tv Discussion on Military Public Service Policy CSPAN April 24, 2019 9:00am-11:52am EDT
money they have. they've never had to report it. they now have over 340 billionaires. so what's going to happen is, is that we are changing their communist system to where you will find their enterprise system that hates their damn irs, too. and we're going to look up and say, comrade, how does that feel? .. >> so i think the long-term attribute that you're going to see from president trump and this outcome will mean that our stock market will come all the way roaring back and that we will be prepared in 2020 to not only reclaim the presidency, but we will take back the
house, we will take the senate, and we will have american republican ideas of pre enterprise across the country. i'm very excited and i want you to know that-- >> we are going to leave this look at the future of the republican party to go live now to a hearing of the national commission on military national and public service, commission meeting at gallaudet university in washington to consider whether the u.s. should institute mandatory military or public service. this is c-span2. >> the purpose of this hearing is to address an important question, what are the potential needs for a voluntary for compulsory national mobilization. in 2016 the commission was created amid a debate over whether selective service registration should be extended to women after open military combat was open to women in
2015. congress asked us to consider two questions, does our country have a need for the selective military system. and if so, whether the current system requires modification. second, how can we, as a nation, create an ethos of service and increase in military and national public service? the first question is the reason we're here this morning. the four hearings we're holding today and tomorrow provide an opportunity to discuss the policy options the commission is considering with respect to the selective service system and the potential for a future draft. this morning, we'll focus on the strategic security environment and potential requirements for selective service and the nation to meet those needs. our distinguished panelists will discuss the current department of defense requirement for the selective service, how current plans model the mobilization of the total force, an induction of killed and unskilled nonservice
personnel and forecastable needs that the service system should be able to address. the perspectives on national preparedness for major military conflicts and to what extent future conflicts may pose emerging challenges that the commission should consider when developing recommendations for a modified selective service system. i hope our panelists will address these items as directly as possible in their oral statements and in their responses to commissioner questions. this afternoon, we will focus on who will be needed to respond to national security emergencies and how we find and integrate them into military organizations and structures. tomorrow we will have the opportunity to discuss who should share the common obligation to defend the nation in a potential future draft. so let me welcome our panelists. the honorable james stewart, assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs for the department of defense. rear admiral, vice-president for logistics joint chiefs of
staffs. ms. warren deyoung stillman and the lee on panetta center for new american security. major general peter burn, mobilization assistant to the u.s. northern command, and elsa kanya, for new american security. thank you for joining us today. i'd like now to turn to our vice chair for military service for an opening statement. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. as the vice chair for military service i have the honor of leading the efforts regarding selective service for the military commission, but when it comes to the service and military service there's a commonalty that's found, it's understood by a small portion of americans. we have found that many americans do not understand the require to register or the purpose of the selective service system. although there is no draft, the selective service is still much in existence and is active.
but there seems to be much confusion between the two. most young men today register for selective service as a secondary process, whether they apply through a driver's license or federal financial aid. in fact, 75% of young men registering is a byproduct of another state or federal requirement. registering is the law and therefore, if a male fails to register, there are penalties such as not being able to obtain a federal job, financial assistance or other sorts of federal and state assistance. as you may all know, that there is district court case cited in texas earlier this year, stating that all male military draft is unconstitutional. and earlier this month, the federal court in new jersey handling the second court case involving women and the selective service issued an opinion denying the government's motion to dismiss. previously the supreme court held that the draft legislation process in 1981, a rosser
versus goldberg, the court ruled a male-only draft was fully justified because women were ineligible for combat roles. as we all know that has now changed and i look forward to hearing the afternoon's panel to address some of the issues that were raised during the 1981 court case. this decision will not speed up the commission's timeline in releasing our final report. the court decision, however, makes the work of the commission all the more important and relevant. the commission is considering whether there's a continuing need for the selective service in its current form. whether if any changes should be made or if it should be disestablished. when it comes to changes, we're considering policy options that could expand the registration to include women, identify individuals who possess critical skills the nation might need in the future. calls for volunteers in a time of emergencies, supported by using the existing registration
data base or incorporating to identify, evaluate and protect those who do serve in the military. and i look forward to our panel for important issues today and thus, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. before we begin make sure to silence electronic devices and let me explain how we'll conduct today's hearing. the commissioners have received your written testimony and it will be entered into the official record. we ask that you summarize the highlights of your testimony in the allotted five minutes. before you, you will see our timing system. when the light turns yellow you'll have approximately one minute remaining and when red your time has expired. after all testimony we'll move into testimony from the commissioner. each will have five minutes to ask a question and receive a response. and commissioners know i'm reluctant to gavel down a panelist, i'm much less a commissioner.
we will receive one, possibly two rounds of questions. upon completion of commissioner questions we will provide an opportunity for members of the public who are in attendance to offer comments either on the specific topic addressed today or more generally on the commission's overarching mandate. these comments will be limited to two minutes. the light will turn yellow when you have 30 seconds remaining and red when time is expired. we are now ready to begin with our panelist testimony. i'd like to begin with the honorable mr. james stewart. mr. stewart, you're recognized for five minutes. thank you mr. chairman and vice-chairman, or chairwoman. distinguished members of the commission i'm honored to appear here today to discuss mobilization needs of the department of defense and the nation in the event of national emergency or war. i will address two kinds of mobilization, first involving the department of defense's all volunteer force using our military services reserve component and second, the mobilization requiring more troops than the current all volunteer force can supply
using these selective service systems. the reserve components of the united states militaries are an integral part of america's national defense architecture, providing reliability capabilities to our global combatant commands and state governments. with the ability to quickly mobilize in emergency events, provide operational support abroad or at home, the reserve components are vital to executing the department's defense strategy. the department's operational reserve model with one standard of readiness allows our reserve and national guard to be interchangeable with the active duty personnel. furthermore, it will be tailored to operational needs and structured to meet the national defense strategy. the national defense strategy states that in war time, the fully mobilized joint military force will be capable of defeating aggression by a major
power, deterring opportunistic aggression elsewhere and disrupting eminent terrorist and weapons of mass destruction threats. however, have no contingency operations or battle plans that envision a mobilization beyond the all volunteer force. even in the case of sustained conflicts in iraq and afghanistan, dod maintained its ability to recruit and retain professional volunteer force without resorting to a draft. some assert that the revolution in military affairs by high technology weapons and the cyber battlefield obviates to mobilize manpower at the rates seen in the 20th century. nonetheless the potential for global conflict on the scale of another world war still exists and every administration since 1980 has made the conscious decision to maintain national registration for selective service as the tool through which congress and the president would provide additional manpower to the
armed forces. an insurance policy, should future threats spark requirements for manpower in excess of those available to the all volunteer force. therefore, in the event of a national emergency, the draft may be initiated after congress passes and the president signs enabling legislation. so, let's talk about the selective service system and its value to dod and the nation. first, it maintains a complete registration and classification structure capable of immediate conscription operations in the event of a national emergency. should conscription be required, the selective service system would significantly, expand and connect between service locations and department of defense components. the selective service system is ultimately responsible for the full execution of the conscription call-up from conducting lottery operations,
classifying and evaluating registrations, and ultimately delivering inductees into the military within 193 days from a mass mobilization order for the first person to arrive and 100,000 within 210 days. the department supports the continuation of the selection system as an independent federal agency. since 1973, the selective service has maintained complete registration and classification structure complete in the event of a national emergency and staff to reconstitute the full corporations of the system including military reservists who are trained to operate such a system. if the requirement for peace time selective service registration was repealed and a mass mobilization was deemed necessary with an amendment to title 50, the department of defense could assume responsibility for functions currently managed by the selective service system. however, the department has not
developed the plan how it would fully integrate the registration and mass mobilization functions, the selective service system currently performs. maintaining the clear distinction between the department of defense and the nation's selective service system ensures the pre eminence of civilian control and has historically been viewed as important to reinforce the public's perception of the integrity of the draft process. the current registration requirement and systems for mass mobilization are designed to provide a fair and equitiable process by which individuals are generally conscripted as untrained manpower without regard to their individual skills or abilities. removing the clear department of defense and selective service distinction would require significant thought and effort to counter the specter of an unfair and inequitable
draft. and in a direct way, the selective service registration data base provides valuable military recruiting leads, 75 to 80,000 a year. in a more indirect vein, reminds america's youth of the importance of military, national and public service and the existence of a draft service serves as a critical link between the all volunteer force and the society at large. finally, the selective services have a symbol of our national will and deter potential enemies of the united states. given that we do not know precisely what it will place on the nation as a whole it's imperative that we have the options available to overcome any national emergency or threat we face. the department is committed to sustaining the all volunteer force, has created the most formidable fighting force in history, able to handle all current threats.
however, the selective service system is invaluable to safeguarding and ensuring that a mass mobilization, if necessary, will remain both flexible and scaleable to adapt to the volume and immediacy of any national defense requirement presented. and for approximately 23 million a year, an inexpensive insurance policy. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and i look forward to continuing our conversation, answering any questions you may have. >> thank you, secretary stewart. admiral will be next. >> hello, good morning. chairman heck, vice-chair wada and commissioners on military and public service, thank you for this opportunity to present the joint staff perspective on how the u.s. military mobilizes in the event of a national emergency. i have provided the commission 11-page written testimony for the record. i'd like to take just a few moments to highlight what i
provided you in writing. the chairman. joint chiefs of staff has been designated as the global integrator. in this role, he provides military advice to secretary of defense on how, when and where to use the joint force in long-term strategic commission with china, russia, also mitigating the threats of states such as north korea and iran. the chairman, supported by the joint staff, focuses on countering trans regional all domain threats today and into the future. based on these threats, the joint staff conducts globally integrated planning through readiness reviews. these reviews layer the simultaneous global requirements to defend the homeland, respond to the national emergency and deter opportunistic adversaries in other theaters. these include large scale
mobilization that expand reserve and the guard, components capacity as well as the defense production act that expands access to commercial transportation, sea lift, airlift, industrial capacity, communications infrastructure and other resources in coordination with other government agencies. the plans that we have developed are resource informed. we've not enforced via the selective system, however, these are models to expand the u.s. military in event that the all volunteer force is not sufficient to meet the national need. our joint force is ready to fight tonight, but we must acknowledge that national mobilization might still be necessary, depending on the level of response required. thank you. >> thank you, admiral. mr. shulman, you're recognized
for five minutes. >> chairman heck and honorable commissioners, thank you so much for having me today. my testimony today lays out my views on what i see as a modern purpose of the american selects tiff service system and with the question of whether it still works for that purpose. has a brief examination of the modern debates around the draft that tends to use the draft as a bandaid solution to civic society. and consider the president now and in the future with security challenges and whether the united states has adequately prepared for them to prevent a national emergency and includes some general recommendations and comments on proposals under consideration by the commission. so as you all know, i've been for the audience, the original purpose for selective service system was ensure armed forces and reserve component and ensure the military generally, in accordance with a selection
system that's fair and just. in my view, it's important to consider what's changed in foreign policy and the comity in the labor market and public engagement in national security matters before assuming this is a reasonable mission to undertake. changes like that, include the america's commitment to an all volunteer force and free equity touting of the military is the most effective military ever fielded. its engagement in armed conflicts over the past four decades without turning to conscription. designed so that parts of the military have grown far more technical and in need of highly regular training and the fact that vital components of the american economy have also grown more technical and highly specialized, as well as more globally interconnected and interdependent. in my view, several of these factors have significantly raised the bar for application of the draft in anything, but a pretty significant potentially
unforeseen national emergency. that being said, i think the general purpose of conscription in this modern american context remains, through transfer labor and productivity, from the civilian sector of the economy, to the states for national security purposes, because the national security demands for these contributions is judged to be higher than what it displaces and there's no faster or more effective or economical means. that's a pretty high bar. what is rarely mentioned in discussions of the draft is resulting burden of competency on the states to faithfully prepare for any national emergency or any range of national emergency contingency so that transfers of labor remain highly unlikely or unnecessary. the burden on the state might include to maintain and equip armed forces, to keep them in a state of readiness, appropriate for any security environment, to generate the intellectual and operational innovations
necessary to deter and if necessary defeat an adversary and maintain within the national security apparatus, the expertise necessary to understand and generate sophisticated hedges and responses for the future of the security challenges. this high bar for the use of conscription also assumes that the united states has, in the event of a national emergency, attempted to enlist more allies to its cause. to employ private security contractors to meet security demands, to transform its military to generate more manpower and simply to enlist more troops. so there are steps to be undertaken before you can think about the potential of conscription. because conscription levels the power of the state in the extreme ways possible. citizens are justified in expecting that the states exhaust the options before it turns to collective service system and then only in a true emergency. because of this high bar, many scholars view this as
potentially unsuitable to an unpredictable national emergency. the nature of the gap between the present all volunteer force and the future crisis as others discuss and we'll discuss is completely unknown and i think we should have humility in designing meeting those. and future conflict, deened making rotational schedules for future conflict and high demand and low density skill sets and whether or not the selective service system can actually provide manpower to those requirements without displacing unique or urgent labor input or generating political and economic pushback. because the selective-- the selective service system is in constant path for doing that, but has not been tested to do that particularly in the great power conflict and experts like you're going to hear from today and later doesn't believer they're well set up to pursue that motion.
because it's not set up to pursue that mission, others look if there are other systems they might undertake. meeting challenges in civil military relations such as making the united states military more representative of the american people, or to lessen support for current wars and increase america's skin in the game for-- in present conflicts. or to bring into the u.s. military a broader set of-- or more highly technical set of skill sets or that-- that are not easily acquired within today's military. i think those are all laudable missions and i understand the intent behind those desires, however, i think that there are many other policy remedies that are available to that and that conscription should be used for the purpose it's designed, to bring in manpower in national emergencies when there is no other possible remedy to do so. i last say that i think that there's a lot of homework to be done in the united states before you begin to turn to questions of conscription. we have not, as it stands, in
the government, in the u.s. congress, or in the broader american society, had a good conversation about what national security threats look like, and what will be the nature of the great power description and utilized. we have not reformed our personnel system to bring in the military skillsets you might need in this competition before it leaves the conflict for have we engaged with our economic sectors to talk about intertee dependency and the ways the united states economy is many ways behind in purposes of the great power competition. i think these are pieces of the homework that need to be pursued. and reiterate that the conscription should only be pursued with seriousness when the other manners of homework have been exhausted and all elements of the national power have opinion-- have been considered for the conflict. >> thank you.
recognize you, general, for five minutes. >> good morning. chairman heck and distinguished members. commission, i'm honored to appear today as a mobilization assistant to the commander of the united states northern command and north american aerospace command, north com and norad. i have a few opening remarks to describe the commands. u.s. north com has the primary responsibilities much defending our homeland. and ports of civilian authorities and act as department of defense synchronizer for federal military forces when federal military forces are requested in the response to a disaster. norad is a bi-national u.s.-canadian command that deters, detects and if necessary, defeats air threats to the united states and canada and aerospace warning and maritime warning. the number run priority of
north com and norad are homeland defense and that will grow more complex as our adversaries have increasing technologies to hold our nation and citizens at risk. threats to the homeland in the aftermath of disaster is depen department on whole of government cooperation and collaboration, and on dedicated capable public servants at all level. these whole of government partnerships and relationships enable national leaders to act and respond to the needs of their nation. u.s. north com and norad remain focused on our current responsibility, as well as future challenges of the nations, meeting our no-fail mission requires a defensive dedicated military and civilian professionals with a wide variety of skills, experiences, and expertise. as such, it is essential that our nation continues to expand the pathway to the national
service. i look forward to our discussion today and appreciate the opportunity to support the commission's important work on promoting military, national and public service. thank you. >> thank you, general. and recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, i'm honored to have the opportunity to testify before the commission. this morning, i'll first provide an assessment of the strategic challenge that the people's republic of china presents, as a great power rival. i'll then discuss considerations for american approaches to national mobilization in lights of this challenge. the chinese people liberation army or pla is undertaking historic reforms to increase its capability to fight and win while concentrating on improving the quality of officers and enlisted personnel, as well as the realism of its training. xi jinping has called on a worldclass force perhaps equaling or even surpassing the u.s. in the process. chinese military power is
starting to go global, including a new base in djibouti. the pla is also actively advancing its space, cyber and electronic warfare capabilities. for pla today military innovation is a core priority. chinese leaders and military strategies recognize artificial intelligence as a strategic technology that could change the form of future warfare. to advance this agenda, china is implementing a national strategy for military civil fusion or civil military degrayings, which is not om a more integrated approach, but provides talent, logistics and mobilization. indeed, the chinese government has a framework for national defense mobilization that's far reaching and comprehensive, from a national commission as with authorities on the subject, down to local level commissions, and including economic, political,
information, transportation and technological mobilization among other elements. china is preparing to leverage civilian infrastructure and commercial capabilities to support military missions. the legacy of the concept of people's warfare lives on in china today. in any future conflict scenario the central military commission would mobilize a range of reserve forces and militia units. the pla's mobilization at scale, including a renewed emphasis on national defense education for students may indicate serious concern with potential contingencies for warfare or large scale conflicts. we must reckon with not only scenarios of limited warfare, but high end conflict against one, perhaps two great power rivals. the pla has long studied and
identified weaknesses in american war fighting, developing concepts and capabilities, designed to explore our potential vulnerabilities. any eventual conflicts could start with surprise attacks against rot bottic networks, satellites, system to undermine the u.s. command and control and power projection. our homeland is unlikely to be spared attacks and critical infrastructure. the will and resolve of the american people should be considered a center of gravity and likely target, whether through peace time influence operations by the chinese communist party, the united front or through war time psychological operations. clearly the united states must contend with the unique challenge of a potential adversary who could bring to bear massive human and industrial resources, however, we should not infer intentions from planning and capabilities alone, nor should we see the
u.s.-china rivalry today as inevitab inevitably adversarial. i want to look forward as we think about challenges of mobilization as well as the overall vitality of our all volunteer force. as a first consideration, the deficiencies and concerning asymmetries relative to the prc and capacity for mobilization could place us at a distinct disadvantage. our peace time considerations including adaptation of the selective service system must take into account challenges of speed and flexibility, while sustaini sustaining global logistics and at home, requiring deeper public-private partnerships. looking forward the u.s. military might consider exercising organizations in the models that now aims to prepare
for a scenario of conflicts perhaps in the indo-pacific in order to test and bolster capabilities for rapid deployment while reinforcing deterrents. the gravity of threats to our homeland requires resilience and continuity. in the face of cyber attraction, the u.s. power grid communications and financial institutions, the selective service system would have to operate under a uniquely demanding environment and at times a national emergency. as a second consideration, our force must adapt to the challenges of an era in which conflict is being reshaped by technological transformations that render human capital all the more vital. we must fully leverage the talents of all americans, among our greatest strengths as a nation and all volunteer force is and must remain diversity and inclusion, are welcome to
all those who love this nation and are inspired to service. in this regard, we have and should disdain a critical comparative advantage relative to the people's public of china despite the population. today too many americans who may have inspired to serve may be over looked as qualified and-- and the women throughout the military, including the selective service system should be recognized as imperative going forward. the ongoing implementation of a ban excluding even discharging transgender service members not only is wrong, but also wrongly deprives the u.s. military of their talents, dedication to service and ways it may undermine morale and present readiness. the future of the military extension, vital national have program is also in peril. should be revised and strengthened as a critical challenge through which to recruit future americans whose
skills and expertise will be vital to our future force. the u.s. military also faels to retain talent. changes-- team long overdue. as a third and final consideration we must recognize the strategic imperatives of revitalizing that at the competition today. american mobilization for peace time competition is equal imperative and will require pursuing our own national rejuvination through investing in such core priorities as science, education and infrastructure. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you all for your testimony here this morning. we'll now enter into the period of commissioner questioning, i'll put myself on the clock for five minutes. secretary stewart, i appreciate
you listing out the reasons why department of defense feels that the selective service system is a low cost insurance policy, however, i can tell you over the last 18 months of our existence in multiple conversations with various members. department, there seems to be a lack of any support to any of the arguments provided, whether there's documentation of it being a deterrent to a potential adversary, how it narrows the civil military divide when 75% of registrants do so passively and don't know that they've registered or how many actual sanctions come out of the-- that are generated by the selective service system. additionally in 2012, they recommended dod update the requirements for selective service which you mentioned currently that the selective service provides 100,000 to date by 205. pnr agreed to up that requirement aiming to have it done by december of 2012,
failed to do so. the goa reiterated the recommendation that dod up the requirement to the review of the 2016 dod report to this commission. dod again concurred it should update the requirement. can you tell us, what is the status of that review for the requirement to selective service? when do you expect it to be complete? do you have any preliminary results or conclusions you might be able to share with us this morning? >> yes, sir, 2017 the report was sent to congress so that report actually has been done. in fact, i have it in front of me here and i was referring to it as you were speaking. some of the key factors that we mentioned in it was that with this particular report there are select benefits and some indirect benefits and i think i mentioned it in my comments associated with the selective service, it provides timely fulfillment of military manpower in national emergency and that data pace that we talked about in our statement, has provided us with a lot of
leads for our recruiting service. 75,000, 80,000 a year, so it has been a direct benefit. the indirect benefit in the report we basically pointed out that it reminds our youth of the importance of military, national, and public service. and it's a link between the all volunteer force and the public at large. and finally, it is a symbol, we believe of the will and the deterrent of this nation to go ahead and use this system to go ahead and provide at least to our individuals out there that are not necessarily going to go ahead and agree with us in time of war, gives us a platform in which to go ahead and draw up personnel. >> i appreciate those pieces that came out of that 2017 report, but it didn't answer the question that gao
specifically asked. what were the manpower requirements that dod would have for selective services and update that. as you mentioned yes, you get 75 to 80,000 recruiting leads and dod doesn't say how many actually assess out of those leads and again, going back to the issue of being a connection between the military and civilian population, especially amongst those required to register at 18 years of age, 75% of those that register do so passtively when he go to get a driver's license or fill out the form for financial aid. when we ask how can you demonstrate that it's helped to narrow that divide, there hasn't been any response that proves that point so i was wondering if, one, is there a potential point where we will see the reviewed and updated manpower requirements that gao recommended and whether or not there's any support, concrete support to those select and indirect benefits that you missed? >> on the first point, as far
as manpower needs, i believe we actually, in the report, address that issue. we talked about 500 reserve officers, 1500 military retirees would be recalled, 700 state resource volunteers, and 6500 newly hired federal employees would be needed to go ahead and do that. as far as the others, you're absolutely right. that's work that we need to do to go ahead and quantify it, that we're actually getting those needs and i know that our folks out there are basically going ahead, interested in that as well. particularly services as well, those leads and how they're basically impacting services. >> i appreciate that we have a difference in what the goa was asking and i'll follow up perhaps in the second round or on-line. >> and one of the roles of the draft was for the the army through conscription, and terms
of total mobilization. in your view the draft for the military in response to a major conflict still a necessary component of u.s. national security given the evolution of the all volunteer force since the cold war? >> short answer, yes, that goes back to what i was saying in my public statement, but also say in my written statement in the sense that there are and will be national emergencies in which the all volunteer force will not be sufficient to meet-- well, this may be national emergencies in which the all volunteer force is not sufficient to meet the demand of the conflict we're engaging in. all that said, any attempts to predict exactly what those national emergencies may be and try to describe them in detail to you might be able to say here is exactly how the selective service should operate. it's to prepare for possible
known contingencies. that does not mean that i believe that all volunteer forces, sufficiently reforced or efficiently invested in some of the challenges it may face in the next 10, 20, 30 years. there's still work to be done in those areas, however, i think that having the opportunity to bring in other means of personnel in terms of mass conscription is an option the united states will need to have now and in the future. that i don't believe it stands as a deterrent that it's described as. i don't believe that it stands as the link to the american people with the all volunteer force and its sole purpose is to bring in personnel in a time of national emergency that we cannot easily define, otherwise, we would be preparing for it in a way that the all volunteer force is tasked with. >> thank you. admir admiral, apologies, from the joint staff perspective, is it
205 days given the statement, that we need to be speedy and flexible in our response, sufficient enough to meet for the potential needs that ms. shulman mentioned in terms of a national security requirement. >> i'll save everybody, it's a good irish name vice chair, wada, and i think the time frames, that's measured in months. and in our planning process, and that we've undertaken to pull apart the plan, to understand the global nature, we do have a decision point well before conflict on the need mobilize and those conflicts on the mobilization of the authorities that we have
today. there has been some thought on total mobilization, as you-- because it's indoctrinated. that's before we enter into conflict. that process would lead itself to an identification that the all volunteer force would not be sufficient. and so what would come forward would be a request through the joint staff, through osd, you know, to the president, to potentially solicit total mobilization. in that request would be the manpower, the time frames, et cetera. i think that's all measured. that's all measured in months. so, i think from the time that we would need total mobilization, there would be-- that work needed to understand what would we actually have to do to totally mobilize.
so, 205 days, i'm familiar with 193 days into the station, right? i think that gives us some ability to plan. >> thank you i'll yield back. >> dr. garrett. >> well, thank you to the panelists to are your submitted testimony as well as oral and of course, thank you to gallaudet university for hosting you us. ms. shulman, maybe i can follow up with you. you highlighted in your submitted testimony the importance of this national conversation between the united states government and the american people, on the future security threats that our nation may face. i'd be very interested in what you would commend to us to be thinking about other than declassifying the national strategy or additional congressional conversations. what would you recommend to us
for structuring future conversation? >> i could give you my fantasy curriculum for the entire k through 12, but i'll set that aside and perhaps some of that in written testimony. so, i think just to narrow down my recommendation, i think that congress can play a vital role in this conversation in a way that the executive branch is perhaps not motivated to do and the private sector and public-- the public sphere are not necessarily set up well-to-do. whether it be by having-- changing congressional oversite of policy matters from one-off hearings on syria, north korea, and having a series of things where they're investigating long-term talent like china and around the country and involving not only, you know, key experts from the think tank world where i come from, but also the technology sector,
teachers, students, firemen, people around the country not thinking on a day-to-day basis that china is our greatest threat. and may not be thinking about china. but if they do, maybe i'd like to have cheap iphone, that china is the greatest threat to our national security right now. i don't in any way, shape or form believe that this belief is held widely outside of that national security. not held by google, facebook or other technology sectors bringing innovation to our country. it's not widely understand in our congress and it's not widely understand in our atmosphere. those conversations need to happen on an ongoing and continued basis and subject to the push back of those who would disagree. i think absent bringing that kind of conversation to the american people or the american public right now. if we had a national emergency if five years such that the
united states believed they needed to turn to mobilization, even just as the all volunteer force, there would be skepticism among the american people, for what purpose, to what end. this is going to disrupt our economy in a way that's going to be highly harmful and do we-- what is our skin in the game for this, that's not -- that it's not consistent with what the american social necessarily believes of the china threat. >> thank you. . >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm sorry, i'm sorry. beg your pardon. . >> okay. thank you, appreciate the time of the panelists and your service to our nation. thank you very much. secretary stewart, as you are
very much aware a military selective service act requires a period of time on conscripts 24 consecutive months. there are people who are presently serving or those who may volunteer to serve. how would you recommend that we modify that requirement for the conscripters? >> so, sir, just like the reserve components we can go ahead and tailor that. so if necessary, for whatever the operation is, we can go in and scale that. the nice thing about the selective service is it's scaleable and flexible and very similar to the reserve component, it's flexible and scaleable, whatever the requirement is, and the duration of whatever it is the operation is. you can go ahead and set up a time frame for that particular individual for that duration of that operation. >> thank you very much. the next question i have is for
any of the panelists that would like to respond. what do you think is the likelihood, given historical precedence, likelihood of us ever having to utilize the draft? draft? >> if i may respond to that. i think, whether we use the draft could in some cases could be a matter of choice, but i think when we think about a potential role as a deterrent and contingencies of conflicts, given the challenges that china poses today, i think there's a nonzero probability we could in the near future be in a scenario of national emergency of which we might want to consider using the draft, but i do think that continuing to focus on strengthening the all volunteer force is our imperative in the meantime. if we do, if we see that possibility as likely enough to
be-- to merit serious consideration, then i think we have to tli quite critically how we would ensure that the system could function under demanding conditions and could that take shape rapidly enough. the one alternative could be to have an expedited processes, those who are in the process of the system to be first line or front line of defense and you have critical skills that could be valuable in the early stages or lead up to a conflict such as cyber defense. so i think we need to continue to think about creative solutions by way that the draft is well-suited to the likely contingencies of conflict and competition in the 21st century. >> thank you. other thoughts? >> i'll agree largely with elsa's comments to also say it's low, it will get lower over time. that does not mean we should consider getting rid of the selective service system or
that could bring conscription into the present all volunteer force, as it gets lower over time. i think that places a greater burden on the american government to involve the public, the economy, and other parts of the political elites in conversations about what our national security threats are, how we are meeting them and whether or not we're meeting them adequately with our current u.s. government bureaucracy. >> thank you. anybody else? to say something-- >> just one additional comment, never forget the value of incentivized volunteers. that is always important to go ahead and keep in mind as having incentivized volunteers certainly would come into play as well. >> thank you, sir. >> you know, without getting out of my lane a little bit on where i think norad, north com, where north com would be looking at this, with some of the responsibilities we have with the defense of the homeland. you can see there would be a
time and need and it's been discussed here on critical cyber skills. that may be needed and called forward pretty quickly, both for the military and for our nation for critical infrastructures and really command and communications out there, so you can go, federal, state, local. you can go along the lines of that. i think there's probably other times when, if we're in some sort of major conflict or even major disaster to the united states of america, i think you'd see north com looking for additional capacity and capability that is requested for by federal agents. so if there's a new madrid or cascading, you would need to stop the cascading effects where you'd need that manpower, organized manpower quickly in order to stop those cascading
effects. >> thank you, general. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral, i'm interested in this question on the issue of our preparedness as a nation to meet a significant national security threat that might require a national level of mobilization. the 2018 update to joint publication 4 tech 05, states that quote, military mobilization requires assembly and organization of resources from various interdependent resource areas including legal funding, and environmental manpower and material equipment. i could go on and includes the industrial base as well. who on the joint staff is responsible for conducting that assessment and review of those material requirements? >> commissioner, the -- that
responsibility, there's 12 areas, right. and all the directors have some role in that. for example, the j-3 as identified in the actual manpower requirements, right? the j-4 has a role in the industrial base, et cetera. now, through our readiness reviews of taking our major contingencies, we've looked at all those areas and i feel pretty confident level of understanding what we require in most all of them. there are two areas that i think we as a joint staff warrant additional learning in them. one is health services and the other is the industrial phase, the industrial mobilization.
health services really only from the fact of a major contingency and how we would bring our wounded back for care, and how we stick them into the national disaster frame work. that's not truly been tested in large scale war games scenarios. it's multi-agencies across the federal government. it's civilian hospitals, et cetera. so, that's one area that i think we have some additional learning. >> sure, could i actually redirect it a little bit to help focus this a little bit and i'm kind of responding to the comment that was made about the importance of the american public and national well-being such a critical component to success when we're talking
about an event. and ms. schumman's comment, the general population and folks in industry may not be prepared. i think also of the recent experience with the project maven situation where google employees who would have been working on the defense contract for that indicated their lack of support to pursue and to have their company working in support of a national security project. when you think about the critical requirements that the nation has, the speed of action and the authorities that exist under the defense production act. do you believe in your professional view, that our nation is adequately prepared to execute a national mobilization in response to a significant national security threat? >> so the-- let me get to the industrial base. that's the area that really concerns myself and the j-4.
the chairman has asked that we work with industry. the national defense university is helping us looking to put on, i believe in this fall, a forum where we can get after those issues. it is not-- it's not from a lack of planning, but clearly, we're not going to take factories producing washing machines, making 35's. so that dynamic, that dynamic is whole scale different. the second point i would make is, the thought that we would go to total mobilization. that's a congressional decision, right? and so we would-- you would have that national conversation, so i think you would address in that forum, you would address the national will. like when we turn back to the industrial base, that issue of
speed, our weapons systems are complex, it's not like we're going to turn around and produce a new armored brigade overnight, right? so if there was a force expansion and you are going to have additional armoreded brigades or additional aviation units, you have to make that stuff. right? how would we do that? and that answer, i'd be lying to you, sir, if i had that for you today. >> thank you, admiral. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and again, thank you to our panelists for their very interesting and enlightened both written and oral testimony this morning. i'm going to start with secretary stewart. you mention in your written testimony that the national defense strategy demands greater lethality from our
military. if your view would including women in selective service and therefore potentially including them in conscription or a draft, result in a more lethal military? and i'd appreciate you explaining your answer. >> okay. so as you know, all career paths are open to women within the military, so we basically are looking for standards, as long as those individuals meet standards then we basically are open to them and so as it stands now, every single career path is open to male, female, eastern available out there. >> so am i hearing then that you're saying, yes, it would lead to increased lethality of the military? >> it is already. >> okay, thank you. ...
currently, part of our military mobilization, particularly for our reserve forces, use cell phones to contact people when they're going to mobilize. so how can we make and what strategies do indeed what we need to think about to make our mobilization efforts less vulnerable to our adversaries? >> chinese military strategist have highlighted that a future conflict which has been there will be no clear distinction between the front lines and the home front. we do have to confront seriously
those risks that are critical infrastructure could be in the crosshairs and that the level of disruption that could cause might impede with the process of mobilization in some respects. and china's military thinks about conflict as occurring across a spectrum rather than as a clear binary between this and more time and peacetime preparation including potential developing accuracies that could disrupt our two medications, whether in military effort or those to the american economy and society and communications as it will be important to ensure resilience, have redundancy, and have potential scenarios when were talking a future threats and challenges of those opportunities such as 5g today. i think when we got to think very seriously about our supply chains, the whole process of managing our critical infrastructure and try to
mitigate risk to the extent possible and be prepared and dissipate if there were to be major cyber attacks on the home and we would have to be prepared for a rapid response and w question of fully leveraging the cyber national mission forces was augmenting them to volunteer efforts perhaps from local of units or even leveraging the talents and capabilities of those american technology companies. we will never be able to limit it that possibility but we can think about dedicating and managing risk to the fullest extent possible. >> hanky. >> it i could help answer that although a bit. we do spend, we spent some time on the joint staff thinking through that issue and i do believe my panel member here characterized both china and russia have strategic campaigns to disrupt those types of things. so we are going to have to deal with them. so the homeland will be contested.
we've taken a look at how we project our, and our commercial partners are key to that, draft, visa. we've had classified sessions with him to describe what we mean by contested environment. soviet shared understanding. and the work that we're doing is all about redundancy. and resiliency. there are also some authorities that we do not have today for our cyber area, you know, working off of the dod networks. right, those authorities are not in place. so even if we wanted to do something to protect our commercial partners, other industries, we would have to go ask for those authorities. that came highlighted here, i
won't say recently, but in planning efforts in artwork games and exercises. the chairman specifically as the joint staff to start working on how we would ask for those authorities. so i would recommend that in this forum for the selected service that i really do think you need alternate means. i know indy logistics area people don't like to talk about this, but i routinely say that hey, we need to figure out how to do this without any i.t. unfortunately we are working to those levels and details. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you to all the panelists for joining us today, putting thoughtful energy into your
testimony and to give us your time today. we really, really appreciate it. i want to hit this question. we talked a little bit about whether or not americans would have the will for some sort of mobilization but let me get the lens. ms. kania, he talked about the way the chinese strategists think and especially with the pla is think about full mobilization. can you elaborate or maybe clarify for me, in the size i -- society with the lease only two generations of children, is there any thought to whether the chinese will to send all their only children into an all-out war would actually be there at that time were to come? >> thank you. that's a great question and i think it is important to recogne that although china does certain strengths as competitive they also do have weaknesses and
long-term challenges in terms of demographics and i'd say that we don't have a clear sense of exactly how the level of tolerance for casualties, for instance, that chinese military leaders might have. there is great concern on the part on their part regarding concerns of political psychological mobilization, including campaigns in terms of propaganda, ongoing efforts in patriotic education and development curriculum for national defense education to become committed across chinese universities. i think there is certainly unlikely concern on their part, and even in cases where there have been national disasters or emergencies in china and accidents that have deprived families other only children there has been a huge clash against the government, so i agree that a think we have to recognize that the questions of will will matter on both sides.
and as we've seen the vulnerabilities in our own open information ecosystem that complaisance uniquely at risk, it's clear chinese leaders recognize that also faced challenges in terms of public opinion and are devoting great attention and effort to censorship, propaganda, including new techniques for monitoring public opinion to enable rapid response if there were to be any potential unrest or resistance. and i think he sorts of ongoing initiatives would only be redoubled at time of national emergency in which chinese leaders were trying to mobilize the hold of nation response. >> thank you. so given that sort of scenario, i'm asking ms. schulman and admiral polowczyk, back to the issue of deterrence and whether or not having a selected service system whereby the message to our potential adversaries is
that americans would be all in, can you comment alluded about whether you think that theory is a powerful one or not? >> so i'll just comment briefly. i think it only as powerful theory if the united states government has done all it can to, first of all, prepare itself and perverts of the potential be able to absorb the manpower or technical skill set that it migt need in a possible conflict. on that first point there's enormous unmet requirement by the technical cyber talent technology, a range of other talent. on top of the bank and unmet demand for service amongst young people. those come we haven't figure out how to match this. people want to work in government, government has not figured out you hired in or retain them at a level that would be useful. that's already concerned about our national security policy. in a national emergency that is not going to change.
we may be able to constrict it with high levels of talent, we may not be able to utilize them in ways their effective, absorb them into our national security system or just the kind of basic trying to expand the army. we don't presently have the capacity to be able to absorb a large amount manpower in the army at the love you might need in the competition. that's something others can speak you in greater detail. >> from the joint staff perspective, i'm visualizing this decision support tool that we've created. and that spot on mobilization, there is much discussion on what the messaging is there, whether to do what you said, to show that we really have skin in the
game, if the president, congress were going to authorize massive recall. because of our planning for today, and we've not had the conversation significantly on total mobilization and the use of selective service. so i don't really have specific answer for you there, , but we o look at that mobilization decision point prior to major conflict, and understand what it would do for either escalating or providing that de-escalate tory factors. so it is certainly in our cactus. >> secretary stewart, i see your body language. your something to offer on this topic, thanks. >> think about the process that is good to take to go head-to-head and bring the selective service up. you basically have to go through congress and in the president has to go ahead and signed in
order to go ahead and break a backup. so there's going to be a discussion nationally pixel ultimately to me anyway it is a symbol of power and basically a deterrent i would believe that another country sees that we have our formation working on this particular issue and that it is mobilize and congress and the president have basically said we need to bring this mobilization piece up, the selective service system. >> thank you. i yield. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here and also to the university hosting us. ms. kania, i wanted to follow up on the question about critical infrastructure picky set the next conflict to begin with attacks on a critical infrastructure is it fair to assume that the selective service system, the selective service database, would be a point of attack?
>> i would imagine that it could be a target that, i do think that we secure the data and prevent it for instance, from being corrupted should be a critical concern since substantive matter of daily concert at the potential for targeting of those in that data by adversary intelligence services can for instance, if the information would be compromised but we could envision when we had to leverage the selective service system and we were to find that information within those databases have been in some way compromised, addresses change in names and information scramble in with a difficult to use it. that in and of itself could be a source of vulnerability so i do think recognizing the date is a strategic resource and also a likely target. it's important to keep in mind when you were thinking about the range of cyber judges that we could confront and richard contingencies. >> in that respect doesn't make sense, would it be helpful to
have one database or split that out into multiple databases and create redundancies, as you say, increase the budget for i.t. and security? >> imagine that, i'm not familiar with the specifics of the current management of that database but i would imagine creating great redundancies preps even hard copy if need be and further evaluating and investing in the security of that database could be a vital first step to mitigate the risk that we could see a compromise or corruption of information with in it which as we've heard would be vital to mobilization potential and some of these national emergencies, do think when we think about the system and capability as a deterrent we have to recognize that it would have to be in a broad framework of national mobilization, putting and usher mobilization for the system as a whole to
have that desired effect on the calculus of a potential adversary. >> i wanted to ask you as well and ms. schulman, please, you have spoken about, and many others have, about the quote-unquote changing nature of warfare with a greater reliance on technology. but does that negate the need for ground combat, ground security, massive numbers of individuals who can do lower skilled type tasks? >> i think the answer would depend on the contingencies we're envisioning, and he think in certain scenarios of height in the conflict we could see much greater employment of man and autonomous systems in future warfare. but at the same time we also we seem is recent and ongoing engagement there also will
likely be continued need for ground combat. and it add all in all that i think as technology transforms the character of warfare, a human element and the demand for talent will become all the more vital and all the more critical, including for concepts of human machine team can you need improvements in training across the board. i think we should recognize that there is a possibility albeit a slight one that we could need a large numbers of individuals to be mobilize but i do think we could explore options for a voluntary addition to the program with those of these critical technical skill sets that are most likely to be required and lead up to conflict could be preferentially or expedited in their mobilization in ways that could enable them to provide more front-line supports i think we have to be able to prepare for a range of
options and potential contingencies and recognize that advances in technology, the divans in humid out will only grow but we also have to envision scenarios in which our technology is to grade and a dependency upon it could become a source of vulnerability as well. >> averages at something you probably heard many times in this commission that our ability to predict what future conflict will look like has been a total failure and to be part of history. because it usually misses the fact that politicians and senior leaders with political backers or make your choice of went and where we go to war that only on the american sub it also marks our adversaries. our adversaries study of weaknesses just as we study this. they know that if it was against us a long-term war, they will rely on multiple rotations particularly on ground forces. that would be a weakness for so many ways as with the rollout of other powers because of the nature of our presence all volunteer force.
i would love to go to say a future american political leader will not turn to major deployment of ground troops in order to fight a major combat operation with a great power competitor. i don't have a sense of what the future security and five will look like in such detail that i wouldn't feel confident making that statement no driver since our future political leaders will have the responsibility to see that is not a useful exercise of american power. so we can make these predictions but we can't actually say this is how it will work in the future. >> thank you. ms. shulman, just follow it on on -- i want to sort of make sure an aspect of new testament and then ask you a question about it. as i understand it part of what you're saying is look, we can't rule out the possibility that a mass mobilization is necessary in future, right?
and the selective service, therefore, as i understand it, you are relatively skeptical that the current system is one that actually is capable of affecting the purpose which it was originally set up. but you wouldn't rule out the idea of having a selective service. answer part of what interested you to be saying to us is look, if you're going to have this, and we should have this, then let's make it capable of achieving what is rigidly set out to do. and in that context it almost seems as if part of what you're saying for the future warfare is that it's going to have to be flexible. it's would have to be capable of keeping up, and you noted in your written testimony that exercising it and doing the right things along those lines might be helpful. i wonder if there are specific modification to the current system that you would recommend that with so to promote basically these issues that you have raised? >> i offer a few suggestions and then harken back to other points of access money, saying there
are things happen more and the existing standard government less on the selective service system side. for one, i think that to the degree to be believed we're going to have to rely on -- even in the smallest possible chance, we need to change the system from a passive registration system to something that is a little more active. if only to my people it is there. there. that is part of a broader conversation. that can be done in isolation. i would also say we need to consider that the present economy is vastly different that was and we are for setting up the system. to be able to judge without somebody can move from their come college student or maybe college student or 18-year-old and go into a a soldier role, that's one decision. to judge whether not you can take somebody from a google and height technical position and move them over to a cyber warfare position that's a different kind of decision and to think we would expect a lot of pushback from google or
facebook in the future conflict where we may have different kinds of skill sets that are demanded. considering those changes and developing better models for how you would be able to make this judgment is something that needs to happen. i wouldn't want to recommend that we overdesign the selective service system for all possible kinds of contingencies. we don't necessarily know what that's going to be. what we need to get better at is on the site of the national government is thinking to what our the current requirements we have for national security and are we hiring and retaining and developing those skill sets that we might need in any future contingency was a nut when you do turn to the draft or not. those will help us in future scenario what might you to turn to the draft, be able to inform selective service system about his wealthy judge did important computers what's useful in making these decisions of who would be able to be drafted. enters that we would actually utilize them in the future contingency. i hesitant to say please
reformat exactly does it because i think those reforms will bury based on the snow. your point about exercises is vital not only for the purpose of testing the system but also exposing the american people to this is what this looks like and how it works. your feedback to include your criticism of that is more welcome and this will commission has been useful exercise in doing so. >> thank you. ms. shulman just mention obviously something that also admiral polowczyk, mention which is the importance of building skill sets into the context of the selective service and how we do that. that's not something that is currently looked at in the registration peace. and to wonder if, frankly admiral polowczyk, or major general byrne or assistance secretary james stewart might be willing to comment on that and what your thoughts are on how to address that? >> i can start, commissioner haynes.
today, the services, i don't come on searching for the right word. it's not struggle but we all work towards keeping folks with those types of skill sets, aviation, cyber, intelligence, dod, medical, nuclear, et cetera. there's a plethora of really high demand low-density skill sets. and the services all use varies tools today to try to retain them. notices, retention bonuses, et cetera. we are already working in an environment where said skill sets are important. it is part, if i come back to the comment and question, it is the industrial base tapping into the industrial base and keeping viable the industrial base for
mobilization. it is inherent what are we going to mobilize? i'm not necessarily worried about welders. welders are a precious skill and we are having shipyards today are having problems hiring welders, right? of what is that skill set and what are we going to be asking for an industrial base? that's the learning, how to go do then, what do we really need on health services? there's an aspect of that and there is this industrial base that i'm not quite sure we put enough human capital to understand how to go do that, what we might need. it's not today. we are thinking 2030, 2035, out here so it's not an easy task but it is a task that we are going to undertake. >> can i make one comment on it?
i'm sitting here thinking, you know, a summons was registered for selective service going up when i was 18, the system itself, i look at and it's not a positive system. it's a negative system. so if you don't do it, this is what's going to happen. so when we talk about by yen -- by in the american people a lot of times we need to talk about what's the goodness of this, why should you sign up, instead of if you don't you don't get this or you don't get a job, you don't get financial aid. further yourself to me is a valued u.s. citizen or a valued member of the united states to be able to give back to society. when i look at skill sets, that is the system we need to have the flexibility, that the system
works and not designed around the cyber warrior. we know that electricians are in short supply. so some of those things that we known, we have to be able to leave that to the side as we are saying design a system that can adapt to those things that we know 20, 30 years we wouldn't even have thought of the window with iphone steadily tinges only tinges old and we can't believe, for us, do not a technology in that iphone. thank you. >> i would say we have a total force, we have the reserve components. we have our civilians as well. we have incentives to go ahead and build the team that we need. they are already in place so when we look at the department of defense as a whole, what we tried to do is give these skill sets but may not necessarily fit for that individual, for that particular time. maybe a reserve component might be a better option for for thea
title five civilian versus the active component as a title x. what were trying to do is to find these skill sets can provide incentives to go ahead and keep them, and as long as the demand signal is there that's what we're reacting to end the personal writing this area. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral polowczyk, i'd like to refer to the national defense strategy. from the joint staff perspective, where do we present except risk with respect to four structure and resourcing? >> sure. you know, the joint staff and the charitable as a global integrator, it's not just globally integrated operations around the globe -- sherman's role -- were working towards bringing forward a better budget
perspective. so i think to this as kind of free time horizons, for simply become the stuff we have today. force development, the things that we can do within our budget cycle, so think three to seven years. and then force design, which is out here, right? for the demands of the national defense strategy, protect the homeland, there's all those time horizons. there are constant trade-offs to employ the force today in a manner that reassures allies. there's pressure on doing things differently with what we have today, and then certainly on the
force design. so the department has chosen here, i'll give you an example. over the last couple budget cycles we've put additional resources into munitions, physician guided munitions, because we realized we were maybe not as ready in the air as we should have been. as we put significant resources into munitions for a fight today, readiness issue, i'm sure that money came from one of the other time horizons forced design and force development. i can't list at every budget pressure, but certainly our commitments today across the globe pressurize those areas of design and development.
and design being i think the hardest area to get after. >> thank you. with respect to the framework you laid out, does the selective service system and the potentiality to bring conscripted manpower personnel into either the force out today or that development window affect any of the planning and consideration with regard to the framework? >> so in any of the planning that we've done and taken a look at each adversary and building a globally integrated base plant, we've done that with an all volunteer force, total force that we have today. you know, we cycle through that review session every couple of years. we are not necessarily changing the plan 4/20 35.
that's the force design element. so the plans that we're looking today are formed the stuff we have today, the capabilities we have today, the political leadership outcomes that the leadership wants, right? i can tell you though in that today look, force expansion has not been part of the calculus. >> thank you. i'll yield back, mr. chair. >> thank you. thank you all. this is a really enlightening discussion. i want to build off of the last question that my colleague asked in terms of the selective service system. so we have as part of our mandate to look at selective service system and how would we modernize it. it was put back in place 40 years ago. and as you all mention the world has dramatically changed. i like all of you to comment on
this but major burn, image and it's a very passive system, kind of negative. what would you to make it more active, more positive and also do you have recommendations as we think about it for granted modernize what else should we do ask you mentioned the need for certain skills, cyber, electricians, medical, et cetera. some thoughts on if you were us what changes would you recommend if you're going to keep selective service? i guess i would start with major byrne. >> well, let's see. so as i was talking about before, i think it's important it be again a positive system. so have you designed this is got to look at if i'm a young person wanting to serve, no matter in what capacity, where is it that my bounty on bringing to the table as an individual, you know, and that's hard for the system that is going to go into. so i think that would be the main thing i'm looking at the
system we have no which does not reward you to come forward because there's a lot of options out there for people as those always been. and so that would be the first thing. the second thing i mentioned would be the system. you got to go back and look at the system. of course as you said it's back to the 1980s when actually put this forward for a reason with president carter at that point. to what has changed and what has changed is that we as has been mentioned we are a little bit more vulnerable now and we've all talked about it, cyber as we go along. we have to look at that system. i always think, and we go through some natural disasters scenarios and what we can use one once was that of bit of research in order to bring the force forward, force platforms, those kinds of things. then i was look at what do we have that still doesn't use the technology of today as we would like to see it but deliver what
they've always done. and i go back to a system that we've had from the beginning of time which is the u.s. postal service. they have technology. they use that but when the rain and snow and they keep delivering, it's because they go back to the old system. if are going to look at that we've got to look at also where -- i don't go back in time but with systems out there are working? if you're going to deliver some notification to somebody educate get of my cell phone, you can get it by e-mail, the u.s. postal service is going to get it to you. to some of those things i think we have to look back and maybe look back the 1950s. i was born in the 1960s. the civil defense force. there is a lot of good programs had going on for the whole of the nation in order to build resiliency. i think summer along that we have to look at the system and be able to build that back into it. >> thank you. other thoughts from any of our
witnesses today on what you do to modernize or change the selective service system? >> just a quick thought. i do think that there's a need to understand the workforce of the day and labor, the skill sets. i just go back to my own service and take my joint hat off for a moment. the navy has been some vocal and try to get legislation to bring in folks at a much more senior-level to use them, let them serve, and then returned industry. i think we really have to think through, it is not -- selective service asserted back here and the horizon. where are we today and what i we really looking for? and maybe more skill set focused. that's a job --
[inaudible] i do think that there's a moniker of a changing pace of technology and changing industry that we have had a changing labor and workforce that is not just conscription based. >> can add to that on the skill sets? because i wanted to piggyback on that from the department of defense perspective. so in the report that we provide in 2017, we actually have a look at skill sets and this might be a model as to go ahead and use for say cyber and other areas. it was in healthcare profession of delivery system. it's another model of induction of persons with special skills and qualifications that we put forward already. and so if you use that as a model for the other skill sets that are out there, that would be a good starting point i think as far as capturing cyber and some of the other areas. >> i which is added that come to augment my earlier comment, the original purpose of the
selective service system is hard enough to actually meet that mission. do not expand the mission, either the stated mission of the selective service system or the benefit that it is meant to acquire, unless that expansion is going to help you meet that original mission. there's a lot of really good ideas out about how to expand public service that had augment people service about military national service. sometimes though strange how we might change the selective service system such it will either become more interested or become more invested you to mandatory national service. those are great ideas. it's hard enough to do the selective service system. let's get that right first. >> as i mentioned, i agree completely with many of the points race i think it's important to think as was mentioned about options for service, quality initiatives and positive incentives for i think when you think about national mobilization from a hole of mission perspective we also have to look beyond the selective
service system and ink in particular about the demands of industrial mobilization and beyond the great efforts of the joint step on the spear i don't think with a single national authority with the responsibility to take leadership in a coordinating the functions that could be required for a national industrial and technological mobilization. so i do think china has a national defense mobilization commission with a structure that extends down to the very local level, and regular exercises and attempt to get you and to innovate in the system. so think we might look back to our own history and some of the paradigms that china is creating today and try to find options to stay much more beyond purely military mobilization and the ways to improve selective service, how we think much more far-reaching than that what elevation mobilization take within social dimension of this look like in the future. >> thank you.
i yield, mr. chairman. >> thank you. that concludes the first round of questions. we will die fight into the segment. ms. kania, there's been a lot of discussion about the perceived determine value of the selective service system to a potential adversary. since 1994 dod has been saying that the draft services, that deterrent. i i want to know in your study specifically with your interest in china, whether or not any references use national mobilization has appeared in any references from our near peer powers, and how my potential competitors react if we were to spend registration up with the selective service system in deep standby like it was before, even -- is the concept of total national mobilization only fulfilled i haven't having thee service system? can we still portray deborah
committed to a total national mobilization event of a national security emergency but not message of having a preevent selective service registration system compared to china our total forces roughly equal to 10% delta in total force. i think anybody would agree that a war of attrition with china probably does not bookable based on total population for us. so your thoughts on true deterrent value and if it can only be met through a pre-registration for selective service. >> i think deterrence is in the might of apposite potential adversary i would say. when we think about long-term competition with china and some of these scenarios about my conflict. i think we should recognize that the selective service system could have relevance in some of these worst-case scenarios that hope will never come to pass, but in order to maintain deterrence and enforce stability in the region including limiting the chinese leaders intention
potentially regarding taiwan and otherwise, i do think we should preserve the selective service system looking to modernize it for all of the reasons mentioned in this conversation as the means of intent to do think think we also have to think anymore, about developing more of a comprehensive framework for national mobilization beyond simply that of military manpower so i think looking at these and social and technological elements of it, chewing the surety of our supply chain, for instance, taiwan is a critical of of manufacturing capability for semiconductors and i think we need to think about the level of risk in a global supply chain and ways to diversify and build our own indigenous capability in manufacturing including in function like shipbuilding. if we were to think that maintaining the overall national capacity for mobilization in a thick and reinforced deterrence and also demonstrate the credibility of our alliance commitments in the region. and as i mentioned in my spoken written test when i think
exercises, perhaps harkening back to the president and to demonstrate our capability to mobilize rapidly and project and sustain power distance given the concerns of logistics, sealift and otherwise. i think that could be when we do for the reinforced deterrence and demonstrate critical in a way i hope can be stabilizing in a complex and competitive relationship with our rivals today. >> you made regarding selective service registration being seen as kind of a negative event as opposed apposite event. you get penalized if you don't do it. and again the idea that dod feels it helps to close that the five i think the between all volunteer force potential for a future draft again as to become the vast majority agenda register do it when they're applying for financial aid and they get to the box that says have you registered for selective service? to be checked know if automatic
brings you to the registration page before you can proceed, or when they go to get the drivers license for the first time. riesling article came out we see fewer millennials axa getting drivers licenses because the out not to drive. one of the primary pathways to registration seems to be diminishing. what are your thoughts on how to make it a positive experience as opposed to a negative experience? >> i hope there's a lot more opinion that might on how to make it a positive system. as we go here, but you know, i think for me it has to be simple. the simpler it gets -- i'm not going to get a really good answer on this as a go along as to what to change in the system, as we go. but is there somewhere along the line if i sign up, you know, there's a positive reward for
that. you know, we talk about the service and we talk about in the military side the incentives we have to sign up or to retain. so if you're looking for the skill sets, and there's an opportunity to use selective service to identify the skill sets and we see this come forward, there is an opportunity to go hey, we do have something in the u.s. government or local to be able to use your skills and server nation. does that appeal to you? and if it does, then here's what we're going to do for you. were going to pick a quarter a semester for school, whatever it is what that does bring value to whatever you do you have to bring value to the individual. we've all grown up with his thee individual liberties and this is what we struggle with, between the liberties we have as u.s. and then we have the u.s. government that sometimes has to balance between the individual liberties and what's good for the nation we bring forward. that would be my recommendation.
thanks. >> assistant secretary, thank you. deputy director military policy breach of the commission on planned inscription that with us and-18,000 registrants of a nationwide during the mobilization. the current stations are currently resourced and staff for current -- [inaudible] the currently 100,000 100,000 conceivability service. you think the map station at the billy to meet the increased demand is, in fact, a total mobilization was called? >> so obviously it will bring up selective service, we will have time to go ahead and bring on the experts that we need to go ahead and fill that requirement. i'm assuming we're going to have the manpower and the money to go ahead and have both the facilities and the manpower to process them. currently as a said 14, 18,000 is what they can go ahead and
process. if we have locations and manpower to go ahead and meet the demand signal which we will have enough time to go in and do with the amount of time that we will have with bring up the selective service at that time, yes, , ma'am, think again. >> so expectations the department use contractors were as opposed to in total but say reserve reserve components given decisions that are currently may be made in the department? >> so ultimately we would have a reserve and also contracted peace. that would be basically be used to go and bring that capability to capacity. we are anticipating both military, which is the reserve fees and the natural contractors as well. >> when the department makes decisions in terms of force structure, the total mobilization, partial mobilization part of the consideration that is made in determining force structure? >> so force structure itself is
based on the current demand signal. so ultimately it is based on the operations plans which the joint staff basically provides. and so it's all based on that demand signal. so currently it's not set up for a full mobilization. using the selective service. current plans use all of our forces that we have come all the reserve component of the active component forces out there would be utilized in that demand signal now. not needing any additional manpower from the selective service. that's what it is set up for right now. ultimately what you getting at is, if our old plants don't match what the demand signal is out there, which is more force that will be anticipated, that's the insurance policy and that's the benefit of having the selective service here is to draw the manpower when you need it. >> i just want to continue a
bit. setting aside the draft and the need for congress to actually implement a draft, the way the selective service system is fully set up, doesn't seem to meet some of i guess actors had been raised by some of the other panels here today -- doesn't. is it time that we look at a different construct is, in fact, the department needs something that is more flexible and more efficient come something that is more skill-based that the selective service system currently cannot provide? >> so again that's another organization saw not going to tell them how to restructure themselves, but if i could go ahead and have an input to that, i would ask them to concentrate on certain skill set. these are the skill sets i will need in a a time of war that ae necessary for us to win. so that's, if i were to provide them an input it would be in that particular area skill sets, a deacon screened them and provide me the manpower that i
need to fulfill our requirements that would be beneficial to us. >> and can you provide the skill sets today, potential skill sets that are needed today? >> -- the individual skill sets -- >> yes. old meet in aries women need help, i would use cyber come for instance, cyber warriors. in time of need we would basically need expertise along with medical. i'm sure we would need at that time as well. so those are two areas, cyber and medical that we would need help and i would ask them to going to focus their attention on. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. general byrne, working with our allies and partners, i would appreciate your reflection on any international concerns there might be about u.s. resolve, if
we eliminated the selective service. >> i would say, you know, that our allies and partners look at united states and united states, to the time in need. and i believe right that if you look around the globe that our allies, partners and our friends believe that the u.s. is going to come to the need. and that resolve i think is important to maintain, and if we would eliminate one of those aspects what may influence their thinking as the united states change the resolve, i do not going to come when we need it. i think that's what we need to make sure that if we do change
certain things about we project our in u.s. around the world, and selective service would be one aspect of that, if needed. we would need to be able to communiqué to our allies and friends of what we have changed. really why we made it better, why we were going to be able to do more for them, which means more for us also as we do this allies and partners around the world. >> assistant secretary stewart, perhaps i could ask you a similar question in terms of international allies and partners. which you have concerns about the projection of that for u.s. resolve, if we indeed eliminated the selective service? >> as you know i can't speak for them, but i would think that it would have an impact on the because, again, it is one way in which, one letter we can go ahead and just to show that we
mean business with other countries -- one lever -- they might be somewhat alarmed but i can't speak for them. >> in the other panels want to reflect -- ms. schulman. >> allergist at a quick point that getting rid of our selective service system would require a lot of vesting to alice a part of the many avenues conscription like a basement the needs of the military on an annual basis is up in the amount of national security needs, not only for the security services but for other purposes nationally. so do have like many of them do not understand how we manage our all volunteer force and of the selective service system works is against that. it would require attorneys amount of messaging and reassurance not because of the actual impact it has but because a lot of the education i would have to take place in order to do so and in some ways it would be a bigger drag and hotel to explain than the actual impact itself. >> i would just emphasize that
would also resolving critical in the minds of our potential adversaries and competitors, and because they will try to undermine our will and resolve including with regard to the credit of our commitment, from particular contingency such as defense of taiwan and otherwise and our alliance so i think we're to recognize that both demonstration of our resolve and try to mitigate any in certain that might be in the minds of chinese are dedicated to these allies commitments across the board will be an important factor going forward. selective service is one part of that but certainly continue to demonstrate our will and capabilities i think will be important going forward. >> great. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. secretary, not to pick on you or anything, but i think it would be instructive for us to get a sense of how the all
volunteer force came into being, and specifically for what purpose was it designed? >> from my limited knowledge, 73, vietnam, the draft, that taste in the mouth in the country as a result of that we basically went to the all volunteer force. i was in high school and 73. i was a part of that fall into force as as a rotc student at auburn university in 1977. served 37 37 years and all volunteer force. i think it's very, very important that we do have this in place. and why we did this was we didn't want to go ahead and have the draft in place where individuals felt like they were unfairly, unfairly taking the burden on of defending the country. and thus it was easy to go ahead and incentivize individuals like myself to go ahead and serve their country.
and so i think that the movement from the draft to the all volunteer force since 1973 has been very, very successful. in that we been able to go ahead and provide the force that we need to go ahead and take on our adversaries, and its proven itself and worthy of the attention that was put forward to bring this about in every single conflict that we've had since vietnam. >> and it's also my understanding that it was not designed to be, to deal with ongoing permanent warfare, is that correct? >> i'm not necessarily sure that that's correct. because i'm not sure of, whatever they formulate all volunteer force whether that was one of the reasons why. i do know they wanted to go in and have forced the basically did not have a draft and so the one to try to do it with volunteers. and as i said it's been very successful in meeting our
nation's requirements. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. shulman, i want to continue some of the discussion about this whole issue of the national will to support when necessary the mobilization of the nation in response to national security threat, and earlier several of the other panelists commented on that deliberative process definition must take come both a process that would exist as admiral polowczyk, described within the executive branch in the department to determine what kind of resources and requirements might be required that go above our current capabilities in resourcing. and then also there's the political part that involves the actions of the congress would have to be approved by the president and sign into law. but you offered in your earlier comments kind of a tantalizing
question that gets to the third part of our nation, and that is the preparedness of the american public. you mentioned that you might have some thoughts on leica k-12 curriculum. and i'm interested in what you might think the nation to do in this area, not any idea of militarizing our young people, but to better awaken this sense of national purpose, the opportunities to serve in a very broad sense, to make military, national and public, and how we might better prepare young people when they become of age to make informed decisions about how and where they might serve their nation. >> so i will mention a few things in response to that. first, i think in terms of to step back a little come in terms of national will we need to recall that the draft has become
increasingly unpopular over the last 40 years or so, even during vietnam, dress is very unpopular, the work continued. korean war or two draft was somewhat popular. politicians don't necessary patent national will win a a making decision about use of force, the politico conscription and they don't necessary make decision whether or not to curtail those conflicts. in corollary to that is that, if you can trust point is that the american people over all are increasingly favor of a foreign restraint policy by the united states, and the rationale for that is questionable. is it because we didn't work for 20 is? visages are national tennis as a nation? just not enough study in my view to make a final statement of what the reason behind that is. next thing i would say is that when you look at how the federal government recruits people into
its service, this system is in large part delegated to i i wod call human capital, human resource managers and very distant from actual people who were serving the nation on a day-to-day basis. as the result people come somebody who was in college or in grad school or one to serve the american people are not put in direct touch with somebody sg like this to work think of it for ten years or so millican of the folks on the panel the might provide a better perspective on here's what it's like to serve, here are your opportunity, here's the axis. we have cut off those who perform the mission on a day-to-day basis from the american people and made what the deal less transparent, less accessible and less understandable to folks in college and folks in k-12 and folks in our broader economy. we need to reverse all of those tendencies. starting with making with the federal government does more transparent for the american people. making, having the more involved in recruitment efforts to bring
in talent, bring in talent to serve in u.s. government and increasing our civic education susceptible of the better understanding of american history, american involved in the world. the plus and minus store military intervention in foreign policy intervention and expose them to a broader sense of why it is we have investment of 700 billion and the department of defense, for better or worse. why we have $1 trillion investment in national security is at the expose people to want into leak into government. if you want a better understanding, but access to the american people in terms of having been be willing to serve in some form or fashion when he differs from exposure what it is we do everyday and we need to stop region as a that needs to be a secret come to start with having better briefings at the department of defense. my colleagues can carry that back. to directly to america people at the president what it is when gauging and right now. i could go on at length so i will stop there. >> no, thank you very much for that because we have certainly
heard there's a tremendous need to improve the general awareness to things like civic education in our nation, to make the american public better informed, as you said, through transparent processes and ultimately for them to intelligent exercise their sacred right to vote. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. .. as a reasonable way of being able to infuse critical skills into the military. my question is when i think
about that system, one of the things that makes that doable. they are licensed by a state. it is easy, maybe not easy but it is possible to reach into those licensing systems within eight days, to provide that information. my question is, when i think about other critical skills, when i think about cyber or some of the other critical skills even when we get into the industrial base, how would you propose developing a similar system for those critical skills that are not tied to a license or a certification.
the certification may be in a society versus the state. i would appreciate your thoughts and anyone else's, how would you do it for nonlicensed critical skills? >> it is a professional organization you would have to go after and get those individuals in your cyber and other specialties we are looking for. the professional organizations, in the area of healthcare they are all licensed as far as legal help. they are licensed. how do we reach out and grab those individuals, as you said from professional organizations. it's the only way with those lists and certifications we have out there. >> any other panelists thoughts? in your written testimony you
talked about additional enhancements, you talked about voluntarily alternative for registrant to choose the status of frontline service within the system which could involve inclusion in separate listing, would be the first to mobilize for a contingency. think about that concept and talk about that and what you were thinking when you were discussing that? >> i think he was in line with the conversation. and the challenge of identifying those who have this expertise and experience, and there are positive alternatives and leveraging volunteer initiatives who may hope to contribute in a time of national emergency and giving them a channel to do so and in terms of identification you
have skill sets involuntarily augmented processes in which you self identify, language skills or technical proficiency and that is supposed to be one way to deeper to the expertise of those and the model the chinese military had but a number of militias building up at lower levels and those who may have had experience in industry and engineers thinking about developing the types of militias, we could look for whether continuing to augment the reserve national guard or new opportunities to leverage those with dedicated service and give them options with greater flexibility and a fool career as national public servants. >> do you think voluntary service, somebody coming forward to go first, would that
need to be incentivized? >> there could be certain incentives in the system. perhaps options in terms of education or looking at precedents we have used that are all volunteer forces and also augmented with annual optional program of training and education so when we think about the production required to mobilize human capital, there are those in the system that have experience and have been through the processing, prepared to register and they are demonstrating preparedness in ways that reinforce the credibility of the system as one element of the overall deterrent as a demonstration of resolve, having new options in the system and also recognizing the core purpose would be for other circumstances. you can imagine the new track
or tear, thinking about natural disasters or national emergency beyond the contingency or large-scale conflict. i'm not an expert on the selective service system but it is something to consider on the boards of identifying critical skill sets. >> thank you. >> i would like to dig deeper on this issue. we talked about skill sets and leveraging the talent of the american people in times of crisis. in both your testimony, assistant secretary, and you talked about things like fairness that our system should be flexible, scalable and fair and you talked about the idea in the past, people who were unskilled, everybody should be
on the hook no matter who they are or where they come from because of the issues of fairness and you talked diversity and inclusion in a similar vein. how do you balance that sort of societal requirement with what we were talking about in terms of tapping skill sets? >> the long-term challenge of strategic competition is a potential adversary but not in evitable he, thinking about peacetime mobilization for this competition and recognizing what the report thinks of the nation relative to the size of the chinese economy or population and i do believe it makes for a prospective of
diversity and inclusion and welcoming those who are inspired to serve. should be court to how we think about leveraging the talents of the american people and immigrants who could contribute critically to the national defense and building on the long tradition of immigrants serving in the us military with honor and distinction so there's certainly a question of fairness when we think about how the system, the selective service that is universally applicable and ensures that all americans have been in the game or have a stake in international defense, that is important but first and foremost we need to think about leveraging those who desire to serve and in some cases being excluded from doing so for reasons that are directly correlated with the capacity to make critical contributions to the national security. first and foremost recognizing who we are and how to embrace diversity as strength relative
to competitors with other potential systemic advantages. >> let me piggyback on the fairness, skin in the game, obviously key. not everyone will meet the skill set requirements and everyone has an obligation in my view to serve their country. the fairness piece gives everyone the opportunity to serve in a random way. the fairness piece i was looking at is it is random in nature and you want to make sure it is set up for a fair process and the way the selective service is set up, random drawing, basically based on the age group you have that you are looking for but to the fairness piece, everyone should be a part of the process itself. we are worried about some skill sets but we have shortages and ultimately everyone we want to serve. >> my other question is for the other panelists.
the uncomfortable emerging consensus, the homeland is no longer a sanctuary or emerging potential scenario. i don't know if americans to your point are educated about that potentiality. how does this affect the calculus with regards to selective service and the logistics of the scenario of the homeland is under threat, potentially compromised, and how to think about activating a prescription model. >> starting on this a little
bit with your comment as the homeland is no longer a sanctuary. north from has come forward. the homeland is no longer a sanctuary. based on the national strategists that come out and order where the new pairs are and threat out there where the international parties are, and see that there is going to be a risk to the homeland. there is always a risk to the homeland by the competitor, as far as nuclear weapons. we see a competitor out there for activity that threatens the homeland. how it affects the selective service will affect all aspects of the government. we talked a little bit about how to have a resilient system in order to call up that we needed that.
our national leadership made certain discussions, catastrophic event has happened to make us get to the selective service because we jumped through a number of hoops at that point. and we looked at selective service. and american people committing to this. is going to be any event just like 9/11. and we won't have to worry as much as we think we do about the national commitment we are worried about. if that will happen we mobilize and then a number of things, the nation is at risk and people will see that come forward.
>> in your prepared questions as was mentioned again in the discussion, the potential need to declassify some of the scenarios, major operational challenges for the us military, in the national defense commission, when putting of the national defense strategy, i bring that up because were they to be declassified and discussed broadly the american people would be surprised that a number of those scenarios are ones in which there are not strong or well-planned out operational concept and innovations that allow all volunteer forces to succeed in those scenarios. especially they took place simultaneously or other factors are going on or there may be political factors going on that prevents is having success
there. i raise that because your point about the homeland being a surprise to the american people there is a tendency in discussing national defense to discuss the us military, we never lose, at all successes, and wonderful things that are great about us and those things can be true and acknowledging weaknesses, challenges we have experienced in the last two decades of conflict. and catastrophic losses, and part of that list of national defense strategy, we have a better conversation about the fact that $700 billion of investment in all volunteer force is not 100% insurance policy against threats to the american people. those are conversations it should be okay to have. if you look at what the secretary of defense or joint chief testifies before congress, it is not the tenor of the conversation. i understand why but we are talking about defense in a different way than we need to be, going forward.
>> thank you. >> i think the admiral wants to respond. >> i pose this to anybody who would like to take a shot at it. we are going through this, we have all spoken about the knowns and unknowns, the inability to predict what is coming next. we are going through this process of selective service based on that fact. we don't know if it is coming. in reality, if we do go to mobilization, it will be the congress that outlines in that draft legislation, what is needed and not needed. do these systems exists and is
their capability if selective service and the preregistration did not exist for us to reach into the population based on what congress put in the draft legislation, those resources that are needed. could they do that through the draft part of it rather than the preregistration or do away with the preregistration. >> i'm more familiar with the status of us planning, the chinese military and chinese leaders thinking about options to collect better data, have greater understanding of resources available. and and better data and
artificial intelligence, and and rapid deployment of response. and artificial intelligence could be transformative, not necessarily a frontline function as a means of supporting the cord needed scheduling and mobilization of the range of resources that could be required. something to consider. >> i will add that bernie will be testifying later this week, he had the concept of face-to-face registration he believes would not only work well in the scenarios under discussion but also have a greater response in national emergency. he is the expert in all things
related to selective service and this would be a good line of inquiry. >> my only input would be what would be the cause for the new setup when you have something that is provided a service, but if congress were to do that, there would be some substructure and some sort of processes, and those are my questions. >> related questions, and that preregistration were voluntarily, that would be an effective system. assuming our political leaders but into it and do their part to inspire young people to
register, sign up, offer their skills so that we had not only an all volunteer force but in all voluntary backup force that could because upon. general? >> my first thoughts are i don't think so. that would be my first thought. if i talk about desire, commitment, skin in the game. talking somewhere, education schools, there would have to be acknowledgment that living in this country there are requirements of living in this country. one of those comes to the defense of the nation when there's a great need and there could be a time, and they are not needing that but select the service, i would be hesitant not to have something that is not a requirement.
would need to be, no part of living here in the united states. >> the quality of the system, the duty of all americans, women will be included, when thinking about the requirements of future conflict and all positions are open to women. there is no reason not to call and women equally in this process and if we were to explore alternatives, continuing the equal flexibility to all americans, provided the marginality and military service, civil defense and other forms of supporting the nation in a national emergency that does not involve military options. there is something to be said for all americans having
responsibly and duty in these contingencies extreme emergencies. >> thank you. >> one question. we have heard -- i don't think anybody's testimony is contradicted but the likelihood of the need of mass mobilization draft, and selective service registration system and insurance policy. can you tell me about the likelihood of the need for skilled draft. >> clarify what i was going to say. >> a draft, a doctor draft and cyber draft, a draft for a specific skill set you might need to target.
>> we got into the skill sets, what may or may not be required. it is important to put an analogy of a football team and you need a number of players on the team so you as a coach were owner and manager of the team. you want to have the ability to build a team with players that won your requirement to win the game. two is not limit who you can put in what position so you would like to have broad-based -- in order to get the skill sets to put a tackle or wide receiver and also depending on who is on the other side of the field as you do your analysis this will change between this competitor or this near
competitor or one or the other three or whoever comes up in the future. that would be important as we talk about what we need. we need to have players out there to build a team that make sense for the coach, the manager, more dependent on him in that game. >> we need to insert into that scenario the potential that the united states has requirements whether it be doctors or cyber technicians or electricians or whatever it is. unless it is a true emergency where they show up tomorrow, they have other mechanisms to bring skill sets whether they are contacting, recruiting or something else. if there's a need to conscript those skill sets, a scenario in which there is resistance in the skill sets to come on board.
is the pad not going to be enough? the emergency is not radical enough? their present job needs them more, with the american people is going to need them. if you need a service system that can help make judgment, your labor is more valuable working for the state than it is working for whatever entity they work at the time. that is in theory what this is set up to do sort of but not for the skill sets, the system in that scenario -- >> let me give one dimension to that. what is not been talked about, the written statement, the mechanisms and authorities had a few minutes today to buy stuff and so there may be a
theme between what we contract for services and the growth in-house service contracting has essentially eaten up more than 50% of the dollars spent in acquisition. there might be a theme in connection for how and what. we contracted in times of need to understand the dimensions we are looking for. i would be hard-pressed to tell you, i think skill sets sitting here today, would like to design a system to meet the needs of 30, 40 years in the future but you may have a benchmark of a mechanism to keep pace. >> i yield the rest of my time. >> thank you, mister chairman.
it has been stated previously by my colleagues and folks on the panel, we're pretty much in capable or haven't got the next one right, when talking about mobilization, it is unexpected. the most recent example of that is desert storm where the reserves were brought into play without long-term notice or expectation if they were brought to bear. that was not a particular success story with the reserve, several combat brigades were seriously deficient in terms of training and material readiness but it is about personnel, mobilization to talk about the medical and dental readiness and significant chunks of those
formations. what have we done in 30 years to avoid that? folks in the all volunteer force that we planned to bring to bear that are ready to put into play. >> the investment in readiness is a byproduct of the things you mentioned. currently the joint staff in these reviews we are currently using tools to understand the bench strength that we have and how ready they are for what. i can give you a dimension of the problem, this was 1993 and the president asked us to do north korea we would have given the commander everything he asked for.
we are not in the same place today. back in 93, didn't have a research in russia, didn't have iran. so the force has global commitments. any contingency today, the joint force will have to deal with that contingency and balance across the globe in that capacity. we realize we need a mechanism to understand the strength we have, the tools that do that and the readiness mechanisms. i can't comment on individual readiness of individual reserve units but i agree that the strength of our reserves is the
strength of their readiness and i can tell you the force employment horizon in that readiness against a fair shake is the budget cycle. >> thank you. do you have anything to add? >> i want to make the point the reserve components of been integrated ever since that time. there were lessons learned from desert storm, desert shield, desert storm. units weren't training together, they didn't have proper equipment and we are using the same type of equipment, we are doing that in a coordinated fashion, we have been going ahead and working with active-duty counterparts out there. there are things with the
coordination efforts and lessons learned associated with desert shield, desert storm, we did not have equal, manpower, training to the same standards. all of those have changed. >> policies and procedures with individual members. >> held to the same standards. >> was that the case before? >> not necessarily. in policy it was but not actual practice. you are seeing it now, they are working with active-duty counterparts. and trained to the same standards. >> i am intrigued, classifying the scenarios. and a strong argument you are making.
the first part just for you, what is the argument against the classifying those and if you need to move to mass mobilization and what should we be doing in peace time to prepare? >> quick clarification. they are necessarily ones with mobilization but they are operational challenges. for the current force. there is potential for not having the the primitive defense declassified but a broader defense community, and i will not do so in this for him. and rather than the a/d thread which doesn't mean anything to a lot of people.
the same reason for the defense strategy which i recommended several years ago. our adversaries are reading how we prioritize and what we are taking risks. there's got to be a balance of conversation in terms of the most sensitive issues that can be held at a highly classified level, and where we are taking risk and where we are concerned about readiness as opposed to the need, and to implement strategy against those to invest in a force that is ready for doing so. & it could read as well as i can and the national defense strategy. without doing so, the other argument against it was it
allowed us more candid conversations what the strategy was, how is this going to read to china, nato, the mac in public and congress and that is a useful mechanism and without these conversations. >> what would be the most important thing and how to prepare for that during peacetime? >> with this time, anyone else want to take a swag? >> everybody knows communicate communicate communicate. and every disaster, a lot of scenarios in the power curve and don't have a message out there.
and the reasons they would like to counter the message. for not understanding and how some preselected mission assignments that come up but we know we will need the capability at this time and as quickly as we -- and to translate those messages into some prescriptive, to get ahead of the curve on things for adversaries not have an understanding of. and some benefit to do both that are being said here could be prescriptive and come out with the right person saying it to communicate that to mobilize
selective service, those kind of things. >> testing likely vulnerabilities, for mobilization and economic or industrial mobilization to see our own plans, and point the favor that are likely networks, and with those vulnerabilities with preparedness, and with conflict in the years to come. >> with the industrial space - mobilization there, how we mobilize the innovation base. long scale conflict or
long-term conflict with a thinking adversary, we need to figure out how to get to the capacity to animate. that is where i see it needs to be figuring out without mobilizing the industrial base and what that would look like, with the innovation base to be ahead of our thinking. >> the public-private partnership, we think about technology companies that are critical to innovation base going forward and exploring the new mechanisms, to engage stakeholders and solicit their inputs, it could be worth considering as well. >> it is slightly more ephemeral but the current distance between the american people and all volunteer force addressed in peacetime with any
conflict with our self in and if you ask the american people, 60% say they have direct connections to the military. and to have a direct connection to the military, let's have more people service. the ways to increase the transparency, what the military doesn't increase opportunities and engagement, senior defense leaders at the high school level. the other thing that needs to be work on is the trust in the national security state. from both parties on the floor of the senate and floor of the house, have people talking about a deep state and whether it can be trusted and whether we should believe the assessment and recommendations that come out of it. we see ourselves in a national security emergency in the next
5, 10, 20 years i worry about a scenario in which the american people are fundamentally and trusting of the people working on its behalf in the intelligence committee and state department and elsewhere. congress as well, to do a lot, the patriotism of the folks sitting at these desks, what they do on behalf of the american people, a lot of things on a day today basis. secretary stuart, mister young, general baer, thank you very much, we appreciate your time and expertise and thank you for providing valuable information to the commission. if there's one common theme it is that we can't predict the future. reminds me of a quote to west point cadets when it comes to protecting nature and location of the next military engagement, record has been perfect. we have ever gotten it right. you are welcome to take seats
in the front row and invite the public to provide comments. the commission is committed to transparency and openness with the public in keeping with these pencils, the commission intends to provide the public with an opportunity to deliver public comments during our hearings. as a reminder, to provide the greatest opportunity with many participants to offer a comment, public comment is limited to a 2-minute period per person it is noted on our website. sign up for public comment, took place between the opening of her just ration and the start of this hearing. when you sign up you received a ticket to ensure fairness, tickets were randomly drawn. we call on 5 ticket number that a time and ask when your number is called please come forward and make a line behind the microphone to my right, your left and provide your comment. to my left, you're right, you will see ticket numbers in the order you should rent. if time does not offer your oral, we encourage you to summit your written comment.
if you have any written statements you would like to submit for the record, please provide staff at the registration desk. i invite the following ticketed individuals up to the mic to provide comments, 024263129, and 28. if all five would come up, form a line. 24, 26, 31, 29, 28. during your comments be aware of the lights in front of me. the light will turn yellow when you have 30 seconds remaining in red when expired. you hear a buzzer. please introduce yourself to the commission with your name and affiliation before starting your comment. you have two minutes. >> good morning. i am a major general of the united states army, retard, i with the all volunteer force for him and appreciate the plug when i heard the term skin in
the game. my comment is although i agree with what i heard, the sense of the others, selective service should stay in place as a result of mass mobilization. i suggest to the commission, absence mass mobilization also have a problem with all volunteer force. the canary in the coal mine historically. last year the army started with a goal of 76,500 and was absolutely reduced to 70,000.
how much money we throw at, in terms of incentives, and catastrophic failure of the all volunteer force, i would like to go on the record with response to secretary stuart abstained the all volunteer force is successful. in my judgment the all volunteer force, unfair, inefficient, to the civil military gap, to the militarization of us foreign policy. introduce your self, name and affiliation you have two minutes. >> my name is bill galvin and i'm counseling coordinator. the center on conscience and war was founded in 1940 by churches concern how badly conscientious objectors were treated during world war i. a piece of history that almost everyone should be aware of
especially folks considering the future of selective service. i want to talk about a religious pacifist community who like many came to the united states seeking freedom to exercise freedom of religion including their beliefs. those that came shortly before world war i had assurances from president wilson they would not worry about conscript and for at least 50 years. when the registration requirement happened, these were law-abiding people, they registered under the law at that time. they were drafted in the military. if you were a conscientious objector you can apply to combat service and if your convictions that i can't do any of this, they were court-martialed, brutally treated, it is all about their experiences in world war i that
includes first-hand accounts from many people who were brutalized. there's a picture one of them drew. there is actually a brick at the museum memorializing those that were killed during world war i. by the u.s. army and the us military prisons. during world war ii. a military base wanted to expand to some of their land. they would not sell to the military. when the government exercised them, took the land and sent them a check, refused to accept the check and that is how deeply these folks believe in their beliefs. they came here in summer of 2017, i took them to the selective service. they said clearly if the draft is extended to women they will violate that law. >> we call 24, 6, 26, 31, 29,
28, folks had their questions answered or departed, numbers 30, 25, 27, please come up to the mic. >> i am currently us air force retired, senior advisor to sos america which is service over self. retired air force officer and business consultant, concerned with the need for renewal of the country, i commend the sos america initiative as a part, hopefully a big part of the
solution to modernize the selective services. free mobilization registration would meet our need to track completion of a new national service requirement. using the selective service system is cost-effective since it would be unnecessary to develop a new system to support the sos military requirement. general john boiling, our chairman, testified before you, but i take this opportunity to emphasize that the military is the most respected institution in the nation. however, since only a small percentage of young men and women qualify physically and mentally for the all volunteer force we support the need to expand the opportunities for
military service. sos america advocates affordable 1-year small unit military experience. mixing geography, background and ages 18-25, and a small unit of young people his physical and mental requirements are based on the ability to take care of that versus the strenuous requirements of the all volunteer force. absent exemptions were given demand, they would train 30 companies of 100. and respond to the mission needs of the services, the guards, the reserve, federal, state agencies, shared values and experiences affirming the reality they served, this is
the earned benefit to the nation. it is all about nation building. www. sos america.org, service over self, have a list of all the benefits you could provide for sos america could also be applied to what you were talking about this morning. >> if you could provide documents to staff we would appreciate it. if you would like to ask a question, please do so now. i want to thank our panelists for providing a testimony today and hosting us, we take time to attend to today's proceedings. only with your help and input to achieve its vision, every american inspired and eager to
service, taking a brief break for lunch. when hearing resumes we will continue live coverage on c-span2. we will show you some of the hearing from this morning starting with the beginning and opening statements and q and a. >> good morning and welcome to the first public hearing on selective service by the national commission on military and public service. we address an important question, what are the potential needs for a voluntary or compulsory mobilization? in 2016 the commission was created amid a debate whether the requirement to be extended to women in military combat roles open in 2015. congress charge it is to answer two important questions which first, does the country have a continuing need for a military