ProgressivePunch : (H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $24 million in funding for the Selective Service System, which maintains information on individuals who could potentially be eligible for military conscription (a military draft). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a “continuing resolution, or “CR”) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. : All Members

: : :

To find out how your Members of Congress voted on this bill, use the form on the right.

(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $24 million in funding for the Selective Service System, which maintains information on individuals who could potentially be eligible for military conscription (a military draft). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a “continuing resolution, or “CR”) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

house Roll Call 59 Feb 16, 2011

Progressive Position:	Yea
Progressive Result:	Loss
Qualifies as polarizing?	Yes
Is this vote crucial?	Yes

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) that would have eliminated $24 million in funding for the Selective Service System, which maintains information on individuals who could potentially be eligible for military conscription (a military draft). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a “continuing resolution, or “CR”) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Defazio argued that the Selective Service System no longer served a purpose, given that the U.S. no longer drafted people into the military, and did not intend to do so in the future: “I don't think there are many in this House who believe that we are going to go back to having a draft. The Pentagon doesn't want to go back to a draft. The Pentagon has said time and time and time again they believe in an all-volunteer military; the all-volunteer military is superior to forced enlistment, as in the years of the draft. We're a higher quality, we're using significant incentives to get people to enlist in the military, and we have the best military in the world as a result. So why would we maintain this bureaucracy?”

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) opposed the amendment: “While most would hope that we would never need to use the draft again, I think this agency is an important insurance policy against unforeseen threats. If we eliminate the Selective Service System, it would take us over a year to draft men into military service, whereas now it would take 90 to 120 days. And in any kind of an emergency, wartime situation, this could be disastrous.”

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 130-301. Voting “yea” were 86 Democrats—including a majority of progressives—and 44 Republicans. 196 Republicans and 105 Democrats voted “nay.” As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated $24 million in funding for the Selective Service System, which maintains information on individuals who could potentially be eligible for military conscription (a military draft).

Issue Areas:

HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES — Individual Rights

MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL — Civil Rights

WAR & PEACE — General US Intervention Overseas

Find your Member of
Congress' votes

Select by Name