Just for perspective, I think it should be noted that these bills were introduced more to make a political point than to actually start a draft. Both of those guys are war opponents, and this is just a way to make a statement. Here's what Rangel said from CNN:
"The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices."
"I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility," Rangel said.
"Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country," Rangel said. "For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance." "
Another of their issues is that the people who end up dying in these wars are the poor and minorities. It seems the children of senators and the rich rarely see combat. This bill also would make everyone share in the burdens of war. At the same time, it makes the political point that the Iraq war is NOT being fought by the children of those voting for the war.
The bills were introduced as a protest with full knowledge that they would not pass. This is why Hollings voted against his own bill. They were to force a reflection on the realities of what we're asking of our young people in this war.