Transcripts For CSPAN3 National Commission On Military National And Public Service Forum Day... 20240714

Ways tonight courage military, national, and Public Service from all americans. This panel looks at whether women should be required to register for military draft and whether they should serve in combat rolls. The National Commission on military, national and Public Service hosted this event. Good morning, and welcome to the third public hearing on Selective Service on military, national and Public Service. The purpose of this hearing is to address an important question, should Selective Service registration be expanded to include all americans. In 2016, the commission was created amid a debate over whether the requirement for Selective Service registration should be extended to women after military combat roles were open to women in 2015. Congress charged us to answer two very important questions. First, does our country have a continuing need for a military selective system. If so, whether the Current System requires modifications. Second, how can we as a nation create an ethos of service and increase participation in military, national, and Public Service. The first question is the reason we are here this morning. The four hearings we are holding, two yesterday and two today, provide an opportunity to discuss the policy options the commission is considering with respect to the Selective Service system and a potential future draft. Yesterdays hearings focused on the Strategic Security environment and potential requirements for Selective Service and the nation to meet those needs, along with potential modeny indications to the modifications to the system that might be used to support National Mobilization beyond current levels of the all volunteer force. Our two hearings today will provide us the opportunity to discuss who should defend the nation in a potential future draft. Yesterdays hearings focused on the Strategic Security environment and potential requirements for Selective Service and the nation to meet those needs. Prof ir of philosophy and ethics at southern theological baptist seminary, marine corps veteran an writing. Ed hasbrook of registers. Info. Author of sex scandal, the drive to abolish male and female and committee on National Legislation. Thanks for joining us. Id like to turn to advice chair for military service deb what wada for opening statement. Thank you. As vice chair for military service i have the honor leading Selective Service, system and military service for the commission. When it comes to Selective Service, military service, we found a commonality. Very few understand either. We found Many Americans do not understand the requirement to register or the purpose of the Selective Service system. The Selective Service system exists and is active. Most register for Selective Service when they apply for drivers license or federal Financial Aid. Approximately 75 of men who register as a byproduct of state or federal requirement. Register is the law. If a man fails to register, there are ramifications such as not receiving federal Financial Aid or being able to attain a federal job. A court case this year all male draft registration is unconstitutional. In addition a federal court in new jersey is handling a second Court Case Involving women and Selective Service i should an opinion denying core parts of the governments motion to dismiss. In oscar versus goldberg, a male only registration will is justified because women are ineligible for combat roles. As we now know that has changed. It wont speed up the time line releasing the final report. However, the decision will make the work more important. Considering the need for the program in its current form, if any changes should be made or be established. Some of the policy options include expanding the registration to include women, identify individuals who possess Critical Skills the nation might need. Calls in times of emergency with existing data registration base and incorporating reasonable change to identify, evaluate and protect those who will not serve in the military. We look forward to hearing from panelists today on this important issue. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield. Thank you, debra. Before we begin, id like to remind everyone to silence Electronic Devices you might have and ill explain how we conduct todays hearing. The commissioners have received your written testimony and it will be entered into the official record. We ask you summarize the highlights of your testimony in the allotted five minutes. Before you will see our timing system. When the light turns yellow you have approximately one minute remaining and when it turns red, your time has expired. After all testimony is completed, we will move into questions from commissioner. Each commissioner will ask a question and receive a response. As commissioners know not reluctant to gavel them down if we run over five minutes. Depending on time, well proceed with one, maybe two rounds of questions. On completion of questions, we will provide opportunity for members of the public in attend sans to offer comments, either on the specific topic did or the commissions overarching mandate. These comments will be limited to two minutes. The light will turn yellow when you have 30 seconds remaining and red when time expires. Were ready to begin with the panelists testimony and id like to begin with dr. Coppen ger. Thank you. I appreciate the chance to speak. In 1969, a number of cadets gathered in front of the television in the dorm. We had already signed up. Wed been to fort sill for basics and Branch Schools in ft. Benning. There was vietnam lottery. Our interest was academic at that point but curious. Our found out i was 95, and they took 195. So that was that. If someone said im number 120, if they just take the women in the dorms across campus, i wouldnt have to go. We would have thought that absurd and shameful. I dont know we knew the vander procedures speech. Had we done it we would Say Something like we hold our manhood cheap and consider ourselves cursed with women on the macon dealt. It was unthinkable. Four decades later Southern Baptist passed a resolution entitled on women register for the draft. Southern baptist largest protestant did he nomination with 37,000 churches and 15 million members. They appealed beginning whereas god created male and female with specific and complementary characteristics. There is overlap but a notion of men and women created differently. We also went on to say that we appreciate the Service Women in the military. I worked for and beside women at the office of chief of Public Affairs in the pentagon, whiches it was an excellent experience. We talked about differences, gender differences, survivability, lethality. The point is to maintain a fighting force and promote common defense and ensure National Security and its not to undertake social engineering i use this in class sometimes. Let me do a demonstration here. If i wanted this article on the right hand column, i can just do this and take it right along. No problem there. But say i want this along the bottom. So ill just im not doing this on purpose. It really does that. And it goes to the side. Now i can force it to go this way. I can go like this, slowly, creek, creek, creek. You can get the line you want if youre determined enough. But there is a grain to the newspaper. There is a grain to paper. And theres a grain to the created order. Theres a grain to nature, if you will. And at your own peril, you defy that. And i would suggest to you that drafting women, registering for the draft, is forcing things. And it goes contrary, i would say, to the order of nature. Thats what we have held as a denomination. Now, please dont think this is a narrowly Southern Baptist operation or, you know, conviction. As you go around the world, you find majority catholic countries, ireland, italy, orthodox countries, greece, romania, hindu, nepal, hindu thailand, muslim, saudi arabia, indonesia, turkey. Down the line, they dont draft women. So this isnt a narrowly parochial thing. They are picking up on something that we picked up on. And by the way, in historically atheistical france after the french revolution, its the france of kundersay and voltaire and russo and it goes on and on and on. These are serious atheist folks who have set the tone in france in many ways. They dont draft women either. So please understand, there are there are exceptions. Mozambique and north korea and norway has recently. There is a handful, but thats not the norm. And im suggesting that people are picking up on Something Different there. A couple weeks ago, we were at camp lejeune, and my son my eldest son retired as a marine officer. Served two tours in iraq. And he had the chance to Say Something. And he spoke some words of commendation to his mother. And he said, i thank my mother for teaching me discipline. I thought i had something to do with it, but apparently she was the one. And actually, he could have gone on to pick up on all the marine standards. In terms of justice and initiative and tact and the whole list of leadership qualities. So my wife did not serve in the military, but she served the military. And mothers do that. When i was working at ocar, chief of army reserve, i learned way back around world war i, they started giving small arms ammunition to the boy scouts. And i dont know how long that continued, whether it still continues. But the point was, guys were showing up for basic training without knowing what to do with a rifle. So at least you teach guys that we meet at boot camp how to hold one of these things. Mothers similarly teach the basics to prepare. So they are definitely serving in the military. Were not talking about consigning women to hearth and home. Were talking about those who would consign them away from hearth and home. Very quickly, let me just say, my daughter is here. Thank you for inviting me to washington. She lives very close. And she brought her four daughters. And so on you guys stand up real quick. This is totally out of line, i know. But tessa and agnes and ruth and dorothy. And lois. Let me say this. She was an intern at labor. She worked as an assistant at state. I mean, at justice. She was offered a job with the institute on Library Museums and library services. She was offered a job in Public Affairs at the white house. And she had a full ride in the Doctorate Program at georgetown in political philosophy. And she said, i want to be a mother. I want to raise these kids. I just want them to have the freedom not to be conscripted away from that, should they choose, as my daughter did. Im sorry for running over. Thats okay. Thank you, doctor. Thank you. Ms. Eden. Chairman heck and vice chairs and commissioners, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this important issue today. Were here today because congress did not do a commission on opening combat units to women. That policy decision was made by the obama administration, contrary to the precedent of congress having oversight over military policy. There was no on the record debate on the many negative consequences, both potential and realized, of that policy, including that it would expose americas daughters to being drafted for combat. Nor was there a vote for which our representatives could be held accountable. Drafting women includes the same damaging impacts as putting them in combat units. And while we always need men to fight for the nation, there is no military need to draft women. Moreover, such a policy would harm our ability to fight and win in a crisis, and would reap more harm than necessary on those fighting for us. Having equal rights as american citizens does not mean that everyone is required to do the same thing in military defense of the nation. That women who volunteer for military service can now be assigned to combat units doesnt make drafting them good policy. In 1971, the Supreme Court held that drafting men only was appropriate and constitutional, because, quote, congress was entitled in the exercise of its constitutional powers to focus on the question of military need rather than equity. The purpose of the draft today is the same as it was expressed by the senate in 1980, to induct combat replacements during a largescale National Emergency. It is not to fill desk jobs or support units. It is to replace the men who are dying by the thousands in the very front of the fight. At the front of the fight there is no push button war. Our combat units are still fighting house to house, rooftop to rooftop, and cave to cave. They are still fighting with their bare hands when the gun jams or the ammo runs out. And they are fighting cold sober against bloodthirsty savages who are often hopped up on methamphetamines, making them even more difficult to kill. Even if we change the scope of the draft to include military all military occupations, men would still be assigned the majority of highrisk jobs. If were approaching this from a standpoint of equity, that is unfair, as would be including anything less than 50 women and 50 men. But the draft, like the militarys mission, isnt about equal rights. It is solely about the needs of the military to win at war when everything is on the line. One aspect in particular makes drafting women a losing proposition with negative returns. The wide disparity in womens injury rates. Active duty military women average two to ten times the injuries compared to military men. These rates have been constant over decades, despite our advancements in training methods and medicine and nutrition. Here are three stats for you. A survey of one of the armys striker brigade combat teams that deployed to afghanistan in 2012 found that 58. 8 of women versus 21. 4 of men were injured. The american journal of Sports Medicine reported that, quote, risk of acl injury associated with military training is almost 10 times higher for women than for men. A sex blind study by the British Military found that women were injured seven times more often than men while training to the same standards. These are the stats on military women who maintain high Fitness Standards and physical training demands. How is it fair to draft women for combat replacements when these are the facts. And more importantly, how would this enhance our lethality against our enemies. Very fit women on military standards are injured at such higher rates, drafting civilian women would mean even higher turnover, diminish combat effectiveness, more casualties and fewer of both men and women coming home alive. It would hinder our ability to fight effectively and win in the kind of largescale war for which the draft is designed to provide. Physically qualifying equal numbers of women to military combat standards would also create a massive and expensive bureaucratic nightmare, just when we need to mobilize quickly. For at best about a 25 yield compared to 75 for men. Imagine sifting through millions of young women to find the tiny few who will qualify by minimal standards, yet still have up to ten times the potential injury rate. There is also a wide gap in physical performance between men and women, and this is true in every physically demanding sport, and just as consistently true in the military. There are some exceptionally athletic women, and we absolutely want them to volunteer for our military, but they are not the norm. The military must operate based on averages, not anomalies, because it must dependably produce a steady stream of combatready personnel. Inequality of risk is another critical factor in this debate. Women face greater hazards in combat zones than men do, even when they are not in combat roles. And there is no mitigating these risks. In addition to Health Concerns that men dont face, women are highervalue targets for capture, torture, rape and propaganda. We all know about Jessica Lynch and shoshana johnson, who were captured, held hostage and tortured early in the iraq war. In the fall of 2005, i was on daily convoys to the outskirts of fallujah top stand checkpoint duty with the marine corps infantry and our job was to frisk people for explosives. Our command warned us that the enemy was known to target women, and this was a lesson they had learned in blood a few months before. On june 23rd, a [ inaudible ] well, a convoy was attacked on june 23rd that was specifically targeting women. American women have always volunteered to serve during war time, and this commission would be welljustified in deciding that the little to no return on investment and much higher risk in damage would not be worth the administrative burden, nor the great expense in time, effort, personnel and taxpayer dollars. Drafting women would be expensive, inefficient and will not improve our military readiness and lethality in a national crisis. Thank you very much. This commission was formed because of two problems with Selective Service. First, that noncompliance has made draft registration unenforceable, and second, that the opening of combat assignments to women has made it unconstitutional. That leaves you with four options. One, do nothing. And allow the courts to end draft registration. While i and other opponents of the draft would welcome this outcome, it would lead to prolonged litigation and uncertainty as to which administrative penalties still apply to those who didnt register. Two, shut down the Selective Service system and repeal the sanctions for nonregistration. This is the simplest and cheapest solution and the one i recommend. Three, rescind the order opening combat assignments to women. Some others may support this option, but i am doubtful that now that a court has found that maleonly registration is unconstitutional, it will be so easy to get that finding reversed, especially if a draft would be used to fill assignments still open to women. Four, double down on the failure of draft registration for men by trying to expand it to women, as well. To understand why trying to expand registration to women would fail, let me walk you through what would happen if a draft were attempted based on the current database. The Selective Service system considers anyone who has ever registered at any address to be in compliance. There are inducements to register, but none of these do anything to get men to notify the Selective Service system of address changes and few do. Most induction notices would either be returned as undeliverable or delivered to registrants parents. Many would refuse to sign or destroy it to protect their child against being drafted. Because theres a specific intent element in the military Selective Service act, it would be necessary to give actual notice to each draftee before they could be prosecuted, which would require sending fbi agents to track down each suspect and give them a last chance to comply. Since abandoning its brief experiment in show trials in some of the most vocal nonregistrants 30 years ago, the department you have justice has had neither any estimate of the violators or any budget to prosecute or incarcerate them. Meanwhile, those who do receive induction notices will undoubtedly object that the process is unfair, because those who have not complied are not being prosecuted. Resistance to any new draft will also take new forms. How long will it take before the database is hacked . Especially at registrants with cyber skills targeted for a special skills draft. Rich parents will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to bribe their children into more prestigious colleges. How much more will they pay to keep their children out of the military . What will the price be on the dark web to have a hacker remove your child from a list of potential draftees. How much are you prepared to spend and how much of a police state are you prepared to set up to round up millions of draft law violators . Any proposal that includes a compulsory element is a naive fantasy unless it includes a credible enforcement plan and budget. And if the criminal penalties remain unenforced and the only incentives for compliance remain financial, then the system will remain a de facto poverty draft. As for women, is there any reason to think they will be more willing to provide the government with the information needed to conscript them . No, just the reverse. Women will be more likely than men to resist and more people will support them in their resistance. Theres a long tradition of antiwar feminism that identifies militarism and war with patriarchy. And its selfcontradictory to believe that women are Strong Enough to wage war, but so weak and submissive they wont resist if they dont want to fight. You may be tempted to discount the potential for resistance, because there is little visible or organized opposition to the draft today. But that would be a mistake. Only those who spoke out about our refusal to register were considered for prosecution. Having successfully gotten across the message that there is safety in silence for nonregistrants, it would be the height of selfdelusion to misinterpret the resulting silence as a sign of support for the system or willingness to be drafted. I could easily have dodged the draft and stayed out of prison by quietly staying home. That remains the easiest and safest course of action for people who dont want to be drafted. I resisted draft registration not to opt out of personal participation in war, but to prevent a draft and by doing so, to limit the ability of the u. S. To wage war. Its time to admit that, like it or not, draft registration has failed, and should be ended entirely, and perhaps more importantly, to begin to deal with the implications of that fact for military policy. Thank you. Thank you, chairman heck. My centuryold coops building abutts a world war ii Victory Garden. Every morning as i pass, im reminded that performing ones patriotic duty comes to in a myriad of forms. I would like to begin my remarks by commending your efforts to cultivate a renewed sense of patriotic duty among americans, especially young americans. Im honored to be a part of that conversation about how best to do so. And so i will get right to the point. I do not believe that women should be required to register for the Selective Service. Ultimately, the Selective Service points to combat, should a draft be needed in a National Emergency. I am both unconvinced by the assurances of some that no such draft will ever be needed again, nor do i support sending women into combat or even conflict zones against their will. Proponents of sending women into combat may tout sexual equality. But as the 2015 study conducted by the marines clearly found, though women today may have an equal opportunity to fight on the front lines, they have an unequal chance of surviving. I am deeply committed to the principle of sexual equality. But equality between men and women is not established by treating them as identical. If anything, that mindset undermines women and devalues their contributions to their families, to society and to their country. That men and women are fundamentally different is an unpopular point to make. But it is the plain truth. Even the military acknowledges sex difference in the different physical standards men and women are held to. Those standards are not a marker of inferiority. Merely a nod to reality. The military is able to include more women in its ranks, because it affirms their difference. The prospect of expanding Selective Service registration to include women worries me that my 6yearold daughter could one day be sent into combat against her will. But it also worries me that the military, like so many other institutions, is drifting in a genderless direction. Genderless spaces are not safe spaces for women. I give you todays College Campuses currently embroiled in a rape epidemic when sex is treated as irrelevant. Moreover, the push to expand Selective Service is a manifestation of the belief that women are only equal with men if we do exactly as men do. This leads to the dangerous mentality that if women are not at the ready to defend their country through military service in a time of need that somehow their contribution is less valid or their patriotism less fervent. That, too, is not a mindset i want my daughter to grow up with. It was largely women who led the Victory Garden movement, a movement that fed onethird of this country for years. Was their work and service less valuable because they werent in uniform . In no way do i mean to devalue the Courageous Service of women in our armed forces or suggest that women are inherently unqualified for military service. I only mean to speak the truth that most of us believe but are unwilling to say. Men and women are different in foundational ways. The maleonly requirement of a Selective Service is a reflection of the reality of demands of military service in particular when we are at war. It is one men are overwhelmingly better suited for biologically, and to deny that reality would not only endanger women, but imperil our military readiness. I have contemplated whether women should be required to register for the Selective Service with the provision they cannot be sent into harms way, but i take little stock in the assurances of government, and i know how easily such a provision could be repealed. Further, i contemplated a separate registration for women, one that would allow for choice between military service or Civil Service projects that would allow women to prioritize their families. But ultimately, i believe the best arrangement is one that respects the freedom of women to respond to a National Emergency in a way that conforms to their natures. From the daughters of liberty of the revolutionary era to the Womens Land Army of the first and second world wars to the hundreds of thousands of women who stood up during the vietnam war, americas women have proven time and time again that we will voluntarily rise to the occasion when the fate of our country is at stake. Thank you. Thank you and good morning. My name is diane randall, executive secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation. I appreciate the invitation to be with you this morning in this important conversation on military conscription. The Friends Committee on National Legislation was founded in 1943 by members of the religious society of friends, also known as quakers. From those early days, amidst the second world war, we have opposed universal conscription based on the principle of individual conscience. Many friends and likeminded americans throughout history have exercised the call of their inward religious and moral conviction to oppose war and avoid coerce participation in violence that would be required by military service. This call to refuse killing and fighting is based on quakers understanding of living in the kingdom of god, here and now. That we can have a direct relationship with christ and that experience with divine love calls us to live in peace and with integrity. Today the Friends Committee Lobbies Congress and the administration to advance peace, racial and Economic Justice and environmental stewardship. We are a nonpartisan organization, governed by a body of 180 quakers from around the United States. We seek to live the quaker values of integrity, simplicity and peace, as we build relationships across political divides to advance Public Policy for a more just and peaceful world. We seek a world free of war, and the threat of war. We oppose the militarization of our foreign and domestic policy, including the training of Foreign Military personnel. We oppose the use of military personnel in domestic policing as is happening along our southern border. And we oppose treating war as another tool or instrument of Foreign Policy, especially when development, diplomacy and many other nonmilitary tools have shown to be more beneficial in both the short and longterm. These are not beliefs born of convenience or cowardice. They are the deeply held foundational moorings of our faith, a faith protected by the first amendment. Opposes all military conscription and a draft, we disagree that there is a continuing need for a mechanism to draft large numbers of replacement combat troops into the armed forces. As historian will darant wrote in 1967, the possession of power tempt tempts to its use. The definition of National Interest widens to cover any aim. The demand for security suggests and excuses the acquisition and arming of ever more distant frontiers. Endless armies and endless money for the pentagon perpetrate endless war. The cost of war in terms of human lives is too expensive to ponder. Current u. S. Global military footprint is far too large. The u. S. Is currently conducting military operations in 80 countries around the globe. In africa alone, the United States has in recent years conducted at least 36 military operations in 19 countries. According to the Congressional Research service, the law that authorized the use of force in afghanistan in 2001 has been used to justify 41 operations in 19 countries. These wars have cost more than 5. 9 trillion, and resulted in the deaths of approximately a half million people, including approximately 250,000 civilians and 15,000 u. S. Military personnel and contractors. These military operations have not made the u. S. More secure. To the contrary, the number of terrorist groups and incidents keeps growing. The discrimination within the Current System of registration based on gender, age and socioeconomic status requires only young men to register, and only those with significant financial means suffer the without significant financial means suffer the consequences of refusing to do so. The answer is not to require women to register, but to end the requirement for Selective Service registration, and to eliminate any penalties if the system perpetuates for failing to register. At a minimum, we support securing legal commendation to military service and military taxation. Individuals who decline to register with the Selective Service as an act of conscience should not be penalized from any benefits and opportunities provided by our federal government. It is important that there is a definition of Conscientious Objection that continues to be included in the Selective Service code if the system perpetuates so that individuals who feel this moral calling to abstain from war are neither penalized nor stigmatized. Some have argued that compulsory national sfls service for Conscientious Objectors would be a more democratic than the Current System and would make the United States less likely to use forces abroad. On we disagree. While we know that Public Service can benefit and does benefit our communities, and that our faith tradition upholds service to and for others as a value of the utmost importance, we believe individuals have the freedom to discern whether and how they will serve. The u. S. Was founded as a haven for people of free will seeking at long last to toss off the yoke of oppression and find a safe harbor for those of conscious. Some 200 years later, our country is still standing, and those who choose to stand for peace above all are welcome still. Now is not to change that by expanding Selective Service registration or creating a new system of compulsory National Service. Thank you. Thank you all very much for your compelling testimony this morning. Well now go into commissioner questioning. Ill put myself on the clock for five minutes. So my first question, i think i probably know what the answer will be, but i want to go quickly yes or no going down. And it builds off of what ms. Mcguire mentioned in her testimony. Yesterday we heard about threat requirements and skill sets that might be needed, understanding that the general impression of the Selective Service system now is to provide combat replacements, even though that was not specified in the law, it was based on congressional intent, if a system was redefined and not solely for combat replacement but meet whatever the skills need was for the department of defense at the time of a National Emergency, would that change your opinion as to whether or not women should be required to register . Dr. Coppenger . It would not. I think the issue is not so much for my presentation, what youre putting people into, but taking them away from. And it would not only include the military but other forms of National Service, drafting the women. Ms. Eden . No, it wouldnt. I think you can just ask for volunteers. Our president s have not done that in our recent wars. Okay. Mr. Hasbrook . No. Thank you. Miss mcguire . No, i no. I share the same concerns about being be forced. Women being forced to leave family obligations behind. Okay. And ms. Randall. No. Due to coercion. Great, thank you. My followup question to ms. Randall and mr. Hasbrooks, the requirement imposes sanctions on individuals who either forget or refuse to register as youve both spoken to. If there was a system that would provide for a passive automatic registration from various databases that do not include peace time civil and criminal penalties be preferable to the Current System. So in the event a National Mobilization need, data would be collected to send induction notices. There would be no active penetration with penalties for failing to register. Mr. Hasbrook . Anything there eliminated the penalties being imposed on those who dont support the current endless wars would be positive. However, i think its likely that such a system would cause military planners to have even more complacent false complacency about the idea that a draft would be available. We do not live in a country other than for people who are under court supervision, because they have been convicted of a crime, or men between 18 and 26. You dont have to report to the police when you move in this country. There is no certain database. Certainly none with the accuracy that if you sent out a notice to that address, you could be confident enough to base a criminal prosecution on somebody not responding to that notice. So that kind of registration would be no more capable of actually supporting a draft than the present system. But military planners would still think they have a draft in the back pocket. Much better to start now, reorienting and reining in military planning to fight only those wars the people are willing to fight. Okay. And ms. Randall. I think if im understanding your question, the question is to the fact of is there another system that could be used to create a draft. Correct. So there would be no premobilization or ongoing active registration. In the time of a National Emergency, an existing database would be utilized to identify potential individuals so there would be no penalties for not registering. I think its very important to eliminate the penalties for failure to register or failure to comply. Thats incredibly important. I mean, thats its just an age that when people are in that they are not necessarily thinking about this on a regular basis when their lives change. So i think thats incredibly important. With regard to some other database, i really dont have information about what that would be or how it would work. I do think that if this i think there has to be other ways that we encourage volunteerism in the broadest possible way, which i know this commission has looked at. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ill yield back. Thank you very much. Dr. Coppinger, to what extent would this ease concerns over expanding registration to women and are there additional exemptions and deferrals the law should provide to women if it was included in the registration . You know, i think for one thing, we would be incentivizing perhaps were already doing this. We would be incentivizing, for example, single motherhood. We have a crisis of that in america. We have i think the average is 40 , in some communities twice that. And if someone could have a child it doesnt have to be a child within marriage. You can just have a child and youre exempt. Or if you exempt people who are married. In the vietnam era, my era, tens of thousands ive seen estimates up to 50,000 people fled to canada to avoid the draft. And if it is a very serious military draft, i think youll have a lot of people fleeing to the nursery and fleeing to the altar with precipitous marriage, and the rate of illegitimacy, which is a crisis just a terrible thing in america right now would be incentivized, would be encouraged. I think you can keep tweaking and tweaking, but its like if its a bad idea, just dont do it. So less exemptions rather than more. If there was a registration. I just think yeah, i suppose so. Yeah, i just think the exemptions incentivize bad behavior. Okay. Mr. Hasbrook, yesterday the director of the Selective Service testified they also collect now phone numbers and email addresses. So the question the concern you had about getting the right mailing address, is that sort of alleviated in some way, or does that have any impact at all . No. No meaningful impact at all. It would not have any meaningful impact at all. The only use of the registration database is to deliver an induction notice. The criteria of success is when you send out a certified letter to that address, either does the person report for induction or do you get back a signature on the return receipt matching a registration record that provides sufficient evidence to prosecute the person if they dont show up for induction. I would not think that you would find a u. S. Attorney who would be prepared to go into court and try and convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that somebody was guilty of willful refusal to report for induction on the basis of, well, we sent him a text message. Or we made a phone call. Or we sent him an email. In the event of an actual draft, you would have millions of hoax and fraud and scam and identity thieves fake induction notices going out by email and Text Messages and all those other means. And people would presumably be told, the only ones that are meaningful are the certified letters. And on the other side, the first message people would get would be if you dont want to be drafted, dont sign for any certified letters from the Selective Service. Wait until they send the fbi door to door to round you up, which is why you end up having to use fbi agents as press gangs, which is exactly what proved so costly back in the 1980s that department of justice in 1988 decided that this was a waste of effort, too resource intensive, and they werent going to try to prosecute these cases any more. So phone numbers and emails dont address the actual purpose of this database. Its just window dressing. Well, thank you all very much. Thank you all very much. This has been an interesting conversation. We thank you for all the preparation of your testimony and those submitted orally here. Ms. Mcguire, maybe we could engage in a conversation. You said that from your perspective men and women have different i think you said in foundational ways and biologically. And argued for the freedom of women to respond voluntarily. I would be interested from your perspective from a theological perspective, because i know youre a senior fellow at the Catholic Association how you see the difference of compulsory registration of men and women from a theological perspective. And perhaps, dr. Coppenger, you could provide some reflection. Sure. In catholic social teach, they often use the word vocation that men and women have different vocations. That could be professional vocations, but also personal vocations. And i think, you know, professionally you see less differences in terms of, you know, the capacities and skills of men and women. Theres a lot there. But i think on the personal level is where you see that play out a lot more. And i think that womens vocation to motherhood is the thing im most concerned about, and where i think you would see at least a lot of catholic social teaching, you know, address the fact that the role that women play as mothers is different than the role that men play as fathers. They those roles manifest differently. And theres certainly a biological component to it. I mean, the realities of what childbearing means for women, especially in the age were talking about when, you know, women would be registering for the Selective Service. I had my first child in that age window. And that i think when we think about what were asking men and women to do, we have to acknowledge those vocational differences. And, you know, as you know, mr. Coppenger gave the example of his daughter, i think women should have the unique freedom to make choices as to whether or not to prioritize their family or their career. And thats something, you know, men and women make those priorities differently. And this isnt just a theological thing. I think you find the Pew Foundation has found time and time again that overwhelming ton in a way thats different than men. And the idea of, a, sending women overseas into conflict zones or, b, even requiring them to perform Public Service roles when they may be in a time when they are most needed at home for vulnerable children. The prime years for drafting people are the prime years for starting a family and so forth. Theres a real overlap there. I resonate with much of what ive read in catholic social teaching and we read and natural law writings. But also, just the bible is just full of scripture that points this direction. I mean, for young israel ite to go to war, he needs to spend the first year at home with his wife so shed be happy. Proverbs 31, the virtuous woman. Doesnt talk about a warrior. It talks about a homemaker. Theres even environmental stuff. You may take the small birds out of a nest but dont take the mother. Youve got to keep that going. And it just goes on and on. The bible just says these are really different types of creatures, and we speak in terms of Human Flourishing as well, which would be, of course, a catholic notion as well. So the bible is full of pointers. You cant see your granddaughters but theyre doing well back there. Thank you. I appreciate it. Live on cspan. Very proud of them. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you for your service to our nation. Your being here today is very important to our mission. Thank you. Ms. Randall, id be interested in knowing your opinion regarding the present structure and concept of the alternative work Service Program. How do you feel about that . The alternative for people who are Conscientious Objectors . I really dont have a lot of knowledge about it. My understanding is that alternate service can be practiced where people find a place to do it, which is different than what was practiced during the vietnam era when there was a draft. I think its important that there is some form of alternative service if theres going to be a draft to be clear, or simply forgiveness that people who have conscious or choose to serve in other ways. My personal experience is that people who have that kind of conscience often are providing Public Service in some other capacity, whether it is, again, set in a place that is monitored and tracked by the federal government or whether it is in a community where they are volunteering. I think thats important to do. If the present system were to continue and the draft contingency were to remain, what would you like to see in an alternative work Service Program . How would you structure it . I dont know that i could really answer that question because i dont think ive given it enough thought. Its not something that my organization has been focused on or paying attention to so there might be others. I think certainly the folks who are, i know, in the audience from the center on conscience and war have done some more work in that area and may be able to speak to that question. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Barney . Thank you, mr. Chairman. My question is on the issue of Conscientious Objection and im going to direct it to you, ms. Randall and time permitting to you, dr. Coppenger. I was struck by the portion of our testimony where ill paraphrase you that individuals who are Conscientious Objectors, these are beliefs borne not of convenience or cowardice. They are deeply held foundational beliefs of faith that are protected by the first amendment. And i think we cant help but be struck by the power of that statement. We recognize also from some of the discussions we had yesterday and it was called to our attention that our nation has not always honored and properly processed and handled individuals who assert their status as Conscientious Objectors. For that reason, heres where im going. If, as a nation, we continue to value and honor the role in our society of the Conscientious Objector, then how should we understand, for example, the views that dr. Coppenger brought up of religious faiths who have a belief that women should not be subjected to mandatory registration . Should those women then be able to assert a status as a Conscientious Objector if they are individuals who come from a faith or belief tradition that would say that it is contrary to the teachings of my church. So where im going on this is, would that support . Would that enhance the position of being a Conscientious Objector . Would it undermine that . Im interested in your thoughts on that. So i can share personal thoughts about this in relation to how i see Conscientious Objection which is objection to war. And objection to killing. Thats the basis. Its the basis for our opposition to the death penalty, to being coerced to fight in a war. I do believe in conscience that is led by religious perspective, but it is, i think that Conscientious Objection that youre referring to, based on the role that a woman has, based on her own religion to serve family or to is different than not fighting. So i cant necessarily say that should be a matter of Conscientious Objection. I see it as a matter of conscience for women to make that choice as a matter of faith and matter of religion. Whether it suits the level of Conscientious Objection in this regard to a draft for combat troops, i dont know that i would make that claim. But i think its an interesting question to ask. Thank you. Dr. Coppenger, do you have any views as to how that might work . An interesting question. First, our default position is to be submissive to the government, romans 13. We pay taxes to support remotely planned parenthood and weve repudiated that. So we go along with a lot of things the government calls us to do. I dont think were saying its immoral to go in fact, we praise women who go into it and say, im a Southern Baptist, therefore, i may not do that. So, yeah, i dont think we would put the stake down there as a denomination. I think mainly were saying, its imprudent. Its unwise. Maybe if you are in israel, smaller than New Hampshire with existential threats you can have a Molly Pitcher jump in there and replace her husband. But thats not our position as a denomination that it is immoral for a woman to serve. Thank you both for your views on that. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you to the panel for appearing with us this morning and your compelling testimony. Id like to start off with a question for ms. Eden. Ms. Eden, during your testimony, you cited statistics on the injury rates of military women in particular. And you mentioned that these women have to keep their physical fitness up because they are in the military. To some, and the statistics are compelling. To some, it may suggest that youre trying to say or trying to prove that women are weaker, physically weaker than men. So my first question is, how would you respond to that . Second question is, if there are ways of mitigating those injury rates, those injuries so if the military was able to develop Training Programs or programs to mitigate the risk of injury, particularly for women, would that change your views on registration . To your first question, i would respond that men and women are different. We are not biologically the same and that does not mean that women are less. It just means that we have different strengths and weaknesses. Men are particularly suited to highly physically demanding activities. And to the your second question, ive done a lot of research on the injuries on nutrition on medicine, Sports Medicine, and so far, there is i have not seen any compelling data to show that additional or different nutrition, training, mitigates for the injury rates. There is, you know, these biological differences sort of cap capacity of women have 40 less aerobic capacity and 20 less muscle mass and when they the studies that ive read and there is a lot of them, show that the harder women train, they still reach a cap and at a certain point plateau whereas with men, we see this in weight lifting, bodybuilding, crossfit, any of the, you know, latest and greatest physical fitness fads. Men can bulk up and bulk up and bulk up and for women, theres only so much that they can do that. So i dont see any mitigation for that. And that disparity and injury rates is a big reason that there is there are dual standards between men and women just as there are dual standards for young soldiers, marines, airmen and older ones because theyre differently situated. Thank you. Ms. Mcguire and dr. Coppenger, id like to continue on the discussion about the roles of mothers and fathers. And i picked up on your comment about running to the nursery if folks were compelled. And you mentioned that there is a crisis of single parent families in the country now. So my question is, in most of the single at least what ive read, most of the single parent families, its a mother with a child, not a father with a child. Correct. So my question is, if were if the decision was to not include women in Selective Service, and so, again, men only would be drafted, once again, were taking that would mean that men would be taken, fathers would be taken out of those families. Right. So for a period of time, youre going to end up with single parent families, at least physically in that location. How do you respond to that, both ms. Mcguire and dr. Coppenger. Ladies first . Or should i say that . The studies ive read show that children do significantly better in a situation where there is either a prolonged absence of a father who is married to the mother or even when the father has died than in a home where there is no father at all. So i think theyre two different situations, and i would be a lot less concerned about that than i would about the Single Family home. Yeah, i mean, its a good question. I suppose you can kind of push it one way and say, therefore, you shouldnt take the fathers either or what have you. I mean, it seems to me, you have a scale the best is that youve got both in the home and there is a there is a crisis of that, but better a mom than, you know, with the child than just leave the child in daycare and both of them go. So i think you can still argue that a woman is a woman alone is better if you have to draft from a couple to take the fellow out. I was just reading, actually, michael novak, a catholic writer, on the way over, and he was talking about the impact of aid for dependent children and the Great Society and so forth and how it did seem to incentivize there is a profit in having children. So i guess my narrow concern is that it is enough to have a kid to get exemption, and i just i would just hate to encourage that when its rampant. When i left chicago and moved down i think the rate i think the rate among black families in chicago was 79 illegitimacy. I did service in detroit on a mission trip, two of them, and it was 85 there. Among hispanics and anglos, it was very high, too, so its just an epidemic, and i would hate to poke that by saying, oh, this is another way to get an advantage for having a baby. Thank you. Thank you for everybody coming today and for your preparation and your well thought out testimonies. A couple of you, dr. Coppenger and ms. Randall, made similar points. Dr. Coppenger, you talked about the difference between the United States and israel, for instance, where in your testimony you say that israel suffers from continual rocket and artillery attacks, that unlike u. S. Forces, the idf does not deploy troops to foreign conflicts, and you made a similar point, ms. Randall, about how the u. S. Is often distant frontiers and how much theyve been serving abroad. So your point being that in israel the women are part of a home guard in a nation facing perennial existential threats with everyone on the front lines. Yesterday we heard from a number of National Security experts, people that are looking at the changing nature of war and whats going on globally, and there was a pretty broad consensus that, a, we never are able to predict the wars of the future. Weve been have a pretty strong track record of getting it wrong 100 . We never really know. But there is also a consensus that we cant rule out that in future conflicts that the homeland will not be a sanctuary. That weve had that sort of luxury for 250 years, except for the civil war. We havent been attacked as much from, you know, what europe has gone through in the 20th century, whats happening in the middle east. Im wondering if you had those scenarios in your head if that changes your opinion about the draft in general and Selective Service and Compulsory Service. And also the role of women, like your point about israel, are there other things like in that kind of an existential situation you might actually call up everybody to do something, if not fight a war over there. Yeah. No, its a good question. And, by the way, im not persuaded israels doing the right thing. Ive been all over. I was with an idf group and we went to listening posts in the drone base down in near gaza and so forth. Paul mckeon air base. You know, ive seen them at the consoles and so forth. I suppose i dont think were anywhere near that. With International Terrorism and the bombing in sri lanka, whatever, shooting at ft. Hood, things can happen all over the place, but i think were so far from that. However, if they were all in amongst us and terrorism is everywhere, its conceivable that you could have, you know, coast watcher theyre in britain and, too, in america, you would have elderly people as coast watchers. I guess you still have the rosie the riveter thing and so forth. So, if families could stay intact and the mom could still work with the kids and still do her thing, walking the streets at night watching for fires, you know, i think i think thats okay. But i think were a long, long way from that. I just dont think there is a need for that. By the way, my i was looking at the comparison, picking up on her thing and your question, the comparison. They were always different. When i would have to run my two miles, you know, to the bridge with a hiker from the pentagon athletic club, you had, like, the older i got, they let me run slower, and you had the women and there is a different standard. So im thinking, if were talking about people who match those in capability then maybe we should start drafting 45yearolds or something, too. I mean, its just youre opening a whole can of worms. Yes, if theyre all in amongst us, if canada and mexico were shooting rockets and shelling us and people are having to run into bunkers and so forth, i can imagine a mother in des moines, you know, having to put on a little helmet yeah, its conceivable. Were not there. So i dont even think thats a good projection. The question of National Security, of course, is an incredibly compelling question that too often gets equated with u. S. Military policy. And i think this commission has opened up some of those questions in important ways by looking at National Service connected to the question of military service. My feeling, and i think the feeling of our organization is that we are ignoring questions of vital National Security in favor of considering that addressing military policy and funding the pentagon at 750 billion a year is a solution to National Security or the solution to National Security. We are very its very clear that there are other threats to our country that we are seeing in our election system, that we are seeing in the rising sea levels that are overwhelming coastal communities, that we are seeing in other forms of cybersecurity threats. That do not get the level of attention that they should have. And it seems to me that looking back and looking at a system that was used during world war ii or even the vietnam war is really looking backward. When what we need to be doing is looking forward. So it is hard to imagine that a its not it is not impossible to imagine that this country could be attacked, although it is hard to imagine it being attacked as a war as world war ii or the vietnam war. I mean Something Different. Yeah. It has been attacked in a different way if you look at the election system. So it just feels like the question about readiness for combat in that way is not really the right question to be asking right now. Right. And i think thats one of the reasons one of the fellow commissioners asked about differential skill sets. You know, were not a lot of people have in their head that just because were talking about Selective Service, we are talking about the future of the Selective Service, and so the idea about the 20th century model where its really about combat replacement, you know, to your point, ms. Eden, that that is not necessarily what the future would be. It would not necessarily be what we would be calling people up to do. So that assumption, if we broke that out, changes the way we think about the conversation. So, thank you. Ill yield the rest of my can i add one more thing . I dont know that ive talked about, the whole demographic crisis you have in a lot of nations. The birth rate in a lot of nations is so low. Russias having terrible trouble. Japan has. They have all these incentives. I read a couple of years ago, italy had a 1. 2 replacement rate. You just exponentially start to shrink. So one of the important things that women do who are not drafted is that they have children. By the way, there is a lot of unfitness out there. Ive seen statistics that say if you called people immediately, i dont know, 30 , 40 couldnt make it. 70 . Wow, okay. 70 . I slept and it got worse. Thats right. At any rate, you know, you think, man, weve got to have people just making people. And that sounds, i dont know, industrial, but its absolutely humanly critical, and so, again, thats supplying the military as well. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here. This was a great conversation and i want to begin with ms. Eden. First of all, thank you for your service. Can you tell us a little bit about the circumstances that led you to want to join the marine corps . Actually, i looked at the peace corps first. And i was looking to do something greater, challenge, and i wanted to fight the war on terror. Im a very strong, independent woman, and i just here am i, send me, and decided to go with the marines. They were the toughest branch and never regretted it. That was a choice you made, is that right . Mmmhmm. Did you ever think that your success as a marine would lead to a point where it might be compelled upon other women to do the same thing . No. And i think that you get better personnel or a better product, if you will, by asking for the best and brightest, and by people making the choice themselves. And along those lines, you mentioned something either in your testimony or in answer to a previous question about a president ial call for volunteers. That that hasnt been done. Can you explain to us what you meant by that and what you think it would how do you envision that taking place . Imagine if george w. Bush had called for volunteers after 9 11. He didnt do that. We had lots of people who volunteered for service after that happened, after that attack, and were not really asking. And, in fact, a couple of generations have been taught that all war is bad, military people are dumb, you know, that Janet Napolitano as the head of Homeland Security even said that returning veterans were the next most likely domestic terrorists. So why would we expect people to volunteer for service or submit to conscription when were castigating the military as something as something undesirable, as something brutal always, which its not always. Theres a lot of functions that the military has that are not combat. So we can ask for our best and brightest and get the skill set that we might need for that future war just by asking. Congress can ask. Another point is that a lot of campuses, high school and College Campuses are forbidding recruiters to have tables at their campuses. So, how do we expect people to learn about the military when thats happening . So in your circle of friends, if if you saw the president in the rose garden appealing to the American Public to step up and serve, or if you went to a town hall meeting with your congressmen and they made a similar appeal, would the circle of friends and professional colleagues that you have, do you think they would respond . Sure. I mean, and having a circle of veteran friends, of course, we did respond. It wasnt necessarily a call from a specific person, but we felt called to do that. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. I really appreciate all of you coming today. Ms. Eden, can i make sure that i understand an aspect of your testimony . And i think it follows on to the commissioners questions. If i understood correctly, even on a voluntary basis, you dont think that women should be able to take combat positions in the military. Is that correct . Correct. I think the combat arms should remain allmale. Okay. And just to be utterly clear, even if they meet the current standards before theyre assigned to that . Right. For those reasons that i mentioned. Because of the high disparity in injury rates, the higher risk. Terrorists dont care that we are egalitarian. They will they will target females. I have a navy s. E. A. L. Friend with multiple deployments who said that when they had women on their team, the enemy would shoot at her first. So thats something that you cant mitigate with. It doesnt matter that she made the mens standards. Okay. And i was wondering for other panelists, are you also of the view that even on a voluntary basis, combat positions should not be open to women . Yeah, i would agree with that. Let me just add, my son was in the push up from kuwait up into the central part of iraq and they were in very close quarters with women. There is a certain, you know, there is a certain sexual thing at play there, too. And this happens on shipboard also, and so thats not necessarily a determining thing, but its just one more item to say this is not wise. Okay. Mr. Hasbrouck . Im not here im not here because im trying to advance the ability of the u. S. To fight endless, unconstitutional, undeclared wars against people around the world who are not my enemies. So youre asking the wrong person if youre asking me to give you advice about how to fight the wars that im trying to stop you from fighting. Youre missing the point. Okay. I was just looking for your opinion on that specific issue, and it sounds like you dont have one to offer. Thats fine. Ms. Mcguire . Ive read a lot of the same research, and as i said in my testimony, it seems that combat roles are the one exception where the physical standards for men and women are basically the same. Even with those standards in place, women have significantly higher odds of injury or death. So as i said, i think they have an equal opportunity to fight at the front lines but an unequal chance of survival. And furthermore, my understanding is that once all those roles were opened to women, that removed the ability of women to object to combat roles as per military leadership should they be deemed physically fit. So that, again, created an issue where women who had already joined the military could be forced into combat roles against their will, and i think this is sort of the trickle down of that where that created the Ripple Effect where now were having this conversation about if the Selective Service is about readiness for combat, and that was the one the maleonly requirement was what prevented women from being required to register for the Selective Service. Now as two courts have held, they can. Thank you. Its not something that ive thought about. I dont have a comment for that. Okay, thank you. One other thing came to mind. Sorry for the interruption. Every once in a while the army will assign some young officers to our seminary for a year of study and ethics to get a thm in ethics. And a few years back i had a couple of young officers come in, and one of them chose to write on chivalry of all things. The old standard of chivalry. The titanic principle, women and Children First into the lifeboats. He said thats a dynamic, too, on the battlefield. If a woman goes down, you know, do you jeopardize certain things in a way you wouldnt if it were a man going down . There are just a lot of dynamics than to say, oh, well, thats some carryover from ancient days and we need to get past that, or its a paternalistic to write that out of the psyche of guys is a tough thing, and it is at play in combat units. There is one other thing id like to mention, which is that a lot of the pitch of advocates for putting women into combat units was that it was just about a few women who want to, and this discussion is exactly why it wasnt just about a few women who want to because this particular thing, that policy is what has brought us to this discussion today. Mmmhmm. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ms. Eden, if i could, id like to hopefully close out or add another element to the conversation thats been going on. What was your mos, please . 0651, data communication specialist. What role what value did that bring to the marine corps in its mission . That means we would build networks for communication, radios, computers, cryptology. In fallujah, that meant our primary duty was to support the communications for everyone on camp fallujah and all the infantry working on the outskirts. It had a role in the marine corpss mission of providing combat power . Right. It was supporting the mission in fallujah. How many mos and specialties does the marine corps have support its mission of fighting wars on behalf of the United States creating combat power and exercising it . Any mos that are superfluous to that, any specialties, any units . Im not sure i understand what youre asking. Okay. How many are there any jobs in the military that are not supporting yeah. That dont have anything to do with the mission of the military or the marine corps, you know, in your case, your service. Do you know any marines that didnt have anything to do that were part of the Marine Corps Mission . Im not really sure how to answer that. Okay. Thank you. What percentage of the specialties in the military are not direct combat roles . About 80 . Okay. Thank you. Next question to ms. Mcguire, please. With regard to the positions youve expressed to us. Thank you for that in your presence here today. Are there any secular components or do secular opinions inform the views youve shared with us . Yeah, i think so. I mean, i mentioned the pew example of just one stark manifestation of the way women clearly have different priorities, especially when they have Young Children. I mean, i think actually most of what i articulated was from a secular perspective. I mean, certainly my faith informs my belief that men and women are different. But i think science does, too. I think most of what weve talked about today has been from a sort of scientific and biological perspective. And, you know, i think you can talk about it from a sort of human rights perspective as well. That women have different rights than men and so i think theres a lot of secular aspects to what i talked about. Thank you very much. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you all for being here and sharing your views. Id like to start this question with for ms. Randall, but if dr. Coppenger or mr. Hasbrouck want to share your views, id like your opinion, too. Assuming that some form of Selective Service and draft mechanism stays in place, what are the best things that could be done to protect Conscientious Objectors . For example, weve heard that there should be a box on the Selective Service form to say i intend to apply for Conscientious Objection status. Do you think thats a good idea . What else should we take into consideration . I certainly think thats an option. I think one of the Biggest Challenges the Selective Service has is to determine what is ones conscience. Because it is such a personal decision to make. And i know there is a determination for how that is happening now, for people who are in the military who are leaving because of their own Conscientious Objection to war. So i think having using the criteria that are now being used, at least to consider that, i think is important and figuring out assuring that there is a provision for Conscientious Objection, allowing a checked box would do that. Im not im not sure whether it is determinative, though. Certainly it is not, you know, there are historic peace churches which often are have been considered determinative factors, but there are many people who are not religious but have a moral compunction and conscience against war, so it has to be a much fuller process for how we look at how that can be determined. I think the process used during the vietnam era of having local draft boards didnt work well, and, you know, if its going to be local boards that make that determination, they would have to have some clear training and understanding of what Conscientious Objection is and how its been manifested. Thank you. Dr. Coppenger . Its interesting. The whole history of Conscientious Objection, in the vietnam war, they extended it to secular humanism, too. It wasnt just, you know, Church Brethren or quaker or what have you. They ruled against objection to a particular war. I would sign up for world war ii, but i wouldnt for vietnam or Something Like this. So, i think were fairly generous. Its interesting when you look at what the nations experimenting with it are doing like norway. I think they give incredible leeway here. Its i think maybe 30 of the israeli women, i think i read that, i think in norway its only 1 in 6 show up. Its kind of like, yeah, we think this is a cool thing to do, but we really dont much mean it, i mean, particularly in some of the european nations now. It just seems to me an odd exercise. If youre not that serious about it, someone says, eh, i dont much want to go. I think for a Southern Baptist young woman, it would be kind of awkward. It would be like saying, well, i really dont think this is the best and god is calling me to this. Yes, show me the Southern Baptist record that youre appealing to and grounding in. So you get into this kind of hinkie thing on the border. It puts them on the spot. I dont think they should be put upon. Its like, okay, this is a test. I dont think i should well, is that the principle or what if we were canada invaded . Would you do that . Like, why complicate it so much . Just say, no, we dont do that. But i think were pretty thoughtful of Conscientious Objection at this point. Mr. Hasbrouck . My beliefs wouldnt fit the governments definition of a Conscientious Objector, so i wont try to speak for them, but i want to make sure you keep it in perspective. There is a continuum and there are a few people like myself and perhaps ms. Randall at one end who wouldnt try to kill anyone. And theres a few sociopaths at the other end who will hate anyone you tell them to regard as an enemy and kill anyone you tell them to kill. The vast majority of people are in the middle. They believe there are some just wars, some unjust wars and they want to make their own choices about which ones to fight or on which side. So the overwhelming majority of people who dont want to be conscripted are people who would not fit any definition of Conscientious Objector. So while it is important to accommodate Conscientious Objectors, you shouldnt have any illusions that thats going to have any significant effect on most objectors who dont fit that Conscientious Objector definition or whatever you do about Conscientious Objectors is going to meaningful impact the compliance rate because most people are not going to be affected by that. Thank you. My next question is for any of you that would like to respond to this. Since this commission was established, theres been a federal court ruling now that has said that the current allmale draft registration, Selective Service system, is unconstitutional. What are your reactions to that . Well, i think its a bad ruling. I mean, i think plessy versus ferguson, dread scott. Just because somebody said it in the courts doesnt mean, well, that settles that. I think thats a foolish ruling. Other thoughts . Ms. Mcguire . I think the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex is meant to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, and i think as to the military, i mean, it would be one thing if women were not allowed to serve in the military or they were being systematically discriminated against because of their sex. Thats different than saying that the draft i mean, the requirement its a the requirement for the Selective Service applies to men only. In other words, women arent if there is a war, women are not going to be denied the opportunity to serve in the military. And so i think those cases are pretty recent and that therell be a legal response that will make different arguments. Yeah, i agree with that. And, you know, the finding that since women who volunteer can be put into combat units means that women are now similarly situated, which was a phrase used in reference to being able to be in combat units, but the reality between men and women is that women are not similarly situated to survive and win in combat or help the fellows that theyre fighting next to win and fight in combat. So women in combat units is a policy. It could change tomorrow. But the physiological differences, the risk differences, the injury differences, those remain, even though the policy is there. So i would say the equal protection clause doesnt apply because theyre not were not similar similarly situated. Other thoughts . I yield. So that concludes round one of our questioning. I appreciate you all staying with us and your stamina as we continue into round two. So ill put myself back on the clock for five minutes. Ms. Randall, i want to follow up on one of the answers you gave. You stated during vietnam the local boards making determinations did not work well. Yesterday, probably understandably, the director of the Selective Service was here defending the need to maintain Selective Service, and one of the reasons for maintaining Selective Service that he referred to was, in fact, the local boards being able to make the determination of individuals who might be claiming Conscientious Objector status because theyre in the community and they know the individual. Can you please expand a little bit on why you made the statement that the local boards did not work during vietnam. What i know is from stories, people who appeared before those local boards have told me. And the often that they were just uneven. That who sat on those boards determined often, you know, what they what they decided about what their standards were. And that there was there were cases where there were people serving on the boards who just didnt believe in Conscientious Objection. My hope is that we have evolved beyond that and theres a deeper understanding, but i dont know the compositions of local boards right now, but i i dont assume that, i mean, unfortunately, i dont think that local boards necessarily know their communities as well as we think that we would like them to know their communities. That is ideal. Thank you. So i want to pose real quickly then to each member. So, you know, again, yesterday we heard from individuals that talked about, you know, the changing threats that we face, that the homeland is no longer a sanctuary, that future warfare will probably require different skill sets than just folks picking up a rifle and going off to battle. So i want to pose a hypothetical scenario and ask your response. So kind of what you alluded to, dr. Coppenger, the red dawn scenario attacked from both canada and mexico. There is no Selective Service system. The allvolunteer force is insufficient. Theres been a congressional and president ial call for volunteers, for people to step up. However, the response has not been enough to meet the threat the actual threat to our homeland. Not an overseas operation. How would you propose to meet the demand . Yeah, im not sure i got all the details there, but i guess i think if you get to the point as a nation that you have to draft the women out of the home to bear arms, its pretty much over anyway, but, you know, like what nation do you have after that . Its such an extreme kind of case. I just its hard to say to build policy on something so remote as that. By the way, im not sure this was an element, but he was talking about i think you know what . We cant find these people. I think you can find just about everybody in registered letters. I mean, they find me, and ive moved several times. So i think its, you know, its doable to go through the records. Whether its Social Security or tax forms or something or other or drivers licenses and say, okay, guys, lets get it. Okay. And i think that would be adequate. Yeah, i mean, if mars invades, i dont know. Well see what that does. War of the worlds. But i think in the real world, we dont need to do it. Ms. Eden, any thoughts . Well, that is a compelling reason to keep the draft. Its a signal to the world that were going to were serious about being ready if we need to be. Yeah. I just dont believe that we should include women in it. Okay. Mr. Hasbrouck . I mean, you talk about the poor record of the government in assessing threats. Now, thats both threats that are missed that we arent prioritizing, the existential threats to human survival posed by nuclear weapons, including those of the u. S. The existential threat to human survival posed by global warming. But those errors in threat assessment also include the false claims of existential threat. The claim that was made that the vietnamese posed a threat to the u. S. In the tonkin gulf that proved to be false but led to a war in which millions died. The most honorable thing anybody said they did in that war was refused to fight. The claim that iraqi weapons of mass destruction posed an existential threat to the u. S. , that proved to be false, but has led us to 17 years of war in iraq. So i think what is called for and what history shows we need more of when the government makes this claim of existential threat is more skepticism by the public about it. If the public says and votes with their bodies, were not prepared to fight that war, thats called democracy. Okay. Ms. Mcguire. Just to clarify, in your there was already a draft . Its not saying there is a potential. Its occurred but there is no Selective Service program. Okay. I would just say to me, that is a compelling reason to keep the Selective Service but not include women. Ms. Randall . So thats quite a hypothetical. I will grant you that. And i im not sure that i have an answer directly for that. I do think that we have seen that americans rise with the unity of purpose at different times. I think there are many people across this country that are heartbroken, of the vast disunity of purpose we have in our country today, and it is quite difficult to imagine a call at this point that would unify us. I can imagine, just hypothetically, that such a call that you such an action that youve described would would compel people, but its but, again, thats a hypothetical situation. Thats hard to know. I think there are so many other clear and present dangers to our democracy that we ought to be paying attention to those. Thank you. Ms. Wada . Thank you. I just want to continue on the thought. Because we have heard from other sort of countries that have a screening process. So if our nation was under immediate threat, existential threat, and we had a Selective Service system that was included everyone. If there was a screening process by which an individual could choose to screen say that if the question was, do you wish to serve in the military in the event of a National Mobilization . Would that change your positions . You know, i talk about i got a drivers license in tennessee renewed recently. On the back it says, you know, willing to donate your body. Whatever. At this age, im not sure what theyd want. But at any rate, you can put your body on the line, and if, you know, as one alternative you can say, should something just get crazy, then you might call on me. I tell you, the state of tennessee doesnt require it. They dont say you better turn that license over again and think that. No, i can walk out and be perfectly free to do that. So, again, yes, thats kind of a second step. Should something happen, then i might, you know, be on call, but its not compulsory. Again, by the way, one of the just war principles is that you dont commit suicide when you enter into a war. You know, its not like lichtenstein is being invaded by soviet russia. No, you dont do it. You dont commit suicide as a nation. If you get to the point you have to take everybody, i think better to live under whatever youve got because after awhile youve just gutted the home, in a sense. So, but, yeah, i i think that drivers license thing might suggest an option. Ms. Eden . So youre asking if there was a different screening question when people register for the draft if that would make a difference right. As to as to Conscientious Objection or the existence of the draft at all . To the draft at all. No, it wouldnt change my opinion. Oh, okay. I have two answers, and theyre both no. Okay. First, that people that dont want to serve the war effort dont want to serve the war effort. And saying you can serve the war effort without wearing a uniform is still serving the war effort. So, no. And second, if what youre saying is, well, youre going to conscript people but not necessarily for the military, then youre back to the hearing you held in february about Compulsory Service. You heard plenty of reasons then, and i submitted with my written testimony, you know, a chapter from a book that i wrote about some of the range of reasons people oppose the draft. Some of them are particular to a military draft. But a lot of them arent. The objections to the draft as compelled servitude, the objections to the racism, the class bias, the objections to the ageism of the draft. All of those equally apply to a draft conscription for National Service, even if its nonmilitary. Thank you. Just to clarify, it would be completely voluntary what youre proposing . Make a selection a screening tool of individuals. Oh, i would actually be okay with that. Wed be opposed because of the coercion to register at all. Dr. Coppenger, maybe i can bring you into this conversation. We have, as you know, been on a listening tour for this commissions work. We have met people who have observed to us and felt the current registration and the consequences for not complying with the Registration System amounts to an unfair tax on men. Right. How would you respond to that . Right. I think actually this came to mind back during the whole e. R. A. Deal. Like, what could it mean . And one of the things that came up says, oh, well, then men could be freed from the draft. Just say, hey but, i mean, there are morally relevant differences. As weve said. I mean, you can just say, well, were discriminating against young people because youre not taking 70yearolds to, you know, hit the beach and whatever. Gaudal canal or something. You are discriminating, but there is a reason to discriminate. Its not just arbitrary like, well take well only take people whose name starts with c and not with d or, you know, forever and ever. Well, thats ridiculous. Thats arbitrary. This isnt arbitrary. And to somehow decide that i dont want to put too sharp a point on this, but that were smarter than god. That we know the male female thing, thats just, you know, weve outgrown that now and its really by the way, i think when god created men, male and female, he didnt do market testing for the 21st century. I wonder how this will play in peoria. He just did it. Its a fact of reality. To tear my paper again, there is a grain and you just honor it i mean, its psychological, its physical. There are all kinds of things. That doesnt mean theyre totally distinct. Its not as if theyre two different species. There is overlap. Theres complimentary. There is equal honor and so forth. But center of mass, there is a difference, so its not arbitrary. If a guy says, well, you took why dont you treat me like because youre not like her. Okay. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ms. Mcguire, if i may, i Value Hearing your opinion on this very critical issue. If registration were extended to women i know thats a stretch for you, but what would be the best practices for ensuring respect for communities that make a doctrinal distinction between the role of men and women, particularly in the role of military service . I mean, i think generally those communities would be religious, and im not sure if you can claim a religious Conscientious Objection on the basis of the fact that your religion says that women should not serve in the military. Im not sure if thats an actual theological position that any religion has. I just think the cleanest way to do it, if you did require women to register for the Selective Service, is to allow religious Conscientious Objection and very clear and expansive exceptions for women who are have Young Children or are pregnant. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Barney . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Following up on comments from my colleague, mr. Gearan, we were on our listening tour last year. We had an opportunity to go to places all over the country, large cities, small towns, and we posed the question wherever we went, this issue of, you know, should women if the Selective Service remains, should women be required to register . We we heard in significant numbers from both men and women the idea that to exclude women from a legal requirement in our nation is to not treat women with equality under the law. And that equality under the law is valued in a very significant war throughout our country, if you follow me. So my the second part of this, though, was when we started to discuss what that really means, we also heard from many of the same people who had strong views about equality for women and equality under the law. Responses that are based in the complimentarian type of idea that women have different roles and can have different roles. This is the ultimate question that were looking at here, and that is to what extent could we as a nation not require women to register in a Selective Service if it were to be kept, but also to to be recognized as fully equal under the law in our nation . Ms. Eden, would you like to tackle that milliondollar question . Yeah, i mean, i think we already are equal under the law and, again, the draft is for the the purpose of military need during, say, a world war. So the equal rights question doesnt really apply because, as ive argued, were not similarly situated to fulfill that need per combat replacements in particular. Thank you. Ms. Mcguire . I think there is actually a counterargument to be made that women are not if they were to be required to register for the Selective Service, which has the possibility of sending somebody in a time of emergency into a combat situation, that theyre not equal under the law because theyre being they could potentially be sent into a situation where they would have an unequal chance of survival. Does any of our other panelists care to comment on this with the time thats remaining . Well, the equality always depends upon morally relevant differences. I mean, you can say, look, im a consenting adult and shes a consenting adult, and we would we would like to be married and those consenting adults get to be married and stuff. Yeah, but youre brother and sister. Theres a morally relevant difference here. Now, thats an extreme case, but to just say, you know, every single thing should be treated the same, thats not what equality is under the law. Its rather that it cant be arbitrary. An arbitrary distinction that you would draw. So this is not arbitrary. Could i add something, too, and say that there is a phenomenon happening in sports where increasingly discrimination on the basis of sexes. Whereas once schools were required to show that they were requiring equal opportunities and funding for womens sports yeah. Now increasingly the courts are ruling in sort of a sex blind way, saying you literally cannot discriminate between men and women, like make a distinction. So you have examples where you have men im not talking about transgender. Im talking about biological men who lets say they want to compete on the swim team and there is no mens swimming, theyre allowing men to compete on the womens team, and those men are then going on to, say, break their records and beat them and take their scholarships. So i think we have to be careful when we talk about equality when we talk about equality under the law as dr. Coppenger was saying. Its not treating the sexes as identical. Often when you do that, you can have adverse results. It always seems to backfire on women. You know, it occurs to me, i used to work at northwestern university. The stadium there was where they had the olympic trials in track and field. I think actually where jesse owens competed to go to the olympics. Because of title nine, there is no track team at northwestern now in that stadium. You could say thats a great thing. You know, wrestling teams have whatever, doesnt make money, those fall by the wayside. I guess the principle of unintended consequences. We meant to lift up, you know, the womens crew or what have you to this level, but things change. Well, the question is, do you want all these changes . There are consequences. There are ripples that go all along. Seems like northwestern, a big ten school, ought to have a track team. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ms. Eden, id like to tap into your experience in the marine corps and your experience deploying with the marine corps. If the draft was extended to women, how would that affect logistical requirements such as training and equipping if there were mass numbers of women that came into a military service . You can speak from the marine corps. How would you envision that affecting those requirements and do you have any thoughts about how that would be mitigated . Its taken a long time for the military to be able to fulfill the demand of of different needs for women, different gear, medical care. So, if youre in ducting mass amounts of women, the costs are going to be much higher than they would be if youre only in ducting men. Are there mitigation opportunities that you can see for that . I mean its all about what youre willing to pay, what the American People are willing to pay in order to implement a policy like this. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Hasbrouck, you wrote in your testimony and you mentioned during your oral remarks that if women were required to register for Selective Service you would assume compliance rates among women would be low or would be lower possibly than men. Can you cite any data that speaks to that . I think the clearest evidence that we have in terms of data i mean i can follow up by speaking to some of the analytic reasons, the best data we have of that is the experience the last time that there was a proposal made to register women for the draft, which was part of jimmy carters proposal in the state of the Union Address in 1980. We saw an utterly unprecedented explosion of activism led by women with organizations of an opposition forming within days, most of them women led. We saw a march on washington of 20,000 people, less than two months later the majority of whose participants were women. The media may have paid more attention to men and foregrounded them as purported leaders and much of the attention to women in the resistance, even though most of the antidraft moment continued to be comprised of women even after congress chose to limit registration to men, but much of the strength of that opposition clearly came from women and clearly the proposal to require women to register galvanized women much more than men. We have that evidence. In terms of analytic reasons, obviously women have all the same reasons men have to oppose being drafted, plus which ever perspective theyre coming from, whether from the perspective of antiwar feminism or some of the other theological and other perspective about womens role, specific reasons for opposing it. More women would be inclined against registering and agreeing to be drafted and critically there would be vastly more popular support. Whether or not you or i agree with these attitudes or adopt them ourselves we would be denying reality we didnt recognize there are gender differences and social expectations and that many of the same people who would criticize man who refuses to fight as a sissy praise a woman who refuses to fight as a good girl. Although many people do resist as an individual act, regardless what their family or friends or community says, its easier in a community of support, and so the solidarity theyre going to face, this is an issue in terms of the volume of noncompliance for people who will have their faith leaders telling them women shouldnt be going into this, shouldnt be signing up, as well as its an enforcement issue. When you go into communities you will have a whole different level of Community Solidarity when youre going in and trying to round up draft resistors where theres a community, most of the people, peoples families, faith leaders, and communities fully support what these women are doing, its going to be really hard. This is why the track record we have from the vietnam period is when the government tried to go into communities that were solidly against the war and round people up for acts of dissent they had to use increasingly intrusive and aggressive measures to penetrate resistant communities. Where did we end up . We ended up with j. Edgar hooverism and thats the kind of aggressive tactics it will take to drag people out of resistant communities where they feel this is not the role our women should be taking and were going to protect them. Thank you. So i want to pick up a little bit on your testimony, miss eden. You told a story about your own experiences in iraq and also laid out some data about women and their injury rates and so am i right or understanding you right that your argument is about in many ways operational effectiveness and the ability for women to contribute because of those injury rates . Yes. The so there are tons of roles in which women excel, in which we need women and their particular intelligence and expertise. Intelligence, medicine, a wide range. In the combat units in particular, i think its theres more cons than pros, so theres more damage that is caused by doing that and that it does diminish our combat effectiveness and is harmful to women, so i dont believe thats its a prowomen policy. And you were a data analyst or not a data analyst. You were i. T. Networking. Networker. But then you were out on convoys and you were at checkpoints. Yeah. That was a secondary duty that i was separate from which is something that a military police unit would probably be more trained to do, correct . They do some of that. The way they were doing it when i was deployed in 2005 was that in order to be respectful of the iraqi culture and not to have our military men frisking women for explosives as they came into checkpoints in fallujah, would be women frisking them. To supplement those teams, they would bring us and bring women from other units. So this gets to my operational effectiveness piece and the changing nature of our combat or operational environment. I was in the pentagon during that time frame and we go an emergency request for forces and they usually dont have enough tanks or enough, you know, this or that, in this particular case they said we dont have enough women and the reason was because of that, because the traditionally trained military police or even infantry that were out in the streets or in the homes of these people, they realized this was a horrible way to operate and they were being culturally not very sensitive or even and it was affecting the effectiveness. Does that sort of change your opinion at all about the balance between what is fair and what is equal and what is operationally required with respect to women . I think that we can make choices about what is needed operationally, but that it was problematic to make this a blanket policy across all the military that were going to open all combat units to women. The special forces like the navy s. E. A. L. S. And the rangers, were already utilizing women on their teams, no press about it, but just and truly meritbased. If they had a need and they had somebody who a female who could fulfill that need, they were utilizing women in their teams, but it wasnt a blanket policy for the entire military that then, for example, created the situation where women can be involuntary assigned to combat units on the same basis as men. I think the problem is with blanket policy, not making individual decisions about, you know, we need people here, we need people there, are we going to condone this and authorize it. So your participation at those checkpoints was voluntary . Yeah. I asked. Okay. And the rest of the people on the checkpoint were trained similarly . Did you get any training to do that . It was not additional training. We had a lot of our predeployment workups were to be, you know, in the combat zone. Sure. Its not the same as the infantry. Its like if youre not in the combat arms unit you get a watered down or a shorter version of the infantry training. Okay. Thank you. I yield the rest of my time. Miss mcguire, i want to ask you a question. As we went around and talked to people across the country about the issue of females being required to register with Selective Service, proponents of that position made the point that doing so would give women something, more respect in the eyes of society, greater equality. Am i understanding your testimony to be that no, in fact, it would take away something from women . It would be a setback for womens rights rather than an advancement . I think that mentality is sort of what i would call patriarchal leftovers, that the idea that women have only achieved something if weve done something that men do, and thats sort of what im always trying to resist and so i think i mean certainly i would view it as a setback for womens rights because were there to be a National Emergency, they would have lost the right to make the choice about whether or not they want to stay home with their children or be sent overseas into a war potentially. But i think the bigger concern again is this mentality we cant seem to free ourselves from which is that women achieve equality with men by doing as they do. And i think i do think that a lot of the you know,s the fact that were having this conversation i think has been driven to some extent by sort of ideological elites who are trying to enforce gender equality by gender sameness if you will, because as many other panelists have said it seems almost the idea that we would need women we would need to draft women, draft mothers and send them into a war. So i think theres a big part of why were having this conversation that has something to do with the fact that there is a mindset that womens equality comes by only when women do as men do. And, miss eden, you talked about the term similarly situated in that men and women are not similarly situated as men. In your testimony, you talked that that has adverse consequences for women, but thats not limited to a combat unit, is it . Women are facing disadvantage in a combat unit, in a combat zone, in training, as you stated, with the injury rates and what not. Is that accurate . The problem is amplified where theres the highest physical demand, so even in noncombat units, military women sustain higher injury rates. Where youre going to put even more physical demand on them, long marches under load, lifting heavy ammunition, scaling walls, in a full pack, casualty evacuation, you know, those that disparity is going to get even greater and its going to cost women their health. And under current circumstances, females are able to make that choice to assume those risks . Right. And, you know, the high injury rates are a big reason that womens attrition from the military is much higher than men. Women leave the military earlier and more frequently than men do. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Two questions. Miss eden, in this area of in the places where youve identified you see women excel like in intelligence and health and those areas, am i right that you wouldnt have a concern with registration for the potential of Compulsory Service in those areas that would include both women and men . Is that right . Its really in the sense that you think its inappropriate and understood mines sort of operational effectiveness in areas that are outside of those types of places . Yes. My position is based on the purpose of the draft as we know a it today, and as ive stated, if were approaching this from a standpoint of equity and we say were going to register people for the draft for all military positions, combat and noncombat alike, men are still going to get the unequal share of the heavy lifting and the highrisk jobs, so how do we justify that thats equal and fair . Okay. Thank you very much. Miss randall, i think, you know, at root what i got out of your testimony is the sense of concern that anybody, which i a share, with religious conviction and moral conviction that prevents them from taking positions in combat or for the military in support of combat, should be forced to serve and that thats something that we should avoid essentially in all circumstances. And one of the you know, sort of on the other end of the spectrum, we hear and yesterdays testimony certainly outlined this, but weve heard across a variety of hearings weve done, essentially from a National Security standpoint a desire to have the ability essentially to call on people in the event of a National Emergency and to do so quickly, effectively and fairly and the purpose of the Selective Service system. And i think certainly reasonable minds can argue over whether or not the Current System is will be fully effective under those circumstances but the idea that we should have a system in place that allows us to do that. And, of course, in this context, there would have to be a separate congressional act in order to actually compel people to serve in the context of the National Emergency that would occur, where then you might have an opportunity to say this is not just, you know, conflict that people should be compelled to serve in, et cetera, or you might hit the kind of hypothetical that chairman heck identified where the country is being invaded and there is a sense we should go down that road. I guess, to my mind, the space that is most useful to try to understand is, how could we create a system, as some have asked, that really does give everybody confidence that anybody who feels that, you know, on a that its against their conscience to serve has the opportunity to express that and to have an opportunity to pull out of it in a sense . And i guess have you seen you know, you talked about the fact that youve heard from people who actually went through the boards in vietnam and didnt feel the system worked effectively, have you heard of a structure that does seem to have that kind of credibility, that would allow people effectively to make this case and to do so with confidence that they would be appropriately treated, you know, or do you have proposals in that vain . To the first part of your question about which i think speaks to some of the other questions that have come from commission mers with regard to the question of equality and men and women, i think theres a broader question of equality that Edward Hasbrouck raised about age. Theres equality of is this being applied across the board or if you i mean given the fact that there are penalties to not registering theres a certain level of inequality to it. The broader question of quality that the commission has to look at in terms of application of Selective Service in addition to women and men, but how does this apply to everyone. Then i think theres this question of whether theres i guess what i would call for lack of anything else a sense of social and cultural coherence in our communities that make us understand that it is valuable to be a good citizen, being a good citizen is more than voting, it is serving community in a way. I think there has to be some mechanism for those who choose to not serve their communities through the military. I dont have a mechanism for how that would happen. You know, its just not something i put a lot of thought into it, but i think its absolutely possible because there are so many other needs that our communities have and theres so many other ways that people are serving, particularly young people are serving in voluntary Service Programs and, you know, im sure youve been looking at those, but there are some that are faithbased and others that are nonprofit based where people are providing a great deal of service and i think that question of how those, you know, how you might look at that is really important. Again, i dont think that should people should not be coerced to do that. We should be our educational systems, our cultural systems should be promoting the idea that we are we have a shared humanity and we have to serve we have to provide service in our communities. Okay. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would just like to state that im really personally deeply appreciative of all five of you being with us here today. Im proud to be a part of this body in that we have you here with us today. I know there may be presumptions as to predispositions on our part based on our personal histories and backgrounds and how the issues are put to us and the fact that this body exists and i can appreciate that. The fact that were here and having this conversation publicly and live on cspan2, i think is important and says something about the relative health of our democracy and im grateful for it and i just want to say that anybody that does have an opinion i hope you took a number or that you can still share your opinions and thoughts with us sincerely via our website and all the things that are there. Thats not a cop out. We mean that and incorporate that in our deliberations. That said, the conversation has been so fulsome i dont have an additional question at this time so i yield back. Thank you. So we are the commission that as youll know, of military and national Public Service. One idea that has been brought up, i want to get your opinion and what you think about it, what if we replace the Selective Service system with a new serve your country system, where people would register but they could choose. I want to serve in the military or i want to serve in civilian National Service, peace corps, mary corps or serve in my local state or federal government, firefighting or teaching, et cetera. What would be your views on that . If that was a voluntary system, would you be supportive of that . If it was a mandatory system, would you be supportive of it . If its voluntary, i think thats fine. If it is compulsory, i would distinguish between men and women. I still would stand up for the military draft for men. There were 10 million of them drafted to fight world war ii. That was a very important sort of thing. I think you need to have that in there and men should be obliged to do that. To allow people to register for these things, i just wouldnt supplant the military draft for men. The other sounds okay. I think the volunteerism separate from the draft question, i think you cant mandate it, then its not really volunteerism. If you want to create opportunities for those who volunteer the most important thing is to make education a right rather than funded by loans that people end up in debt servitude when they get out of college. Many more people would choose things that you and i would probably agree would be a public sieves, if education were a governmentfunded right, as it is in many other countries youve been looking at and talking about. Thats the best way to encourage voluntarism. I think theres a real problem leaving aside the whole issue of Compulsory Service generally, i think theres a problem with assuming that we old people know what the best ways for young people to spend their lives, including the best ways to serve are. Were the people who are responsible for having created a world menaced by nuclear weapons, menaced by global warming. We need to take leadership from young people and we need to learn from them. Were not going to do it by us being the ones to define which are the acceptable ways for them to lead. We need to get out of their way and let them do what they want and not tell them, oh, you can choose from this menu of what we approve. Thats going backwards. We need to go forwards. Letting the young people lead. I would be opposed to a mandate but i do like the idea of i did like the idea about something optional that you can check saying even if it was not i would like to serve my country in a time of war, but i would like to learn more, volunteer to serve my country, i do remember getting my first drivers license and seeing the box to check which i obviously didnt have to check, but it was a good i was 16 and it was a good just even reminder of the fact that you have civic duty, and i think had there been something to check about Civil Service, probably would have checked it. I agree with those who say voluntarism needs to be voluntarism and you cant compel it. I do believe it is important to continue to educate young people and children and both within families and schools and within our religious and cultural institutions about what it is to be a part of a community. I think its very important for us to come back to a dialog of what is National Security, what are Strong Communities and what comprise those. Various Panel Members have made recommendations that can help that, but that National Dialog is an important dialog we should be having for what communities need. I wouldnt make it compulsory. I dont think thats the way to go. We dont support Compulsory Military Service or compulsory volunteer service. But i think it is an important dialog and i commend this commission for your studiousness and deliberations on this topic as broadly as you are looking at it. Can i add something . Im sorry. Go ahead. Were talking about National Service, but kind of to a lot of the points that youre making, miss randall, that a lot of service that is needed is on the local level, so one of the best ways that we can encourage a spirit of service would be locally and not necessarily, you know, nationally. I just hope that in talking about National Service we dont act as though people who arent signing up for this or checking the box arent doing National Service. We just had a reunion in my hometown of all of the people who played under a band director, kind of like mr. Hollands opus or Something Like this, and we all got together and spent days practicing and performed, and he changed lives more than anybody i know in our School System and to say well, but he didnt do National Service, i its all National Service if its a calling under god and its done well. I also want to thank you all for joining us today and sharing your views so thoughtfully and passionately and i have no further questions. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Casey. Miss eden, miss randall, we appreciate your time today and all the very valuable information you provided for us for us to consider as we go down the path of formulating the recommendations that we will make to congress and the president and the American People. That concludes the formal portion of the testimony so well dismiss the panelists from the witness table and youre welcome to take seats in the front row if youd like to stay with Public Comment. The commission is committed to transparency and openness with the public. In keeping with these principles the commission intends to provide the public with an opportunity to deliver Public Comments during our hearings. As a reminder in order to provide the greatest opportunity for as many participants to offer a comment as would like, Public Comment is limited to a twominute period per person. As is noted on our website sign up for Public Comment took place between the opening of registration and the start of this hearing. When you signed up you received a number ticket. To ensure fairness tickets were randomly drawn and we will call out five ticket numbers at a time and ask when your number is called please come forward and make a line behind the mic located to my right, your left, and provide your comment. On the easel to my left and your right, you will also sees the ticket numbers in the order that you should line up. If time does not permit you to offer your oral comment we encourage you to submit your written comment at your website at inspiretoserve. Gov. If you have any written statements you would like to submit for the record please provide them to the staff. I invite the following ticket individuals up to the mic to a provide comment. That would be numbers 55, 59, 49, 60, and 48. So if you would please come and form a line up here at the microphone. During your comment, please be aware of the lights that are in front of you on the table. The light will turn yellow when you have 30 seconds remaining and red when time has expired. At this time you will also hear a buzzer and we ask to please promptly conclude your comments. Before you begin your comment please introduce yourself to the commission with your name and affiliation. Number 55. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission Im tim miller from the representing the conservative baptist Service Program. I would like to respond to mr. Barneys first question about women applying as Conscientious Objectors in relation to their role. There is a definition of Conscientious Objection thats used by these local boards that the Selective Service continues to train and maintain, which is different than exemptions allowed by law. This is a subjective determination by a group of people, a jury if you will, that this individual merits different treatment due to, quote, deeply held religious convictions. I believe the same system could be used if there were some consideration given to Conscientious Objection in the relation to the role of women. For us, yes, it would be a matter of conscience, and while weve been quite willing to have our young men do alternative service in National Importance at the time of a draft if a woman would be registered and drafted we would request for women, a deeply held conviction in relation to their role different from men could be considered to exempt them completely from alternative service. Thank you. Number 59. Hello. My name is david morganstern. My name is david morganstern. To start out, i just wanted to acknowledge my apparent identity, race, sex, age hard of hearing, speaking. That said, im not going to discuss the independent merits of dissolution or Conscientious Objectors or fairness as the draft exists. I just want to comment what dr. Coppenger said, that if we get to the point where we need women its a useless fight. I dont think women are useless in fighting in many aspects and he suggested that we should abandon the walk on part in the role for the lead war in the cage. No. Miss edens argument was littered with red herrings and fear mongering everyone who is drafting is going to be facing a meth head with a knife and savage. And if men are so much better at fighting why not let women backstop them so that the men can go out in the field and do what they need to do. Also the problems in the military, are not a reason to restrict the draft to men. Its a reason to fix the problems in the military and what happens after getting drafted. Lastly, giving women an indifferent shoulder from the Selective Service is not the way to resolve the military problems. Putting women in power positions is the way for the change to come from inside the military from inside the Service Members once they are women and once they are integrated. Thank you. Thank you. Number 49. Hello. My name is chris mccoy, and im here on behalf of the Friends Meeting of washington of the religious society of friends. I am a quaker and as a quaker, i oppose all war. I am also a young person part of a generation that has never meaningfully known a country that is at peace. I was 5 years old on september 11th, 2001, when the twin towers fell not 15 miles from my house in north jersey. That day is one of my earliest memories. After 9 11, one war in afghanistan turned into another in iraq turned into too many conflicts to count. Many of the people fighting our wars today do not remember 9 11. Im 22 years old right in the middle of the draft window and i know my age cohort is one of the youngest that remembers 9 11. Americans are now eligible to fight in afghanistan who were not born on september 11th, 2001. The endless wars are a grave injustice against the young people in this country and one that would be made so much worse by the expansion of the Selective Service. My 18th birthday was a bittersweet day for me because i was a legal adult but i had to register for the Selective Service knowing that some day i may have to stand up and say, no, i will not kill. My fathers generation lived the great tragedy of having thousands of its brightest flames extinguished in vietnam through no choice of their own in service of a Foreign Policy that viewed young people as expendable. I pray we have the wisdom and humanity to never repeat that mistake, but as long as Selective Service or anything like it exists, my generation and future generations to come will live with the sort above our head of being forced to kill and die. Thank you. Thank you. Number 60. No. Okay. 48. Hi. My name is arianna standish. Im a freshman at uc berkeley and im a quaker. Im 19 and so im a young woman and im the exact demographic you all are talking about when youre thinking about extending the draft to women. Today it was extremely hard for me to sit here and listen to the blatant sexism that some of our panelists were exhibiting and i find i find it insulting that a man who is decades older than me can tell me its my fate like im hardwired to sit at home and be at home and have kids when my little brother sitting behind me is hardwired to fighting combat. I do not want my fate and the fate of young women of my generation decided by a panel of older adults who some of them think that were our nature is to sit at home. And i think its sexist that were concerned about drafting young women who might be mothers, but that we dont have any regard for the young men who might be fathers. To assume that young women have like inherent nature to be a mom, you have to say that young men have the inherent nature to be fathers and its wrong to draft both away from their families. For that reason, the only right thing to do is to abolish Selective Service. One of the panelists here brought in his granddaughters and he said that you cant look them in the eye and say that they want them to be drafted and possibly killed. What if he brought his grandsons . You also cant look them in the eye and say that you want them to be drafted and potentially killed. Its the same thing. And my brother is with me, hes 15, hell be eligible for the Selective Service in a few years, and i dont think you can sit there and tell us that we have the right to be drafted and have our lives potentially taken away from us. Yeah. The Selective Service is immoral and i think we need to get rid of it. Thank you. Thank you. Id now like to have numbers 51, 47, 54, 57, and 46 line up. And number 51. Good morning. My name is bill galvin the counseling coordinator at the center on conscious and war. I think you already know i feel you should recommend that Selective Service registration should be ended for everyone. Theres lots i could say about whats happened this morning. I have experience of how unfair draft boards were. I want to talk to you a bit about my friend herm kaiser who died a little over a year ago. For 30 years he was a chaplin in the army, a christian reformed minister and after he retired from the army chaplin the pentagon kept calling him back for another decade or so for various things where he was advising them and when he was in vietnam he he actually lamented about how he was unable to help these young men who had come to him and say because of my religious beliefs i was raised a good catholic or as presbyterian or whatever and i apply the principles of my church and this war is immoral and wrong and in should get out of here as a conscientious object tore. He said i couldnt help them because the way the law was worded you had to be opposed to participation of war in any form and not a particular war. He has he dedicated his life to trying to change that definition of Conscientious Objection to include objection to a particular war. You should know that thats the primary teaching of almost all faith traditions in our country, personally im presbyterian and a passivist but theres plenty of people with just war thinking. There are at least a dozen or probably more, i just looked the other day, at least a dozen faith groups, you know, catholic, protestant the Synagogue Council of america, that all have explicit policies calling on our government to change the definition of Conscientious Objection to also include objection to a particular war and i would encourage you to consider that in your recommendations. You should know that the military policy about Conscientious Objection is based on the draft law and they use 1 a 10 and 1ao nomenclature. People in the military dont even know where it came from. It came from Selective Service. Thank you very much. Number 47. Number 54. No. Number 57. I would like to thank the commission and the panelists for their time today. Without wishing to go too far beyond the scope of the commissions purpose or purpose of this particular hearing, i would like to voice my opinion on what i think is a Bigger Picture here. Not questions of fitness for combat or gender equality, or even how to extend accommodations for Conscientious Objectors but questions of war and militarism and life and death. In 2006, at the age of 18, i chose not to register with the Selective Service, not because i am conscientiously opposed to participation in all war, because of deeply held religious and moral beliefs, but because i felt obligated by my conscious and critical faculties to make a statement, however small, of opposition resistance to u. S. Wars as they actually exist in the real world. I came of age during the iraq war and witnessed its catastrophic effect on the world and our own country, corrosion of liberty, democracy, independent thought, truth itself and most of all the massive scale of death that it imposed on the world. By declining to register i made a small protest against the system and for it i was denied federal financial student Financial Aid and barred from federal employment. I was never charged with a crime. I was never convicted of a crime. But rather i was punished without due process. I find this legally and constitutionally bizarre it is the aspect of the draft Registration System that really concerns me. Its that its a part of a vast apparatus of war that has and continues to so degrade and demean and humanize everything in this country it claims to stand for to say nothing of its effect on the rest of the world. I think this is a Bigger Picture that i would like everyone in this room to go home with today to consider. I realize its again beyond the specific issues in question today at this hearing, but i would be remiss if i did not come here today to remind everyone that thats really what were talking about here when we talk about Selective Service, draft registration and participation in the war. Can you identify yourself for the record. Give your name. Oaethen foot. Thank you. Number 46. Thank you for allowing us to comment today, commissioners. Im kendra bradley, the executive director of quaker house unfayetteville, north carolina. As im sure youre aware in june 2018, the v. A. Revised how it was reporting the number of suicides among the military population. Before it had been around 22 a day, then it was revised down to 20 and then they said that they included both active duty and veterans and now the number stands between 2005 and 2015, 17 average on a day veterans commit suicide. On average a day four active Duty National guardsmen or reservists committed suicide. I deal with this issue on a daily basis in my role. Quaker house is a Nonprofit Organization that serves the military Community Around ft. Bragg, through our Counseling Program that is free to military Service Members and veteran and active duty and to their family members. Were an integral part of the g. I. Rights network and hotline. We take phone calls from anywhere in the world where Service Members are stationed and i can tell you theres a lot of anguish out there and i can tell you some people do not know they are Conscientious Objectors until theyre already in the service. I would suggest both of these things, the experience that we have had with the g. I. Rights network and the high suicide rate is indicative that a larger portion of the population of the United States and probably the world, are Conscientious Objectors and dont know it. There has been a lot of talk here today about innate characteristics of people and i would suggest to you that it is an innate characteristic of human beings not to kill other human beings. And so theres been questions about how to make sure a test is fair, i would suggest that you err on the side of believing the conscientious object tore. And i would also suggest making the registration process if its kept more intentional and presenting more information that they may need to investigate whether they are a Conscientious Objector. It would help the military itself both with its readiness and also with its suicide epidemic. Thank you. I will ask the last six tickets, 43, 48, 50, 56, to line up and number 45. Good morning. Nice to see you again. Kate connell from Santa Barbara, california. As i said yesterday im a parent of two draft age youth. Not the two youths i came with. They are friends. I am also a member of the Santa Barbara Friends Meeting and a few of other quakers have testified today. I just wanted to address the idea of equality. Friends have a long legacy of equality with women from the start, women were given the same level of equality, seen as people who had the were able to have a direct experience with the light or god and they didnt need an intermediary who was male. So they worshipped in the same meeting house, separate sides of the aisle, but no barriers between them. For this and for many other practices they were challenged by the established church and the english monarchy and sent to prison and often died there. But i am not advocating for people who are identified female at birth to be forced to register for the draft. No one should be forced to serve. Instead, the Selective Service funds should be repurposed to support agencies such as americorps and peace corps and other existing Service Opportunities so those agencies can pay their volunteers sustainable wages. I have heard when at cal state l. A. When the listening sessions that americorps its hard for people to do that work when they dont have the funds. As a panelist said yesterday i dont do this for the money but it wouldnt hurt to have a sustainable wage. This would be a way, also talked about yesterday, to positively encourage people to be of service. I also agree with what the panelists said today about making education free, Higher Education free, so all people can take advantage of that and i know that my time is up, i just want to say that this, the coercive nature of forcing people to sign up needs to be done away with and all past punitive measures for nonregistrants, there should be amnesty for that. Thank you. Thank you. Number 53. Number 58. 52. Where are we . Whos next . What number do you got. I have number 50. All right. The floor is yours. Thank you. Im nathan hustler and i work for the church district, the office of peace building and policy in washington, d. C. Also a pastor at the Washington City church on capitol hill. The church opposes war in all forms and participation in war by our members. This is a matter of our theology and ethics, driving from our study of scripture and prayer together. This conviction has been consistently reaffirmed by our annual conference. In 1918, for example, our denominations highest Decision Making body was the annual conference of the church of the brethren stated that war and any participation in war is wrong and entirely incompatible with the spirit and examples of jesus christ. In 1934, a new Conference Statement says all war is sin. We cannot encourage and willingly profit for Armed Conflict at home or abroad. We cannot in the event of war accept military service or support the military machine in any capacity. These beliefs have been reiterated and expanded on many times before and after these statements. As such, nonparticipation in all aspects of war is a matter of religious freedom that includes both direct combat and any roles that support the use of violent force. While we recognize and uphold the equality of women, for example, weve long ordained women to pastoral ministry, we cannot support the expansion of the draft. The question should not be whether or not women should be drafted, it should be rather whether anyone, regardless of their identity, should be conscripted into military service. Our theological understanding of war makes this answer clear, every Single Person should have the right to refuse military service as a matter of conscience, regardless of gender. Additionally there are two things we like to note that have been have minimal focus on in this process. One is, the unhelpful conflation of military service with other forms of volunteer service, and the mandate of this commission, for example, we worked with Selective Service having alternatives, volunteer services, and the other would be the lack of discussion about disproportionate impact of the draft on marginalized communities. Thank you. Thank you very much. Number 52. Thank you. Robert miller is the name. Im with a small nonprofit named hope for america. Weve been involved for a number of years in soliciting from the teaching offices of various components of the divided christian church, some theological reflection on this novel modern enrollment of women as defenders of men one might say. Thats obviously a narrow and what i say a torture to this definition of what were seeing here as women as combatants. A number of serious studies have been accomplished. Ill be sure that you get them, that conclude harmoniously, that man is intended to be the defender of woman, not vice versa. Were talking about an ordered creation which presumes the existence of a god who we named in our oaths of office and constitution, and signed on a year of the lord, 1787, thats characterized in our oath and our motto, in our anthem, in various ways, where perhaps perfunctory in acknowledging where the fundamental order in what we might call good order and discipline is located. Were a long way down the road toward disorder by those definitions perhaps. Therefore, i would like to just mention two things. One, because much could be said. One is that being equally situated before the law, does not supersede the fact that woman was not equally purposed by god. So perhaps there is a higher order of concern. The second is that there really is a justifiable Conscientious Objection against the womans service as combatant and perhaps that ought to be considered at least as a potential legislative possibility. And i might add quickly if i may just extend a moment, but that we would see men exercising such Conscientious Objection. Now they can do it and do simply avoid military service or leave if they do and there are those who do have moral scruples about exercising command of other mens wives and daughters. Much more could be said, but time has elapsed. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Number 56. My name is paul jacob. Nodraft. Org. I believe in equal rights, in equal freedom, and the problem with the draft, draft registration, and equality, theres no freedom. Theres no rights. This isnt about equal rights. Women and men should have an equal right to join the military and to move as high in that military as their skills allow without any diminishment because of sex. Men and women ought to have the right to live their lives the way they see fit. Thats what america is all about. Conscription destroys those rights. Men and women in america can also be trusted to always step forward and defend the freedoms that they have. In fact, this is really all about trust. Do you trust the American People to step up in times of crisis from pearl harbor to 9 11, or do you not. I submit that all evidence points to the fact that they will because they have. Or should we trust the congress of the United States with the awesome power to take our sons and daughters away because they choose to, because theres a big emergency, or maybe just because we think it will help with social cohesion. I submit that all the evidence is that we can not trust the congress. At the end of the day this commission is either going to tell the congress trust the American People and draft registration, dont extend it to women, and do not force any sort of National Service of any kind because it shouldnt be forced. Or you will tell the American People trust the congress. One of those groups cannot be trusted and one can and your charge is to tell the congress which one. Thank you. [ applause ] for the time for Public Comment has come to an end. I again want to thank our panelists for being here and Gallaudet University and all of those in the audience who have stuck with us over the past three hours to attend todays proceedings. Its only with your help and input that the commission will achieve its vision of every american inspired and eager to serve. There being no further business before the commission this hearing is adjourned