U.S. Congress - H.R.1388 GIVE Act
H.R.1388 - GIVE Act
A bill entitled "The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws." view all titles (14)
All Bill Titles
- Short: Serve America Act as enacted.
- Short: Serve America Act as passed senate.
- Popular: The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act as introduced.
- Short: GIVE Act as passed house.
- Short: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act as passed house.
- Short: Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act as reported to house.
- Short: GIVE Act as reported to house.
- Short: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act as reported to house.
- Official: A bill entitled "The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws." as amended by senate.
- Short: GIVE Act as introduced.
- Official: To reauthorize and reform the national service laws. as introduced.
- Short: Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act as introduced.
- Popular: GIVE Act as introduced.
- Short: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act as introduced.
Bill's Views
- Today: 436
- Past Seven Days: 2,799
- All-Time: 257,475
10%
Users Support Bill
227 in favor / 2072 opposed
Write Your
Representative
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed ?
What's this?
OpenCongress comment boards are an open forum for discussion. Let's build public knowledge about Congress together, so please keep the discussion civil -- no harsh language, subject to our community Comment Policy. Do not post any information here (for example, your name or email) that you do not wish to be public.
Filter Comments to a Rating of at least
What's this?
The Ratings Filter allows you to determine how many user comments to view on pages here on OpenCongress. Setting the filter higher (towards 10) allows you to see only the comments rated "most helpful" by users, while setting the filter lower (towards 0) allows you to see more comments on a page.
Displaying 1-30 of 463 total comments.
Filtered Comment [show]
There is no language of mandatory service in this bill. The programs it supports get members through an application and screening process, just like a typical job.
Filtered Comment [show]
As a person against this bill, I would like to state that I understand the intention of this bill. I have been watching this issue since President Obama mentioned his desire to provide a "service" program from before his election. I even read his entire proposal on his own website, which has since been altered.
You are exactly correct. This version is only the beginning.
Anyone who is not opposed to this bill, and especially those whom view the Constitution of the United States as outdated (more propaganda, as is that there is a difference between the 2 parties), need to do a bit of research into the history of Hitler and his Brownshirts. There is a wise saying which stands the test of time because it is periodically forgotten, and always to the detriment of free people – Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This bill is an oxymoron to the definition of volunteering. Promoted by historically tested propaganda, the true intentions of the bill is none other than to indoctrinate the younger generation into a collectivist mindset, and then channeling their time and effort into projects approved by the state.
Not to mention the fact that it will cost us $5.7 BILLION. AND that there are provisions for special considerations for various minority groups. Ridiculous, bloated legislature from the Dems. Incredible.
You have got to be kidding me.... I work for an urban fire department that has a community based public education program. This bill allows me to give high school students an opportunity to recieve scholarships for college if they volunteer over the summer. This translates to students partnering with a public agency to teach children safety principles. This creates a community program with very small tax implications on the local level, and encourages higher education and volunteerism.
What a great tool for local government to tap into. We aren't forcing teens to serve our agenda... We're offering an opportunity for them to build a resume, pay for college, and get some real life experience. We get low cost help, have a captive audience for recruiting, and involve the entire community in our education program.
Comparing this opportunity for your community to Hitler programs is ridiculous.
foolish statement ....i AM agaist this bill and no it is not because i don't understand...of course i know (we ) KNOW THAT americorps exisit..they recruit at our local mall...they give us test in high school to recruit ...of course they exsist... Im against war and more goverment.
momobetta- Children can volunteer and learn safety principles without incurring more debt and burden on those few who shoulder heavy tax burdens already- just another creative way to get a handout!!!!
Anyone who is not opposed to this bill, and especially those whom view the Constitution of the United States as outdated (more propaganda, as is that there is a difference between the 2 parties), need to do a bit of research into the history of Hitler and his Brownshirts. There is a wise saying which stands the test of time because it is periodically forgotten, and always to the detriment of free people – Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This bill is an oxymoron to the definition of volunteering. Promoted by historically tested propaganda, the true intentions of the bill is none other than to indoctrinate the younger generation into a collectivist mindset, and then channeling their time and effort into projects approved by the state. Take off your rose-colored glasses before you study this bill. It’s utterly frightening!
Take off your rose-colored glasses before you study this bill. It’s utterly frightening! Public education (our government schools) has groomed over two generations of brainwashed teachers now unknowingly passing the ‘collective/submissive’ propaganda down to today’s children. If you are still not convinced that a dictatorialship is knocking at the front door, google: ‘fbi spied tea party’, ‘dhs right-winged terrorists’, ‘miac retracts report’, ‘Lt Colonel Allen West on Michael Savage’, ‘pavlov conditioning education’, ‘who owns the media’. You must search for the truth, which now a days is very hard to accept or believe because it is just so Orwellian!
Why have the first few comments in opposition to this bill been removed? There was nothing innappropriate in them.
That is a good question, really. I'm guessing because they make accusations that people are communists or that they advocate slavery. I'm not sure how moderation on here works though.
What about section 6104..."(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable MANDATORY SERVICE requirement for all able young people could be developed..." [emphasis mine] Read the bill!
Are we reading the same bill, H.R.1388, the GIVE Act?
I find no "6104" and nothing about a "mandatory requirement".
If you look at the bill in the Library of Congress record, you will see that the bill was introduced in the House with Title VI; Sec 6104 (Duties). It specifically outlines the author's interest in MANDATORY SERVICE. It was struck before being voted on. Things that make you go hmmmmmm.
Yeah. Maybe we should remove this unpopular provision and let it have a stand-alone vote. "Hmmm."
What a wacky concept! You've discovered the ultimate conspiracy theory: A separate vote for this provision. Yikes! Alert the media!
While it is true that this language was struck from THIS BILL, if you look in HR 1388, SEC. 4, (b), (6)... Hmmm that language sounds oddly familiar... oh that's right, ITS THE SAME LANGUAGE, just in a different bill. My guess is that HR 1388 was taking too much flak, so they decided to abandon this language and instead try to sneak it by as a separate, much more focused bill.
That's a good illustration of bipartisan government finding a happy medium with this bill. It's nothing to be enraged about. It was in there at the beginning, but removed as both sides hashed it out. America is pretty cool that way.
Momobetta; apparently you believe in Nancy Pelosi's definition of "bipartisan". Did you look at the vote. Bipartisan under the current administration means Nancy and Harry are supposed to jam it down the throat of our citizens until they gag.
I see this as the Federal Government getting just as stupid as California's government and running the country into the ground. Let's just declare anarchy and give it all to the illegals and let the productive people pay for it all---if they don't get the courage to leave or fight!
Why aren't Democrats OR Republicans interested in RESPONSIBLE government?
I just read the "passed" verision, check again, it's there.
Are you seriouse? Send me that link.
They are getting there. Sometimes in writing Bills they have to lay the ground work. Another layer of this bill you might wnat to look at is H.R.1444.
It is to set up a commission to study how they can make national service and other purposes a mandated service.
And don't worry they have included as part of their studies, awareness development by creating, expanding, and promoting these service options, which they want to make mandatory, to include Primary and Secondary school students.
There is no section 6104. Read the bill is right! Take your own advice.
How about section 120(3)(b)
‘(B) service-learning is a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.
The federal government has already 'educated' our children from 1st in the world down to 24th since the inception of the Department of Education.
Now they're trying to screw up our kids even more. When is enough going to be enough!
Filtered Comment [show]
Filtered Comment [show]
Too bad it may violate the 13th amendment. Read the constitution:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
IMO this constitutes involuntary servitude.
Moderated Comment