[Senate Hearing 114-590]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-590
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION TO OPEN ALL GROUND COMBAT UNITS TO
WOMEN
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-850 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma JACK REED, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BILL NELSON, Florida
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
TOM COTTON, Arkansas KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JONI ERNST, Iowa JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska TIM KAINE, Virginia
MIKE LEE, Utah ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
TED CRUZ, Texas
Christian D. Brose, Staff Director
Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
tuesday, february 2, 2016
Page
The Implementation of the Decision to Open All Ground Combat
Units to Women................................................. 1
Mabus, Honorable Raymond E., JR., Secretary of the Navy.......... 5
Murphy, Honorable Patrick J., Under Secretary of the Army........ 10
Milley, General Mark A., USA, Chief of Staff of the United States
Army........................................................... 12
Neller, General Robert B., USMC, Commandant of the United States
Marine Corps................................................... 13
Questions for the Record......................................... 96
(iii)
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION TO OPEN ALL GROUND COMBAT UNITS TO
WOMEN
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
Room SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John
McCain (chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators McCain, Sessions,
Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee,
Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman McCain. Good morning. The Senate Armed Services
Committee meets this morning to hear testimony about how the
Army and Marine Corps are planning to implement the Secretary
of Defense's decision to open all ground combat units to women.
We welcome our witnesses this morning: Secretary of the
Navy Ray Mabus; Commandant of the Marine Corps General Robert
Neller; Acting Secretary of the Army Patrick Murphy; and Army
Chief of Staff General Mark Milley. We thank you for being here
this morning and for your many years of distinguished service.
This hearing is not about whether women can serve in
combat. The fact is that women have served honorably in our
military for years. They have filled critical roles in every
branch of our military. Some have served as pilots like
Congresswoman Martha McSally who flew combat missions in
Afghanistan. Some have served as logisticians like Joni Ernst
who ran convoys into Iraq. Others have served as medics,
intelligence officers, nuclear engineers, boot camp
instructors, and more.
Many of these women have served in harm's way. Women like
Army Specialist Monica Lin Brown who ran through insurgent
gunfire and saved the lives of her wounded comrades by using
her body to shield them from incoming mortar fire. Women like
Army Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester who led a counterattack that
defeated an ambush by 50 insurgents and saved the lives of her
fellow soldiers.
Many women have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service
of our Nation, including 160 killed in the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq. We honor their service and sacrifice, and we honor
them.
That is why when then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
lifted the ban on women serving in combat 3 years ago, I
supported that decision. But as I said then, as this decision
is implemented, ``it is critical that we maintain the same high
standards that have made the American military the most feared
and admired fighting force in the world.'' We have a
responsibility to do the right thing, but we also have an equal
responsibility to do the right thing in the right way. That is
what this hearing is about, ensuring that as women move into
more positions across our military, the readiness, combat
effectiveness, and the safety and wellbeing of all service
members, both men and women, remain our paramount priority.
On December 3rd, 2015, Secretary Carter announced that the
Department of Defense would lift the ban on women in ground
combat units. In advance of this decision, both the Army and
Marine Corps sought to assess the physical and readiness
impacts of integrating women into their ground elements,
including through special field studies. The Army study
simulated tasks to determine what the gender-neutral standards
should be for each occupational specialty based on physical
tasks. The Marine Corps simulated the combat environment with
men and women marines living and working together under combat-
like conditions.
These studies, while different in their approach, are
complementary in their results. For the first time, they helped
establish objective, scientifically based standards for the
tasks required for ground combat. They found that certain women
could meet these standards. But both studies also found that
when performing brute physical tasks, on average these higher-
performing women were generally comparable to lower-performing
men and that in the process, women sustained higher rates of
injury than men. Indeed, only two women marines were able to
complete the combat activities simulated in the Marine Corps
study due to extremely high rates of injury to lower
extremities.
In short, the Army and Marine Corps studies demonstrated
that biological differences between men and women can have
implications when it comes to the sustained physical activities
involved in combat.
Rather than honestly confront these realities, some have
sought to minimize them. Indeed, we have even heard attempts to
disparage the women marines who participated in the study at
Twentynine Palms as somehow less than our best. In fact, these
women were top caliber marines, self-selected and chosen to
participate based on their aptitude and physical strength. I
hope that Secretary Mabus and others who have spoken ill of
these women will repudiate these comments.
Put simply, I am concerned that the Department has gone
about things backwards. This consequential decision was made
and mandated before the military services could study its
implications and before any implementation plans were devised
to address the serious challenges raised in the studies.
Indeed, our services now have the authority to begin
contracting women for ground combat positions, but the Congress
has yet to receive any implementation plans. Our witnesses are
here today to address these concerns and the many questions
that still remain.
For the members of this committee to perform our oversight
responsibilities, we need to know what the gender- neutral
military occupational specialty tests will look like, when they
will be administered, how often they will be administered, and
how they will interact with the current physical fitness
standards which are currently gender- normed. We need to know
how women service members will be set up for success to serve
long and healthy military careers while maintaining high
standards. And while the services are committed to maintaining
standards that are tied to specific military occupational
specialties, we know that over time political pressure will
come to bear to increase the number of women in combat arms
specialties. We expect to hear the witnesses address these
important concerns.
Most importantly, we need to hear from a professional
military perspective how integrating women into scout sections,
infantry squads, tank crews, artillery batteries, and combat
engineers will improve the readiness and combat power of our
ground units. After all, that is the overriding mission of our
Nation's military.
Recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq serve as a stark
reminder that close combat remains brutal and uncompromising.
Warfare has changed over the years, but the duty of our
fighting men and women, from the Second World War to Vietnam to
today, remains the same, to close with and destroy the enemy.
It is conducted in dangerous and austere environments. No other
human activity is more psychologically straining, morally
demanding, and more physically stressful. High physical
standards alone do not assure success in ground combat.
Ultimately these standards must be devised and implemented in a
manner that ensures that we treat our soldiers and marines
fairly, but that we never offer the enemy a fair fight.
That is why we must be uncompromising in our insistence on
training to high standards. That is why we must preserve the
small unity cohesion and discipline that ensure small combat
units can win and survive on the forward edge of the
battlefield. Troops in close combat bear the heaviest burden
across the entire Department of Defense. And going forward, it
is the wellbeing of those service members, whether they be men
or women, that must override every other concern.
Senator Reed?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
would like to join you in thanking our witnesses for joining us
today to provide testimony on how their respective services
will successfully integrate women into combat occupations and
the ground combat forces in particular.
I would like to thank each of you and the services you
represent, as well as the Air Force, which is not represented
here today, on the deliberative processes that you have taken
in studying this issue over the past several years. Secretary
Panetta and General Dempsey initiated this effort in 2013, and
since then, each service has conducted research and studied
performance to validate occupational standards for every
military occupation. While today's hearing is focused on the
difficult and challenging aspects of integration within the
ground combat forces, it is important to remember that hundreds
of thousands of positions have been opened to service by women
over the past several years. Many of these positions were
considered not too long ago as available for men only for many,
many reasons. This assumption has been disproven by the
performance of female personnel in those occupations already
open to all genders.
Now that the decision to open all positions to women has
been made, it is important that we turn our focus to the
successful integration of females into these positions.
Leadership is the key to ensuring both individual and
collective success, as it was when other military occupations
where opened to women. I have every confidence that each of you
will implement this decision smartly and successfully.
Part of this process, as I mentioned, is the statutory
requirement to establish gender-neutral physical, mental, and
technical occupational standards which any service member, male
or female, must meet as a condition to serve in any particular
occupation, including the combat arms. This is critical. As
many members have said over the past several years, it is
important that our warfighting capability not be reduced. There
is a tendency, however, to equate warfighting capability solely
with physical capability. Fighting and winning wars, as I am
sure our panelists know well, much more so than I, involves
much more than that. I believe that the full and successful
integration of women into the combat arms, for a variety of
reasons, will strengthen and enhance our warfighting
capabilities.
Integrating women into ground combat units also must be
reflected in how and who we recruit and how we assess
capabilities at the recruit stage to maximize successful
service and minimize attrition. Not all women will be able or
even interested in serving in the combat arms. But I believe
many, particularly those with the required physical ability and
the necessary mental toughness for service in the combat arms,
may now be drawn to the ever greater equal opportunities
provided by military service. I look forward to hearing how the
services plan to recruit and assign individuals for service in
the combat arms, what plans you have for developing predictive
tests at the recruit stage to assess the potential for success
of a given recruit, and what challenges you face and foresee.
Finally, I believe it is important for the services, but
particularly Army and the Marine Corps, to develop plans and
strategies to mitigate the physical stress and toll that a
career in the ground combat profession has on every soldier and
marine, men as well as women. Part of successful implementation
will be ensuring the ability to serve a full career regardless
of gender.
I thank you for your time and your expertise and look
forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. We would like to begin with you, Secretary
Mabus.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE RAYMOND E. MABUS, JR., SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY
Mr. Mabus. Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, members of
this committee, the issues before us today are of vital
importance, as you have heard, to the future of the United
States Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy, the Department
of Defense, and our Nation as a whole.
The question at issue is very straightforward: how do we
maintain and improve the combat effectiveness of our military
as we execute the decision to open all previously closed
positions to women.
Serving as Secretary of the Navy is the greatest honor of
my life. Every single decision I make is in support of
maximizing the combat effectiveness of the United States Marine
Corps. For almost 7 years as Secretary, I have been talking to
marines face to face about being marines, about making marines,
and the marines warfighting ethos. I have seen them at
Quantico, at Paris Island, at San Diego, and at nearly every
stop that I have made in the almost 1.2 million miles I have
traveled as Secretary, including every single forward operating
base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. I have spent time with
marines where they are serving and have seen firsthand that
this decision to open all previously closed positions to women
is putting policy in line with what is already reality,
acknowledging the critical role women play and have been
playing in mission success.
The Marine Corps is the most formidable expeditionary
fighting force the world has ever known. That legacy is proven
through the Corps' storied history, from the halls of Montezuma
to the valleys of Afghanistan, and that reputation is
unquestioned in America and around the globe. No better friend,
no worse enemy. The strong traditions of the Marines help make
that reputation and among those traditions is a commitment to
evolve, to be flexible, in one of the common instructions given
to young marines, improvise, adapt, overcome.
Throughout its history, the Corps has maintained its combat
power and its lethality by adapting to changing conditions,
evolving training and tactics to meet new challenges and new
threats. Today's School of Infantry is not the same as it was
just 25 years ago during Desert Storm, and the change is even
more dramatic since Vietnam or World War II. In a world where
the threats and the battle space are all increasingly complex,
failing to reevaluate everything from personnel policies to
weapons programs can be dangerous if not fatal. A response of
``that is the way we have always done it'' is not, cannot, and
never has been an acceptable rationale.
In the Department of the Navy, we are continually
evaluating the way we operate. After Secretary Panetta and
Chairman Dempsey set us in 2012 on the path toward opening all
billets, including ground combat, to women by this year, the
Navy and Marine Corps, along with our sister services,
conducted extensive studies on this issue. These studies helped
inform the Department's recommendation to Secretary of Defense
Carter and his subsequent decision to open all previously
closed positions in all services to women. But they were not
the only source of information that was gathered in reaching
that recommendation.
However, the Marine Corps study has drawn special
attention, and at least some of what has made it into public
discussion is less than accurate. Among the misperceptions is
that the Marines relied on just one study. In fact, their
conclusions were based, in part, on a number of studies and
reports. I have spent a lot of time closely reviewing all of
them, especially the Marines' own study. In addition, I have
had numerous discussions with senior Marine leadership, with
junior officers, with enlisted personnel.
First and very importantly, I absolutely commend the
marines who volunteered for this experiment for their work in
assisting the Corps with approaching this integration process.
I also appreciate the thoughtfulness, the diligence, and the
sincerity of Marine leadership. Their time and effort helped to
develop these standards, reinforce the importance of
leadership, and set specific metrics for these demanding ground
combat jobs.
The most surprising finding of the Marine Corps study was
that standards for many Marine Corps military occupation
specialties, MOS's, just did not exist. An incredibly important
thing that came out of this study was the establishment of
operationally relevant, occupation- specific, gender-neutral
standards.
The Marines deconstructed every job in ground combat to
specifically detail its requirements so that individual members
could function better as a team. So what we have now are a set
of standards based on the actual requirements and demands for
every Marine MOS, and the Corps is more effective and more
ready because of this work.
As I thoroughly examined the Marine Corps study, it was
clear that the conclusions focused on the average performance
of female marines rather than on individual abilities. Averages
do not tell the abilities and performance of an individual
marine. There were and are capable women who can meet the
arduous standards the Marine Corps set for ground combat arms
units. And we all know that marines have never been about
average.
We also know, as Commandant Neller regularly and very
correctly notes and as the chairman in his opening statement
said, this is not about women in combat. Women have been
serving in combat and serving with distinction, and they have
been recognized for it. 422 female marines have earned the
Combat Action Ribbon for their service in Iraq and Afghanistan
for the various roles they have played, to include the Lioness
Program and Female Engagement Teams.
Female marines have enhanced combat effectiveness by
running convoys and security patrols, flying close air support
missions, and leading engineering platoons. They have performed
exceptionally on the front lines in places like Fallujah,
Ramadi, and Sangin.
Chairman McCain. Mr. Secretary, I would like you to try to
truncate your remarks and summarize. We have other witnesses
and questions by the committee.
Mr. Mabus. The Marine Corps leadership have developed
thoughtful and deliberate plans to execute this transition
effectively. The Corps has already notified the 231 women who
have successfully completed ground combat arms MOS training at
formal learning centers that they can switch to these
previously closed jobs immediately if they chose to.
Part of this transition is the evaluation of the training
and education that we provide at every level, from recruits and
officer candidates to the highest levels of leadership, and the
Secretary of Defense highlighted education and training as a
focus area as we begin implementation of this policy.
A point of discussion has been that the Marines are the
only service which separates men and women at boot camp. I
directed the Marines to brief me on a plan to integrate basic
training.
The Marines prepared a very thoughtful briefing and went
ahead, which provided timely and informative considerations as
the Department of Defense Implementation Group do their
important work. With the benefit of their response, we can move
forward in a measured and effective way using the lessons of
fully integrated, gender-integrated OCS and the basic school,
as well as lessons learned as Marines have opened up many MOS's
in the past 3 years.
With validated, operationally relevant, job-specific
standards, the only test that is important is whether a person
can meet those standards. Now, I know that suggestions have
been made that those standards might be lowered down the road
to achieve some quota, some numerical goal. But that is
unacceptable, unacceptable under the law, unacceptable to me,
unacceptable to every other senior leader in the Pentagon
because it would endanger not only the safety of marines but
the safety of our Nation.
Lowering standards would also be unacceptable, absolutely
unacceptable, to every marine, especially those women who
choose to compete for those positions. One thing is inviolate:
standards can never be lowered for any group or any job.
Standards will evolve as threats evolve, but they will evolve
for everyone equally. But just as there is no good argument to
lower standards, there is also no good argument to bar anyone
who has met those standards from serving.
That is the American promise. It does not guarantee an
outcome to anyone, but it does guarantee opportunity for
everyone. For those who want to serve in these trying MOS's,
these high standards will not make it easy, nor should they.
But every person will have the opportunity. And for those who
succeed, they will operate side by side with everyone else who
has met the standard to be a marine. Those marines and this
Nation will continue to uphold the motto that marines have
fought and died under for almost 2 and a half centuries: Semper
Fidelis.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mabus follows:]
Prepared Statement by Mr.Raymond E. Mabus
Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, members of the Committee, the
issues before us today are of vital importance to the future of the
United States Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy, the Department
of Defense, and our nation as a whole.
The question at issue is very straightforward: How do we maintain
and improve the combat effectiveness of our military as we execute the
decision to open all previously closed positions to women.
Serving as Secretary of the Navy is the greatest honor of my life.
Every single decision I make is in support of maximizing the combat
effectiveness of the Marine Corps. For almost seven years as Secretary,
I've been talking to Marines face to face about being Marines, making
Marines, and the Marine warfighting ethos. I have seen them at
Quantico, at Parris Island, at San Diego and at nearly every stop I've
made along the 1,160,208 miles I've travelled during my time as
Secretary, including every FOB [Found Operating Base] in Helmand
Province, Afghanistan. I've spent time with Marines where they are
serving, and have seen first-hand that this decision to open all
previously closed positions to women is putting policy in line with
what is already reality, acknowledging the critical role women play,
and have been playing, in mission success.
The Marine Corps is the most formidable expeditionary fighting
force the world has ever known. That legacy is proven through the
Corps' storied history, from the halls of Montezuma to the Valleys of
Afghanistan, and that reputation is unquestioned in America and around
the globe: No better friend, no worse enemy. The strong traditions of
the Marines help make that reputation, and among those traditions is a
commitment to evolve, to be flexible--in one of the common instructions
to young Marines--to improvise, adapt and overcome.
Throughout its history, the Corps has maintained its combat power
and its lethality by adapting to changing conditions, evolving training
and tactics to meet new challenges and new threats. Today's School of
Infantry is not the same as it was just 25 years ago during Desert
Storm, and the change is even more dramatic since Vietnam or World War
II. In a world where the threats and the battle space are all
increasingly complex, failing to re-evaluate everything from personnel
policies to weapons programs can be dangerous if not fatal. A response
of ``that's the way we've always done it,'' is not, cannot be, and
never has been, an acceptable rationale.
In the Department of the Navy, we are continually evaluating the
way we operate. After Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey set us in
2012 on the path toward opening all billets, including ground combat,
to women by this year, the Navy and Marine Corps--along with our sister
services--conducted extensive studies on that issue. These studies
helped inform the Department's recommendation to Secretary of Defense
Carter and his subsequent decision to open all previously closed
positions in all services to women. But they were not the only source
of information that was gathered in reaching that recommendation.
However, the Marine Corps study has drawn special attention, and at
least some of what has made it into public discussion is--to put it
generously--less than accurate. Among the misperceptions is that the
Marines relied on just one study. In fact, their conclusions were, in
part, based on a number of studies and reports. I have spent a
considerable amount of time closely reviewing all of them, especially
the Marines' own study. In addition, I've had numerous discussions with
senior Marine leadership, junior officers, and enlisted personnel.
First and very importantly, I commend the Marines who volunteered
for the experiment for their work assisting the Corps with approaching
the integration process. I also appreciate the thoughtfulness,
diligence and sincerity of Marine leadership. Their time and effort
helped to develop standards, reinforce the importance of leadership,
and set specific metrics for these demanding ground combat jobs.
The most surprising finding of the Marine Corps study was that
standards for many Marine Corps Military Occupations Specialties--or
MOS's--did not exist. An incredibly important thing that came out of
this study was the establishment of operationally relevant, occupation
specific, gender-neutral standards.
The Marines deconstructed each job in a ground combat unit to
specifically detail its requirements so that individual members could
function better as a team. So what we have now are a set of standards
based on the actual requirements and demands for every Marine MOS, and
the Corps is more effective and more ready because of this work.
As I thoroughly examined the Marine Corps study, it was clear that
the conclusions focused on the average performance of female Marines
rather than individual abilities. Averages don't tell the abilities and
performance of an individual Marine. There were--and are--capable women
who can meet the arduous standards the Marine Corps set for ground
combat arms units. We all know the Marines have never been about
average.
We also know, as Commandant Neller regularly and very correctly
notes, that this is not about women in combat. Women have been serving
in combat, serving with distinction, and they've been recognized for
it; 422 female Marines have earned Combat Action Ribbons for their
service in Iraq and Afghanistan for various roles they've played, to
include the Lioness Program and Female Engagement Teams.
Female Marines have enhanced combat effectiveness by running
convoys and security patrols, flying close air support missions, and
leading engineering platoons. They have performed exceptionally on the
front lines in places like Fallujah, Ramadi and Sangin--upholding the
Marines' incredible combat proficiency and impeccable traditions. This
is about opening up the last few MOS's in accordance with the direction
by the Secretary of Defense and doing so in a way that maintains or
increases combat effectiveness.
Last week, I was at Quantico to have a frank discussion with
Marines and see them train. What the visit reinforced in me is just how
exceptional these young men and women are. They are mission-focused and
thoughtful, they are respectful and proud, and they are intent on doing
what Marines do best: developing the world's finest warfighters,
irrespective of gender, color, religion or background because those
things are irrelevant when it comes to meeting the standards required
in combat.
Officers Candidate School and The Basic School at Quantico are
already fully gender integrated. The questions I received there from
the Corps' newest officers were far broader than the opening of the
last few MOS's. There were questions about how to lead in new, ever-
changing environments and about emerging threats like cybersecurity.
The Marines of history, those that fought at Belleau Wood, at Iwo
Jima, at Hue City, at Fallujah and at Mousa Kala have always
represented the best our country has to offer, have always adapted and
overcome whatever threat has faced our country. My visit showed me that
is absolutely still the case today.
Marine Corps leadership have developed thoughtful and deliberate
plans to execute this transition effectively. The Corps has already
notified the 231 women who have successfully completed ground combat
arms MOS training at formal learning centers they can switch to these
previously closed jobs immediately if they choose to do so.
Part of this transition is the evaluation of the training and
education that we provide at every level, from recruits and officer
candidates to the highest levels of leadership, and the Secretary of
Defense highlighted education and training as focus areas as we begin
implementation of this policy. A point of discussion has been that the
Marines are the only Service which separates men and women at boot
camp. I directed the Marines to brief me on a plan to integrate basic
training and then to implement that plan by April 1.
The Marines prepared a very thoughtful briefing and way ahead,
which provided timely and informative considerations as the Department
of Defense-wide Implementation Group, headed by the Deputy Secretary of
Defense and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, do their
important work. I thank the Marine Corps for assembling this
information.
With the benefit of their response, we can move forward in a
measured and effective way using the lessons of OCS and TBS [The Basic
School] as well as the lessons learned as Marines have opened up many
MOS's in the past 3 years.
With validated, operationally relevant, job specific standards--
these are high standards--the only test that is important is whether a
person can meet those standards. I know suggestions have been made that
those standards might be lowered down the road to achieve some quota,
some numerical goal. But that is unacceptable, unacceptable under the
law, and unacceptable to me and every other senior leader in the
Pentagon, because it would endanger not only the safety of Marines, but
also the safety of our nation.
Lowering standards would also be unacceptable to every Marine,
especially those women who choose to compete for these positions. One
thing is inviolate: standards can never be lowered for any group or for
any job. Standards will evolve as threats evolve, as circumstances
change, but they will evolve for everyone equally. But just as there is
no good argument to lower standards, there is also no good argument to
bar anyone who has met those standards from serving.
The Secretary of Defense's decision to open all previously closed
MOS's, including all Marine MOSs, to women is therefore an important
step for our military and our country. This isn't about quotas, and
this doesn't mean every, or even most, Marines will make it, but it
does mean every Marine who wants to will have the chance to compete.
And that is the American promise, which does not guarantee an
outcome to anyone, but does guarantee opportunity for everyone.
Americans have always worked to fulfill that exceptional promise
made at our founding. We have continually broken down artificial
barriers to equal opportunity based on race, religion or gender. Our
military forces have followed that same history and made themselves
stronger and better and more effective because of it.
Implementing this policy breaks down a last barrier.
For those who want to serve in these trying MOS's, these high
standards will not make it easy, nor should they, but each person will
have the opportunity. And for those who succeed, they will operate side
by side with everyone else who has met the standard to be a Marine.
Those Marines and this nation will continue to uphold the motto Marines
have fought and died under for almost two and a half centuries: Semper
Fidelis.
Chairman McCain. Secretary Murphy?
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE PATRICK J. MURPHY, UNDER SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY
Mr. Murphy. Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed----
Chairman McCain. Your complete statements will be made part
of the record. Please go ahead.
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
The Army remains in full support of Secretary Carter's
directive to open every job to every soldier regardless of
gender. Following 3 years of study, then-Secretary John McHugh
recommended that no exceptions be made in the implementation,
and I concur with his recommendation today.
This is the right decision for our Army. Our Army
represents America and embodies the best of our values. The
personal courage and selfless service made by women in our Army
is no different than that exhibited by our men. We owe them the
respect and honor to offer them the opportunity to succeed
anywhere in our Army based upon only the merits of their
performance.
Practically this is the right decision for our Army as
well. As our Army gets smaller, our success increasingly
depends upon our ability to maximize the contributions of every
volunteer that fills our ranks. A soldier's ability to meet
established standards that contribute to our success will
remain our overriding factor moving forward.
Recognizing these imperatives, the Army began integration
efforts several years ago to take full advantage of America's
diverse and deep talent. Practical knowledge gained from these
efforts complemented by several years of extensive research,
collaboration, and practical evaluation have led us to three
primary conclusions.
First, that women are capable of performing every job in
the Army. This is not to say that every woman can do every job,
just like every man cannot do every job. But no job in our Army
has standards that cannot be met by women. Therefore, every
soldier will have the opportunity, should they choose to do so,
to compete against established standards for every position, to
include the infantry, armor, and special forces.
Next, we will maintain high individual standards of
performance and professional conduct. These standards will
continue to be based upon the requirements of the position and
nothing else. We will continue to enforce them fairly and
objectively across the force. Our guiding principle for these
standards is and will remain exclusively their contribution to
mission success.
Finally, leadership is critical to integration. As
Secretary Carter noted, the performance of teams is important
and integration will change these dynamics. Our leaders,
enabled by comprehensive and deliberate education, will closely
monitor these efforts. We cannot anticipate or control for
every impact of integration, but this will not slow our
progress. We will continue to monitor and report the lessons we
learn so that our Army can collectively integrate the force and
share our experiences. But we are prepared to act and benefit
from integration now.
Full integration will likely take several years, both to
adjust the culture and to grow individual skills within our
force. But I am confident that every leader in the Army will
understand and respect the increased readiness that integration
will bring. Underpinned by strong, professional leaders, we
will remain true to the values of the Army and to America and
emerge as a stronger, more ready Army as a result.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy and Mr. Milley
follows:]
The Joint Prepared Statement by Hon. Patrick J. Murphy and General Mark
A. Milley, United States Army
implementation of the decision to open all ground combat units to women
Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of
America's Army.
Following three years of careful and comprehensive study, the Army
recommended all military occupational specialties (MOS) be open to
women. In our view, the best-qualified Soldier, regardless of gender,
should be allowed to serve in any position.
Every volunteer who swears to support and defend our Constitution
should be afforded the opportunity to serve according to their merit in
any military career field.
Full integration will result in a stronger Army. Establishing
specialty-specific, operationally-relevant gender neutral standards,
based on combat experience that are rigorously enforced for both men
and women will likely increase overall readiness of the Army to conduct
operations anywhere at any time against any foe. Women represent
greater than half our population and the Army intends to take full
advantage of this talent pool.
The Army has previously and continues to successfully integrate
females into units based upon a phased, deliberate approach that
maintains Army standards, ensures equitable treatment, and reinforces
Army values of dignity and respect. Our guiding principles of
implementation are first, to maintain readiness that is standards-
based. Second, to have a deliberate and methodical process that is
transparent. And third, that leadership and accountability are key to
success, with no quotas and equitable treatment. As we continue to move
forward to fully integrate our Army, we intend to build upon these
principles.
The Army has deployed gender integrated Brigade Combat Teams over
the last decade. Since 2011 the Army opened 9 military occupational
specialties and approximately 95,000 positions in Combat Arms units,
down to company and platoon level. Since 9/11, over a thousand U.S.
military women have been killed or wounded while deployed to combat
zones. Today, women serve in every Active Duty Infantry, Armor and
Field Artillery battalion. The 160th Special Operations Aviation
Regiment was opened to women in 2014, and the Army's Ranger Course was
opened just last year. The Army has had success with its deliberate
methodical approach. Additionally, over 9,000 women have received the
Army Combat Action Badge for ``actively engaging or being engaged by
the enemy,'' and two have received the Silver Star for ``gallantry in
action against an enemy of the United States.''
We have identified several tasks required for full integration. We
will implement published, measurable, gender-neutral standards based
solely on combat requirements and that will not be compromised for any
reason. Next, we will initiate gender-neutral training, and assign
leaders first, followed by female enlisted Soldiers. This will allow us
the opportunity both to learn from measured implementation as well as
to build a cadre of female officers and NCO (Non Commissioned Officer)
leadership. Additionally, we will improve our accessions vetting to
better screen and manage individual Soldier qualifications.
We estimate that effective integration will require 1-3 years of
deliberate, monitored effort with continued rigorous assessment. We
have already begun to ensure our facilities meet legal and Army
guidelines for accession as well as basic and initial training of
female Soldiers. Additionally, we are providing leaders and Soldiers
with appropriate education to support these changes. This spring,
female cadets and officer candidates who qualify will be given the
opportunity to request assignment to Infantry or Armor branches. As
those women who volunteer complete necessary training for their new
MOSs, they will serve as the basis for our integrated programs.
While real challenges remain, we are confident they are manageable.
These challenges include: inconsistent enforcement of existing
standards and perceptions of double-standards; cohesion; sexual assault
and harassment; ignorance of Army policy; small numbers of volunteers
or high attrition; injury rates; career management; and discipline.
Through a variety of policies, rigorous training, enforced standards,
and leader education--all grounded in the importance of ground combat--
full gender integration is possible. The Army will regularly assess our
long-term strategies and continue earlier studies to better understand
critical areas. Combined, this will inform future policy adjustments
and education plans to support full gender integration.
The Army has an established record of success in opening
occupations previously closed to women. These experiences and the
results of five careful and deliberate studies have informed and
enabled the Army to successfully implement this guidance and increase
our overall readiness, thereby making us a more combat effective Army.
As the Army moves forward, you have our commitment that we will do so
in a manner that is fully transparent to the American people and to the
Congress.
On behalf of the Army, thank you for your support of our Soldiers,
Civilians, Veterans, and their Families.
Chairman McCain. General Milley, welcome.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL MARK A. MILLEY, USA, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE
UNITED STATES ARMY
General Milley. Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate it. And
Ranking Member Reed and thank you all for the opportunity to
appear before you on behalf of America's Army and to discuss
the Army's implementation plan for full integration of women.
For the record, I fully support opening any military
occupational specialty and all military occupational
specialties in the United States Army to all soldiers
regardless of gender. It is my solemn duty as the Army Chief of
Staff to ensure that the Army remains ready to defend this
great Nation and to do so, we need the most capable and
qualified men and women.
Readiness is the Army's number one priority, and I believe
that full integration of women in all career fields will either
maintain, sustain, or improve the overall readiness of the
United States Army and our capability of the force. If and only
if we maintain and enforce rigorous combat readiness standards,
we remain a merit-based, results-oriented organization and we
apply no quotas and no pressure. We cannot compromise combat
readiness and effectiveness for any reason whatsoever.
The Army's implementation plan will be guided by a set of
first principles. We will maintain readiness by adherence very
strictly to a set of standards, and we will not impose quotas
on ourselves. We will execute a very deliberate, methodical,
and transparent process. We must not rush to failure. And in
this particular project, I believe that slow is smooth and
smooth will be fast at the end of the day. We will set
conditions by positioning female leaders and units who are
engaged and those units' leaders will be accountable. These
principles are aligned with the guidance given to us by the
Secretary of Defense.
The Army has identified several key tasks required for full
gender integration. When the SecDef approves our plan, we have
developed and will implement published, measurable, gender-
neutral standards based on combat readiness requirements.
Next, we will initiate gender-neutral training for all
officers, non-commissioned officers, and junior enlisted. And
to ensure the success, our plan calls for the deliberate,
methodical approach that begins with assessment, selection,
training, and assigning of female infantry and armor leaders,
both officers and NCOs, to units. That is our leaders' first
principle. And then we will assign junior female enlisted to
those units.
I estimate that effective female integration into infantry
armor and special forces will require no less than 1 to 3 years
of deliberate effort in order to develop the individual skills
and grow our leaders. The Army is currently in the process of
ensuring our facilities comply with law and DOD policies for
accession in gender-neutral living standards at both our basic
and individual training.
Additionally, we will provide leaders and soldiers with
integration education and training to enhance our integration
efforts over the course of this year. This spring, female
cadets and officer candidates who meet the gender-neutral
standard will be given the opportunity to request either
infantry or armor branches, and that process is currently
ongoing.
The Army's integration plan is based on a successful record
of opening occupations previously closed to women. Since 2011,
the Army has opened nine MOS's and approximately 95,000
positions in combat arms units. In fact, today every single
active duty infantry, armor, and field artillery battalion has
women in them. Additionally Task Force 160th--the 160th special
operation aviation regiment--was open to women in 2014, and of
course, as you know, the Army's Ranger School was opened last
year. These experiences have informed and will enable the Army
to successfully implement gender integration to increase our
combat readiness.
Make no mistake about it. This process is going to have
challenges. But if we proceed with a methodical and deliberate
execution and like all previous integration efforts, it is my
belief that the Army will be successful.
I have personally witnessed in multiple tours of very
intense ground combat--I have personally witnessed women
perform, and their tasks were not much different than any other
man that was on that battlefield. I have absolutely no doubt in
my mind in my professional judgment that some women can perform
every single job in the United States Army, to include
infantry, armor, and special forces.
Army leaders will continue to assess and we will adjust the
process to ensure that our standards and combat readiness are
maintained and you, the committee, have my word on this. You
also have my commitment that we will move forward in this
endeavor in a very transparent and collaborative manner with
this committee, with the American people, and with the
Department of Defense.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
look forward to your questions.
Chairman McCain. General Neller?
STATEMENT OF GENERAL ROBERT B. NELLER, USMC, COMMANDANT OF THE
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
General Neller. Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, in
the interest of time, I would ask that my oral statement be
submitted for the record.
Chairman McCain. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of General Neller follows:]
Prepared Statement by General Robert Neller
Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, distinguished members of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, thank you for your continued interest
in ensuring the ongoing readiness of the Nation's Marine Corps.
Successful execution of gender integration implementation will be key
to sustaining our readiness, as well as ensuring all Marines have the
greatest opportunity to succeed as valued members of our team.
As you know, then-Secretary of Defense Panetta fully rescinded the
Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule (DGCDAR) in January
2013. He directed the Services to integrate female service members into
the remaining closed military occupational specialties (MOS) and units
throughout the Department of Defense beginning in January 2016.
Secretary Panetta also offered a period of time to study the
implications of this policy change and directed the Services to return
with any exception recommendations. The Marine Corps did not stand
idle. Under the guiding principles of the Secretary of Defense, we
implemented a deliberate, measured, and responsible research effort to
better understand the aspects of gender integration in those remaining
closed MOS's, and setting the conditions for successful policy
implementation. Our research was about ``how'' to integrate, not
``if.''
Our first action was to form the Marine Corps Force Innovation
Office (MCFIO), led by a General Officer. This group had the primary
task to develop what we now call the Marine Corps Force Integration
Plan (MCFIP). The MCFIP is a research and implementation campaign plan
consisting of four lines of effort:
1) assigning female Marine officers, staff non-commissioned
officers, and non-commissioned officers serving in combat support MOS's
to 20 active and nine reserve ground combat arms units which were
previously closed;
2) training female Marine volunteers at the entry-level, MOS-
producing schools for infantry, artillery, tank and assault amphibious
vehicles to gain insights into the relative propensity among new female
Marines to serve in various ground combat arms occupations, as well as
relative success and injury rates and causes, by gender;
3) establishing a Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force
(GCEITF) to inform the development and validation of gender-neutral
individual performance standards, as well as to conduct scientific
research to understand the impacts, if any, of gender integration on
unit-level performance (collective tasks) under conditions most closely
approximating actual ground combat conditions; and
4) opening eleven MOS's that had previously been closed due
principally to the co-location restriction within DGCDAR.
In support of our campaign plan, the Marine Corps directly, and
through third parties, conducted numerous studies and reviews within
the time allotted to ascertain the benefits, impacts, risks, and
potential mitigation measures, if needed, of a fully gender integrated
ground combat force. This effort included visits to allied militaries
with experience integrating female service members in ground combat
arms specialties, equipment adaptation studies, literature reviews,
surveys, and focus groups. In addition to our Marine Corps Recruiting
Command; Training and Education Command; MCFIO; Operations Analysis
Division; and the Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation
Activity, the following external research partners supported the MCFIP:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
- University of Pittsburgh Warrior Human Performance Research
Center
- Michigan State University
- George Mason University
- Research and Development (RAND) Corporation
- Center for Naval Analyses (CNA)
- Naval Health Research Center (NHRC)
A MCFIP status update was included in the quarterly and,
subsequently, semi-annual Women in Service Review (WISR) written
updates provided through the Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary of
Defense. Additionally, a MCFIP update brief was provided to the Joint
Chiefs of Staff (JCS) ``Tank'' sessions on a quarterly basis over the
past two years as part of regularly scheduled JCS WISR updates.
Our research has analyzed the performance of individual Marines in
our formal MOS-producing ground combat arms courses; as a result, we
developed, refined, and implemented improved occupation-specific
physical standards and the associated screening tools for obtaining
these MOS's. But the individual is only one aspect. The Marine Corps
fights in teams--as units--and it was important to understand the
relative performance of units as well. We studied both gender
integrated and non-integrated units, operating as squads, teams, and
crews; and we did this under live-fire conditions that most closely
replicate actual ground combat conditions. This is the first time this
level of research has been conducted. To ensure accuracy, our study was
peer reviewed by a team from George Mason University.
In my professional opinion, the research we conducted and the plan
we executed in response to Secretary Panetta's guidance was deliberate,
measured, and responsible. We believe the data was compelling and
supported our decision to request an exception to policy based on best
military advice.
Marines follow orders. In response to Secretary of Defense Carter's
decision in December 2015, the Marine Corps is stepping out smartly to
facilitate the integration of all qualified Marines into previously
closed MOS's. Informed by our research, integration will be executed in
a well-planned and responsible manner. We have already awarded
additional MOS's to all Marines who earned it through primary MOS-
producing schools, and two female Second Lieutenants are currently
undergoing MOS training at the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course.
Also, Marines awarded these additional MOS qualifications can now
request formal reclassification into the combat arms designation.
We will build upon previous integration experiences and will
strictly adhere to the refined individual performance standards that
have resulted from the studies we have conducted. The framework of our
study was--and continues to be--viewed through three interrelated
lenses: first and foremost, the combat effectiveness of our Marine
units; second, the health and welfare of our individual Marines; and
finally, with an eye toward the best talent management of our total
force--both today and into the future. Our readiness will remain the
guiding focus as we implement our plan.
We owe a debt of gratitude to all Marines, both female and male,
who participated in our Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force
experiment. They were volunteers and did not have to put themselves
through the demanding rigors of this months-long research. I believe
they volunteered because, ultimately, Marines always seek a challenge;
want to provide service to their Corps; and because they are committed
to being part of a Marine Corps that is the best fighting force in the
world.
We also owe a debt of gratitude to our many allied military
partners, and to all our research partners.
As we move forward with our gender integration plan, we are
establishing a methodology for assessment, just as we do with any plan
we execute. The Marine Corps is a learning organization. We will
evaluate the success of our plan and inform in-stride adjustments
throughout this ongoing process as we: recruit, train, develop, deploy,
and retain the highest quality force. Specifically, we will assess our
integration efforts to:
1) ensure we understand the impact (positive or negative) on
recruiting and retention;
2) ensure we understand the impact (positive or negative) on the
combat readiness of our units; and
3) ensure we understand the impact (positive or negative) to
relative competitiveness of the individual Marine to be the most
successful they can be in achieving their goals. We will seek the
greatest talent management objectives in concert with seeking the most
combat ready units.
In closing, I'm confident of the rigor we applied to our testing,
our methodology, and the proud professionalism of all Marines involved
in this process, especially those who volunteered for our experiments
and schools, and paved the way to make us a better organization. Your
Marine Corps is not focused on the past, but on the future. We have a
responsibility to our Marines and the American people to ensure we get
this right. Many have strong opinions about this issue. I am very proud
that those within our ranks have stayed focused on what is important--
training hard and being ready when the Nation calls. The continued
success of your Corps is based on a simple tenet: placing the best and
most fully qualified Marines where they can succeed and make the
strongest contribution to the broad range of missions the Marine Corps
executes as the Nation's expeditionary force-in-readiness.
I look forward to your questions.
General Neller. We are ready for your questions, sir.
Chairman McCain. Well, thank you.
General Neller, you made a recommendation to request an
exception to policy to keep some ground combat elements closed
to women. Is that correct?
General Neller. Yes, sir. Commandant Dunford made that
recommendation, and I was witting and I supported that
recommendation.
Chairman McCain. General Milley, do you agree or disagree
with General Neller's exception to policy to keep some ground
combat elements closed to women?
General Milley. Senator, I made the recommendation to open
up all MOS's.
Chairman McCain. I see.
Secretary Mabus, your web site has a counter that shows you
traveled over 1 million miles on trips as Secretary of the
Navy. How many of those miles took you to Twentynine Palms and
Camp Lejeune for the purpose of viewing the Marine Corps Ground
Combat Element Integrated Task Force study?
Mr. Mabus. Senator, I have been to Twentynine Palms several
times, and I have been to Camp Lejeune several times.
Chairman McCain. How many of these took you there for
purpose to view the Marine Corps Ground Combat Element
Integrated Task Force study?
Mr. Mabus. I did not, sir.
Chairman McCain. So you with a straight face made claims
that the Marine study was flawed and biased even if you did not
even go see the study being performed.
The 1,000-page Marine Ground Element Study was released to
you on August 31st, and 1 day after the release of the report
on September 1st--this is a 1,000-page document--you gave an
exclusive interview with the Navy Times in which you stated you
saw no reason for an exemption to the gender integration
policy. It is important to note you received the recommendation
of the Commandant on September 17th, 2015.
General Milley, how were you informed that this decision
was going to be made?
General Milley. For the gender integration, I was
informed--I made my recommendations and then there was a
session with the Secretary of Defense, the service secretaries,
and the service chiefs.
Chairman McCain. Well, when were you informed that the
decision was made?
General Milley. The decision for this, opening up the
MOS's--I would have to go back, Senator, honestly and check the
notebooks and give you an exact date, time. But he made the
decision to open it up, we had a session and he announced it to
us shortly before the announcement.
Chairman McCain. General Neller, when were you informed of
this decision?
General Neller. Chairman, General Dunford made his
recommendation you said on the 17th. I assumed this office on
the 24th. I do not know the exact date that the Secretary
forwarded his recommendation to Secretary of Defense Carter.
But when that was done, that is when I was informed.
Chairman McCain. One of the areas of some concern that have
been voiced is the integration of basic training, given the
fact that when a person enters basic training, they have not
been exposed to the discipline associated with basic training.
Is that of any concern to you, General Milley?
General Milley. Senator, right now for infantry and armor,
the Army does not have integrated basic training, similar to
what the Marines do right now for their recruit training. It is
at Fort Benning.
I anticipate that after we set the conditions for this
year, we will probably enter women into infantry and armor
basic training at the maneuver center down at Fort Benning
sometime in the early fall, probably September-October of this
year. So there are concerns and we have got to make those
adjustments between now and then in order to have women
received at that basic training center.
Chairman McCain. I move that we require all studies the
Marine Corps and Army conducted and considered for the decision
to open combat units to women be included as part of the record
for this hearing.
I move that we include statements from outside
organizations that were submitted in advance of the hearing
today.
Senator Reed. Okay.
Chairman McCain. So moved.
[The information referred to follows:]
The information has been received and is retained in the
Committee files.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCain. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your
testimony.
General Milley, I was, as you I think suggested in your
comments, very impressed that three female officers graduated
from Ranger School, very demanding. From your professional
experience and my retrospective experience, they would seem to
be entirely capable of leading an infantry unit in combat. Is
that your conclusion?
General Milley. Yes, Senator. I would say that those three
women that graduated could perform satisfactorily in an
infantry unit in combat.
Senator Reed. And your approach and I presume the approach
of the Marine Corps also will be moving forward on a step-by-
step basis and integrating what you learned as you move forward
so that it is clear this is going to happen from your
standpoint, but that it is going to happen in an informed,
careful way so that the capability of the unit combat
effectiveness is not jeopardized. Is that fair to say?
General Milley. Absolutely correct, Senator.
Senator Reed. One other aspect of this issue too--and I
think it was alluded to in all the testimony, and it is also
reflected in a great deal of academic research recently--is
that it seems that groups' collective intelligence increased as
the number of women joined the group. And in fact, I think,
General Neller, that one aspect of the Marine Corps study was
that in those problems, those field problems that had more
challenging cognitive elements than just simply brute strength,
the study found that the integrated teams performed as well or
better than the all-male teams. Is that a fair estimate?
General Neller. Senator, in the evaluation we did in that
one particular part of the trial, there was a positive aspect
of problem solving when the teams were integrated.
Senator Reed. Right.
And I think one of the other aspects--and again, this is
more observation than conclusion, but we see battlefields that
are increasingly more complex. I mean, what you have seen in
Afghanistan and Iraq is not a force-on-force, front line of LD
[Line of Duty]--it is cultural activities. It is integrating
with the community. It is picking up intelligence. It is doing
lots of things that have a much more significant cognitive
development than I would--again, this is more anecdotal than
anything else--suggest might have happened on the battalion
versus battalion warfare of World War II and other combat we
have engaged in. That might suggest strongly that this
direction is exactly the right direction to take.
One other aspect, of course, is that--and I assume this,
but I want your response--if in fact the Marine Corps is not
granted an exemption, you are fully prepared and expect the
Marine Corps successfully will integrate women into their
ranks. Is that correct?
General Neller. Senator, the Secretary of Defense has made
a decision that we will not grant an exemption. So we are in
the process and we have a plan, which we submitted, to
successfully integrate women into these previously restricted
MOS's and previously restricted units.
Senator Reed. And you are confident that the Marine Corps
will succeed as it always seem to succeed.
General Neller. I want every marine to succeed, Senator. So
that is our goal.
Senator Reed. Yes, sir. Thank you for that.
One of the other aspects going forward with respect to this
issue is that essentially being able to recruit individuals in
a very difficult, for want of a better term, market--roughly 25
percent of the young people that are of enlistment age are
physically and otherwise qualified right now because it is
generally looked at as male dominated. But this would expand--
i.e., giving the options for women would expand--the number and
the quality, I presume, of recruits that you could access. Is
that a fair judgment? Then I will ask Secretary Mabus and
Secretary Murphy to comment.
Mr. Mabus. That is a very fair judgment, Senator. As you
correctly pointed out, only one out of four Americans aged 18
to 24 qualify for our military for physical reasons,
educational reasons, or criminal records. And to shrink that
pool deprives us of a lot of talent.
Senator Reed. Secretary Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. That is correct, Senator, that we do not want
to exclude 50 percent of the potential talent pool in America.
We need all the able bodied men and women, the best and the
brightest and the toughest, to join our ranks to sustain the
all-volunteer force that we have had.
Senator Reed. Just a final comment/question very quickly
and that is this is not just about the individual
qualifications, it is also about the group performance. And
that is a concern you all have to take into consideration as
you move forward. But I just reflect, Secretary Mabus, for the
longest time, submarine crews were all male because of the
presumption that in that close, confined, extended tour, 6
months at sea, that dynamic would not work. And you have
successfully and the Navy has successfully integrated the crews
on submarines so that they are both male and female. And what I
am hearing is that the record is very, very good in terms of
performance. Is that fair?
Mr. Mabus. That is absolutely correct, Senator. The
decision was made in 2010. Women have been going to sea in
submarines since early 2011, and they perform magnificently and
there has been no decrease and we think an increase in combat
readiness for those submarines.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Cotton?
Senator Cotton. I first want to associate myself with the
views of General Neller and General Milley, that to discuss
women serving in combat is something of a misnomer. Women have
been serving valiantly in combat certainly for the last 15
years and in reality much longer than that. So this is not
really a question of women being in combat. This is about a
limited number of roles, primarily in the Army and the Marine
Corps, although the Air Force and the Navy do have some elite
special operations forces that will be impacted. And within
those two services, it is primarily about infantry and a few
other combat-related roles.
General Neller, since your service had requested an
exemption, I would like to direct this question to you.
Secretary of Defense Carter has said he is confident that you
can address all concerns of implementation. The Ground Combat
Integration Task Force, though, did conclude that there are
irreducible and obvious physiological differences between men
and women. That is one reason why there are men's and women's
athletic events at the Olympics.
Could you elaborate a little bit on how you plan to address
these implementation questions?
General Neller. Well, Senator, we learned a lot from the
evaluation and the additional studies and other countries we
looked at. So there are a lot of pieces to how we are going to
implement this in a successful way. Part of it is going to be
the standards that have been established to get into the entry
level before you actually enlist, when you are at recruit
training, and then the MOS qualifications. We are going to look
at other ways to improve the physical capability of not just
female but all infantry marines to reduce injury because
incidence of injury is a concern.
But I am not sure how far we can go with that just based on
the simple fact in the infantry, the load-bearing requirements
and the oxygen use, endurance between men and women--there are
always exceptions. I mean, they are what they are.
So we are going to look at this. We are going to monitor
it. Part of our process is a continued study and evaluation to
see what we can do and cannot do to mitigate this because at
the end of the day, we have to maintain our readiness and we
want every marine to be successful.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. I am confident that whatever the
policy direction you receive, you will do the very best job you
can, as will General Milley, to ensure that your marines and
your soldiers are set up for success, men and women alike.
Secretary Mabus, I would like to go to an interview
conducted last September about the study the Marine Corps
conducted. You said, ``it started out with a fairly large
component of the men thinking this is not a good idea, and
women will not be able to do this. When you start out with that
mindset, you are almost presupposing the outcome.''
Which men in the Marine Corps had that mindset?
Mr. Mabus. What I based that on, Senator, was some of the
conclusions drawn from that study that were presented to me,
which was that the marines that were chosen, the marines who
volunteered and who I brag on for doing that--they did a great
job in terms of establishing standards.
However, some of the conclusions that were drawn was that
male marines did not know how to--had not had any experience--
--
Senator Cotton. Well, Secretary Mabus, the conclusions
speak for themselves. You are questioning the motives of the
Marine Corps leader in that statement it sounded like to me.
Mr. Mabus. No, sir, I am not. I am speaking to the
conclusions that were drawn, that the male marines in that
experiment--most of them had had no experience working with
women in these occupations, and they simply did not know how to
do that. And that was one of the conclusions, and that was one
of the conclusions that said you had to provide that
leadership, which is part of the implementation plan, that
leadership, to make sure that all marines, male and female,
know how to deal with the other gender in these very demanding
roles.
Senator Cotton. Well, let us speak about the female marines
in that study. You also were quoted in that interview as
saying, ``I mean, in terms of the women who volunteered
probably should have been a higher bar to cross to get into the
experiment.'' Do you owe an apology to the women that
participated in that study?
Mr. Mabus. Senator--and I have the entire interview here. I
know exactly what you are talking about. What I kept talking
about was there were no standards for any of these when you
started out. So the only thing that the women----
Senator Cotton. The women in the Marine Corps' physical
fitness test--the women in that study outperformed the average
female marine, as compared to the man performing the average
male marine. So the women were actually out performing the
average female marine as compared to men in that study.
Mr. Mabus. On the generalized physical fitness test, combat
fitness test, nobody had had to meet a standard for these
ground combat units. Nobody. There were no standards in there.
One of the ways that General Neller just talked about that you
ensure the integration is successful is by training to these
very intense physical standards and starting at recruit
training, starting at MOS schools, starting there and not just
going to the very basic physical fitness test or combat fitness
test.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. My time has expired.
Chairman McCain. Senator McCaskill?
Senator McCaskill. Thank you.
I think one of the questions we have to address now is
registering for the selective service. As some of you may know,
there was a Supreme Court decision back in 1981 when in fact
the question was put in front of the Supreme Court whether
women should be required to register for the selective service
under current law. Justice Rehnquist wrote, ``the existence of
combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress'
decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of
registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since
women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded they would
not be needed in the event of a draft and therefore decided not
to register them.'' So in other words, the rationale that
Rehnquist used for saying there was no requirement of women to
register for the selective service has now been eliminated.
And I guess I want to ask all of you your sense of this.
Part of me believes that asking women to register, as we ask
men to register, would maybe, possibly open more recruits as
women began to think about, well, the military is an option for
me. And if you would briefly go down the line and give me your
sense as to whether or not Congress should look at requiring
selective service registration for all Americans.
General Neller. Senator, it is my personal view that based
on this lifting of restrictions for assignment to unit MOS,
that every American who is physically qualified should register
for the draft.
Senator McCaskill. Secretary Mabus?
Mr. Mabus. Senator, I think you correctly pointed out this
needs to be looked at as part of a national debate, given the
changed circumstances.
The one thing you did say, not selective service- related,
but that we do believe that this will open up recruiting, that
more women will be interested in--I will just talk about the
Marines--in the Marines because these last restrictions have
been removed.
Senator McCaskill. Secretary Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. Senator, I believe that, yes, there should be a
national debate and I encourage the legislative body to look at
that. I would say that unlike the decision in 1981 where we are
now in the longest war in American history over the last almost
15 years, that we have had over 1,000 women killed or injured
in combat. Now, with this implementation, if you can meet the
standard, you are on a team no matter what MOS it is. So I
highly encourage that national debate, ma'am.
Chairman McCain. You would encourage what?
Senator McCaskill. The debate.
Mr. Murphy. The national debate, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. You were asked for your opinion, Mr.
Secretary.
Mr. Murphy. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. General Milley?
General Milley. Senator, I think that all eligible and
qualified men and women should register for the draft.
Senator McCaskill. Well, I do too. I think it is the right
thing going forward.
I know that the Air Force has established a goal of having
30 percent of its active duty applicant pool be women. Have
there been any goals established in either the Army or the
Navy?
Mr. Mabus. No, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. Secretary Murphy or General Milley,
either one?
Mr. Murphy. Senator, approximately 14 percent of our
soldiers are women. At West Point, when I was a professor there
in 2000, 16 percent were women. Now it is 22 percent are women.
But the Army looks to be reflective of our society.
General Milley. Senator, you asked about goals.
Senator McCaskill. Right, just a goal.
General Milley. The short answer is no. We have not set a
goal for women in the infantry or the armor in terms of numbers
or percentages whatsoever.
Senator McCaskill. Okay.
General Neller. Senator, could I just----
Senator McCaskill. Sure, sure.
General Neller. Right now, just under 8 percent of the
Marine Corps are female marines, officer and enlisted. Even
prior to this decision, I directed our recruiting to look at
the possibility of increasing the number of women in the Marine
Corps to 10 percent and to see if we can make that goal.
Senator McCaskill. I want to briefly give a shout-out. I do
think there is some culture here. Nobody here wants the
standards to be lowered. And I think frankly the people who
really do not want the standards to be lowered are women. The
last thing in the world a woman needs is to join a unit with
everyone looking over their shoulder saying, well, you are not
the same as we are. So I do not think anybody here thinks that
standards should be lowered.
And I want to point out that the sapper course at Fort
Leonard Wood--I do not think that anybody think that sappers--
that course is easy. Obviously, you are combat- trained in that
course. For people who are not aware, this is for specially
trained combat engineers. And they have been taking women since
1999 at Fort Leonard Wood for this course. And it is tough.
Now, the interesting thing about that, while there have not
been a lot of women that have taken it, the percentage of women
who have completed is identical to the percentage of men who
have completed, 50 percent. So I would certainly urge all of
you to take a look at what Fort Leonard Wood has done and how
they have done it in one of the toughest physical challenges.
You know, it is not the same as combat training, but they have
to be combat-ready to graduate from the sapper course. So I
certainly wanted to give a shout out to what I think is great
work being done at Fort Leonard Wood.
Chairman McCain. Senator Wicker?
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much.
And let me just say there is a real risk for anybody
discussing this issue to appear insensitive or politically
incorrect. And I really appreciated the way the chairman began
the discussion this morning by outlining the very significant
role that women, including members of this committee, have made
for the military in terms of aviation, in terms of very, very
difficult and demanding jobs. And, Mr. Chairman, I appreciated
you pointing out that is not what this hearing is about.
What this hearing is about and what this change is about is
the very demanding subspecialty of close combat. And as the
chairman pointed out, close combat is brutal. It is physically
brutal. The training for that is physically brutal. And so the
question is how can we open this to a group of people when the
physical realities seem to indicate that this is really a
departure from what can work.
Let me ask General Neller and General Milley. General
Neller, let me start with the infantry officer course. Women
have entered this course. Am I correct? But no women have
passed this course. Am I correct there?
General Neller. Yes, sir. 29 marine officer females have
attempted and have not yet successfully completed the course.
Senator Wicker. Why is this test so rigorous? Why is it
necessary it be so rigorous?
General Neller. It is an MOS-producing school.
Senator Wicker. And for the benefit of people watching that
might not know all of our jargon, tell us what MOS----
General Neller. Military occupational specialty. This is
where a marine officer goes to become MOS qualified to lead an
infantry platoon, rifle platoon, or a weapons platoon. So the
standards that exist there involve tactics, physicality,
physical fitness, understanding weapons, and it is a very tough
and demanding course.
Senator Wicker. Why?
General Neller. Because they are going to lead their
marines in combat, and they have to be able to lead from the
front and they have to be able to understand all aspects of
their profession. And they have to be physically fit enough and
strong enough to be able to withstand the rigors of combat. And
so the attrition is 25 percent of the men that go to this
course. So it is a very tough, demanding course.
Senator Wicker. General Milley, would you comment on that
in the same vein, sir?
General Milley. I would agree with General Neller in that
the rigors of ground combat are brutal and they are hard, and
we have very, very high standards and they are directly related
not to gender. They are related to the combat tasks that you
are expected to execute engaged against the enemies of our
country. And we have developed and the Marines have developed
very, very rigorous standards over many, many years. So those
that make it, great. And if they do not, then they do not.
Senator Wicker. You know, we have had testimony from
Secretary Mabus that reducing the standards would be
unacceptable. Members of this committee have reiterated that.
That is absolutely something that must not be done. But it is
hard to imagine down the road, 5 years from now, 10 years from
now, if we do not have successful graduations from this
physically demanding program--it is hard to imagine that this
conversation will not take a different tone. And I do not see
how we can guarantee that in the future, these standards will
not be diminished.
And so I would just say, you know, I realize that you are
in a tough spot, and you two generals have given us your best
military judgment and that is what we are asking you in the
testimony here.
But as Senator McCain mentioned, we have an overriding
mission, and that is to overwhelm the enemy however we engage
them. And in this special part of combat where it is close
combat, it never needs to be a fair fight. We need to put our
strongest and we need to put our best and we always need to
have the best people.
Let me ask you this, General. When people who are unlikely
to pass the test are admitted, are we expanding the pool of
candidates to accommodate women candidates for the infantry
officer course? Are they keeping someone who might pass from
getting a shot at this? Is that a consideration that we need to
think about at all?
General Neller. Senator, any officer at the basic school
who wants to compete for an opportunity to be an infantry
officer has the opportunity to do that.
Senator Wicker. Are there limited numbers of slots?
General Neller. There is a number per course, but if the
course were full, they would be able to elect to stay. But each
graduating class has a certain number. And there is a period of
time. Sometimes the course is full and we allow a group of
officers to stay and prepare. There is actually a preparation
time because of the rigors of the course. So there is no effort
to deny anybody an opportunity to compete.
Senator Wicker. Well, I appreciate the task that you have
been given as somebody who takes orders, and I wish you the
best. We want to work with you, but I must say I have serious
misgivings about moving to this particular point in our
military.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I hope my good friend from Mississippi is not suggesting
that if all of the positions are opened up to women, that
standards will automatically decline over time. That is what it
sort of sounded to me like you were saying. So I hope that is
not----
Chairman McCain. I am sure the Senator can give you an
explanation in private.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was pleased to hear everyone who has spoken today talk
about the performance of women on the battlefield time and
again and pleased to hear most of you say that if a woman meets
all the standards for the position, that she is qualified and
that she should be allowed to serve and that should be the end
of the discussion and that now the important thing is to focus
on implementation of this policy. So I appreciate that and hope
that on this committee and in Congress, we can do everything
possible to support you in that effort.
Secretary Mabus, you have received criticism, as has been
indicated this morning, for your support of combat integration.
And I wonder if you could elaborate. You alluded to why you
think this is so important. But can you elaborate on why you
think it is important and how you think it could strengthen our
all-volunteer force?
Mr. Mabus. Senator, a more diverse force, as you heard from
the question from Senator Reed, diversity of outlook, diversity
of experience is a stronger force. We have proven it over and
over again. When we integrated the armed forces in the late
1940s, we came out with a stronger force. The same thing when
we began to recruit larger numbers of women in the 1980s, we
came out with a stronger force. The same thing when you
repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, we came out with a stronger
force at the end. And as long as you keep the standards and as
long as those standards are not arbitrary, that they are
operationally relevant, they are job-related, then gender ought
to be irrelevant because what a marine on the line wants to
know about any marine on either side is did they have to meet
the same standards. Do they have to do same things that I had
to do to be here?
And that is why I believe that this will strengthen the
armed forces, that this will strengthen the Marine Corps.
Senator Reed asked about submarines. We have seen how it has
strengthened Navy units that are fully integrated, and it is
virtually every one. So I do believe that a more diverse force,
not about quotas, not about gender, but just about experience
and perception, is a stronger force. And that is all of our
jobs, is to make this a more effective, more lethal fighting
force.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Secretary Carter directed the services to provide their
final detailed implementation plans no later than January 1st
of 2016. General Neller and General Milley, can you confirm
that those implementation plans have been provided? And do they
have to be approved, and has that been done yet?
General Neller. Senator, we provided our plan to the
Secretary of the Navy, and he forwarded it to the Secretary of
Defense. We are still waiting for those plans to be approved,
and we expect that that is going to happen here shortly.
Senator Shaheen. General Milley?
General Milley. Same thing, Senator. We provided our plan
to the Secretary of Defense, and we are waiting on approval.
Senator Shaheen. And you expect that to happen in the near
future?
General Milley. I really do not know when. I do expect it
at some time in the relatively near future, but I do not know
when.
Senator Shaheen. Again, part of that directive required the
services to begin implementation no later than April 1st, 2016.
So are we assuming that we are on course to do that? Is
everybody in agreement with that?
General Milley. Well, it is no later than 1 April pending
approval. So the Secretary had a session with us and he told us
execute when I have approved your plan. The target date is 1
April, but we are not supposed to execute prior to his
approval.
Senator Shaheen. General Neller?
General Neller. The same thing, Senator. As General Milley
said, this is not going to happen 1 April that we are going to
see--I mean, some of it has already happened. We have got 239
females in what were previously restricted units in MOS's they
already hold, and we have been doing that for several years. So
that is already ongoing. But beginning to recruit those that
can meet the standards that now exist before you go to recruit
training, while you are at recruit training, and the MOS
standards at school--that has not yet begun, and that is going
to take some time.
Senator Shaheen. I am out of time, but my final question
was, does part of the plan address a response to concerns that
may be raised by other folks who are part of this effort about
fully implementing the policy? We will submit that for the
record to ask you to respond to that.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Murphy. Yes. The Army is providing leaders and Soldiers with
integration education and training to enhance our integration efforts.
This is supporting leadership efforts to facilitate the cultural change
necessary to ensure successful gender integration into all Infantry and
Armor units.
General Neller. The Marine Corps will use both an Education Plan
and an Assessment Plan to address the concerns and questions of service
members during integration. The Education Plan will use a train-the-
trainer approach to connect with all Marines throughout the Corps in
both the active and reserve components. The curriculum will include
classes on the Integration Plan, relevant orders and directives, best
practices, leading institutional change, and understanding cognitive/
unconscious bias. Marines will be led through relevant vignettes to
foster healthy discussion and address potential issues. Mobile training
teams made up of trained subject matter experts will start training O-5
and O-6 level commands throughout the Corps this May. Those leaders, in
turn, will educate and train their subordinates until every Marine has
been addressed by his or her leader regarding this issue. The Marine
Corps will also use our online integration education portal to provide
additional, enduring resources for all Marines to help address these
issues as they arise.
Furthermore, the Integration Implementation Assessment Plan
provides a feedback mechanism that will help Marine leaders evaluate
the progress of integration and identify any issues that need to be
addressed. A variety of direct and indirect indicators will be
available to help determine whether Marines have questions or concerns
about integration that persist or could negatively affect progress.
Other indicators such as reenlistment rates and propensity to serve in
ground combat arms MOS's will reflect progress. Finally, the Assessment
Plan will collect empirical performance-related data that can be used
to further inform Marines and challenge misconceptions about
integration.
Both the Education and Assessment Plans are enduring plans that
will comprehensively, responsibly and convincingly inform Marines, both
leaders and subordinates, how to successfully manage integration
throughout our Corps.
Chairman McCain. Senator Ernst?
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a statement
followed by questions.
Chairman McCain. Without objection, your statement will be
made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Ernst follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Joni K. Ernst
As I have said on numerous occasions, I fully support providing
women the opportunity to serve in any military capacity, as long as
standards are not lowered and it enhances our combat effectiveness.
However, I remain concerned that some within the Administration, and
some of my colleagues in Congress, are rushing toward this historical
change in policy without much concern for the second and third order
effects to our men and women in uniform and our combat capabilities.
In order to ensure women are fully integrated into these previously
closed positions, the implementation strategy must be fully developed,
and methodically and deliberately implemented, to include having an
understanding of second and third order effects to ensure we do not set
women, or men, up for failure. These are the men, and will be the
women, who meet our enemies in close combat--their lives depend on it.
Over the past few weeks, I have visited Fort Bragg, NC and Marine
Corps Base Quantico, Virginia to speak with Soldiers and Marines about
this topic. During my trip to Fort Bragg, I sat down with special
operations soldiers and paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division to
discuss gender integration. At Quantico, I had the same open discussion
with Marine infantrymen and scout snipers. Both of these groups
comprised mostly of mid to senior level NCOs and junior officers--the
servicemembers who over the past 14 years of war have met the enemy in
close combat--and who will do so again in the future with their female
counterparts.
Our discussions began with the understanding that gender
integration is the new policy, and now it is time to move forward.
Primarily, these young Soldiers and Marines were concerned that gender
integration was not being done for the right reasons--to enhance their
combat capabilities--and instead as a social experiment. To this point,
even as a supporter of gender integration, I share their concern due to
the haphazard way this process has been led by some in DOD's civilian
leadership. This was especially troubling as we witnessed a
distinguished military leader muzzled, inappropriate comments from
civilian leadership about our female Marines, and disturbing,
unmerited, and unprofessional assertions that our Marine leaders do not
value the service of our female Marines.
The other primary concern expressed by these Soldiers and Marines
was the implementation strategy, for which I also share their concern.
This Congress is being asked to support a policy for which the
implementation strategy--which is key to ensuring our military will
maintain its combat effectiveness--has not yet been fully developed or
revealed. Nor has it taken into account the impacts on women's health,
lodging, physiological differences between men and women which could
lead to female physical fitness test scores, on average, being lower
than their male counterparts, and how that could affect their ability
to compete for promotions, schools, and senior command positions.
For example with command positions, most of our Army senior leaders
have served in elite units during their time as junior and field grade
officers--which is often key to being slotted into command positions
from battalion commander and above. GEN Milley is a Special Forces
veteran, and others have served in the elite 75th Ranger Regiment like
the Army Vice Chief of Staff, LTG John Nicholson--who may be confirmed
as the next commander of our troops in Afghanistan, our next potential
CENTCOM commander, the 18th Airborne Corps Commander, and division
commanders of the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions, the 10th Mountain
Division, and 3rd Infantry Division.
Also, while there have been three female graduates of Ranger School
in the Army, the unfortunate truth is an Infantry officer without a
Ranger tab is often looked down upon by their fellow infantrymen, and
tab-less Infantry officers are often not as competitive for senior
leadership positions.
In the Marine Corps, some of our female Marines have voiced
concerns that they anticipate there will be pressure to lower standards
if not enough of them are able to qualify to serve in combat positions.
Lowering standards for more female participation is against the best
military advice of our military leaders, but I agree with these women
that the pressure will come--likely from civilian leadership--who have
motives other than supporting gender integration to enhance our
nation's ability to destroy our enemies on the battlefield.
Female Marines have also voiced that leadership and training will
not solve physiological differences between men and women, and some are
worried that they will be involuntary assigned to combat MOSs or even
assigned to an infantry unit in a support position which would require
them to meet the higher physical standards for infantry units.
Furthermore, retention of female Marines and their ability to
continue to serve if they are injured while serving in a combat
position is an area of concern for some of them. The data is clear--
women do get injured at a higher rate than their male counterparts when
performing combat arms tasks. Will we allow women to continue to serve
in another role or will we medically discharge them if they are injured
while serving in a combat position or combat unit? If it becomes
commonplace that female combat arms Marines are injured while training,
how will that impact unit cohesion, especially for those who will be
platoon and company commanders?
After nearly 15 years of war, our country, and many within this
Administration, are disconnected from our combat soldiers who have
borne the brunt of the battle. These Soldiers and Marines are the best
we have. They have taken the majority of the casualties since the
founding of our nation and on the battlefields from Yorktown,
Gettysburg, Iwo Jima, and Normandy--they have made the difference
between Americans enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
or being subjugated by foreign powers. Their life is one of mostly
suffering and hardship, and they honorably carry that mental and
physical burden not only in service, but afterwards as well. We must
honor them by ensuring this process moves forward in a thoughtful and
methodical way.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me be clear. I fully support providing women the
opportunity to serve in any military capacity as long as
standards are not lowered, our combat effectiveness is
maintained. But in order to ensure women are fully integrated
into these previously closed positions, the implementation
strategy must be fully developed and methodically and
deliberately carried out. It must include an understanding of
second- and third-order effects to ensure that we do not set
women or men up for failure. These are the men and will be the
women who meet our enemies in close combat. Their lives depend
on it.
That is why over the past few weeks I have visited Fort
Bragg, North Carolina and Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia
to speak directly with Army and Marine infantrymen about this
topic. I spoke with groups comprised mostly of mid- to senior-
level NCOs and junior officers, the service members who over
the past 14 years of war have met the enemy in close combat and
who will do so again in the future with their female
counterparts.
After those conversations, it is clear that we need to
ensure that we are taking into account the impacts on women's
health, lodging, physiological differences between men and
women which could lead to female physical fitness test scores
on average being lower than their male counterparts and how
that could affect their ability to compete for promotions,
schools, and senior command positions.
I would encourage all of the members of this panel and our
witnesses to go talk to our service members, hear for
yourselves what their concerns are, and help ensure we
ultimately get this right.
Our combat armed soldiers and marines are the best we have.
They have taken the majority of casualties since the founding
of our Nation and on battlefields from Yorktown, Gettysburg,
Iwo Jima, and Normandy. They have made the difference between
Americans enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
or being subjugated by foreign powers. Their lives mostly
involve suffering and hardship, and they honorably carry that
physical and mental burden not only in service but afterwards
as well. We must honor them by ensuring this process moves
forward in a thoughtful and methodical way.
General Neller, I would like to start with you, sir. As you
know, some of our female marines have voiced concerns that they
anticipate there will be pressure to lower standards if not
enough of them are able to qualify to serve in combat
positions. While I am glad that lowering the standards for
greater female participation is against your best military
advice, I agree with these women that pressure may come likely
from civilian leadership who may have motives other than
supporting gender integration to enhance our Nation's ability
to destroy our enemies on the battlefield.
Also, in order to boost participation, some female marines
have voiced that leadership and training will not solve
physiological differences between men and women, and some are
worried that they will be involuntarily assigned to combat
MOS's or even assigned to an infantry unit in a support
position which would require them to meet the higher physical
standards for infantry units.
Do you share these concerns, sir? And what concerns do you
have regarding the retention of our best female marines who may
now be assigned to combat arms MOS or units?
General Neller. Well, Senator, as the committee members in
unanimity have talked about today, we would have to do
everything possible to not lower standards. In fact, we should
be looking at how we can raise the standards to improve our
capability.
Right now, there is no intent to involuntarily assign
anybody who wants to compete in any of these MOS's. A little
more problematic is the assignment of a marine in a non-combat
MOS but assigned to one of these units because in the past,
because it was restricted to men, we did not ask the
communicator or a supply marine if they wanted to go to an
infantry battalion. So we have established an assignment
policy, which has a minimum physical standard, before we would
do that.
So we are working our way through that and that is part of
the implementation process. But we are aware of that. That is
kind of an outlier that was not considered as part of this
decision.
As far as career progression, there are a lot of things we
do not know and we are going to find out and we will have to
continue to monitor. We are looking at this as a decade,
minimum, long study to see how this all turns out, what effect
is there on propensity to enlist, propensity to reenlist. What
is the competitiveness for promotion? What is the injury rate
for all marines? Because we really have not looked at this in
the past because there were enough people, and there are still
enough people.
So those are concerns, but they are concerns about
something we do not know the answer to. So there are a lot of
different views, as you found, when you talked to people. So we
are taking all of this into consideration. We are going to try
to mitigate as much of this as we can. And then we will come
back and report, and we will keep the data and we will be able
to have a better analytical view on how this is all working as
we go through this in a very methodical, objective way.
But the three lenses we are looking through in this whole
process is the effectiveness and readiness of the unit, the
health and welfare of all the marines, and the ability to
manage the talent.
I think one of the things that I am confident is going to
be--in fact, I know it has already happened--is the assignment
of female marines to previously restricted units in the MOS's
that they have. In the past, if you were an infantry or armor
battalion commander and the best--pick an MOS--intelligence
officer, communications officer, motor transport officer in the
division was a woman, she could not work in your unit. So now
you have the opportunity to have her serve with you. So the
talent pool has expanded, and that should make the unit better.
Senator Ernst. Very good. Thank you, General.
General Milley, many of the command positions--with those
positions, most of our Army senior leaders have served in
various elite units. You have served in a special forces
capacity. Many of those advancing to very high levels within
the Army have served in Ranger regiment and other high-
performing infantry type units.
While there have been three female graduates of Ranger
School in the Army, which I applaud--I think that is
tremendous--the unfortunate truth is an infantry officer
without a Ranger tab is often looked down upon by their fellow
infantrymen, and tabless infantry officers are often not as
competitive for senior leadership positions, just like many of
those that will serve in these elite type units with very, very
high standards.
So as you branch female officers to infantry and
potentially accept branch transfers for captains and field
grade officers, how will this affect their ability to integrate
into the infantry community and be competitive for those higher
levels of command?
General Milley. A couple of points, Senator. One is you are
correct. There is an institutional bias, especially in the
infantry, if you do not have a Ranger tab, on career
progression. So we encourage all infantry officers to attend
Ranger School, a very demanding school, as you well know. And
for women, it would be the same thing. If they go in the
infantry, we would encourage them to go to Ranger School
because it does enhance your performance and skills, but it
also enhances your credibility with peers, superiors, and your
subordinates as well. So Ranger School is a very important
school especially for the infantry.
As far as long-term goes, the core business, the core
business, of the United States Army is to close with and
destroy the enemies of our country in close combat. And that
means infantry and armor, supported by attack aviation and
aviation and combat engineers. But infantry and armor is the
very essence of the United States Army. And those, as we note
and we are here discussing, have been previously closed. So the
senior officers of the Army over many, many years have been
infantry and armor officers because that is the essence of
their business, so to speak. So I would expect that over time,
25-35 years sort of time, we will see women in infantry and
armor units eventually rise to command.
We opened up Apache helicopters 25 years ago and recently
we now have Apache battalion commanders that are female. So I
think the same phenomenon will occur over an extended period of
time.
Senator Ernst. Very good, gentlemen. I appreciate that.
I do have one question and I would just like a response for
the record, follow-up. But, Secretary Mabus, I was disturbed to
read that the Director of Naval Intelligence has not had active
clearance for over 2 years. Your decision to keep him in a
position with such great responsibility without access to
critical information sets a terrible example for our sailors
and makes a travesty out of naval intelligence and our national
security. And for the record, I would like to know what is
preventing you from having a sailor with an active security
clearance in this position today. And I would like a follow-up
on that, sir.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Do you want to respond now?
Mr. Mabus. Senator, I am as frustrated as you are about
this particular individual. There is an investigation ongoing.
We have no information one way or the other as to whether
anything improper happened. But because of the sensitive place
that he occupied, I felt that I had to withdraw his access to
classified information until the investigation was finished.
The investigation has drug on and on and on. And we are in the
process of putting up another officer to take that person's
place.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 2 years is a very
long time not to have access. And I do believe that there
should have been another officer assigned to that billet.
Mr. Mabus. Senator, I agree with you. This has been a very
long, very drawn-out process, and it has been frustrating for
everybody involved.
Chairman McCain. Senator Heinrich?
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I find fairly remarkable in this conversation is the
amount of consensus from both our witnesses and from people on
the dais here that we should simply set MOS standards based on
the performance that we need for the job and then let the chips
fall where they may. And sometimes in the case, for example, of
the military infantry officer school, that is going to be some
very, very difficult standards to meet. That said, I have no
doubt that some day a woman is going to meet those standards.
So, General Neller, I wanted to ask you, given your
previous support for a waiver, do you have any concerns with
that kind of approach of simply setting the bar where it needs
to be for the performance that you need and then letting the
chips fall where they may?
General Neller. Well, Senator, it was brought up by
Secretary Mabus--and it is a fact--that part of the value of
the evaluation we did was to come up with these standards. So
now we have these standards. I mean, there were always
standards. There were standards because any of these marines
that were involved in the evaluation completed an MOS school
which had task admission standards to which they had to
successfully complete. So it was not like there were no
standards. To get into the school, the females had to go and
pass the male scoring on the male PFT [Physical Fitness Test]
and CFT [Cadet Field Training].
So where we are now is we have a decision. We provided our
best military judgment based on what we learned in an
evaluation involving teams, crews, and squads, something that
has never ever been done, not just in the history of the United
States, but from what we can tell, nowhere. No one ever looked
at it in this way.
That said, we have a decision and we are in the process of
moving out, and we have established a process to where any
marine who wants to serve in these physically demanding MOS's
has to meet a certain standard. And we will see where the chips
fall.
Again, our hope is that everyone is successful, but hope is
not a course of action on the battlefield. So we will learn and
we will study and we will do everything we can because it is
important, as General Milley brought up and everybody has
brought up, that we have to be successful on the battlefield.
And marines have always been successful on the battlefield, and
I am confident we will in the future.
Senator Heinrich. General, as you heard, Secretary Mabus
brought up the fact that there were surprising gaps in set
standards for some of these MOS's. Do you have an opinion as to
what the impact on the service is going to be simply on the
Corps of clearly articulating the standards in all of these
MOS's and how that will impact overall performance for the
Corps moving forward?
General Neller. I think, based on the fact that we have set
these standards and that the overall quality of the marines
that serve in these MOS's should be higher than it was in the
past.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
Secretary Mabus, I was hoping you could expand a little bit
on what Senator Reed brought up around the transition
particularly within attack submarines, how that is going on the
USS [United States Ship] Mississippi, and how you feel about
that process overall.
Mr. Mabus. The process of integrating women onto all of our
submarines--as you know, it started with ballistic missile
strategic submarines and guided missile submarines. It is now
moving to attack submarines. It has gone fine. In all of these,
the first two have completed a lot of cruises now. We have got
a lot of experience under our belt. We have seen that women
earn their dolphins at the same speed as men do in the
submarine service.
It is part of the implementation experience that we can
bring to bear for this, having a detailed implementation plan,
having a well thought-out way to do it, having a deliberate but
timely way to do it. The attack submarines were done last
because of the closer quarters, and a few, but only a few,
physical changes had to be made. And we are very pleased not
only with the integration of women officers, but the beginning
of the integration of women enlisted on all types of Navy
submarines.
Senator Heinrich. Well, thank you, Secretary, for your work
on that.
Chairman McCain. Senator Lee?
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of
you for your service to our country and for your testimonies
today.
This is a subject like so many others that we cover on this
committee that is of exceptional importance to our country, to
our national security. As we approach this issue, which is
fraught with a lot of opinions, a lot of facts, a lot of
details, I hope that we will maintain our focus on maintaining
the readiness and the capability of our men and women in
service and especially on the safety of the men and women who
protect us.
First of all, General Milley, I wanted to follow up on a
question that was asked by Senator Ernst to General Neller. She
asked General Neller whether women might be involuntarily
transferred into some of these combat positions against their
will. Do you want to provide an answer from the Army
perspective?
General Milley. I am going to have to give you ``it
depends.'' Right now, we have no requirement because we are
filling our needs for the infantry in both officer and
enlisted, and currently we do not involuntarily put anyone in
the infantry, but again, we are meeting our needs. 10 years,
15, 20 years in the future, it depends. So look back at World
War II. A lot of people were involuntarily put in the infantry.
But right now, we do not and I do not anticipate that situation
at any time in the near future.
Senator Lee. Okay. Thank you.
General Neller, the Marine Corps report stated that there
were some noticeable differences in performance between all-
male squads on the one hand and those that were gender
integrated, not just squads, but teams and crews as well. In
your professional military opinion, could you tell us what were
the most notable reasons for these differences and then also
whether these are factors that could easily be remedied through
training and improved techniques and processes?
General Neller. Senator, when we put together the Ground
Combat Element Integrated Task Force, there were infantry and
in infantry you have mortars, you have machine guns, you have
rockets, you have TOWs [Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-
guided]. There were tank crews, artillery crews, amphibian
vehicle crews, and light armor vehicle crews. So in each of
those, there were some number of differences between the
integrated and the all- male crews, squads, or teams, but the
two that were most significant, what we would call load-bearing
units or the infantry, march under load with a weighted load
over a distance. And then the other was during a fire and
movement drill with load, as you get fatigued, the effect on
your accuracy when you fired your weapon.
So the study showed two things. Under the march under load,
the heavier the load, the more degraded the ability of the
integrated squads. And then when you would do movement to
contact, the accuracy of the integrated squads and the firing
of females due to physiological things that are documented was
lower.
Senator Lee. And are those things that can be remedied
through improved training and techniques?
General Neller. I think to some degree but a lot of it is--
we learned that being--and the same applies to any one of a
smaller stature. Being big, strong, having a certain body mass
gives you an advantage. So one of the things I have heard as I
have gone around and talked to the female marines is, hey, I am
out working out, I am lifting weights, I am getting bigger, and
now I am outside the height and weight standards. Are you going
to change the height and weight standards? And we are looking
at that right now. So we know that mean body mass has an effect
on your ability to carry a load.
As far as the conditioning and your ability to have a
higher level of energy and exert yourself, that is what we are
going to find out, what we are going to learn.
And again, we did this for just 5 months. We do not know
what is this going to do over years and years and years of
being in these particular occupational fields. We know
anecdotally what the effect is on the male body, and we do not
have data yet, and eventually we will, of what the impact is on
the female.
Senator Lee. My understanding is that one of the findings
in the report that was released by the Marine Corps indicated
some evidence of higher injury rates among women than men when
asked to perform the same tactical tasks. Can you tell us how
this factor, when extrapolated across combat units in the
Marine Corps--call you tell us how that might impact your
overall military readiness and capability and how you could
deal with that?
General Neller. We know from data that we have now for
certain points of training that female marines suffer a higher
incidence of injury, normally lower body injury, than men. So
part of the review, not just for body size and height and
weight, is also conditioning. So the one way we believe we can
do this is through better preparation, better conditioning to
mitigate that. So that is something that we do not know what we
do not know. And that will be one of the things that we are
going to have to continue to study and monitor as we go through
this.
Senator Lee. Thank you.
Chairman McCain. Senator King?
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before beginning my questions, I cannot resist pointing out
that 40 years ago I sat back where you folks are sitting, and
my boss, Senator Bill Hathaway from Maine, led the effort to
open the military academies to women, which at the time was a
radical idea. So there is some history here for me in this
conversation.
It seems to me that this is really about talent pool. Mr.
Secretary, you mentioned that. Mr. Secretary, you also
mentioned it. We need the best people we can get, whoever they
are, wherever they come from. And the shocking figure that we
have already discussed today is that only one out of four young
people is qualified for military service either for physical or
other kinds of intellectual issues. We need people. And the
secret of the success of this country in my opinion is access
and opening up access to more and more people. And I have no
doubt that limiting access to virtually any job, eliminating 50
percent of the talent pool is always a bad policy.
The question, it seems to me, though is how do we design
gender-neutral standards that are in fact gender- neutral but
also meet the requirements of the job. And that is going to be
the challenge. General Neller, I thought your exchange with
Senator Lee was very informative. And the issue, for example,
of weight. I visited the Marine Corps officer school in
Quantico and saw what those young people have to carry. As I
recall, the lightest pack was something like 75 pounds and they
go up from there. I think your response was an important one,
that this could be a question of, A, who physically can do it
regardless of gender and, B, training and readiness over a
period of time.
I think the great danger, though, is that we do not let the
standards diminish in order to meet some kind of arbitrary
requirements. The word ``goals'' has been used here. Goals,
unfortunately, can often turn into quotas. And, Mr. Secretary,
I presume that that is not your intention in any way, shape, or
form.
Mr. Mabus. Absolutely not, Senator. Number one, it would go
against the law. But number two, you cannot lower standards.
This is not about quotas. It is not about equality of outcome.
It is about equality of opportunity. And you have got to keep
those standards. You have got to keep them job-related. You
have got to keep them very rigorous, and you have got to evolve
those standards as our threats and as our challenges evolve,
but they have got to evolve for everybody.
Senator King. I would assume that the performance of women
in these very rigorous top-end MOS's, Ranger School, Marine
training, will improve over time as they are given the
opportunity to set their sights on that career. General Milley,
would you agree with that?
General Milley. I would expect that to be true over time as
women's experience in those skills is expanded over time.
Absolutely.
Senator King. And it seems to me, General Neller, that may
be one of the answers to the data that you developed in this
initial study because it was an initial study. In other words,
you did not have 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 years of women who had worked
through this process. Would you agree that that may be the
case?
General Neller. We would have liked to have had more time
to look at this because I think anyone that does this type of
analysis would tell you that a year-long is not enough to draw
a lot of conclusions. We have the data that we have. So that is
why, Senator, part of our implementation process is to continue
an analysis of a whole number of variables and factors.
And I do, though, agree that the women that are in the
Marine Corps today are very different, not that the ones that
were there before were not of quality and great Americans and
served our Nation well, but the overall quality of marines in
general is much higher than it was when I joined this
organization 40 years ago. And our hope is people will maybe
see this as an opportunity and then they will want to compete
in whatever it is.
So I think--I mean, I have got a daughter. I raise my
daughter in the way I raise my daughter. She is very
competitive. And I think people raise their girls, females,
Americans. They do different things than they did 30 years ago.
It is a different place. So we will find out.
That said, there are certain physiological differences that
exist. There are always going to be people that are outliers.
I think what Senator Ernst asked me was a fair question.
Where does the top of the women capability overlap with the
male capability, and is that going to make them competitive in
the long run? We are going to find that out, but that is part
of what we do not know.
Senator King. And it seems to me part of what this whole--
--
Chairman McCain. Your time has expired.
Senator King. I am sorry.
Chairman McCain. Senator Fischer, with Senator Sessions'
indulgence.
Senator Fischer, Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to
Senator Sessions. I need to get to the chamber to preside, but
I did want to ask a few questions here.
When we are going to be looking at monitoring the
implementations, how well prepared do you think we are at that
process specifically with regard to making changes? If I could
ask Secretary Murphy and Secretary Mabus about that. How do the
services plan to track the outcomes of the changes and ensure
that when we see any unintended consequences come forward that
we can act on those promptly and be able to address any
concerns that we see? Secretary Murphy, if you would like to
begin.
Mr. Murphy. Thanks, Senator.
As we said, Senator, we are going to have gender- neutral,
operational-relevant standards with no quotas whatsoever. But
as the Army, we assess everything as we move forward. We assess
physical fitness, how you are doing your job, OER's [Officer
Evaluation Report], et cetera. So we will continue assess this
as we move forward and make sure we are doing what is necessary
to accomplish our mission, and that is to fight and win our
Nation's wars.
Senator Fischer, And do you have that in your
implementation plan? It is always good to say you are going to
be flexible, you are going to be able to address it, but are
there really steps that are laid out in your plans?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, ma'am. I would also like if the Chief
could respond as well, that would be helpful.
Senator Fischer, If we could have Secretary Mabus first
please.
Mr. Mabus. As part of the formal process of looking at this
continually, one of the things that is required by the law and
one of the things that is in everybody's implementation plan is
that the inspector general of each service will look at, number
one, whether these standards continue to be validated, job-
oriented, mission-specific, gender-neutral, but number two,
what are the results of this integration. The first report is
to be undertaken this year as we begin the integration process,
and each service has already ordered that review to go forward.
Past that, as Secretary Murphy has very correctly pointed
out, we are always looking at every single standard as threats
evolve. As I said in my opening statement, infantry school
today is very different than it was just 25 years ago because
our threats have changed, and we are going to continue to do
that. And that is one of the things I think that marines do
exceptionally well. They adapt. They improvise and they
overcome.
Senator Fischer, Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And, General, would you like to have any comments?
General Milley. Just briefly. We have developed explicit
written, gender-neutral tasks, conditions, and standards for
every MOS in the United States Army right now today. And when
we execute for the infantry, armor, and special forces, those
will be implemented. They will be tested and they will be
validated and they will be monitored closely. The Secretary of
Defense has established a Secretary of Defense level
organization to monitor implementation. We have done the same
thing at the Secretary of the Army, the Department of the Army
Secretary, and we will be doing routine monthly and quarterly
monitoring of implementation and execution of this.
Training and Doctrine Command, United States Army, has
primary responsibility for phases one and two. Our plan has
four phases. And phases three and four primary responsibility
is General Abrams and Forces Command, which is the operational
force. That will be coming up next year and the year after
that. So it is a very, very rigorous program of implementation
and monitoring.
Senator Fischer, And thank you for that very clear
explanation. I appreciate it.
General Neller, you had mentioned before that the Marines
had studied some foreign militaries and what they have done
with the integration of their women into the combat positions.
Can you comment on any of the findings that you had?
General Neller. We looked at the Canadian, the Australian,
the UK [United Kingdom], and the Israeli militaries. The first
three have integrated these MOS's. The numbers are very small,
but the lessons they learned in speaking to the service members
there that were part of that was leadership, maintenance of
standards, setting up a cohort or some number of people to
support so that the individual females in this case did not go
down there completely cold. But the number one thing was the
standards. They also mentioned the potential benefits of
gender-separate recruit training.
The Israelis I believe had done this at one time, and then
they have walked away from it. They do have one predominantly
female border unit. But they do not allow women to be assigned
in these combat MOS's, infantry, armor, or airborne.
Senator Fischer, What would be their reasons for that with
the Israelis? Is it due to the standards that are in place, or
is it concern about the neighborhood they live in?
General Neller. I think there are a number of reasons,
Senator, but I think one is they are just trying to take and
make the best use of the talent of the population that they
have. So if you go to an Israeli school that teaches these, the
majority of the instructors are females teaching ground combat
things.
Senator Fischer, Thank you, sir, very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Reed [presiding]. On behalf of the chairman, let me
recognize Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And to all of our witnesses, this is an important issue,
and I echo what Senator Heinrich said about the degree of
consistency among the witnesses and folks here serving.
A story that I find relevant. Women were not allowed to run
the marathon in the Olympics until 1984. There was a belief
that physically they would not be able to run it. The longest
race for women in the 1980 Olympics in Moscow was a 1,500-
meter, and even that was somewhat recent. It had been an 800-
meter was the longest race a woman could run.
Today, 30 years later, the men's world record in the
marathon is 2 hours and 3 minutes, and the women's world record
in the marathon is 2 hours and 15 minutes. There is an
advantage to men. But that women's world record time would have
won the gold record in the men's marathon during most of the
history of the Olympics.
And now--and this is a joke--the marathon is for wimps now
because now there are ultra-marathons. One common ultra-
marathon event is a 2-day run, 48-hour run. Men have the edge
on the track. The women's record is 370 kilometers in 2 days,
and the men's record is 430 kilometers in 2 days.
But there is another one that is kind of interesting to me.
How fast can you through-hike the Appalachian Trail, 2,200
miles? And there is a record for doing it all on your own, not
having support, having to carry everything, big backpack
carried. The men's record is 58 days and the women's record is
54 days. The woman has the record for having to carry it all.
Combat and military service is different. But what this
tells me is--and, General Neller, you kind of talked about it.
Daughters raised today are going to be raised different than
daughters 30 years ago. When there is a social cap or ceiling
or limitation, that sort of gets absorbed by people and they do
not even focus on what they might be able to do. They get
raised in a particular way with the thought that that cap is
going to be there. When the cap is lifted, all of a sudden
there are all kinds of possibilities and people start to focus
on opportunities they might have and train themselves up for
them. And just like when you lift the ban on running the
marathon in the Olympics and allow women to do it, suddenly
there are fantastic marathoners, ultra-marathoners, AT
[Appalachian Trail] hikers with packs.
Parenthetically the physiological difference in women in
carrying weight leads a lot of backpack manufacturers to make
different packs for women that can actually erase some of that
physiological difference.
I have a high confidence--a high confidence--in the
American military and all the service branches to do this
because you are always are super can-do and you always figure
it out. I mean, I have that confidence in you.
One of my kids, as some of you know, has been through ROTC
[Reserve Officers' Training Corps] and OCS [Officer Candidate
School] and TBS [The Basic School] and IOC [Infantry Officer
Course] with women. It is more of a norm now than an earlier
generation of Marines. And he understands how hard it is for
everybody and that this will be a challenge to implement. But
this is a can-do operation that is going to figure it out. I
have complete confidence in them.
I am kind of interested in the topic of standards setting.
And, General Neller, you talked a little bit about this. I
tried to write this quickly down. You talked about in preparing
for integration of women in MOS's and studying it, you did a
lot of studies of the standards. I think you said because of
our standards setting, our overall quality will be higher for
men and women.
I would kind of like to ask all of you. Was the standards
setting that you did and analyzed around the integration
question, set aside integration of women into MOS's--did it
have strong, independent value for your service branches to do
that standards setting and analysis exercise in terms of
figuring out what the right requirements for the MOS's are
given the nature of contemporary warfare? And that is a
question I would like each of you to address.
General Neller. The standards that we established were
established on 30 September, actually before the decision was
made, because we recognized, as part of the analysis, that
whether there was going to be an exception granted or not, we
needed to have a more performance-related standard. I mean,
there's training on the things you did. So we actually codified
it. And so since that time, the men that have gone through
infantry training battalion, armor school, artillery school,
engineer school have been getting their MOS qualification based
on the standard. And the completion rate has been 99-plus
percent. So that just goes to the overall quality of the marine
that we are getting now.
So I have every confidence that if there is a female marine
out there who can meet the other standards before they come
into recruit training or what they have to do at entry level
training and recruit training, we will find out. We will know
because the females that did go through this training and get
awarded the MOS--they did not have to do this. So, again,
Senator, we do not know yet what we do not know. There are
things you can train to, but you have to have the physiological
capability to move fast and bear a load and lift heavy weights.
Senator Kaine. I see my time has expired. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you. On behalf of the chairman, Senator
Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you very much. And I thank all of
you for sharing your thoughts with us on this important matter.
General Neller, the Marine Corps did a study and completed
it in 2015. Is that correct? And what was the purpose of that
study?
General Neller. Senator, the purpose of the study was after
Secretary Panetta in January 2013 stated that there was going
to be no exception for gender to assignment to MOS's in unit
and gave the services a period of time to take a look at this.
It was the final process of what we did. We first put female
marines in previously restricted units and MOS's that they had.
We sent 448 females through infantry training battalion to see
how they would do, and then we realized we could not assign
them to a unit, so we had to create a unit and we wanted to see
how they did in the context, not just meeting individual
standards but how they would function within a squad, team, or
a crew.
Senator Sessions. And do you feel like that was, as
reasonably as you can, a fair analysis of the challenges that
you would be facing if you moved to integration of combat
units?
General Neller. The evaluation was designed to try to
replicate, as best we could in a live fire environment, those
types of skills or tasks that you would have to do in combat.
Senator Sessions. Now, the purpose of the report says this.
``Central to this historic research effort has been the clear
recognition that the brutal and extremely physical nature of
direct ground combat, often marked by close interpersonal
violence, remains largely unchanged throughout the centuries of
warfare despite technological advancements.''
Now, you served a long time in the Marine Corps. Do you
agree with that?
General Neller. The character of war may have changed with
the overall nature of war, depending upon the fight you are in,
at the end of the day can still come down to that type of an
environment. Yes, Senator.
Senator Sessions. Now, the report said this. The Marine
Corps fights as units. Therefore, developing and maintaining
the most combat-effective units must always be at the forefront
of any contemplated institutional change. Do you agree with
that?
General Neller. I do.
Senator Sessions. And do you agree with the report's
finding, ``combat effectiveness, the health and welfare of
individual marines, and talent management,'' are key evaluating
factors on the performance?
General Neller. Those are three of the major lenses through
which we looked at the report and looked through
implementation.
Senator Sessions. Well, here are the summary of the
research findings. See if they are inconsistent with your
experience in the Marine Corps. Overall, ``all male squads,
teams, and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69
percent of the tasks evaluated--that is 134 tasks--as compared
to gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews. The integrated
squads were superior in two events out of the 134.'' The rest I
guess were equal. Do you dispute that or is that consistent
with your experience?
General Neller. That is the data that we derived from the
evaluation.
Senator Sessions. Speed is important in combat. ``All male
squads, regardless of infantry MOS, were faster than the
gender-integrated squads in each tactical movement.''
Lethality. All-male 0311 squads--that is the rifle
infantry, rifleman squads ``had better accuracy compared to
gender-integrated squads. There was notable difference between
genders for every individual weapons system except the
probability of hit and miss with the M-4.'' That is the
individual carbines. Is that what the report found, and do you
dispute that?
General Neller. No, sir. That is accurate as to what we
found.
Senator Sessions. Also it found all-male infantry crew-
served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered
more hits on target as compared to gender- integrated infantry
crew-served weapons teams with the exception of M-2 accuracy.
Was that part of the report?
General Neller. It is.
Senator Sessions. All-male squads, teams, and crews in
gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable
difference in their performance of the basic combat task of
negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. So that is the
combat lethality question.
Health and welfare of the marines themselves. You put them
in very stressful positions. ``In addition to performance,
evidence of higher injury rates for females when compared to
males performing the same tactical task were noted. Within the
research at the infantry training battalion, females undergoing
that entry level training were injured at six times the rate of
male counterparts.'' Is the injury rate a factor you need to
consider when you put people through training?
General Neller. Yes, Senator.
Senator Sessions. During the assessment, ``musculoskeletal
injury rates were 40 percent for females compared to 18 percent
for males.''
And one more thing that people talk about. We cannot let it
dominate our thinking. But how do you evaluate all of that? I
mean, how do you evaluate the risk of injury and the ability to
perform effectively on the battlefield when you consider the
integration of combat forces? You made your recommendation, but
how do you evaluate that?
General Neller. Well, Senator, when we evaluate it, we are
going to find out. This is part of what we found out and also
what we found out, that we believe that there are ways that
this can be, to some degree, mitigated. How much? Again, we do
not know what we do not know. So the physical capability of the
individual marine, their susceptibility to injury, their
overall fitness, this is all part of the evaluation that
everyone has talked about. And General Milley stated it on
there. We have got very specific questions in areas that we are
going to monitor as we go through this implementation process.
Senator Sessions. Well, I have served in an Army Reserve
unit for 10 years with fabulous women, soldiers and officers.
The commander of that unit now is the first one that has
received two stars in the unit's history. She is a two-star
general and doing a great job, and we have tremendous military
soldiers and officers who are women. And it is an important
part of the military. And I think you are wise to do this
careful evaluation and let us see how we can continue that
tradition in the most smartest way.
Senator Reed. On behalf of the chairman, Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You were just asked a series of questions relating to
differences in performance of women and men. And I think,
General Neller, you indicated that there may be ways to
mitigate these performance differences. But I am wondering. Did
you come to the conclusion that--and we always have to worry
about attributing cause and effect to any performance
differences. So did you come to a conclusion that there is
something innately about being a female that causes these kinds
of differences in performance? Have you come to that
conclusion?
General Neller. Senator, I think the data, not just from
this evaluation but data that exists throughout the sports
world or other place is that there are physiological
differences between the average male and the average female.
Now, the question is to what degree can we mitigate that. So
the conclusion, if we have come to anything, is, hey, these are
things that we need to pay attention to. Now, whether they will
manifest themselves in the future or not, we will find that
out.
Senator Hirono. So in those instances where what we are
measuring is something that requires physical strength--I mean,
there will be some women who are physically a lot stronger than
men, but as a general proposition that where physical strength
is measured, women will come out--they will be less able to
perform. That is the conclusion you have drawn.
General Neller. On the average, yes.
Senator Hirono. So when we talk about gender-neutral
standards--let me turn to that because nobody here is talking
about lowering of standards. But there are some concerns that
some of these standards that relate to performance necessary
for the job may be unnecessarily high or inaccurate. We are not
talking about lowering of standards.
So my question is how are these standards validated. Who
validates these standards for the Marines, for the Army?
Secretary Mabus, would you like to respond to that?
Mr. Mabus. The uniformed head of each service validates
that they are occupationally relevant, that they are mission-
oriented, and that they are gender-neutral.
Senator Hirono. I think, though, that may be difficult
really to measure. So I think what I heard you saying is that
the implementation and to make sure that these standards
actually are required for a performance on the job, that there
will be monitoring and reevaluation of these standards because
one hopes that standards are somehow set by a neutral objective
body.
So in addition to the physical standards that must be met,
I assume that in a combat situation, one also cares about
things such as the mental state of the person or the judgment
of the person. Are those part of the MOS standards?
General Neller. The MOS standards for the entry level--
there is a basic general technical classification test score
that you have to meet. And so when you go through your academic
part of your training--and there is academics in any of these.
Some for gunnery and artillery and tanks is very complicated.
It involves mathematics and things. So there is an intellectual
piece to this, and you are going to find out some people may be
superior in this area. But at the basic level, at the entry
level, whether it is an infantry platoon commander or a junior
marine or soldier in a squad, the physical requirements that
they have to perform are--you cannot ignore those facts.
Now, as people become more senior, then it starts to
balance out, and your ability to exercise judgment and your
ability to make decisions--that may become more important, but
it does not remove the requirement for the physical
requirements that you have to perform.
So to the point on who validates, we have looked at this.
We have training commands who have an analyst and people that
do this for a profession. We know exactly from every step what
you have to do to load a Howitzer, to load a tank, to lift--you
know, it is very mundane stuff, Senator, like, hey, you have to
lift an artillery round that weighs 98 pounds up to the truck.
So there are certain fundamental tasks to be part of a tank
crew, a gun crew, to be in a rifle squad. And so those were the
things that we looked at that we thought were the mission-
essential tasks to be effective in these MOS's. And we have had
third parties look at this because we wanted to ensure that the
standards were valid and they were not too high or too low.
Chairman McCain. Senator Tillis?
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually I want to continue maybe along that line of
questioning.
One of the things that I have had in my discussions with
some of you and others is that this process has been good and
that it has really made you think about documenting and setting
standards for things that you kind of knew you had to do but
you had not articulated them. So that is healthy.
And I have heard other discussions. And when we have looked
at it, maybe we need to raise the standards a little bit. To
what extent do we run the risk of being able to do that because
it appears to be lessening or diminishing our opportunity to
provide women more opportunities in combat positions, which I
happen to support? General Neller, do you want to start with
that?
General Neller. Senator, I think the standards--I cannot
speak for the Army, but I looked at their standards and their
standards are different but they are also I think fairly
demanding and would show a high probability of being able to be
successful in any of these ground combat MOS's whether they be
load-bearing MOS's or non-load-bearing.
So whether they are too low or too high, we have done an
analysis as to what is kind of the average. We are producing a
large number of marines to do these things. In the Army, an
even larger number. So we are looking for that point to where
you have to do this in order to be effective and be effective
within the team. And there are always going to be individuals
that fall across the spectrum on that scatter chart.
Senator Tillis. And, General Milley, maybe if you respond
to that, you could share whether or not--as you are going
through this and thinking about women having increasing
opportunities in combat roles, can you think of any physical
standards that you think should be lowered?
General Milley. No, not physical standards.
But let me make a comment on standards, though. I do not
want anybody on the committee to think that either the Army or
the Marines or the Navy or the Air Force did not have standards
until we suddenly went through this. The United States Army has
standards since Baron von Steuben showed up at Valley Forge. We
are a standards-based Army. We are a standards-based military.
Always have been. And they are written down and they are
codified and we adjust them over time based on the realities of
battlefield, new technologies, et cetera, et cetera.
In this particular case, for infantry and armor, we have
developed a new set of gender-neutral standards. And those are
measured against one thing, neither male nor female. They are
measured against the requirements of combat. And to answer
Senator Hirono's comment, those have been rigorously reviewed.
We will be glad to provide them. Peer-reviewed through all
kinds of technical analysis. But we are definitely standards-
based. These are rigorous, and they will be fairly applied to
both males and females.
Senator Tillis. General Neller, the Marines have the entry-
level recruit training that is segregated I guess. It is on a
glide path to be integrated. Do you believe that is a good
idea?
General Neller. I would not describe it as segregated. At
entry level, at recruit training at MCRD [Marine Corps Recruit
Depot] Paris Island----
Senator Tillis. That is a great point
General Neller.--we allow our female marines to train
separately, and then as they get further into the training,
they do more and more integrated training with the male
recruits.
Senator Tillis. What in your professional military opinion
are the benefits of that approach?
General Neller. Because of the data we have on the physical
differential and because of the opportunity for these female
recruits to be led by female drill instructors and female
officers, they see females as role models. There is no
distraction and they are allowed to compete. They see other
women that can lead and compete. They get an opportunity to
improve their physical fitness, and then that gives them an
opportunity to gain some confidence before they would then be
put in--is there going to be eventually--I mean, once they
graduate as marines, every part of our training from marine
combat training to our MOS training of the operational force is
fully integrated, men and women serving side by side.
Senator Tillis. Do you agree, as some do, that it sets them
up to actually better compete for those positions as they
progress through their training?
General Neller. My personal view right now is at the
beginning that initial part is critical and sets them up for
success.
Senator Tillis. And, Mr. Chair, I will just close with this
comment. I would like to get from the Secretaries, given the
work that has been done, the policy that is being implemented,
some understanding of what the long-term cost could potentially
be as we implement this program, anything from MILCON [military
construction] costs to health care costs, a number of other
factors. We have heard numbers about injury rates, a number of
other things. I am assuming that that was looked at before the
policy recommendations were put into place, and I would like to
get that information. We will make a request to your agencies.
Thank you.
The information referred to follows:
Mr. Murphy. We do not anticipate any significant increase in pay
and allowances as a result of implementing gender integration. The
Occupational Physical Assessment Test will ensure Soldiers have the
proper physical aptitude for their military occupational specialty. The
estimated cost for this testing is $2.1 million per year.
Mr. Mabus. The Department of the Navy has identified the primary
areas where costs will be incurred for complete integration. The DoN
has fully integrated all previously closed occupational specialties in
both the Navy and Marine Corps. Additionally, recurring costs of
integrating the Submarine community are included. The two primary areas
impacted by the decision to fully integrate women into the Armed Forces
are the Marine Corps and the Naval Special Warfare community. Below are
the estimated costs with integration of females within the Department
of the Navy:
Submarines:
Ohio-class
$5.5 million non-recurring expense (planning)
$6.6 million per ship ($5.4 million labor/$1.2 million
material)
Virginia-class (Block IV)
$8.5 million non-recurring expense
$1.5 million per ship
Specific Los Angeles and Seawolf submarines will be
evaluated for integration as demand for female billets dictate, on the
basis of cost-effective privacy and berthing modifications over the
remaining service life of the hull. With the expected construction of
two Virginia-class submarines per year, the submarine force anticipates
that the pace of integration will not exceed construction rate of the
Virginia-class; making it unlikely that the submarine force will
exercise the option of modifications to Seawolf or Los Angeles-class to
sustain integration of women. Should modifications be deemed necessary,
Navy will notify Congress per title 10 United States Code, section
6035.
Naval Special Warfare (NSW):
Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) barracks
$175 thousand for security cameras and associated hardware,
i.e.:
- night vision IP cameras: $93 thousand,
- data storage servers: $72 thousand, and
- installation: $10 thousand
San Clemente Island Facilities
- $100 thousand for head/showers
Minor berthing and head adjustments will be required to
facilitate integration of women in NSW pipeline training. NSW officer
candidates are able to reside off base, while enlisted members are
housed in on-base facilities. NSW strives to provide privacy while
minimizing segregation in order to optimize integration.
Marine Corps:
Facilities Requirements
- $977 thousand projects completed
- $1.5 million projects remaining
Medical Costs:
The extent to which healthcare is expected to increase or
decrease is not known at this time and a lack of historical data on
women's injury rates associated with the full integration of females in
combat prevents estimation.
Chairman McCain. Senator Blumenthal?
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing.
I want to thank all of the witnesses who are here today for
your extraordinary service to our Nation and for your very
thoughtful and insightful testimony today.
In the military, as elsewhere, women are breaking down
barriers and proving they are equally capable professionally
and personally. And I happen to believe that our military will
be made stronger by the policies that you are implementing,
policies that are the result of planning an action that began
in 2012, and our military will be made stronger as we open
billets to women without lowering standards and without
imposing quotas.
And I think, Secretary Mabus, you made that point extremely
well, and I am going to quote it again. Lowering standards
would be unacceptable to every marine, especially those women
who choose to compete for these positions. I think that is a
very profoundly important point here, that women do not want
standards lowered. They do not want outcomes dictated or quotas
for positions. It is simply about equal access, in fact with
higher standards not lower standards.
And the other point that you made very well I thought,
Secretary Mabus, is that this is not about women in combat.
Women have been serving in combat and have been proving
themselves in combat. In fact, they served, for example, in
Iraq in the Lioness Program where female marines and soldiers
volunteered to join combat troops at checkpoints and conducted
outreach operations with Iraqi women. I remember listening to
Admiral McRaven describe the role that women play with his
special forces teams in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And I am
very proud of the work that they have done in the Army as well.
U.S. Army Special Operations Command created an all-woman
cultural support team to work along with Green Berets and Army
Rangers in combat zones. And just last year, women again proved
they are capable of competing in combat positions by meeting
the grueling gender-neutral standards required to pass Army
Ranger Schools, including a native of Connecticut, Orange,
Connecticut, Captain Kristen Griest.
I want to ask a question that focuses on a different part
of this process, as the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs
Committee, whether we are doing enough to plan--both the
Department of Defense and the VA [Veterans Affairs]--for the
cooperation that is necessary to meet the needs of our women
veterans after they leave the service. Connecticut just opened
a women's health care center within the West Haven facility, a
profoundly important step forward, but many facilities,
hospital facilities and others, around the country have failed
to provide those women-oriented health care centers. And they
require specialties that are not present for men. So I would
like to ask that question generally of this panel, whether
there has been sufficient planning, what more should be done
for our women veterans.
Mr. Mabus. Well, Senator, as you very correctly pointed
out, women have been serving for a long time with distinction
and are becoming an ever-increasing part of our veterans
community. And we owe all of our veterans that have served us
so well that standard of care.
And I think that speaking for the Defense Department, we
are trying to make it more seamless as you leave the service
and you move into the VA system. We are trying to make it an
easier process, a process that does not put the members under
stress. To a point that Secretary Murphy made a good bit
earlier, now 18 percent of Navy is female. At the Naval
Academy, this year it is 29 percent that are female, and it is
going up every year. And so that is something we have got to
pay very close attention to not only while people are in but as
they transition back to civilian life.
Chairman McCain. Senator Ayotte?
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Chairman.
I want to thank each of you for your leadership and service
to our Nation.
I fully support giving women the opportunity to both meet
and exceed the high standards set by each of our branches of
the military. But as the chair of the Readiness Committee, what
I would like as a commitment from each of you is that as we
implement this policy, that we ensure that individual and unit
standards are focused solely on combat readiness and nothing
else. And I think the women of this Nation would want that. I
think the women who are going to have the opportunity and who
have served so admirably and defended this Nation already in
combat would want that. So I want to make sure that I have the
assurance of each of you that that will be the case.
General Neller. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Mabus. Absolutely.
Mr. Murphy. Yes, ma'am.
General Milley. Yes, Senator.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
I want to bring up an issue, when we talk about women
serving in our military, that is really one that has bothered
me, and that is that we have women guards who are guarding the
prisoners and terrorists at Guantanamo. And they are women who
are fully qualified, capable to guard anyone there. Yet, there
has been a court order in place since January of last year for,
in particular, the 9/11 terrorists that essentially says that
the women who are guards there are not permitted to actually
transport the 9/11 five to legal meetings and commission
proceedings. And Senator Capito and Senator Scott and I went to
Guantanamo. We met with the women guards there. And I can
assure you what they told us is we just want to do our jobs.
So as we are here having a hearing today on giving women an
opportunity in all billets in the military, here we have a
billet that women are already serving and yet there is a court
order in place that I believe OSD [Office of the Secretary of
Defense] has not stepped up aggressively enough to stand up for
the rights of our women in the military to perform their jobs
and that we have essentially let terrorists dictate terms that
are completely unreasonable, not based on any religious views,
even though they are claiming it. And your predecessor--not
your predecessor but the former Commander of SOUTHCOM [United
States Southern Command], General Kelly, was very upset about
this, brought this to my attention. Previously Secretary Carter
has been before this committee and also described this as
outrageous.
So I would like to know, especially General Milley--most of
these women guards serve in the Army--and Secretary Murphy as
well, but all of you, what do you think about this. And should
we not be more aggressively standing up for the rights of our
women in the military to do their jobs rather than what exists
right now, which is the right of the 9/11 terrorists that are
bogus in terms of the ability of our women to do their jobs in
the military? So I want to get your comment on this.
General Milley. I personally think it is ridiculous that
these women are not allowed to do that job. I probably have
other words that cannot be said behind this microphone right
now about how I feel about that whole situation. I agree with
you, Senator.
Mr. Murphy. Senator, I concur with the Chief. And let me be
clear. We do not take orders from the terrorists but there was
a court order here and we take an oath to support and defend
the Constitution.
But I will tell you, ma'am, that I will go back--I am now 4
weeks into this job. I will go back and meet with our general
counsel, Mrs. Starzak, and look at this issue and report back
to you.
Senator Ayotte. I would appreciate it because I have been
completely unsatisfied, having been a former prosecutor myself,
with the level of defense that has been given and advocacy on
behalf of our women in the military here. So I hope you will do
that, please.
Secretary Mabus?
Mr. Mabus. I share exactly your words. It is outrageous.
Women need to be able to do the jobs that they are qualified to
do.
General Neller. Senator, I agree with the rest of the
panel.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you all, and I do appreciate your
willingness to pursue this, Secretary Murphy, because I think
we can do a much better job for standing up for their rights as
opposed to what is in place right now. To me, to let these 9/11
terrorists dictate what our women in the military can do is
outrageous. Thank you.
Chairman McCain. Senator Gillibrand?
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have had a lot of discussion about the Marine Corps'
assessment, and I want to clarify something. I think we can all
agree that the women who volunteered to do the Ground Combat
Element Integrated Task Force assessment were exceptional in
their willingness to participate in a study that they were not
specifically trained for and did not have the experience
necessary to actually compete in that study effectively.
The design of the research overall was very flawed. First
of all, these female marines were screened for the basic
physical fitness test, but were competing in a large part with
male marines who had years of experience and training and many
of them in combat positions.
Further, there was no bar that the groups competed had to
meet. Rather, they were competing against each other. So all we
really know from the study is that groups that had the right
experience and training and more training did better. We do not
actually have data that can be used because these women who
were asked to participate did not have the same training and
experience as those who had been doing it for a long time.
And similarly, on the injury rates, for those women who did
do this, they only had the basic standard PT [Physical
Training] test. They did not do specific training to do these
missions and to complete them.
So I just want my colleagues to fully understand that this
assessment is not designed to give us the data that we actually
need. I think it is fundamentally flawed.
So, Secretary Mabus, I would like your view on that, and
then, General Neller, I would like your view on that.
Mr. Mabus. When Secretary Panetta and Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs Dempsey set us on this road, they said that the default
position--that the assumption was that every position would be
opened and that any sort of exception would have to be very
narrowly tailored and would have to be based on job-specific
individual standards.
And the Marine test, as I have said here before, did one
great thing that General Neller has talked about, and that is
it codified the standards that each individual marine in a unit
had to meet in order to get that MOS.
But I think we have to focus on individuals. If an
individual meets that standard, if an individual meets the
gender-neutral, combat-specific, job-specific standard, then
that person should get to do the job.
Senator Gillibrand. Well, I just think that too many of the
Senators who were listening to that summary of what the Marine
study showed are having a misimpression. We are not comparing
average women to average men. We are talking about
extraordinary women. And if you look at the three women who
just completed Ranger School, these three women are
extraordinary women. And so if we were to assess can they do
the job, yes, they can do the job. But again, to base too much
or to rely too much on a study that did not have that level of
training and rigor ahead of time so that they had the same
experience, the same background, it is unfair to draw too many
conclusions from it is all I want to say. I just hope you do
not draw any conclusions.
And also, no one mentioned the fact that when they actually
tested for complex problem solving tasks, the mixed units did
better. So there is an area where women are improving the
results of these units.
And we all know that combat is going to continue to become
more and more complex over time. Warfare is going to continue
to become more and more complex over time. So please do not
lose sight of the assets that these extraordinary women are
going to bring to your missions. They have skills beyond what a
typical marine may have. And so that is going to enhance what
you will be able to do long-term.
General Neller, I would love your thoughts too.
General Neller. Well, Senator, first of all, I think it
would be unfair to any of those marines, but particularly the
females that participated in the GCEITF, to say they were not
trained. They all went to MOS school, and so they received and
have now received the MOS whether it is infantry, artillery,
armor.
When I look at their physical data, the male PFT, pretty
consistent. The one differential was in pull-ups. But as you
said, these were exceptional female marines. They did not have
to do this. They volunteered. They did our Corps, our country a
great service, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. And that is
one of the reasons their unit received a meritorious unit
accommodation at the conclusion of their training.
Now, after they went to the MOS training, they formed into
this Ground Combat Element Task Force for 4 months of
preparatory training where they trained with men and developed
the skills that they needed to go do this evaluation.
Senator Gillibrand. But the 4 months does not compare to
the years that a lot of these units had been already working
together doing this MOS.
General Neller. None of these marines had been in this
unit. This was a formed unit. But it is fair to say--I will
agree with you--that their experience in these MOS's was
probably not up to the level of their male counterparts. But in
every other standard that I can tell, I would say that they
were as good, if not better, in overall quality in their
service as their male marine counterparts.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Chairman McCain. So do you believe that the study was
fatally flawed?
General Neller. Sir, I do not. We have had the study peer-
reviewed by numerous groups.
Chairman McCain. So you think it was a legitimate study.
General Neller. Within the time we had, yes, Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Sullivan?
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
hearing.
I appreciate all of you testifying today on a very, very
important issue, but I think from your testimony and the
questions you are seeing from the members of this committee, it
is certainly not an easy issue.
You are talking about schools. I happen to have been
through the Marine infantry officer course, a recon school,
SERE school. These are very difficult schools that most men
have a hard time with because it is about a tough profession.
I think Sergeant Major LeHew, when he was talking about
this recently, the Marine Corps sergeant major put it very
succinctly. In regards to infantry, there is no trophy for
second place. You perform or die. Serious, serious discussion
here.
And I am a Marine infantry officer but like General Neller
mentioned, I am also someone who has three daughters, three
teenage daughters. All their lives, my wife and I have been
telling them that if they work hard, earn something, that they
should be able to do anything anyone else does--anyone.
So I support the opportunity for women to serve in any
capacity in the military as long as the standards are not
lowered. And I think you are seeing that as a consensus here.
One thing that has not been talked about enough--I want to
talk a little bit about the process. We know that Secretary
Panetta allowed the services to request an exemption, and after
thorough study with hundreds of marines and men and women
serving gave their all to put together a study.
Secretary Mabus, I have to tell you I have been very
disappointed in terms of the process, how you have dealt with
the Marine Corps' desire to look at this really difficult
issue. As soon as the Marines published their study, within 24
hours of this 1,000-page study, you came out and said you saw
no reason for an exemption. Did you read the study?
Mr. Mabus. Senator, what I said, I said countless times,
since the time that Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey had
set us on this path, that the presumption was that we were
going----
Senator Sullivan. You said I do not see any reason for an
exemption the day after the study was published. Based on what?
Mr. Mabus. The conclusions.
Senator Sullivan. Did you read the study?
Mr. Mabus. I have read the study.
Senator Sullivan. Did you read the study before you stated
that?
Mr. Mabus. I had read the conclusions that the Marines drew
from the study prior to that, and those conclusions which were
based on averages and not on individual marines----
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask another question related to
the study. And Senator Gillibrand just talked about it. You
then implied that the women marines involved in the study were
not the top-flight marines. General Neller I think just said
that was not the case.
And then on public radio, you essentially told the American
people that the Marines were not looking at this in an
objective manner. You said, ``it started out with a fairly
large component of the men in the Marine Corps thinking that
this is not a good idea and women will never be able to do
this. When you start out with that mindset, you are almost
presupposing the outcome.'' I think the only person
presupposing the outcome in this entire process was you.
General Neller, were you presupposing the outcome on this
after millions of dollars and hundreds of marines to put
together this report? Is that what you were doing, sir?
General Neller. We were all waiting for the results of the
study, but I think we had been out and visited and we had seen
some things. But there was a lot of analysis that had to be
done, and it was a short period of time. No, I was not
presupposing it.
Senator Sullivan. Let me just make another point. I think,
Secretary Mabus, for whatever reason you have seemed agitated,
annoyed about what the Marines have been doing about their
study--your public statements. And yet, they were the only
service, as far as I can tell, doing the hard research on a
very, very difficult issue. To me it seems like you might want
to think about complimenting the leadership of the Marine Corps
as opposed to implying that they were not taking this
seriously. They were clearly taking it seriously. In my view,
they were probably the service that was taking it the most
seriously.
Let me ask one final question that relates to this. On
January 1, you directed the Marines to come up with a detailed
plan to integrate boot camp within 15 days. Now, I am a little
biased here, but I think it is commonly known that the Marine
Corps probably has the best basic training of any service in
the United States military, probably any service in the world.
I have been on this committee for a year. I do not think I
have seen a more outrageous or ill-advised order from a service
secretary to tell the Marines that they are going to take boot
camp, which has been honed and put together for the benefit of
the American people over decades--and you are going to tell
them and order them to get a detailed plan in 15 days. Is that
even remotely possible? And why did you issue such an order
when nobody on this committee thinks that that was remotely
possible to integrate boot camp? Did you read the Kassebaum-
Baker report, unanimous committee?
Mr. Mabus. Senator, it was not only possible, but the
Marines met that. They had been working on this for months and
years----
Senator Sullivan. Did you read the Kassebaum----
Mr. Mabus.--how boot camp is organized. And you will be
happy to know, Senator, that they met that deadline. They fully
briefed me on January 14th and came up with----
Senator Sullivan. That is because the Marines are a can-do
organization, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Mabus. The Marines are an incredibly capable
organization. I am in awe of the Marine Corps and of individual
marines and the sincerity and the service and the work that
they have done on behalf of this country. And as I said in my
opening statement, it is the greatest honor of my life to lead
the United States Marine Corps and the United States Navy.
What we have come to, because the Marines did such a good
job of coming up with this, is the Marines have developed a
very deliberate plan, a very ordered plan to begin to look at
lessons learned and how they can more fully integrate boot camp
to give us better marines, which they have done. As Commandant
Neller and I have talked about several times, boot camp has
changed over and over and over again and always with the same
aim and that is to make better marines, to make a better Marine
Corps, and have a more lethal, more effective Marine Corps.
Senator Sullivan. How does your order square with the
Kassebaum-Baker unanimous committee recommendation on the
integration of our boot camps in the military?
Mr. Mabus. Well, Senator, I looked at all sorts of reports,
but I also have gone on my almost 7 years----
Senator Sullivan. It does not. Does it? I mean, it directly
contradicts the unanimous recommendation of that committee.
Right? Just for the record.
Mr. Mabus. I think that is a completely irrelevant point,
Senator.
Senator Sullivan. It is not irrelevant.
General Neller, do you think in your professional opinion
having 14 days, because--you probably did not take the day off
on New Year's Day because you got an order and you were
probably working on it. Do you think having 15 days to put
together a detailed plan to integrate the Marine Corps boot
camp, an issue that has been studied, debated, on one of the
most incredibly important institutions in not only the Marine
Corps, in my view the United States military--do you think that
was a reasonable request? It sounds like you did it, which does
not surprise me. That is the Marine Corps ethos. Was that a
legitimate request to do that within 14 days, one of the
biggest issues I am sure the Corps as an institution has been
struggling with for years--14 days to do that?
General Neller. Senator, what we did is we briefed the
Secretary on how we do recruit training, and in part of that
discussion, I believe--I am not going to speak for him, but he
understands and has a better view of why we do it the way we do
it. And as he stated, part of that discussion is that we are
always trying to get better, and we will continue to look at
ways that we can further improve recruit training.
Chairman McCain. You are not answering the question,
General. You are not answering Senator Sullivan's question.
Repeat the question.
Senator Sullivan. Was it a reasonable order, given the
years and years and years that the Marine Corps has been
looking at this and studying this and committees like the
Kassebaum-Baker unanimous committee said it was not a good
idea, to have 14 days to come up with a, ``detailed plan to
integrate Marine Corps boot camp?'' I just think it was
outrageous, but I am wondering in your professional military
judgment.
General Neller. When we briefed on the 14th, we did not
provide a plan of fully integrated recruit training but talked
about how we do conduct recruit training.
Chairman McCain. Well, it is unfortunate.
Your time has expired.
You know, Secretary Mabus, this would have been a lot
easier if you had not called in the press immediately and
debunked what many of us view was a legitimate study without
even reading it, and I do not believe that you read a 1,000-
page document in one day. I am sorry. But I do not believe it.
And so your handling of this issue has really complicated the
whole situation for those of us who fully support the
integration of women in the military. It was done on a
peremptory, ``go to the media first'' fashion.
General Neller, I would just like to ask. Do you want to,
for the record, articulate the concerns that you have about
this entire evolution?
General Neller. Senator, there are a lot of concerns that
we have talked about, and General Milley articulated them.
There are a lot of things we do not know.
I will tell you that one of my biggest concerns is that the
perception, which is totally inaccurate, that the Marine Corps
does not value the service of the females that serve in the
Marine Corps. As I stated earlier, we are looking at how we can
increase the number of females in the Marine Corps. This is
about combat effectiveness. This is about health and welfare of
the force. This is about talent management, putting every
marine in the place where they can best contribute.
So we have been given an order to integrate. We have, we
believe, a fully detailed plan to integrate. We are going to
give every marine the opportunity to compete. We have the
standards that we think will allow them to be successful.
Chairman McCain. I asked if you had concerns, General.
General Neller. I have concerns about retention. I have
concerns about injury rates. I have concerns about propensity
to reenlist, career progression. I have concerns about what is
going to happen if the numbers are low, which they probably
will be at the beginning. But I think the plan that we have--
again, I have concerns about things I do not know what the
answers are going to be too, Chairman. But I think we have a
plan in place where we can monitor that. And I would ask that
we continue to be required to come back to this committee and
report on how we are doing on implementation.
Chairman McCain. Senator Reed?
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator, so I believe that Kassebaum report was done in
1997.
Senator Sullivan. I believe it was 1998.
Senator Reed. 1998. So we are looking at an evolving
situation. I just want to make that clear in terms of reference
to the report.
The final point I want to make is that what I have
discerned from the entire panel is this is going to be a very
careful, orchestrated, multiyear process, which will be
reviewed, should be reviewed, should be reported back to the
committee, and that the ultimate test will be the effectiveness
of units. And that rationale is because that is what makes
Marine regiments work, its platoons, companies, battalions that
function, and that will be the test. And I think unless anyone
disagrees with me, I will conclude with that point.
Chairman McCain. I thank the witnesses.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Kelly Ayotte
use of involuntary separation to achieve budget driven end strength
reductions
Eric Fanning wrote in his nomination hearing two weeks ago,
``Without any future increases to the budget, in order to achieve an
[active component] end strength of 450k by 2018, a reduction of 40k
soldiers, the army will require approximately 14k (35 percent)
involuntary separations.''
1. Senator Ayotte. Secretary Murphy and General Milley: What number
of those 14,000 soldiers who the Army will have to order to leave the
service involuntarily will be well-preforming individuals who are not
retirement eligible?
Mr. Murphy and General Milley. A board process is used to determine
those Soldiers and officers selected for separation, therefore it is
impossible to predict the outcome of the selection process. However,
the Army projects that 75-85 percent of the involuntary separations
will not be retirement eligible. The largest programmed losses are
officer losses. Those losses will be determined via promotion
selectivity targeting younger year groups from the ``Grow the Army''
years 2007-2011.
2. Senator Ayotte. Secretary Murphy and General Milley: Is it safe
to say that many or most of those soldiers will have deployed to Iraq
or Afghanistan at least once or twice?
Mr. Murphy and General Milley. Yes. Of the personnel selected by
involuntary separation boards, approximately 95 percent have deployed
at least once for 30 days or greater. This includes over 500 Captains
and 260 Majors with more than 18 months deployment time. We are
committed to treating every Soldier with dignity and respect,
recognizing their service and sacrifice.
3. Senator Ayotte. Secretary Murphy and General Milley: Will you
continue to do everything in your power to minimize the use of
involuntary separations for well-preforming service members--especially
those not eligible for retirement?
Mr. Murphy and General Milley. Yes. The Army uses an iterative,
systematic, and flexible personnel drawdown plan to achieve future
force structure requirements. Involuntary separations are only used
sparingly and as necessary to supplement routine attrition to achieve
targeted endstrength goals and timelines.
4. Senator Ayotte. Secretary Murphy and General Milley: Will you
let me and my staff know if there is anything I could do to assist you
in that effort?
Mr. Murphy and General Milley. At this time, we believe we have all
of the necessary authorities to execute the drawdown, however, we will
engage with you and your staff if future needs arise.
5. Senator Ayotte. Secretary Murphy and General Milley: Do you
commit to fully complying with section 592 of the FY2016 NDAA?
Mr. Murphy and General Milley. Yes, the Army continues to be in
compliance with the reporting requirements of Section 592 of the FY16
NDAA and commits to remaining so.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
combat effectiveness
6. Senator Sessions. Secretary Mabus and Secretary Murphy, if it is
demonstrated by objective data that this new policy lessens the combat
effectiveness of our combat forces in any way, will you amend this new
policy?
Secretary Mabus. Every decision I make is in support of maximizing
combat effectiveness. The Department of the Navy is committed to
sustaining and improving combat effectiveness through systematic
application of standards. As part of its recent study, the Marine Corps
established standards required to maintain combat effectiveness;
therefore, anyone who meets those standards will--by definition--
maintain or enhance combat effectiveness. The Department's ability to
put the best and most capable Sailors and Marines in the military
occupations for which they are most qualified increases the overall
combat readiness of our force. Integration of women in our military has
enhanced combat effectiveness by running convoys and security patrols,
flying close air support missions, leading engineering platoons. They
have performed exceptionally on the front lines in places like
Fallujah, Ramadi and Sangin. As we access women into newly opened
positions we will continue to carefully evaluate--as we always do--the
combat effectiveness of our forces and make decisions that best support
our Sailors and Marines.
Secretary Murphy The Army is committed to maintaining and enforcing
rigorous combat readiness standards. We anticipate that the full
integration of women will maintain or improve the Army's overall
readiness. The Army cannot compromise combat readiness and
effectiveness for any reason whatsoever. Our Army leaders will continue
to assess and ensure that our standards in combat readiness are
maintained. If at any time we see combat effectiveness or readiness
decline or deteriorate by objective data then we will advise the
Secretary of Defense and this committee and provide our recommendations
on any policy changes required.
combat effectiveness
7. Senator Sessions. General Milley and General Neller, in your
professional military judgment, will this new policy improve the combat
effectiveness (i.e., Lethality) of our forces?
General Milley. Yes. We believe the full integration of women in
all career fields will maintain, sustain, or improve the overall
readiness of the United States Army and the capability of our force,
if, and only if, we maintain and enforce rigorous combat readiness
standards. We remain a standards- and merit-based, results-oriented
organization, and we apply no quotas.
General Neller. The combat readiness and effectiveness of our force
is always our principal area of focus. As with any new policy, it would
be premature to make a prediction regarding its outcome. We believe we
have an appropriate overarching plan in place to both implement the new
integration policy and, equally important, assess the effects of
integration, especially regarding future combat effectiveness. We will
be prepared going forward to provide more detailed data regarding the
effects of this new policy on combat effectiveness, whether positive or
negative.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Kirstin Gillibrand
recruitment
8. Senator Gillibrand. General Milley and General Neller, now that
we have opened up combat positions to women, we must turn our attention
toward ensuring that women are successful in these positions. One way
to reach this goal is to improve our recruitment strategies for women
by targeting those that are most likely to meet the rigorous demands of
combat positions, such as the captain of the lacrosse or rugby team.
Has your service developed a targeted strategy for identifying and
recruiting the best women for combat MOSs?
General Milley. Opening up all positions provides opportunity and
access for top talent who meet the standards. Now with OSD approval of
our implementation plan, we have initiated a deliberate and methodical
approach to identify and recruit the very best.
General Neller. The Marine Corps attracts and recruits the best
qualified and eligible individuals in order to meet Total Force
manpower requirements. In keeping with our ethos of ``every Marine a
rifleman,'' all Marines, both enlisted and officer, male and female,
have been trained in basic infantry tactics for many years. Therefore,
we believe our current recruiting and advertising methods will yield
high quality women who are eligible to serve in combat arms MOS's. The
Marine Corps continues to partner with the Women Basketball Coaches
Association, the Female Coaches Leadership Workshop, and female
leadership forums at our annual Summer Leadership and Character
Development Academy. Additionally, we conduct twelve workshops annually
at each of our Recruit Depots to provide educators, coaches, and key
influencers an opportunity to immerse themselves in Marine culture.
Similarly, at the college/university-level, influencers come to
Quantico, Virginia to learn about officer opportunities. Finally, we
will continue to use current research and assessment data to actively
monitor propensity and other market indicators that shape future
advertising initiatives to reach female population groups, and to plan
and execute advertising initiatives to spread awareness of Marine Corps
opportunities to female audiences. Examples of this include: updated
digital and web properties to reflect new female opportunities, plans
to execute a female web/digital campaign, and to create a female Marine
enlisted brochure.
integrated basic training
9. Senator Gillibrand. General Neller, the Marine Corps is the only
service to conduct segregated basic training for recruits. What are the
plans to integrate basic training in order to better prepare women for
full participation in the Corps, along with their male counterparts and
to prepare their male counterparts to serve alongside them?
General Neller. The Marine Corps is currently executing the Marine
Corps Integration Implementation Plan (MCIIP) in response to SECDEF
direction to integrate all Military Occupational Specialties (MOS's)
without exception as soon as practical after 2 Jan 2016 but no later
than 1 Apr 2016. Under the guidance of the DEPSECDEF and Vice Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their Implementation Group, the Marine
Corps must ensure that implementation is pursued with the clear
objective of improved force effectiveness. Implementation must also
delineate transparent standards, consider the effect of a small female
population, contemplate the physical demands and physiological
differences between men and women, examine the conduct and culture as
it exists and how it will change, ensure best practices in talent
management, consider the ability to operate abroad, and assess and make
in-stride adjustments as necessary.
On 14 Jan 2016, SECNAV was briefed on the current methodology of
gender integration at Marine Corps Recruit Depots and Officer
Candidates School; specific points of integration in training were
identified, as were the areas where training is separate and how that
approach contributes to the development of Marines, and how the Marine
Corps has and will continue to evaluate the best ways to train Marines
in execution of the integration plan. In a Memorandum for the
Commandant of the Marine Corps dated 29 Jan 16, SECNAV stated that the
Marine Corps has fully met the requirements of his 1 Jan 2016 memo
regarding integration of basic training.
As always, the Marine Corps will continue to evaluate its entry
level training process to ensure we produce the nation's finest
Marines.
10. Senator Gillibrand. General Neller, what is the timeline for
integrating basic training for recruits?
General Neller. The Marine Corps has not set a timeline for further
integrating recruit training, but we always assess our processes to
ensure we continue to produce the nation's finest Marines. Currently,
61 percent of our recruit training is integrated, but all training is
conducted using a common 70-day program of instruction for all
recruits. We believe the areas where we separate men and women in the
early days of recruit training provide a significant benefit which
allows individuals to better deal with the initial adjustment to
military life and provides leaders/mentors of the same gender to assist
this transition.
11. Senator Gillibrand. Secretary Mabus, what benefits have you
seen in the Navy from men and women training side-by-side?
Secretary Mabus. From day one, Sailors serve in environments that
have men and women serving together. Immediately, they begin to
establish the unit cohesion integral to mission accomplishment.
Starting everyone in this environment ensures a diversity of
perspectives is established initially and eases the transition from
training to an operational environment. The training environment
mirrors the operational environment, enhancing teamwork, camaraderie,
and combat effectiveness.
integration strategy
12. Senator Gillibrand. Secretary Mabus, what lessons can we learn
from the Navy in integrating women into combat roles?
Secretary Mabus. Navy has successfully integrated women into
aviation, surface ships, submarines, and riverine forces, as well as
other small, high-risk operations teams, such as Explosive Ordnance
Disposal and Navy Divers. We know how to integrate--it starts on day
one of training with leadership reinforcement of team building
behaviors. Several lessons from years of successful integration have
revealed that leadership, transparency, enforcing consistent standards
for both men and women, and professionalism are keys to successful
integration. Four key lessons:
Female Sailors want to be held to the same occupational
and performance standards.
Female Sailors perform better when there are female
service members in a peer group or present in the training or
leadership cadre to provide support and interaction among Sailors and
with other leaders (instructors, officers, and chief petty officers).
As recently seen in the Submarine Force, when female
service members are assigned to previously male-only occupations or
commands, male service members' initial concerns about integration are
dispelled after they have an opportunity to train and work together.
Additionally, Navy has found top-down leadership is key to ensuring
junior enlisted Sailors and leadership receive a strong, consistent
message of support for female integration from their commanding
officers and other senior leaders.
It is important to keep in mind factors that can affect
how quickly females will access into previously male-only occupations,
especially at the senior levels. Due to the training requirements,
technical nature of the roles, and the timeline for leadership
development, it typically takes 15-20 years from the time an officer
receives a commission to the time she or he becomes a senior officer.
13. Senator Gillibrand. Secretary Mabus, what strategies has the
Navy found successful in integrating women into combat roles?
Secretary Mabus. Navy has successfully integrated women into
aviation, surface ships, submarines, and riverine forces, as well as
other small, high-risk operations teams, such as Explosive Ordnance
Disposal and Navy Divers. We know how to integrate--it starts on day
one of training with leadership reinforcement of team building
behaviors. Navy has found the following strategies to be successful in
integrating women into combat roles: Top-down leadership, transparency,
enforcing consistent standards for both men and women, developing
female peer group(s), professionalism, and ensuring formalized
implementation plans address areas of concern, mitigating factors, and
milestones with regular assessments and adjustments as necessary.
14. Senator Gillibrand. Secretary Mabus, Secretary Murphy, General
Milley, and General Neller, women are currently underrepresented among
general officers. What kind of message does that send to our service
women?
Secretary Mabus. The composition of the current generation of flag
and general officers starkly portrays to all service members how
opportunity was limited when the occupations and assignments critical
for selection to the most senior leadership positions were closed to
women. This is one of the reasons I strongly support the Secretary of
Defense decision to open all military occupational specialties and
positions, regardless of gender. It is important to keep in mind
factors that can affect how quickly females will access into previously
male-only occupations, especially at the senior levels. Due to the
training requirements, technical nature of the roles, and the timeline
for leadership development, it typically takes 15-20 years from the
time an officer receives a commission to the time she or he becomes a
senior officer. The Services will continue to apply validated
operationally-relevant and objective standards for all career fields.
The Department of the Navy is committed to building a force
representative of the nation it defends.
Secretary Murphy and General Milley. The Army has 57 female general
officers in the Total Force to include five three-star generals on
active duty. The opening of infantry and armor will provide a greater
opportunity for women to become general officers, since 83 percent of
our currently serving four-star generals came from infantry or armor
branches.
General Neller. In 2015, two of 92 active and reserve Marine Corps
general officers are female. Female officers tend to retire or
otherwise voluntarily exit the Marine Corps sooner than their male
counterparts, well before encountering opportunities that would put
them on the path to general officer. Those female officers who decide
to remain in the Marine Corps are as competitive as their male peers
for promotions and command opportunities. The Marine Corps is dedicated
to better understanding retention challenges for female officers in an
effort to increase senior female officer representation.
15. Senator Gillibrand. Secretary Mabus, Secretary Murphy, General
Milley, and General Neller, what are you going to do to ensure that
women can achieve leadership roles?
Secretary Mabus. The Department of the Navy ensures that all
Sailors and Marines, regardless of gender, receive the finest training
and preparation for challenging and rewarding opportunities and
assignments that make them competitive for senior leadership roles.
Secretary Carter's recent decision creates even more opportunities to
compete for command and leadership billets within newly-opened
occupations and units. The Department of the Navy is committed to
building a force representative of the nation it defends.
Secretary Murphy and General Milley. With the opening of combat
arms, the Army remains committed to all those who can meet the standard
being given the opportunity to achieve their full potential, regardless
of gender. We remain a merit-based, results-oriented organization.
General Neller. Female Marines are, and have been, leaders
throughout the Marine Corps. We currently have three Colonel and 13
Lieutenant Colonel females in command of units across our Corps.
Secretary Carter's recent decision creates future opportunities for
female Marines to compete for additional command and leadership billets
within newly-opened ground combat MOSs and units. Furthermore, we are
improving our talent management practices to ensure the best career
paths for all Marines. We are also taking this opportunity to address
unconscious bias, dispel misconceptions and ensure full understanding
of my expectations for inclusion and respect of all Marines via an
Integration Education Plan that will be executed across the entire
Corps. In combination, I expect all these factors to further facilitate
female Marines in leadership roles.
16. Senator Gillibrand. Secretary Mabus, Secretary Murphy, General
Milley, and General Neller, what plan do you have to incorporate women
into officer positions?
Secretary Mabus. The Department of the Navy is committed to
implementing progressive reform proposals to keep the military
competitive and enhance force readiness while removing barriers to
maintaining and strengthening our nation's Navy-Marine Corps
warfighting team. The plan to incorporate women into officer positions
includes evaluation of the training and education that we provide at
every level, from recruits and officer candidates to the highest levels
of leadership. Recruiting, retaining, and advancing talented women is
paramount while maintaining adherence to operationally-relevant and
objective standards.
Secretary Murphy and General Milley. Our plan is based on a
``leaders first'' strategy. To ensure success, we will follow a
deliberate and methodical approach that begins with the assessment,
selection, training, and assignment of female infantry and armor
leaders, both officers and NCOs. Once that leadership is in place, we
will begin the assignment of junior enlisted Soldiers.
General Neller. Currently 7.1 percent of our Active Component
officer population is female. Since 2009, the accession of female
officers has increased, reaching 11.6 percent in 2014. It is projected
to be 10 percent this year. It is critical to understand that the
propensity for women to choose the Marine Corps is low compared to the
other Services. Fear of serious injury or death is the most often
stated reason for not wanting to join the military for women ages 16-
21. Beyond a low propensity to join the Marine Corps, we understand
that retention of our female officers is a challenge. Addressing the
fact that female officers exit the Marine Corps sooner than their male
counterparts due to injury, other career opportunities, or family
reasons is a component of my talent management strategy.
17. Senator Gillibrand. Secretary Mabus, Secretary Murphy, General
Milley, and General Neller, are you considering mentorship programs to
help with women's career progression and retention?
Secretary Mabus. Department of the Navy encourages participation in
professional networking groups such as Lean-In Circles and leadership
symposiums for women. Additionally, current unit mentoring programs
enhance career development and improve retention. We continuously seek
ways to improve mentorship, job satisfaction, career development, and
retention of Sailors and Marines, regardless of gender.
Secretary Murphy and General Milley. Yes. Our ``leaders first''
strategy relies on mentorship from both male and female leaders. All
Army leaders are expected to mentor their junior officers and enlisted
Soldiers. Leadership is critical to integration. We will enable our
leaders with a comprehensive and deliberate education plan to enhance
our integration efforts and ensure our future combat arms women will
have the opportunity to successfully compete and progress in their
career fields.
General Neller. Marine Corps Order 1500.58 MARINE CORPS MENTORING
PROGRAM (MCMP) establishes the policy, format, and guidelines to
formalize previously informal relationships to help Marine leaders
improve their ability to interact with their Marines on a personal and
professional level. The MCMP provides the tools to help Marines to set
goals to improve individual and team performance, and closely replicate
at home station the relationships forged between Marines and leaders in
combat. This construct remains in place and is an integral part of our
``Integration Education Plan.''
retention
18. Senator Gillibrand. Secretary Murphy and Secretary Mabus, I'm
also very interested in ensuring that, once we recruit these high-
quality women, we retain them. Policies that support families, such as
paid family leave, are key to showing women that the military can be a
viable career for them. I believe our service members should be
afforded the same leave policies that civilians have, and I was
thrilled when, last week, Secretary Carter announced that all women
could receive 12 weeks of maternity leave. However, there is still more
to be done, such as providing leave for service members caring for a
sick family member and extending leave for fathers and adoptive
parents. Are you committed to policies such as paid family leave that
support not just our women, but also our men in service and what are
your services plans to implement these policies?
Secretary Murphy. Yes, I am committed to supporting all Army
families. All Soldiers currently earn 30 days of paid leave annually.
In addition to the recently announced 12 weeks maternity leave,
Secretary Carter announced that he would seek Congressional authorities
to expand paternity leave to 14 days.
Secretary Mabus. As our nation continues to draw upon the great
talents of our Sailors and Marines, we are bound to create an
environment that provides the flexibility needed to retain our highly
trained and skilled workforce. Important characteristics of this
environment are policies that support our service members and their
families. The Department of the Navy (DON) introduced several
initiatives to support work-life balance, including extended maternity
leave for new mothers, expansion of child care development center
operating hours, and strengthening dual-military co-location. The
Department of Defense also intends to seek to expand paternity leave to
14 days and to expand adoption leave. The DON has advocated for
department wide authorities in these efforts.
socom
19. Senator Gillibrand. Secretary Murphy and Secretary Mabus, the
plan submitted by Special Operations Command to Secretary Carter
asserts that recruiting, assessing, and training special operators is
the responsibility of the components and the Services. Does your plan
describe how you will recruit, assess, and train service women into
special operations career fields?
Secretary Murphy. Yes. The plan includes how the Army will recruit,
assess, and train service women into special operations career fields.
The Army and USSOCOM have closely coordinated over the past 3 years and
all required actions have been or are being implemented. Active
recruitment has begun upon our release of the Army execute order,
following Secretary of Defense's approval of our implementation plan.
Secretary Mabus. Yes; recruiting, accession and training will
ensure that each candidate meets validated, operationally-relevant,
gender neutral standards for selection and assessment in training
pipeline courses to qualify in Naval Special Warfare/Operations and
United States Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC)
career fields.
20. Senator Gillibrand. Secretary Murphy and Secretary Mabus, can
you describe the timing of your efforts to recruit, assess, and train
female special operators?
Secretary Murphy. The Army is prepared to recruit, assess, and
train female special operators. Active recruitment has begun upon our
release of the Army execute order, which has followed Secretary of
Defense's approval of our implementation plan.
Secretary Mabus. We are actively engaging with potential candidates
who are interested in the program. Candidates undergo some of the most
mentally challenging and physically demanding training in the world.
Training routinely exceeds 43 weeks from entry into Naval Special
Warfare Preparatory School until entry into Sea Air Land (SEAL)
Qualification Training, which is designed to provide candidates with
the core tactical knowledge needed to join a SEAL platoon.
Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) is actively screening
female Marines who volunteer for Assessment and Selection (A&S). The
next A&S is scheduled to begin in August 2016 and is rapidly filling
with qualified candidates. Upon selection at A&S, the female selectees
will be slated for attendance at the Individual Training Course which
is scheduled to commence in January 2017.
[all]