then at 6:00 civil war author and historian william davis on the little-known aspects of the lives and leadership of union general ulysse s. grant and robert e. lee. and then on "real america" a 1965 progress report on nasa's projects including the manned space program and the mariner 4 flyby of mars. and just before 9:00, writer and award-winning documentary filmmaker rick burns on how the public learns about history through film and television. american history tv, all weekend, and on holidays, too, only on c-span3. the franklin project at the aspen institute and defense one hosted a panel discussion recently on making national service more appealing to young americans. panelists shared ideas on expanding voluntary service beyond the military and bridging the military/civilian divide. this is about 90 minutes.

>> i'm walter isaacson, and -- i'm walter isaacson and i'm with the aspen institute here and it's our pleasure at the institute to be the host and the facilitator of the franklin project. the project began when general stan mcchrystal was out talking about the importance of national service two or three years ago in aspen, and everybody related to it, and one of the things we try to do here at the institute is turn thought into action, so we said, well, if this is important, let's try to create a program around it. general mcchrystal agreed to chair it. he also thought to himself, i'm never going to raise another idea in aspen again. you get enlisted if not drafted to do something, but i think he was able to convey to us that this works on so many levels. i mean, this is an important

thing that every kid in america could have the rite of passage that previous generations had. secondly, the notion that there's an expectation and an opportunity to be able to engage in national service. i think both are equally important. nowadays there's just no expectation. you don't get out of your zip code, out of your comfort zone. unless you really make the effort to. whereas in previous generations it was just expected that you were going to serve somehow. but the other half of that equation is the opportunity. i think a lot of people, a lot of people coming out of college have been involved with teach for america and the biggest problem we have in teach for america is 60,000 applicants for 4,000 jobs. there is a demand for people who want to spend a year or two in national service, but isn't really the pipeline or the way to do it as easily. so, i hope that through this

project we can also say, we are going to find different opportunities. we're going to encourage organizations to create service slots. but maybe even create cores in which -- whether it's a baltimore core that's already been created or through certain sectors as we talk to the financial industry and others, cores that say we are going to have a service year project. one of the things that general mcchrystal does in his "team of teams" book is talk about the need for coordination. i hope he'll explain that today a little bit. because just recently we've merged with a couple of organizations in really creating the whole concept of a service year. because in this world of nonprofits and ngos as michelle knows so well, sometimes people keep replicating what other people are doing. and we have no -- at the aspen institute, no goal or mission other than to make this work. so, when we could find ways to say, why don't we join together

and have, you know, other leaders of this project as well, that's good. i think it's important to engage the franklin leadership council which is what's happening right now, engaging people on both sides of the aisle, both in foreign policy and the defense community. i think history's really big moments have been when people have stepped up. you know, you can re-read "the greatest generation" talking about a book i did with a friend many years ago called "the wise men" about stepping up in the cold war. but you can go all the way through to, you know, the very beginnings when the first continental congress is meeting and people step up and pledge their lives, their liberties to a certain cause. that's been lacking today. i think that undergirds all of the civility and paralysis problems we feel in the public sector is that people don't have

the sense that they're in service for something larger than themselves. when i look i look at any of the great people i've written about, you know, not just ben franklin but even to steve jobs, at a certain point in life -- -- do as well. and so with that i want to turn it over to tara who is at the franklin project and will help introduce today's problem. thank you, tara. >> good morning. thank you so much for joining us. i'm the associate director for strategic communications at the franklin project. we'd like to welcome you to be on draft rethinking national service an event co-hosted with the franklin project and defense one. the genesis was our desire to talk about the intersection of national service with national security. many of you have been invited here today because you hold jobs in government or previously held jobs in government in the defense community or have served

in the military. we didn't anticipate this conversation would be taking place on the heels of a series of terrorist attacks during heightened security warnings but recent national security developments make today's conversation even more relevant. we did think about the timing of the event and we thought the presidential election is an opportunity to amplify national service in the national dialogue. today we want to explore with this panel how significant expansion of national service here at home can help strengthen our country, impact perceptions of america overseas in terms of its soft power and be an asset in our national defense in terms of developing a talent pipeline and fostering bipartisanship and strengthening our leadership. in thinking about the themes of today's discussion i couldn't help think about on the train back home over the weekend to d.c. how many of our lives in this room the trajectory of our personal and professional lives were shamed by the events of september 2001, 9/11, and i couldn't help think about the

calls to service and how many of us view service and think about service through that lens and the experience has been shaped through that experience. even on our team, i served in the intelligence community after those events. our director served in the military. and other friends and colleagues have served in various capacities including for other service-focused reasons domestically in programs like teach for america or city year. while we might choose to serve for different reasons and different capacities, we here at the franklin project think that that service unites us through a common experience. and unfortunately, in the last 14 years, our commitment to service seems to have waned. there's not a sense of shared sacrifice after multiple years of war in afghanistan and iraq and just under 1% of americans serve in the military. so the franklin project believes the time is more right than ever. we see ourselves at a crossroads here and we think that embracing national service here at home is

more needed than ever before, so is there a way for us to engrain national service in our national dna beyond just moments of crisis? what are the benefits and challenges of doing so and what would it look like? can it strengthen our security? how can we rethink national service, so that's the focus of today's man. we have a great panel here today. i'm so thrilled to have the three panelists and the moderator that we have here for us. if you could call come to the stage. we have kevin barron from defense one will be moderating today's panel. kevin has worked at defense one as the executive editor, which is part of atlantic media and i approached kevin about partnering on this event because he's a military security analyst both at defense one covering the pentagon and also now recently at msnbc, so thanks for agreeing to do this for us. we also have the chair of the franklin project general stanley mcchrystal. he's well known here at the aspen institute because his remarks at the aspen ideas

festival lawn. t launched the project. he's a former commander of the military counterterrorism force. he also is the co-founder of mcchrystal group and the best selling author of "my share of the task" and "he's been chairing the franklin project and in charge of our leadership council and michele flournoy an active member of the leadership counsel. she was the principal adviser to secretary of defense in the formulation of national security and defense policy oversight of military plans and operations and she's also the ceo of the center of a new american security where she served as president until 2009. she also wrote a great piece for us on national service and national resilience which i encourage you to check out. lastly we have congressman seth moulton serving from the sixth district of massachusetts, representative moulton served four tours in iraq as a marine corps infantry officer including two tours as a platoon commander

and two tours as a special assistant to david petraeus. he's been a great champion of service particularly for the younger generations of those on the hill. i turn it over to kevin and i look forward to hearing the discussion. thank you. >> good morning, everybody. thank you for coming out on the monday after thanksgiving, a rainy, cold washington monday. i'm sure you're all recovered from your tryptophan comas of thanksgiving weekend. i hope you all had a wonderful holiday weekend. what a great way to start it off with a program about service. i think, you know, when the holidays come we hear about that in the news and we see all these images of people volunteering and the president around the country for thanksgiving. as tara and walter said, they approached me and defense one where i'm the executive editor with an idea -- with this idea of putting together an event of

some time about national service. and i'll quickly say why it spoke to me right away because we were speaking backstage about, you know, this idea of national service comes up a lot and in just the promotional tweets and facebook shares you've been putting out in the last couple weeks i've gotten some pretty strong reactions. i've been saying this all along and what a great idea, which is a good thing to hear and that's why we're here i think to help coordinate and congeal this idea into a real movement that becomes this -- that becomes the reality of the vision that the aspen institute has here. for me before i was a journalist many moons ago and then in, like, the '90s i worked in think tanks around town as well and as the ngo boom was really happening. and at the time if you weren't going to join the military and you weren't going to go to the peace corps there weren't a whole lot of organized option to get a young person out into the world, to see the world and become a future global leader or american leader.

as i became a pentagon reporter it became so clear how vastly well funded the military's recruiting organization is. and there's really nothing that even comes close. other than the nfl i think, but when it comes to diplomacy or development or other ways of turning young americans into global leaders, educated, skilled, impassioned, for some age of american leadership around the world that our political leaders keep telling us that we're in and they want to get us into. with that, i was going to start -- let's start with general mcchrystal. tell us a little bit about not just the origins of this idea of the franklin project and we're here today to talk about national service in the realm of national security. but tara had a good point of saying how everyone if you're in the city or in this audience, you're already serving, you're already doing beyond what the general public is usually involved with when it comes to serving at least at the national government whatever your issue is level, so i'm a journalist.

member of congress. military. civil, political appointee, dod. why did you want to serve when you were young? >> i'm going to do what panelists sometimes do i'll cheat and go off on a tangent while you forget the question. >> that's okay. i have many follow-ups. >> walter often gives me credit for, you know, resurfacing the idea. i mean, this idea's been out a long time. it's in history. what it has been it's allowed to get weakened over the last few decades and so i just happened to come along at a time. and i will tell you something that it's been a real honor to be a small part of this. and my wife said something to me a few months ago, we were at an event like this and we talked and afterwards she said, you know, i think if you all pull this off, this will be the best thing you are ever a part of in your life and i think she's absolutely right. and so i'm going to sound a little passionate today so you can discount some of that but it's real. the second is the people on my

left and right, the reason i'm honored to me up here is they are friends and they've been friends, not only do we agree on this, but michele flournoy was one of those people in the pentagon that you wanted to meet with and there's not that many people you want to meet with. and she could tell you no and she could tell you in the hard truth that, one, made you understood it and, two, made you want to work together. and that's pretty magic and that's sort of at the basis of what leadership is about. this is someone that could be off doing other things and making a whole bunch of money and raising her kids a lot easier and yet she's dedicated herself. and seth moulton i met him at a dinner one site and just an extraordinarily impressive marine veteran. when i meet a marine i automatically check my wallet and things like that, but we met and here's a person who, again, has bona fides that i would kill to have on my resume but yet he's chosen to serve and he is

the only politician i've ever actively supported. i actually went -- remember we did the peabody elks club campaign event when he was running for congress and that's hard work, i mean, for him, not for me. but it's because this is exactly the kind of person -- and i didn't even ask him if he was a republican or democrat when he first said he was going to run, i said i'll support. it's the person and the idea of service that's so important. so, now i'll circle around, kevin, to the point, i think we are all in agreement that there is something about service that's essential to citizenship. because citizenship is what defines a nation. you know, the lord almighty didn't draw out nations and say this is the united states of america and this is mexico, whatnot. groups of people got together and they made a compact or a covenant between each other said and we will be a nation. and when they did that, they took on some responsibilities and they got some rights from that. they got to be defended. they got some other things that goes with being connected to other people, but you take on

responsibilities and you take on responsibilities for your fellow citizens. as walter said, that last great line of the declaration of independence we pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor, and it says to each other. that's the point. it's not to some big idea. it's not to the flag. it's not to some -- it's to each other and that really underpins it. so, the question of citizenship and how you grow that is i think fundamental. if you go back in history in american society or any society where there was a need for mutual defense, you had to defend the outpost or raise barns or do things that absolutely had to happen, there was this need that you were going to do things because that's just the way of life. as we've become more atomized and more anonymous in some areas i think that's been weakened. and so what has happened is with the exception of great big defining moments in the 20th century like the second world

war when everybody was asked to do something direct or indirect, you pull at people and you give them the experience which is a positive experience of serving. you know, we don't all volunteer to serve and we all aren't happy about what we're given to do, but how many experiences do we have in our life where afterward you go, well, you know, i probably wouldn't have done that by choice but i'm glad i did. and to be honest, i think we have a generation before us now that we owe an opportunity. not to give them something they don't want to do, because actually demand shows that they do want to do it, but give them something that they can do that makes a difference that is going to give them the experience for the rest of their lives they feel invested in it. they feel -- i'll steal this line from a panel i was on, they have an intimate relationship with their community and their nation. it's different from transactional. you're a part of it. so when i think about giving young people the opportunity and

over time i want it to be the implied responsibility to do a year of service, i think what we do is the greatest favor in the world and we do the greatest favor because i think we then produce alumni. and it's not what they do during that year. that will be good work and it must be valuable, but really the benefit of this is alumni. they are going to be for the rest of their lives different citizens and they're going to interact differently and they're going to have different relationships between each other. and if we don't do it now, i think that we will continue to suffer from all the things that walter described. sorry for preaching on like that, kevin. >> no, when a four star preaches, you let him preach, you know? i learned that long ago. all right, so forget the first question. as the journalist, my first question really is, what do you need to get this started? what's the first obstacle? because this sounds like a great idea that will require either some huge government agency or

some large outside of government body to coordinate million of american kids and a whole new generation mindset. you're a member of congress and you can create government agencies and fund them. what's the answer, you know, that you would like to happen or the more likely think to happen to get all of this started and organize and funded? >> so, i think, first of all, thanks for hosting this great discussion. i think there are several things that can be done practically. the first is was already mentioned. the demand already exceeds the supplies of these opportunities. we are turning away young people who want to serve already. because the program pipelines are not big enough, so i think there's a first step of simply expanding the opportunities that exist whether it's teach for america or americorps or peace corps and so forth. but i also think we need to think beyond government and government funding.

in my work with other nonprofits like the mission continues, i found that in the private sector there are many, many companies that would love to fund national service or public service opportunities. and the mission continues they end up supporting service platoons in various urban centers across the united states, but you can imagine getting corporate funding, sponsoring national service in various communities around the country as long as those were val dated and certified as legitimate opportunities. so, i do think there's a funding piece, but we shouldn't just think in terms of federal funding, although that is important. i think legislation to expand those opportunities is a start, but we also need to draw on other sources of funding across the country. then you have to think about that expectation. how do you incentivize young

people? there is a desire to serve. they want to do something that is serving something higher than themselves. they want to connect with their communities. and so -- is that not working? i'm sorry. so, creating that expectation and some incentives. you know, i'm seeing high schools create an expectation that you will serve so many public service hours in order to graduate. you can imagine colleges viewing a year of service as a positive for admissions. you can imagine building on precedents like city year where people who do a year of service are given scholarships to use towards their college education, so we need to think about reinforcing that expectation with real, concrete incentives for young people to go out and actually take advantage of these opportunities that we're able to expand.

so, there are a whole lot of concrete steps that need to be taken. i just want to add one more thought. i think this is a critical moment. i mean, general mcchrystal has been out there beating this drum, walter, everybody on this stage and so many others. we are heading into a presidential transition and a renewal of congress. this is a key moment to get this idea in the platforms of both parties, of all the candidates, no matter their political stripes, to say this is sa good idea for america. this is not a partisan idea. it's a smart idea. and to really move this to try to tee it up as one of the main initiatives for a new administration, a new president and a new congress going forward. >> i want to talk more about that moment, congressman, from your perspective the answer as to what comes next? >> well, i mean, i think this is tough. and i think the realities in congress today, there's an awful

lot of things that don't get done because of the far right and this is another issue that the far right is opposed to. so i think we got to be honest i think as a community of people who are invested in national service and want to see it succeed, we've got to talk to the opposition. we've got to speak about national service in a language that the opponents understand and can relate to. the economics -- >> the far right, they're not opposed to national service, they're opposed to how to do it? >> well, it depends on what your definition of national service is. >> right. >> but, look, expanding americorps which for many people thinks an obvious thing to do given the demand, is something on the far right calls paid volunteerism. if you look at the ways that an expanded national service program i think would improve the quality of the military, not by making the military any bigger, but by largening the applicant pool, people who are interested in national service and might consider the military as an option. that's a great argument and yet there are still a lot of people

who are opposed to it. so, i think it's important to speak about national service in broader terms than just the idea of service to the country, but also, like, let's look at the economics. let's look at what a difference it can make in our communities. let's look at what long-term investment -- what the long-term rewards are, returns on this investment are and i think they're pretty impressive. you know, the most -- the best piece of legislation that ever passed is the gi bill, right? just by looking at the cost/benefit analysis, you know, a dollar invested for about $7 in return is the common figure thrown around. if you expanded the gi bill to have a civilian component, what would that look like? i don't know. when i got back -- when i got out of the marines in 2008 i went to a conference on national service at columbia and it was the only -- my understanding, it was the only time in the 2008 campaign when senator obama and senator mccain appeared on the same stage at the same time talking about the same thing but

on the same side of the issue. and it was extraordinary for me as a young veteran who had just gotten out of -- you know, just come back from the surge in iraq to meet so many other national service veterans who didn't have the same service experience that i did but shared so much in common. the commonality that i had in my experience in iraq with a teach for america veteran from new orleans, for example, was not something that i expected to see and yet i saw that there at that moment. so, there is the potential to really find political agreement on both sides of the aisle for an issue that does bring a lot of americans together. but i think it's tough. >> so, talk about this moment, then, that you mentioned, world war ii. this is whatever you want to call it that we're in the age in terrorism, the war on terrorism that is happening, the surge of isis. now events like paris and terrorism come in closer to western europe, closer to the united states. that's a big worry.

what are you -- what are any of you hearing when it comes to the younger generation on their way up that wants to do something about it, that wants to get involved in a way that's -- that's different than perhaps just signing up for the military or includes that or any other way? >> yeah, i think one of the things that is a danger is that we look at something like isis as a fairly narrow terrorist threat and, therefore, we want to do a fairly narrow counterterrorist response be it military or whatnot and i think that that is failing to see a broader picture and the broader requirement. so, isis is reflective of a collapsed region with all kinds of problems and then isis itself is a multiheaded hydra that is not just a military problem. so, i think when we talk about having america prepared for this kind of threat, which i don't think isis is the last of this kind of threat. i think isis is just another in what's going to be a succession of these. what we really need to do is in

terms of national security, is have a sense that every american's a part of it. i don't mean every american's carrying a gun. but every american has a responsibility for the strength of our democracy, for the values that we represent, for all of the things that make up a more unified society. because really security begins with being a society that can get things done, both at the political level, but at the local level as well. and it's also things like educating our young people, preparing them to be part of the world. and then at the -- at the more i guess tactical end, we've got to be able to field diplomats and business people and ngo people who have the ability to operate in the world with a sense of confidence and certain skills, many of which come from this kind of experience. and one of the things that we found that was so challenging when we first got tested hard by al qaeda in iraq was that the different parts of the federal government, department of state and the cia and whatnot, were in

the silos and defense department, even the military, was in these separate silos internally and when we tried to pull together a cohesive, multiparty response to it, we had terrific problems. we spoke different languages. we completely different backgrounds. we just -- we're all serving theoretically the same government for the same cause, but we didn't have those connections. and i think this kind of experience starts to build those which i think are going to be really important. >> if i could just add. i think the phrase that always comes to my mind is resilience. i mean, whether you're thinking about the long-term terrorism threat or other national security challenges that we're going to face and frankly economic challenges that we may face, national resilience, having the ability to bounce back, which we have done time and time again in our history. i mean, that is the history of the united states of america, is that we -- you know, we get knocked down and we stand back up we reinvent ourselves.

we find a way forward. and i think a national service program that, again, not necessarily mandatory but with the expectation that this is something you do as an american citizen, as a sort of rite of passage to adulthood, that this would be something that would really invest in that fabric of resilience. first at the individual level by creating these young leaders and giving them that shared experience. but also at the community level. because they'd be working to the extent they're working inside the united states, they would be working at some -- in some of the least resilient communities in the united states, trying to help turn them around and give them a sense of hope and potential for the future. >> you know, i'll just add that to really drill down on the threat of terrorism and where this could make a difference, i think we're not winning the fight against terrorism because we are not applying the full resources of the united states government. you know, when we have a problem

in baghdad, we send in bombs and troops. and that's it. you know, if you look at what happened when isis came in from syria, they didn't just defeat the iraqi army. the iraqi army put weapons down and went home because it lost faith in the government. there's a political problem in iraq. what's our government's response in we just send military trainers as if training the iraqi army is going to fix iraqi politics. how many of you are on twitter? so there are a good number of tweeters out there. i would venture to say there's probably no one here this morning who is as good at twitter as isis. and we invented twitter. not that long ago, right? so twitter should not -- isis should not be beating us on twitter. and yet they're killing us on twitter. they're recruiting people from here in america. over social media. so we need to -- in order to

really win this fight, we've got to apply a much broader range of u.s. resources. and you know what? you're going to find some people who may not want to join the marines or may not be qualified to be an army ranger but are really good at social media and could help in the fight. you are going to find people who are a lot older than myself or even anyone on this panel who are just really good at figuring out political problems in the middle east. we could apply them to that fight. when i was a platoon commander in the invasion, i had a platoon. it was the first company of marines into baghdad. two months later i was asked to run a tv station. i was given a tv station, a radio station and a newspaper south of baghdad. as we know, there was no real plan for after the invasion. here was a second lieutenant, marine infantry office, assigned to run the iraqi media for south central iraq. rupert murdoch had nothing on me in the middle of iraq in 2003.

i constituent kwa i wasn't qualified to do that. no one trained me on basic media training let alone how to run a tv station. that's a job that should have been done by someone else. and that's when the opportunities i think with national service to really help our national security. >> can i jump on that? something that i think both seth and michele led toward, military service we think right now if you are in the service, if someone says my son or daughter is in the service, you immediately think uniform service. if someone is a veteran, you think of a veteran of military service. and i'm not sure that we haven't allowed that terminology to become too narrow. because if we really think about it, just as seth described and michele as well, what we really need is a broader set of capabilities without everybody being in uniform, because one, you don't need them in uniform, that's not where the talent is -- their talent is best focused. yet, their service should be like two sides of the same coin. military service and other

service ought to be equally respected. it ought to be equally rewarded. and it ought to be equally encouraged. and so when we think about it, when a person comes of age, the discussion around the dinner table should be, so where are you planning to serve? and any of the spectrum things would be fine. and they bring where they are best. but we have to step away from the idea that only military service is asked aboard of airline first. why couldn't we say -- why couldn't jetblue have on the board say, all people currently doing national -- your year of national service board first? i mean, little things that would respect and reflect people. why couldn't we have a g.i. bill for everybody who serves and make it a service bill? after you served -- i love president obama's idea of community college free. as my wife comma that says after you finish your year of service.

then they have invested. they get something but they paid forindirectly. the country gets a win both ways. we get people with better values who serve and we get people who take part in education. >> how about student loan forgiveness? >> all of those should be tied to this. they are investments in the nation's future. i believe. >> you mentioned this is a u.s. government problem. keeping with terrorism and what we need, on the campaign trail, when isis hits and when paris hits, i feel we still don't hear many more solutions offered other than we need 10,000 troops, we need 20,000, we need more of whatever has been doing, more of the targeted bombing campaign, more military, military, military. i don't hear -- correct me if i'm wrong -- any type of talk coming from either candidates, republican or democrat, or even the white house orsaying, what need is whole of government, whole of country, whole of nation appropriate to how are we all going to dig and we all need to come together to fight isis.

i didn't hear that in the president's message that's targeted on the military campaign that has to happen first. the region has to pacify itself. the grand foreign policy and politics that we are used to hearing about. not any kind of call to action for the country. >> yeah. i actually think that there was a missed opportunity in that regard right after 9/11. in terms of calling on americans to everyone find a way to do something. to help our national resilience, to find some way to serve in this time. i actually think unfortunately, the sort of emerge emergemergen particul the threat in paris, this is where the call should and could be made. i was interested to read that in

france, they are having a similar response of overwhelming response from young people to try to join wherever they can join. which military, pleaolice, intelligence services. how can i do my part in the wake of this? again, this is the time to open up this up. military service or service in the intelligence community already right for some people, it's not right for everybody. so let's open up this to take advantage of that desire and create other opportunities. just on this -- there are obviously wonderful opportunities to serve at home. on serving abroad, i want to under score the point, when we put together the afghan strategy, there was clearly a military campaign that was going to create stability. but that was going to create space for other things to happen. and those other things had to be in the political and economic

and other domains. and yet it was so hard to create a civilian search, to find those people who could go abroad and run the media -- help create the new afghan free media, or help take a newly stabilized area and make sure we got the economic development piece right, or help ensure that political reform was proceeding at pace in kabul. we just -- it was so hard to get that talent. and then to sustain it over the course of the campaign. and, you know, i think a national service program could be a way that not only drew in young people but people with more experience and expertise. it would be another way to help meet those requirements when they do occur abroad. >> create a pool from which to take from. i remember secretary gates was considering mobilizing reservists to do these civilian jobs. he said, sent them in plainclothes out of their

uniform. >> we were combing the reserves -- the military reserves for people -- the civilian skills. where the agricultural expert sexperts? where are the city planners? where are the folks who built media? and we are -- it was very challenging, because the system wasn't really built for that. >> and i think that's the point. the system is just not built. the painful piece of this is that there are a lot of americans out there who want to contribute these talents. >> i will let the audience know, we will get to a good session for questions near the end of the have them ready. same thing for those of us watching online, this is an invite only event. you guys are the fancy lucky people who get to be here. but there should be hopefully a good amount of folks online who can maybe through twitter somehow get us questions to us as well. so again, you said there's not a system for it. and there's a lot of need. there's a lot of desire. how do you create the system? what is step one?

is it -- are we going to have the same problems of organizations creating their own things and duplicating themselves and this giant mesh of opportunities that every individual college counselor will have to sift through versus having one -- some sort of centralized organization that we're going to be clearinghouse, to connect the skills to the needs, be the recruiting office, the pr public face. you are talking about an enormous undertaking. >> can i take the first part of that? >> take it all. >> the alliance, which franklin is a part of, has taken a great step forward in this. there's much more to do though. and first thing, there's some practical things that have to be done. a digital platform has been created that's going to create a marketplace. at the end of this year, it will be open for business. and parents will be able to go online and look at

organizations, ngos that have opportunities to put those in line, donors or other people who want to support can go online and they can provide funding. also, you will see what the requirements are for certain positions. you will connect with people who have done it or are doing it. parents and young people will be able to look and say, is that right for me? is it safe for my son or daughter and that thing? that's going to create a much more efficient tool to allow us to make this work. but there are a number of other things we have to do as well. one is, we have to create incentives. and one of the greatest incentives, of course, is expectation. you know, if your parents, brothers, sisters have done service, that creates a family expectation. you want to get around the lunch table at school. you have to get where enough people are doing it so you are not the un corn wicorn is doing. you have to have an opportunity.

you have to have elements to support. we have done work with universities. we're trying to get universities to do several things. one, we're trying to get them to give preferential treatment if you served. on the common application, did you serve. nobody wants to get in a good school wants to put no. and then there are other schools like started first by tufts, put in programs like the one plus four. you apply and if accepted for a four-year program, you add a year at the beginning and you do national service for the year and you belong to tufts for the five years. it takes the angst away from parents. your daughter or son applies to a school and they say, i want to go off and do city year for a year, i want to do the peace corps. you go, you barely eeked into that school. we don't want to chance this one. >> you hahave you met my parent? >> no. he is guaranteed.

a year from now, they get in or maybe it's two plus one or two one two or some combination. and then we want to get businesses -- there's a set of businesses of which my own is one that gives up front says we are employers of national service. we value national service. and what we want to do is get that with more teeth so that big name companies -- let's just pick goldman sachs. we would like goldman sachs to say we interview a bright young person coming out of yale, we want to hire you and we want to you do a year of national service and your job is waiting for you as soon as you finish national service. guaranteed. if you don't finish national service, you know, apply elsewhere. but if we could create that kind of expectation where all businesses were doing that, then at high end you a small group of people would apply to goldman sachs but bigger companies could give guaranteed jobs.

they could give preferential hiring. they could do things that make it easier to incentivize. we talked about a g.i. bill or other things that make it easier. right now, for a young person to do national service, it's a little scary because you are going to fall behind. your parents worry that you are not going get on with whatever you are going to do next. we have to take those away. we have to make this not something you have to jump over. we have to make a bridge across this so it's the easiest way to go. and if it's easiest, those who doubts i think will be more likely to do it. >> what are the differences between private sector, public, need or desire or ideas to make this happen? >> everybody i talk to is for it. one of the problems with this issue is, with the exception of people who worried about the funding of it, our opposition is inertia. do nothing. and so we kind of say, well,

that's a nice -- when i talk to a lot of groups, they go, that's a nice idea. you can see they're going, but it's too high, too dark, too wide, too whatever. we just can't do stuff like that in america anymore. and that's -- if you stop and think about that, that's really scary. if that's what we're saying. i tell people, i read a book a couple of years ago about the building of the boulder dam. at the end, the author says, we could never get the different states to agree on the water rights. we couldn't do that level of a thing, because it takes too much coordination and agreement. and this is that kind of thing. and so what i would say is, what we have got to do is convince people the value is so great and the need is so compelling that we step back from our fears and we do it. and i do think all the players are ready. they just want to see everybody else do it first. >> you know the irony with that statement in some ways is that there are a lot of thinkers out

there smarter than i who would say the reason why we can't do big things like that is because we don't have national service. we don't have a common experience. we've never had fewer veterans in congress in our nation's history than today. a lot of people -- the older guys talk about how it was different when you knew that you may have political differences, but you could focus on what was best for america when you came to congress, because you had that common experience of fighting together in the war. >> is some of that a product of necessity versus opportunity? there's the wpa and cca days but there was massive unemployment and people needed jobs. it was a purposeful, top down government way to get everyone organized which ended up with gigantic public works projects. is there a need for american kids to say, i'm going to take a year off and help the world when they can enter the work force and a lot of them make good bill

and get going? not feel the connection like you said with the military. you are not part of the 1%. you are not feeling the connection to the war. not feel the connection to anything to do with global security, which is in this room -- they get it. >> if we as a nation were knocking it out of the park, might say we don't need to change anything. i don't think that's the assessment how things are going. i think that there is a need for this, because it will make us a stronger nation. >> do you think that the people believe it enough to do it? is it going to require -- on their own? will it require a very coordinated top-down -- like a four star general to organize and force this on americans and say this has to happen and you need to get -- you america need to get going with this? >> think it's both. you need senior leaders using their bully pulpits to create a top-down call for this and do it

across sections of government, parties, itary and so forth. i think it's going to resonate. i think -- we may not have the economic crisis we faced at the time you mentioned. but i think there's a crisis of public confidence in our government and our ability to come together as a society and to work across the aisle and to make decisions and compromises and move things forward. and i think you see both anger but also potential for apathy. and i think a lot of young people are looking for something positive to contribute to moving things forward. government has been decried as not the way to go. the partisanship is very polarizing. but i do think there's a window that people feel that this is not -- we are not our best selves. we are not showing our best

selves. i want to be part of doing something that does show america's -- contribute to american resilience and our a -- our appealing to our higher angels or whatever the right frad is. living our values more fully. i think talking among my kids and other young people, there's a certain hunger to do something differently than what is being offered to them right now. if you created some opportunity, i really do think you could have a lot of people taking up the incentives. >> go the other direction. i'm glad you mentioned the lack of trust in institutions. i will plug ron brownstein as done some excellent work on just that, the

real decline in trust in any large institutions. >> the post frequent question i received on the campaign trail last year was not how to improve obamacare and what to do about isis, it was why are you doing this? you have so many opportunities, why do you want to run for congress? that's not a good thing. they are saying, you are talented, seth. don't go to congress. that's a real for us as a government. by way, there are five or so americorps applicants for every slot. if you expanded opportunities, you would see that number go up. you would see demand rise. i graduated in june of 2001 from college, so when i decided to join the military, it was before september 11, and one of my best friends from college, the only time he ever got seriously angry with me is the day i told him i was joining the marines.

slammed his tray down, i remember exactly where we sitting, and he said that's stupid, in slightly more colorful terms, and he walked out. and he felt that way because he felt so strongly about me. almost like a parent didn't want me to do something that would be a waste of my time. a year later he joined the army. he didn't join the army because i was a leader that he wanted to follow or anything like that. we were just good friends. but we shared the same values. it made it a more accessible opportunity, it made it seem like something that wasn't so strange or weird to do as a harvard graduate when you went out into the world. and that's the hump that we've got to get over to just make this expectation, i don't it's that hard. >> before we go to the audience, i want to have -- to get specific. you ran a war, you were in a war.

you executed a war, to put it bluntly, as journalists do. what skills are needed? what are the skills for national security, whether it's riflemen or diplomat or city planner? explain on that idea of, if you could go out right now and tell university, tell goldman sachs, this is what we need to do, so the u.s. is prepared for the war -- the 100-year war, whatever it is, specific to national security, what do we need right now? >> i will start. it's problem solving because you don't know what problem you are going to be given. i don't care if you are department of state or cia or military. we can't predict the next war. to be honest, the shooting part is easy. it's the problem solving that's the hard part. the second would be cultural acuity. it's the ability to work outside

of your own culture. sometimes just across the united states in different zip codes but also in foreign countries. so the kinds of experiences i'd want young people to have is go somewhere, be part of a team, solve problems in the culture that you didn't grow up in. and some of that should be overseas so you know how to maun maneuver in different cultures so you develop enough empathy that other people's perspectives are not automatically wrong. and we suffer from that. if you did all those things all the other technical skills you could teach people along the way. they don't bother me at all. it's those two basic experientially things that are key. >> what do you think? your kids are older. one doesn't have a choice anymore, probably. but would you want to send your kids to the middle east to learn cultural skills at a time like this? >> it would depend on the situation. but potentially. no, i would just add two or

three more to stan's starting list. one is the experience of doing something really hard and not giving up. and working through the obstacles. and the adversity to get to some level of success. that experience of persistence and fighting through a problem to get to the other side i think is really importance. i also think that some experience of just leadership, having an opportunity to not only be part of a team but in a certain task area or for a certain period of time, be a leader. be someone inspiring and guiding other people in your peer group. and then the last thing is the sort of planning and execution piece. so many people, you know, certainly in the policy

community believe that you're done when you get the president to make the speech. and the policy is stated. wrong. that's maybe the beginning of the process. but having people who actually know how to take an idea and develop, do the planning and the assessment and the work to actually figure out how to implement, and, again, sur mount obstacles, deal with all the uncertainties that will pop up and ruin your initial plan, and now you have to adapt and adjust. i think that kind of adaptive planning, implementation kind of experience also could be extremely valuable for developing these young people's future. >> i have one more characteristic, which is the opportunity to have tremendous responsibility but also potentially fail. >> such as? >> because i think that one of the things the military does well is pushes you very far. gives you tremendous responsibility at a young age. but understands that some people are going to fail.

and the institution and the project will survive in spite of that. and i can't tell you how much i learned as a young person from some of the failures i had in the military, not just the successes. >> i'll add observation as sort of an advocacy plan, since i'm a journalist. i think too often the skilled in washington is greatly underestimated. and if global leadership is the goal, or a greater thing of people to do it, whether you're agricultural or a digger or whatever it is. that's the skill for the time for now. but if you can't come back to washington, there are people in washington who can advocate and, you know, be the champion for that issue. we know what happens in washington. so to the audience, let's have some good questions for this panel. a quick hand right in front. please tell us your name, where

you're from, who you are, and keep it short or i'm going to cut you off. >> my name's dr. chris howe, soon to be the president of robert morris university. i'm on the senior leadership council. i mentioned this before. i will say it one more time. i love the idea of two sides of the same coin. i think we should have a coin that has two sides, national service and military service. i think a lot of people would print that for me. i want to advocate for that. young people like shiny things. so let's give them a shiny thing to put in their pocket, let them know that they're connected. >> an actual coin. >> even as a journalist, you got that. don't cut me off. last two things very quickly. teaching university of oklahoma, teaching at robert morris.

i remember two kids both got into teach for america, and i remember talking -- not because -- they didn't have much money. they didn't have much resources. and so as i was advising them, i said i know you want to do this, and i'm encouraging you to, but i know you need some resources. both of them ended up, one went to a private school to teach. one went to morgan stanley. we lost two great young people, but did we lose them? how do we deal with that chasm of wealth, especially what you are saying in terms of do we need government support to give them resource snz some people don't have the luxury or feel they don't have the luxury to serve because they need to handle the bills. >> this is a good point. the path to the military, especially for many, for economic disadvantage or minority was financial. it was a quick way to a paycheck and a quick way to the g.i. bill to get that skill, but does it transfer to national service.

how do you keep them from going at a path that leads them away from national security? >> i think it's a bit of a mistake to say that everybody who ends up in the military even a large percentage are for financial reasons. i knew in my platoon of marine infantry men, if you ended up in that place you really wanted to be there. >> some categories. >> but i think the point is you can't feel a consequence, a real negative consequence to doing national service, and i know, stan, you thought about this a lot. >> no, that's exactly right. and chris's point is good. it gets to the point i was trying to say about the good. it's got to be considered a good thing, not a bad thing. so if the person decides to do teach for america instead of morgan stanley, they shouldn't feel like it's either or. they should feel like it's this and that. so places like big businesses of all kinds ought to be just

anxious to grab people as they come out of service. and it out to be well-known to everybody serving that this is a very the advantageous step. one of the reasons we push it, it must be a year, because you want to be completely immersed in it, but it must be paid, because you don't want it limited to people who have money from outside family or whatever. it's got to be everybody. it's got to be, when i come out, aim more advantaged that was i was going in. it means i'm going to be a step ahead of my peers. this gets into the incentives we talked about. >> i remember when i applied to different companies after school, like most college graduates, i couldn't decide what i wanted to do. national service was one option. and there was one company out there that said we would rather have you go serve in the military for a few years and then come work for us in the

future, because we think you'll be a better leader. every other company said come right now. if we could instill that -- it was burlington northern santa fe railway. the first company i called when i got out of the military was bnsf, because they valued my experience. >> and you became a railway man? a conductor? >> i spent a year working on a high-speed rail project in texas before i ran for congress. >> there you go. >> there's a connection, i guess. >> this young woman in front. hi. i'm a young leader, franklin project. i've been hearing a lot about part of the barrier is actually parents. and so i'm wondering if there's some sort of strategy as well to engage them. i'm thinking about mom bloggers. i know government with study abroad has really done a lot of engagement from them and it's

worked. i know the u.n. foundation and i helped to engage bloggers a lot to educate people around vaccines. and i think part of the barrier is that parents are scared for financial reasons and they don't want their children to go out and be potentially at harm. but if they're educated more then they're more likely to push their kids to go serve. >> i do think there's a huge public education component and parents, engaging parents that it's safe and advantageous. i love the idea of putting, having just gone through the common application, putting the box on the college application form that says, did you serve and having that be a plus. that's one of the most powerful things you could do for any parent who's trying to help their child's advancement. is they see anything that's a plus is going to get their attention. and then you couple that with this digital marketplace where

they can actually go and look at real opportunities, you know what might work for their children, hear from real people who've already had that experience. get that reassurance and so forth. i think there's potential there. but you are right. the word has to be gotten out. it is not out now. it is sort of an unknown and slightly therefore scary to most parents right now. >> front row? we'll work our way around. >> hi, kathy with blue share families. i have the opportunity, i wrote a couple books in 2006/2008 that thought a lot about national service, and i got to research that service. everyone wants national service. when you do public opinion poll, the majority of people are interested in a national optional service, and the majority of young people are in favor of it too. they see the benefit if there's not a price tag associated with it.

so i don't think you need to spend time convincing people that national service of some kind, a voluntary one is a good idea. every system is designed to get the outcome it gets. we don't have national service right now because our system is designed not to have it. i think increasing the incentives will get something we already have, a large recognition that we need to do. there are two opportunities that spring to mind to me in addition to the excellent ones that you've already suggested. one is that rotc developed as a concept in america because the major universities demanded it. they said as america was becoming a great power, we needed an officer corps that was trained in the civilian values. if you could mobilize the franklin project could mobilize many of the major college presidents to call for this and

to include it on the common app, but also to make it a positive thing, that's an opportunity. i also wonder if the selective service moment isn't an opportunity to ask people to consider this and perhaps build in something more structure. it's something that's already existed in law. >> can i take that? kathy and i are old friends. i completely agree with everything you've just said. we've been working with the college presidents and whatnot and a lot of them, you get support, but colleges are -- and not to be negative -- are essentially conservative institutions. to get a change in how they do business, it takes pressure. some of the things i'd like to see is lowering transaction costs. we have military recruiting stations. and right now in some places you have separate marine corps, navy, what if you had a service recruiting station and you go in there, and on one end of the spectrum you have the peace corps and all of these

opportunities, so if you walk in and you're not suitable for one you go to the other and the economies of getting your data. there's certain things, biometrics they have to get. and a parent could go into this place, and they could be physical places and they could be virtual. so, as a consequence as you're doing this, the opportunity to see i'm here to serve. wow, there's this whole spectrum, and where do i fit? and i think it's a compelling idea, but it gets a lot of entities that have not traditionally worked together to hold their breath and hold their nose and get in the same place and do it. and i think it would be really powerful if we could move forward. >> do you think human resource is going to let a peace corps set up a dirking inside the army recruiting station? >> if the military doesn't have a good enough to compel itself, that would make it better. if you think about it, that's, it would always make, everyone would have to keep tuning their product.

>> if you etch pand opportunities for national service, more people will be interested. there will be a lot of 18-year-old kids who say i wasn't going to do anything, but if i have the expectation to do something, i'm not going to be in the peace corps, i'm going to be an army ranger. i'm going to be a marine. the number of applicants for the military goes up. and the talent pool goes up, and it's going to benefit the military a lot to do this. >> back there in the glasses? wait for the microphone, please. >> good morning. thanks for this conversation. we bring leaders from around the world to volunteer in the united states and americans to serve overseas. congressman, i'm particularly interested in your comments about how isis is out social media the u.s. government, u.s. society in general, and i really do think that as part of this conversation, it needs to talk about how more americans need to serve overseas through peace corps and other programs, particularly muslim majority countries, and frankly, leaders

around the world need to come and serve in the united states so we can find ways to work together, to not just counter violent extremism and social media, but counter extremism working side by side. it can be a larger conversation about service in general, i think, helps solve both problems at home and around the world, and as we've seen in paris, around the world, we need new answers for. we need new solutions for. >> a plug for national service. >> i've been out there the last couple weeks about the importance of keeping the open door for syrian refugees, the very targets of isis. we are harming our national security by shutting off that flow because it's something that isis can use against us. i have gotten more feedback from veterans who are talking about they are worried about the

interpreters or how much they learn from bringing the i'll wl allies here to the united states. it speaks to exactly what you are saying. the veterans are republicans, conservatives. and yet they had that cultural experience overseas. so they get this issue i think much better than a lot of americans. >> this gentleman with the beard. >> thanks. my name is dave solomon. i am with a company that helps talk about foreign policy issues. i think all the routes you've discussed today have been college-bound routes. i've heard harvard and yale talked about from the stage, probably 99% of the folks in this room have a college degree. 70% of americans don't go to college and within the 30% that do there are huge economic and racial disparities. if the goal is uniting people around a shared experience, i worry that if we're only thinking about college-bound

route what we're doing is taking an even narrower band of that 30% and making an elite experience. can you talk a little bit about that? >> let me take this one because i think you probably i haven't been listening to everything we said. because we talked about the requirement that it would be a paid experience so every part of our strata can do that. we talked about employers, not just the high-end employers but walmart and others. you're exactly right. it's got to be for all young americans. one of the things we're looking for is something that connects the young americans to each other. the international part and cultural part is very important. but the reality is what we have been pushing for here, it has a greater participation now at the high end because people can afford to do it, and there tends to be a background. we're trying to knock that down. and that's why you need the incentives. we talk about the bridge. if someone's in a tough neighborhood now and the

opportunity is go do a year of service or get a job when it's available right now, and they have to support somebody, then they've got to grab the nearest thing. i mean, it's just the obvious thing to do. so they grab that. so i think you're exactly right. we've got to make it a leveling, a cross-leveling experience so that we don't have unique zip code experience or educational level experience or religious or anything else. as charles murray captured so well in "coming apart", we are fragmenting in so many ways we don't even recognize, and this could be the unifying thing. my first platoon in the army, i was a platoon leader in the 1970s, and the army was not at its best in the 1970s, and my platoon, when they ran out of beer money, they had a cord, and they would stand in a circle and basically recharge themselves.

we laugh about that, and you go what a bunch of knuckleheads, but they were great young paratroopers. most had not, i don't think any had gone to college. many had had tough upbringings, but they were great young americans, fearless young paratroopers and the kind of people that when i spent time with them, i came away better. they took the young west point graduate who had grown-up kind of from suburbia. they made me a better person. i think that happens to all of us both ways. >> i rely on those guys today. i have a facebook group with one of my platoons. we talk almost every day. i have told them, in my new job as a congressman, if you ever see me losing touch, you know, becoming one of them in washington, i want you to call me out of it on it. and i look to my fellow marines more than any other group of friends to do that.

>> back to the front row. we had an early question waiting patiently. >> thank you all very much. my name is lorelei kelly. i'm working for a presidential library for congress. i'm setting up a program called resilient democracy. we're looking at how to bring congress into the 21st century. the bad news is about congress as you pointed out is people watch house of cards. the good news is that congress is not organized enough to be that awful. [ laughter ] i worked on the hill helping both democrats and republicans, and it was my impression that the military had support systems for information supply and decision making that we could bring in for civilian decision support. today the possibilities for

legislatures are immense. like michelle, i've known forever on all her work, how would you look at a unified budget. i think that mr. ryan would be really interested in this, and these tools are available now, data feeds in committee hearings. there's all these young people with tremendous technical skills in every district in this country, and i'm wondering, are you working with technologists and civic technologists in your district? do you see that as one way to realign the interests of young people with govern being. and i'd like to know, too, michelle, where you're seeing this, and i feel like that's the sweet spot for service and renewal and the modern era. >> let me let michelle answer this, but i'll just say we have a computer programmer on staff.

and i don't know if there's any other house office or senate office on capitol hill that has a programmer or software engineer as a member of the team. so i think this is absolutely essential. so if you walk into my congressional office, you'll be greeted with a tv screen we call the dashboard where we talk not just about the work we're doing but about how people in our district are doing and how they interact with us in the congressional office. this is something i believe in. it sounds like a planted question, but i know it's not. it's something that we have a huge opportunity. >> i think it's a great idea of figuring out how do you leverage people who are interested in things like big data analytics to help support and target where we focus our opportunities for national service, because even if we were wildly successful in what we've all been talking about here this morning, the actual need, the communities that could use that kind of attention and support, the need

is so overwhelming to even what we could imagine being able to provide in terms of a supply. you're going to need people to help figure out, where is the highest, best application of these resources, and i think getting the young people who are very technology literate and very interested in that kind of analysis to be part of a national service structure would be, it's really, i haven't heard that idea before, but it's a really good one. >> this side in the back, yeah. waving your hand. i saw you earlier. >> my name's john. thanks for the talk. former military officer, just finished my ph.d. and members of the truman national security project. my question is about principles. we started by talking about general mcchrystal and the founding documents of the country, and i noticed this

national security as a concept and national service as a concept. it seems like one of the problems if we need a lot of public sector funding getting people to agree not just what the nature of national service is, but what the nature of national security is. and a lot of people, at least in this town, part of the narrative, they want to be very restrictive about what that means, and often it's limited to military and kinetic aspects of military stuff. whereas we're talking about education, building communities, public diplomacy. i guess the question is, how do we think, if we want to do national service and promote that, how do we need to shape the narrative on what it needs for, in the 21st century to promote our national security? >> yeah, i would start -- that's a great question. when we try to articulate, and i think i do a poor job. i talk about citizenship being the sinew that ties together a nation and gets people to work

together. and it's that kind of organization that as michelle said is resilient and can deal with emerging problems, because you can never anticipate all these problems. the problem with that is it's not as objectively counted as military units and things like that. also, we tend to look at crises in short-term fashion. we think of isis as a crisis. in the great scheme of existential crises, it isn't a crisis. i think it's a problem in the world, but it's not a crises. one governing ourselves could be a crisis. education could be a crisis that weakens our nation. so getting the narrative so that we can put in perspective those things which really matter, because a lot of your solutions take a long time, we are talking

about something where we're investing in a number of generations, year after year. and the payoff comes in decades, not in a year or two. and it's harder, i think, to mobilize people to invest in that kind of thing if the payoff is longer. and this is where i think it comes back to what both seth and michelle were talking about with data. i really think that we can harness data now to at least help support this. it's not a solution for everything. but it could connect some things. like one of the numbers we see is if you do national service, you have a much higher likelihood of voting in the future. of volunteering in the future. of all the things we normally equate with active citizenship. and if we can tie those kinds of things back, if we can tie it back to you do better in a job, and all those things, the more we can tie it, i think it would help us.

but i think we're imperfect at that argument right now. >> and i think we do need to study kind of like what you mentioned about the gi bill. i'm pretty sure, and i know franklin has made some progress in this regard. a dollar in this field yields dollars in the well-being in the united states, and at an individual level, the earning potential of that individual over their lifetimes. >> i will stes -- you mentioned data and biometrics. i was thinking, when i graduated college a few years before you, not so much longer, my older brother gave me a book that was something like 24 jobs in social justice. you know, 24. that's what i knew. that was the data set you were connected to, how do i start my career doing something. i knew i was interested in national affairs.

the massive amount of data in this project. >> you mentioned tufts. what a leader they are being here. i was up at tufts speaking last week. and they said kind of quietly, a dirty little secret of this program, it's going to make better students, better graduates, because they do national service. they're not doing something just good for the country, but good for themselves. >> this woman in the red. >> thank you. i'm short. so i will stand. i'm angela young, a truman fellow. i wanted to ask you, you've talked about things like the spectrum of service, a need for recognition of the different things that come in that spectrum of service, but also a need to inspire and incentivize individuals to want to do these things. they want to do the service, but how do you get them in these jobs and make it the most important thing.

and i want to point out that the front lines community that exists, these are aid workers, diplomats, journalists, ngo workers. these are people who are essentially ambassadors who have served on the front lines, and they are the people who can stand up and inspire young people and tell them what the value of national service is. but one of the things that we still see as a challenge that you, general, mentioned is the recognition of this service and recognition of those tours and that we're also doing in mali and elsewhere. how can we come back to that, getting the american public to recognize the value of that service that is going to help them be inspired to send their kids to those places? >> i think one thing you need to have is veterans need to speak up. veterans need to talk about this. on the armed services committee, it seems like it's often the veterans, people who have spent

time in the middle east, who really understand the need for a political component to our fight more than anything else. it's the people who haven't fought who are quick to say let's just bomb them, let's bomb them. i think that's one place where we can help. >> i think it's also frankly trying to get media interest in telling some of these stories. >> i'm here! >> i'm involved with another ngo. every year they do the sammy award. it's from foreign affairs to national security to health to economics. they basically profile remarkable civil servants who, you know, have saved billions of dollars on a program or invented a drug that's going to help cure a type of cancer or just unbelievable stories. and we have killed ourselves trying to get some kind of media coverage, like take a couple of the award winners and do a

little profile on cnn or in defense one or whatever. and it's like pulling teeth. it's, you know, so they take, you know, do a profile of a veteran in a second. but they won't necessarily profile these. so i think, you know, trying to create some traction in the media, trying to tell these stories so people are aware. but also creating that pathway. you know, how do i, okay, once you inspire someone, how do i actually become like you? how do i follow in those footsteps and lay out that bridge so that people know how to walk across it if they are inspired. >> there are some people who have a megaphone. donald trump has 30,000. but if you could get candidates

to show real political courage and stand up and say, this is something i believe in and be specific enough. they leave it so amorphous, but if someone stands up and says, and they're going to take a little heat for it. and if you stand up and say it's two sides of the same coin, there are some veterans who will say you're taking something away from me. not many but there will be some. there will be people who have reasons against it. but if we believe in it, and we want to do it while somebody has the podium when people will listen, i think they ought to say it, and i'm listening for it, and i haven't heard much yet. >> we probably have time for one more. the truman national security project has been mentioned. i wrote about this project in a future article in defense one last year. but it's an interesting example where, you know, but it's a,

because of a political need, a service organization was created. so it's an interesting hybrid but definitely a partisan one where they base themselves, the story is they base themselves off heritage and whether the conservatives had a good old boy network to get their like-minded folks elected, when they get elected to populate government jobs. so young democrats came together to form some different organizations. truman was born where basically was to organize on the left, democrat, people who were interested in national security, who wanted to come to washington to get experience in think tanks, in the military, in different organizations so when their candidates are elected they're ready to go and they could be effective governing managers of these institutions. it was, it was very successful. and they'll say themselves, they're at the next level of okay, we did that, obama was elected and there are a lot of people that are second-term veterans, and one on the panel

may be part of a future administration. maybe more. what comes next to sustain that movement? i think we're talking around a little bit of that, some version of that that is outside of politics perhaps. but it is still rooted in national security, that element of national service. so if you're interested in that, look up the truman project. >> i'll take two quick questions, but this gentleman in the middle has had his hand up the entire time. give us your quick question and we'll take this quick question. we will answer them both to wrap it up. >> my name is thomas shoffner. i went to a school very focussed on service, those of us who studied math, science or engineering often felt like the choice to go into the service was to let our skills atrophy. and/or lose job opportunities. if you haven't looked at code for a year, employers are hard-pressed to say that they

don't care. in your discussions about teach for america, are there any work you're doing to foster stem opportunities? >> good question on stem, and then this gentleman on the other side. both questions, wrap them up. our panelists need to be on their way. >> i'm paul shelton, retired colonel, just retired from the army g-8. before that, i was with the army capability integration center where we bring all these disparate things and put money toward them. and before that, i was a senior service college fellow at tufts. i think the, well, as i sit here and i make observations about each one of these people's experience, it occurs to me that in the army, we don't do anything without a requirement. we're a requirements-driven

organization. if congress doesn't mandate it, if dod doesn't mandate it, we're not doing it. so i think the congressman's mission here is, and i'm sorry if i'm giving my opinion here, but the congressman's mission here is huge. and we've got to get behind the congressman. but i think our lines of effort need to be well, well drawn and that creation of validated requirement is key. and i think we're all behind this. i'm behind it. but i think that, that is the critical element in this discussion. >> okay. both questions.

the requirement need that any of you are advocating for and it's the support for stem jobs or opportunities. >> i do, i do think we could set a national requirement that could be framed in some legislation. and really, we have been thinking about how to sort of structure the different lines of service, if you will, military, global health, public health, economic and community resilience related and others, but i really like the idea of a kind of digital service component. i mean, you see this now coming up in government. the u.s. digital service has been formed. different departments are forming, but i think you could also envision a track of national service that would leverage, i mean be a hack for your country for a year. maybe not hacking, but big data analytics, creating service-related apps. it could be all kinds of things, but creating a pipeline for that

kind of talent to come spend a year doing this, that's an awesome idea. >> final remarks? >> final remarks. >> i mean, look, i take this responsibility as an advocate for national security in congress and national service very seriously and i want to be a congressman who's known as a leader of this movement and that's why i'm here this morning. why i worked closely you know, let me take a few minutes after a member of congress to tell you about how to create an efficient bureaucracy. why i'm looking to heeders lile this to tell us how to do it. i'll make a commitment to you this morning that i will do this. i will work on it. thank you. >> wrap this up. >> thanks, everybody, for coming and i know most of you support. this is not something that will automatically happen. it will only happen if we make it and we can, but it's going to

take political push, organizational skills. it's going to take all the things that can make a generally acceptable good idea practically achievable and that's going to take a lot. i'm committed to it. i know a tremendous number of people who do an extraordinary work sort of in the shadows to make this happen and anybody here, we could enlist them to that effort and any of your friends et cetera. >> ladies and gentlemen, i have three americans who long ago dedicate ed themselves to servi. round of applause for them. >> tonight on cspan 3, american history tv and the civil war. it's the 150th anniversary of the surrender at appomattox

courthou courthouse. also, a look at anderson prison in south carolina. >> this holiday weekend, american history tv on cspan 3 has three days of featured programming beginning friday evening at 6:30 eastern to mark the 125th anniversary of the birth of president eisenhower, his granddaughter, susan and mary eisenhower, gather for a rare family discussion at gettysburg college to talk about his military and political career as well as his legacy. and relevance for 21st century americans. then on saturday afternoon at 1:00, 60 years ago, rosa parks defied a city ordnance. her stand helped ins gait the montgomery bus boycott. we'll reflect and see what role lawyers played as we hear from

fred gray, attorney for rosa parks and demonstrators. then at :00, civil war author and historian, williams davis, on the little known aspects of the lives and leadership of u les is s. grant and robert e. lee. and a 1965 progress report on nasa's project including the manned space program and the mariner four fly by of mars. just before 9:00, rick burns on how the public learns about history through film and television. american history tv. all weekend and on holidays, too. only on cspan 3. >> a look at the adjudication of immigration cases and removal proceedings. >> the review of executive office director testifiedef