This thread is an ongoing discussion happening in near real time.

Amy
Today at 11:49am

If you feel as compelled as I did when I found out about this to do something, please email your friends and family, or better yet, call them NOW! Time is of the essence! If you aren't online, the phone numbers for your senators are in the phone book.

Friends,

There is a bill called the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (the GIVE ACT) that is being debated on as we speak in the Senate. It would require our youth aged 17 to 25 to serve the government in any form of the government's choice for three years. They wouldn't be paid and so is considered involuntary service which is supposed to be protected by our 13th Amendment rights. To me it equates to slavery!

[Erik: Read more for my analysis of the bill and Amy's claims.]

If ever there was a time to be proactive, I believe this is it. If we don't stand up for our rights, pretty soon we won't have them. I know it is easy to read this and think you don't have the time to send your senators a note or a phone call, but if they don't hear loud and clear that we don't want this, IT WILL BECOME LAW! Please take a moment to go to www.senate.gov and send your state senators a note about your feelings. If you feel so motivated, also place a call to each one (their number is on the website). If you disagree with this bill, PLEASE take action before it is too late.

Below is the short note that I sent to each of our senators. Feel free to use it as a guide or write a note of your own. Please don't say you'll do this tomorrow as tomorrow may be too late!

I strongly oppose passage of HR 1388, which would require our youth to involuntarily serve the government for three years. Volunteering is fine but when it is mandated it becomes slavery! Isn't that why we fought the Civil War? This goes totally against the 13th Amendment of our Constitution. Vote no on this piece of legislation!

Erik Knepfler
Today at 12:27pm

I skimmed and did some searching of the full text of the bill which you can find here:

http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1388_txt.pdf

I can't find anything to back up the claim that this requires any kind of involuntary service for people age 17-25.

If you can find it, please share and explain, or share links to credible sites who have already done an interpretation matching yours.

If true, I agree it is as serious as you claim, but if it's just a chain letter not based in fact, then it's just wasting everyone's time. My gut leans toward the latter since any kind of involuntary national service program would likely be a political death knell for whoever attempted to introduce it.

After just a few minutes of reading it appears that this is nothing more than a renewal of existing AmeriCorps and similar programs that are purely volunteer-based.
 
Erik Knepfler
Today at 12:48pm

Here's some good info. Some of which backs up what Amy is saying upon cursory glance, but upon deeper review, appears to contradict the notion of forced service as part of the bill.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/25/video-demint-opposes-give-act/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es_59215X-g

http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/03/23/hr-1388-give-act-forces-mandatory-service-requirement-on-all-young-americans/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/house-readies-passage-volunteerism-critics-pricey-forced-service/

Even Fox News, in the article, while pointing out that the bill will involve the creation of a commission that will investigate the possibility of mandatory service, the bill itself absolutely will not change the voluntary nature of service.

Having said all this, as a Democrat myself but who is against excessive government involvement in social programs and unnecessary taxation and sending, I actually agree with R-Jim DeMint on this one. I don't like this bill either, but I wouldn't push the forced service angle as the way to fight it, since it seems misleading (however unintentional).

It seems the recurring issue is constant misinterpretation of the bill, which is simply encouraging service and trying to facilitate, fund and expand it, however misguided and stupid and costly, and YES it is forming a commission to explore the idea of required service but that's quite far from the bill itself requiring service - though admittedly creating small steps that could lead to that. These sensationalist articles literally cite copy that talks about encouraging service and then translates that into forced service being enacted in the bill, as if they didn't really read it at all.
 
Amy
Today at 12:52pm

Erik,

Maybe you don't feel as strongly about an issue as I do, But before you just start throwing accusations on someone maybe you should do a little more research instead of just skimming. I seriously doubt that you read or skimmed all 281 pages of the bill, but I might just be throwing accusations. I feel very strong about my freedom and the freeedom of my children. I have also done research and the bill says that youth betwen the ages of 17 to 25 will have mandatory service for 3 years. Just think you could have spent three years of your life working for the govenment for free. As a business owner, I don't believe you or any or your emploees would like that at all. Part of the text of the bill reads as follows:

(6) Whether 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 and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

Oh by the way, this is not a chain letter, just thought Americans that loved their freedom should be involved with their government.
 
Erik Knepfler
Today at 1:18pm

Amy,

I'm not trying to start a political flamewar. I deal in facts and only facts when doing such analysis, and I've already stated that I am against the bill, so please keep that in mind and let's keep emotions in check. As if I need to be any more clear, I'm against this bill, and I am *also* against mandatory service of any kind.

I simply asked for more information because it concerns me as much as you, if it is true. I'm just like a Mythbuster here - I want to get to the bottom of it.

Here's the section you cited, with some context selected by me (not full context, but some to make it a bit more readable):

SEC. 6103. ESTABLISHMENT.
There is established in the legislative branch a commission to be known as the ‘‘Congressional Commission on Civic Service’’ (in this title referred to as the ‘‘Commission’’).
17 SEC. 6104. DUTIES.
18 (a) GENERAL PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Commission is to gather and analyze information in order to make recommendations to Congress to
(b) SPECIFIC TOPICS.—In carrying out its general
purpose under subsection (a), the Commission shall address and analyze the following specific topics:
(6) Whether 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 and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.
(c) METHODOLOGY.—
(1) PUBLIC HEARINGS.—The Commission shall
conduct public hearings in various locations around
the United States.
(2) REGULAR AND FREQUENT CONSULTATION.—
The Commission shall regularly and frequently consult with an advisory panel of Members of Congress
appointed for such purpose by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the majority leader of
the Senate.

So, to summarize:
1. A commission will be formed
2. It's purpose is to merely gather and analyze information (it cannot mandate service) and make recommendations to congress (for which additional bills will likely be needed)
3. Part of their duty will be to investigate mandatory service
4. They will conduct public hearings all over the US to involve the communities in these evaluations
5. The commission will, presumably, attempt to relay to congress the results of these public hearings, and I doubt most of America would agree to this, and if they do, then so be it, that's how our country works.
6. They will consult with Congress, etc. From the text above and looking at other text nearby, I have read surrounding the section you quoted, they have no real power - they will simply devise recommendations based on the results of these hearings.

I will absolutely grant you that, if the bill passes, it would be harder to stop mandatory service IF that is what the community members attending these committees want. And even if they're only made up Crotchety Old Man War Vet with a lot of time on his hands who think it would be a great idea to send baggy-pants Johnny off to serve his country like he did in Nam, EVEN THEN the result would be a recommendation to Congress, at which point presumably yet another bill would get introduced and voted on to enact mandatory service - which again, I expect would totally fail no matter what the Commission were to recommend.

I hope my analysis has been helpful. You said "the bill says that youth betwen the ages of 17 to 25 will have mandatory service for 3 years." I'm sorry, but I'm still looking for this.
 
Erik Knepfler
Today at 1:29pm

I should add a point I started to make but didn't finish -

If you believe the end result will be that the commission will talk to hundreds of thousands of Americans through public hearings, and that the results of these hearings will result in a recommendation for a bill to enact mandatory service, and you want to avoid that, then fighting this bill to prevent those hearings is leaps and bounds easier than going to the hearings themselves and making yourself heard.
 
Amy
Today at 1:33pm

Erik,
There are a few things I am passiate about, God, My Family and My Freedoms. I have been looking on the bill itself. I did a lot of looking at about 11 o'clock last night and I am unsure of the placement of which the "17 to 25 year old" quote was in the bill. Having two children of my own, I feel that they have every right to choose the charity of their choice, not to be choosen for them. I am a passionate person and wear my thoughts and opinions on my sleeve. Thank you for looking up all the info.
 
Amy
Today at 1:41pm

Erik,
If you look up the bill directly:
SEC. 1311. DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPANTS.

Section 137 (42 U.S.C. 12591) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by striking paragraph (3); and

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively;

(2) in subsection (b)--

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking `paragraph (4)' and inserting `paragraph (3)'; and

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking `between the ages of 16 and 25' and inserting `a 16-year-old out of school youth or an individual between the ages of 17 and 25'; and

(3) in subsection (c), by striking `(a)(5)' and inserting `(a)(4)'.
 
Erik Knepfler
Today at 2:04pm

Now we're talking! :)

The amendments are to 42 U.S.C. 12591, the change referring to ages 17-25 is amending Section 137 subsection (b) paragraph 2. Let's find that in context from the original 42 U.S.C. 12591.

http://www.americorps.gov/help/ac_sn_statute/PART_III_NATIONAL_SERVICE_PARTICIPANTS_SEC_137_42_U_S_C.htm

So:

1. This section already contains "between the ages of 16 and 25", for starters, so this amendment isn't really all that significant of a change - and in fact restricts the group (16-25) to a smaller subset of the group (16 and out of school, or 17-25), however at the same time drops the diploma requirement.

2. 42 U.S.C. 12591 appears to be merely a description of participants, attempting to provide a definition of who is a participant, such as describing that they are a participant if they meet the eligibility requirements, and are selected and so on:

"For purposes of this subtitle, an individual shall be considered to be a participant in a national service program carried out using assistance provided under section 12571 of this title if the individual meets such eligibility requirements, directly related to the tasks to be accomplished, as may be established by the program; [and] (2) is selected by the program to serve in a position with the program; [and other requirements]

The big question now that we must answer is, how is an individual "selected by the program to serve"? My sense is that an individual currently cannot be simply "selected" against their will, but the wording here is in fact referring to selection after an individual has volunteered and is actively seeking a position within the strictly volunteer-based group.

To prove this requires further reading of 12592:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00012592----000-.html

This deals with recruitment, not mandatory or forced selection. It's subject to 12592:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00012635----000-.html

Which basically covers non-discrimination, and the whole thing is in regards to 12571:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00012571----000-.html

Which essentially covers grants to States, subdivisions of States, Indian tribes, public or private nonprofit organizations, and institutions of higher education for the purpose of assisting the recipients of the grant to carry out full- or part-time national service programs.

From what I can tell, the whole "mandatory service" claim just continues to evaporate the further you dig into the laws that this bill actually modifies and the wording itself.

Again, I'd like to add that fighting the bill is going to be easier than fighting the Commission and it's distributed nature to prevent the *possibility* of mandatory service down the road. A lot of work for semantics, I know, but I believe they are important semantics that, if not understood, will ultimately result in a failed attempt to fight the bill by making the claim that it enacts mandatory service when in fact, it doesn't, though it does take steps that *could* lead there.

What a neat discussion! I love analysis and I hope you're having as much fun as me. Makes me feel more like part of the system as opposed to an observer :)

Erik Knepfler
Today at 2:44 PM

@mailgeek (discovered by way of @bob_clark) just posted this on Twitter about it:

http://nearing.newsvine.com/_news/2009/03/25/2600681-mandatory-national-service-corps-bill-clears-senate?commentId=6160564

This article claims that:  

"Section 120 of the bill discusses the "Youth Engagement Zone Program" and states that "service learning" will be "a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency." This part remains in the version passed by the Senate."  The Senate will meet tomorrow morning to formally ratify the bill and finalize amendments. Call your Senator and demand that at least the mandatory language contained in this bill be removed.

Ok, here we go again.  Here's the section in question and my analysis:

‘‘PART III—INNOVATIVE DEMONSTRATION
SERVICE–LEARNING PROGRAMS AND RESEARCH
‘‘SEC. 120. INNOVATIVE DEMONSTRATION SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS AND RESEARCH.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—From the amounts appropriated to carry out this part for a fiscal year, the Corporation may make grants and fixed-amount grants (in accordance with section 129(l)) with eligible entities for activities de scribed in subsection (c).
‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
‘‘(1) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.—The term ‘eligible entity’ means a State education agency, a State Commission, a Territory, an Indian tribe, an institution
of higher education, or a public or private nonprofit organization (including community-based organizations), a public or private elementary or secondary school, a local educational agency, or a consortia of such entities, where a consortia of two or more such entities may also include a for-profit organization.
‘‘(2) YOUTH ENGAGEMENT ZONE.—The term youth engagement zone’ means the area in which a youth engagement zone program is carried out.
‘‘(3) YOUTH ENGAGEMENT ZONE PROGRAM.—The term ‘youth engagement zone program’ means a service learning program in which members of an eligible partnership described in paragraph (4) collaborate to provide coordinated school-based or community-based  service learning opportunities, to address a specificcommunity challenge, for an increasing percentage of out-of-school youth and secondary school students served by local educational agencies where—
‘(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.

Ok, this is the closest we have come to evidence that this bill will result in an increase in mandatory service, even if not enacting it directly in and of itself.

What this section is essentially saying is that the bill will result in increased grants to agencies, schools, organizations and other entities that have or start a youth engagement program in which 90% or more of students partcipate, or mandatory service is part of the curriculum.  But it does not MAKE mandatory service the part of any existing curriculum.

So, I continue to disagree with this bill, but now fully admit there is some merit to the hysteria and now have even more reason to disagree with the bill.  Being against mandatory service, I certainly don't support increased funding of programs and using mandatory service as a requirement to receive such funding, as it would naturally promote the addition of a mandatory service requirement to those programs that don't have a 90% participation rate, and in the eyes of administrators looking for money, implementing such a requirement into their curriculum might suddenly not look like such a bad idea.

While I stand by my claim that this bill does not enact mandatory service into law by any means, I absolutely admit, concede, and I am glad to have been a part of a small group of people attempting to get to the bottom of the "mandatory service" aspect of this bill.