tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN April 24, 2019 11:51am-1:02pm EDT
military, national and public 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
select of service system and if so whether the current system requires modifications. second, how can we as a nation create an increased participation on military and public service. the first question is the reason we are here this morning. for hearings we are holding today and tomorrow provide an opportunity to discuss the policy options the commission is considering with respect to the selective service system and potential for future draft. we focus on strategic security environment and selective service in the nation to meet those needs which are testing panelists will discuss the current the selective service and how current plans model mobilization of the total force and induction of skilled and unskilled non-prior service personnel and for testable needs of the selective service system should be up to address.
the perspective on us national preparedness for major military conflicts and to what extent future conflicts will pose emergent challenges the commission should consider when developing recommendations for modified selective service system. i hope our panelists address these items directly as possible in their oral statements and in responses to their questions. we will focus on who will be needed to respond to national security emergencies and how we find and integrate them into organization structures. tomorrow we have the opportunity to discuss who should share the application to defend the nation in a potential future draft. let me welcome our panelists. the honorable james stewart, assistant secretary of defense for that part of the fence. rear admiral john pelichik, the deputy director of studies in the leon panetta senior fellow center for a new american
security. major general peter burke, mobilization assistance the commander of us northern command and miss elsa kania, senior fellow with the national security program of american security. thank you for joining us today. i would like to turn to you for an opening statement. >> as vice chair for military service, i will be meeting the efforts for the military service commission. when it comes to military service there is commonality, it is understood by a small portion of americans. we found that many americans do not understand the requirement to register for the purpose of the selective service system. although there is no draft the selective service is in existence but there seems to be much confusion between the two.
most young men today see it as a secondary process whether they apply to driver's license or federal financial aid. 75% of young men registering as a byproduct of another state or federal requirement. registering the law and if a male fails to register there are penalties like not being able to obtain a federal job, financial assistance or other sorts of federal or state assistance. as you may know, there was a district court case decided in texas earlier this year stating all mail military draft is unconstitutional and earlier this month the federal court in new jersey, with second court cases involving women in selective service issued an opinion denying parts of the motion to dismiss. previously the supreme court tells the draft registration process 1981 the court ruled a male only draft was fully justified because women were in
eligible for combat roles. and i look forward to the afternoon panel for issues that were raised during the 1981 court case. you will not speed up the commission's timeline in the final report. the court's decision means the work of the commission is all the more important and relevant. the commission is considering whether there is a need for the selective service in its current form or if any changes should be made or if it should be disestablished. what it comes to changes we are considering things that could expand the registration to include women, identify individuals with political skills the nation might need in the future. and volunteers in a time of emergencies supported by using the existing registration database or those who identify, evaluate and protect those, i
look forward to hearing from you on these important issues. i yield back. >> please silence any electronic devices and let me explain how we will conduct today's hearing. the commissioners have received your written testimony and it will be entered into the official record. we ask you summarize the highlights of your testimony in the allotted 5 minutes. before you, you will see the timing system. when the light turned yellow you will have approximately one minute remaining and when it turns red your time has expired. after all testimony is completed we will move into questions from the commissioners. each commissioner will be given 5 minutes to ask a question and receive a response. as commissioners know, i am reluctant to gavel down the panelists i'm much less reluctant to gavel down the
commissioner. depending on time we will proceed with one and possibly two rounds of questions. upon completion of commissioner questions we will provide an opportunity for members of the public 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 in red when time is expired. we are now ready to begin with our panelists's testimony. i will begin with mister james stewart, you are recognized for 5 minutes. >> thank you, mister chairman and vice chairman. i'm honored to appear here before you to discuss mobilization needs from that part of the fence and the nation in the event of national emergency or war and i will address two kind of mobilization involving the department of defenses, and
using the selective service system. reserve component in the united states military are in trouble part of america's national defense architecture providing reliable capabilities to our global commands and state governments. with dirksen senate office building quickly mobilize in emergency events, provide operational support abroad or at home. the reserve components are vital to executing the department defense strategy. that government's operational reserve model with one standard readiness allows the reserve national guard forces to be interchangeable with active-duty personnel and mobilized. furthermore the reserve component mobilization can be tailored to operational needs and structured to meet the national defense strategy. the national defense strategy states that in wartime the fully mobilized joins military force will be capable of defeating aggression by a major power deterring opportunistic aggression elsewhere and disrupting imminent terrorist
and weapons of mass distraction threats. but the front of the fence has no contingency operations or battle plans that envision mobilization at a level of that volunteer force. dod maintained its ability to retain professional volunteer force without resorting to a draft. .. still exist 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.
>> 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 here 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. shared conscription be required the selective service system would expand and activate the connection between all selective service system locations and the proper 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 thousand within 210 days. the department supports a continuation of the selective service system as an independent federal agency. since 1973 that selective service has maintained complete registration and classification structure capable of immediate operation in the event of a national emergency and is staffed to reconstitute the full operation of the system, including military reservists who are trained to operate such a system. if a requirement for peacetime selective service registration were repealed and a mass mobilization was deemed necessary with an amendment to title 50, the department of defense assume responsibility for functions currently managed by the selective service system. however, the department has not developed a plan on how it would fully integrate the registration and mass mobilization functions the selective service system
currently performs. maintaining the clear distinction between department of defense and nations selective service system interest the preeminence of civilian control and has been viewed as important to reinforce the publics perception of the integrity of the draft process. the current registration requirement for mass mobilization are designed to provide a fair and equitable process by which individuals are generally conscripted as untrained manpower without regard to the 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 raised by accusations of targeted mobilization. in addition a number of benefits derived both directly and indirectly from the selective service system. in a direct way the selective service registration database provides valuable military
recruiting leads, 75-80,000 you get 80,000 you get in a more indirect vain, registration minds america's youth of the importance of military, national and public service in the existence of a draft service serves as a critical link between the all volunteer force and society at large. finally, the selective services is both a symbol of our national will and to turn to potential enemies of the united states. given that we do not know precisely what the demands of the future conflict will place on the department of defense or the nation as a whole, it is imperative that we have all mobilization options available to overcome any national emergency or threat we face. the department is committed to sustaining the all volunteer force. it 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 scalable to adapt the volume and immediacy of any national defense requirement present. and for approximate 23 million a year, and inexpensive insurance policy. thank you for the opportunity to speak to today and i look forward to continuing our conversation, edging any questions you may have. >> thank you. admiral polowczyk will be next. >> good morning. chairman heck, vice chair wada, honorable commissioners, 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 of the joint chiefs of staff has been designated as the global integrator.
in this role he provides military advice to the secretary of defense on how, when, , and where to use the joint force in long-term strategic competition with china, russia, also mitigating the threats of state such as north korea and iran. the chairman, supported by the joint staff, focuses on countering trans regional all the main threats today and into the future. based on these threats the joint staff conducts globally integrated planning through readiness reviews. these reviews layer the simultaneity global requirements to defend the homeland, respond to the national emergency, and deter opportunistic adversaries in other theaters. these plans include large-scale mobilization that rely on existing legislative authorities to expand access to reserve and the guard, components, capacity, as well as the defense reduction
act that expand access to commercial transportation, sealift, airlift, industrial capacity, communications infrastructure and other resources in coordination with other u.s. government agencies. the plans we have developed our resource informed. we have not assumed force expansion via the selective service system or conscription. however, these are models to expand the u.s. military in the 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, agreement on the level of response required. thank you. >> thank you, admiral. ms. shulman, your recognize for five minutes. >> chairman heck and honorable commissioners, thank you so much revenue today. my testimony lays out my views on what i see as a modern
purpose of the american selective service system and with the question of whether it still works for the purpose, , s a brief examination of the modern debate around the draft that tend toward using the draft as a band-aid solution to present and civic challenges in american society. considers present and future nationals get a challenges and whether the united states is adequately prepared to prevent, prepared for them to fit a national emergency and include some general recommendations and comments on proposals under consideration by the commission. so as you all know i have been, the original purpose of the selective service system was to ensure an adequate arm strength for the armed forces and reserve components and to share the obligations and privileges of military service generally, in accordance with the selection system that is fair and just. in my view it's important to consider what has changed in american politics, in foreign policy management and as economy
and labor markets and it spoke engagement on nationals could matters for assuming this is still a reasonable mission to undertake. changes like that include america's commitment to and substantial investment and all volunteer force, its large defense budget and frequent touting of the military as the most effective military ever fielded. it's engagement and a wide range of armed conflicts over the past four decades with attorney to conscription, designed so the part of military have grown far more technical, specialize in need of highly regular training and the fact that other components of the american economy have also grown more technical and highly specialize specialized, as well as more globally interconnected and interdependent. in my view service of these factors have significantly raised the bar for application of the draft in anything but in a pretty significant potential unforeseen national emergency. that being said i think the general purpose of conscription in this modern american context
remains to transfer labor and productivity from civilian sector of the economy to the states for national security purposes, because the national security demand for these contributions is judged to be higher than what it displaces and there's no faster, more effective or more economical means. that's a pretty high bar. what is rarely explicitly mentioned in discussion of the draft is that the resulting burden of competency on the states to faithfully prepare for any national emergency or any range of national security contingencies that such transfers of labor remain highly unlikely or unnecessary. the burden on the state might include the maintain adequate armed forces, to keep them in a state of readiness, , appropriae for any security environment, to generate the intellectual and operational innovations necessary to deter and if necessary defeat an adversary, and to maintain with its nationals could apparatus the expertise necessary to
understand and generate sophisticated hedges and responses for the future of our 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 r its military to generate more manpower, and to simply enlist more troops. so there are a lot of steps of homework that need to be undertaken before you can think about the potential of conscription. but because conscription leverages the power of the state in the most extreme ways possible, citizens are justified in expand -- expecting that the state competently exhaust all of its the options before terms to the collective services and then only in a true emergency. but the sidebar many scholars judge the present selective service system is potentially unsuitable for such an unpredictable national emergency. the nature of the gap between the present all volunteer force and the requirement for a future
crisis as others have discussed and will discuss is completely unknown any think we should have humility and trying to design aa system that meets those requirements effectively and efficiently. those gaps might include the extreme but felt of the future conflict, demanding rotational schedules and requirements frydman on low-density skill sets, or the question of whether the selective service system can actually provide manpower for those requirements without displacing unique or urgent civilian labor inputs for generating significant political and economic push back. because the united states is an constant path of doing that but us a step in test do that, particularly in the great power conflict and experts like you can hear from today and later doesn't believe there will set up to pursue that mission. many folks have examined whether or not the art of the nation's the selective service system might take, whether it be
meeting challenges and 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 come in present conflicts, or to bring interviews military a broader set or more heinz technical set of skill sets that are not easily acquired within today's military. i think those all a lot of omissions and understand the intent behind those desires. however, i think are many other policy remedies that are available to that and conscription should be used purely for the purpose it was designed to bring manpower international emergencies when there's no other possible remedy to do so. i would last say that i think it'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 federal government, and the u.s. congress or in the broader american society had a good conversation about what national security threats look like and
what would be the nature of a great power competition and great power war for which conscription might be utilized if we have not reformed our personal systems to bring in the kind of civilian or military skills that you might need in this competition before it leaves the conflict nor have we engage with our technology and economic sectors to talk with them about the interdependencies, technology competition and the ways in which the united states economy is in many ways behind for the purposes of great power competition i think these are pieces of the homework i i neeo be pursued before returning question to conscription and again would reiterate that as a of conscription should only be pursued with seriousness when all other, all these minutes of homework have been exhausted and with all of the elements of national power have been considered towards the conflict. thank you for thank you. general byrne, you are recognized for five minutes. >> good morning. chairman heck and distinguished members of the commission, i'm
honored to appear to have as a mobilization to the command of united states northern command and north american aerospace command, northcom and norad. i have a few brief opening remarks to describe these commands. u.s. north, is a geographic combatant command with the primary responsibility of defending our homeland. u.s. northcom also provides defense of support to us civilian authorities and axis the department of defense synchronized for federal military forces are requested in response to disaster. norad is a binational u.s.-canadian command that deters, detects, and if necessary, defeats air threats to the united states and canada while providing airspace warning and maritime morning. the number one priority of northcom and norad is homeland defense, and that mission will only grow more complex as her adversaries deal increasingly
advanced technologies, designed to our nation's and citizens at risk. deterring threats to the homeland in assisting citizens in the aftermath of disasters is dependent on whole of government cooperation and collaboration, and on dedicated and capable public servants at all levels. these whole of government partnerships and relationships enable national leaders to act and respond to the needs of their nations. northcom and norad remain focused on her current responsibility, as well as future challenges of the nation, meeting our no failed mission requires a a defensive dedicatd military and civilian professionals with a ride right of skills, expenses and expertise -- why -- as such, it is essential that a nation continues to expand the pathway to national service. the four 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 ms. kania, you are 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 calvin discuss considerations for american approaches to national mobilization in light of this challenge. the chinese people liberation army, or pla, is undertaking the story reforms to increase its capability to fight and win while also concentrating on improving the quality of its officers and enlisted personnel as was the realism of its training. xi jinping has called for the pla to become a world-class force by midcentury compressed 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, electronic warfare capabilities.
for the pla today military innovation is a core priority. chinese leaders and military strategists 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 military-civil fur civil military decoration which is not only a more integrated approach to technological development, but as also provides talent, logistics and mobilization. indeed the chinese government has a framework for national defense mobilization that is far-reaching and comprehensive. from a national commission with authority 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 mouse udon concept of peoples warfare lives on in china today. in any future conflict scenario the central military commission would mobilize a range of its air forces and military units. the pla apparent prioritization of mobilization at scale including a renewed emphasis on national defense education for students may indicate serious concerns with potential contingency of protracted warfare, or large-scale conflict. we must reckon with the sinners of local or limited warfare also the troubling possibility of height in conflict as one press even two great power rifles. the pla has long studied and identified weaknesses in american war fighting, developing concepts and capabilities, designed to explore our potential
vulnerability. any future conflict could start with surprise attacks against robotic networks, , satellites, logistics system and didn't to undermine u.s. command and control, and power projection. our homeland is unlikely to be spared attacks in critical infrastructure. the will and resolve of the american people should be considered a center of gravity and likely target, where the third piece of influence operations by the chinese communist party, the united front, or through wartime psychological operations. clearly the united states must contend with unique challenge of a potential adversary who could bring to bear massive human and industrial resources. however, we should not infer intentions from plan and capabilities alone, nor should we see the u.s.-china rivalry and relationship did it as inevitably adversarial. >> i want to highlight three distinct concerns for u.s. policy going forward.
as with think about challenges of mobilization as well as the overall vitality of our all volunteer force. as a first consideration, potential deficiencies and concerning asymmetries relative to the prc in our plans and capacity for mobilization could places at a distinct disadvantage. our peacetime preparations including continued adaptation of the selective service system must take into account challenges of speed and flexibility that are sustaining global logistics and transportation while also undertaking if necessary industrial mobilization at home which will require deeper public-private partnerships. looking forward, use military might consider organizing exercises in the model of exercise contain -- but aim to prepare for scenario of conflict perhaps in the indo-pacific in order to test and bolster our capabilities for rapid deployment while reinforcing
deterrence. the gravity of threat to our homeland also required significant investments in defense, resilience and continuity. in the face of cyber attacks that target u.s. power grid, medications and financial institutions. the selective service system would have to operate under a uniquely command environment and at times 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 power and human capital all the more vital. we must fully leverage the talent of all americans, among our greatest strength as a nation and that of our all volunteer force is and must remain our diversity and inclusion, i 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 republic of china despite its sizable population. today too many americans who may have inspired to serve still tend to be overlooked, disqualified or even excluded. the full and equal participation of women throughout the military, including the selective service system should be recognized as imperative going forward. the ongoing implementation of aa van excluding even discharging transgender servicemembers not only is wrong, but also wrongly deprives the u.s. military of their talent, dedication to service, and ways that may undermine morale and present readiness. troubling, the future of the military extension of vital national interest program is also in peril. it should be revised and strengthen as a critical challenge through which to recruit future americans through skills and expertise will be vital to our future force. too often use military also fails to retain talent. the changes to personal policies
including new options for career trajectories enable greater flexibility and specialization also seem long overdue. as a third and final consideration we must also recognize the strategic imperatives of revitalizing american innovation which is at the heart of strategic competition today. indeed, economic and technological competition are core to u.s.-china rivalry. american mobilization for peacetime competition is equal and bared and will require pursuing our own national rejuvenation 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 went out into in two the time of question i put myself on the clock for five minutes. secretary stewart, i appreciate you listing out the reason why department defense feels the selective service system is a low-cost insurance policy. i can tell you over the last 18
months of our existence, multiple conversations with various members of the department there seems to be a lack of any support to any of the arguments provided them whether their stock imitation of it actually being a adversary, how it narrows the civil military divide when 75% of registrants use passively and don't even know that they registered, or how many actual sanctions, out that are generated by the selective service system. additionally in 2012, the gao recommend dod update their requirement for selective service which as you mention currently that selective service system provides one of thousand inductees by day 205. do you not agree to update the requirement back in 2012. they need to have by december 2012 but failed to do so. the gao reiterated its recommendation that dod update the requirement to the review of
the 2016 dod report to this commission. dod again concurred that it should update the requirement. can you tell us, what is the status of that review for the requirement for selective service? and when to 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 report was sent to congress, so that report actually has been done. in fact, i have confronted here and i was referring to it as you are speaking. some of the key factors that we mentioned in it was that with this particular report there are direct benefits and some indirect benefits and a think i mentioned it my comments, associate with the selective service. it provides timely fulfillment of military manpower and national emergency, and that database that we talked about in her 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.
in 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 all volunteer force and the public at large. and finally it is a simple, 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 two are 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 drop of personal. >> i appreciate those pieces they came out of that 2017 report but it didn't answer the question that gao specifically ask him which was what with the manpower requirements that dod would have for selective services, and update that? as you make and yes, 75-80,000
recruiting 80,000 recruiting leads to get dod can't say how many people assess out of those leads. and again going back to the issue of being a connection between military and the civilian population especially amongst those required to register 18 years of age 75% of those unregistered use passively when you go to get a drivers license or fill out their form for financial aid. so when we ask how can you demonstrate that its help to narrow that the fight, there had been any response that proves that point was wondering if come one, is there a a potential pot where we will see the reviewed and updated manpower requirements that gl recommended? and with not there's any support, concrete support, to those direct and indirect benefits that you listed? >> on the first point, star as manpower needs, i believe we actually in the report addressed that issue. we talked about 500 reserve officers can denote a military
retirees would be recalled, 700 state resource resorts volunteers, and 6500 newly hired employees would be needed to go ahead and do that. as far as the others, you apsley right. that's what we need to do to go ahead and quantify that we're getting those leads and i know our personal out there are basically going had an interest in that as well, particularly all the services as well as far as those leads and how they're basically impacting their services. >> i appreciate that and think we saw the different in what the gao was asking. i'll follow up perhaps in the second round or off-line. >> mr. shelby, one of the historical roles of the draft was to expand the military particularly the army through conscription. in doctoral terms, call it total mobilization in your review is a draft or draft mechanism for the purposes of expanding military in response to 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. and that goes back to what i was saying in my public statement but also what i see a 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 a -- well, there may be national emergency which the all volunteer force is not sufficient to meet the demand of the consequent engaging in. i think any attempt to predict exactly what those national emergencies may be and try to describe them in great detail to you might be a sink is exactly how the selective service system should operate, and is exactly the people we would require at the time, it's folly because it's the purpose of her off onto force is to prepare for possible no contingencies. that does not mean i believe all volunteer forces sufficiently resourced or sufficiently
intellectually invested in some of the challenges that may face in the next ten, 20, 30 years. they're still work to be done in those areas. however, i think having the opportunity to bring in other means of personal engines of mass conscription is an option of the tenant will need to have now in the future. i don't believe it stands as a deterrent that is described as. i don't leave it stands as the link to the american people with the all volunteer force as a means of relations. 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 in a way that the all voluntary force is tasked with. >> thank you. admiral polowczyk, from the joint staff perspective, is it 205 days given her statement we need to be speedy and flexible and our response, sufficient enough to meet for the potential
needs that ms. shulman had mentioned in case of a future national security requirements? >> i'll save everybody, it's a good irish name. but, vice chair wada, i think, i think the time frames there, that's measured, that's months, right? so in our planning process that we've undertaken to pull apart the plan and understand the global nature, we do have decision point well before conflict on the need to mobilize. and those conversations have been on the mobilization of the authorities that we have today. there has been some thought on total mobilization, as you allude to because it's an doctor
and. so that's even before we would enter into conflict -- indoctrinated. 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, to osd, to the president, to potentially solicit total mobilization. in that request would be the manpower, a 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, they would be -- that work you to understand what would we actually have to do to totally mobilize. so 205 days unfamiliar with 193
days. i think that gives us some ability to plan. >> thank you. i yield back. >> doctor garrett. >> well, thank you to the panelists for your submitted testament as well as oral and, of course, thank you to all of that university for hosting us. michelin, meet i could follow up with you. you highlight in your submitted testimony the importance of this national conversation between the united states government and the american people on the future of security threats that our nation may face. i be very interested in what you would command to us to be thinking about, other than declassifying national defense strategy or additional congressional conversations. what would you command to us for structuring future conversation conversations? >> i could give you my fantasy
curriculum for the entire k-12, but all set that aside and perhaps submit that in written testimony. i think is to narrow down my recommendation, i think that congress can play a vital role in this conversation in a way that the executive branch perhaps is not motivated to do and the private sector and public sphere are not necessary set up well. whether it be by having changing congressional oversight somewhat of hearings on syria, north korea on which of an issue to having a series of things with investigating and long-term challenge to the united states, like china, over the course of multiple weeks of multiple rounds of witnesses around the country and involving not only keep experts from think tank world where i come from but also the technology sector, teachers, students, firemen, people around the country or not thinking on a
day-to-day basis that china is our greatest threat. and maybe not you think a title. to the degree to do a may be thinking i'd like to have cheap iphones. if we truly believe as national security leak that china is a a greatest threat to the american people or turn national security interest right now, i don't any way, shape, or form believe that this belief is held widely outside the bleep it is a held by google, facebook or other technology sectors that are bring innovation into our economy. it is not widely understood in a congress and not widely understood and are at the dimmick at mr. those conversations need to happen on an ongoing and continued basis and need to be subject to the respect of those who would disagree. i think absent bringing that kind of conversation into the american people american public right now, if we had a national emergency in five years such that the united states believed they needed to turn the mobilization can even just the all volunteer force, it will be skepticism american people of,
for what purpose, to what end is this going to disrupt our economy it went that's going going to be highly harmful? and what is our skin in the game for this that is not, that is not consistent with what the american national security believes of the china threat. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> hold on. i'm sorry. you're up. >> 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, military selective service act requires a period of time on conscripts 4/20 four consecutive months.
there are people who are presently serving for those who may volunteer to serve, how would you recommend that we modify that requirement for a can scripters? >> so just like the reserve components we can go ahead and taylor that come and so if necessary whatever the operation is that we can go and scale that. the nice thing about the selective service is it scalable and flexible. very similar to the reserve components come it's flexible and skills 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 the duration f that operation. >> all right, thank you. 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 a likelihood, given historical precedence, likelihood of us
ever having to utilize the draft? >> if i may respond to that. i think whether we use the draft could in some cases be a matter of choice, but i think when we think about its potential role as a deterrent and contingencies of conflicts, given the challenge that china poses today, i think that is a nonzero probability we could in the near future be in a similar of national emergency in which we might want to consider using the draft. but i do think i continued focus on strengthening the all volunteer force is are impaired in the meantime. but if we do, if we see that possibility as likely enough to be come to a sears consideration, then i do think we have to think quite critically about how we would
ensure that the selective service system could function under demanding conditions and could take shape rapidly enough. so what alternative could be to have an expedited processing for those who volunteer within the process of the registration for the system, to be first like a front-line defense and to have critical skills that could be valuable in the early stages or lead up to a conflict such a cyber defense. so think we do need to continue think about credit solutions by way that we can make sure the draft is well suited to the likely contingencies of conflict and competition in the 20%. >> thank you. other thoughts? >> i'll agree largely with her comments to also say that i think it is low and will get lower overtime. that is a we should consider getting rid of the selective services system one of the concept that can bring in conscription into the present all volunteer force, and as a gets lower overtime i think the place a greater burden on the
u.s. government to involve the american public, the economy and other parts of the political elites in conversations about what our national security threats are, how we read them, and whether or not we are meeting them adequately with our current u.s. government bureaucracy. >> hanky. anybody else? >> 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. >> without getting out of my link a little bit on what i think norad, northcom would you look at this, somewhat responsible have with the defense of the homeland, so you can sue the time in need and it's been discussed here on critical cyber skills. that may be needed and call for pretty quickly, both for the
military and then for our nation for critical infrastructures and really command and medication out there. seeking the federal, state, local. you can go all along the lines of that. i think there's probably other times when, if when some sort of major conflict even major disaster to the united states of america, i think you would see northcom looking for additional capacity, capability that is requested for by elite federal agents. so fema for example, if there's a new madrid or cascadia disaster in the u.s. which would overwhelm us and we would need to stop the cascade effects. i think you would see something like that when we would need that manpower, organized manpower very quickly in order to stop those cascading effects. >> thank you very much, general. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
admiral polowczyk, 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 a national levl of mobilization. the 2018 update to joint publication four tech '05 states quote mr. moulton position requires assembly and organization of resources from various interdependent resource areas including legal funding, environmental manpower, material, equipment. i could go on and includes industrial base as well. who on the joint staff is responsible for conducting that assessment and review of those material requirements? >> commissioner, that responsibility, there's 12 areas, right. and all the directors have some role in that.
for example, the g3 as identified in the actual manpower requirements, right? the g4 has a role in international base, et cetera. through our ratings reviews taken our major contingencies, we've looked at all those areas and i felt pretty confident with the level of understanding of what we required in most all of them. there are two main areas that i think we as a joint staff warrant additional learning in them. one is health services and the other is the industrial base, 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 framework. that's not truly been tested in large scale wargame scenarios. its it's multi-agencies across e federal government. its civilian hospitals, et cetera. so that's one area that i think we had some additional learning. >> could i actually sort of redirect it a little bit to help focus this a little bit, and i'm kind of responding to the comment that was made by ms. kania, about the importance of the american public and national well-being being such a critical component to success when were talking about a significant event and ms. schulman, your comment about there is an argument to be made that perhaps our nation both in terms of the general population as for the folks in the industry and that
the preprint. i think also the recent experience with the project may even situation where google employees would've been working on the defense contract for that -- may even -- indicated the lack of support to pursue and have their company working in support of a national security project. when you think about the critical requirements definition 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 let me get to the industrial base these. that's the area that really concerns myself and the j for. the chairman has asked that we work with industry, the national
defense university is helping us looking to put on i believe this fall a forum where we can get after those issues. it is not from a lack of planning, clearly were not going to take factories producing washing machines that are not could make in 35 to the dynamic is whole scale different. the second point i would make is the thought that we go to total mobilization, right? that's a congressional decision, right? so you would have that national conversation. i think you would address in that form 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 regrade overnight, right? so if there was a force expansion and you're going to have additional armored brigades or additional aviation units, you have to make that stuff, right? and so how would we do that? and that answer, i'd be lying to you 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 mentioned in your written testimony that the national defense strategy demands greater lethality from our military. in 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 mail, e-mail, everyone available out there. >> -- mail, e-mail. >> on my junior say yes able leaked to increase without a familiar? >> it is already. >> okay, thank you. my next question is actually for anybody that wants to answer it. ms. kania, you mention in your testimony that are other major competitors are very capable of
disrupting our technologies, and that particularly similar day-to-day technologies that we all rely on so heavily. currently, part of our military mobilization, particularly for our reserve forces, uses cell phones to contact people when they're going to mobilize. so how can we make and what strategies do indeed what do we need to think about to make our mobilization efforts less vulnerable to our adversaries? >> chinese military strategists have highlighted that in future conflicts we anticipate there'll be no clear distinction between the footlights and homefront. i think we we do have to confront seriously that those risks that are critical infrastructure could be in the crosshairs and that the level of destruction that could cause
might impede with the process of mobilization in some respects. and chinese military thinks the conflict as occurring across a spectrum rather than as a clear binary between peace and wartime and that record peacetime preparations included potential developing advocacy that could disrupt argument occasions, whether military networks or in those reference to american society and economy and communications in support of mobilization. there will be important to ensure resilience, have redundancy and have potential alternatives that were sooner when communication are disrupted and were taught the future threats and challenges as well as opportunities such as 5g today. i think when we do have to think very seriously about our supply chains, the whole process of managing our critical infrastructure and trying to mitigate risk to the full extent possible and also be prepared and anticipate if there were to be major cyber attacks undertaken against the american home holman would have to
prepare for rapid response and the question of fully leveraging the cyber national mission force as well as augmenting them through volunteer efforts, perhaps local level units or even leveraging the talents and capabilities of those working american technology companies. i think we will never get to eliminate that possibility but we can think about mitigating and managing risk to the fullest extent possible. >> thank you. general byrne. >> if i could help answer that a little 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. and so we've taken a look at how we project power, and our commercial partners are key to that, craft, visa.
we had classified sessions with them to describe what we mean by contested environment. so we have shared understanding. and the work that we are 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 he wanted to do something to protect our commercial partners, other industries, we would have to go and ask you for those authorities. that came highlighted here. i won't say recently, but in either our planning efforts, in our wargames and exercises, the
chairman specifically asked 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 in the 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. and, 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 of will. we talked a little bit about
whether or not americans would have the will for some sort of mobilization but let me set the lines. ms. kania, you talked about the way the chinese strategists think and especially the way the pla is thinking about potentially full mobilization, all kind of war. can you elaborate or maybe clarify for me, in a society without these two generations of only 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 if that time were two? >> thank you. that's a great question and i think it is important to recognize that although china does have certain strengths as a competitor that also do have weaknesses and long-term challenges in terms of demographics are among them, 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, that there is great concern on the, on their part regarding concerns of political or psychological mobilization, including massive campaigns in terms of propaganda. seven ongoing efforts of patriotic education and new development curriculum for national defense education to be committed across chinese universities. i think there is certainly a likely concern on their part, and even in cases where there has been national disaster emergencies in china and accidents that have deprived families are the only children. there's been huge backlash against the government in aftermath of those tragedies. so i agree i think we have to recognize that there are questions of will will matter on both sides and as we've seen the vulnerabilities and our own open information ecosystem that can place this uniquely at risk. it's for that chinese leaders
recognize they also face challenges in turn public opinion and are devoting great attention and effort to censorship, , propaganda, including experimenting with new techniques for monitoring public opinion to enable rapid response if there were to be any potential unrest or resistance. and i think these sort of ongoing initiatives will only be redoubled at a time of national emergency in which chinese leaders are trying to mobilize the whole of nation response. >> thank you. so given that sort scenario, unmasking mr. shulkin and admiral polowczyk, back to the age of deterrence and whether or not having a selected service system whereby a message to our potential adversaries is that americans would be all in, can you comment on the livid about whether you think that theory is a powerful one or not?
>> i will comment briefly i think it is only a powerful theory if the united states government has done all it scan to first of all prepare itself absent attorney to selective service system but also prepare itself to potential be able to absorb the manpower or technical skill set that might need and the possible conflict. on that first point there is an enormous unmet requirement for highly technical cyber talent technology talent, a range of other talent on top of there being an unmet demand for service amongst young people. those -- we have haven't figurt to match the people have highly technical skills. government has not. how to hide in or retain them a level that would be useful. that's already a concern about our national security council. in a national emergency, that is not going to change. we may be able to conscript people with high levels of talent. we may not be able to utilize them in ways they're terribly
effective, absorbing international security system or even just like in a basic trying to expand the army. we don't presently have the capacity to be up to absorb a large amount of manpower in the army at the levels you might need in the competition. that something of this speak to 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 it's to do what you said, to show that we really have skin in the game, if the the presidentd 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 do look at that mobilization decision point prior to major conflict. and understand what it would do for either escalating or providing a de-escalatory factor. factor. so it is certainly in our calculus. ..
>> i wanted to ask -- >> we will take you back live to the hearing of the national commission on military national public service. they're meeting at university in washington to consider whether the u.s. should institute mandatory military for public service. live here on c-span2. >> military national, the purpose of the hearing to address an important question, what are the potential needs for a voluntary national mobilization. in