[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.]