Charles Rangel's Universal National Service Act (H.R. 5741) and Benefits

Today I was discussing the Universal National Service Act - Bill H.R. 5741 (proposed by Representative Charles Rangel), with a coworker, who just happens to be in the military. He has already served one tour in Afghanistan and hopes he will not be called for active duty again before his enlistment is up in October. He wanted to know, if this bill would be enacted, would those forced to serve be afforded the same opportunities, such as a paid education. I told him that I did not know and that it was a very good question.

This is not the first time Charles Rangel has tried to get bills, similar to H.R. 5741, enacted. His first attempt was in 2003, then again in 2006 and 2007. In 2003, it was voted down 402 to two. It was speculated by some and confirmed by Representative Rangel that he knew the bill would not pass and only proposed it as opposition to the Iraq War. In 2006 the proposal was rejected by Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, and according to the Library of Congress, Bill H.R. 393 introduced in 2007 is still listed as being referred to the House Ways and Means committee.

Nowhere in the current Universal National Service Act (Bill H.R. 5741), is there any reference to education or tuition expenses or health benefits. However, due to the recent health care bill, I can understand why health benefits would not be mentioned. So how does our president feel about this bill? A search of the Internet revealed only the following references to some form of national service act:

February 19, 2008, Barack Obama stated: "... one of the things that I've proposed, for example, is that I will give a $4000 tuition credit - every student, every year - so that they are not being loaded up with enormous debts, uh, but there will be a community service - a national service component. The military could be one way for you to get this $4000 tuition credit. Another way would be to work in an under-served school that needs help. Another way would be to work in an under-served hospital or a homeless shelter, or a veteran's home. The point is, I think it is important for young people to serve."

On September 11, 2008, at Columbia University, then Senator Obama stated:

"But it's also important that a president speaks to military service as an obligation not just of some, but of many. You know, I traveled, obviously, a lot over the last 19 months. And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it's important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some."

For a number of reasons, I personally think this bill will get about as far as Bill H.R. 393 has, if even that. First, and most important, it is against the United States Constitution. Representatives Rangel's recent ethics charges also put a bad light on the bill. Who wants to be associated with a bill introduced by a tax cheat? The taxes the American people would have to pay to support a program of this magnitude would be astronomical. However, the biggest reason being, most people just won't stand for it.

Sources: Library of Congress, Wikipedia, govtrack.us