[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.]