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

So good afternoon and welcome to the fourth public hearing on Selective Service by the National Commission 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 service Selective Service system and 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 that we are here this afternoon. The four hearings that 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 the potential for a 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 modifications to the structure of the Selective Service system as well as other mechanisms that might be used to support a National Mobilization beyond the current levels of the all volunteer force. This mornings hearing discussed who should register for potential draft by evaluating the strength and weaknesses of the current male only Registration System. This afternoon our distinguished panelists will discuss their views on who should register for potential draft by evaluating the strength and weaknesses the Current System if the draft was expanded to include all americans. So let me welcome our panelists. First, Lieutenant General floro darpeeno. U. S. Army retired, former jump advocate dr. Jason dempsey, Senior Adviser at the Columbia University school of professional studies and adjunct senior fellow of the military veterans and Society Program at the center for a new american security. Professor jill hasday, distinguished University Professor and centennial professor in law at the university of minnesota. Major general, Defense Attache for the embassy of sweden. Mayor combat veteran currently working in venture capital. Thanks for joining us today. As vice chair of the military service i have the honor of leading the Selective Military Service for the commission. When it comes to Selective Service and military service there is a commonalty understood by very few. We found Many Americans do not understand the requirement to register or purpose of the Selective Service system however the Selective Service system still exists and is active. Most register when they apply for a drivers license or federal geniunely aid. Approximately 75 of young men register as a bipuckett of another state or federal system. Registering is law. Therefore, if a male fails to register, their penalties not receiving federal Financial Aid or not able to get a government job. Earlier this week, the texas court decided all male registration is constitutional. And a court involving women in Selective Service issued an opinion denying the parts of the governments motion versus dismiss. In 1981, oskar are they said women were not qualified for combat roles and as we know this has changed. This does make the work the commission a more important and relevant action. The commission is considering whether there is a continuing need for the program in its current form, if any changes should be made or if it should be disestablished. Some policy action were including expanding the registration to include women, identifying individuals who possess Critical Skills the nation might need, calling for volunteers in a time of emergency using the current registration database and using reasonable changes to identify and protect those who will not serve. I look forward to hearing from our panelists on these important issues today and i yield back. Thank you, debra. Id like to remind you to silence any electric devices you might have. For those in the audience who have heard this for the fourth time, you can probably give this same instruction. The commissioners have all received your written testimony and it will be entered in the official record and ask you summarize the highlights in the allot five minutes. When it turns yellow you have one minute remaining and red, your time has expired. We will move into questions for the commissioners. Each commissioner will be given five minutes to ask a question and receive a response. Depending on that we will start with one and possibly two rounds of questions. We will provide a chance for members of the public to offer comments either on the specific topic addressed today or the commissions overarching mandate. These comments will be limited to two minutes. The light turns yellow with 30 seconds remaining and red when your time has expired. We are ready to begin with the panelists testimony. Maam, youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you, chairman heck and vice chair wada and members of the commission. I would like to address the Selective Service system and any potential future draft. I have served over 30 years in active duty including two tours and combat zone that happened to be iraq in both cases. Our requirement to defend our nation is a core principle our nation is established, so central to our founding it is included in the preamble of the constitution. It is important to note women have served in combat since the inception of our nation. Even limiting the discussion to recent history women have participated in raised and patrolled the streets and combat zones shortly after the terrorist attacks in 2002. In 2016, when the decision was made to open it to all women, only about 10 of those military positions remained open. Women have fully proven by that time they were capable of performing 90 of those positions. So excluding women from registration would be ignoring the fact women are already performing in combat and combat units and combat roles. Some argue the e xlyouxclusion be appropriate because of the time to weed out women not ready would not be productive to raise an armeds for in a National Crisis. Troops, regardless of their capabilities are sorted. They maximize the talent after being assessed. Additionally the military is not made up of just combat troops. An infantry unit has troops performing logistics and medical and so on. Even if we accept only some women can perform infantry duties, women can perform many roles in an infantry unit extremely important to their success in battle. Morph over, the nature of warfare is changing. We know we need different types of troops on the battlefield and it looks different. Drone operators, hightech mechanics, cryptologists, network engineers. Why would we limit the talent pool when only 25 of the slots are in that position in a true sense of the war. Should our nation begin a draft we would quickly outstrip the ranks of volunteers, considering military issues and intelligence, it is estimated only 2530 of the Eligible Age Group meet the requirements of the armed forces. Even recognizing we may relax standards during a National Crisis we will still struggle to meet the required needs when we know women make up 51 of the population. The exclusion is nonsensical when women are serving in the military in combat and combat roles. In examining this issue there is an argument against women that sort of has a social component to it. It is that women have a role in society that favors them as caregivers and they require our protection from the evils of war. Setting aside the maternalistic nature of those arguments, it is important to note recent labor statistics do not support the premise. Among married women in the United States, only 19 have a husband as the only employed parent. Concerns about drafting mothers is more a question for exemptions, not exclusion, the same is true particularly taking into account there are many homes in america that have two dads. As to protecting women from the evils of war, we should care equally if our husbands or our fathers or brothers are subjected to torture, starvation, death marches and Sexual Assault in the military. Our men are as valuable as our women and outrage against violations of the wall of Armed Conflict cannot be covered by gender. More troubling about this argument is i have been in countries where the need protected women has been used to isolate them, limit their movement, forbid them to sign contracts and to make life decisions. In short, the need to protect women has been used to make women second class citizens. I live in america. I am a full citizen, and i have a full obligation to protect my country. Please do not be swayed by arguments that will relegate women to second class citizens under the guise of protecting them. I look forward to having a full conversation with you on how we can fully use the talents of the American People should we have a National Crisis. A. Chairman heck, vicechairman and members of the commission, at a time American Society appears to be descending into a vicious tribalism it is important to discuss the meeting of citizenship. While offering more than one meanings of service it is essential to our National Security and identities of americans. A public trust and confidence and National Institutions such as the courts and congress and presidency continues to collapse the reputation of the military remains high. Add to that ongoing and at times contentious National Conversation around gender equality its natural emotions run high about composition and nature of our most ven rated national institution. Thinking about gender issues, i was a student at westpoint and junior officer in the 1990s. At the time, there were few examples of women serving in the military, particularly Ground Combat operations. As such, a arguments for and against the service of women in the military relied on appeals, symbol limts and in150ig9s of older veterans who while may not have insight in the force they have some insight in warfare. It was all we had. Today, were in a different place. Intervening decades have seen shifts in the military. We experienced 20 years of constant conflict and women have moved to integral roles in the military. And symbolism and reality of women in the military. Women can serve and are serving and our National Security depends on their continued service. Its surprising about women as equal sieves has not changed since 1990s. Most is about cohesion or womens ability to meet the military standards. It is no longer hypothetical and we have dealt with it on a daily basis and forces are stronger as a result. Given the opportunity to prove themselves in our most challengi challenging specialties. A path to reinvigorate a shared commitment to citizenship, practical questions remain. However, i see no valid argument treating women and men differently in this endeavor, as america prepares for future conflicts it seems absurd women would not be completely included in every area of National Defense when a Staggering Number of youth are ineligible for military service it makes no sense to share the responsibilities of citizenship. To be clear, this is more than an argument for fairness, about fully utilizing the talent and potential of american citizens, a continually changing more dangerous world. America is stronger when we all engage in citizenship. Other than that the continued, full integrated service of women is no less than essential than the ability of america to meet our National Security challenges. Thank you and i look forward to your questions. Chairman heck and members of the commission, i am the distinguished mcknight University Professor and centennial professor of law at the university of minnesota law school. I teach constitutional law and sex discrimination law among other subjects. I have written about the constitutional issues surrounding womens exclusion from military registration and included my law review article on that subject with my written testimony. In my time today i would like to make one simple but fundamental point. Male only military registration is unconstitutional. I will discuss why oskar v goldberg upheld the male constitutionality of male only registration of 1981. I will then explain more generally why the exclusion of women for military registration is inconsistent with the overarching principles governing the Supreme Courts sex discrimination case law. The courts argument in oskar was women could not serve and could be constitutionally excluded from registration because they were excluded from the draft and explained women could be constitutionally excluded from the draft because they were excluded from combat. That reasoning no longer works. Since 2016, women are no longer excluded from combat positions. Female Service Members have fought in combat with Great Success and Popular Support. The argument for constitutionality of male only registration depended on exclusion from combat position for women. That has collapsed now that women are no longer excluded from combat. With that in mind, it is time to consider the constitutionality of male only registration on a clean slate. The guiding principal that drives the Supreme Court sex discrimination law is that the court is very hostile to laws that, one, treat men and women differently and, two, are based on sex stereotypes. By sex stereotypes the court means assumptions about the differences between men and women that are not true in every case even though they may be true as generalizations. The court struck down sex based laws that reflect the sex stereo type that women should stay home with their children, while men will work in the market. As a generalization, the average woman is more likely to stay home than the average man. The court has explained that this stereotype cannot justify laws treating men and women differently because the stereo type is not true in every case. The exclusion of women is ground in sex stereotypes. From the 1980s, reaching back into the 1940s, throughout the decades, the most common argument for excluding women from registration and the draft has always been the contention that womens primary obligations are domestic. On this view men are obliged to serve the nation on the battlefield, while women are responsible to stay home with their children. For example, a 1980 report from the Armed Services Committee Said it would be unwise and unacceptable for a young mother to be drafted while a young father remained home with the family in a time of National Emergency. As a matter of personal opinion, some americans may still agree with such sentiments, but as a matter of constitutional law, the Supreme Courts precedence made clear that the assumption that women should stay how old cannot stay home cannot justify the laws treating men and women differently. Other arguments reflect constitutionally impermissible sex stereotypes. For example, even if the average man is more likely than the average woman to meet the physical strength requirements for a combat position, some women will meet those requirements as well and should not be excluded simply because theyre women. In sum, if congress would like to continue militarystration, the constitution requires congress to include women as well as men. Thank you, i appreciate being able to be included in this hearing. Thank you. I appreciate my being able to include my swedish opinion. Let me relate my background. I am a former conscript. National service at the start of my military career and i worked with different aspects of the system for most of mie career. Which at this point stretches over 40 years. Next, to provide proper orientation to todays issue it is important to understand how nations populate their forces. We introduced National Service in the beginning of the 1900s and relied on conscription the next 110 years. In 2010 an all volunteer force was introduced to better man the military system focused on military capabilities than National Defense. In 2017, conscription was reintroduced, leading to a forced mixture of those conscripts and volunteers, which allowed a nation to better inform on the terror situation in our neighborhood. It was met with very little problems since they were used to it and was positive to serve. The Swedish Armed forces selected women to serve in select positions in the early 1980s. However, men were drafted from National Service but women were not. They could only volunteer for National Service. In 2017, when draft was reintroduced, the new system allowed both genders to use the same way into the armed forces, ie draft. The introduction of the women in the force in the start of the 1980s was not without challenging as was mirrored in other sectors of society. This debate was well before 2017 and was not spurred by the decision of full integration. And conscription. Today after more than 40 years, the Swedish Armed forces has only president ial 13 of women throughout their ranks. So when National Service was reintroduced in sweden in 2017, the only possible option for the governments at the time was to implement the system for all swedes regardless of gender. The key reasons were first it was the right thing to do. The value of the Swedish Armed forces reflect those of the Swedish Society and discrimination based on gender is no longer acceptable. There was in fact no debate or concern for the decision to expand National Service to all swedes regardless of gender. It was a given. Second the decision was necessary to increase Operational Capability of Swedish Armed forces as quickly as possible. The volatile security situation in europe demanded it. To exclude half of the population, both in numbers and talents was a waste of valuable and limited resources and thus not an option. Third, the experiences and the Lessons Learned since the introduction of women in the Swedish Armed forces, in conjunction with the ever changing warfare, especially when you meet the competitors have proven to us that the benefits from a fully integrated gender force fully outweighs any challenges integration may be. The use of National Service, or the draft, can be viewed as an obligation of citizens. To district it only based on gender is inherently unfair and would undermine the system in the long term. The debate concerning conscription will be debate for a long time in our country. But my country is beyond deciding Service Based on gender. Our society and the nature of modern Armed Conflict no longer requires that kind of discrimination. Thank you. Im looking forward to your questions. Chairman heck, members of the committee and fellow panelists, it is a pleasure to be here today. I am representing my personal capacity and representing no opinions beyond my own. Thank you for the opportunity to be given a voice in addressing this critical issue. I have always taken a professional interest in this topic. With the birth of my first son, it has become important. Today our nation faces threats from nonstate actors, criminal enterprises, and competitors, if any of those threats become we will not be able to defend against them without harms our greatest resources. I started my career as a marine attack helicopter 15 years ago. A generation prior, the ability to fight and stay calm was a question. And hotly debated. Based on this experience i believe the Selective Service program could be strengthened significantly if eligibility was no longer redistributed by gender. We must match individual aptitude to mission requirements. A nations most critical resource is it citizenry. The greater the pool of talent the stronger and more adaptable the nation becomes. The scale and tempo of warfare have expanded radically over the last 40 years with the revolution of internet and space. In order for the internet to meet the challenges of an uncertain future we must access the depth of talent this nation has to offer. I present the following conclusion. The United States is ready for this change. The time has come to demand all citizens be held to the same expectation of service. General dumbfo general dunford recently said given all citizens regardless of fitness are to register for Selective Service, many fall in the 70th of unfit. However, should nation motivation be necessary, they still possess skills to be matched to appropriate wartime activity. Therefore, female citizens should not be left out of registration because of concerns of their fitness to serve and the widest rang of skills and abilities are needed. American women are far better educated than any time in history. Between 1973, beginning of the all volunteer force to the present. The number of women enrolled in colleges and university has doubled. Previously, women only earned a fraction of masters degrees, today, 60 have higher degrees. A higher part of the population would not be merely wasteful, it would be negative. Societal norms in the United States have historically exempted female citizens from wartime requirements. Today, women sit in suites and told any number of jobs they are qualified. As society expects equal parity for women it is time to expect equal responsibility. Women should serve. In our history as a nation, many of challenged us. It takes a quick glance at the daily headlines to understand many still do. The Selective Service registration is not a convenience nor partisan talking point. At its core, Selective Service is a National Security tool. The intentional exclusion of Human Capital provided by 18 million americans because of gender lacks imagination. America is the greatest experience in American History and the liberty the preceding generations have insured. We cannot take for granted because america is free and we will always be safe that we will always be free and always be safe. Today, our nation is stretched thin to meet dhalgs of many threats. Requiring all americans to register between 18 and 34 to protect our way of life should the dreaded day alive we are credibly threatened, we can ill afford anything less. I look forward to your questions. Thank you for your testimony. Well now begin the first round of commissioner questioning. I will put myself on the clock for five minutes. Professor, i want to follow up on the all male registration being unconstitutional especially after the collapse of the argument of goldberg and serving in the armed forces is a right and not a prif ling avile. How would you support the fact that its unconstitutional and not a right or privilege . The government is prohibited from discriminating based on sex even if it doesnt have to give you the thing in the first place. Its not constitutionally required to have Social Security benefits but you cant give them to men and only women. Equal protection is when can you draw distinctions based on sex. The answer is usually you cant. It doesnt matter if the underlying thing is something the government is required to provide to you. Thank you. Professor dempsey, weve heard from groups that believe that if women were included in the draft and the number of women in combat units were therefore to increase the change in ratio of men and women in combat units would be disruptive to unit cohesion or performs. Do you share this concern . No. The opposite. We had several integrated units in the worried. Notably israel not at risk of collapsing the last i checked. I do know antidotally, both in the classroom and small units, the typical dynamic that takes place, when you have a group of 1215 people but only one or two representatives of any certain Minority Group thats when the relationships are most contentious because the minority feels theyre representative of a whole, any issues that minority may have are typically extrapolated, thats what women do or africanamericans do. What i have seen talking to westpoint cadets over the years when they made that tip when i was there, 15 , to now above 20 , the cadets they taught back in the early 2000s say there has been fundamental changes in relationships between men and women at the academy. In that it is no longer a thing. Every interaction is no longer representative of interactions between men and women. There are women who do well and women who do poorly just as women who do well and men who do poorly. It is that increase that makes us all a little more responsible and less focused on those characteristics that may be different. Thank you. In the arguments that we heard against opening registration for women, there have been basically two thought patterns, first that women should not be required to register because of their role in society as a woman, as a mother, and that their duty is nor their family. The other has been because they dont believe that women should not be drafted to serve in combat. Not that they shouldnt be drafted but specifically for combat. Based on the current perception of the Selective Service system, providing for combat replacement, based on intent, certainly not what is in the law, if the service was changed to provide for the needs of a service, not for the combat replacements, do you think that would change the argument that many people have in regards to whether or not women should register . I will open that up to anyone who wants to answer. Can i say two things . It is my understanding that a majority of the men who were drafted in world war ii and the end did not serve in combat. I think its a mistake to think that the draft led to combat. The other thing i would say constitutional law leads congress and the military to have any sex neutral rules they want. If you want to say women cant do a certain job, it is not a problem. Whatever requirements the military needs would be fine. Anything else . I think it is a good question. The reality is that were dealing a population where 70 are unfit for the all volunteer force. Certain policies would have to be put in place to make sure that were matching individual ability to basic requirements. And i think the expanding nature of war, and i wont try to predict what the next war will look like, but the expanding nature of war can be anything from, you know, a logistics from moving boxes around a warehouse to scheduling overhead satellite times. What does combat look like . If youre controlling a drone from nebraska, is that still combat, and i think to limit it would be dangerous. But i think we need to deal with the reality what our population looks like and what their capabilities are. Maybe theyre not the infantry of world war two. They are tech savvy, we need to make sure were utilizing those skill sets in the best way possible. My time issics spired. If any other panel wants to weigh in i will get you on round two. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to talk a little more about that. The thought process is the current policies and service providers, there is a general provision that says, the needs of the service. And there is a concern that if the needs of the service outweigh the individuals skillset or background or experience, that we could have individuals who were drafted that are forced into combat. And particularly the concern is that were forcing women into combat arms even if they may not be physically, mentally, whatever the restriction or requirements are to meet that requirement. So would the thought process change in terms of under current policies, under the needs of the service . Does that fact something we should be aware of or concerned about . Youre a former jag officer. Yeah, what i think of with the terms of the service, for needs of the service, saying we will throw people where we want to throw them just because that meets a need. Strategy requires that you pick the best people to fill what you need them for. That is why in fact the services with integration have set up general neutral standards for different types of duties that you do within the military. Prior to us examining gender integration, we had no physical standard to go into the infantry. The only standard was that you had a certain gender. So we have in fact taken what can be the boogeyman and needs of the service as what for a particular position do we need you to be able to do and do you have the capabilities to do it . However, and i dont want to be naive, we have seen it in every massive conflict that weve been in, that there have been times that our nation has been so desperate to get troops to a battlefield that we have in fact sent men forward when they might not have been quite as prepared to give us time to prepare others. And that is just the nature of warfare. But we at least now have an up front ability to separate. And one more thing, excuse me, but there is a lot of discussion between a world war ii general and a congressman where he is complaining that an archaeologist on his way to a ph. D. Is being sent to a rifle regiment. Dont we have something better, than send him to a rifle regiment. And i will talk about the quote it is necessary for folks to understand men must do that which is best to help win the war. And often that is not the same as what they do best. That is what the needs of the army mean. Thank you. I apologized if i messed up your name, one of the concerns that we heard in the opposition of d including women in collective service is the impact to military a readiness. I was warning given swedens integration, do you track data on impact of readiness for your force for the integration of women . I dont believe we have direct data but we are not concerned about readiness and integration. It was in the 90s and so forth. I would say that we would be more concerned about readiness if we could not recruit from half of the population. That would be a much bigger concern from us. Great, well thank you all very much for your testimony. I appreciate the conversation. Perhaps we could engage in a conversation given your scholarship and your constitutional law expertise. I would be interested, from your perspective, if there are examples of other civic obligations that are accepted by everyone regardless of gender or sex, that you would analogize to the situation a requirement to potentially make people available for the draft or some other form of National Service. You mentioned Social Security. Yeah, other well known obligations would be obligation of jury service or to pay taxes, now obviously if youre drafted that is a much more encompassing application, but for injury or death, but that would be equally true for men and women, but at this point i dont think there is controversy about whether or not women should serve on juries or pay their taxes. Im not aware of it, no. So is there something particularly distinct about military service that you think set it apart . Historically, military service has been seen as mark of full citizenship and there has been a close connection between the assumption of responsibility and winning of rights. The service of africanamerican men in world war ii really set the stage for the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s, and 60s, here i am serving and not treated as a full citizen at home. So i see rights and responsibilities as very linked to each other. Dr. Dempsey, we have heard from some who believe that an expansion of registration of women would decrease registration compliance rates. What do you think about that . I guess i think raising the drinking age to 21 resulted in a rot of illegal drinking, but that wouldnt be my primary argument for changing that particular law. You know, there are certainly questions in the practicalities of enforcement but i think those practicalities and enforcement apply equally to women as they do to men. Thank you. I would like to thank the panelists for their very thoughtful testimony here. It has been helpful to have this discussion about those things they play into the category of a stereotype concerning women that could be used as an argument against women being required to register and serve. Earlier we received testimony as a commission that women may experience significantly higher injury rates than men when they are serving in similar positions. Given the very recent comparatively recent change in our Armed Services to open up all positions in our arms forces to women. I wonder, general, would it be too early for us as a nation to discount this idea of potentially disproportionately higher injury rates as we look to the utilization of and opportunities for women in the service . I have great faith in the militarys ability to adapt and modify, in order to ensure that they get the most out of their warriors. We have seen it throughout history. We saw iraq and afghanistan wars, we saw roadside bombs and modified vehicles to fix its because we needed to be on those roads and we knew it. As we continue down this road, i cannot validate that women are injured at a higher rate. Neither can i. But we will adapt. We all right know working on the load that our soldiers have to carry. Gender unrelated we think the load could be too heavy, so we will continue to adapt to get the most from our warriors. I dont think we should consider that when again only 30 of the current eligible population is physically fit to serve at all. We have to come wake up innovative ways to handle a draft for all genders, not just women. Thank you, general. Professor, to continue the discussion on this issue, youve been very helpful to identify the types of things not a constitutionally permissible basis to allow women to serve. If there were a factually objective determination that women experience higher injury rates, in your view, would that be a constitutionally permissible or impermissible basis for the government to make a decision concerning the utilization of women in particular, military areas. The Supreme Court would still call that a sex stereotype meaning that even if it is true, as a generalization, it is still not true in every case. Thats what the court means by sex stereotypes. It is true women are likely to stay home but you cannot just exclude people. Your alternative is coming up with a sex neutral way of saying who is more likely to get injured, weak ankles or whatever it is. The alternative is you cannot use sex as a proxy. Thank you, i yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you to our panel for joining us in this conversation. I would like to start with dr. Dempsey. The 2018 strategy demands greater lethality from our military. How would including women in Selective Service increase the lethality of the military from your perspective . First addressing the previous conversation, i dont know if women are injured at higher rates, but there is a group that gets injured at a higher rate, and that is men over 30. But we deal with there at. We accommodate recovery times, taylor training so we can keep that long expertise with still managing. The idea we have a determination on that is some of what problematic in my view. In terms of lethality, miss james, i think a lot of times we get caught up in an outdated view what lethality is and means. Whether its failure to communicate the services were doing or popular culture, i would say its not by the bayonette charges. More people are killed by aerial strikes rather than handtohand combat. We have to grapple the idea there are millions upon millions of ways to kill another person. Notal of them entails the ability to use the strength of their arms to strangle another person. As we become more evolved and expert at different weapons systems, i want the smartest nimble mind well before i want the strongest person. Can i add to that too . Please. I just want to agree with my fellow panelists here. As i understand it, it is written to meet at least two competitors, china and russia. They are highly capable. What is needed is the lethality of the talent pool of the whole population, in order to man the complicated systems. Thats how we increase the lethality by using the whole of the nation. Thank you. If you dont mind, i will continue with you. Does sweden make provisions for conscientious object torns in your system, and if you do, on objectors and how do they do it . They do. I cant give you the Legal Definition but we have, all the time, while we have the system, we had possibilities for those that objected for moral reasons to do civil service. We have not started that again. E were looking at doing that now, so we have an option for for those who do not want to bear arms basically. There is a process for that. There is a real process for that. And that is done by an agency separate from the armed forces but we do have that system, yes. Are. Thank you everyone for coming today and giving your time and thoughtful testimony. Really appreciate it. My question, ill start with dr. Dempsey. Thank you for coming today. I follow you on twitter and thoughtful observations about the war and civilmilitary relations and nature of war and what that means for the future. We had a lot of conversations today and yesterday about the inability to predict the future and history of not learning lessons from the past. Its sort of a doubleedged sword. Major, you mentioned the National Defense strategy of peer competitors seems where were focused back now. However many decades weve been in population focused wars, we talked earlier this morning how one of the surprises of our engagements in afghanistan and iraq, when i was in the pentagon, receiving an emergency request for forces from the special operations admiral. They was ironically for women and talked about the infantry, the only physical requirement was a man. They were saying we need women in these environment and cant woman the checkpoints. Is that just a blip in the screen . Do people think those wars will never happen again . In which case the purpose of a draft would be just about numbers . Thank you for the question. I think one of the fascinating thing about warfare is we think we know exactly who the enemy is. It is telegraphed ahead of time and it is about amassing forces on that one particular entity. If you look back 18 years, lethality has not been the issue in armed forces. I challenge you to find any American General who says that were not capable of killing the people were supposed to kill. It is who to kill, and in that we have failed repeatedly, again and again and again. In 2009, an army senior strategy person said we have been here a long time, 10 years ago, and we were already thinking about it being a long time. The age of the guy that were killing right now is about 18 years old. That means that person was around nine or ten during 9 11. And what that meant, the implication, was that we have utterly failed in our messaging to the Afghan People in the intervening eight years about why they should be supporting us and the afghan government, visavis the taliban. That is a much more fundamental problem whether or not weve been able to kill taliban leaders when weve been able to identify them. So, limiting any of our forces on the basis of gender and not on their ability to manage ambiguity, to manage new technologies and manage the people around them, to not only figure out how to kill, but who to kill, that is vitally important. Does anyone else want to comment on the future of war . I wouldnt dare. I yield the rest of my time mr. Chairman. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here. And for helping us to understand these important issues. Miss van damme, i wanted to ask you, could you tell us about the circumstances that lead to you ultimately joining the marine corps . I was a freshman at the Naval Academy on 9 11 and there was a lot of emotional response to that amongst young people who had gone into the service or gone to the Academy Prior to 9 11. And at the time, i came from a family of Police Officers and firefighters and i met my first Gunnery Sergeant with a similar mentality to that of police and firefighters. When i was looking at m. O. S. S, i wanted to go offensively into combat, and for me the closest i could do that was an attack helicopter pilot in the marine corps, and that is the path that i took and stuck to and was blessed to do counter operations almost a decade later. So your attendance at the navel category and going into the marine corps was voluntary, correct . Yes, sir. And your success in both is exemplary. Do you think your voluntary choice and your success should be the groundwork for compelling other women to do that which dont feel the same calling that you do . I think that is a really great question. And i think it is important to put this into characterize it from the perspective of National Mobilization, in the event we do call up the draft that it is an unpopular idea in society, we are at an existential circumstance and i think it is a civic obligation of every citizen in this country given that were a unique country that gives them a voice in policy and law both at the community and state and national levels. So, whether or not they want to serve, we dont give young men that same option. As we discussed throughout the afternoon, there are lots of options how people can serve and that is up to the services to figure out how to work that. I believe that is their civic obligation to citizens of this country to serve whether or not they want to. In your answer, youre assume check draft would be under such circumstances as there is a National Emergency or need for combat replacements. But in our discussions we have had some tell us Selective Service could be used to meet end strength. Is there any distinction there . I think there is a distinction. I think that the standards that the service has set right now for an all volunteer force are very important for an all volunteer force and it will be up to the services to decide if they can meet the needs for current and future conflicts. But i definitely think there is a different there. I dont hold an opinion strongly on convictions to meet the needs for manpower. So the last part of that is are you saying that should women be conscripted for end strength, agree or disagree . Im sorry, im trying to understand the least part of your answer. I think our all volunteer force are important, i think it is important for continued success and that is based on a professionalism found in an all volunteer force. Basic con strips of manpower need unless they determine that is the only way to do so, i dont believe that. I guess im saying im a supporter of all volunteer force as it stands and Selective Service for a time of crisis. Thank you, and thank you for your service. Miss van damme, i could continue with you. Thank you very much, all of you, for taking the time to do this with us. I was struck by something an air force cadet said to us as we went around the country. I wandered if it was with you during the course of your service. She indicated it was important women be included in the registration requirement because it was a symbol of the inequality of the men and women in the context of the armed forces. I wondered if that is something that you thought about and whether or not that has been discussed for you. Yes, thank you for the question. I agree, i think that when we have equal expectation people first live up to that expectation and those around have nothing to point to that say youre less equal, less is expected of you, and we spoke a little bit earlier, a question was fielded on cohesion within the services. The strongest cohesion people often reference is social cohesion. When you have task cohesion, that leads to a group, think technology, but when you have group cohesion, it leads to an their job basically, tax cohesion is what really leads to both innovative thinking in challenging times and it also leads to the strongest, most cohesive, organizations, both in the military and in the Business World as well. Thank you. Thank you. Professor khazel, i was wondering, Something Else that came up in conversations that we have had around the country is a woman who talked about her concern about her daughters ultimately registering and being compelled to serve was that she was concerned about essentially protecting them from an environment in which show believed it was more likely than if they stayed at home for them to be subject to Sexual Assault. And while it was discussed the fact that, you know, statistically, on a college campus, youre actually more likely to experience that than in the military, i think one of these questions, you know, these sorts of things come up consistently and i guess im looking for your thoughts on first of all how would the law look at that . Whether or not that would be a factor in consideration, but also historically in the context of gender legal issues that youve looked at, have you seen this sort of how do you think about these questions of being protective of women in these contacts where there are laws that on their face least discrimination . Okay. I have a few thoughts. One, just to make the point that both men and women can be subject to Sexual Violence. I would say the solution would be to combat the Sexual Violence directly. But as a historical matter, actually many restrictions on womens rights and opportunities have been justified as protectiprotect i protecting them. I wrote a law view article, protecting themselves. Theyll be exposed to these lurid trials a very common argument. I do agree Sexual Violence is a problem. I think the military needs to address it. To me, its just as pressing a problem now with the al allvolunteer force. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to start with you. You specifically mentioned in your testimony you started your attack Pilot Service 15 years after women were allowed to enter into combat roles, which started with attack aviation in different forms. Then by the time you got there, to paraphrase, it wasnt a question anymore. If youre good at your job thats what people cared about. What do you think happened over those 15 years, that that was the situation you arrived in as a woman in a combat role . So combat is the great equalizer. If you can do your job, you can do your job. If you can carry your pack, you can carry your pack. If you can deliver hell fire on target on time, then youre just accepted. So i believe that we should take advantage of the last do some math here 18 years of war and take advantage of the women that have served on the front lines, if you could argue theyre even front lines at all. And we should take advantage of the social cohesion and task cohesion thats happened amongst the men and women and the general expectations that women have proven they can do the job and are continuing to prove so. So there isnt really there shouldnt be an expectation otherwise. Thank you. Personally, i was a rag instructor at the time women were introduced into tactical jet aircraft at that time. I would offer as an observation, i think thats the phase were in right now with regard to women in Ground Combat roles. The final 13 moss in the army that were spro deuintroduced, w still figuring it out in a lot of ways socially as well as professionally in that way. Dr. Dempsey, if i could shift to you, please, sir. Our entering question here is whether or not the nation should retain the capability to draft people into military service, whether that retains value. Then theres a bunch of subordinate questions to that. If it were to be retained, the draft, because it has value with regard to end strength and military capability, does registration being maintained, an ongoing Registration System such as we have today in the status quo, have value with regard to the draft in a strategic sense . Would ending preregistration impact that . I think theres some interesting discussions and challenges around that. I expect a lot of the opinions that were voiced this morning about, you know, what happens when the rubber meets the road, when youre trying to enforce such a thing. But i do believe that in terms of a signal and in terms of reminding us all that were citizens, first and foremost, and with that not only come rights but obligations, i do believe that registration for Selective Service plays a role. If nothing else, then at least one of two few reminders we have collective obligations and that our safety and security is not guaranteed. In terms of its Strategic Value and signaling, i do think it plays the role, at least, do we have the ability to mobilize. But, again, the devil is in the details. I would say that, one, discussions about service are important, two, we need to promote a greater commitment to service and the obligations of citizenship. How exactly we go about that, though, remains to be seen. Obviously, per todays discussion, i dont think its in doubt that we somehow need to bifurcate the obligations of citizenship along the lines of gender. Thank you. And being wary of the yellow light that would apply to both of us when it comes, do you feel whats your appreciation as to we all have the list we can list off on our fingers the potential near peer adversaries that it would probably matter to. Do you feel like they Pay Attention and would make note of it if we change our ability to conscript people . Actually i do think so. I think our near peer adversaries are the types who are very comfortable with Mass Mobilization and they also seek to exploit divisions both within the United States and between us and our allies. So the academic jury would obviously be still out on how important that is in the rank of all the signals we can give about american will, but i wouldnt discount it either. Thank you. Please, sir. When we introduced to conscription, again, in 2017, they thank you, sir. I should have taken better note of that in considering my question. We can come back to that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, all, for being here and spending time with us. My first question is for professor hasday. So some have argued that if availability for the draft or ultimate service is a civic duty of any american, we should extend registration to women, why should we limit that duty to an age range as in current law, 18 to 26 . Whats your view on that . Well, as a constitutional matter, the Court Applies very lenient constitutional reviewed agebased statutes. So its really a policy choice of congress. Congress constitutionally can keep it at 18 to 26 or extend it. Theres not much constitutional constraint. Thank you. My other question, for each of you, you all have tremendous expertise. So earlier, we had a panel of folks like you all who passionately believe we should not extend registration to women based on faith and other concerns. What, in your opinion, would be the most compelling argument for folks if we recommended that and if Congress Actually changed the law, to the folks who are opposed to this, what would be your most compelling argument as to why we need to do this as a country . I guess ill start with general darpino. As i listen to much of the discussion and as ive read about it, as i said in my opening statement, i think that many of the concerns that were raised can be and have to be addressed through the exemption process. So it isnt exclusion, but they could be through an exemption process. Think of the example of a husband and wife instead of two dads. Well just stick with a husband and wife. The wife happens to be a trauma surgeon, whereas the husband happens to be a high school teacher, high school coach. You know, our nation may need that trauma surgeon and thats where the needs of the military might come in. But thats really a discussion for exemptions. Do we want them to choose . Do we want the nation to choose . Its not about who registers. Its about who we might need to take. Dr. Dempsey . I want to say i certainliry recognize and respect our quaker friends and others whove had a consistent voice throughout American History. I think they do add a tremendous amount of moral clarity and voice and opinion that we need that helps create this rich tapestry of who we are and how we operate. And i ultimately respect that. What i dont or i do have issues with, though, is somebody who says my religion says that this is my view of how women should or should not operate, and it removes the agency of the individual and removes the agency of the state to interact with that individual and decide what is best for the needs of the common defense. And so, again, i think there are issues with obviously the way we use force, the way we recruit, retain. I think theres problems that would arise with a draft. But i do find this discussion of gender as a part of that is somewhat thank you. Mr. Hasday . One thing i could say is many men when they receive that draft notice were not pleased. They would have enlisted if they had wanted to enlist. So another perspective we could get out here is also from the perspective of the man who doesnt want to be drafted. Why should that obligation be on him when he has the same domestic commitments and other thing he wants to pursue . The draft generally isnt happy. Right . Its a moment of extremity for everyone. And general svensson, based on your experience in sweden . Thank you very much for the question. I think theres a tendency to have two issues that are mixed. The first one is draft or not draft. The other one is the gender issue. With the first one, if there should be draft or not, i think you carefully have to consider which problem is it you are trying to solve. In our case when we were reintroduced in 2017, it was that we couldnt grow our force quickly enough without conscription given the security situation that we were in. So that has to be distinguished from the gender issue. Now, the gender issue, im not sure we can convince any of them. For me, the most compelling argument besides that i think its morally right is having been responsible for recruitment for the Swedish Armed forces, that we cannot do with our population. It is impossible. I would say it even more strongly that even if we consider all our estimates of how our war is going to be fought in the next generation, the only con chugs clusion we c from that, the only possible conclusion is we need all the resources and all the talent that we have. Thank you. Miss van dam . I dont know that this would convince skeptics. But im a true believer that full citizenship requires the same expected civic obligation in the nations time of need. Just simply that. Thank you. Thank you. I yield, mr. Chairman. Great. Thank you. That concludes the first round. I think weve done that in record time. Well go ahead and continue with the second round of questioning. Ill put myself on the clock for five minutes. I want to continue down the line of questioning that commissioner barney started with with general darpino. Not to be overly contrarian or argumentative, you mentioned the military always adapts to whatever it needs to do, i. E. , the ieds, coming up with armored humvees and mraps. Its one thing to adapt in material. Theres a fair amount of literature both in the medical and Sports Medicine realm that show increased injury incidents based on body composition and biomechanics in females that operate under heavy loads or in strenuous activities. So with that again, understanding that if you have the same entry requirement for everybody right, so lets say women were going to be put into the Selective Service system, and it would be assumed that they would meet the physical entry requirements, that doesnt necessarily take into account their risk of injury later on should they be engaged in combat or heavy strenuous activities. In that construct, would that change your opinion at all . It really goes back to the answer is no, it would not change my opinion, because it goes back to the fact that we in the future, we know that warfare, as with every conflict that weve had throughout history, it looks different. World war i looked different than world war ii, which looks different from vietnam, that looked different from what were fighting now. And that we adapt according to that. And so as my honored colleague here said, you know, were probably not looking at the bayonet and the stranglehold. You know, we have so Much Technology involved in warfare now that to eliminate 51 of our population where we can find and sort in the harry potter sorting hat way, if we want to say, we will find the place that you belong but we need you. Okay. And professor hasday, i want to make sure i understand the constitutionality argument well enough here. If there was well, there is clear and convincing evidence, lets say, that in this situation one gender is more at risk for injury, which would result in increased costs and decreased lethality and readiness, are you saying that it would be discriminatory to exclude that entire gender unless you could prove that every person in that gender is subject to the same risk . You know, starting in the early 70s when sex discrimination gets off the ground, the court has repeatedly said that administrative convenience and cost savings are not sufficient. Its not enough that it might be easier to only have men, which im not conceding. Even if its true, its just not enough. It has to be something thats true in every case. So thats what it means to be a sex stereotype. Military has the possibility of coming back with sexneutral rules to sort people. Great. Thank you. And im just curious in general, within the swedish experience, do you know of any data on injury rates amongst genders within your service . We have some data, and i think that it supports that there is a higher injury rate. What the cause is for that, were not quite sure about. Were working with that, but the bigger problem for us by far is that the young population is weak in general, if i can say that. Thats the much, much larger problem than the difference between male and female. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And probably because im not sure who best to direct this to. Im looking at general darpino and miss van dam. Theres a concern that if we are requiring if we were to require women to register for the draft that it might have an adverse impact on recruiting and potentially retention in the force. Do you think that given your experience and service, do you have any thoughts on whether that sort of assessment is has some validity to it . Or even from, i guess, dr. Dempsey, from a male civ sort of approach, do you think that that would either hurt or improve our sort of divide . Its hard for we were chatting. Its hard to answer a question like that when i cant think of the underlying bases for that conclusion, why that would make women less likely to volunteer to serve. Well, the thought process is if youre forcing women to register for the draft, to do something they dont want to do, those who may have thought about doing it wont want to do it anymore. Yeah, no, i would say i would submit the opposite. The way gender norms and perceptions about the military currently stand, even though weve had great trail blazers, both to my left and right on the panel, many women are just simply not as exposed. Right . I mean, if youve got parents who are vietnam generation, the odds are that the veteran was your father and not your mother. So this idea of, you know, who are you looking up to and following into service . And so i actually think that a, hey, at some point we may need to call upon you, an indicator from the state that you are a coequal stakeholder in the defense of the country, would send a powerful signal that, oh, hey, actually this might be something for me. Can i comment on that, too . Of course. We actually have exactly that experience. The number of females grew very slowly for us since we had within our system discrimination since the draft was only for men. And our conclusion that the exposure to registration, tests to armed forces in general was much less for the female population than the male population. Thats one of the reasons why it took us so long time to grow the female portion of the force. So i would say the argument is exactly the opposite. Just have a little twist to toms earlier question and i want to since the three of you, again, have had some prior service. If i change the question a different way, so would you support conscripts being integrated into the force whether male or female . Because when were talking about a draft, were talking about being conscripted in. We have heard historically and even recently from the department that they dont want to conscripts. They dont want to have to deal with conscripts. Just wondering, given your experience, whether we included women in the draft and theres a conscription, both of male and female, what would be your i think that if weve if i understand the premise of the question is, that we have utilized all the levers that we have available in order to bring in those volunteers. We cant meet end strength for what weve determined we need. Then i think that the same would apply for men and women. I dont think culturally overall that would be an issue if this was the end state. I dont think adding women in as conscripts would change very much. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chair. During the course of some of these hearings and then in our travels around the country, folks have observed to us who oppose registering all americans for the Selective Service, and they argue that by the potential of drafting women into the service that it would hurt our military effectiveness. Id be interested, miss van dam, and professor dempsey, how you would respond to the questions, building on what vice chair wada said, in terms of recruiting, that it would hurt our military effectiveness. Again, i think its theres a messaging challenge because its no longer a theoretical thing. Women are in the force. And theyre doing quite well. So the idea that bringing more or bringing them in through conscription, the folks i think who are raising that question probably are not aware of the extent to which women currently serve. Were doing fine. I mean, theres a lot to improve on. Theres a lot to improve on across many dimensions, not just those related to gender. But it seems like a question again appropriate for 1990 but not for 2019. I think its always been important for mental agility when it comes to being combat effective. I believe that we need even more imagination and creativity in the wars of today and especially the wars of the future given the technological capacity of our near peer competitors. And its been proven in the marine corps own study that it did on gender integration prior to the change that groups that include women or any minority thought, but in this case it happens to be women, actually were more capable at solving complex problems when presented before them than groups that were homogenous. Whatever that Homogenous Group looked like. Traditionally in the military, these are allmale groups. I think diversity should always be coupled with capability, strong standards, et cetera, but it has been shown that the more people with different backgrounds, thoughts, et cetera, that you have in a single room to solve a problem, the more capable you are at solving both todays problem and tomorrows problems and think thats an important thing to note when if cot comes to milit effectiveness. General darpino, did you want to add to that at all . My colleagues were very eloquent. Thank you. As were you today. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Before i ask my last question, i want to thank each and every one of you for being here today because you represent a brain trust thats been invaluable to us. And i thank you for your service. General svensson, i thank you for your service to your nation, too. The final question i have is for my fellow marine. No bias here. What would you think is a compelling reason for us to expand registration to all americans and anyone else that would like to join in on question. Thank you for the question. I think my first point, as ive noted before, that it is an obligation of citizenship to participate in the event of a national crises. I also do believe that it makes us more effective to absolutely ignore over half the talent pool of over half the population. It seems ill advised, is the kindest way i can think to put it. I think we need to utilize the talent of americans. We still have one of the best advanced Education Programs in the world. We have bright people. We have a very unique, innovative, mentality in this country that i dont think you see in many other parts of the world or only see in small pocket. We need to harness that and utilize that in order to keep our country safe. Thank you very much. Any other thoughts . Yes, professor . I think oh i think including women in registration is an opportunity to establish that women are equal citizens and to draw on their strength and their brains and their innovation. And just to follow on that, the exclusion when you exclude people from a group, you lead other to believe that they are not equal. And so we are sending the message that women are not equal to men when it comes to a constitutional duty to protect our nation. Thank you. Can i add as an outside observer . I must admit, sir, i had some difficulty to explain to my captain that was sitting on this panel today. Beautifully put. Thank you. The only thing i would add is to my colleagues great comments about adaptability and innovation, and really its about the standards. I think among the many infantry units i served in, those that were task and mission focused and had standards that above all were the most effective. And the introduction of women has actually forced a lot of people in the military to say, am i basiing my predecor on tru standards or on inclusion, on the fact this is a good group of men . I think one of the interesting things weve found as we integrated ranger school, one of our premier leadership and physical training schools, one of the surprising findings from my colleague running that integration was we hadnt written down all the standards. So this has forced us to say, what does it mean to be a ranger . What does it mean to be an infantryman . I think that is an exceptionally valid exercise across the services and it makes us better for it. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Earlier, my colleague, miss haines, was asking a question related to the incidence of Sexual Assault in the military. I think its appropriate for us to recognize that, general darpino, with your leadership as part of the team that has been during your period of active duty, you know, solidly focused on this challenge in the military and trying to eradicate it, i wanted to first give you an opportunity to follow up if you choose to on this issue of, you know, how do we as a nation respond to those people whose sons and daughters would enter the military about the issue of Sexual Assault and, perhaps, though we have not experienced a draft in decades, whether you see any particular challenges that would be faced by the military if we were to implement a draft that could potentially threaten the positive progress that must be made on combatting Sexual Assault. I appreciate the question. And i think that when we first started to look into this issue in the military, it was before society really understood the extent. We had no one to compare ourselves to. One Sexual Assault is too many. But when we saw the numbers and that, you know, it was below 10 , and when we first started looking in 07, it was alarming and distressing. And it isnt just women. Its women and men. And as we pushed that number down to 4. 4 , as we went along that journey, more and more studies started to come out about violence against women, and men, in society, when it came to Sexual Violence. And studies now show that outside the military, you know, were talking as high as 50 in some colleges. The lowest i think weve seen in some recent studies is 18 to 20 . And so we are often a mirror in the military of what we see on the outside. We often can lead when it comes to responses. I think that we have done that. So i dont want to say because i think you know, i have two daughters. But i know that they would probably have been safer in the military than they were probably at the two colleges that they went to and that makes me extraordinarily sad that thats a reality in our society. But i will say that i believe, like many other Panel Members here have said today, that the more exposure we have to others, the more integrated we become, the more we are seen as equals and we dont exclude. In society also. We will see that this issue becomes less and less acceptable among those who like to define themselves as special. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, i cant see the clock. If theres time, id like to thank you. Major general svensson, in your very helpful testimony that you provided, you said that you had an opportunity to first you were you joined the military as a conscript. You have served with, you have led, and you have served overseas with people who are former conscripts. Could you help us understand for the experience in sweden what is the role of the conscript in terms of being able to participate in International Activities that involve your kingdoms armed forces . Thank you very much. It goes back to a bit of the answer i gave earlier about what problem are we trying to solve. It appeared in 2010. In 2010, we had an allvolunteer force. The reason we had that was that it was politically and legally very difficult for us to draft people and send them, for instance, very far away, like afghanistan or africa. The draft was for the defense of our country, our National Defense. It doesnt mean that has to be within the boundaries, but still its some sort of geographical, at least public perception, that its used for that. So today when we have when we send forces out to afghanistan or iraq or right now in africa, we do not use conscript. We use that part of the force since we know how to mix, that is all professional. And thats for political and legal reasons. Great. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Our Previous Panel during our Previous Panel, we heard testimony that suggested that from experience during deployment, in particular places within particular type of military actions, the enemy tended to target women. If it was a patrol that had a mixed group of men and women, the enemy tended to target women because they understood the potential psychological impact that that may have on killing the female member of the team first. Id be interested in your thoughts on that. I think its a fascinating observation. I cant speak to whatever specific instance was referenced, but ive not known an enemy who would pass up killing americans. You know, we generally dont make it easy enough that you can pick and choose which american targets you want to take out. Given the amount of gear we wear, id be very surprised if somebody can look through the window of an mrap and determine the gender of who is actually on patrol. So i would take i would not dismiss those anecdotes but take them with a grain of salt. Id also say, what are we balancing here . The idea of perceptions and reactions . Is the implication then that our will and leadership is so weak that if soldier a is killed, we will gnash our teeth and tear our hair and quit versus if soldier b is killed . I would submit that we value all those lives equally and woe be the enemy who think they can create some kind of division between us. Can i comment on that . I think its more a reflection of the enemys perception of gender roles. Thank you. General darpino . I was just thinking as my colleague was talking that in warfare, they are going to target what they believe is the most valuable target. If that happens to be the man or woman with the radio or the person with the heavy gun, i dont think thats a gender issue. I think that is someone targeting, if true, what they believe is a valuable target. We dont make policy based upon what the enemy might were not going to carry radios because they might target the guy with the radio . Thank you, mr. Chairman. So we earlier talked about how this conversation about women in the Selective Service and draft gets often kind of confused between the Selective Service and the draft, whether we need that process at all and women participating in that and whether thats an issue of operational effectiveness or whether thats an issue of equality. Id like to talk a little bit about the Civil Military implications of that array of decisions, not just the women issue. But, you know, since weve had the allvolunteer force for however many decades, a lot of people would say its made our military very strong, very lethal, very professional. The idea of absorbing a bunch of draftees in a crisis would be difficult, but if it was required, we would do it. And that the idea of, you know but that the flip side of this allvolunteer force is that there are a lot of americans who are very separated from our military. Degrees of separation before they even know anybody whos served in the military, not like previous generations where they had parents that were either in vietnam or world war ii or korea. So im wondering what you all think about if we were to eliminate the entire process. Would that exacerbate the Civil Military divide . If we were to keep the Selective Service and add women, would that enhance our Civil Military relations or make them worse in another perverse way . Im wondering if you have any thoughts on that. Im also interested in general svenssons perception, too, about how it works in his country. Want to start with general darpino . Yeah. I think that theres great value in individuals understanding, regardless of gender, that, you know, freedom isnt free. And part of that recognition and reminder is through registration. So i think that as a free society, it is good to remind folks that citizenship has a price. So even if the actually activation of the draft were so unlikely, theres a value to have the registration of the Selective Services. I believe so. Okay. Dr. Dempsey . I agree. I think the touchstones between america and its military are so few and far between that any reminder from the state that we all share and have common obligations to the National Defense shouldnt be overstated. You know, one of the ironic things i was thinking about as you were asking your question was, you know, the common feeling about most active duty military is we wouldnt want conscripts because, oh, my goodness, now weve got to deal with people who dont want to be there. Quite frankly, most privates in training dont want to be at that particular moment of training anyway. Right . And we look at it from that kind of efficiency perspective, but thats certainly not where weve been lacking. The question of the greater possible efficiency is what does it mean, or how inefficient is it when youre lost in 18 years of seemingly interminable conflict with no meaningful engagement from the American People and by extension the United States congress . I find that highly problematic. I look forward to any and all ways that we can at least reconnect americans with the idea of shared service of the National Defense. Im not an expert in how to promote civil and military relations. Just constitutionally, either have registration that includes women or, you know, dont have it at all. Thats my bottom line. Fair enough. General . I would say there is, of course, a debate of which system delivers the best units, professional, volunteer, or conscript . You can have that debate. Theres much arguments in favor of an allvolunteer force. If you look solely at the civilian military relationship, then the argument is much in favor of draft. The problem you have within most western societies today that still have draft is that we dont need a whole year group. We need 10 , 15 , 20 . So its 80 that doesnt serve. However, we will touch almost all of them. Yeah. And that is improvement of the civilian military relationship. It is. Then you can have that argument, which is the most effective one. Civilian military relationship, absolutely. Draft will give you benefits and an understanding and a sense of service that is very difficult to get with an allvolunteer force. Very good. Miss van dam . I have nothing to add. Okay. Thank you. Over the course of the conversation today, during different exchanges, ive picked up during a Previous Exchange in which were talking about the importance of registering women with Selective Service. General darpino, you said something that we would be sending a message to society to register females with Selective Service. And professor hasday, during that exchange, i apologize, i didnt get your words, but you said something similar, and weve heard about in your testimony about addressing sexual stereotypes and societal impact. And as im hearing all of this, it sounds to me like maybe the importance of Selective Service has more to do with our society than with our military or our National Defense. Am i incorrectly interpreting the conversation today . I think that whats happened is you have reversed the thought. So the thought is that by exc d excludin excluding, individuals come to a conclusion. As long as youre going to have folks register, it has to be both genders. Because if you do otherwise, you are sending not you personally, obviously but you are sending a message that theyre not equal citizens. So it isnt a matter of i believe or i think the message is more important than they are to our National Defense, but the failure to have all register, you are we are acting as if they are not full citizens, was my point. I agree with that. I would also say, i think of registration as on the line where its both about civilian life and about military life because, of course, the last 40 years, people have registered but havent been drafted. So i think its both about military service, but its also its an opportunity for the United States government to indicate who it considers full citizens, and right now its telling every young woman and young man that for some reason, women dont register, somehow they dont count as full citizens. Professor hasday, let me follow up with you. In our morning panel, several of the panelists, female panelists, said that they dont just the opposite. They dont feel the need to have their value as a citizen and as a female validated through registration with Selective Service. That while youre suggesting that registering with Selective Service gives females a stronger standing in society, these panelists in the morning suggested that, in fact, wed be taking something away from them, a right to choose whether or not they wish to have their vocation in the military or in the home. Okay. So as a constitutional matter, the key question is what message does the government send. Its not how its received by any particular woman. Im sure some women like their exemption from the draft just like many men would also like to be exempt from the draft. Its called involuntary conscription for a reason. Right . And again, i think, you know, staying home with children, taking care of people, is very important, but the Supreme Court has made clear the law cant assume thats more important for women than it is for men. General darpino . I have nothing to add to that. Okay. Well, thank you all very much. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you. So one of the things thats come up for us in the context of the Selective Service is the fact that so many people registered today sort of indirectly, whether its through essentially application for a drivers license or student aid applications and so on. I think one of the questions that we struggle with is this discussion that we hear about the value of that from the perspective of getting as many people to register as possible and sort of, you know, managing a database along those lines for the purpose of the Selective Service versus the value of active registration where people have a moment to consider what it is that theyre registering for and the value that that has to the system generally, to their introduction to what this responsibility would mean and so on. I wonder if you might just sort of give us your views on that and maybe starting with general darpino. I know i know individuals who have come back and said, you know, i registered i filled out the form today. And so they actively know that theyre going to fill out the form. I also have parents say to me, i found out that my kid didnt fill out the form when we were trying to do Financial Aid for college. So there is a recognition when it happens, no matter what method that you use. And you are sending that Civil Military responsibility and relationship when you have that active method. Please. I would certainly always one, i dont envy the commissions challenges in trying to figure out, you know, how do you actually implement some of these recommendations. But i would always vote for active registration. And, again, i think because its a very powerful signal that says i am registering for this obligation for the state. And i also commend those who would then actively register but then turn around and say, i am morally opposeded to mi ed to m service. I applaud those who would do so. But i want it to be an active conversation. In our system, you notice it. Of course, the normal procedure is that you get a letter home and then you go on the web and then you answer, i believe its about 52 questions, and thats the basis for the draft. So you notice. I agree with my colleagues that active is most desirable, but i would also caveat that it has to be accompanied by education. People need to understand what is going to happen and what they will not be eligible for in the event that they do not. Given the fact that i think i read in the commissions hatest paper, 92 , thats where were at with Selective Service registration, and most of that is through automatic. I think that its important this isnt a conversation thats been happening right now. People dont know they wont be eligible for student loans, that they can never hold a federal job. So i am for active, but that has to be accompanied by a good communication strategy so people understand the implications of their decisions. Okay. Do i still have more time . I cant see the clock. Great. Okay. I have one more question. So one of the issues that came up in the context of integrating women into the force with men and yeah, ill leave it at that was a concern that was expressed about Sexual Assault training and how in Sexual Assault training that men are effectively told to stay away from women and that this somehow undermines integration of women into the force. And im wondering, general darpino, if youve heard this and this is something you could talk to. I would say thats pretty ineffective training if thats actually whats going on. That isnt the training that ive certainly reviewed or worked on within the military. So thats probably at a level where people with inexperience are talking. You also when you start to educate a force about something, or anything, you often have an overreaction. The pendulum swings too far one way, and people are like, well, i dont want to do that because i might get in trouble. So that may have been early on in the training where we saw a pendulum swing. But we always find that middle medium, which is the appropriate training. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General svensson, id like to pick up where we left off a while ago when you mentioned back in 2017 when your nation reinstituted conscription that the other nation involved in that calculous noticed. The other side, pardon my words, theyre noticing that action on the part of your country. Was that a factor in the deliberation to reintroduce the back and forth, that being part of a strategic conversation . The decision was, as i said, based on operational effectiveness, that we needed to build our force quicker. But there was also consideration around that where we send a very strong signal that we were now focused on National Defense and that we would do that. And this was public knowledge. Our neighbor states, they noticed that we have now taken this measure. I think there is one more country, one of the baltic countries that did the same thing around the same time. They noticed that we were doing this and we also told everybody why we were doing it. Theres a great deal of transparency involved oh, yeah. In the process. A second question, which actually i think you set up a little bit with your brief explanation that your folks receive a letter that then directs them to go online and answer 52 questions. My question here talks about your system determining the willingness or the receptiveness of people to conscription. Could you elaborate on that a little bit, please . The system works about like this. We have a group that is about 90,000, 100,000, young people, both genders, every year. Our need to train is maybe somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000. And the first step is that we need to assess so we can take out about 15,000 maybe to test. They will, after theyve filled out this questionnaire, they will be called to come to test sites where they will do tests for one or two days depending on what their abilities are. And at that time, both from the questionnaire and there, we determine if theyre fit, professional position, and also if theyre willing. If we have willing people that are fit for the positions, we will pick willing people before people that dont want to come. Thats very rudimentary, but thats about how the system works. Is that an adaptation of your previous system, or are there markedly new elements in this new system . I would say we had for a very long time a very high readiness, willingness to do the conscript service. We always have some that we need to draft, basically, or force, but a high degree of the conscripts are willing to do it. At least in the beginning and then maybe they are not that enthusiastic after the second week. But thats another matter. Too late. Yeah, exactly. Weve mentioned briefly here, and weve heard in our conversations over the past nearly two years now, some folks, serving military members, or folks who previously served, i dont want to be in a foxhole, an armored vehicle, or army cockpit with someone whos forced to be there. So with regard that you likely have a relatively small percentage of folks who are compelled to serve, do they carry some sort of stigma . Does it manifest in how they serve alongside fellow soldiers . No, it wont manifest. It wont manifest. Thats in the beginning of the process. That will not manifest, no. Thank you very much. I yield back. General svensson, i want to just continue on your system. So you mentioned that you only need about 10 , 15 , maybe 20 of the cohort to actually join the military. So two questions for that. Have you thought about any type of civilian National Service or Community Service for the other 80 so that they also have an obligation to serve . First of all, i should mention that thats our present force structure. We have high hopes, unfortunately, that we need a larger force. Then that percentage will, of course, go up. We used to have an elaborate system of training for different civilian positions. Fire brigades, different civil services, and all of that. But we closed that down. We have not restarted that, but i would suspect that if we increase our conscript training dramatically, which i think we may have to do, then we will also have to have that side of the house, so to say, some sort of civilian. We never had everybody trained for doing civil service. We simply didnt have the money to do that. That was the reason. But we had a portion, yes. And so currently, if the 20 who get selected, how do they feel . How do the 80 feel . Do the 20 , the 80 , feel, im lucky, i didnt get chosen . Do the 20 feel like, why am i getting the burden . Or wow, im serving my country, this is an obligation, an honor, im happy to do it . So far, we are very fortunate. Its important to note when we changed systems in 2010 to an allvolunteer force, our conscript system was not, should i use the word corrupt, like many others were. We still had a very high degree of willingness to do and we still do today. So we have especially in the security climate we are in today we have very small problem not filling the force in that way. Great. My last question for everybody on the panel, quickly, so we are the commission on military national and Public Service. Its the first time, actually, that all thee ways to serve our country have come together. So one of the ideas thats come up as we have talked about Selective Service is actually replacing a militaryonly Selective Service system with a serve your country system where people would sign up and they could choose, im either going to i would like to serve or register for potential service in military service, National Service, peace corps, americorps or service in local, state, or federal government. What do you think about that idea . I guess the only concern that i would have there is the selfselection. Because, again, this is about finding and using the talent of the American People in a time of crisis. By doing so, we may lose some of those with the specific talents that we think we need in a crisis. Other thoughts . Dr. Dempsey . I mean, i applaud the question. Its one weve all grappled with for years. I applaud the commissions efforts. You know, i think part of the solution is asking the question. Where is the national sense of service . I think one of the great things about American Society is the balance between public and private and think there are public obligations to citizenship, but i also think its great strength in private endeavors and the freedom and willingness of folks who choose what they want to do. I think we can and and should promote service as much as we can. Yet, i would constrain the idea of Obligatory Service to Something Like the military where it is an existential question because i dont think we want the power of the state fully invested in domestic affairs. Id also say the Supreme Courts decisions upholding just the constitutionality of having a draft apart from the sex equality really focus on the National Emergency in times of service. So im not saying theres necessarily a constitutional problem, but i could imagine constitutional arguments as you get further and further away from a National Emergency kind of situation where at a certain point people would say theres just a constitutional problem with involuntary service. I would say that the interest is there. Theres a recent study done on millennials volunteering in charity. 75 of millennials donate to charity. This could possibly be attributed to the ease of which it is how easy it is to donate to charity. But approximately 80 have donated at least an hour of their time to some sort of volunteer. So i think the desire is there. I agree with the other panelists. I think this is a separate question from the existential circumstances, but i certainly applaud any effort to get out more awareness and access to a lot of individuals because the interest is there. Great. Thank you, all, for your service and also for sharing your time with us today. Its been very edifying. So for only the second time in the commissions history, we are ahead of schedule. So id like with the panelists indulgence, id like to offer the commissioners another lightning round. Well go with kind of simple questions, two minutes for each commissioner. Well go through. Dont feel obligated to ask, but if you have a lingering question, please feel free to do so. Ill put myself on the clock for two minutes. Both professor hasday and general darpino. Professor hasday, you mentioned in talking about having women register that its a mark of full citizenship and general darpino, you said not having them register kind of marks them as less than equal. Im curious, was that the same position you held prior to 2015 when combat roles were opened, or is that position now because combat roles are open . I thought rosker was on shaky constitutional ground for years as the combat exclusion got smaller and smaller and as womens success in combat was so clearly demonstrated. Now that its totally even if you accept the reasoning, that doesnt work anymore. Okay. Im going to concur with my colleague and call myself out as a lawyer, that i felt the same way about the opinion, particularly since it was, you know, based upon the reading of a congressional record instead of the actual statute itself. But i also feel that way because were talking about setting up a tribe, you know. So when you have a tribe and it only includes a certain type of people and you exclude others, ive always felt that by having more diversity within that group, we become stronger, and weve seen that even with terminology, saying its no longer brother in arms. Its now brother and sister in arms. And that makes us stronger. Just quickly, general, how do does your country identify that 15 to 20 who get the letter to come to go to the website . What happens to them if they dont respond . Im sorry if i was unclear. Everybody gets the letter. Then they go on the web page, and from those answers, they will pick roughly 15,000, 20,000. That is tested. Then from them well train maybe 5,000 to 10,000. How do you pick that 15 to 20 . Is that based on their responses . Yes. What happens if they dont go i believe they get find and there will be repercussions from that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Quick question based off of the last panel. In terms of screening, do you think we still need our obligations as citizens if we had a screening process by which we would allow people to selfidentify their interests and willingness to serve . I think that would certainly help the services in the event they do need to match personal capability to mission requirements. I think the example given earlier that at the end of the day, should the need arise where any individual needs to fit a specific condition, that also needs to be expected. I certainly encourage anything that helps us. And dr. Dempsey, since youve done Similar Research in this area. How would you, or what recommendations would you give the commission in to sort of strike this understanding and of the citizen. Our responsibility of citizens and what we should expect in sort of the sport of state requirements and that sort of some of the other panelists were talking about the lack of visibility and awareness of what lack of Service Really is. I didnt understand, i had already been accepted to west point, i think i was already there when i was required to fill out the card. I thought it odd, but rock on. So i think any kind of conversation again is valuable. It we cannot continue operating on the assumption of what military service is. Any discussion is valuable and i think we have to get away from this postcard system and whether that is promotion of a reengagement of Civic Education in high schools, i dont know if thats a requirement. Id hate to see it boiled down to a power point presentation. Thats at least better than the postcard. I would hope theres an educational component of . Degree in your final recommendations. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I dont have a question, but i do appreciate what the commissioner said, we have a brain trust here. Was there something you imagine asking us, asking you that we didnt cover. Is there a topic that you might have imagined us plowing through that we didnt were that good . Then i have no further questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I believe professor, when you were giving your opening comments. You mentioned that women are doing well in combat and have support, was that accurate . Okay. May i ask what you base your findings of support . I mean, if you look at polling data. Polling data has gone up significantly since the 70s, rosker is interesting, because it says women are excluded from registration, theyre excluded from the draft. Why are women excluded from combat . The president wants it, the people want it, Congress Wants it, and if you look at polling over the last 40 years, Popular Support for women in combat has gone up significantly. Im not saying there are not still people opposed. Thank you, mr. Chairman. To kind of follow up on mr. Caseys question where hes talking about a Registration System, but one that provides opportunities for people to indicate their interest in other forms of service. And to clarify, if what were talking about is not a system where thou shalt serve one way or the other, but youre given an opportunity to choose or explore opportunities to serve. Including the decision to not serve at all through this formalized process, would it change the way that you would understand this kind of a system, how it might work, how it might actually help to improve awareness of Service Opportunities for both the military, national and Public Service . I think so, as long as its based on incentives i think one of the issues we see, we face, is internships and Public Service are the domain of those that have Economic Freedom to spend time not working for money. And so in that sense we are not fully exploiting the vast talent pool of citizens. There may be some who would love to serve under privileged communities or teach. Or clean up. But they need to get a job in their hometown first. Theyre never able to fully expand their skills. Theres a delicate question here of how does government, Civil Society promote that. Id be in favor of it, given its an incentive based way to tap into the skills and the desire as my colleague mentioned of this generation to serve others. My only hesitation would have to do with education. While we were doing that we have to ensure that we educated that this is just merely a list of possibilities. Because we do have individuals who feel entitled and i can hear them saying, i signed up for, i dont have to worry about. And so we would have to make sure it was accompanied by a lot of education. Just briefly, i think one of the strengths of the military is you have individuals coming from all over this country. Some who are citizens, some who arent. And they are exposed to those other individuals, and i do think that even if it is just being provided the opportunity to teach across town, theres so much value in, and encouraging and providing access in the economic means for young people to serve that it would strengthen an entire generation, should you be able to create a system that does support that. Miss james. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Just a quick question. If congress were to make the decision to include women in Selective Service, how would you recommend that they message that to the American People . Thats a quick question . Just quick thoughts down the line. I would showcase the women on this panel and the commission who have served and put a face to what it means to be a woman in military service, that theyre we have to focus on the Positive Side of it, and the contributions that this generation of women have made to military service. And i think then it sells itself. I dont think you need much more than that. What military service means, what military service might mean, despite what they may or may not see or exposure they may have had. And to help visualize themselves in those shoes. I think that it has to be an empowering message, the fact that a womans capability, her education, her thoughts are valued as a citizen, but also as an individual who would bring a talent to the service in the event its needed. So it does have to be positive, but i think it comes down to valuing the individual as part of the hole message outside of that. I think that would be the greatest message. I think it would give a great platform to show the military is different than your grandfathers military. Not only by who serves but how we fight. It can be used as messaging beyond our shores. Dr. Dave . Youre not going to believe this, but i dont have any more questions. Youre right, i dont believe it. Let me ask the general and miss van damme. You go home to your community. A young person saw you on cspan today. They want to know from you, theyre thinking about joining the army or the marine corps. What advice do you give them . What was your single best memory of being a soldier, a marine or the single best piece of advice you would give them as to whether or not they should join up. Ive been asked that question a lot. Instead of telling them what my best experience,i tell them about my First Experience in the military when i showed up at my first duty station, and my boss looked at me and said, i asked them not to send me a woman, but they sent you anyway. And i spent my military career knowing that they meaning the institution itself understood my value, and they continued to push me into positions of greater responsibility, and they continue to push me up to positions that i myself did not feel prepared for, because they knew i belonged there. And that was my experience for 30 plus years, and i cant if i could wind the tape back and start over again, id also be that much younger, i would do so and do it all over again. Thats how positive an experience it has been. I also get asked a similar question often. My number one thing is, its about the people, its about the men and women to your left and right, those that you serve under and especially those that you lead. As a young person entering into the service, its fundamentally important that you know your books. You know the educational foundations of whatever your occupational specialty is, because you will be leading or advising people that are exponentially more experienced than you. Especially as a young officer. And so its important that before you gain that experience, you have the book smarts and then you utilize the manpower around you, and as you gain experience, youre still youre working for the people to your left and right. And theres no greater bond than ive experienced outside of that with my husband than i found in the military and serving particularly in combat. Miss haynes . All i have to say is thank you. And what terrific role models to speak to this issue. Miss gelly . Id like to thank you all again, and i yield back, sir. Mr. Casey . A previous question about the military divide. Beyond the registration issue, and also you brought up education. Weve travelled this issue of 1 in this country. People who serve in the military, fewer and fewer people in this country, even though weve been at war for almost 20 years, have connection to people in the military. Any other recommendations you make for us as a way to help close that civilian divide . There are mechanisms and there are many longer discussions other than pointing to the individual and saying youre going to serve. Weve spent the last 18 years going to war on credit. Weve never tied military intervention directly to the american taxpayer. But they certainly will pay that bill. Nor have we had a congress for that reason. The disconnect, that idea that its all on credit, we dont need to get engaged. Has allowed congress to advocate its article one authorities to provide meaningful oversite of what were doing with i think now were up to 730 billion a year . Thats a lot of money. And theres an opportunity cost with every dollar spent. And so there are very important questions about what actually makes america stronger. And how do you balance out the idea are there other places where we create a stronger nation than another f35 . I dont necessarily have an answer for that. I mean, i certainly have an opinion. But i think more i think tieing all the different ways that defense impacts the individuals instead of hiding, instead of subsuming it, in ways that allow americans to go to the mall, but inviting them into these discussions. Id even highlight it on the tax bill. This is how much of your taxes this year went to defense spending. I think that would be a fantastic exercise for involving the American Public and what has become new ways, our primary foreign export in the industry. Thank you all again. Thank you. Thank you for staying with us. Even through the lightning round. We greatly appreciate your time today and the valuable information you provided us. The president and the American People. Well now dismiss the panelists, please feel free to take seats in the front row if youd like to stay through Public Comments. And well invite the public to provide their comments. 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 two minute 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. We will call out five ticket numbers at a time, and ask when your number is called, please come forward, make a line behind the mic and provide your comment. On the easel, to my left and your right, you will see the ticket numbers in the order that you should line up. If time does not permit you to submit your oral comment we encourage you to submit your written statement. Please provide them to the staff at the registration desk. I invite the following ticket individuals up to provide comment, numbers 73, 70, 68, 65 and 61. During your comment, please be aware of the lights in front of me on the table. The light will turn yellow when you have 30 seconds remaining, and red when time is expired. At this time you will hear a buzzer and we ask you to please sum up your comment. Please come forward, introduce yourself to the commission before starting your comment. Number 73 . Good afternoon, my name is dimo morgan stern. I am unaffiliated. People have been talking earlier in the day about the value of women in the home and how just costly it would be to take them out i think maybe if they got the same pay as men, you could argue that. But maybe sending, if p they get drafted, let the men stay home i think one of the effects of not having women be in the Selective Service, is that maybe the men in the military dont really see them as dangerous. And yet when they go out in the field in the theater, theres plenty of women out there that can tear them down it also degrades what they think of women at home, and im a newlywed and hell hath no fury. Thank you. Thank you. Number 70. Hi, im maria santelli, the director of the center on conscience and war. We work to extend and defend the rights of Conscientious Objectors to war. I feel like this whole discussion these last couple days is predicated on the acceptance on the use of military force as a Foreign Policy tool. The vast majority of the American Public has already spoken on this issue. The military and veteran populations compromise 7 . That means the rest of us have said no. I choose not to kill. The default position for humanity is that of Conscientious Objector to war. Even if this is not a consciously held position, the consequences of the violation are evident. Moral injury, wounds to the soul. Widely recognized as a cause of the ubiquitous trauma. The use of military forces rejected actively and by default in this country. You is we have heard numerous times how the Selective Service and the department of defense are intertwined. This must end. If the system is not abolished together it must be fully restored and maintained in civilian control. If registration is maintained, the protection of conscientious objectives. I ask you to please consider enforcement carefully. The Current System of punishments should concern us all. Millions of men endure punishments, many of them lifelong without due process. The debate about drafting women has been framed. The inarcurate framing distracts us from freedom of belief. The idea that full equality under the law should be dependent with participation is antthetical to our democratic values. Thank you. Number 68 . Number 65 . Number 61 . Hi again. Kate connell. As i said, im a quaker and parent of two draft age children, im also director of an Organization Called truth in recruitment which provides students with alternative information to the military. So they can make educated choices. On the way over here, we passed a cemetery full of white rectangular tombstones. I looked for the name of the cemetery there was a sign on the fence. It said u. S. Government property. Is that what our youth are, living or dead . U. S. Government property . There are many military people on this commission. Many of you have connections and amongst the panelists. What is the mint set of the military. How does the military institution see the citizens of nation and the rest of the world . What recommendation will you give congress. Do you recommend that they continue to see youth, to see highly trained professionals. People identified female at birth as commodities. U. S. Government property . Or as citizen humans, with the inalienable right to the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You guys are not the people making the decision, ive heard that, youre making the recommendations, the risks to women are real. The risks to our democracy is real. Whats going to happen with our community . How do you value the people of this nation . How do you value your own attitude toward this . I feel the military runs very deep, it doesnt just physically affect but its gotten inside of people on this commission and those panelists and in this nation. And we need to heal that. Please, lets eliminate the Selective Service as a first step. I now call up number 71, 72, 67, 62 and 63. And number 71 . Hello, i want to reaffirm some of the things maria said earlier. There is an assumption in this whole conversation that military is a tool for policy in the world. We need to rethink that. The militarys own studies have found that people are inclined to not kill other people, thats why they put them through the training they put them through. For the Selective Service as an institution its purpose is to take people and force them into that military situation. Its morally wrong. I talked earlier about some kind of way to indicate that youre a Conscientious Objector when you register. I know from experience and also working with counseling, whenever they go before a military investigating officer or in case of the draft, before the draft board. The draft board just assumes this is something youre making up rather than taking seriously the fundamental truth, that people are inclined to not kill other people. They have to be trained and indoctrinated. For the most part, normal human beings dont do that. I would urge you to urge congress to put an end to this policy of forcing people to violate their conscience. Thank you. Number 72 . Hello. Thank you. My name is jim bussel and im a quaker. Im a student of history and religion. When will the draft was reestablished by jimmy carter it was in response to the invasion of afghanistan, at a time when we used to think of a first world. It was a long time ago. We have the same draft Registration System, we need to ask if its applicable to the world we live in. In that era, the wars were between two armies. They lasted 2 to 5 years. They were fought for attainable objectives. I did not support that, but we live in a drastically different era of asymmetrical warfare, in which the majority of the dead are civilians, we need to pause and contemplate that were now fighting actively in over a half a dozen countries. Most american citizens dont even know the names of all the places where we have soldiers, two years ago in niger, where four american soldiers were killed, most people didnt know we had been fighting there. We spent more as a country than all the other countries in the world combined. We need to think about that. Were not secure from this. We push the survivors, were happy to outfit them with suicide explosive vests. Were not winning hearts and minds, were simply its a problem. I just want to say that something more meaningful to me each year, the words of my teacher, lord of my life you heard it said, love your neighbor and hate your enemies, but i say unto you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. I want to present to you that Human Security is indivisible. We cannot become secure by making and allowing others to be insecure. And the subscription system, the National Security system that were building up here is one which leaves our adversaries feeling insecure. And that will not be a source of security for us in the world we live in today. I just ask you all to consider, be we have the capacity to create Human Security for everyone on the planet. We need the vision to do that, and i ask each of you to consider if you can be part of that vision. Thank you. Number 67 . Good afternoon, im margaret hope, retired air force. And i know both of the two ladies that presented today. And since they said many of the same things that i would say, i will not reiterate those. Can you step a little closer to the mic, please . Okay. But there are a couple issues i want to mention. Earlier it was mentioned that meno exactly when they found out that they or remember when they registered for Selective Service. I remember specifically when i was told that theres no need for me to register. It sent a message that youre not wanted in the military. A recent study by the Bipartisan Policy Center Blue Star Families and others have shown that the number one reason in their survey that women do not join the military is because of the Selective Service law, when they dont register, they also get the message that theyre not wanted and many people have stated that they would have considered military service if they did register. Secondly, if you look at the young people as a talent pool. We need to you is capture the talent. Its a very competitive world out there for our talent one of the second recommendations by the Bipartisan Policy Centers study was to require young people to complete the aspap test in high school. Which would be a benefit to them and also to our nation to enhance the utilization of their skills and match them up better. Addition ali, i have a document from the reserve Offices Association that support the Selective Service registration of women, and that is the organization that was endorsed by 50,000 individuals in the organization. And they support it, so ill submit that as well. Thank you very much. Number 62 . Hi, im count standish. I travelled from california with my stir. Im going to start by asking a question. How many people in this room have children, by show of hands. Do you want your sons and daughters to be forced to fight in a war or put to jail because they opposed it . This is a dilemma that i will be faced with in three years if policy does not change. Serving your country should not be defined by forced military involvement. I volunteer with programs that are important to me. Im here representing myself, my peers and all those who will be affected by this decision. It irks me that a commission of adults is deciding my future, not those individuals who will be directly affected. Now is the time to make a change that will uplift our nation. Not hold it back by an out dated draft system. The question is, should we expand the draft to include women . And the answer is to abolish and disban an unconstitutional act by the u. S. Government. Number 63 . Number 66 . 64 and 69 . Number 66 . I am the staff attorney with the conscience on war. Im a fellow gopher unfortunately, on the eagle scholar left the building. I would love to rebut and complicate one of the ideas that was connected to the Civil Rights Movement, namely that militarism essentially became the force of allowing africanamericans to become part of the equal citizens of this nation. I think there are many examples we can state here today where such as muhammad ali who stated that my citizenship and equality is not contingent on my military service. This per vision of the Civil Rights Movement and Feminism Movement that has been done over and over again has to be complicated by stating. And quite frankly, questioning what service means. As a black attorney im inspired every day to serve my country. As an attorney and a civil rights attorney, because of those people that have died in the south and all over the United States. Not in uniform, but as United States citizens who serve their country through movements that have changed the political makeup and the legal makeup to this day, where i can stand here as a black attorney. So i very much hope that even though the racial makeup of this commission is not quite as diverse as we would hope and the panels werent either, i hope you question what service means to all communities in the United States. When it comes to not linking it directly to military service. While my brother is a marine, i chose to service my country outside of the space of the military complex. And as a black person, its very important that we recognize who serves and how they serve every single day outside of the space of the military, thank you. Thank you. Number 64 . 63 . 64. 69 . 66 . Whoevers left, line up. My name is brian kim. I think i spoke with you yesterday about my position. First of all, i hope we never go to draft, for the record, in case of National Crisis. We need to have some level of assurance that we need to prepare for. When i became a u. S. Citizen,py took it freely. That was a moment of my civic duty acknowledgement that i need to do something in case the nation calls for my help to do certain things. I think we all believe that the Selective Service mission will be involved. But we need to balance that with the changes of social norm and the national parties. I dont know what those are. You guys hold lateral arguments today. You have an incredible responsibility to sort that out. Make a recommendation to congress. I dont envy you. I look forward to hearing the results. Is there any remaining Ticket Holders that i have not yet called . Seeing none again i want to thank our panelists for guiding our testimony today. All of you who took the time to participate in the audience. Its only with your help and input that the commission will achieve its position. There being no further business before the commission, the hearing is adjourned. A couple of live hearings to tell you about coming up. U. S. Trade representative robert lig lighthizer testifies about the trade strategy. Thats live tuesday at 10 15 a. M. Eastern. On wednesday actor danny glover and others testify. And a quick reminder that you can follow our coverage online at cspan. Org or with the free cspan radio app. Tonight on the communicators, we are on capitol hill talking to exhibitorers from c. E. S. On the hill, an event that gives members of congress and staffers an advanced look at new tech products. We are in a changing world. Technology is moving so quickly and so many policies are affected whether it is Artificial Intelligence or selfdriving cars or robotics or drones or all of this amazing software. Congress has to be aware of it so they can make a difference and tackle issues like privacy or other issues involving competitiveness because we are in a major battle with other economies. Watch the communicators tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan 2. Do i look forward to running against them. Tuesday President Donald Trump holds a rally in orlando, florida officially launching his run for a second term. Watch live at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan 2 or listen live on the free cspan radio app. The reviews are in for cspans the president s book. It recently topped the New York Times new and noteworthy column. And from the new york journal of books, the president s makes a fast read. Read about how noted president ial historians rank the best and worst chief executives from George Washington to barack obama. Explore the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced and the legacies they have left behind. The president s is now available as a hard cover or ebook today at cspan. Org thepresident s or wherever books are sold. Up next, a discussion on u. S. Foreign policy in africa following the trump administrations unveiling of an updated framework for u. S. Diplomatic efforts on the continent. Well hear about china and russias expanding political influence at this event hosted by the hudson institute. Good rn