    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                              [H.A.S.C. No. 117-34

                             RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

         NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MILITARY, NATIONAL, AND PUBLIC SERVICE

                                   __________

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD

                                  MAY 19, 2021

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    47-820               WASHINGTON : 2022

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                        One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                        ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman

    JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    JIM COOPER, Tennessee                MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
    JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California           ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
    JACKIE SPEIER, California            VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
    DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
    RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona               MO BROOKS, Alabama
    SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts          SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
    ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland,          SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
    RO KHANNA, California                TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
    WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts    MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
    FILEMON VELA, Texas                  MATT GAETZ, Florida
    ANDY KIM, New Jersey                 DON BACON, Nebraska
    CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       JIM BANKS, Indiana
    JASON CROW, Colorado                 LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
    ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan             JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
    JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine               MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
    ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia, Vice      STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
        Chair                            C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
    JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York          LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
    SARA JACOBS, California              RONNY JACKSON, Texas
    KAIALI'I KAHELE, Hawaii              JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
    MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington       BLAKE D. MOORE, Utah
    MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                PAT FALLON, Texas
    JIMMY PANETTA, California
    STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
    STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada

                         Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director
                   Dave Giachetti, Professional Staff Member
                     Glen Diehl, Professional Staff Member
                              Emma Morrison, Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                  STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Rogers, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Alabama, Ranking Member,
      Committee on Armed Services....................................     4
    Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Chairman,
      Committee on Armed Services....................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Heck, Hon. Dr. Joseph J., Chairman, National Commission on
      Military, National, and Public Service; Hon. Mark Gearan, Vice
      Chairman for National and Public Service, National Commission
      on Military, National, and Public Service; and Steve Barney,
      Commissioner, National Commission on Military, National, and
      Public Service.................................................     4

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Heck, Hon. Dr. Joseph J......................................    47

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        Hon. Peter A. DeFazio Testimony and Congressional Record
          Excerpt....................................................    71
        Ranking Member Rogers Statement Submitted by Mr. Gaetz.......    82
        Service Year Alliance Statement for the Record...............    83

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        Mr. Khanna...................................................    95
        Mr. Kim......................................................   100
        Mr. Langevin.................................................    93

     RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MILITARY, NATIONAL, AND
                                 PUBLIC SERVICE

                                  ----------

                              House of Representatives,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                               Washington, DC, Wednesday, May 19, 2021.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:02 a.m., in room
    2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith (chairman
    of the committee) presiding.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
           WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

        The Chairman. Good morning. We will call the meeting to
    order.
        It is a full committee hearing on ``Recommendations of the
    National Commission on Military, National, and Public
    Service.''
        We have three witnesses here. The Honorable Dr. Joseph
    Heck, who is the chairman of the National Commission on
    Military, National, and Public Service. It is good to see you
    again. The Honorable Mark Gearan, who is vice chairman for the
    national and public service, National Commission on Military,
    National, and Public Service. And Mr. Steve Barney, who is
    commissioner on that same thing.
        So we thank you all for being here. Again, we are at a
    virtual hearing, so I have to read the rules. Sorry, not a
    virtual hearing, a hybrid hearing. It is both virtual and real.
        Members who are joining remotely must be visible on screen
    for the purposes of identity verification, establishing and
    maintaining a quorum, participating in the proceeding, and
    voting. Those members must continue to use the software
    platform's video function while in attendance unless they
    experience connectivity issues or other technical problems that
    render them unable to participate on camera. If a member
    experiences technical difficulties, they should contact the
    committee staff for assistance.
        Video of members' participation will be broadcast in the
    room and via the television/internet feeds. Members
    participating remotely must seek recognition verbally, and they
    are asked to mute their microphones when they are not speaking.
    Members who are participating remotely are reminded to keep the
    software platform's video function on the entire time they
    attend the proceeding.
        Members may leave and rejoin the proceeding. If members
    depart for a short while, for reasons other than joining a
    different proceeding, they should leave the video function on.
    If members will be absent for a significant period or depart to
    join a different proceeding, they should exit the software
    platform entirely and then rejoin it if they return. Members
    may use the software platform's chat feature to communicate
    with staff regarding technical or logistical support issues
    only.
        And, finally, I have designated committee staff members to,
    if necessary, mute unrecognized members' microphones to cancel
    any inadvertent background noise that may disrupt the
    proceeding.
        I want to, first of all, thank our witnesses and the
    commission. They were charged with, you know, examining the
    Selective Service rogram, and more broadly the question of
    public service. Appreciate that work. It is a subject that has
    long been discussed in America, pretty much ever since we got
    rid of the draft. And there are a lot of issues swirling around
    this. It may seem simple at first glance, but there are
    challenges.
        Number one, since we are moving towards equality in
    military service between men and women in terms of their
    ability to serve--as we know, way back in the 1970s we created
    the Selective Service--it requires any man between the ages of
    18 and 26 to register with the Selective Service. I gather the
    theory behind that being that, if we needed to have a draft, we
    would be able to find you and that was set up.
        But it did not include women. Now that we have achieved
    equality, we want to make sure that if a draft happens, it has
    that same equality. Sorry. Now that we have worked towards
    equality--we would not want to say we have achieved it--we have
    to make sure that we include women, and that is sort of one set
    of issues.
        You know, how do you do that? How do you reset the system,
    so that women now, presumably between the ages of 18 and 26,
    would also have to register?
        I also want to put into the record a statement--sorry, I
    have got a lot of paper flying at me--here we go, from
    Congressman Peter DeFazio, who was apparently working in the
    Carter administration when this was put into place and has
    significant concerns with the entire Selective Service concept
    itself, regardless of whether or not you are--it is not about
    whether or not women should be included. It is that the system
    itself, as it was set up, Mr. DeFazio does not think should be
    law.
        So I ask unanimous consent to include into the record all
    member statements and extraneous material. Without objection,
    so ordered.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    beginning on page 71.]
        The Chairman. And I have spoken to Congressman DeFazio
    about this, and the gist of his point is, this is a very
    cumbersome, very difficult-to-implement system, and a lot of
    people are unaware of the fact that not only do you have to
    register for the Selective Service, but under the law you are
    required to basically let the government know where you are
    between the ages of 18 and 26, which I can assure you virtually
    nobody does.
        Virtually nobody? Absolutely nobody might be a better way
    to put it. I moved quite a bit between the ages of 18 and 26,
    and I didn't have anybody working for me at the time, so I am
    absolutely certain that nobody told the government where I was
    living.
        And so let's say that this system had to be implemented.
    How are we going to find people? Okay. What is the purpose of
    registering if you are not--alternatively, and this is an
    ironic fact that I just learned yesterday about this, so if we
    were to include Selective Service in the defense bill this year
    for women, it would have a mandatory score. I am kind of going
    into the weeds a little bit here, but there is a reason for
    this. That mandatory score would actually save money.
        Well, how could this possibly save money? Because there is
    also a whole set of laws that if you don't tell the government
    where you are between the ages of 18 and 26, there are a wide
    variety of Federal benefits that you are not supposed to
    qualify for as a result.
        So, in our strive towards equality, we will go ahead and
    deny women those benefits, too, apparently between the ages of
    18 and 26 if they have not followed the rules.
        Now, off the top of my head, I have no idea if anybody has
    ever made an attempt to implement this, if, you know, some 23-
    year-old has applied for a grant or a loan to go to grad
    school, and they say, ``Sorry, you didn't tell us when you
    moved apartments, so you don't get the money.''
        I don't know if that happens or not, but it is actually
    listed as a score. And if we were to get rid of the Selective
    Service entirely, it would score the other way because then you
    would have to give benefits to people who presumably you were
    going to go ahead and deny. Again, in the real world, I doubt
    much of that would play out.
        But all of that points up Mr. DeFazio's central point that
    the Selective Service itself, regardless of whether or not it
    applies to men or women, is extraordinarily problematic if you
    peel back the layers at all and take a look at it. So I am very
    curious to hear your judgment about how we implement the
    system.
        And I get the idea, and it makes sense. We don't want to
    have a draft, but we want to make sure if there is an
    emergency, we need to bring people into military service, we
    have a way to find them. Selective Service has some issues. I
    am curious what you have to say about that.
        And then there is the broader issue that we have been
    working on for a long time, which is the notion of national
    public service. And there are a lot of people that think that
    the country would be better off if everybody had to serve in
    some capacity for at least a year, maybe two, between the ages
    of 18 and 26, not necessarily in the military, but if you
    wanted to volunteer for some sort of public service.
        And there are a lot of other people who really don't like
    that idea. But it is something that has been debated for some
    time and there are, you know, both Republicans and Democrats
    who have advocated for it.
        So that is kind of the three layers that I am interested
    in. We have got the basic equity issue. How do we make this
    equal in our effort to make sure that the military gives equal
    access to people regardless of--well, regardless of a whole lot
    of things?
        You know, two, does the system itself even work for
    anybody, regardless of gender?
        And then, three, how does it fit into a broader narrative
    about what we would like to put in place for public service?
        So look forward to your testimony and the questions.
        With that, I will turn it over to Mr. Rogers for his
    opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALABAMA,
              RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Joe, welcome back to the committee. I welcome you and
    your commissioners, and I appreciate the work you all have put
    into this report. I know you all have made some significant
    recommendations on how to improve public service.
        Encouraging Americans, especially young Americans, to share
    their talents and improve their communities is incredibly
    important, and I appreciate your work on those issues.
        As far as our discussion this morning, I am interested in
    your recommendations on how to improve military recruitment and
    retention. I have always been a big believer in an All-
    Volunteer Force. I think our military should be made up of men
    and women who want to be in the military, but we need to think
    of new ways to bring talented individuals into our armed
    services. In this age of rapid technological innovation, we
    need a professional core of service members with advanced skill
    sets. Building and retaining that core will enable us to stay
    ahead of our adversaries, especially China.
        I know one of the commission's recommendations focuses on
    the need for competitive compensation for critical skills areas
    like cyber, IT [information technology], and mathematics.
    Another highlights the need for the military to provide
    additional support to students pursuing certain technical
    degrees and certificates. I look forward to hearing more about
    those specific recommendations.
        Another important topic we charged the commission with was
    reviewing the Selective Service System. We haven't had to rely
    on the Selective Service for conscription since 1973. It hasn't
    undergone any significant review since 1980.
        While some of the recommendations may be controversial, I
    appreciate the time the commission has spent looking at ways to
    modernize the system, and I look forward to our witnesses'
    testimony today.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Dr. Heck.

       STATEMENT OF HON. DR. JOSEPH J. HECK, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
    COMMISSION ON MILITARY, NATIONAL, AND PUBLIC SERVICE; HON. MARK
     GEARAN, VICE CHAIR FOR NATIONAL AND PUBLIC SERVICE, NATIONAL
    COMMISSION ON MILITARY, NATIONAL, AND PUBLIC SERVICE; AND STEVE
        BARNEY, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MILITARY,
                      NATIONAL, AND PUBLIC SERVICE

        Dr. Heck. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers,
    members of the committee. On behalf of all of the
    commissioners, my colleagues and I thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss the findings and recommendations of the
    National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service.
        Congress charged the commission to review the military
    Selective Service registration system and to identify ways to
    increase Americans' participation in military, national, and
    public service, in order to address the needs of the Nation.
        Last March we submitted our report ``Inspire to Serve'' to
    Congress, the President, and the American people. At your desk
    you should have a copy of the full report, an executive
    summary, and a legislative annex. The report includes 164
    discrete recommendations and reflects 2\1/2\ years of extensive
    research, public hearings, and conversations with Americans
    across the country.
        The commission traveled the country to 22 States across all
    9 census districts. We visited urban centers, suburban
    neighborhoods, and rural towns; spoke with elected leaders,
    nonprofit organizations, faith-based communities, military
    officers, and enlisted; middle school, high school, and college
    students; with those who serve and with those who don't.
        We engaged with 530 organizations, held 11 public meetings
    and forums, analyzed thousands of public comments, leveraged
    multiple surveys, and convened 14 public hearings to discuss
    and analyze a wide variety of policy proposals.
        As we begin to exit the current nationwide crisis, we bring
    a good-news story. America's extraordinary and longstanding
    spirit of service continues to shape the life of our Nation. We
    also bring an opportunity. In a country of 330 million people,
    only 11 percent of the adult population engages in sustained
    national service, leaving an extraordinary potential largely
    unpacked.
        For the sake of time, I will focus on the recommendations
    within the committee's jurisdiction, but we are prepared to go
    into detail in the questions and answers on any of the
    recommendations.
        As a nation, we must improve the readiness of the national
    mobilization system through whole-of-government leadership,
    regular exercises, and improved public awareness. One piece of
    this is the Selective Service System. The Nation must be
    prepared to address unforeseen existential threats.
        After extensive research, deliberation, discussion with
    experts and the American public, the commission recommends that
    the United States maintains the Selective Service. It is a low-
    cost insurance policy to supplement military personnel
    requirements in the face of an existential national emergency.
        However, the system does require modifications. Most
    significantly, in the event of a draft, the Nation must
    leverage the skills and talents of all Americans, regardless of
    gender. Including women in Selective Service registration is
    what the national security interests of the United States
    demand.
        This decision ultimately comes down to two factors:
    standards and equity. At a time when nearly 70 percent of the
    17- to 24-year-old population failed to meet initial military
    accession standards, we cannot afford to exclude half the
    population--the female half--from the potential pool of
    inductees.
        If a draft is enacted, we should want to ensure that as
    many people of the highest quality can serve, those who are
    more likely to complete training successfully and be more
    proficient at their jobs. Additionally, the rights and freedoms
    that come with being an American citizen are accompanied by
    responsibilities, including the defense of the Nation.
        The disparate treatment of women in the context of the
    Selective Service System unacceptably bars women from sharing
    in this fundamental civic obligation. Hence, requiring women to
    register, and perhaps be drafted, affirms registration as a
    common civic duty. America is simply stronger when we all
    engage in the obligations of citizenship.
        We also recommend measures to enhance the tradition of
    voluntary military service by creating a continuum between the
    routine recruiting mechanisms of the U.S. military and a dire
    situation that may require activation of the draft. For
    example, creating a critical skills individual ready reserve of
    Americans without prior military experience who would
    immediately join if their skill sets are needed; creating a
    national roster of individuals ready to volunteer in a
    national, State, or local emergency; and a formal Presidential
    call for volunteers to join the military prior to initiating a
    draft.
        We also identified critical trends that indicate a
    deepening of the civil-military divide and raise questions
    about the long-term viability of the All-Volunteer Force.
    First, gaps in understanding and interaction between civilian
    and military communities have grown as a smaller percentage of
    Americans participate in military service.
        Second, enlisted recruiting remains uneven across the
    United States with certain geographic regions furnishing a
    disproportionate share of recruits.
        Third, less than 30 percent of American youth are eligible
    to join the military without a waiver, and even fewer are
    interested. Among our recommendations are for the Department of
    Defense to increase investment of recruiting resources in
    underrepresented markets and hometown recruiting programs;
    expand youth citizenship programs, such as JROTC [Junior
    Reserve Officers' Training Corps]; and encourage broader use of
    tools such as the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery
    Career Exploration Program.
        These and other recommendations would increase awareness of
    the realities of military life and engagement between the
    military and the broader American public, enhancing the
    military's ability to attract and retain qualified personnel.
    Our recommendations also provide a blueprint to grow national
    service, promoting awareness and linking recruiting efforts
    between military and national service, such that aspiring
    individuals who are ineligible to serve in one program can
    learn about opportunities in another.
        Our report recognizes that public servants are vital to the
    security and well-being of the Nation and offers a roadmap to
    attract the next generation to public service, proposing ways
    to transform recruiting, improve internships, attract and
    retain critical talent, modernize benefits, and create new
    pipelines to public service.
        When we began this journey, we did not expect to hear
    passionate calls from Americans across the country to improve
    civic education, but we did and loudly. And we also learned
    about the dire condition of civic education in America and the
    promise of integrating service learning methods into teaching.
        To that end, the commission recommends that Congress make a
    significant financial commitment to jumpstart a nationwide
    revitalization of civic education and service learning to
    ensure young people are equipped with the knowledge, skills,
    and dispositions to actively participate in civic life and
    understand the importance of serving one's nation and
    community.
        In closing, on behalf of this commission, we call on the
    Congress and the President to invest in the American people and
    the security of the Nation by taking action--bold action--to
    ensure every American has a clear and supported path to
    service. We believe that now is the time to build a new culture
    of service and strengthen our republic, one in which every
    American is inspired and eager to serve.
        Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Heck can be found in the
    Appendix on page 47.]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And,
    again, I appreciate your service on this issue. It is a
    complicated issue with a lot of different layers. And as you
    alluded to, Dr. Heck, very strong opinions from a lot of
    different people who we need to hear from.
        On the Selective Service point, Congressman DeFazio's basic
    point is we should do away with Selective Service because it
    doesn't work. It doesn't add that much. As I said, it has got
    penalties in it that few people are aware of. It certainly
    could be unfairly implemented if people chose to do so. And
    does it really help us? Does it help us be ready to, you know,
    draft people if necessary?
        Could you, or any of the other commissioners, walk us
    through why you think Selective Service, despite all of that,
    should be maintained?
        Dr. Heck. Yes. Thank you for the question. So in
    discussions with the Department of Defense, as well as other
    experts on the issue, including Bernie Rostker, who helped
    reimplement the Selective Service registration under the Carter
    administration when President Carter reimplemented
    registration, we came down with the fact that the Selective
    Service System registration model serves multiple purposes, not
    just the ability to have a ready pool of potential inductees.
        One, it sends a message of resolve to our adversaries that
    the Nation as a whole is ready to respond to any crisis. It
    also provides recruiting leads to our military services. So
    when the individual at the age of 17 or 18 registers for the
    first time, that information is then provided to the military
    services.
        So it is not by chance that somebody at their 17th or 18th
    birthday gets that postcard that says, ``Have you ever thought
    about joining the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or now Space
    Corps?'' So it provides generating leads for potential
    recruits.
        But certainly most importantly it provides for that low-
    cost insurance policy at a cost of $26 million a year, which
    was the fiscal year 2021 budget. The Selective Service
    registration system allows for us to be able to respond to an
    existential threat that far exceeds available military
    manpower, which right now stands at about 2.1 million
    individuals in uniform, if you include all Active forces,
    Standby Reserve, and Ready Reserve.
        The Chairman. Do you know how it is enforced if people
    don't comply either with the initial registration or with the
    follow-up requirements?
        Dr. Heck. So previously the two major penalties were the
    inability to obtain employment within the Federal Government or
    to qualify for Federal financial aid. So, for instance, when
    you were filling out your FAFSA [Free Application for Federal
    Student Aid], and you were doing it online, if you checked the
    block that you were male, ultimately there would be a question
    that asked whether or not you were registered with the
    Selective Service.
        If you checked no, you would be directed to the Selective
    Service registration site to register. If you failed to
    register, then you would not qualify for Federal financial aid.
    Likewise, later on, if you were to apply for Federal Government
    employment, you would be asked whether or not you were
    registered with the Selective Service, and if you answered no,
    you would not be eligible for employment.
        The Chairman. But on the issue of people moving, and not
    being able to be found, I mean, that is the whole point is to
    know where people are, not just that they register. How does
    that work in practice?
        Dr. Heck. Yeah. That is a great question, Congressman
    Smith. And, in fact, you are correct. While there is a
    requirement to notify the system of changes of address, there
    really is at this time no enforcement mechanism.
        And we believe that part of that is due to the fact that
    very few males know that they have even registered with the
    Selective Service System, because it has become a passive
    process, which is why one of our recommendations goes to
    reinvigorating the process by which one would register, so that
    you truly understand the solemn obligation that you are making
    to respond to the defense of this Nation in times of crisis.
        Right now, most States will automatically register you with
    the Selective Service when you apply for a driver's license.
    And so because people don't know they have registered, they
    don't know that they need to update the system when they move.
        The Chairman. Yeah. Final question is on the All-Volunteer
    Force. A lot of headlines have been made about how many, you
    know, people of eligible ages are not medically qualified.
        Now, and I didn't know this for a long time, but there are
    a lot of things that presumptively, you know, take you out of
    the military. If you have had any kind of surgery, as I
    understand it, you know, if you got a nose job when you were 16
    for one reason or another you are presumptively disqualified.
    Now there are waivers, and a lot of times these waivers are
    given. A laundry list of things.
        So when we hear that scary 70 percent figure, you know,
    most people envision that, you know, everyone is out of shape.
    But what is sort of the real figure in terms of, you know,
    what--how to ask this question. A lot of people get waivers,
    okay? Is there any way to calculate, okay, it is 70 percent,
    but of that 70 percent half of them would routinely receive a
    waiver.
        Dr. Heck. Right. Another great question. So let me put it
    in roughly absolute numbers, because these numbers do not
    include those who get the waiver. It includes those that, you
    know, that are not eligible for waiver. So if you think about
    it, in any given year, there is about 32 million individuals in
    the 17- to 24-year-old age group, which is the prime recruiting
    category.
        If you look at those that are no longer eligible, not just
    because of medical but because of fitness, because of
    behavioral health, because of prior law enforcement issues,
    because of psychological problems, because of drug addiction,
    we are down to a pool of 9 million, right?
        Of that 9 million, if you look at those that are considered
    highly academically qualified--that is, roughly an A/B student
    in high school or a score greater than 50 on the Armed Forces
    Qualification Test----
        The Chairman. Forgive me. So not me, but----
        Dr. Heck. You are now down to 4.5 million out of that pool
    of 32 million. And then, if you look, of that pool of 4.5
    million, how many of them that are now eligible, highly
    academically qualified, are propensed or have thought about
    joining the military, you are down to 450,000.
        The Chairman. But just to be clear, the 70 percent figure
    you are saying is 70 percent of the people who wouldn't even
    qualify for a waiver.
        Dr. Heck. Correct.
        The Chairman. Okay. So it is actually as bad as it
    appeared.
        Dr. Heck. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Rogers.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In my opening statement, you heard me talk about the
    threats that we have in new warfighting domains that we have to
    be conscious of. We just created a brand-new military service
    to try and meet the challenges in one of those domains, and it
    is a very technical skill-reliant service.
        The same thing is true of cyber. This committee is looking
    at the possibility of standing up a digital service academy to
    help train our civilian and military personnel in the skill
    sets necessary to compete in the cyber domain.
        I am really interested in what your thoughts are about how
    the military can better recruit the highly technical skill sets
    that we need to fight in these warfighting domains. What do we
    have to do to compete with those people? Anybody.
        Dr. Heck. So thank you for the question, Congressman
    Rogers. One of our recommendations actually goes directly to
    this issue on cybersecurity by the creation of a cybersecurity
    reserve force that would be made up of individuals who could
    serve as a surge capacity, not just for the military but also
    other Federal Government agencies like DHS [U.S. Department of
    Homeland Security] and NSA [National Security Agency] who may
    require additional assets during times of crisis.
        The biggest issue--one of the biggest issues that we face
    is the military manpower caps, right? So it is not necessarily
    about how do you recruit these folks in. It is about the caps
    on manpower, you know, the 480,000 total cap on, let's say,
    Army manpower.
        But in order to get these individuals in, especially in the
    cyber domain, the Department of Defense needs to look at
    tailored accession criteria, right? Does the cyber warrior
    necessarily have to pass the Army Combat Fitness Test? Do they
    necessarily need to meet the specific grooming standards or
    height/weight standards, if they are never going to be in a
    forward operating environment?
        And when you look at what precludes many of the individuals
    with expertise in these areas, it is the accession criteria and
    the criteria that they need to maintain and keep in order to be
    a uniform member of the service.
        Mr. Rogers. Yeah. And, fortunately, we are seeing some
    creative ideas in this new service that we have created about
    how to deal with that, to let some folks come in, knowing they
    are never going to be toting a gun out on the ground. They are
    trying to control the satellite.
        So I am really interested in us doing some creative things
    when it comes to recruitment and retention, you know, letting
    people maybe get to an O-6 position and want to go private for
    a few years, make some money, but be able to come back in
    periodically and bring their skill sets to us.
        I am curious to know, what is the biggest lesson you have
    learned when it comes to attracting people to the military?
    What we are doing successfully and what we are not.
        Dr. Heck. I believe from our travels around the Nation and
    talking with people from, again, all walks of life, one of the
    issues tends to be the growing civil-military divide and the
    lack of true awareness of opportunities within the military,
    right?
        It is just recently that military advertising has changed
    its tack. Where previously most of the advertising was directed
    at combat arms--you were jumping out of airplanes, driving a
    tank--very rarely did you see somebody sitting at a computer
    screen or providing medical care.
        So in order for people to want to be able to join the
    military and pursue non-combat roles, they need to know that
    those opportunities are available, right? Any job that exists
    in the private sector is available in uniform, and we need to
    do a better job at making that known to the American public.
        Mr. Rogers. I agree.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Langevin.
        Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank our witnesses for being here, particularly
    Dr. Heck. Nice to see you back before the committee.
        So I want to thank you all for your extraordinary work. I
    look forward to reading the report.
        The commission recommends expanding national service
    opportunities for individuals with diverse ability, so that
    they may participate in and benefit from national service.
        Mr. Gearan, what national service opportunities are
    currently open to Americans with disabilities? And do you have
    recommendations where to expand these opportunities?
        Mr. Gearan. Thank you, Congressman. One of the things I
    think--a major takeaway that we had from our time traveling, as
    Dr. Heck said, is the tremendous wellspring of interest in
    service, but the confounding and disappointing thing is the
    barriers that exist.
        Sometimes those are financial barriers, there are access
    barriers to service, and so one of our--part of our
    recommendations is a whole stream of pilot programs to allow
    the Corporation for National and Community Service to explore
    other ways and streams of service that could be a part of it,
    certainly.
        And while there are some examples, there is no question
    that the opportunities that are before Americans do not match
    the interests of particularly young Americans in service.
        Mr. Langevin. Thank you very much. You know, I think what
    we are going through with the pandemic and the shift to remote
    teleworking, and then also our needs in the area of
    cybersecurity, and certainly how people with disabilities could
    have plenty of opportunity to contribute talents there----
        Mr. Gearan. No question.
        Mr. Langevin [continuing]. As well. So, in another area, it
    seems like civics education is being, unfortunately, these days
    politicized. And, as a result, we end up stalling on civics
    initiatives. I am sure you experienced this when coming up with
    the civics-related recommendations.
        Dr. Heck, if I could just ask you, how can we reframe
    civics education to make it clear that it is pro-democracy, not
    pro-political party, and ensure people know the roles of local
    and Federal governments?
        Dr. Heck. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
    Certainly, what is the bipartisan, bicameral Civics Secures
    Democracy Act of 2021 is a good start. You know, we certainly
    found as we traveled the Nation--and the data clearly show--you
    know, 22 percent of American adults cannot name any of the
    three branches of government; 37 percent can't name or don't
    know any of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Less
    than 25 percent of eighth graders were deemed proficient on the
    latest National Academy of Academic Civics Assessment.
        And part of the issue: annual Federal funding for civic
    education declined from $150 million in 2010 to $5 million
    today. The Federal Government spends $54 per student for STEM
    [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] compared to
    5 cents per student for civics. And so there needs to be a
    reinvigoration from the top.
        And as we heard as we traveled around and talked to folks,
    especially communities of color and at-risk neighborhoods, and
    tried to convince them of the need to provide national service,
    the answer was, ``Well, why would I want to serve a nation that
    I don't believe is serving me?''
        Part of that is because of a lack of civics education and
    understanding the obligations, the rights and responsibilities
    that come with citizenship.
        Mr. Langevin. Very good. Thank you. Well said. So we have
    part of the population with critical skills and experience who
    have the urge to serve later in life. Military services have
    hiring authorities to directly commission these individuals.
    However, they are rarely used.
        Dr. Heck, do you believe that that is because the military
    isn't attracting enough candidates, that there is an issue with
    direct commission process, or is there a different reason?
        Dr. Heck. I believe there are multiple reasons. One is
    that, yes, there are many individuals that are mid-career in
    technical and critical skills that would like to provide
    service, but they still don't want to undertake the obligations
    that come with putting on a uniform. And so that is why one of
    our recommendations is this critical skills individual ready
    reserve. That would allow civilians to come in and be utilized
    in a civilian capacity in times of need.
        I think another one of the issues which we discuss more in
    our public services sector is the multitude of different hiring
    authorities that lead to confusion not just for the applicants
    but also those that are trying to do the hiring and being able
    to get people on in a timely manner in a position for which
    they are qualified.
        Mr. Langevin. Very good. I thank you all for your service,
    and I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Wittman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
    our commissioners today. Thanks so much for what you have done
    on the commission. It is really insightful to understand some
    of the things that we need to be addressing.
        Dr. Heck, I want to go to you and start with groups like
    the Civil Air Patrol, the Young Marines. They do some truly
    impressive things. These are young folks that are instilled
    with the idea that they can do something that matters. They can
    have an impact, which is really something I think is incredibly
    important today, because our younger generation looks to
    opportunities to have an impact, where they can see the impact,
    where they can understand the impact.
        If you look at what Civil Air Patrol did during COVID-19,
    the things that they did, they assisted in over 41 States in
    helping to address the pandemic, to help do logistics in ways
    that really assisted efforts by the States. I think those
    things are something that we should be able to build upon.
        So I wanted to ask you, how can our military engage these
    organizations further? What can they do to really make a
    greater association with what these organizations do? And how
    do they take the feeling that youth receive from being part of
    these organizations and doing these things, how can they take
    that to expand what others understand military service being
    all about?
        Dr. Heck. So several recommendations that we have in our
    report. One is growing the hometown recruiting program, right
    where individuals actually return to their own high school,
    right, to talk to folks from their own community about their
    service. Right now that is done in a permissive TDY [temporary
    duty] status, and so it is rarely utilized.
        We make a recommendation that it should be a funded status,
    so that more individuals will participate in hometown
    recruiting.
        The other is actual growth in some of the programs like
    Junior ROTC. Right now, only roughly 3,000 programs across the
    country; we call for an expansion to 6,000. Even if it is a
    citizenship program, not a military recruiting tool, it does
    instill in those participants a greater sense of civic
    obligation, which may then lead to them considering and being
    more propensed to serve in the military.
        Another area is an increased public awareness of
    opportunities. And, unfortunately, what happened in our post-9/
    11 world is military bases became much more closed due to
    security reasons, right? So you don't see as many field trips
    from the local school out to the military base to talk to
    individuals, to see what is going on on that camp, post, or
    station.
        We need to look at a way, while maintaining security, to
    increase the aperture, right? When you look at roughly 70
    percent of new accessions coming from a certain swath of the
    United States, primarily the southeast and the west, there are
    large portions of the United States where individuals just
    don't have the exposure.
        One last one is the expansion of the Armed Services
    Vocational Aptitude Battery Career Exploration Program. Only
    about 15 percent of high school students take the ASVAB because
    many think that it is an automatic tool by which they are going
    to potentially be recruited. That is not true, especially the
    career exploration piece, which allows them to explore their
    interests and skill sets across a variety of potential careers
    and professions not necessarily tied to the military.
        And, lastly, we have to be able to increase access into
    schools and recruiters. In certain areas, that is still an
    obstacle that is being fought.
        Mr. Wittman. Yeah. Dr. Heck, let me ask you this, too. I am
    going to address the elephant in the room, and that is for the
    Department of Defense recruiting folks in the cyber realm, we
    know where the private industry is going as far as salaries. We
    see DOD [U.S. Department of Defense] has been able now to
    compete salary-wise. But there is still a gap in us being able
    to recruit.
        And the question then becomes, you know, what are the
    elements of public service in attracting folks to work in that
    cyber realm, to get the best and brightest to say, ``Yes, I
    want to do things that affect, you know, a larger realm than
    just the company that I might be working for in the tech
    realm.''
        Give me your perspective on what we can do to really
    address recruiting those individuals, aside from salary. I
    think we can match that, but there are other aspects that need
    to be addressed.
        Dr. Heck. There are. One is appealing to the sense of
    service to the Nation, especially for those that are mid-
    career, which is really the sweet spot, right? Just coming out
    of college, you have got to pay off your student loans, odds
    are you are going to take that high-paying job.
        But once somebody is established, they have got a skill set
    and they are mid-career and a little bit better situated, they
    are more prone to want to participate in these types of
    programs.
        The other piece, as was alluded to by Congressman Rogers,
    is the flexibility to come in and out of government service.
    When you talk to millennials and Gen Zers, they are not looking
    for a long-term career as you would expect most people going
    into the military wanting to do their 20 [years].
        They want the flexibility to come in and do one thing and
    then be able to move on and do something else and then maybe
    come on back. We are very reluctant within the Department of
    Defense to provide that type of flexibility.
        Mr. Wittman. Very good.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Garamendi is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        For the entire commission, and particularly for the three
    of you, thank you very much for your service, not only on this
    commission but in many, many other roles.
        It would be normal and natural that we would be focusing on
    the Selective Service and the service in the military, but I
    want to take this in a slightly different way. First of all,
    your comments with regard to civic education are absolutely
    correct.
        I was looking at this map in your report, and I am unhappy
    to see that California doesn't bother with civic education. We
    have education in virtually everything else, but we missed that
    one and that is a mistake.
        My question really goes to other service beyond the
    military, as important as it is, and my question really goes to
    Mr. Gearan. You and my wife worked together in the Peace Corps
    some years back. Could you describe to us the role--
    international role of service of many kinds, the Peace Corps
    being but one, and the way that interacts with the military on
    the soft power side?
        Mr. Gearan. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for your
    Peace Corps service, most importantly. It was an enormous
    privilege to serve as director of the Peace Corps, because I
    was able to see the extraordinary Americans who volunteered in
    that way and the difference they made bringing their skills and
    peace and friendship to countries that need and want our help.
        If I may, what was a particularly frustrating dimension of
    it is that we had, during my time as director, 10,000
    applications to serve as Peace Corps volunteers, and we
    accepted 3,500 due to budget limitations. So we had to get our
    head around the fact that we are saying no to 6,500 Americans
    who have raised their hands in this way.
        And what we found over the course, as Dr. Heck said, of our
    commission is like de Tocqueville traveling the country. The
    great news is Americans want to serve. There is a
    predisposition, as de Tocqueville said 200 years ago, for
    service. I saw that with the Peace Corps. I saw it on the
    corporation board. But we are not honoring that with the
    opportunities.
        So what we have called upon here is a really bold,
    integrative plan to increase it to 1 million positions of
    national service opportunities full-time for young people. Now
    there would be 80,000 when you combine AmeriCorps and Peace
    Corps today.
        This is significant. Over the next arc of 10 years, so on
    the 70th anniversary of President Kennedy's important call to
    action in his speech, we would have that kind of bold vision. I
    think what that would mean is the experience of Peace Corps
    volunteers, like yourself and your wife and others, would come
    back to the United States in many ways for all of the good work
    that Peace Corps volunteers do in the developing world.
        In many ways, the domestic dividend to our own country is
    every bit as great. In public service that is recognized, in
    education and medicine, across careers, family life, and
    community building. So there is a whole thread of service. The
    Peace Corps is part of it. In the past 25 years, sort of
    AmeriCorps has led this way domestically.
        But it integrates very much, and that was the wisdom of
    this commission for the first time ever to integrate military,
    national, and public service. There has never been this
    holistic charge by the committee and by the Senate. And I would
    offer the kind of recommendations that are before you, to
    integrate all of these streams of service, in a very big way
    responding to needs and integrating service both domestic and
    foreign.
        Mr. Garamendi. I thank you for that. In a hearing, actually
    a meeting, with the former commander of the Pacific--Indo-
    Pacific region, he said that we should send out to the Pacific
    Islands--resend Peace Corps volunteers as diplomats to
    establish the presence of America on those islands, Palau, New
    Guinea, et cetera, because the military couldn't do it as well
    as volunteers, and Peace Corps being but one that could serve
    that purpose.
        Finally, Mr. Heck, or Dr. Heck, you said about service, not
    wanting to serve. And this goes back to Mr. Gearan's work. Ask
    not what your country can do for you but, rather, what you can
    do for your country. JFK [President John F. Kennedy].
        Thank you very much. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Gallagher is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gallagher. I would like to pull the string on the
    civics education recommendations. First of all, thank you for
    your work. I co-chaired a cyber commission for the last 2
    years, and so I understand what a difficult undertaking it can
    be and really look forward to digging into the report more and
    grappling with the recommendations.
        I would be curious--and I consider myself a supporter of
    civics education--I think the problem you lay out is a really
    stark one nationally. But I would be curious, in your analysis,
    because I believe the recommendation is ultimately to increase
    the amount of money, to the tune of $200 million a year that
    the Federal Government provides to State and local educational
    authorities, I guess two questions.
        What in your analysis led you to believe that this is
    primarily a problem of insufficient resources? And then the
    second one is, would it be fair--second related for us to--now
    that we have just had a massive infusion of Federal resources
    to State and local educational authorities, would it be fair
    for us to sort of think about how those resources might be
    leveraged for civics education? If either of those makes sense.
        Dr. Heck.
        Dr. Heck. Thank you for the question. So the issue
    regarding resources, if you look historically, as Federal
    funding for civic education was decreased, so was the amount of
    education that was taking place. As we shifted more focus to
    the STEM fields, there is only so many hours in an academic
    day, and that is why you see other things like physical
    education and shop class falling by the wayside, because the
    money was coming for STEM education; therefore, school
    districts were going after STEM education to get the money.
        So there is a question about resources, and that is why we
    proposed the $200 million civic education fund to provide
    grants to school districts, local education authorities, higher
    education, to reinvigorate civic education.
        Now, we don't delve into dictating curricula. Obviously,
    that is the domain of the States, but there are certainly many
    models out there that have been successful. The Sandra Day
    O'Connor Act in the State of Florida is but one.
        And so that is the issue regarding the lack of resources.
    When you have a lack of resources, there is a lack of attention
    paid.
        Mr. Gallagher. Yeah. I think we confront this dilemma. And,
    admittedly, this is probably outside the jurisdiction of HASC
    [House Armed Services Committee] and more for the education
    committee. But, you know, at least measured against our
    international competitors, by the PISA [Program for
    International Student Assessment] score and some other
    international scores, we have gone down and down and down. We
    are mediocre in math and in reading right now, but we still
    crush the competition when it comes to spending per pupil.
        So I have a bit of skepticism that it is a function of
    money, but, again, I will look forward to looking into your
    recommendations.
        And does the legislative annex contain an assessment of how
    much these recommendations would cost as well, or is there an
    overall assessment of what--if we took everything, what the
    cost might be?
        Dr. Heck. For the entire report from----
        Mr. Gallagher. Yeah.
        Dr. Heck [continuing]. All the recommendations?
        Mr. Gallagher. Yeah. You are batting, you know, perfect.
        Dr. Heck. No. So we did not have the expertise recommended
    to do that. Now we did certain cost analyses for certain
    recommendations. Many of the recommendations were cost neutral
    as they are policy issues. But for those that do come with a
    potential price tag, we did some analysis, and I can address
    those on specific recommendations.
        Mr. Gallagher. And then finally in the--what remains of my
    time, I think the problem of physical fitness is a very
    important one. We have an obesity epidemic in this country. And
    as I think you laid out, Dr. Heck, at the start we have, you
    know, a sizeable portion of the young population which is just
    ineligible for service due to mental and physical health
    problems.
        And I think notwithstanding any advance in technology, you
    know, in my experience, you know, physical fitness is the
    foundation of individual and unit readiness in the military.
        So I would be curious, particularly in your report you
    recommend expanding JROTC programs. Is there an opportunity to
    maybe standardize a PT [physical training] regimen into JROTC,
    much like we do with ROTC cadets? Or how could we start to get
    at that fitness issue that we have?
        Dr. Heck. Well, certainly, that is within the purview of
    the enabling legislation for JROTC, right? Just for instance,
    in the fiscal year 2021 NDAA [National Defense Authorization
    Act], there was a provision that required JROTC programs to
    provide an introduction to military national public service
    opportunities as part of the curricula.
        So Congress could mandate the creation of a physical
    fitness curriculum to be included within JROTC programs to be
    eligible for funding.
        Mr. Gallagher. Yeah. I think the challenge we will confront
    is that the variables driving obesity and the lack of physical
    fitness are--they are multiple and they are just--they are very
    hard to tackle. And it is not as if we are going to convince
    Americans all to start, you know, eating a paleo diet and, you
    know, lifting weights, though we might consider that.
        So thank you for your work, and look forward to taking in
    and engaging with you further.
        I yield.
        The Chairman. Actually, Mr. Gallagher, we were thinking of
    putting that in the bill this year, just as a simple
    straightforward requirement. So we will work on that.
    [Laughter.]
        Ms. Speier is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Speier. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Thank you, Dr. Heck, and to all of you who have
    participated on this commission. I wholeheartedly endorse the
    commission's recommendations. I actually was very supportive of
    an amendment that was put into the NDAA to require that women
    register for Selective Service. It was taken out at some point
    during the process.
        But I am curious, if you don't now sign up as you are
    supposed to, as a male, how many are--outside of losing
    benefits, has there ever been any kind of actions taken against
    those individuals who do not?
        Dr. Heck. So thank you for the question, Congresswoman. So
    the Selective Service System claims that they have a 92 percent
    compliance rate with registration, again primarily because most
    of the registration is done passively, usually when somebody
    goes to get a driver's license or goes to complete their FAFSA
    form for Federal financial aid and doesn't check the box that
    they are registered.
        So there would be roughly 8 percent of the population that
    is not--of the male population in that age group that is not
    compliant. We do not--the Selective Service System, right, does
    not know who has not registered until they try to apply for a
    benefit for which non-registration has a penalty. So it would
    be either applying for a government job or applying for Federal
    financial aid.
        Ms. Speier. So there is no kind of action taken against
    them. They just lose the benefit; is that correct?
        Dr. Heck. Correct.
        Ms. Speier. Okay. As you engage with opponents of
    maintaining Selective Service around the country, what did you
    hear? What was the opposition to uniform Selective Service
    registration?
        Dr. Heck. So the opposition fell primarily into two primary
    categories. One are the war resister community, which they are
    against war; therefore, they don't want a Selective Service
    System, because we should never go to war and should never have
    a Selective Service System.
        The other was the conscientious objector community who,
    through deeply held religious convictions and moral
    convictions, feel that registering with the Selective Service
    program actually violates their moral beliefs.
        So those were the two groups primarily that had opposition
    to Selective Service and certainly to Selective Service
    registration expansion.
        Ms. Speier. But in terms of national service, did you get
    pushback from those same groups about a requirement that
    everyone participate in a national service program for a year?
        Dr. Heck. Not from those two groups because, I mean, there
    was opposition to making national service mandatory in general,
    right? Not from any one segment of the population more than
    another.
        Many who are against the concept of mandatory national
    service believe it is because service should be voluntary, that
    there is an intangible benefit that comes from voluntary
    service, and that if you make it mandatory, is that person
    gaining that same benefit and are they similar to conscripted
    military service? Are they putting into it their all because
    they are being mandated to do it?
        Ms. Speier. Mr. Barney, military service has become a
    family business for all intents and purposes. Everywhere I go,
    when I visit bases, it is typically a family member has served
    before. How do we somehow enlarge that universe, make it
    attractive for families that have not had a member be part of
    the military?
        Mr. Barney. Well, thank you for that question,
    Congresswoman. The main thrust of our commission's report is to
    elevate all forms of service, both the military service that we
    recognize and is so solid within the jurisdiction here of this
    committee, as well as the national service as evidenced by
    Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, and then public service, the public
    servants at Federal, State, local, tribal level.
        Our approach is to construct an expectation so that people
    would understand that at some point in their life they will be
    provided the opportunity to serve, to serve their community in
    a way that would be meaningful to them. By building on that
    spirit of an expectation of service, we believe that we will
    elevate all forms of service and it will expose individuals who
    might not have a family member who have served in our Nation's
    Armed Forces to that service opportunity to explore and to see
    what kind of a role they might play.
        Ms. Speier. You know, the Superintendent at West Point has
    gone around the country and the numbers at West Point now for
    African Americans as cadets has jumped to 18 percent, far in
    excess of the African-American population in the country.
        So I do think as we move out, we need to find ways to
    connect young people with those who serve and help them
    recognize the opportunities that they can avail themselves of.
        My time has expired. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Gaetz.
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Barney, let me follow up on what Ms. Speier was asking
    about. This multigenerational service seems to be rooted to
    some degree in the values that are observed and appreciated for
    military members.
        And I note in the letter from commissioners you guys take
    on challenging issues, and you wrote, ``We heard from
    passionate advocates on both sides of complex and controversial
    topics, such as expanding registration for the Selective
    Service to all Americans, and deliberated those matters with
    civility and respect.''
        How should we think about the importance of civility and
    respect as ways to recruit people into a wonderful, value-based
    system like the United States military?
        Mr. Barney. Well, Congressman, one of the things that we
    heard when we met with people who had served--had served in our
    Armed Forces, including those folks who came from a generation
    where the draft was in effect, and many people who did not want
    to serve had their first opportunity to serve alongside people
    who were different from them, from different parts of the
    Nation, and to do something together in a way that was totally
    outside their experience.
        The experience of service does that, sir. And we believe
    that by providing more opportunities for people to learn about
    service we can open up opportunities for all Americans. One
    thing I might say is that when we talked to family members of
    young people who are planning their future, and we talk about
    things like military service, we sometimes heard, ``Well, I
    really don't see my son or daughter being a trigger puller in
    the military.''
        We need to do a better job as a nation in informing people
    of the broad opportunities that exist within our country to
    serve----
        Mr. Gaetz. Well, let me----
        Mr. Barney [continuing]. And that every--I am sorry. Every
    population or every occupation in our Nation is represented in
    some way in our military services.
        Mr. Gaetz. I don't want to be disrespectful by cutting you
    off on a question about civility and respect.
        Mr. Barney. I apologize.
        Mr. Gaetz. We are limited in time, though. But I totally
    agree with that statement. I think that it embodies what
    inspires so many people to service, and it is why I am so
    deeply troubled at what I am currently seeing from the Biden
    administration and the Pentagon.
        Bishop Garrison is currently a senior advisor to the
    Secretary of Defense, and he tweeted, ``Calls for civility
    rather than shouting down falsehoods and misinformation shall
    be the death of this Nation. #impeachment trial.''
        And then I think to myself, well, gosh, I hope nobody is
    taking the advice of this senior advisor because we should be
    embracing civility, not saying that it could be the death of
    the Nation.
        And then I see what is happening to people who serve,
    particularly Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Lohmeier, who was
    relieved of his squadron command because he presented
    scholarship on Marxism and critique of critical race theory,
    which is an ideology that trains our service members to hate
    one another based on identity.
        And then I think to myself, well, you know, maybe it is
    just that Lieutenant Colonel Lohmeier was relieved of his
    command because he was being overly political, using the
    military to make a political point. And, gosh, then I thought
    about the last lieutenant colonel that we seem to give a lot of
    attention to here, and there is Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, who
    precisely used his role in the military to be able to advance a
    political impeachment.
        So I think that in my discussions with commanding officers
    in my State, in my community, there is a real problem with the
    morale of a lot of our service members who believe that now,
    under this like Bishop Garrison world where there is no nuance
    to perceive Trump supporters as anything but a threat to
    national security, and civility has to be rejected, that that
    really does impact how these people view their service.
        And if they feel targeted, if they feel like, you know,
    they forwarded the wrong joke, liked the wrong meme, sent the
    wrong tweet, that somehow their career will be over, that is
    going to impact our recruiting as much as any of the issues
    that we are discussing today.
        And maybe we wouldn't be in a position, you know, missing
    our recruiting requirements, having to even talk about forcing
    women in a compulsory way to register for the Selective
    Service, if we were treating the men and women who volunteer
    for military service a little bit better than we are now.
        And I am grateful that the chairman has held discussions
    about the extent to which these new paradigms and ideologies
    are impacting our service members, but we cannot possibly have
    a discussion about recruiting and the values of the military
    while people who feel like they might have a conservative
    perspective or a pro-Trump perspective are in fact targeted by
    military leaders who are rejecting the civility that you
    expressly call for in your letter.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Carbajal. Sorry. Mr. Moulton is recognized for 5
    minutes. I apologize.
        Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel compelled to
    respond to the remarkable lecture on civility from Matt Gaetz
    about what men and women are forced to do.
        I am a Marine Corps combat veteran myself, and I would
    never claim to speak for everybody in the military. But
    certainly speaking for myself, as a veteran, I can say how
    refreshing it is to have a Commander in Chief who truly honors
    our military service. He happens to be the father of a veteran
    himself, and he is someone who understands what it takes to
    serve in the military and the sacrifices that a family makes as
    well.
        What a contrast to the previous President who, of course,
    dodged the draft and called our troops losers and suckers. I am
    happy we have Commander in Chief Biden.
        Now on to the topic of the day. In your report, you note
    that awareness, aspiration, and access are the keys to national
    and public service. Now, as a student myself, I was fortunate
    enough to have someone in my life, the Reverend Peter Gomes, a
    good friend of Mark's as well, who reminded me of my duty to
    serve. And I am grateful that I had that push that led me to
    join the Marine Corps.
        So I commend you for your mission to make service an
    expectation for the next generation of young Americans. It is
    certainly something I believe in strongly. But I want to ask
    you about the access piece, which remains a challenge. Everyone
    should have the opportunity to serve, but not everyone can
    afford to deviate from the traditional employment pathways that
    you laid out before them, especially if they are dealing with
    huge college loans.
        So we should be willing to invest in those who will invest
    in our country, and I know you have looked at financial
    benefits of service. But rather than asking students to take
    out enormous loans in the hopes of receiving public service
    loan forgiveness, did you consider building a pathway to
    college through GI Bill-style tuition assistance for more than
    just military service?
        I am happy for anyone to answer that.
        Mr. Gearan. Thank you, Congressman. Let me start on that.
    You're absolutely right. And this I alluded to in response to
    Congressman Langevin, what we found was the barriers to service
    that exist, and a significant one is the financial barriers to
    service. It creates the kind of inequities that one would
    rightfully be concerned about.
        As you will see in our recommendations, we urged an
    increase in the AmeriCorps and Senior Corps living allowances.
    Far too many conversations we had across the country members
    were speaking of the very tough financial circumstance they
    were faced with.
        The Segal AmeriCorps Education Award, for reforming that to
    make sure that it was tax exempt to allow for cashing out
    options. There is a myriad of recommendations on the financial
    side that I would commend to you. Promotion of in-state tuition
    opportunities for alums of AmeriCorps. There are specific
    things that could be done in addition to raising the allowance
    that would really limit the kind of barriers that exist.
        So for all of those reasons, I think it is long past time
    where attention is brought to this. There is a very successful
    range of service, clear difference that American members are
    making in communities, but the barriers--financial ones--
    results in this limitation.
        Mr. Moulton. When I first spoke about national service on
    the budget committee, a colleague on the other side of the
    aisle said that, you know, why would we be paying volunteers?
    And he gave a big speech about this, and then I noted that I
    was paid when I volunteered for the Marine Corps. I don't think
    he had thought of that.
        But given that the report recommends increasing financial
    support for national service volunteers, can you talk a little
    bit about what you found with regards to the return on
    investment, the ROI that we get if we make these investments in
    our young people?
        Mr. Gearan. That is a great question, Congressman. Well,
    first, I think what has to be observed is--and particularly
    AmeriCorps programs are focused on evidence and results. It is
    a competitive process for organizations to have the kind of
    benefits and opportunities and called upon to demonstrate
    results.
        AmeriCorps was set up as a private-public partnership, and
    history has shown the leveraged results financially for
    AmeriCorps programs that have leveraged $1.2 billion in outside
    resources were that a billion-dollar agency. It also leverages
    our volunteer capacity, what AmeriCorps members have done,
    generating interest in communities, building the kind of civil
    society that we hope for.
        So for all of those reasons, both leveraged resources----
        The Chairman. I apologize. The gentleman's time has
    expired. If you can just wrap up in the next couple of seconds.
        Mr. Gearan. Let me just do one last thing. Return on
    investment, to the Congressman's question, is for every dollar
    invested. the latest study was 17.3 dollars increased that are
    returned in terms of the return on investment specifically.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Bergman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was a surprise.
    According to the sheet I got from my staff, I was way down the
    totem pole. So thank you.
        You know, gentlemen, a year ago, over a year ago, you
    released your report, just about the same time we shut down
    for, you know, COVID response. And I had a chance to study it
    for the first 3 months. I think it was like--well, it was a lot
    of pages, but 120-some were data and the rest was the
    bibliography.
        But thank you for all you did.
        Usually life gives you--when you study it, it is going to
    give you more questions than answers. So, Dr. Heck, early in
    your comments, in your opening statement, you talked about
    standards and equity. Could you give me an example of standards
    and equity, what you are referring to there?
        Dr. Heck. Historically, when the Department of Defense has
    difficulty in meeting its end-power requirements, it lowers the
    standards to increase the pool.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay. Let's just go right to, give me equity.
    Give me--you said standards and equity? Did I get it right?
        Dr. Heck. Yes, that is correct.
        Mr. Bergman. How about the equity piece?
        Dr. Heck. So the equity piece is allowing individuals to
    fully participate in their obligations of citizenship, to
    include defense of the Nation. And so by discounting half the
    population from even being considered to defend the Nation
    provides an inequity to the population at large.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay. I am going to have to think about that a
    little bit more. I am going to have some follow-on there.
        You talked about JROTC increase. Okay. That is pretty much
    in the K [kindergarten] through 12 realm, obviously, as we
    know, JROTC in high school or junior high. What about--did you
    consider any kind of ROTC increase? Because now we have,
    especially public institutions, who are shaping the minds of
    our young men and women? What about ROTC?
        Mr. Barney. Congressman, thank you. We looked at the great
    success that our Nation has seen with ROTC programs, and we
    observed that there was a great opportunity as we look to
    increase the participation by the next generation in public
    service by establishing programs similar to ROTC, but would be
    focused on developing the types of skills to get people to
    enter into public service careers.
        Our report also talked about introducing a cohort of
    civilians into the military service academies. This would be an
    opportunity, as we think about the reported civilian-military
    divide, to have both young people and----
        Mr. Bergman. I hate to cut you off. I know you have been
    trained to answer a question in many words, and I appreciate
    that. Okay. I am a Marine. The fewer the better. What is the
    incentive for an individual to take advantage of any of these
    programs? Anybody can answer that. What is the incentive? We
    lay all of these things out there. What is the incentive?
        Mr. Barney. For many people, it is the incentive to reduce
    their cost of that post-secondary education that is the gateway
    to service either in the military or in public service.
        Mr. Bergman. So it is okay to use money as an incentive.
        Mr. Barney. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Bergman. Absolutely. Okay. Free market. How about the
    minimum age to engage? Fifth grade? Third grade? Tenth grade?
    What do you think?
        Dr. Heck. So, Congressman, we lay out what we term a kind
    of cradle-to-grave pathway to service. And we believe that the
    sooner you engage individuals in service, at the earliest
    possible age, the more likely they are to then want to serve
    again in the future.
        And so, for instance, we talk about potentially at the
    middle school level a well-defined service project, that they
    engage with in a finite project with their classmates. Of
    course, civic education begins in kindergarten and should be
    not one class on U.S. history but----
        Mr. Bergman. Doctor, I hate to cut you off because my--I
    know we try to stick to the time here. Have there been any
    deliberations that you have had in your work with the K-12
    educational leaders? Whether it be school boards, academic--you
    know, teachers unions, et cetera. Did you work with them at all
    to see about their reluctance or support of infusing into a
    core curriculum opportunities for kids?
        Dr. Heck. Yes. I mean, as we traveled the Nation and met
    with folks from all walks of life, that included school board
    members, teachers----
        Mr. Bergman. And what was their response overall?
        Dr. Heck. They, to a person, universally support a
    reinvigoration of civic education in the K-12 system.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay. Good.
        With that, my time is up. Thank you, sir.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Carbajal is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And thank you to all of you that are here today and who did
    a lot of really extraordinary work on this report. I applaud
    the commission.
        Before I delve into my questions, I wanted--as somebody who
    served voluntarily in the United States Marine Corps, I wanted
    to address some of the things I have heard from a number of my
    colleagues, one in particular who has never served.
        You know, when I signed up in the military and served, I
    would look to my left and to my right and it was never about
    ideology, conservative or liberal. It was never about people's
    background. It was commitment to mission for the best interests
    of our country. Voluntary service.
        So I find it concerning that in light of what has happened
    on January 6 and finding that a number of our military
    personnel have been associated with white supremacist ideology,
    that we would somehow confuse weeding out those individuals who
    have those views with conservative values.
        You know, there is a conflation, I let that up to other
    people, of conservative values with white supremacists. But I
    will say that for those of us that serve voluntarily in any
    capacity, being the military or any other--the Peace Corps or
    any other public service--we do it voluntarily because of the
    common goal and interest and principle that binds us as a
    country and for the common good, not to become white
    supremacists, not to spew ideology as a dividing factor, but
    rather to serve for the best interests of our country.
        But yet you have people that want to focus on their
    conservative values being attacked. Well, I would say put
    forward the interests of our country before some silly
    ideology, as I have done and many other people that have
    served.
        So I will say, moving on from that statement to address
    what was said earlier, I applaud what the commission has done
    to inspire, to serve, the report and the recommendations that
    have come forward.
        At the end, it is about cost, and I know you have touched
    on that a bit. To that end, though, if we were to move forward,
    what are you envisioning? New agencies, offices, departments
    needed to stand this effort up? What do you envision to be able
    to do that?
        Dr. Heck. Thank you, Congressman. So, I mean, I can give
    some examples of some of the cost factors associated with some
    of the recommendations. One of the recommendations is to create
    an overarching interagency council on military, national, and
    public service. It is estimated that that would potentially
    cost about $5 million per year based on similar councils.
        Expanding JROTC to 6,000 programs by the year 2031 would
    cost about $900 million in 2031, $400 million more than the
    projected status quo.
        Again, I can go through a list of some of the ones to which
    we have put price tags to. Certainly, increasing the AmeriCorps
    stipend, adjusted by geography, cost of living, and inflation,
    would be a one-year cost of about $31 million. So some of these
    more discrete recommendations have a price tag. And as I
    mentioned earlier, some of which that are--just require changes
    in policy come at no cost.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. How could you balance a differing
    stakeholder viewpoint in the recommendations?
        Dr. Heck. So we held open meetings around the country. We
    advertised them, did local outreach to make sure that we had a
    diverse cross-section of the U.S. population present at our
    public meetings, and we also, which as far as I know is not
    common to congressional commissions, at the end of every public
    meeting we provided a large block of time for public comment,
    to allow individuals to come up and to speak on the topics that
    were directly addressed or any of the commission's mandates.
        After we went around--the first time around the country
    doing that, we then went back around the country again with
    formal hearings once we came up with some potential policy
    discussions where we had subject matter experts from across a
    diverse universe come in and provide their expertise, both pro
    and con, and again allowed public comment.
        In addition, we solicited public comments through our
    website via a Federal Register notice. We received over 4,000
    public comments that we went through and culled as we then, as
    a commission, met to go over our potential recommendations and
    ultimately vote on what was included in the final package.
        Mr. Carbajal. Again, thank you for your work to harness the
    best of the American people. Thank you so much.
        I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mrs. McClain is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My question is, in the executive summary you provided to
    the committee, you highlighted the need for greater educational
    outreach to students in K-12. In addition to this committee, I
    am actually a member on the House Education and Labor
    Committee. So my question to all is, is what message should I
    be taking back to my colleagues on the Education and the Labor
    Committee to ensure that your commission has the resources to
    reach our Nation's youth? How can I help?
        Mr. Gearan. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think there are two
    messages for your committee. One would be the importance, as
    has been touched upon, about civics education. It was not an
    initial charge of this commission. But as Dr. Heck has said, it
    came through loud and clear across the country, and I think
    that would be very important for the committee.
        Secondly, as we talked about the importance of service
    learning, we recommend a service learning fund. It had been
    part of initial efforts, but it is a reflective component to
    civic education that I think would be really important, and I
    would commend for the education committee.
        Mrs. McClain. Okay. Thank you. And then what are you
    finding to be the greatest roadblock in the education
    establishment that is preventing you from better informing
    students on their post-high school options in either military
    or public service? What are your roadblocks?
        Mr. Gearan. I think some of it has been referenced--is the
    lack of awareness. It is rather stunning. One of our
    recommendations calls for a one-stop shopping opportunity
    platform that would expose students, organizations, to the
    various streams of service. And I think that would be a very
    innovative effort to broaden the awareness.
        Secondly, calling for an awareness campaign, resources put
    into exposing the streams of service of young people.
        Mrs. McClain. I am sorry. I missed--a campaign to do what?
    I am sorry.
        Mr. Gearan. An awareness campaign about the various streams
    of service.
        Mrs. McClain. Okay. So more of a partnership with the
    educational facilities. Is that what you are saying?
        Mr. Gearan. Well, there is a recommendation certainly to
    highlight, to have a roster of particularly higher education
    institutions that are recognized for their work. And that was
    recently done by the corporation in December.
        Mrs. McClain. Wonderful. I just think we get--if we focus
    on what unites us, and we provide a positive message for our
    youth and a positive vision, we would just get a lot farther.
        So thank you all for your time. And with that, I yield
    back.
        Ms. Speier [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back.
        The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Brown, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to
    Chairman Smith for hosting this excellent hearing today.
        I want to thank Dr. Heck, Mr. Gearan, Mr. Barney, for the
    work on the final report, ``Inspire to Serve,'' and for your
    appearance and testimony before the committee.
        So the commission noted that, and I am quoting,
    ``Widespread use of deferments, particularly those for college
    students who are more economically advantaged, created a
    feeling that black Americans were disproportionately drafted
    and sent into combat, fostered a sense of inequity that today
    still strongly influences public perception of the Selective
    Service System and the draft.''
        And my question is directed to you, Dr. Heck, but certainly
    any member of the panel may want to weigh in. In your work, did
    you identify any other notable issue that led to different
    perceptions of service across our diverse communities? Were
    these a barrier to service, and perhaps even a barrier to
    retention and a long career?
        Dr. Heck. Thank you for the question, Congressman. As you
    rightfully pointed out, through the Vietnam era and the use of
    the draft, deferments, waivers, and exceptions were perceived
    to be disproportionately geared towards those of higher
    economic/social caste. That is why one of our recommendations
    includes, as a modification to the Selective Service
    registration system, a review of the current deferrals,
    waivers, and exceptions, to better reflect what is now a 21st
    century world.
        Other obstacles were alluded to by Mr. Gearan, especially
    in communities of color. It is the lack of financial support to
    be able to volunteer, and that is why our recommendations
    include increasing the living stipend. I mean, this is not a
    wage; it is a living stipend in order to have the person be
    able to afford to live someplace while they were volunteering
    their services. And when you look at return on investment in
    that regard, if you just look at like fiscal year 2018, Forest
    Service volunteers were equivalent to 2,885 full-time employees
    with a value of $128 million of service that was volunteered to
    the Nation and their communities.
        So we need to look at ways that the living stipend allows
    an individual to actually subsist while they were volunteering
    their services. Same thing for those that participate in the
    Senior Corps program where they get roughly the equivalent of
    $2.85 an hour to go tutor an at-risk youth or to go sit with a
    homebound senior.
        So, many of these issues revolve around removing those
    financial obstacles to participation.
        Mr. Brown. Let me also say that, you know, an issue was
    raised by one of my colleagues earlier about how we treat
    people in the military and the perceptions it creates, and
    whether or not that encourages or discourages participation.
        I would suggest that the way that we treat women, and if
    this Congress doesn't address issues of sexual assault and
    sexual harassment, that certainly sends a clear signal and
    shapes the perception that our military service is not inviting
    to women.
        If we don't address the mistreatment of black and brown
    soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and guardians under the
    Uniform Code of Military Justice, where if you are black or
    brown you are twice as likely to be prosecuted for an offense
    than your white counterparts, that sends a message and creates
    a perception that the military is not inviting to those
    communities.
        So if we want to attract a diverse and inclusive cadre of
    enlistees and even officers, I think the point made earlier in
    one sense is accurate. We need to look at how we treat people
    in the military, and there is real data that suggests that we
    are not doing the best that we can and there is work to be
    done.
        Let me ask about the Junior ROTC issue that was raised. I
    really am pleased to see that finally it included a focus on
    fostering our youth to consider service, military service, and
    talk about expanding Junior ROTC from 3,400 or so to 6,000 in
    10 years.
        Can you talk about, since you did mention, Dr. Heck, in
    your testimony, sort of like the obstacles for the military to
    engage at the high school/middle school levels? Are there any
    thoughts or recommendations about what Congress should do to
    change authority or their authorities to better engage our
    middle schools and high schools?
        Dr. Heck. So, again, thank you for the question. So, first,
    certainly the expansion of JROTC is all simply a matter of
    funding issues and the amount that DOD needs to put into the
    program vice the local school district. So certainly an
    increased appropriation to the Department of Defense
    specifically for JROTC growth.
        The other issue really revolves around recruiter access.
    And in certain geographical areas, there are still significant
    obstacles because of a perception of recruiters coming into the
    high school. But we want to expand that. We think that when a
    military recruiter is going to the high school that there
    should be somebody from the Peace Corps or somebody from
    AmeriCorps, that somebody is representing public service jobs.
        That this really needs to be a cross-cutting, integrated
    approach to recruit for service across the spectrum, so that an
    individual who may not want to serve in the military, but wants
    to serve, knows what their available options are. And it goes
    back to this increased awareness program.
        Ms. Speier. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Brown. I yield.
        Ms. Speier. The gentlelady from Oklahoma, Representative
    Bice, is recognized for 5 minutes. Representative Bice?
        The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Waltz, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Waltz. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you--I
    also want to second your comments in wholeheartedly endorsing
    this report. I have had some great engagements with you, Dr.
    Heck. And as we have talked about, there is a lot of
    handwringing I think across the Nation on the divides within
    our society.
        I am convinced that a lot of that is a byproduct of us
    moving now generations away from service, where in previous
    generations at 18 years old you learned leadership, discipline,
    followership, teamwork. And importantly, and I think this is a
    point often missed, you did it with people that didn't look
    like you, didn't have the same backgrounds, didn't come from
    the same parts of the country, but you are all forced together.
        And you learned to overcome those ingrained biases or
    differences for the common good and for the country, and then
    went back out in society. I think we are deeply missing that
    now in the country.
        I want to commend the work of the commission under your
    leadership. I think the recommendations are fantastic. My
    colleagues, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Bacon, Ms. Houlahan, and I were
    honored to introduce the commission's recommendation into
    legislation, the Inspire to Serve Act, last Congress and again
    this year. But today we are--because of the jurisdiction of
    this committee--focused more on military service. And I think
    we can agree that that culture of service is critical to the
    sustainability of an All-Volunteer Force.
        Dr. Heck, you recommended increasing youth service
    opportunities, expanding educational pathways. As a means to
    this end, in the fiscal year 2021 NDAA, Mr. Brown and I
    included two provisions, one requiring DOD to develop a plan to
    sustain at least 6,000 JROTC units. I would certainly ask the
    chairman and the committee staff to help us in pressing DOD to
    respond with this plan, and then also to include STEM education
    in JROTC training.
        And building on those provisions, I plan to offer with Mr.
    Panetta and Ms. Houlahan related policies from the Inspire to
    Serve Act and this year's NDAA. These policies, amongst others,
    will include scholarship opportunities for community colleges,
    technical skill--to provide the technical skills the military
    needs to civilians coming in, but then also to service members
    to update their technical skills, as we have talked about both
    with Space Force, with cyber, and others that are desperately
    needed.
        We are also going to work to include in the JROTC
    curriculum the full range of opportunities available. I would--
    Mr. Chairman, I commend adding physical fitness requirements to
    that, and I would posture that we should also add civic
    education requirements.
        And then, finally, to expand the Cyber Institutes Program,
    the universities with ROTC, including universities that focus
    on aviation and aerospace and cyberspace.
        So, Mr. Heck, can you discuss--you traveled the country
    with the commission. You held multiple hearings, heard from a
    lot of stakeholders. How would these policies incentivize
    service within our youth?
        Dr. Heck. Thank you, Congressman Waltz. And, likewise, the
    commission thanks you and your other chair and co-chairs of the
    For Country Caucus for your leadership in this area.
        Certainly, as we travel the country and we identify the
    obstacles to getting more people aware, inspired, and access to
    service, the policies that you just outlined that are included
    as part of our recommendations are targeted at breaking down
    those very barriers, right?
        So you can't be what you don't know, and that is why we
    need to increase awareness. And that awareness has to begin
    earlier, and we have got to be able to provide a service
    opportunity that is meaningful to the participant, because we
    know that if they participate in a meaningful experience, they
    are more likely to serve later on or throughout their life.
        We saw that when we talked to Peace Corps volunteers that
    left Peace Corps and went into the military, military service
    members who left the military and went into Peace Corps,
    started Team Rubicon. When we met with seniors in the
    Harrisburg area, those that are participating in the Senior
    Corps, women were primarily teachers or nurses; the men were
    primarily public safety or prior military. They had served
    previously.
        So this is all about increasing awareness, trying to
    inspire more people to want to serve. Part of that is the
    incentive process. It may not just be financial, about paying
    off student loans or getting an education, but by getting the
    soft people skills that you are able to gain by participating
    in some of these opportunities. And then we want to make sure
    that everyone has a clear and supported pathway to access those
    service opportunities, hence growing to 1 million positions by
    year 2031, hence increasing JROTC to 6,000 programs by 2031,
    hence creating public safety--public service academies so that
    we can get the next generation of best and brightest wanting to
    become a Federal, State, local, tribal government employee.
        So, again, in the 164 discrete recommendations, we lay out
    this bold blueprint of how to reinvigorate the current existing
    service of spirit in America and morph that into a culture of
    service where by 2031 it will not be uncommon for someone to
    ask you, where are you going to serve, not if you will serve.
        Ms. Speier. All right. The gentleman's time actually has
    expired, even though it doesn't reflect that on the clock. So--
    --
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I urge my colleagues
    to support these measures.
        Ms. Speier. All right. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania,
    Ms. Houlahan, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I wanted to
    speak--before I began, I wanted to really thank Chairman Smith
    for holding this very important hearing and for drawing
    attention to this issue that I personally care deeply about.
        As Mr. Waltz was mentioning, I am the co-lead of the
    Inspire to Serve Act, which would implement the recommendations
    of this commission, and I believe the hearing timing is really
    very critical at this point in time.
        I also happen to be a veteran who, in my forties, joined
    AmeriCorps in the Teach for America organization, and service
    is very much central to who I am. I think it has shaped me in
    ways that I can't begin to explain, one of them being why I am
    here right now.
        So I am grateful to the commission for the work that they
    have done and the outline of the shape of what national service
    should look like. I am not certain if my question is
    necessarily for Dr. Heck or for Mr. Gearan. I am trying to
    figure out where the contours of your expertise areas are in
    this.
        But my question--my first one has to do with the kind of
    consistent thing that I am hearing through this hearing, which
    has to do with one-stop shopping and recruitment and awareness
    campaigns about the breadth of national service opportunities
    that are available to people that are not just about wearing a
    uniform but maybe about AmeriCorps or Senior Corps and those
    kinds of things.
        Can you speak a little bit more about those recruitment and
    awareness campaigns, like recruiting individuals who are
    potentially interested in service but who may not qualify for
    military service? How are we kind of encouraging them to maybe
    consider other opportunities? Is there something concrete that
    we can be sinking our teeth into to make sure that we are
    catching the spirit of service everywhere that it is?
        Mr. Gearan. Thank you, Congresswoman, for your many streams
    of service. Yes. You have tapped into very much a thread that
    we saw throughout our travels and try to encapsulate into this
    report. First is to fund an awareness campaign, because of the
    stunning lack of information and awareness that exists.
        Secondly, to urge the Department of Defense, the Peace
    Corps, AmeriCorps, to collaborate on marketing and branding and
    recruitment efforts, and to imagine a one-stop platform where
    all of this information could be brought together for those to
    learn about different streams of service as well as for
    organizations to be aware of it.
        So it is the theme of this collaboration, coincident with
    the very nature of this military, national, and public service
    focus of our commission.
        Ms. Houlahan. And, Dr. Heck, can you also articulate a
    little bit about what this one-stop shop or sort of seamless
    warm handoff between the organizations could look like?
        Dr. Heck. Yeah. That is a great question. I will give you
    some concrete examples of what we propose. So when we met with
    military recruiters, we asked them, well, what happens when
    somebody comes in to want to join the military but you realize
    they are not going to qualify? They just turn them away. We are
    like, well, why can't we have you hand them a brochure or a
    pamphlet about other service opportunities, so that there is
    some joint recruiting? You have somebody who is willing to
    serve. They may not be able to serve in the military, but don't
    turn them away. Let's direct them towards another service
    opportunity.
        When the military sends out its flyers that are generated
    from Selective Service registration, why can't there be one
    sheet in that same envelope that talks about other service
    opportunities? The platform that Mr. Gearan refers to is
    envisioned to be a website where individuals can go to explore
    opportunities within their communities, so they know what is
    available to them and what is needed in their own community.
        Likewise, we look at the expansion of the ASVAB CEP [Career
    Exploration Program] program that allows high school students
    to explore, based on their interests and skills, what types of
    service opportunities would be best suited for them. So all of
    these are outlined as recommendations within the final report.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. And that is very useful, but I
    would also like to kind of associate myself with the remarks
    that have been made about the inadequacy of the pay for people
    who are in organizations like AmeriCorps. I think it is an
    atrocity that in my forties when I did join AmeriCorps I was
    told how to apply for food stamps effectively. So I would
    advocate very strongly for increasing the compensation for
    these volunteers as well.
        With the last seconds of my time, I wanted to talk about
    the service for women, making sure that they can--are
    encouraged to include--be included in Selective Service. As you
    noted, and I agree, there is a lot of debate about this. Can
    you speak a little bit more about what percentage of those who
    supported it, or didn't support it, were women? What do women
    think about Selective Service for women?
        Dr. Heck. If you look at the publicly available polling on
    this issue, there is a small majority of individuals who
    support expansion of registration across genders. However,
    males do support it more than females, but the majority, again,
    is very small, about 52, 53 percent support expansion from the
    publicly available polling.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you.
        And my time has expired, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Speier. The gentlelady yields back.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Fallon. Madam Chair, thank you very much. You know, I
    am listening to this, and I find this interesting. And I know a
    lot of very hard work over a couple of years has been done
    here. And, you know, I think it breaks down to a core of, you
    know, I am a military veteran as well. And I will tell you all,
    and share with you, exactly why I served, the number one reason
    why I decided to serve. And I am not trying to be sanctimonious
    at all.
        It was love of country. That is the reason I did that. I
    decided in the fourth grade that I was going to be in the
    military. At the time, I thought I was going to go into the
    Army to follow in my dad's footsteps, but he convinced me to
    serve in the Air Force for reasons we don't have time to
    discuss today.
        But serving in the military was the best decision that I
    have ever made, and it shapes you and molds you when you are
    very malleable and you are young. But, again, it boils down to
    love of country, and that is why I am very concerned when we
    see from some quarters the focus on the dark parts of our
    history, and only focusing on that with projects like The 1619
    Project, which is being embraced by a lot of folks, a lot of
    progressive folks. And I think that is really a horrible idea
    to do, because we are besmirching the greatness of America.
        By no means am I saying that we should gloss over the dark
    parts of our history. We have many, unfortunately, but--and I
    think that all students should be taught comprehensive American
    history and taught the contributions of all Americans, because
    we have had great Americans from all shapes, sizes, and shades,
    and from all ethnic backgrounds.
        And diversity is incredibly important, and it is our
    strength. But the most important diversity is diversity of
    thought. We shouldn't have any monolithic, you know, thinking.
        But getting back to our teaching about the--we should be
    teaching the good and bad in American history, because in
    context, the good overwhelms, overshadows, and dwarfs the bad.
        And getting back to the reason why so many serve, if you
    don't love your country--in fact, if you are just indifferent
    to your country, the odds of you serving it in any capacity
    diminish greatly. And if you dislike or hate your country, the
    odds of serving are nil. But if you love your country, I think
    they go up dramatically.
        So I wanted to ask, Dr. Heck, you know, in that vein, would
    you agree that we should be celebrating the great American
    experiment, celebrating American exceptionalism, and really
    fostering and encouraging patriotism in our young people?
        Dr. Heck. Well, so that question directly relates to our
    recommendation about reinvigorating civic education in the K-12
    system, because as civic education has been supplanted because
    of the finite number of hours in a school day by other subjects
    thought to be more important, we believe that the youth of
    today have lost touch with the very principles upon which this
    Nation was founded.
        And if you don't know where you came from, you don't know
    where you are going to go. And so that is why--again, and we
    did not initiate that discussion. It was not even one of our
    charges. That came to us from the individuals that we spoke
    with. When we talked about trying to get people to serve, they
    are the ones that said, ``If you want people to serve, you have
    got to teach them about what it is to be an American. You have
    got to teach them about civics at an earlier age than it is
    being done today.''
        Mr. Fallon. Well, Doctor, I mean, that is why I love the--
    Hollywood sometimes does services to the country, and one of
    which is, you know, these recent movies about the Tuskegee
    Airmen, and things of that nature, to really encourage--you
    know, and when you say something good like that, you have to--
    we also have to be cognizant of the fact that a million African
    Americans served in World War II, and then when they came home
    they were not treated as equal citizens again.
        I mean, we need to be talking about all of that history.
    But, again, the good overshadows the bad greatly.
        I had another specific question, for you, Doctor. How do we
    incentivize service for young people to meet the stated goal of
    your commission of the expectation of service by 2031?
    Specifically, how do we go about that?
        Dr. Heck. So we lumped those recommendations into our
    aspiration bucket, right? After we made people aware of what
    the opportunities are, how do you get them inspired to want to
    participate? As we said, for some it may be the love of
    country. For others it may be the financial benefit associated
    with an education. For still others it might be the opportunity
    to try something that is outside of their comfort zone to see
    whether or not it is what they want to do for the rest of their
    career, or to gain the soft people skills that they might not
    otherwise have that will benefit them in future careers.
        So we have got to look at, how do you tap into what the
    need is of each individual and be able to provide them with a
    reason to want to serve, and that is what the bulk of our
    recommendations attempts to do.
        Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Ms. Speier. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Escobar, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I want to follow up a bit on where one of my colleagues,
    Representative Houlahan, left off in her questions about women
    and Selective Service. And it is interesting to me that more
    men favor women being--having to register with the Selective
    Service, and here is what I am interested in exploring.
        This is my first question. I have a second question on
    another topic. With regard to women, one of the things that I
    have learned in my 2\1/2\ years on the Armed Services Committee
    and 2\1/2\ years of having in-depth conversations with women
    across the services is that in many respects a lot of women in
    the military right now feel like the military and the Federal
    Government have failed them.
        When you look at limited access to child care, limited
    access to reproductive health; when you look at the rates, the
    really shocking rates of sexual assaults; when you talk to
    women about sexual harassment; when you look at even some of
    the more fundamental components of being a service member, like
    having the correct body armor; we are not there yet when it
    comes to creating an environment that values women and that
    provides avenues for them to be successful in.
        And so my question would be, would the commission recommend
    or what are the thoughts about maybe before really fully
    exploring having women register in the Selective Service that
    we hold ourselves to a standard whereby we create a better
    environment for women where there can be equity before we say
    you have to register for the Selective Service.
        So I would love any feedback on that idea.
        Dr. Heck. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. So I think it is
    important to delineate what the environment is within the All-
    Volunteer Force versus the purpose of the Selective Service
    System, which is to induct individuals into the services
    through a draft in the face of an existential national
    emergency in which not only if women were required to register
    would women be involuntarily drafted, but there would be a
    whole host of men that would also be involuntarily drafted to
    serve.
        So there are two separate environments. We need to provide
    an environment within the All-Volunteer Force that is--that
    provides equity, that provides an environment for women to
    excel. But when it comes to registering for the Selective
    Service System, to be a potential inductee, that is a separate
    issue that we did not delve into as the commission.
        Ms. Escobar. I appreciate that. I do think that while, yes,
    it is--they are separate issues, my view is is that we have an
    obligation to create a standard whereby we are not essentially
    creating environments that are, as I mentioned, not great for
    women. And I think we need to examine that standard first and
    create a standard and meet that standard or exceed it.
        My second question--and so I thank you for your response.
    My second question is about recruitment and the way that we
    reach out to young people and the platforms that we use to
    reach out to young people. And while I agree that the
    Department of Defense and many other Federal agencies need to
    do better when it comes to conveying their purpose and
    opportunities available to the American public, I am concerned
    about how this advertising could be predatory in nature for
    younger Americans.
        Platforms like Instagram, Twitch, YouTube, and others are
    filled with young people who are well below the allowed
    enlistment age. I am wondering if this was taken into account
    when you included this recommendation in your report.
        Dr. Heck. The age of those who participate in some of these
    social media platforms was not taken into consideration. Our
    view was that in today's age where many of the target-age
    population are cord cutters, they don't watch normal TV, that
    if you want to be able to reach out to them and let them know
    about opportunities you have to reach them where they are,
    which are on these various social media platforms.
        Ms. Escobar. Dr. Heck, thank you. I am out of time.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Speier. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The gentleman from Florida is recognized for a submission.
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Madam Chair. And pursuant to the
    chairman's allowance earlier in the meeting, I would submit for
    the record a statement made by Ranking Member Rogers yesterday.
    Rogers asked that assertions of political bias to the DOD be
    addressed in 2022 NDAA.
        Ms. Speier. We have already provided unanimous consent. It
    is accepted.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 82.]
        Ms. Speier. Next we will hear from the gentleman from Utah,
    Mr. Moore, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Appreciate the witnesses for being here today and for the
    work that you have done to--in this report and this commission.
    It is an important first step in reinvigorating a national
    discussion on public service, as we are seeing, you know,
    issues and attrition here, along with talent retention and
    increasing opportunity to help preserve high standards of
    American military readiness.
        The majority of my questions will be around retention. I
    see that as one of the biggest challenges going forward, to
    make sure that we have a ready workforce. There is cost savings
    involved with it as well, and there is--in doing so, hopefully
    we can improve our service men and women's lives and prospects
    as well.
        So I will start with a more specific question, but just in
    general, I would offer to all of our experts here today just a
    very simple question. What are the biggest issues that we are
    facing, and what would one solution be on your end to address
    it? And I would love to hear that.
        But I will start with a question to Dr. Heck. As your
    report mentions that reforming Federal hiring as a means of
    addressing critical workforce shortages in public service, how
    can the Federal Government retain more veterans in the public
    service following their retirement?
        Dr. Heck. Thank you for the question. And it is a great
    question because currently about a third of the Federal
    workforce will be eligible to retire in the next 5 years, and
    only 6 percent of the Federal workforce is under the age of 30.
    So we have a potential brain drain on one end and a very
    constrictive pipeline on the other.
        Many of our recommendations address specifically trying to
    recruit veterans that are leaving military service to continue
    their service in the public sector. Part of that has to do with
    the veterans recruitment allowance, the VRA, which currently is
    limited to 3 years post service. But what we have found,
    especially now, is that many service members want to go on and
    get an education, to utilize their GI Bill once they leave
    service.
        And by the time they complete their education, they are no
    longer eligible to exercise the VRA. And so one of our
    recommendations is to expand that out to 10 years to let
    veterans who want to get an education upon leaving and utilize
    their GI Bill to still have the VRA benefit when they want to
    come back into public service.
        Another is the veterans' preference and revamping the
    veterans' preference to be focused more on recently separated
    veterans to allow them to use it to enter into public service,
    whereas right now a veteran who utilizes--enter public service,
    has now got a career in public service, can utilize that same
    preference to apply for another job at a high pay grade within
    the public service. So we should refocus it on individuals that
    are recently separated and use that as the incentive to get
    them into the public service sector.
        Mr. Moore. With respect to flexibility, do you feel that
    existing hiring authorities provide adequate flexibility for
    agencies to select the candidates of their choosing? Do they
    feel like they have got a talent pool and they can go and
    choose who they want to work for them?
        Dr. Heck. We have a whole section on revamping competitive
    hiring, because quite honestly the competitive hiring process
    is dysfunctional so much that to the point that there have been
    so many special hiring authorities granted for agencies to get
    around utilizing the competitive hiring requirements.
        And, in part, some of that goes to veterans' preference, it
    goes to other areas where individuals that are not as highly
    qualified for the job get moved to the top of a list. And then
    when that list goes to the agency, they have a long process by
    which they have to go through to get rid of that list and
    readvertise and try again.
        So certainly we do not have the time in this committee, but
    I would commend the section on revamping of the public service
    hiring recommendations to your attention.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you very much.
        And to Mr. Gearan and Mr. Barney, anything to add with
    respect to big picture or the biggest issues? And what are some
    solutions you might want to add to this?
        Mr. Gearan. Thank you, Congressman. Just briefly, I think
    the biggest takeaway I have is the lack of awareness that
    exists that we can go at, but then the wellspring of interest
    that exists on the part of the American people. This is a time
    of enormous opportunity that could unite the country.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Barney. Congressman, the process of just giving better
    opportunities for young people to learn about how to serve will
    elevate all forms of services, and we believe it will get to
    the point where the best young people in our country will be
    competing against each other for the great opportunities that
    our Nation provides.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you. The gentleman's time
    has expired.
        Mr. Kahele is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kahele. Mahalo, Mr. Chair, and aloha to everyone. Thank
    you so much for this--for your work on this. I am a proud
    sponsor of the Inspire to Serve bill. And as someone who still
    serves in our National Guard, we have many members on this
    committee that serve, and I think most of us would agree that
    we wouldn't be in the positions we are today if not for our
    military service to our country.
        My question specifically has to touch on the executive
    summary and the report that deals with increasing opportunities
    for youth programs, specifically the JROTC, increasement of
    those programs to 6,000 or no less than 6,000, within 10 years
    from now. And I love that idea, and I would love to see more
    JROTC programs in my district.
        But as you all know, the participation in JROTC does not
    require an obligation to serve in the military, and is not
    necessarily intended to support the recruitment efforts of the
    Armed Forces. Several studies have come to conflicting
    conclusions regarding JROTC participation and enlistment, and
    any type of positive correlations to that might be self-
    selection on behalf of the individual.
        So given the DOD's budget constraints and this committee's,
    you know, constraints, could you articulate why you believe the
    DOD should dedicate additional funding specifically to the
    JROTC program? Have you looked at the report--those other
    programs, have you looked at other programs like additional
    funding for Youth Challenge, additional and expansion of Civil
    Air Patrol programs across the country?
        My colleague, Representative Waltz, talked about aviation
    and technical training at our community colleges, expansion of
    and encouraging more high school students to take the ASVAB for
    career exploration. Can you elaborate on the dedication of
    funding to these programs, and specifically the JROTC
    expansion?
        Dr. Heck. Thank you, Congressman. So we look at JROTC for
    what it is, which is a citizenship program. And as we talk
    about reinvigorating civic education, Junior ROTC is kind of
    the low-hanging fruit of how we can reinvigorate civic
    education, at least in the high school levels, by being able to
    expand the opportunities for high school students to
    participate in those programs.
        And so looking at the roughly 3,500 programs that currently
    exist around the country demonstrates the deficit in the rest
    of the country. And so trying to grow the programs to 6,000 by
    2031 would increase opportunities in civic education and
    citizenship through those programs.
        Certainly agree with your statement that the studies to
    date have shown conflicting results as to whether or not
    participation in JROTC leads to someone joining the military,
    but that is not what JROTC is designed to do. It is designed to
    make the individual a better citizen.
        For the other programs that you mentioned, like the
    National Guard Youth Challenge, we look at any program that has
    the opportunity to provide a better sense of civic and
    citizenship to today's youth as a viable pathway in trying to
    increase awareness and aspiration for a lifetime of service.
        Mr. Kahele. All right. Thank you. Thank you for your reply.
        And I will yield back the rest of my time, Chairman.
        Mahalo.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Panetta is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry about that. I
    didn't realize I was up and going. Thank you very much.
        Look, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers, thank you for
    holding this very, very important hearing on what I believe,
    and as we are hearing from many of our members, what they
    believe is a critically important topic.
        Dr. Heck, Mr. Gearan, and Mr. Barney, thank you. Thank you
    very much, not only for your testimony but all of your
    important work that you have done with this commission. I do
    believe that your commission's report ``Inspire to Serve''
    really is a consensus project that reflects the very
    backgrounds and experiences and perspectives of the 11
    commissioners.
        That is why, obviously, after I reviewed your report, and
    working closely with your team, that I, along with my
    colleagues--Reps [Representatives] Bacon, Waltz, and Houlahan--
    introduced the Inspire to Serve Act last term that had the
    support of many of my colleagues on this committee.
        The Inspire to Serve Act, as many of us know, is a
    bipartisan comprehensive piece of legislation that would
    implement many of the recommendations that we have been
    discussing today.
        Now, of course, I reintroduced that legislation as H.R.
    [House Resolution] 3000, the Inspire to Serve Act of 2021,
    because I do believe that the work of this commission and the
    passage of this--the legislation that we are talking about is
    more important now more than ever.
        In passing the commission's recommendations, I think
    Congress would advance America's core principles of service,
    diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. And of course
    the bill would support the domestic needs and, yes, the
    national security of our country.
        As COVID-19, as we saw throughout the pandemic, it was
    necessary and it was critical to have that capacity that public
    servants provided to our Nation. As we continue to recover from
    the pandemic, it is vitally important to prioritize policies
    and proposals that will unlock the full transformative
    potential of national service.
        I do believe that public servants at all levels--Federal,
    State, and local--really turned out to be the heroes of this
    crisis and of this pandemic as they work tirelessly to stem the
    spread of the disease and treat those infected and support our
    communities' needs.
        Similarly, what we saw recently with the recent hack of the
    Colonial Pipeline, and highlighted by the importance of our
    communities' cybersecurity workforce, there is an urgent need
    for a civilian cyber reserve. That is why, with your
    recommendations and further opportunities to serve, I
    introduced the Civilian Cyber Security Reserve Act last month,
    along with my colleague, Ken Calvert, and over in the Senate
    they introduced their version thanks to Senators Rosen and
    Blackburn.
        However, as the commission has learned, more must be done
    to create more opportunities, remove barriers, and enable
    diverse individuals to serve their country and communities.
    That is why I believe that acting on the commission's
    recommendations sooner rather than later with the Inspire to
    Serve Act will allow our government to utilize the many diverse
    and varied talents of individuals from across the country in
    smart and strategic ways to ensure national resilience and
    preparedness.
        Again, I am grateful for the support of many of my
    colleagues here today in co-sponsoring the Inspire to Serve
    Act. And I look forward to continuing to work with both sides
    of the aisle, as well as you, to advance the recommendations of
    your commission.
        So quickly, Dr. Heck, just if you can--and then this is a
    big softball for you, but I am teeing it up for you--speak to
    the importance of quickly implementing the recommendations of
    your commitments, in light of our ongoing public health and
    cybersecurity challenges, please.
        Dr. Heck. Well, thank you, Congressman, but I don't think I
    can be any more eloquent than you just were. And, again, the
    entire commission thanks you and your co-chairs on the For
    Country Caucus for your efforts.
        But certainly now, as we see the divisiveness that has
    manifested itself across our Nation, there is no more pressing
    urgent time to institute a call for national service to bring
    this country back together. You know, we have talked about when
    you start a job and you go to your job training program with a
    bunch of other folks who got hired on at the same time, you
    leave calling each other ``colleague.''
        But, you know, when you engage in a national service
    program, whether it is AmeriCorps, whether it is the
    Conservation Corps, whether it is the military, and you go to
    those training programs, when you leave, you call each other
    ``brother'' and ``sister.'' And that is what the Inspire to
    Serve Act is all about.
        Mr. Panetta. Thank you. I appreciate that. And, obviously,
    I would love to give Mr. Gearan and Mr. Barney an opportunity
    to answer within 15 seconds.
        The Chairman. Correct. I was going to say that opportunity
    is 12 seconds now, so go ahead.
        Mr. Gearan. I would just double-click what our chair just
    said. It was well stated. And, again, Congressman, thank you
    for your leadership.
        Mr. Panetta. You bet.
        Mr. Barney. And thank you, Congressman, for your important
    words in support of those public servants who were really at
    the forefront of addressing the national crisis with this COVID
    virus.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Barney. They are very important.
        The Chairman. I apologize. Thank you.
        Mr. Morelle is recognized.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this very
    important hearing, and to the ranking member. I want to thank
    Dr. Heck, Mr. Barney, and although some refer to him as Mr.
    Gearan, I refer to him as Mr. President. A point of personal
    privilege, he was the president of Hobart and William Smith
    Colleges in my region, and it is always great to see the former
    president here. So thank you for all of your service to our
    country on this really important issue.
        I wanted to touch briefly on something that I have
    encountered back home in just my last few years in terms of
    recommending men and women for the service academy. And I think
    Mr. Barney may have started to touch on this, but one of the
    concerns that I have had in my observation is we have not been
    able to attract much diversity in terms of young people who are
    interested in attending the various military academies.
        And so I struggled with this. I wonder, although it wasn't
    talked about at great length in the commission as far as I saw,
    but I am sure in the course of your deliberations and
    conversations you have given some thought to this. And I
    wondered if you could just expand beyond the recommendations on
    ways that we might reach and inspire sort of non-traditional
    candidates, particularly communities of color, to apply for
    service in the service academies.
        Mr. Barney. Well, thank you, Congressman, for that
    important question, because improving and increasing the access
    for people from all communities in our Nation into these
    military service academies will be to the ultimate benefit of
    the Nation and to the armed services that defend it.
        What we have seen is that there is a great need for
    awareness of the fact that there are these fabulous national
    treasures--our military service academies--that are available
    for young Americans to go to. We have learned as we traveled
    that many people are unaware that there is actually a military
    college that they can attend and that they can develop a
    pipeline to a career that is fulfilling and rewarding, whether
    that is a career in the military or a career that takes them
    into other forms of service or into the private sector.
        So you are absolutely correct, sir. There is a great need
    to increase the awareness of this wonderful opportunity, and
    that is part of the process of building up an increasing
    knowledge of service for all Americans.
        Mr. Morelle. I wonder if Dr. Heck or Mr. Gearan had any
    additional thoughts?
        Mr. Gearan. Thank you, Congressman. It is very nice to see
    you again. I guess my only other reflection is there, in
    addition to Steve's, is great interplay in our recommendations.
        While it can get rather stovepiped into military, national,
    and public service, I would commend the holistic opportunity
    that is before you, because I think as we raise all awareness
    of military, national, and public service, it will rebound to
    the benefit of many communities across the streams of service
    that exist.
        Mr. Morelle. I wonder if it--just as a follow-up, are there
    things that you think that Congress specifically can do to
    support initiatives to achieve more diversity improvement for
    all of the different sectors? Obviously, I mentioned my
    particular concern about the academies one of which is here at
    home in New York, West Point, U.S. Military Academy.
        Anything that Congress should be doing or thinking about
    that we can add to to help increase those opportunities for
    diverse candidates?
        Mr. Gearan. Yes. I think it is the awareness campaign that
    has been referenced. I think it is the living allowances that
    has been referenced. I think that it is enhancing the Segal
    AmeriCorps Education Award. Threaded through all of our
    recommendations is this very point, Congressman, of broadening
    access, removing barriers, and broadening the opportunities
    that exist for all Americans.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you. Well, I am very grateful for your
    service, to all of you for your participation. This is a very,
    very important topic, and it is something I hope we continue to
    get some positive movement on.
        So with that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you. We are a little bit past the time
    that the hearing was supposed to go to. We have--one more
    speaker just showed up. I have to go. So I just am going to say
    thank you very much. Appreciate all of your work on the report
    and the time you spent today to explain it to us, and I think
    the questions and answers were incredibly important.
        Before I go, I will give Mr. Rogers a chance, if he has any
    summary. He is good?
        So we will introduce our newest member of the committee,
    Mr. Horsford from Nevada, just recently appointed. I believe
    this is the first official hearing. We will have a hearing
    where we formally introduce him to the committee.
        But Mr. Horsford is, A, recognized for 5 minutes, and, B,
    you will have the honor of calling the hearing to a close when
    you are finished.
        So thank you very much, and, again, thank you for
    presenting the testimony today.
        Mr. Horsford is recognized.
        Mr. Horsford [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman. First, I want to acknowledge you and the ranking
    member for welcoming me onto the House Armed Services
    Committee. It is an honor to join, and also to have my good
    friend and former colleague, Dr. Heck, who I actually served in
    the Nevada State Senate with and in Congress with. So it is
    good to have you back for what is my first hearing here on
    HASC. And I know your service to our country, to this
    committee, and to this work is really valued. So thank you.
        I also want to thank all of our panelists for the work that
    you have done around this commission, and I really wanted to
    just hone in on a couple of areas that the commission
    identified for your recommendations. As someone--my background
    out of Congress was in workforce development and training, so I
    am always interested in how we are preparing the next
    generation with the skills development and workforce training
    that they need.
        And I was excited to see your recommendations to improve
    coordination and management for critically skilled personnel,
    strengthening educational pathways for individuals to acquire
    high-need skills, and better personnel management to help
    retain the personnel that we recruit.
        One of the recommendations in the report is to establish
    and appropriate funding for a council on military, national,
    and public service to coordinate, as you indicated, the whole-
    of-government effort to recruit and retain individuals with
    critical skills and to cultivate pathways for Americans to
    develop these skills.
        So I would like to ask, can you elaborate on this idea and
    what an undertaking like this would look like? Dr. Heck.
        Dr. Heck. Well, thank you, Congressman, and it is good to
    be with you again. Certainly, one of the areas that we identify
    that was most lacking was a specific emphasis and overarching
    kind of oversight of all forms of service at the highest levels
    of the Federal Government.
        Now, varying administrations have put in place programs or
    offices that come and go based on the administration, but we
    believe that there should be a council on military, national,
    and public service that is something with longevity and
    sustainability, that has responsibility for the integration
    across all service lines, to make sure that we are addressing
    the national security and the critical skill needs of the
    Nation.
        We truly believe that that individual should have cabinet
    rank ideally, so that there is a seat at the table, and that
    there is somebody who is charged with bringing in disparate
    pieces from the various other cabinet-level organizations,
    whether it be education or labor or defense, to make sure that
    there is one key location, one key office, with an individual
    who is at the table that is helping to shape the future of
    service in America.
        Mr. Horsford. [Microphone muted]--career, recently
    discharged veterans who are transitioning into civilian Federal
    employment and to ensure that Federal agencies can hire highly
    qualified workers, including highly qualified veterans.
        So can you talk me through the recommendations to focus
    veterans' preference on recently discharged veterans?
        Dr. Heck. Thank you, Congressman. So currently the way
    veterans' preference works is that an individual who based on
    their education and skill set who might be minimally qualified
    for a position, if they are at least 10 percent a disabled
    veteran, moves to the very top of the most highly qualified
    list, even above other veterans.
        And what happens then is that list will go to the hiring
    agency. They will see that the person is not qualified. They
    will need to work through a process to then get the program
    readvertised, which delays hiring. Worse yet, they may actually
    hire that person and it is a bad fit for the individual as well
    as the agency, and both sour on the process.
        So we look at utilizing veterans' preference as a
    tiebreaker. So you have two equally qualified candidates, the
    veteran wins the tie. The House wins the push, as we would say.
        So that is the one piece. The other is the veterans'
    recruitment piece, the VRA, the veterans' recruitment
    preference. And right now, as I mentioned earlier, it is
    limited to 3 years, but most veterans when they leave service
    they want to go out and use their GI Bill, get an education,
    and by the time they get their degree, they are no longer
    eligible to utilize that preference.
        So we want to expand that out to 10 years and, again, focus
    it on those that are recently separated. Right now, if you are
    a veteran and you use your preference to get hired, and you
    have been in, let's say, Federal Government service for 8, 9,
    10 years, and you want to apply for another position within the
    Federal Government at a pay raise, you get to utilize your
    benefit again. It needs to be focused on those that we are
    trying to recruit from service in the military to service in
    the government sector.
        Mr. Horsford. Well, thank you, Dr. Heck. And thank you,
    again, to the commissioners. This has been a very enlightening
    session, and a lot of opportunity to go forward.
        So we appreciate all of your hard work, and to the staff of
    the HASC committee, and it is my honor to say this hearing is
    now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  May 19, 2021

    =======================================================================

    =======================================================================

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                  May 19, 2021

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    =======================================================================

                       DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                  May 19, 2021

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    =======================================================================

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                                  May 19, 2021

    =======================================================================

                      QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN

        Mr. Langevin. I served on the Cyberspace Solarium Commission and we
    also came to the same conclusion that civic education is essential,
    though we got there in a slightly different way. In the context of
    cyber or other threats to our democracy, how do you see civic education
    as a national security imperative?
        Dr. Heck. Our Nation's security is dependent, in part, on the
    willingness of Americans to participate in that security. That
    participation can occur in many ways: through employment with federal
    agencies; serving in the uniformed services; or simply participating in
    civil society; among others.
        The common threads through any of these pathways is an
    understanding of the rights and responsibilities that come with
    American citizenship, an understanding of the principles upon which
    this Nation was founded, and the importance of participatory democracy.
        Civic education provides the foundational basis that every American
    must have in order to fully comprehend his or her individual role in
    achieving the collective security of our Nation.
        Mr. Langevin. Did you anticipate that civic education would be a
    big part of your commission's report? What made you decide to include a
    strong emphasis on civic education? And was it difficult getting
    bipartisan support for the civic education recommendations?
        Dr. Heck. Civic education was not part of the charge given to us by
    Congress and was not part of our initial planning. However, as the
    Commission began its listening tour around the Nation we heard from
    Americans across the demographic spectrum that if our ultimate goal was
    to inspire every American to serve, we should begin by ensuring every
    American understood why their service is important. It was suggested to
    the Commission by those we spoke with that the best way to accomplish
    this is through a reinvigoration of civic education.
        The Commission then undertook an analysis of the state of civic
    education in America and was, quite frankly, appalled at what we found.
    The crowding out of civic education in curricula across the country by
    ``higher priority'' topics, along with the loss of funding, has left
    civic education, and by extension America's youth, in dire straits.
        As the Commission weighed potential policy options regarding civic
    education and presented them in public hearings on the issue, we were
    pleased by the overwhelming, bipartisan support we received. In fact,
    the bipartisan Commission felt so strongly about the importance of
    civic education as the foundation upon which a lifetime of service can
    be built, that it is the first topic we address in our final report.
        Mr. Langevin. Are you familiar with the recently introduced Civics
    Secures Democracy Act? Does the CSD or other federal legislation align
    with the recommendations outlined in your report?
        Dr. Heck. Title I of the Civics Secures Democracy Act is very much
    in line with the recommendations of the Commission, and the Commission
    was pleased to see an included appropriation greater than the amount we
    suggested!
        The Commission does not have an opinion on the remaining titles of
    the act.
        Mr. Langevin. Since the report was published over a year ago, have
    you experienced any added reasons for why we must reinvigorate and
    invest in civic education? Any justifications that might not be
    captured in the report? And how would you change or update the civics-
    related recommendations accordingly?
        Dr. Heck. I do not believe there are any additional reasons, but
    perhaps further evidence to support the reasons we included. The
    divisive nature of today's society was evident during the tenure of the
    Commission, however it has certainly reached new heights (or lows)
    since the Commission dissolved.
        Mr. Langevin. Have you been able to continue working with former
    commissioners like Avril Haines or Shawn Skelly that are passionate
    about these issues and currently serving in (or nominated to serve in)
    the executive branch? Do you see a role for them in continuing to
    promote civic education in their current national security roles, and
    if so, what actions do you hope they will take in their respective
    posts to prioritize this issue?
        Dr. Heck. The Commission maintains an active ``alumni network'' and
    we were all pleased at the selection of Ms. Haines and Ms. Skelly to
    join the administration. It was an honor and privilege to serve with
    them on the Commission and it is my hope that in their new roles they
    will continue to advocate for the Commission's recommendations.
        Mr. Langevin. How do we know that an investment in civic education
    is a cost-effective, comprehensive tool for protecting our democracy?
    What makes you confident that civics is the right approach as opposed
    to pursuing alternative solutions?
        Dr. Heck. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of research on this
    question and any answer would be based on anecdotal or extrapolated
    evidence. The Commission, while not recommending a specific curriculum,
    found that the approach whereby civic education is a thread woven into
    the fabric of all subjects is preferable to a one-time course on US
    History or US Government. Civic education, to be effective, must be a
    continuous, P-16 academic program, integrated with innovative service-
    learning opportunities that allow America's youth to apply the
    principles they learn in the classroom to real-world experiences. We
    learned that if an individual participates in a personally meaningful
    service experience at a younger age, they are much more likely to
    undertake service throughout their lifetime. The intangible benefit of
    this is the increase in participatory democracy, which heals divisions
    and brings people together. The economic benefit is the estimated $4-5
    returned for every $1 invested in service.
        Mr. Langevin. How can Congress become a better support for states,
    districts, businesses, etc. looking to develop civics initiatives? Do
    you get the sense that enough members of Congress fully understand and
    appreciate the importance of civic education?
        Dr. Heck. The Civics Secures Democracy Act is a good start, but we
    saw how that recently became politicized. As with any initiative
    undertaken by Congress, not every member will have the same
    understanding or interest, if it doesn't align with his or her
    priorities. The Commission felt that it was imperative that Congress
    and the Department of Education maintain its support role to the states
    and not go down a path of mandating specific curricula or topics.
        Mr. Langevin. Did you anticipate that civic education would be a
    big part of your commission's report? What made you decide to include a
    strong emphasis on civic education? And was it difficult getting
    bipartisan support for the civic education recommendations?
        Mr. Gearan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Langevin. Since the report was published over a year ago, have
    you experienced any added reasons for why we must reinvigorate and
    invest in civic education? Any justifications that might not be
    captured in the report? And how would you change or update the civics-
    related recommendations accordingly?
        Mr. Gearan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Langevin. How do we know that an investment in civic education
    is a cost-effective, comprehensive tool for protecting our democracy?
    What makes you confident that civics is the right approach as opposed
    to pursuing alternative solutions?
        Mr. Gearan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Langevin. Did you anticipate that civic education would be a
    big part of your commission's report? What made you decide to include a
    strong emphasis on civic education? And was it difficult getting
    bipartisan support for the civic education recommendations?
        Mr. Barney. We did not anticipate that civic education would be a
    big part of our commission's report. The legislation that created the
    commission did not mention civic education. Our legislative mandate did
    not require us to address civic education. Rather, during our numerous
    commission engagements around the country we heard concerns voiced by
    Americans representing a broad and diverse demographic that the lack of
    a strong foundation in civic education threatens our country. This
    experience informed our decision to include a strong emphasis on civic
    education in our report because we commissioners concluded that if we
    failed to do so it would not accurately reflect what we learned through
    our engagements. It was not difficult to gain bipartisan support for
    the civic engagement recommendations in our report. In fact, I
    recollect that during our deliberation of recommendations to include in
    our report, that the commissioners were unanimous in support of our
    recommendations to strengthen civic education. Stated differently, the
    commissioners' support for our recommendations to strengthen civic
    education was overwhelmingly bipartisan.
        Mr. Langevin. Since the report was published over a year ago, have
    you experienced any added reasons for why we must reinvigorate and
    invest in civic education? Any justifications that might not be
    captured in the report? And how would you change or update the civics-
    related recommendations accordingly?
        Mr. Barney. Yes, in the year since the commission published our
    final report I have observed additional reasons why our nation must
    reinvigorate and reinvest in civic education.
        Our nation's experience in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic
    demonstrated in the strongest possible manner, the need to promote a
    sound understanding of the civic principles that form the foundations
    of our American democracy. At the core of this principle is the
    inherent tension between individual rights and liberties and the need
    for a common response to defend our nation from threats. Whether those
    threats are from a deadly virus or from human actors, the ultimate
    success or failure of our government actions at the federal, tribal,
    state, and local levels requires all Americans to have a deeply
    informed understanding of the constitutional foundations of our
    American democracy. We all experienced the need to sacrifice our
    personal liberties to safeguard the health of our neighbors. We also
    saw that certain constitutionally protected rights including the rights
    to gather peaceably and to worship, are enduring and fundamental
    principles that can and must be protected even during a pandemic.
        The tragic death of George Floyd, and the national focus on matters
    involving how we as Americans treat each other in acknowledgement of
    our racial and ethnic diversity, has produced hard lessons that our
    nation must address. Included in those lessons is to promote a better
    understanding of our relationship as citizens with government, and
    particularly with challenging issues related to the role of law
    enforcement.
        Finally, the 2020 elections have demonstrated that our nation has
    an urgent need to strengthen understanding of the constitutional and
    other legal bases for the conducting fair elections that are the
    foundation for our American democracy.
        If I would change or update any aspect of our report with respect
    to civic education it would be to cite these and other examples from
    the past year to demonstrate the urgency to adopt the commission's
    recommendations that would restore civic education to its preeminent
    role in our nation's schools.
        Mr. Langevin. How do we know that an investment in civic education
    is a cost-effective, comprehensive tool for protecting our democracy?
    What makes you confident that civics is the right approach as opposed
    to pursuing alternative solutions?
        Mr. Barney. We know that investment in civic education is a cost-
    effective, comprehensive tool for protecting our democracy because
    events of the last year have demonstrated that our current lack of
    adequate funding for civic education has neglected this essential
    citizenship-informing foundation for our American democracy. We need to
    do a better job as a nation to provide every American with a solid
    foundation of understanding civics to prepare us to respond to future
    threats to our nation, whether those threats are related to an
    infectious disease, or to civil disorder in our cities, or to the
    system for elections on which effective government depends. Stated
    differently, the cost of funding civic education is important because
    the cost of not funding civic education risks tearing our nation apart.
    Finally, it is critically important that Congress must provide strong
    and consistent federal funding for civic education. We know that
    federal funding is crucial and effective because we have seen that our
    national investment in STEM education has reinvigorated local and state
    education agencies to promote teaching of science, technology,
    engineering, and math. If we value our American democracy then it is a
    necessary and sound investment for the federal government to use its
    powerful legislative tools to authorize and appropriate funding to
    ensure future generations of Americans are fully prepared to deal with
    threats to our nation, and to promote an enduring commitment to serve
    in federal, tribal, state, and local government.
                                     ______

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KHANNA
        Mr. Khanna. Did the NCMNPS give any consideration to ending
    Selective Service registration entirely, rather than trying to expand
    it to young women as well as young men, as one way to go about
    equalizing treatment of men and women?
        Dr. Heck. Yes, the Commission debated disbanding the Selective
    Service Registration system and also putting the system into ``deep
    standby'' similar to what occurred in 1973.
        The Department of Defense provided five reasons to maintain the
    system as currently configured:
        1.  The military selective service system guarantees the certain
    and timely fulfillment of military manpower requirements in a national
    emergency
        2.  The selective service registration database provides valuable
    military recruiting leads
        3.  Registration reminds America's youth of the importance of
    Military, National, and Public Service
        4.  Selective service registration is a critical link between the
    All-Volunteer Force (AVF) and society at large
        5.  Military selective service is a symbol of national will and a
    deterrent to potential enemies of the United States
        The Commission evaluated each of these claims and found little
    objective evidence to support numbers 2-5. However, based on current
    mobilization timelines to call-up and process inductees, the Commission
    felt that disbanding or placing the system in standby would create a
    substantial risk to meeting the manpower needs of the armed forces in
    times of crisis.
        Mr. Khanna. What is a realistic scenario for a war or wars that the
    U.S. should fight, but in which not enough Americans would volunteer
    for military service?
        Dr. Heck. The Commission was not charged to evaluate what wars the
    U.S. should fight or what the manpower needs of the armed forces would
    be for a particular conflict.
        Mr. Khanna. Did the NCMNPS conduct any research on how many
    Americans would be likely to volunteer for military service in a war in
    which it was needed?
        Dr. Heck. The Commission was not tasked or resourced to conduct
    independent research. We did, however, review the available research
    conducted by others.
        America's involvement in World War II was supported by the general
    population and volunteers rushed to join the military after Pearl
    Harbor. Almost eighteen million men served in World War II, but the
    majority--over 10 million--were drafted into service.
        More than three-quarters of the men who fought in Vietnam
    volunteered to join the military. Roughly 8.7 million troops served in
    the military between 1965 and 1973 with only 1.8 million drafted. Of
    the 2.7 million that fought in Vietnam, only 25% were draftees.
        During the period of the AVF, using the total size of the military
    as the metric, the size of the military actually decreased during the
    Gulf War (Operation Desert Shield [2 August 1990-17 January 1991] and
    Operation Desert Storm [17 January 1991-28 February 1991]) by 2.68% in
    1990 and 2.75% in 1991, demonstrating a gap between new enlistments and
    those leaving service during a time of war. Post 9/11, the military end
    strength increased 3.26% in 2002 and 0.89% in 2003, before decreasing
    in 2004.
        According to the Harvard Institute of Politics (IOP), of nearly
    half of millennials polled in a 2015 survey, 60% of people between the
    ages of 18 and 29 support the commitment of American combat troops to
    fight ISIS, however 62% percent of those same people say they would not
    join the fight themselves. Millennials feel serving is not their
    responsibility.
        Mr. Khanna. Unlike draftees, volunteers for military service would
    not request deferments or exemptions which might delay their induction.
    If the NCMNPS concluded that draftees could be inducted more quickly
    than volunteers, what was the basis for that conclusion?
        Dr. Heck. The Commission reached no such conclusion. At the time of
    the Commission's deliberations, there were approximately 1.3 million
    service members in the active force and another 1.04 million in the
    Ready Reserve. It is assumed that these forces would be first to the
    fight. During the time of expansion, volunteers would be accepted and
    processed into the service under current policies and procedures and
    would represent the next wave into the fight. The current mobilization
    timeline in the event a draft is initiated is M+0 to M+86 is
    preparation/organization time; M+86 begin to qualifying registrants for
    induction; M+193 first inductees arrive at the Military Entrance
    Processing Stations (MEPS); and M+210 100,000 inductees delivered to
    the MEPS.
        Mr. Khanna. The NCMNPS heard testimony from a former Director of
    the Selective Service System, Dr. Bernard Rostker, that noncompliance
    has made the current database ``less than useless'' for an actual
    draft. Nobody has been investigated or prosecuted for violating the
    Military Selective Service Act since 1986. Does the NCMNPS proposal
    include any plan or budget for enforcing an expanded Selective Service
    registration requirement?
        Dr. Heck. The Commission did not include any plan or budget for
    enforcing an expanded Selective Service registration requirement in its
    report.
        Mr. Khanna. Did the NCMNPS consult the Department of Justice or
    receive any input from the DOJ concerning whether, how, and/or at what
    cost the DOJ is prepared to enforce an expanded registration
    requirement, or whether such an enforcement plan would be more
    effective than the registration enforcement program the DOJ abandoned
    in 1988?
        Dr. Heck. The Commission requested such information from the DOJ,
    however no information was provided.
        Mr. Khanna. The last GAO audit of the registration database, in
    1982, estimated that 20-40% of registrants' addresses would be obsolete
    by age 20, and up to 75% by age 26. Did the NCMNPS assess what
    percentage of men currently subject to the registration requirement
    register within 30 days of their 18th birthday and report to the SSS
    within 30 days of each change of address until their 26th birthday?
        Dr. Heck. The Selective Service System claims 92% compliance with
    initial registration requirements, primarily due to the passive methods
    used, e.g. when applying for a drivers license. We did not receive data
    regarding notification of address changes.
        Mr. Khanna. If the NCMNPS proposal to expand the obligation to
    register to women as well as men is enacted into law, what percentage
    of women did the NCMNPS estimate would register within 30 days of their
    18th birthday and report to the SSS within 30 days of each change of
    address until their 26th birthday? What is the basis for this estimate?
        Dr. Heck. The Commission did not specifically address this
    question, but would expect the answer to be the same as for males.
        Mr. Khanna. In your testimony regarding enforcement of the
    Selective Service registration requirement, Maj. Genl. Heck pointed to
    the law which formerly required registration as a condition of Federal
    student aid. But provisions Congress enacted as part of the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, remove that requirement,
    effective not later than 2023. SSS officials told the NCMNPS that SSS
    registration depends primarily on laws in some states and U.S.
    territories that make Selective Service registration a condition for
    obtaining drivers' licenses. SSS officials and members of the NCMNPS
    expressed concern during NCMNPS deliberations that many of these state
    laws use gendered language and would not apply to women unless they
    were amended. Putting an expanded Selective Service registration
    requirement applicable to women as well as men into effect would
    require action by state legislatures to amend each of these laws. Did
    the NCMNPS prepare any list or tally of gendered state and territorial
    laws related to compliance with Selective Service registration?
        Dr. Heck. Of the states and territories that have registration
    requirements, 22 have gendered language
        Mr. Khanna. Did the NCMNPS assess whether state and territorial
    laws related to Selective Service registration which are worded as
    applying only to males would be rendered invalid, unless and until
    amended by state legislatures, if we were to expand the requirement to
    register with the SSS to apply to women as well as men?
        Dr. Heck. The Commission did not consider this question.
        Mr. Khanna. Did the NCMNPS give any consideration to ending
    Selective Service registration entirely, rather than trying to expand
    it to young women as well as young men, as one way to go about
    equalizing treatment of men and women?
        Mr. Gearan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Khanna. What is a realistic scenario for a war or wars that the
    U.S. should fight, but in which not enough Americans would volunteer
    for military service?
        Mr. Gearan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Khanna. Did the NCMNPS conduct any research on how many
    Americans would be likely to volunteer for military service in a war in
    which it was needed?
        Mr. Gearan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Khanna. Unlike draftees, volunteers for military service would
    not request deferments or exemptions which might delay their induction.
    If the NCMNPS concluded that draftees could be inducted more quickly
    than volunteers, what was the basis for that conclusion?
        Mr. Gearan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Khanna. The NCMNPS heard testimony from a former Director of
    the Selective Service System, Dr. Bernard Rostker, that noncompliance
    has made the current database ``less than useless'' for an actual
    draft. Nobody has been investigated or prosecuted for violating the
    Military Selective Service Act since 1986. Does the NCMNPS proposal
    include any plan or budget for enforcing an expanded Selective Service
    registration requirement?
        Mr. Gearan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Khanna. Did the NCMNPS consult the Department of Justice or
    receive any input from the DOJ concerning whether, how, and/or at what
    cost the DOJ is prepared to enforce an expanded registration
    requirement, or whether such an enforcement plan would be more
    effective than the registration enforcement program the DOJ abandoned
    in 1988?
        Mr. Gearan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Khanna. The last GAO audit of the registration database, in
    1982, estimated that 20-40% of registrants' addresses would be obsolete
    by age 20, and up to 75% by age 26. Did the NCMNPS assess what
    percentage of men currently subject to the registration requirement
    register within 30 days of their 18th birthday and report to the SSS
    within 30 days of each change of address until their 26th birthday?
        Mr. Gearan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Khanna. If the NCMNPS proposal to expand the obligation to
    register to women as well as men is enacted into law, what percentage
    of women did the NCMNPS estimate would register within 30 days of their
    18th birthday and report to the SSS within 30 days of each change of
    address until their 26th birthday? What is the basis for this estimate?
        Mr. Gearan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Khanna. Did the NCMNPS assess whether state and territorial
    laws related to Selective Service registration which are worded as
    applying only to males would be rendered invalid, unless and until
    amended by state legislatures, if we were to expand the requirement to
    register with the SSS to apply to women as well as men?
        Mr. Gearan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Khanna. Did the NCMNPS give any consideration to ending
    Selective Service registration entirely, rather than trying to expand
    it to young women as well as young men, as one way to go about
    equalizing treatment of men and women?
        Mr. Barney. Yes, the commission adopted as a foundation for our
    investigative approach the congressional legislative mandate that
    required that we first consider whether a selective service system was
    required before considering what changes, if any, might be made if the
    selective service system were retained. We did not assume that a
    selective service registration requirement should continue. We listened
    to viewpoints that advocated for elimination of the selective service
    registration requirement. We included in all our engagements including
    public meetings and hearings, opportunities to receive comments from
    individuals on whether our nation should retain or end the selective
    service registration system. There were strong views on both sides of
    the issue. In the end, as commissioners deliberated our recommendations
    we came to what I recall was a unanimous decision to retain the
    selective service system and to expand the registration requirement to
    both men and women. To me personally, the issue of equal treatment of
    men and women in the selective service registration requirement was
    secondary to the ultimate need to provide for the best and most capable
    people to defend our nation in a national emergency. With enactment of
    the additional recommendations we offered to strengthen the selective
    service registration system, that system will remain the best and
    lowest cost ``insurance policy'' for our national security.
        Mr. Khanna. What is a realistic scenario for a war or wars that the
    U.S. should fight, but in which not enough Americans would volunteer
    for military service?
        Mr. Barney. Our nation is founded on the belief that a democratic
    society is the ideal approach for governance of free people. Our nation
    uses its diplomatic and economic tools to promote democracy throughout
    the world. While the United States has many allies who share our views,
    other countries have entirely different approaches. While our
    commission did not express views on the issue, my personal belief is
    that tension within the People's Republic of China may result in future
    hostilities between mainland China and democratic Taiwan. Such
    hostilities may trigger treaty obligations for the United States to
    come to the defense of Taiwan with a corresponding demand for
    resources, including trained military personnel, that would far exceed
    the number of Americans who would volunteer for military service. Other
    examples include mutual defense treaty obligations that would require
    the United States to come to the defense of Japan, South Korea, and
    other western Pacific allies. Our obligations under Article 5 of the
    NATO treaty would also require us to use American forces in defense of
    our allies. In short, the United States has treaty obligations to
    defend other democratic allies who are attacked. These treaty
    obligations go to the heart of what it means for the United States to
    be viewed as a reliable ally of free countries around the world. Our
    history has demonstrated that many Americans respond willingly and
    selflessly when our nation is under attack. That said, wars are not
    popular with the American public. Our nation may face a future war
    where our treaty obligations require us to come to the defense of a
    loyal ally, but where many Americans may conclude that they do not
    support the war. The United States must be prepared for future wars. An
    essential part of that preparation is the unmistakable signal to a
    would-be adversary that the United States is prepared to fight and win,
    and if necessary to mobilize for war through the last resort of a
    viable selective service system and a military draft. The deterrent
    value of a viable selective service registration system is well with
    the modest national investment required to keep the Selective Service
    System ready and reliable.
        Mr. Khanna. Did the NCMNPS conduct any research on how many
    Americans would be likely to volunteer for military service in a war in
    which it was needed?
        Mr. Barney. The commission did not conduct any research on how many
    Americans would be likely to volunteer for military service in a war.
    However, in our research we took note of the fact that even in the
    aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan, and the
    subsequent declaration of war against the United States by Nazi
    Germany, the large outpouring of volunteers to enlist in the U.S. armed
    services was ultimately inadequate to meet the military personnel
    requirements during the Second World War. The nation needed a draft in
    World War Two. For that reason--among other facts derived through our
    research, meetings, and public hearings--the commission recommended
    that the United States must retain a ready and reliable Selective
    Service System as a cornerstone of our national defense.
        Mr. Khanna. Unlike draftees, volunteers for military service would
    not request deferments or exemptions which might delay their induction.
    If the NCMNPS concluded that draftees could be inducted more quickly
    than volunteers, what was the basis for that conclusion?
        Mr. Barney. The commission did not conclude that draftees could be
    inducted more quickly than volunteers. The commission recommended that
    the United States must retain a ready and reliable Selective Service
    System in order to meet the military personnel requirements of the
    Department of Defense in the case of an extraordinary requirement that
    exceeds the number that would be met by volunteers. Through our
    research we found that the modest cost to maintain a selective service
    registration system would be more effective and produce sufficient
    numbers of personnel through a congressionally authorized draft than
    could be achieved by other methods. We specifically considered and
    found inadequate alternatives to a selective service registration
    system, including disestablishing the Selective Service System or
    putting it into deep standby, because the time necessary to
    reconstitute a selective service and draft capability in a time of
    national crisis would not meet the requirements of the Department of
    Defense and would put at risk the then-serving members of the active
    and reserve components of the all-volunteer force.
        Mr. Khanna. The NCMNPS heard testimony from a former Director of
    the Selective Service System, Dr. Bernard Rostker, that noncompliance
    has made the current database ``less than useless'' for an actual
    draft. Nobody has been investigated or prosecuted for violating the
    Military Selective Service Act since 1986. Does the NCMNPS proposal
    include any plan or budget for enforcing an expanded Selective Service
    registration requirement?
        Mr. Barney. While the Selective Service System reports that it has
    achieved registration compliance rates in excess of 90 percent, our
    research confirmed that the system would face serious challenges in
    using the selective service registration database to generate numbers
    of qualified individuals to respond to induction notices. For that
    reason, the commission made a number of recommendations to make it
    easier for individuals to register and to maintain accurate information
    that would get induction notices to registrants should Congress in the
    future require a military draft. The Selective Service System achieves
    its high compliance rates through passive registration by using, for
    example, state motor vehicle licensing and federal student loan
    financing applications, to register males from the ages of 17 to 26.
    The commission found that passive registration does not instill in
    registrants a knowing, solemn understanding of the potential military
    or alternative civilian service obligation that is implicated through
    the registration process. For that reason, the commission recommended
    that an appropriate ceremony be conducted that would instill in
    registrants a full understanding of the significance of the selective
    service registration requirement. The commission also recommended that
    the Department of Defense and the Selective Service System should
    conduct regular exercises to assess the readiness of the Selective
    Service System and to make reports to Congress on the effectiveness of
    the system. In my personal view, the nation has for too long failed to
    invest in the readiness of the Selective Service System. It's budget
    has remained fixed at about $25 million per year for several decades.
    Given the seriousness of the Selective Service System and its value to
    the defense of the nation it is appropriate for Congress to receive
    continuous information on the readiness of the system and to authorize
    and appropriate adequate funds so that it can meet its critical mission
    when and if the nation needs it.
        Mr. Khanna. Did the NCMNPS consult the Department of Justice or
    receive any input from the DOJ concerning whether, how, and/or at what
    cost the DOJ is prepared to enforce an expanded registration
    requirement, or whether such an enforcement plan would be more
    effective than the registration enforcement program the DOJ abandoned
    in 1988?
        Mr. Barney. I do not believe that the commission received
    information from the Department of Justice concerning the impact to the
    Department of an expanded selective service registration system.
        Mr. Khanna. The last GAO audit of the registration database, in
    1982, estimated that 20-40% of registrants' addresses would be obsolete
    by age 20, and up to 75% by age 26. Did the NCMNPS assess what
    percentage of men currently subject to the registration requirement
    register within 30 days of their 18th birthday and report to the SSS
    within 30 days of each change of address until their 26th birthday?
        Mr. Barney. The commission did not assess what percentage of
    current registrants register within 30 days of their 18th birthday or
    the rate at which those registrants report a subsequent change of
    address. However, the Selective Service System reports that the process
    of registration by using state motor vehicle licensing and use of the
    federal student loan application processes have pushed compliance with
    registration requirements to over 90 percent. The commission's
    recommendations, if enacted, would further strengthen the registration
    process and the integrity of the registration database by promoting
    awareness of the solemn obligation to register with and maintain the
    accuracy of the individual's registration with the Selective Service
    System. The commission also recommended changes in the Military
    Selective Service Act that would further incentivize timely
    registration and updated registration information. Congressional
    enactment of the commission's recommendations begins the necessary
    process to ensure that the nation's Selective Service System is a ready
    and reliable foundation for our national defense
        Mr. Khanna. If the NCMNPS proposal to expand the obligation to
    register to women as well as men is enacted into law, what percentage
    of women did the NCMNPS estimate would register within 30 days of their
    18th birthday and report to the SSS within 30 days of each change of
    address until their 26th birthday? What is the basis for this estimate?
        Mr. Barney. The commission recommended that the registration
    requirement should be expanded to all Americans, but we did not
    determine or estimate the percentage of women who would register within
    30 days of their 18th birthday or the rate at which those registrants
    report a subsequent change of address. The Selective Service System
    estimates that the agency would need about $16 million in additional
    funding in the first year, and an additional $59 million over the first
    five years to complete the policy change. My personal assessment based
    on the commission's research is that upon completion of actions to
    expand registration requirements to women that the Selective Service
    System would likely continue to achieve initial registration compliance
    rates over 90 percent.
        Mr. Khanna. Did the NCMNPS assess whether state and territorial
    laws related to Selective Service registration which are worded as
    applying only to males would be rendered invalid, unless and until
    amended by state legislatures, if we were to expand the requirement to
    register with the SSS to apply to women as well as men?
        Mr. Barney. The commission did not assess whether state and
    territorial laws related to Selective Service registration which are
    worded as applying only to males would be rendered invalid unless and
    until am
                                     ______

                         QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KIM
        Mr. Kim. I'm interested in helping veterans find their ``second
    service,'' as they leave the military. The report has some much needed
    guidelines that would encourage better information sharing on community
    service with veterans, and I applaud those efforts. But I've heard that
    some of these issues have to do with timing, to make the transition to
    the military and into a program like AmeriCorps gapless. Or for
    Veterans looking to use their GI Bill benefits, they're looking for
    ways that can continue serving, but in a way that fits into their class
    schedules or summer breaks. What can we do to examine making these
    programs more adaptable to meeting veterans where they are?
        Dr. Heck. The Commission makes several recommendations around
    including post-military service opportunities as part of the transition
    assistance program available to separating service members. Americorps
    has the to develop flexible programs to meet the unique needs of
    veterans.
        Mr. Kim. I've read about some promising programs that would enable
    veterans to earn apprenticeship hours through service learning, and
    even use their GI Bill to help supplement their income while gaining
    this experience. How can we structure service learning to help build
    critical skills in career fields--especial for veterans who do not wish
    to pursue a 4-year degree?
        Mr. Gearan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]