between the lines.
  What is going on here today? What they are seeing is an admission of 
this administration's failure to adequately plan for our troops in 
Iraq. What they are seeing is a bait and switch.
  On the one hand, Americans are being told today that they do not need 
to worry about a draft, and believe me, this was an issue that if my 
colleagues would have left it alone, it would have died on the 
Internet. But on the other hand, I am afraid that Americans will think 
that they are being told there is nothing to worry about in Iraq.
  What we are seeing is a very controversial matter being brought up 
before Congress by using a procedure that is meant for noncontroversial 
items.
  I want to acknowledge how much military servicemembers' contributions 
have meant to Americans through their voluntary and selfless service. 
And how do we honor them? Well, we honor the profound and valiant 
successes by keeping our forces strong.
  The solution to our overburdened military lies in expanding the all-
volunteer force; and this solution, as it has been stated, has been 
voted on and passed by both Chambers of the Congress. It provides a 
much-needed increase in military end strength, and as a member of the 
Committee on Armed Services, I have worked hard to provide the 
solution.
  I feel strongly, and I know that most of the people here do, that 
everyone benefits from keeping an all-volunteer force. So I urge my 
colleagues to stand firm with this conviction, but I also say let us 
have a serious discussion. Let us not make this political.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, may I ask what time is allotted for each 
Member.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McHugh) has 3\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) has 30 seconds remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the draft, and I understand the 
reason why we are having this debate.
  What I do not understand is when are we going to have the debate 
about the flawed intelligence that led up to the war. When are we going 
to have the debate about the disregard of the recommendation of General 
Shinseki and now Ambassador Bremer? When are we going to have a debate 
about a failure of international negotiations to bring more coalition 
partners in?
  This is a worthy debate, but it is not worthy of the sacrifice that 
these men and women are making around the world. Let us have a real 
debate about the real issues that confront us in Iraq.
  Mr. McHUGH. 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. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, Military Time, 72 percent of the 
military, active, Guard, Reserves, are going to vote for President 
George W. Bush, not John Kerry.
  Why we are here today is there has been a ruse before the American 
public. Some people thought they would scare people into thinking the 
President was going to reinstitute the draft. You have been caught in 
your own trap. That is the reason we are here today is to show the 
American people that it is a spoof.
  When you talk about politics, you are the ones that put forth 
politics, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), you how I 
love you, and when you talk about politics on this floor, you need to 
take a look within your own party.
  It was your leadership that voted against the money to give our 
troops the support that they need. It was John Kerry that voted against 
the money to support our troops. You know that, and you are caught here 
today trying to spoof the American people; and shame on you, shame on 
you and shame on you.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. RANGEL. 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?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members may refer to Senators who are 
nominated candidates for the office of President. But the gentleman 
from California is admonished to direct his remarks to the Chair.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  I mentioned earlier that this is a moment in history when someone 
brings a bill to the floor that does not support the bill. In my years 
here in the House of Representatives, I have never seen that.
  I think it is also historic for another reason, that this piece of 
legislation was brought to the floor to quell a rumor. That, I am sure 
the history books will never reflect, never reflect the fact that 
legislation was brought to the floor to quell a rumor.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close, and so if I only have 
1 minute remaining, I reserve it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here is to make 
clear to the world that we are not going to have military conscription 
right now for active military duty.
  I introduced a bill last year, H.R. 3598, because I think we need to 
seriously discuss the understanding of the military of a greater number 
of our population. I think we need to look at volunteerism in this 
country; and with terrorism threatening us for the immediate future, 
there is a need for that education, that training, maybe even basic 
military training, but not combat service.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  We are here for three reasons. Number one, because the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) has proposed reinstating the draft. It is a 
legitimate piece of legislation. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha) has given an articulate reason that we should consider it, and 
it is legitimate to consider it.
  But the other reason why we are pulling it out at this time is 
because of pieces like this that were sent out by the South Carolina 
Democratic Party, as well as a number of things that went out on the 
Internet, saying to college kids like my 19-year-old son John and my 
21-year-old daughter Betsy that there is going to be a draft and there 
is a secret plan.

[[Page 20860]]

  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has already stated there 
is a secret plan. We are voting ``no'' to show there is no secret plan 
and also ask our colleagues on the floor to talk to their Democrat 
friends and tell them not to send out propaganda pieces like this, 
because it is just a lie.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Who yields time? The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) has the right to close.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the legislation, and I read 
the words of a young Arizonan now at war from the pages of the Arizona 
Republic, a letter. He writes, ``As I sit on this plane taking us to 
war, I can't help but think about who is with me. Americans from all 
walks of life are going to war together on this plane. Americans going 
to war on this plane are ages 18 to 59. Americans going to war on this 
plane are rich and poor, Americans on this plane joined for different 
reasons. All are volunteers.''
  It is a strength to have a volunteer fighting force. We rise 
remembering the words of Captain Moore, ``We have a great volunteer 
force.''
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a veteran of the first Gulf War.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill. I 
also join the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and regret that the 
heat of national elections has caused us to debate something that is 
not going to happen.
  We are here because it was John Kerry who implied that President Bush 
would reinstate the draft, and it was CBS News and its anchor, Dan 
Rather, who have chosen to keep telling the ``big lie,'' as noted in 
the editorial of Investors Business Daily.
  Fortunately, I believe Americans will know better. President Bush has 
not said he will reinstate the draft. There is good reason Americans 
are tuning out CBS News and will tune out this bill. Vote ``no'' on the 
draft.
  Mr. McHUGH. 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. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to use the short time I have to 
close our side of the debate by pointing out some facts.
  It has been contended by the other side that we are having trouble 
attracting and retaining people in the armed services. The facts do not 
bear that out. In fact, they point just the other way.
  Last year, for example, the Army attracted 74,000 new soldiers. That 
was 100 percent of the goal set. Furthermore, the Army and Army Reserve 
retention goal for fiscal year 2004 is 28,201. As of June of 2004, with 
3 months left in the fiscal year, the active Army had achieved 98 
percent of its year-to-date retention goal, the Army Reserve had 
achieved 96 percent of its goal, and the National Guard had exceeded 
its goal by 30 percent.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, new weapons systems that we have today 
require manpower but they also require brain power. It takes time to 
cultivate competent soldiers and Marines, and by drafting our soldiers 
we slide down the scale of our professional Army towards a more amateur 
and, I contend, less effective military.
  Let us all vote to oppose the draft today.
  Mr. McHUGH. 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. RANGEL. 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. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of the Universal 
Service Act and rise in support of this bill.
  That being said, this vote today is a cynical political ploy. The 
Republican Leadership did not bring this vitally important issue 
forward to have a meaningful debate. They did it to buy themselves 
political cover from accusations that President Bush's failed policy in 
Iraq will necessitate a new military draft.
  I object to this cynical misappropriation of our democratic 
responsibilities by the Republicans. We are here to do the people's 
business, not dispose of it thoughtlessly for mere political gain.
  I am a cosponsor of the Universal Service Act. I support reinstating 
the draft, not because it is popular, but because I believe it is 
right.
  Many of us remember World War II. That was a war fought by Americans 
of every stripe and every background. It didn't matter if you were rich 
or poor or the color of your skin. All Americans sacrificed and shared 
the responsibility for winning that war. It was everyone's patriotic 
duty and our country was better for it.
  Today armed forces ought to strive to meet that example. Reinstating 
a draft with no deferments and no exceptions is both fair and 
democratic. It will mean that Americans of every background will serve 
our country, not just the poor and disadvantaged as it is today. It 
will mean that our troops, reservists and members of the Guard won't be 
forced into extended deployments well after their tours are up.
  Ultimately, I would hope that a draft will deter future wars of 
convenience like that in Iraq. I'm sure many parents--and Members of 
Congress--will think twice about supporting a war if they know their 
children may be called to fight.
  This, of course, is not being genuinely debated here today. Instead 
this is a political charade that demeans the importance of this issue.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 163, 
the ``Universal National Service Act of 2003.'' This legislation is 
being brought to the Floor by the Majority without holding any hearings 
which would provide for the necessary debate an issue this magnitude 
requires.
  There is no doubt that the military is currently overextended 
worldwide. National Guard members and Reservists have been sent 
overseas for extended missions, leaving their families behind. While we 
are eternally grateful to them and all the members of the U.S. military 
for their bravery, I am sad to say that when they return home, they 
will discover that this Administration has cut many critical veterans' 
benefits. The Department of Veterans Affairs and the health care system 
it oversees are not prepared for the numbers of new veterans who will 
need long-term care for their injuries. This Nation's veterans deserve 
nothing less than the benefits to which they are entitled.
  I think we can all agree that a strong military is critical to our 
Nation's defense. However, I think that we can accomplish this goal by 
ensuring that those who are currently serving have the necessary 
equipment and resources to complete their missions and the benefits 
that they and their families deserve. If we need to increase the size 
of the military, there are ways to do it other than through a draft.

[[Page 20861]]

  I hope that when we consider these issues in the future, the Majority 
will be more respectful of our service men and women.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 163. I 
do not believe that a reinstatement of the draft is necessary or 
desirable; nor do I believe that there is any support for a draft among 
my constituents or in the country as a whole.
  This Nation has had an all-volunteer military for more than 30 years 
and the quality of America's service men and women, their dedication, 
professionalism and commitment has never been greater. Public support 
for our men and women in uniform is also much higher than it was in the 
later years of the draft.
  Today's soldiers typically stay in the military 2 years longer than 
their predecessors did in the early 1970s. This reduced turnover has 
resulted in a more professional force that is able to take full 
advantage of the high-tech weaponry that is a key component of our 
military. The volunteer military's lower turnover rate has also led to 
a reduction in training costs. In 1988, a General Accounting Office 
study found that the all-volunteer force was cheaper than a conscript 
force by $2.5 billion per year--more than $4 billion in today's 
dollars.
  Volunteers are more likely to seek promotion, and are likely to be 
more professionally motivated than draftees. In fact, current retention 
rates among deployed troops are higher than for forces based in the 
United States. Because volunteers are paid more and it is costly to 
train new soldiers, there is a greater incentive to use our troops 
wisely.
  The military has also been successful in its efforts to increase the 
aptitude of recruits. Today's military is better educated than the 
general population. While more than 90 percent of military recruits 
have a high school diploma, only 75 percent of the general population 
does. Military recruits are also more likely to score high on aptitude 
tests than their civilian counterparts.
  I was, frankly, surprised to see this bill on the suspension calendar 
for today. Typically, bills are brought up under suspension when they 
are non-controversial as a two-thirds vote of the House is required for 
passage. This bill, which enjoys virtually no support in the House, 
will be resoundingly defeated and I can only surmise that the Majority 
has only called up this bill in order to vote it down, and in so doing 
divert attention from the mistakes made by the Administration in 
overextending our forces.
  We do have a military manpower shortage now, but the draft is not the 
answer. Over the objections of the Administration, the House has 
authorized the Army and Marine Corps to increase their active-duty end 
strength by 20,000 and 10,000, respectively. This will help to 
alleviate some of the strain on both the active and reserve components.
  I hope that the Congress will focus attention next year on military 
manpower issues. We need to reconfigure our military and address the 
need for personnel who specialize in stability and post-conflict 
operations. Currently, most of the personnel who are expert in this 
area are in the Guard and Reserves and there are reports that re-
enlistment rates in some units are down as a result of multiple 
extended deployments overseas.
  Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have visited our troops on the 
front lines as often as possible. I am awed by their courage, their 
patriotism and their competence. We need to do more to support them and 
to ensure that they are not overextended, but reinstating the draft is 
not the answer. Better treatment of those who wear the uniform, and 
those who once served, is the more constructive solution.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. With the 
modern technology found in most weapons today, the U.S. military needs 
a more highly educated force than it needed years ago. Also, the United 
States does not need the large numbers of soldiers our armed forces 
required in previous large wars. Our all-volunteer military is working 
well, and we have raised pay and benefits up to higher levels than most 
would be making in the private sector.
  Secretary Rumsfeld agrees. In recent testimony before the Armed 
Services Committee in the other body, he noted:
  ``We've got 295 million people in the United States of America. We 
need 1.4 million to serve in the active force. We have no trouble 
attracting and retaining the people we need.''
  ``We are not having trouble maintaining a force of volunteers. Every 
single person's a volunteer. We do not need to use compulsion to get 
people to come in the armed services. We got an ample number of 
talented, skillful, courageous, dedicated young men and women willing 
to serve. And it's false.''
  Service in our armed forces is one of the most honorable ways anyone 
can serve this Nation, and our military is attracting very good people. 
However, in a society that prides itself on individual liberty and 
personal freedom, public service is not the only way to serve the 
common good. A free country should never force anyone to work for the 
government unless there is no other reasonable alternative.
  We can teach our children to love and appreciate this country without 
forcing any young person to serve in the military against his or her 
will. There are plenty of professions where people honorably serve 
others, a good many of which are in the private sector.
  Farmers serve this Nation well providing food for the people. Bankers 
serve the Nation well by creating the capital and financing for small 
businesses to create jobs and hire hard-working people.
  Nurses and doctors serve the Nation well by working long hours 
protecting us from disease and injury.
  Farmers, doctors, teachers, business people--these are just a few of 
the countless people in countless professions who work hard at honest 
jobs serving others in service to this Nation.
  For every person we force into the military against his or her 
wishes, we are taking away the ability of that individual to fulfill 
the God-given right to pursue one's own happiness, a right that Thomas 
Jefferson made the centerpiece of the Declaration of Independence.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that neither the 
administration nor the Republican leadership in Congress is willing to 
face the facts. The reckless rush to war in Iraq without being prepared 
to win the peace has put our troops seriously at risk. We have a 
situation that continues to deteriorate on the ground in Iraq. We are 
forcing young men and women to stay in the military and are exerting 
inordinate pressure to extend their enlistments. Finally, we are 
reducing the qualifications of new recruits into the military. This is 
all a desperate attempt to maintain our inadequate troop strength 
levels.
  Rather than acknowledge the problems and deal with responsible 
proposals that have been offered by a number of our colleagues, the 
Republican leadership has instead advanced to the floor legislation to 
reinstate the draft which they do not even support.
  It is time to stop playing games with the welfare of the young men 
and women that are serving us in Iraq and around the world. They 
deserve better. They deserve proper equipment and an increase in our 
overall troop level. They need leadership in the White House and in 
Congress to help stabilize and reverse the perilous situation into 
which they have been thrust, against the best advice of uniformed 
leadership.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and to provide a 
responsible alternative to increasing the troop level and increasing 
the range and nature of support from other countries. Sadly, it appears 
that this White House, the current Secretary of Defense and the 
Republican leadership in Congress are not equal to the task at hand. 
Hopefully, after November we will be given a new opportunity to address 
these critical issues.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 163 in the strongest 
possible terms. The draft, whether for military purposes or for some 
form of ``national service,'' violates the basic moral principles of 
individual liberty upon which this country was founded. Furthermore, 
the military neither wants nor needs a draft.
   The Department of Defense, in response to calls to reinstate the 
draft has confirmed that conscription serves no military need. Defense 
officials from both parties have repudiated the need to reinstate the 
draft. For example, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that, 
``The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the armed forces 
the men and women needed are notable,'' while President William 
Clinton's Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, in a speech before the 
National Press Club, admitted that, ``Today, with our smaller, post-
Cold War armed forces, our stronger volunteer tradition and our need 
for longer terms of service to get a good return on the high, up-front 
training costs, it would be even harder to fashion a fair draft.''
  However, the most important reason to oppose H.R. 163 is that a draft 
violates the very principals of individual liberty upon which our 
nation was founded. Former President Ronald Reagan eloquently expressed 
the moral case against the draft in the publication Human Events in 
1979: ``. . . [conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids 
belong to the State. If we buy that assumption then it is for the 
State--not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or 
teachers--to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what 
work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new 
one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.''
  Some say the 18 year old draftee ``owes it'' to his (or her, since 
N.R. 163 makes woman eligible for the draft) country. Hogwash! It just

[[Page 20862]]

as easily could be argued that a 50 year-old chicken-hawk, who promotes 
war and places the danger on innocent young people, owes more to the 
country than the 18 year-old being denied his (or her) liberty.
  All drafts are unfair. All 18 and 19 year olds are never drafted. By 
its very nature a draft must be discriminatory. All drafts hit the most 
vulnerable young people, as the elites learn quickly how to avoid the 
risks of combat.
  Economic hardship is great in all wars and cannot be minimized. War 
is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit 
from war expenditure. The great tragedy of war is that is enables the 
careless disregard for civil liberties of our own people. Abuses of 
German and Japanese Americans in World War I and World War II are well 
known.
  But the real sacrifice comes with conscription--forcing a small 
number of young vulnerable citizens to fight the wars that older men 
and women, who seek glory in military victory without themselves being 
exposed to danger, promote. The draft encourages wars with neither 
purpose nor moral justification and that are too often not even 
declared by the Congress.
  Without conscription, unpopular wars are difficult to fight. Once the 
draft was undermined in the 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War came 
to an end. But most importantly, liberty cannot be preserved by 
tyranny. A free society must always resort to volunteers. Tyrants think 
nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in wrongheaded wars. A true 
fight for survival and defense of America would elicit, I am sure, the 
assistance of every able-bodied man and woman. This is not the case for 
wars of mischief far away from home in which we have experienced often 
in the past century.
  A government that is willing to enslave some of its people can never 
be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens. I hope all my 
colleagues join me in standing up for individual liberty and to shut 
down this un-American relic of a bygone era and help realize the 
financial savings and the gains to individual liberties that can be 
achieved by ending Selective Service registration.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, it must be an election year, because the 
fear mongering is in full swing.
  President George W. Bush has repeatedly said he doesn't intend to 
revive the draft, because he believes that the military is more 
effective and less expensive as an all-volunteer force than it would be 
under a draft. Yet that hasn't stopped his critics, who are waging a 
behind-the-scenes campaign to frighten the American people.
  The truth is this: President Bush has no ``secret plan'' to 
reinstitute the draft, and the only measure that would do so is the one 
we are considering today--offered by members of Senator Kerry's party 
and cosponsored solely by the minority party.
  I concur with the Pentagon's assessment that the all-volunteer force 
has provided a military ``that is experienced, smart, disciplined and 
representative of America.'' Volunteer soldiers are more family-
oriented, career-oriented and stay longer. Lastly, there is no need for 
a draft at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill, and its overwhelming 
rejection today by the Members of the House will put to rest the spin 
that is being offered by those merely interested in frightening voters 
during an election year. I urge my colleagues to join me in denouncing 
these tactics and voting against this bill.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill to reinstate 
a military draft in the United States. It is unfortunate that we find 
ourselves in this position . . . but it is not a matter of needing a 
draft . . . this administration has not managed our resources and our 
troops well.
  We went into the Iraq war with no exit strategy, and the current 
military reinforcements are coming from the administration's backdoor 
draft via calling the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) back into service. 
The IRR are those who have already fulfilled their active duty service 
requirement to the United States.
  The Nation does not need a draft for an all-volunteer force. We need 
to wisely and effectively manage or troops and our resources in the 
theater. Charging into Iraq with insufficient troop numbers--against 
the advise of the Army Chief of Staff--and allowing an insurgency to 
fester, have combined to put our troops in far more danger than need 
be.
  Even our distinguished former U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, L. 
Paul Bremer, said just yesterday that the United States ``paid a big 
price'' for not having enough troops on the ground after we overthrew 
Saddam Hussein.
  Bremer said when he arrived to head the U.S.-led Coalition 
Provisional Authority in Baghdad in early May, 2003, there was already 
``horrid'' looting occurring. I agree with Ambassador Bremer when he 
goes on to say: ``We paid a big price for not stopping it because it 
established an atmosphere of lawlessness. We never had enough troops on 
the ground.''
  Now, our current method of retaining a list of people for the 
Selective Service, for registration only, is important tool to retain 
should we ever need an enormous, rapid infusion of manpower in the 
military.
  Let me say to my colleague from New York, Mr. Rangel, our 
distinguished friend who introduced this bill to illustrate the point 
that many of our service men and women today are in the military 
because they have very few economic choices in their lives. I join you 
in urging all the sons and daughters of America, rich and poor, to be 
part of the uniformed service. We cannot have one class of Americans to 
fight our wars and another class of Americans benefiting from those 
wars.
  Freedom isn't free--for any of us.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a politically motivated diversion. It is 
not well conceived . . . it did not get a hearing in our House Armed 
Services Committee and it's not a serious attempt--for if it were, it 
would have gone through our process here and would not be destined for 
defeat as a ``non-controversial'' bill.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McHUGH. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 163.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have not voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. McHUGH. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on suspending 
the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 163, will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on suspending the rules and passing H.R. 2929, and suspending the 
rules and passing H.R. 5011.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 2, nays 
402, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 494]

                                YEAS--2

     Murtha
     Stark
       

                               NAYS--402

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert

[[Page 20863]]


     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Boehlert
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Cannon
     Cox
     DeMint
     Dooley (CA)
     Forbes
     Gephardt
     Greenwood
     Hoeffel
     John
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Majette
     McIntyre
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Sandlin
     Slaughter
     Tauzin
     Terry


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1929

  Mrs. CUBIN and Messrs. EMANUEL, PORTER, DOOLITTLE, DELAHUNT, SHERMAN, 
RADANOVICH and BASS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the motion was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 494, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________