PDA

View Full Version : So called "Mandatory public service" H.R. 1388 - Factchecked




Reason
04-03-2009, 06:37 PM
Q: Is Congress creating a mandatory public service system? Are participants not allowed to go to church?
Really needing an article from you guys on this new proposed legislation H.R. 1388 (GIVE Act). I have been getting all kinds of e-mails from people claiming that bill calls for mandatory service and in violation of our 13th amendment , and that I should call my congressman and tell them that this bill is modern day slavery. I have also received e-mails saying that service would still be voluntary and that the bill is just expanding current volunteer opportunities. I have read portions of the bill that I could find and am unable to tell exactly what the bill is calling for (mandatory vs. volunteer service?). There is a lot of confusion out there right now regarding this very important legislation and was hoping you guys could shed some light.

A: The national service bill does not mandate that youth must participate nor does it forbid anyone who does participate from going to church.
Bookmark and Share

We have received several inquiries about this bill, which has passed both the House and Senate with significant bipartisan support. Some e-mails and conservative Web sites say it requires the government to draw up plans for a “mandatory service requirement for all able young people.” Others say the bill forbids participants from attending church.

These claims are false. Neither the House-passed bill nor the Senate-passed version says these things.

H.R. 1388 was introduced in the House on March 9. It passed the House a week later by a vote of 321 - 105, with nearly all Democrats and 70 Republicans supporting it. It passed the Senate on March 26, 79 - 19. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, a cosponsor of the Senate legislation, called it "probably the most bipartisan bill we will see on the Senate floor this year." For the record, 22 Republicans voted yes, and 19 – the only senators who opposed the bill – voted no.

House Republicans who approved of the bill said in the House committee report: "[W]e applaud the inclusion of reforms that Committee Republicans have long championed to ensure that recipients of taxpayer funds are held accountable for results. We are pleased to join with the Majority in supporting bipartisan efforts to strengthen the national service laws and improve service delivery throughout the country."

Called the GIVE Act ("Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act") in the House and the "Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act" in the Senate, the legislation reauthorizes and expands established national service programs including VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) and the National Civilian Community Corps, both of which are AmeriCorps programs. The House bill sets a goal of having 250,000 yearly participants in such programs by 2014; the Senate bill says there should be that many national service positions by 2017. About 75,000 adults participate in AmeriCorps each year now; there are 4 million people total in various national community service programs, according to AmeriCorps.

The act also aims to increase volunteer and public service opportunities, including opportunities for retirees and the Baby Boom generation, and to "support institutions of higher education that engage students in community service activities." It calls for giving students who complete an approved full-time national service job an "educational award having a value equal to the maximum amount of a Federal Pell Grant." AmeriCorps says this would increase the amount its members receive upon completion of service from $4,725 to $5,350, which they can use to pay for school or pay back student loans.

Forced Public Service

Some Internet postings claim the bill says the government must come up with plans for a “mandatory service requirement for all able young people,” but that phrase is nowhere to be found in either the House-passed bill or the Senate version.

The bill as introduced in the House, however, did call for examining whether this would be a good idea. It called for a congressional commission to "address and analyze" several topics, including "issues that deter volunteerism" and how they can be overcome, how expanding international public service might affect diplomacy and foreign relations, and "[w]hether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation." The commission would also investigate "[t]he need for a public service academy, a 4-year institution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focus on training future public sector leaders."

All of that language is now gone. To be clear, the original bill didn't call for a mandatory public service program, but called for the exploration of whether one could be established. But the entire section on creating a "Congressional Commission on Civic Service" was stripped from the bill.

It is part of a separate piece of legislation, introduced on March 11 (two days after H.R. 1388 was introduced) by Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott. H.R. 1444 was referred to a House committee. No other action has been taken on the bill. McDermott introduced a similar bill in 2007 and it died, never making it out of a subcommittee.

Furthermore, Hatch, a Republican cosponsor of the Senate's national service bill, said on the floor of the Senate that nothing in the legislation called for mandatory service:

Hatch, March 23: Consistent with our All-Volunteer Army and volunteer opportunities and individuals' choice in communities, nothing in this legislation is mandatory. This bill simply provides more Americans more choices and opportunities to give back to their neighborhoods and their country all through the means which they freely choose.

The only mention of anything being mandatory in either of the bills passed by the House or Senate is in the definition for "youth engagement zone program." Such a program is eligible for funding under the bill, and it is defined in the House bill as one that provides school-based or community-based "service learning opportunities" in which "(A) not less than 90 percent of the students participate in service-learning activities as part of the program; or (B) service-learning is a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency." That's not a call for making public service mandatory, but rather an explanation of one type of program that can get money under the bill. The Senate bill does not include the word "mandatory," saying instead that "service-learning is a part of the curriculum."

Thou Shalt Not Attend Church

Even though it would be an incredibly draconian law – and a clear violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, upon which this country was founded – Internet postings still claim that under this bill "church attendance [is] forbidden."

The postings, which repeat commentary by the Jonas Clark Ministries, point to section 125, which lists "prohibited activities and ineligible organizations." The section says that those working in national service positions can't engage in partisan politics, union activities or religious instruction. And the language mirrors what AmeriCorps and Senior Corps tell their members about what they can't do while working for those programs.

Specifically, the bill says those in national service positions can't: attempt to "influence legislation"; organize "protests, petitions, boycotts or strikes"; promote "union organizing; engage in "partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office"; and engage in "religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization." That's the House's language, and the wording in the Senate version is nearly identical. The Senate is perhaps more clear in saying "[a]n approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for" all of these activities. In other words, public service activities can't include anything overtly religious or political. And this is nothing new.

The current AmeriCorps handbook tells volunteers much the same thing:

AmeriCorps handbook: There are certain activities, including lobbying, political, or advocacy activities, that you may not perform as an AmeriCorps member. Generally, you may not engage in any conduct that would associate the national service program or the Corporation for National and Community Service with any prohibited activity.

As an AmeriCorps member, you may not:

* engage in any effort to influence legislation, including state or local ballot initiatives or lobbying for your AmeriCorps program; for example, you may not organize a letter-writing campaign to Congress;
* engage in partisan political activities or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office;
* organize or take part in political demonstrations or rallies;
* organize or participate in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; ...
* engage in religious instruction; conduct worship services; provide instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship; construct or operate facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship; maintain facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship; or engage in any form of religious proselytization; or
* provide a direct benefit to a for-profit entity, a labor union, a partisan political organization, or, in general, an organization engaged in the religious activities described in the preceding bullet.

Senior Corps' RSVP (Retired and Senior Volunteer Program) Operations Handbook includes similar language. It prohibits members from using their positions to engage in partisan political activities and stipulates that "volunteers and project staff funded by the Corporation [for National and Community Service] may not give religious instruction, conduct worship services, or engage in any form of proselytization as part of their duties." Organizations that offer religious instruction can continue to do so, but not with government funds. "If an organization conducts such activities, the activities must be offered separately, in time or location, from the programs or services funded under RSVP," the handbook says.

The national service legislation now goes to a Senate-House conference committee to agree upon the language of the final bill.

Update, March 31: The House has approved the Senate version of the bill, and it now will go to President Obama for his signature.

– Lori Robertson
Sources
111th Congress, 1st session. H.R. 1388, as passed by the House.

111th Congress, 1st session. H.R. 1388, as introduced in the House.

111th Congress, 1st session. H.R. 1388, as passed by the Senate.

AmeriCorps. “Senate Passes Historic Bipartisan Expansion of National Service,” press release, 26 March 2009.

111th Congress, 1st session. H.R. 1388 House Report 111-037.

111th Congress, 1st session. H.R. 1444.

111th Congress, 1st session. Congressional Record. S3596, 23 March 2009.

AmeriCorps. “A Guide for AmeriCorps Members.”

Corporation for National & Community Service. “RSVP: Lead with Experience” Operations Handbook, June 2008.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2003 - 2009, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Reason
04-03-2009, 11:42 PM
bump

Captain Bryan
04-04-2009, 02:00 AM
"All of that language is now gone. To be clear, the original bill didn't call for a mandatory public service program, but called for the exploration of whether one could be established. But the entire section on creating a "Congressional Commission on Civic Service" was stripped from the bill."

Am I alone in thinking that this isn't very comforting?

Golding
04-04-2009, 04:22 AM
I'm confused about the purpose of this bill, to be honest. It sounds more or less like it's saying, "You can do volunteer service if you want to". But we already can do volunteer service if we want to. No bills necessary.

freegirl
04-04-2009, 07:28 AM
I'm confused about the purpose of this bill, to be honest. It sounds more or less like it's saying, "You can do volunteer service if you want to". But we already can do volunteer service if we want to. No bills necessary.

Yes, but now you can get PAID to "volunteer". An amount just above whatever the "poverty level" is at the time. Creates a whole new class of people dependent on Uncle Sam, and surely will be used by Barry to help "create or save 3.5 million jobs".

Sarge
04-04-2009, 07:38 AM
Read what Dr. Paul said,

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/950

Then this,

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2009/03/national_service_bill_makes_vo.html

Need to see the final bill wording, as these people are know to slip stuff into bills secretly.

Another 6 Billion to be wasted. If it ends up mandatory, my guess is it will get ugly.

Reason
04-04-2009, 12:02 PM
Yes, don't confuse my posting of fact checking information on a reg basis as trying to discredit anyone, I simply want our movement to be well informed so we can make intelligent decisions on what to stand up against.

I do find it disturbing that there was going to be wording in the first draft to create a commission so this is clearly something to watch.

However we need to make sure we spread awareness without the fear tactics that sites like World Net Daily employ.

euphemia
04-04-2009, 05:17 PM
Well, the big question is, did Congress read the bill before they voted? If they did, why is it their business to "make opportunities" for people to volunteer? For pay?

As far as I understand the deduction on charitable giving is gone, and some of that deduction included expenses incurred while volunteering. I deducted travel expenses, cost of books and uniforms every year during the 20 years I was a leader with a very large volunteer organization. The organization provided help on how to keep records of deductions.

If the gvernment wants people to volunteer, they should have left the incentive to volunteer in the tax code and leave the "opportunities" legislation alone.

euphemia
04-04-2009, 05:35 PM
Still unconvinced that the ultimate goal of this legislation is mandatory service? A quote from the act itself might persuade you. The House version establishes a Congressional Commission tasked with several goals, one of which is to determine "the effect on the nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service." This is nothing less than conscripted labor of American citizens. http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/i..._makes_vo.html


This paragraph pretty much says everything. Like I said, I volunteered for 20 years with a very large organization. There were times when the volunteering totally absorbed our family life as I took on more responsibility. My daughter lived with a mom (me) who had a phone permanently attached to my ear, she was the first one to arrive at meetings, always had to help set up, she also had to help clean up, and she would be the last to leave while parents stayed after to talk to me about this or that, or make excuses why they couldn't help once in a while.

Don't get me wrong. I loved my volunteer experience, and I received more than I ever gave. But there were times when I seriously questioned the worth of the experience. I would not dream of requiring people to take on so much responsibility. If I had it to do over, I would have set more boundaries in my life and would have made my family the highest priority all the time. There were times when my husband and daughter slipped far down the list, and it was not always a good thing.

Drknows
04-04-2009, 05:43 PM
Well, the big question is, did Congress read the bill before they voted? If they did, why is it their business to "make opportunities" for people to volunteer? For pay?

As far as I understand the deduction on charitable giving is gone, and some of that deduction included expenses incurred while volunteering. I deducted travel expenses, cost of books and uniforms every year during the 20 years I was a leader with a very large volunteer organization. The organization provided help on how to keep records of deductions.

If the gvernment wants people to volunteer, they should have left the incentive to volunteer in the tax code and leave the "opportunities" legislation alone.

Congress read a bill? :D The only bill they read is the one with Benjamin Franklin's face on it.

I like how they use the word volunteer to make it look like it wont cost tax payers a dime.

Just think of all the private sector jobs that will be lost in the long run because they have min wage volunteers doing it.

Reason
04-04-2009, 08:32 PM
Congress read a bill? :D

The only bill they read is the one with Benjamin Franklin's face on it.



:D

satchelmcqueen
04-04-2009, 08:42 PM
all i know is, the ultimate goal with this is to make it mandatory and no one will ever convince me other wise. i will not do it and my kids will not be a part of it at all.

Reason
04-04-2009, 08:59 PM
all i know is, the ultimate goal with this is to make it mandatory and no one will ever convince me other wise. i will not do it and my kids will not be a part of it at all.

Just remember that even if you believe that, when bringing this to the attention of others you can't truthfully sell it as an impending doom like WND does.

Instead calmly explain how the mere fact that the committee part was there in the beginning is in your opinion enough to be wary and watchful of any future related action.

angelatc
04-04-2009, 09:03 PM
The mandatory clauses were reintroduced in a separate bill. Google HR 1444.

Reason
04-04-2009, 09:05 PM
The mandatory clauses were reintroduced in a separate bill. Google HR 1444.

Read the entire OP

pcosmar
04-04-2009, 09:30 PM
I question the motives and connections of the debunker.
There is plenty of other plans in progress from both UN and CFR and statements from the Dems. to cause questions.
Not a direct concern for me at my age. I'll watch and see. ;)

Reason
04-04-2009, 09:34 PM
I question the motives and connections of the debunker.
There is plenty of other plans in progress from both UN and CFR and statements from the Dems. to cause questions.
Not a direct concern for me at my age. I'll watch and see. ;)

If you are referring to me when you said "debunker" I think if you read the several replies I have written in this thread that my intentions/motives are clear.

Here, I will quote myself.

I simply want our movement to be well informed so we can make intelligent decisions on what to stand up against.

I do find it disturbing that there was going to be wording in the first draft to create a commission so this is clearly something to watch.

However we need to make sure we spread awareness without the fear tactics that sites like World Net Daily employ.

pcosmar
04-04-2009, 09:41 PM
If you are referring to me when you said "debunker" I think if you read the several replies I have written in this thread that my intentions/motives are clear.

Here, I will quote myself.

I simply want our movement to be well informed so we can make intelligent decisions on what to stand up against.

I do find it disturbing that there was going to be wording in the first draft to create a commission so this is clearly something to watch.

However we need to make sure we spread awareness without the fear tactics that sites like World Net Daily employ.

I was referring to
– Lori Robertson
The debunker. As I said. :rolleyes:

BTW , I had seen that article long before you posted it here.

Reason
04-04-2009, 09:53 PM
I was referring to
– Lori Robertson
The debunker. As I said. :rolleyes:

BTW , I had seen that article long before you posted it here.

Ah okay :)

silverhawks
04-05-2009, 12:59 AM
all i know is, the ultimate goal with this is to make it mandatory and no one will ever convince me other wise. i will not do it and my kids will not be a part of it at all.

Seconded. The day that a government shill turns up on my doorstep demanding my daughter go away to a "campus" to learn how to be a good little citizen is the day I remind them of second amendment rights first hand.

The original bill had the language til concerns were raised, Obama's website had similar language before it was removed because concerns were raised, there are videos on Youtube with Rahm Emanuel talking about mandatory service for all, with mandatory civil defence training (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNKYF5OfwGU). There are only two reasons this language was removed from the bill: a) they didn't expect people to notice it, or b) they are going to re-add it at the point of economic collapse, to "support the country in an emergency".

How exactly do you want to calmly explain to people that the government is formulating plans to rope the entire population into mandatory service?

satchelmcqueen
04-05-2009, 01:06 PM
Seconded. The day that a government shill turns up on my doorstep demanding my daughter go away to a "campus" to learn how to be a good little citizen is the day I remind them of second amendment rights first hand.

The original bill had the language til concerns were raised, Obama's website had similar language before it was removed because concerns were raised, there are videos on Youtube with Rahm Emanuel talking about mandatory service for all, with mandatory civil defence training (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNKYF5OfwGU). There are only two reasons this language was removed from the bill: a) they didn't expect people to notice it, or b) they are going to re-add it at the point of economic collapse, to "support the country in an emergency".

How exactly do you want to calmly explain to people that the government is formulating plans to rope the entire population into mandatory service?

i know people say this alot, but i honestly think this would cause me to really shoot someone.

i have raised my kids according to my own ways and i protect them from anything i dont agree with as any parent should.

simply put, my kids have asked a time or two if they could go to summer camp because their friends got to go. now most summer camps arent bad, but i just dont like the ideal of my kids being away from me and my home for extended periods of time and without my eye being on them....in a good way, not a hitler controlling way....

so what makes the gov think im gonna send my son and daughter to a camp or campus, whatever they decide to call it, when i wont even let them go to summer camp? they are crazy if they think me or most will do as they say on this matter, and i think the need to be aware of what they will cause if they make me comply.

heck, when they spend the night with some of thier school friends, me and my wife always talk to the friends parents first to get a feel for how the family situation is. you have to look out for them.

and the way the gov runs things anyway, i would be more worried of rape, abuse and all sorts of things that would probably be going on in these government camps for this program.

bottom line...my kids aint going. if they try and take them, well, i guess ill finally get to see if im as crazy as i imagine sometimes.

dont mess with a bears cubs, dont mess with a ducks ducklings, dont mess with a parents kids.


edit: from nov of last year until now IIRC, i have read the wording on obamas site about this bill. yes it did indeed say the first time that this would be mandatory for all ages, not just school kids. they have reworded it many times since then. people better get it into their skulls that this is real and this is their goal. we need to tell every parent and grand parent about this bill and its goal. ive already posted about this in my local news paper, so ild like to ask any one whos willing to do the same. just state what this is about and provide the link to obamas site. simple enough.

jmdrake
04-06-2009, 08:25 AM
A: The national service bill does not mandate that youth must participate nor does it forbid anyone who does participate from going to church.
Bookmark and Share
....
These claims are false. Neither the House-passed bill nor the Senate-passed version says these things.


Alex Jones, seen as many as a "fearmongerer", has pointed out repeatedly that there are multiple versions of the bill. I'm not sure what WND said because I don't read that on a daily basis. But the message is, or at least should be, that the attempt to put a mandatory service component into the bill is bad enough and it shows where these people ultimately want to go. The problem is not just with how the bill is today. What happens a year from now once people get better acclimated with the idea and the government decides to push it further?



Thou Shalt Not Attend Church

Even though it would be an incredibly draconian law – and a clear violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, upon which this country was founded – Internet postings still claim that under this bill "church attendance [is] forbidden."

The postings, which repeat commentary by the Jonas Clark Ministries, point to section 125, which lists "prohibited activities and ineligible organizations." The section says that those working in national service positions can't engage in partisan politics, union activities or religious instruction. And the language mirrors what AmeriCorps and Senior Corps tell their members about what they can't do while working for those programs.

Specifically, the bill says those in national service positions can't: attempt to "influence legislation"; organize "protests, petitions, boycotts or strikes"; promote "union organizing; engage in "partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office"; and engage in "religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization." That's the House's language, and the wording in the Senate version is nearly identical. The Senate is perhaps more clear in saying "[a]n approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for" all of these activities. In other words, public service activities can't include anything overtly religious or political. And this is nothing new.


Ummm....wrong. It's all a matter of interpretation. The text of the bill says that those who are a part of these volunteer programs cannot lead religious services. That is DIFFERENT from saying the programs themselves can't be religious. The question of whether a volunteer can engage in religious or political activities on his own time is left up to interpretation. And the fact that it's not "new" doesn't make it kosher. The program is being radically expanded.



The current AmeriCorps handbook tells volunteers much the same thing:


Another reason to get rid of AmeriCorps.

euphemia
04-06-2009, 09:12 AM
Alex Jones, seen as many as a "fearmongerer", has pointed out repeatedly that there are multiple versions of the bill. I'm not sure what WND said because I don't read that on a daily basis. But the message is, or at least should be, that the attempt to put a mandatory service component into the bill is bad enough and it shows where these people ultimately want to go. The problem is not just with how the bill is today. What happens a year from now once people get better acclimated with the idea and the government decides to push it further?



This is exactly the point. This is not something Congress should touch with a ten foot pole. Not with two ten foot poles. And do you notice that the most controversial bills are the ones that keep morphing into the same crap with a different number slapped on in? This is nothing but a smoke screen so that when we write Congressman Idiot and say, "Please don't vote for BS 1490," they go, "Okay." And we feel good, email all our friends and go relax. Then Congressman Idiot turns right around and vote for BS 1732 which essentially says the same thing and maybe has some other worse crap attached to it.