83
ASSOCIATED PRESS
House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin spoke during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, today, following a House Republican caucus meeting.
WASHINGTON » Buckling under conservative pressure, the Republican-led House Rules Committee pulled a legislative sleight of hand and stripped a provision from the annual defense policy bill that would have required women between the ages of 18 and 25 to sign up for a military draft.
The committee’s chairman, Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, said in a statement today the action was taken to prevent what he called a “reckless policy” from moving forward without closer study of its impact.
“I have the utmost respect and deepest appreciation for the young women who bravely volunteer to serve our country, but I am adamantly opposed to coercing America’s daughters to sign up for the Selective Service at 18 years of age,” Sessions said.
The Rules Committee wields substantial influence over legislation before it moves to the House floor. The full House planned to start work on the bill today. A Senate bill does include a version of the provision, so the congressional debate over whether women should register isn’t over.
Conservatives have warned that requiring women to sign up for a military draft is a dangerous blurring of gender lines.
Pressed about the Rules panel’s change in the defense bill, Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., declined at a news conference to comment, deferring to the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas. Thornberry said a broader discussion of whether the nation even needs the Selective Service at a time of the all-volunteer force might be necessary.
“The question is, do we need Selective Service?” Thornberry said. “We want to make decisions with the facts on hand.”
Military leaders maintain the all-volunteer force is working and do not want a return to conscription. The U.S. has not had a military draft since 1973, in the waning years of the Vietnam War era. Still, all men between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to register.
“It’s what a man’s got to do,” says the Selective Service System’s website. The Selective Service is an independent federal agency.
The House Armed Services Committee last month voted 32-30 to require women to register. Six Republicans voted in favor of adding the provision to the defense policy bill that authorizes military spending for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
The move was triggered by the Pentagon’s decision late last year to open all front-line combat jobs to women. After gender restrictions to military service were erased, the top uniformed officers in each of the military branches expressed support during congressional testimony for including women in a potential draft.
“The chiefs are entitled to their opinion and I am too,” Sessions said.
Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the Armed Services Committee’s top Democrat, decried the Rules Committee’s decision to reverse the vote, calling it “a dead-of-night attempt to take an important issue off the table.”
Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., a member of the Armed Services Committee, also disagreed with the move. He said he and most other lawmakers didn’t find out about what the Rules Committee had done until this morning.
Coffman has advocated disbanding the Selective Service, which he said would save taxpayers $23 million a year.
“We have a choice to make: Either we continue with Selective Service and have women be a part of it or we abolish it altogether. I’m for abolishing it altogether,” Coffman said.
The Senate Armed Services Committee voted last week to include a draft registration requirement for women in its version of the annual defense policy bill. That measure calls for women to sign up with the Selective Service within 30 days of turning 18 — just as men are — beginning in January 2018, according to a summary of the legislation released by the committee.
If the draft requirement makes it through the full Senate, then the issue will have to be settled by a House-Senate conference committee.
“Either we continue with Selective Service and have women be a part of it or we abolish it altogether” — Coffman is right. These are the only two real options. As it is right now, there is deliberate discrimination against men or women (depending on how you look at it) that is no longer justified due to the changing rules on women in combat positions. The rest of the GOP is behind times and out of touch with reality.
agree..as a Mandan female, I am fine with women registering. EquaLITY calls for it. A Texas republican Congressman with contempt for equality is an embarrassment to all women. Make us all register. Perhaps that will ensure we don’
ty rush into any more silly wars which we lose badly. We actually have not won a war since World War II. We just do not do ti well.
Still claiming to be a female? As Abraham Lincoln once said; “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time”.
Way to stick with the issue, living…I didn’t know this was a middle school social media board
A true sign of gender equality is when this country is willing to risk sending both its daughters and sons in large numbers to conflicts and accept them back in body bags. It is embarrassing that the Soviet Union has beat us to this measure decades ago. Also, perhaps if America’s daughters were on the line, our politicians would be less gung-ho on getting us into conflicts?
I agree we either make both genders sign up, or we end it entirely.
exactly! When females have to go to war many parents will vote against war. This could save America from more loss of life and treasure. Don’t let Bush fool you again: We lost in Iraq and Afghanistan and are still losing today.
You obviously come from the Obama position that a weak America makes the world safer. I don’t think China and Russia bought in to that way of thinking. Much of Europe thought like you after WWI which led to Hitler being able to gain momentum before they could stop him from starting WWII.
If you’re actually such a proponent of across the board equality, then why should having “daughters” available for war affect the decision?
hawaiikone, I’ll up the ante. Any conflict authorized by Congress or the Executive Branch must include, in the vanguard, the child or children of the Executive branch including cabinet members and Congress members. They love sending other peoples’ children to die for them, so let’s force them to put their own children in harm’s way. If the conflict is vital, they will risk their own.
AhiPoke, can you read? Nothing you said logically concludes from Allie’s post. Nothing. Second, China and Russia have no problem sending their children to die unnecessarily. Putin sent hundreds to perish to distract his people from Russia’s decline. You want to emulate that?
And Hitler rose for a variety of reasons. You don’t seem to have even the most basic grasp of post WWI history, especially the economics of the time. Rather than apply your raging out of control egotistical views, you should instead look at what existed at the time.
Choyd, I’m mentally shaken, as we totally agree. I was sent to war many years ago, and don’t recall many “Senator’s sons” along for the ride..
hawaiikone, the difference between me and your group is that I’m not a rabid Obama hater. Disappointed in him, but hardly a hater. Your friends here let that color their views and thus distort things in ways that make them look, well, insane.
Take a step back from your emotional views and let the facts fill the gaps. You can dislike what Obama has done without hating him. And you can give him credit for things you agree with rather than flip flopping on positions like Winston does. There were many things I did not agree with that the Bush Administration did, but I have no hesitation at praising W for the things I think he did right.
And one thing I noticed is that certain people here have really poor understanding of the civics of the US. They simply do not understand what branch does what and the extent and limits of their power.
This election in particular is frightening as Republicans are backing a nominee who openly campaigns to attack the Bill of Rights. It’s messed up to see people declare they want to defend Freedom by stopping Hillary and in the process vote for Trump who has attacked at least 5 different civil rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. As much as one may dislike Hillary, she hasn’t campaigned as a reason to elect her, to restrict your freedom of speech, assembly, press among others. I can see why strict constitutionalists like Ben Sasse would rather suffer through Hillary than support Trump who has promised to attack our very civil rights.
Ultimately, I think many of us, including myself, often need to recheck our perspectives and stop letting our emotions run rampant.
For someone that has reminded us rather often that you shouldn’t be pegged a particular way by a comment, I’m surprised to see you’d do exactly that to me, apparently based on your perception rather than on this particular comment. I’ve never been a Obama “hater”, but will not hesitate to point out where I feel he’s been wrong. Those blaming him for everything are no more ridiculous than those blaming him for nothing. I suspect we’ll hear for many years to come, “it’s Barry’s fault”, which will be no less ludicrous than the never-ending complaint that “Bush did it”.
hawaiikone, have you seen your posts? You’re not as bad as Winston, but you’re hardly a non-resident of the partisan woods. The fact that you are surprised you agree with me is a sign you aren’t as objective as you think you are. I’ve long recognized that Obama and Bush are very similar, how many of the Obama haters here have done that?
What have you ever praised Obama for?
Choyd, were I able to recollect even one post in which you so dramatically insulted a Bush detractor as you so regularly do our resident Obama bashers, then I might concede your having a higher level of objectivity. Pouncing so often as you do in only one direction tends to reveal an equal level of partisanship. And I certainly don’t equate you with a “boots” or the like. Considering that, can we agree that while we both apparently hover closer to the middle rather than the extremes, it appears I’m a touch more right while you prefer easing more left? With respect to Obama, I have remarked on both his intelligence and oratorical skill, but remain concerned with how he perceives America’s future.
I find it interesting that I rarely see feminist wade in on this matter, like they do about equal pay. If anything, after it was determined that women can be sent to combat, it has become more a debate, between women, about the appropriateness of that. IMO, on average, I think women are less able to prevail in hand to hand combat but would probably do okay in less physical positions. The question is then, is it fair to discriminate as to the positions women and men can have?
Ridiculous notion that women can fight in the frontline. Yes there are exceptions, but have you seen a cross sex pro MMA or boxing match, it just will not happen no matter how PC you want to be.
totally mute point for selective service. only 30 percent of appropriate age ranged americans even qualify for military service. Not qualifying for being overweight, out of shape, unable to pass standardized test, criminal records, mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse and other medical issues. Now that I think about it prolly only 10 percent in Hawaii would qualify for military service. If you are so bent out of shape about not being able register than just man up and enlist or go to a military academy or ROTC and become an officer. Those you are pissed they have to register? No worries…… Very high probability you won’t make the grade for minimum standards to even get in. ZERO point FOUR, as in 0.4% of the american population is serving on active duty. We see military all the time around hawaii so we think everyone is in the military. Fact is hardly anyone serves in the american armed forces. While the complainers keep on whining either side of the issue, only a few have the balls or vagina to actually serve their country. The only way to make if fair is to make ALL young peeps do compulsory service for two years or so in military service. Allie’s two favorite countries, cuba and north korea already have compulsory service for women. We could get all the hawaii H.S. grads military type uniforms and put them to work on the rail. win, win or whine,whine??? you make the call.