So good afternoon and welcome to the fourth public hearing on Selective Service by the National Commission on military national and Public Service. The purpose of this hearing is to address an important question. Should Selective Service registration be expanded to include all americans. In 2016 the commission was created amid a debate over whether the requirement for Selective Service registration should be extended to women after military combat roles were open to women in 2015. Congress charged us to answer two very important questions. First, does our country have a continuing need for a military service Selective Service system and if so, whether the Current System requires modifications. Second, how can we as a nation create an ethos of service and increase participation in military national and Public Service. The first question is the reason that we are here this afternoon. The four hearings that we are holding two yesterday and two today, 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. Yesterdays hearings focused on the Strategic Security environment and potential requirements for Selective Service and the nation to meet those needs along with potential modifications to the structure of the Selective Service system as well as other mechanisms that might be used to support a National Mobilization beyond the current levels of the all volunteer force. This mornings hearing discussed who should register for potential draft by evaluating the strength and weaknesses of the current male only Registration System. This afternoon our distinguished panelists will discuss their views on who should register for potential draft by evaluating the strength and weaknesses the Current System if the draft was expanded to include all americans. So let me welcome our panelists. First, Lieutenant General floro darpeeno. U. S. Army retired, former jump advocate dr. Jason dempsey, Senior Adviser at the Columbia University school of professional studies and adjunct senior fellow of the military veterans and Society Program at the center for a new american security. Professor jill hasday, distinguished University Professor and centennial professor in law at the university of minnesota. Major general, Defense Attache for the embassy of sweden. Mayor combat veteran currently working in venture capital. Thanks for joining us today. As vice chair of the military service i have the honor of leading the Selective Military Service for the commission. When it comes to Selective Service and military service there is a commonalty understood by very few. We found Many Americans do not understand the requirement to register or purpose of the Selective Service system however the Selective Service system still exists and is active. Most register when they apply for a drivers license or federal geniunely aid. Approximately 75 of young men register as a bipuckett of another state or federal system. Registering is law. Therefore, if a male fails to register, their penalties not receiving federal Financial Aid or not able to get a government job. Earlier this week, the texas court decided all male registration is constitutional. And a court involving women in Selective Service issued an opinion denying the parts of the governments motion versus dismiss. In 1981, oskar are they said women were not qualified for combat roles and as we know this has changed. This does make the work the commission a more important and relevant action. The commission is considering whether there is a continuing need for the program in its current form, if any changes should be made or if it should be disestablished. Some policy action were including expanding the registration to include women, identifying individuals who possess Critical Skills the nation might need, calling for volunteers in a time of emergency using the current registration database and using reasonable changes to identify and protect those who will not serve. I look forward to hearing from our panelists on these important issues today and i yield back. Thank you, debra. Id like to remind you to silence any electric devices you might have. For those in the audience who have heard this for the fourth time, you can probably give this same instruction. The commissioners have all received your written testimony and it will be entered in the official record and ask you summarize the highlights in the allot five minutes. When it turns yellow you have one minute remaining and red, your time has expired. We will move into questions for the commissioners. Each commissioner will be given five minutes to ask a question and receive a response. Depending on that we will start with one and possibly two rounds of questions. We will provide a chance for members of the public to offer comments either on the specific topic addressed today or the commissions overarching mandate. These comments will be limited to two minutes. The light turns yellow with 30 seconds remaining and red when your time has expired. We are ready to begin with the panelists testimony. Maam, youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you, chairman heck and vice chair wada and members of the commission. I would like to address the Selective Service system and any potential future draft. I have served over 30 years in active duty including two tours and combat zone that happened to be iraq in both cases. Our requirement to defend our nation is a core principle our nation is established, so central to our founding it is included in the preamble of the constitution. It is important to note women have served in combat since the inception of our nation. Even limiting the discussion to recent history women have participated in raised and patrolled the streets and combat zones shortly after the terrorist attacks in 2002. In 2016, when the decision was made to open it to all women, only about 10 of those military positions remained open. Women have fully proven by that time they were capable of performing 90 of those positions. So excluding women from registration would be ignoring the fact women are already performing in combat and combat units and combat roles. Some argue the e xlyouxclusion be appropriate because of the time to weed out women not ready would not be productive to raise an armeds for in a National Crisis. Troops, regardless of their capabilities are sorted. They maximize the talent after being assessed. Additionally the military is not made up of just combat troops. An infantry unit has troops performing logistics and medical and so on. Even if we accept only some women can perform infantry duties, women can perform many roles in an infantry unit extremely important to their success in battle. Morph over, the nature of warfare is changing. We know we need different types of troops on the battlefield and it looks different. Drone operators, hightech mechanics, cryptologists, network engineers. Why would we limit the talent pool when only 25 of the slots are in that position in a true sense of the war. Should our nation begin a draft we would quickly outstrip the ranks of volunteers, considering military issues and intelligence, it is estimated only 2530 of the Eligible Age Group meet the requirements of the armed forces. Even recognizing we may relax standards during a National Crisis we will still struggle to meet the required needs when we know women make up 51 of the population. The exclusion is nonsensical when women are serving in the military in combat and combat roles. In examining this issue there is an argument against women that sort of has a social component to it. It is that women have a role in society that favors them as caregivers and they require our protection from the evils of war. Setting aside the maternalistic nature of those arguments, it is important to note recent labor statistics do not support the premise. Among married women in the United States, only 19 have a husband as the only employed parent. Concerns about drafting mothers is more a question for exemptions, not exclusion, the same is true particularly taking into account there are many homes in america that have two dads. As to protecting women from the evils of war, we should care equally if our husbands or our fathers or brothers are subjected to torture, starvation, death marches and Sexual Assault in the military. Our men are as valuable as our women and outrage against violations of the wall of Armed Conflict cannot be covered by gender. More troubling about this argument is i have been in countries where the need protected women has been used to isolate them, limit their movement, forbid them to sign contracts and to make life decisions. In short, the need to protect women has been used to make women second class citizens. I live in america. I am a full citizen, and i have a full obligation to protect my country. Please do not be swayed by arguments that will relegate women to second class citizens under the guise of protecting them. I look forward to having a full conversation with you on how we can fully use the talents of the American People should we have a National Crisis. A. Chairman heck, vicechairman and members of the commission, at a time American Society appears to be descending into a vicious tribalism it is important to discuss the meeting of citizenship. While offering more than one meanings of service it is essential to our National Security and identities of americans. A public trust and confidence and National Institutions such as the courts and congress and presidency continues to collapse the reputation of the military remains high. Add to that ongoing and at times contentious National Conversation around gender equality its natural emotions run high about composition and nature of our most ven rated national institution. Thinking about gender issues, i was a student at westpoint and junior officer in the 1990s. At the time, there were few examples of women serving in the military, particularly Ground Combat operations. As such, a arguments for and against the service of women in the military relied on appeals, symbol limts and in150ig9s of older veterans who while may not have insight in the force they have some insight in warfare. It was all we had. Today, were in a different place. Intervening decades have seen shifts in the military. We experienced 20 years of constant conflict and women have moved to integral roles in the military. And symbolism and reality of women in the military. Women can serve and are serving and our National Security depends on their continued service. Its surprising about women as equal sieves has not changed since 1990s. Most is about cohesion or womens ability to meet the military standards. It is no longer hypothetical and we have dealt with it on a daily basis and forces are stronger as a result. Given the opportunity to prove themselves in our most challengi challenging specialties. A path to reinvigorate a shared commitment to citizenship, practical questions remain. However, i see no valid argument treating women and men differently in this endeavor, as america prepares for future conflicts it seems absurd women would not be completely included in every area of National Defense when a Staggering Number of youth are ineligible for military service it makes no sense to share the responsibilities of citizenship. To be clear, this is more than an argument for fairness, about fully utilizing the talent and potential of american citizens, a continually changing more dangerous world. America is stronger when we all engage in citizenship. Other than that the continued, full integrated service of women is no less than essential than the ability of america to meet our National Security challenges. Thank you and i look forward to your questions. Chairman heck and members of the commission, i am the distinguished mcknight University Professor and centennial professor of law at the university of minnesota law school. I teach constitutional law and sex discrimination law among other subjects. I have written about the constitutional issues surrounding womens exclusion from military registration and included my law review article on that subject with my written testimony. In my time today i would like to make one simple but fundamental point. Male only military registration is unconstitutional. I will discuss why oskar v goldberg upheld the male constitutionality of male only registration of 1981. I will then explain more generally why the exclusion of women for military registration is inconsistent with the overarching principles governing the Supreme Courts sex discrimination case law. The courts argument in oskar was women could not serve and could be constitutionally excluded from registration because they were excluded from the draft and explained women could be constitutionally excluded from the draft because they were excluded from combat. That reasoning no longer works. Since 2016, women are no longer excluded from combat positions. Female Service Members have fought in combat with Great Success and Popular Support. The argument for constitutionality of male only registration depended on exclusion from combat position for women. That has collapsed now that women are no longer excluded from combat. With that in mind, it is time to consider the constitutionality of male only registration on a clean slate. The guiding principal that drives the Supreme Court sex discrimination law is that the court is very hostile to laws that, one, treat men and women differently and, two, are based on sex stereotypes. By sex stereotypes the court means assumptions about the differences between men and women that are not true in every case even though they may be true as generalizations. The court struck down sex based laws that reflect the sex stereo type that women should stay home with their children, while men will work in the market. As a generalization, the average woman is more likely to stay home than the average man. The court has explained that this stereotype cannot justify laws treating men and women differently because the stereo type is not true in every case. The exclusion of women is ground in sex stereotypes. From the 1980s, reaching back into the 1940s, throughout the decades, the most common argument for excluding women from registration and the draft has always been the contention that womens primary obligations are domestic. On this view men are obliged to serve the nation on the battlefield, while women are responsible to stay home with their children. For example, a 1980 report from the Armed ServicesCommittee Said it would be unwise and unacceptable for a young mother to be drafted while a young father remained home with the family in a time of National Emergency. As a matter of personal opinion, some americans may still agree with such sentiments, but as a matter of constitutional law, the Supreme Courts precedence made clear that the assumption that women should stay how old cannot stay home cannot justify the laws treating men and women differently. Other arguments reflect constitutionally impermissible sex stereotypes. For example, even if the average man is more likely than the average woman to meet the physical strength requirements for a combat position, some women will meet those requirements as well and should not be excluded simply because theyre women. In sum, if congress would like to continue militarystration, the constitution requires congress to include women as well as men. Thank you, i appreciate being able to be included in this hearing. Thank you. I appreciate my being able to include my swedish opinion. Let me relate my background. I am a former conscript. National service at the start of my military career and i worked with different aspects of the system for most of mie career. Which at this point stretches over 40 years. Next, to provide proper orientation to todays issue it is important to understand how nations populate their forces. We introduced National Service in the beginning of the 1900s and relied on conscription the next 110 years. In 2010 an all volunteer force was introduced to better man the military system focused on military capabilities than National Defense. In 2017, conscription was reintroduced, leading to a forced mixture of those conscripts and volunteers, which allowed a nation to better inform on the terror situation in our neighborhood. It was met with very little pro