"They" are the authors of the bill. It is implicit in the conversation as we are talking about the bill, why we think it is bad, what they said they wanted, and how they are working towards it with this legislation.1) Who are "they?" Where I'm sitting a bare majority of a Congress dominated by the President's party won't even agree to fund a study on the feasibility of a mandatory service requirement. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. A large majority, however, supports federal support for volunteer programs. I agree with the majority. Federal support for volunteer programs is great. Federal imposition of a mandatory service requirement is a bad thing. But there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can have (as we have had for several decades running) federal support for volunteer programs without mandatory service requirements. That's what this bill does and that's why it's a good thing.
2) I agree with you here. Mandatory service is bad. But that doesn't mean that federal support for volunteer service programs is bad. The bill (which is just to study mandatory service, not to actually impose it) should be debated on its own. If anyone tries to slip it into a Backrub Bill, I'll be right with you opposing it. But again, this is no justification for opposing the long-standing federal practice of supporting volunteer programs.
Please, I added to my last post a bit before I read this one and you may want to read it.
This Bill was bad in 1990, it was bad when Bush used it to try to enforce religious indoctrination, and it is still bad when Ds use it to enforce whatever ideas they wish to enforce.
I oppose the government "support" of such organizations in this manner, and I especially oppose it when it incentivizes "Mandatory" volunteerism in the schools in order to gather some of the funding they desperately need. Just because it is a non-profit doesn't mean it is any better to involve the government in selecting the "winners" and "losers" among private organizations than it is to have the government deciding which companies will gain and which will fail.