[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 23429]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 UNIVERSAL NATIONAL SERVICE ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, October 5, 2004

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a very important 
subject for the young people of my district and America, the draft. 
This week, the Congress considered H.R. 163, Universal National Service 
Act of 2003, which would require every U.S. citizen, and every other 
person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to 
perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted.
  Let me make clear, I do not support reinstatement of an active 
military draft system. Also it is very unlikely there will be a draft 
in the foreseeable future.
  The legal authority for drafting men into the U.S. armed forces 
expired in 1973. However, the U.S. Selective Service System has been 
registering 18-25 year-olds on a stand-by basis. These young men could 
be called for service should an active draft ever be reinstated. 
Currently, women are not required to register with the U.S. Selective 
Service.
  Young people, as well as their parents, across my district have heard 
about a draft bill, and these constituents are asking questions about 
the draft bill and want to find out its status. Congressman Rangel and 
U.S. Senator Fritz Hollings from South Carolina introduced this 
legislation to reinstate an active draft and extend service 
requirements to women. I cannot speak for them about their motives 
behind this legislation, but they certainly do make a fundamental 
point: if we go to war, all Americans should share in the cost and 
sacrifice of that war. The authors point out that without a universal 
draft, this burden falls disproportionately on the shoulders of the 
poor, the disadvantaged, and minorities, as was the case during the 
Vietnam War.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 163 raises important questions about the current 
composition of U.S. armed forces. For example, Representative Rangel 
argues that among 535 Members of Congress, only four have sons or 
daughters who presently serve in the military.
  Yet we have not had a national debate on the draft and we certainly 
did not have that debate this week. H.R. 163 was not marked up or voted 
on by any committee here in the House. This bill was added to the 
suspension calendar of the House reserved for noncontroversial items. 
And yet it is quite controversial.
  Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq--combined with other worldwide 
deployments in Afghanistan, Korea, and over 140 other countries--has 
put an enormous strain on our active duty and reserve soldiers. We have 
seen underpaid, ill-equipped, and overextended American troops fighting 
in Iraq. More than two-thirds of New Jersey's National Guard will be 
activated this year. There are hard questions that need to be answered 
about how we can continue this war, at this pace. We do need to review 
our commitments overseas and asses our ability to meet them. This bill 
shows that a National debate on these issues is greatly needed. This 
week, we did not have that debate. The House leaders simply tried to 
make a political point, but I hope that this has sown the seeds of the 
discussion. The nation's military leaders are nearly unanimous in 
saying that the military can meet its needs better without a draft. 
None of us here in the House today would be eligible under a potential 
draft. We are too old. And I would like to see this debate with the 
input of the young people who are affected by it. I feel strongly that 
we should all go back to our districts and continue this discussion--
but with those who it will be affected by it.
  I do not believe that an active military draft system is currently 
necessary or advisable. More important, the generals and admirals do 
not believe that a draft is necessary or advisable. I have co-sponsored 
legislation introduced by Representative Ellen Tauscher to meet 
military manpower needs by temporarily increasing by 8 percent the end-
strength numbers of our all-volunteer armed forces during the next five 
years and increasing enlistees' pay and benefits accordingly (H.R. 
3696). This alternative approach would increase the volunteer numbers 
of active duty-soldiers gradually over the next five years, thus 
enabling members of the National Guard and Reserve to rotate out or 
transition voluntarily into active duty slots with better benefits and 
equipment.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many moms and dads, and I have heard 
from many students from all across my district who are disturbed by the 
idea of renewing the draft and I agree with them. We do not need to 
return to the draft system.

                          ____________________