[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                       ENSURING FORCE READINESS: 
                    EXAMINING PROGRESSIVISM'S IMPACT 
                      ON AN ALL	VOLUNTEER MILITARY 

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
                    THE BORDER, AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                                 of the

                         COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                           AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 28, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-15

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability



[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





                       Available on: govinfo.gov 
                         oversight.house.gov or 
                             docs.house.gov 
                             
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
51-720 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2023 
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Jimmy Gomez, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
             Kaity Wolfe, Senior Professional Staff Member
         Grayson Westmoreland, Senior Professional Staff Member
                Kim Waskowsky, Professional Staff Member
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                

   Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs

                  Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Chairman
Paul Gosar, Arizona
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina        Robert Garcia, California, Ranking 
Clay Higgins, Louisiana                  Minority Member
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Dan Goldman, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Katie Porter, California
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Cori Bush, Missouri
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Maxwell Frost, Florida   


















                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on March 28, 2023...................................     1

                               Witnesses

Brent Sadler, Senior Research Fellow, Center for National Defense
  The Heritage Foundation
Oral Statement...................................................     4

Meaghan Mobbs, Senior Fellow, Independent Women's Forum
Oral Statement...................................................     6

Jeremy Hunt, Chairman, Veterans on Duty, Inc.
Oral Statement...................................................     8

Lieutenant General David Barno (Ret.) (Minority Witness), 
  Visiting Professor of Strategic Studies, Johns Hopkins School 
  of Advanced International
  Studies
Oral Statement...................................................    10

Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are 
  available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document 
  Repository at: docs.house.gov.  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                           Index of Documents


  * Article, War on the Rocks, ``Addressing the U.S. Military 
    Recruiting Crisis''; submitted by Rep. Garcia.

  * Article, War on the Rocks, ``Reflections on the Curse of 
    Racism in the U.S. Military''; submitted by Rep. Garcia.

  * Article, War on the Rocks, ``The Deepest Obligation of 
    Citizenship''; submitted by Rep. Garcia.

  * Statement for the Record, Blue Star Families; submitted by 
    Rep. Garcia.

  * Letter to Director of Office of Presidential Personnel, 
    September 22, 2021; submitted by Rep. Grothman.

  * Report, GAO, Active-Duty Recruitment; submitted by Reps. 
    Grothman and Garcia.

  * Article, Military Times, ``The Military's Sexual Assault 
    Problem is Only Getting Worse''; submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Article, The Daily Signal, ``4 Takaways as Lawmakers Probe 
    Diversity, Equity, Inclusion at Pentagon''; submitted by Rep. 
    Biggs.

  * Article, Newsweek, ``As U.S. Military Faces Low Recruitment, 
    Senators Argue Biden Diversity Push ''; submitted by Rep. 
    Biggs.

  * Article, Breitbart, ``Biden Defense Officials Defend 
    Diversity, Equity, Inclusion in the Military''; submitted by 
    Rep. Biggs.

  * Article, Fox News, ``GOP Senator Unloads on Pentagon's 
    `Obsession with Equity Agenda: Totem Pole of Grievances'''; 
    submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Article, The Washington Examiner, ``House Republicans Hammer
    Defense Officials on `Woke' DEI Initiatives''; submitted by 
    Rep. Biggs.

  * Article, The Daily Caller, ``House Republicans Slam Defense 
    Secretary for Focusing on Pride Month, `Woke LGBTQ Agenda'''; 
    submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Article, Heritage.Org, ``Identity Politics and Critical Race 
    Theory Have No Place in U.S. Military''; submitted by Rep. 
    Biggs.

  * Article, Hudson, ``Military Readiness Crisis Worsens Under 
    Biden's Watch''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Article, New York Post, ``New Biden Equity Push Builds on 
    Efforts That Spawned 300 Woke Programs''; submitted by Rep. 
    Biggs.

  * Article, Fox News, ``Pentagon Diversity Chief Receives No 
    Disciplinary Action After Probe into Anti-White Posts''; 
    submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Article, Fox News, ``Senator Grills Pentagon on Six-Figure 
    DEI Jobs Advertised Across Military Branches''; submitted by 
    Rep. Biggs.

  * Article, Heritage.Org, ``The Rise of Wokeness in the 
    Military''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Article, The Daily Caller, ``These Are The Top 7 Times The 
    Military Went Woke In 2022''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Article, Breitbart, ```Woke' DEI Chief for Military Base 
    Schools Disparaged White People''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Article, Heritage.Org, ``Wokeness is Sabotaging the Military 
    Academies''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Letter from Republican Members to Secretary of Defense, June 
    13, 2022; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                       ENSURING FORCE READINESS: 
                    EXAMINING PROGRESSIVISM'S IMPACT 
                      ON AN ALL-VOLUNTEER MILITARY 

                              ----------                              


                        Tuesday, March 28, 2023

                        House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

   Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:22 p.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Glenn Grothman, 
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Grothman, Gosar, Higgins, 
Sessions, Biggs, LaTurner, Fallon, Armstrong, Perry, Garcia, 
Lynch, Goldman, and Frost.
    Also present: Representative Raskin.
    Mr. Grothman. The Subcommittee on National Security, the 
Border, and Foreign Affairs will come to order. Welcome, 
everyone.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any 
time and without objection Representative Mike Waltz of Florida 
is waived onto the Subcommittee for the purpose of questioning 
witnesses of today's Subcommittee hearing. I recognize myself 
for the purpose of making an opening statement.
    Thank you all for coming to today's hearing and thank you 
to our witnesses for coming to testify on this important topic 
of military readiness.
    I am proud to say the United States has the best and 
strongest military of the world. From our special operations to 
intelligence reconnaissance, to our air power strength to our 
precision strike capabilities, our military capabilities are in 
a league of their own. We all know the primary mission of the 
armed forces is to protect and defend the Nation and our 
interests abroad.
    However, I am afraid, from talking to some people in the 
military, the military is not the institution for social 
experiments and political correctness. The Administration seems 
to be willfully blinded by how its progressive ideals are 
affecting military readiness and recruitment.
    Not once in the Biden Administration's National Security 
Strategy released in October 22, does it address the military 
recruitment crisis we are having.
    Today's hearing will examine how the Biden Department of 
Defense has politicized the U.S. military and harmed its 
ability to quickly respond to threats in our Nation.
    In 2022, the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines all fell 
short of their recruitment goals. Despite lowering fitness 
standards, relaxing tattoo policies, and increasing recruitment 
bonuses, fewer and fewer young adults are joining our military.
    Meanwhile, the Biden Administration is more focused on how 
cadets at military academies use correct pronouns rather than 
to learn how to lead, work as a team, or defend our Nation.
    The Biden Administration thinks that service members' 
understanding White rage, as recently described by General Mark 
Milley, our highest-ranking military official, is more 
important than promoting cohesiveness throughout the armed 
services.
    Furthermore, this Administration has allowed active-duty 
service members to take time off from their duties to obtain 
sex change surgeries and related hormones and drugs at taxpayer 
expense.
    Legislation has been introduced in Congress that would stop 
the teaching of critical race theory, or CRT, in the military, 
stop the millions of dollars flowing to the creation of 
diversity and inclusion offices, and would keep the thresholds 
high for physical fitness requirements by our combat forces.
    Service members within the ranks are speaking out about 
these issues while military leadership continues to push the 
Biden Administration's progressive agenda.
    Data shows most Americans still trust our military. But 
this trust cannot be taken for granted. The Biden 
Administration can use to exploit the military for political 
purposes and for experiments in social policy.
    Today, our panel of experts will be able to shine a light 
on how these progressive ideologies are harming our men and 
women in uniform.
    Again, thank you for all being here today and I look 
forward to your testimony.
    I would now like to recognize my good friend, Ranking 
Member Garcia, for the purpose of making an opening statement.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to just begin by thanking our witnesses for being 
here as well. I think we can all agree that our national 
security and protecting our great nation and the lives and 
safety of Americans is incredibly important and remains very 
strong today.
    We should also be very clear, and I think everyone can 
agree here as part of this committee, that our military is 
still the strongest in the world. We are leading global 
coalitions across the country, in Europe, across Asia, and, of 
course, we know that the U.S. spends more on national defense 
than China, India, Russia, the U.K., Saudi Arabia, Germany, 
France, Japan, and South Korea all combined.
    And so, we continue to invest in our military, and we, of 
course, you know, welcome the conversation of how we do better. 
But this hearing today is not really focused on how we can do 
better. It is focused on issues around what it means to be 
progressive or what is being perceived to be happening in our 
military.
    It is important that we do not politicize our military, 
that we do not focus on partisan issues. We should not be 
focused on the issues that we brought up today by my Republican 
colleagues.
    But, instead, we should focus on what real--on what studies 
and what the facts and the data actually say are causing issues 
around diminishing recruitment and retention.
    These are issues around sexual violence that we know still 
exists in the military, the need for improved mental health 
support for our service members, the need for reliable and 
affordable childcare, which are incredibly important, and so 
many others.
    Even recent, numerous studies have shown that sexual 
assault, mental health care, and affordable childcare still 
remain the key factors in military recruitment, retention, and 
readiness.
    But none of those real factors are, unfortunately, what is 
going to be much of the focus here at this Oversight Committee 
today.
    We want to ensure, and as our most senior military leaders 
know and have pointed out, that focusing on the broader bigger 
issues has to be a national priority. In fact, in the words of 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, he 
quoted, ``I personally find it offensive that we are accusing 
the United States military of being woke or something else 
because we are studying some theories that are out there.''
    I fully agree with the general and that our warfighters 
should be open-minded and be widely read because they come from 
the American people. These are quotes.
    Here are the facts. America is not the same as it was in 
the 1960's. We know that. We are recruiting from a generation 
of young people who are the most diverse in American history.
    We need to draw on their talents now more than ever. The 
U.S. military needs all of our best and brightest and that 
includes women, LGBTQ+ people, and people from all across this 
country. Our military needs are changing, and I hope that today 
we can focus on those broader issues.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Grothman. This is the first time behind this podium.
    I am pleased to introduce our four witnesses today.
    First of all, Brent Sadler joined the Heritage Foundation 
after a 26-year naval career with numerous operational tours on 
nuclear-powered submarines, served on the personal staffs of 
senior Department of Defense leaders, and also served as a 
military diplomat.
    As a senior research fellow Mr. Sadler has heavily focused 
on the future of maritime forces and issues facing the U.S. 
Navy strategy.
    Second, we have Meaghan Mobbs, as an experienced policy 
leader. She is a graduate of West Point, holds a master's in 
forensic psychology from George Washington, and a doctorate in 
clinical psychology from Columbia.
    She previously served as a Presidential appointee to the 
U.S. Military Academy West Point board of advisors, and is 
currently gubernatorial appointee to the Virginia Military 
Institute Board of Visitors.
    Next, we have Jeremy Hunt, currently serves as Chairman for 
Veterans on Duty, an organization that advocates for strong 
military and national security policies. Mr. Hunt is a graduate 
of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and previously 
served as an active-duty military intelligence officer where he 
was deployed as part of a multinational mission to train the 
Ukrainian Armed Forces.
    He now serves in the U.S. Army in active Ready Reserve as 
he completes his final year at Yale Law School. You have a 
strong enough background you are going make it through there 
unscathed. And, most importantly, last week, he welcomed his 
second child to the world. Congratulations, Mr. Hunt.
    Finally, Lieutenant General David Barno is a visiting 
Professor of Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins University 
School of Advanced International Studies. General Barno 
completed a 30-year active-duty Army career, served as an 
infantry officer, Ranger, and paratrooper. General Barno 
currently serves on the Secretary of Defense's Reserve Forces 
Policy Board and is a member of the U.S. Army War College Board 
of Visitors.
    Again, thank you for all being here today. Pursuant to 
Committee Rule 9(g) the witnesses will please stand and raise 
their right hands.
    Do you solemnly swear to affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    [Witnesses are sworn.]
    Mr. Grothman. Let the record show that the witnesses all 
answered in the affirmative, right? Yes. Good.
    OK. We appreciate you all being here today, again.
    You can sit down. I appreciate you all being here, again, 
today and look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the 
witnesses that we have read your written statements and they 
will appear in full in the record. We all should have read them 
all.
    Please limit your oral statements to as close to five 
minutes as you can get. As a reminder, please press the button 
on the microphone in front of you so that it is on and we can 
all hear you. When you begin to speak the light in front of you 
will turn green. After four minutes it will turn yellow. When 
the red light comes on your five minutes are up and please wrap 
up.
    I recognize, first of all, Mr. Sadler, to begin your 
opening statement.

                       STATEMENT OF BRENT SADLER

                         SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW

                      CENTER FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE

                        THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

    Mr. Sadler. Thank you, and good afternoon, Chairman 
Grothman and Ranking Member Garcia, and Members of the House.
    The root cause of why we are here today stems from the 
corrosive impact recent policies are having on our all-
volunteer military.
    While ostensibly noble, a growing cadre of DEI staffers 
across the military backed by $114 million budget, a 33 percent 
increase over last year, and several executive orders are 
having a divisive impact.
    As a 27-year Navy veteran, it is clear a course correction 
is needed. To be totally clear, diversity has enabled 
battlefield advantages like code-talker Navajo Marines of World 
War II or female soldiers able to engage Afghan women for 
intel.
    Yes, the military appreciates diversity, but it is more 
than balancing skin tones on a roster. Inclusion in the 
military is everyone being held to the same standards and a 
common desire for operational success. Inclusion without this 
in mind, risk unit cohesion and camaraderie. Good measures of 
effective military inclusion, not numbers of categories 
present, of gender, sexuality, et cetera, and certainly not 
excluding those who do not share popular political or social 
views.
    And equity--equity becomes problematic if actualized to 
balance outcomes running contrary to a military meritocracy. 
When paired with Marxist theories of critical race theory, 
espousals of America is systematically racist or assigning 
groups oppressor or oppressed roles as rationale for limiting 
or curtailing a person's access to services or career options 
based on immutable difference of characteristics is racist and 
un-American.
    By featuring on a military professional reading list 
authors such as Ibram Kendi's ``How to Be an Anti-Racist'' 
discrimination is seemingly normalized. The embrace of such 
thinking has led to a perception--perception--that the military 
is no longer an egalitarian society where hard work and self-
improvement can get you far.
    Such perceptions were furthered when racist tweets by a DOD 
official came to light and suffered no apparent meaningful 
repercussion. The real question is how the DOD hired someone 
with such a problematic public background to be chief of 
diversity, inclusion, and equity--the message to half of the 
military and their children in DOD schools, you are valued 
less.
    All service members matter. But amidst the emotions of 
2020's riots, anti-establishment protests, and a Presidential 
election, too many lost sight of this, the damage done.
    Military Family Advisory Network polls showed a 7.6 percent 
drop from 2019 in veterans recommending family members join the 
military. Confidence in the military has also hit new lows. Pew 
Research, nine percent down; Gallup poll, five percent decline; 
and finally, Reagan Institute's a 22 percent drop.
    The perception today is of a military increasingly captured 
by a political agenda, leading some to forego military service. 
The nation is weaker for this.
    To be clear, not all recruits or officer candidates began 
their careers with the same aptitudes, often a function of 
poorly performing schools or unhelpful family situations.
    The military and Congress should find ways to get more 
willing patriots from such conditions within standards for the 
military and, for the most promising, extra academic training 
so that they may be even more successful in the long term.
    This nurturing comes with added cost and time for sure. 
Until 2008, the Navy had a program called Boost that did much 
the same. Perhaps a reimagined and expanded Boost program can 
deliver on diversity inclusion based on rewarding hard work, 
while not alienating segments of the military.
    On top of this, the military needs help in getting access 
to educate more people about what military service is. It is a 
noble profession, and when a high school student gets to talk 
with a Marine, sailor, airman, or soldier only three or four 
years older than themselves and likely from the same town, 
trust is highest.
    But too often, parts of the country are devoid of that type 
of exchange. This, too, must change. True, most in uniform go 
about their daily routines and operations much as they always 
have. That is not to say corrosive influences are not at play 
as evidenced by several unfortunate incidents.
    Should military members see their opportunities narrowing 
and themselves being undervalued they will vote with their 
feet. Retention is a lagging factor, and it is showing signs of 
trouble.
    Recruitment is a leading indicator. For the Army last year, 
it was a historic failure; short 25 percent of 15,000 people, 
with next year looking to be worse. It is already the worst 
since the all-volunteer force came into being in 1973.
    COVID and economics do not explain this. But it does 
correlate with an added emphasis on DEI and increasing CRT-
informed training.
    The problems are not caused by congressional oversight or 
people asking tough questions. In fact, the surest way to 
reverse course is demand transparency in all DEI-related 
activities within DOD and doing so allows for needed 
adjustments and rebuilding confidence.
    The military is a meritocracy, or at least the closest to 
one existing today, because the environment in which it 
operates is unforgiving, where competency and unit cohesion 
often determine survival. The military is of and serves all 
Americans. Sadly, the military has not been served as well.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Ms. Mobbs?

                       STATEMENT OF MEAGHAN MOBBS

                             SENIOR FELLOW

                       INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM

    Ms. Mobbs. Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member Garcia, and 
Members of the Committee, it is a privilege to be here today 
both professionally and personally.
    My name is Dr. Meaghan Mobbs, and I am the daughter of two 
former Army officers. My mother was one of the first women to 
go to Airborne School and deployed to Grenada. My father served 
for over 30 years deployed, and was decorated for valor 
numerous times, and was in the Pentagon on 9/11 when I was a 
sophomore in high school.
    It was their footsteps I followed when I chose to serve and 
accept an appointment to West Point. I was the first in my 
family to attend the academy and my little brother eventually 
followed my footsteps and did the same.
    My nuclear family has served in every major conflict from 
Vietnam to the present day. I am now the mother to two 
exceptional little girls and the aunt to two energetic nephews.
    As it stands, and it pains me to say, I would not recommend 
military service to them. Understandably, our military cannot 
function as family business with children of service members 
the predominant source of the force.
    However, it was until recently a reliable pool of 
candidates. That is changing as I am not alone in my 
hesitation. Deficits in recruitment potential for military 
families is just one facet of the broader crisis facing our 
armed forces. Most concerningly, the desire in our youth to 
serve is only nine percent. This is a grave national security 
threat.
    Just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported on a poll 
which demonstrated the priorities that helped define our 
national character for generations are declining in importance. 
One of the variables, patriotism, falling from 70 percent in 
extreme importance in 1998 to just 38 percent today.
    Relatedly, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents show 
double digit declines in national pride compared with 2013. 
Pride is an imperative human emotion, particularly pride in the 
self. Feelings of pride reinforce positive social behaviors 
like altruism and lead to adaptive behaviors like achievement.
    Conversely, people who are deliberately shamed even over a 
modest violation of social norms are at much greater risk for 
depression and anxiety, and if they are repeatedly shamed, they 
are less likely to take positive risk-taking behaviors that can 
lead to success in adulthood.
    While pride in self and pride in nation may not necessarily 
be related, it is highly likely that both are contributing 
factors in the decision-making process to join the armed 
forces.
    It is for this reason that curricula or instruction which 
hyper focus negatively on immutable characteristics are 
destructive, both to the self and to esprit de corps.
    Moreover, a consistent centering of what divides us rather 
than what unites us is particularly pernicious. This is not to 
call into question the necessity of grappling with the 
complexity of a historical past. It is the manner in which it 
is currently being done in many of our educational settings 
and, lamentably, in the Department of Defense and at our 
service academies.
    These programs do not build teams. They destroy them. 
Moreover, there is a unique danger in telling those who are 
called to fight our Nation's battles the very notion they are 
expected to sacrifice and potentially die for is inherently 
bad.
    No good leader would say diversity is a bad thing. 
Diversity of all types, to include those often not considered 
such as cognitive diversity and diversity of experience, build 
strong teams. The sole function of our military is to deter our 
Nation's enemies and, if that fails, to fight and win our 
Nation's war.
    We are no longer in competition with China. We are in 
conflict. A failure to recognize and reorient toward those 
demands will be disastrous. This necessary reorientation will 
require close examination of decades of multiple military 
failures with little to no accountability and poor command 
climate and culture, which is decimating our ranks.
    Some of the most detrimental decisions have been the casual 
disregard of data in favor of a political agenda. One such 
example was the out of hand rejection of a 2015 study done by 
the Marine Corps which found that gender integrated combat 
formations did not move as quickly or shoot as effectively as 
all-male formations.
    At that time, many of the disparities were dismissed and 
reframed as opportunities to train women more comprehensively 
with a push toward equal standards. Neither the Marines nor the 
Army followed through. To date across the services there are a 
difference in physical standards for men and women. That is not 
helpful for women, and it makes it more difficult for them to 
earn trust and confidence of those they serve alongside.
    Make no mistake, that is not to say that women cannot fight 
or contribute. In fact, it is often when we recognize the 
biological differences between men and women that we increase 
lethality.
    An example of that is a heroic and lauded efforts of the 
cultural support teams in our most recent conflicts. Their 
conceptualization was rooted in the recognition that women and 
womanhood were unique and thereby would allow access for them 
to places that men could not go.
    It is the frequent Department of Defense denials of reality 
and their unwillingness to confront hard truths which places 
lethality at risk.
    For example, President Biden signed an executive order in 
2021 to embed diversity, equity, and inclusion in all Federal 
agencies with the overarching goal of advancing equity for all.
    There is no equity for combat and there should not be a 
push for it in our society. Forced equality, which is equity by 
definition, leads to a lack of competition. This is not leveled 
playing fields for the positive. It flattens capability. The 
military should and must be standards-based and a meritocracy.
    The problem with recruitment and retention in our military 
are long in the making and it will be long in the fixing. 
Business as usual is no longer an option as we look to the 
pacing threat of China. The world is an increasingly dangerous 
place and for now warfare remains a predominantly human 
endeavor.
    It is Americans who fill our ranks and operate our weapon 
systems and our current and future men and women need 
legislators willing to hold the Department of Defense 
accountable for its failings and to demand results.
    There is a phrase often used the military, getting left of 
bang. It means you have accurately observed pre-event 
indicators for what is to come and acting practically to 
prevent it. Being on the opposite end means being right of 
bang. We are now right of bang and headed to a much louder one 
if we fail to heed the alarm bells ringing.
    I look forward to your questions and thank you.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Mr. Hunt?

                        STATEMENT OF JEREMY HUNT

                                CHAIRMAN

                         VETERANS ON DUTY, INC.

    Mr. Hunt. Good afternoon, Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member 
Garcia, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today about the state of our military's 
readiness.
    I am Jeremy Hunt and I have the honor of serving as 
Chairman of Veterans on Duty, which is a nonprofit policy 
advocacy organization made up of veterans who are concerned 
about the state of our military and the strength of our 
national security.
    Many of us have deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and in my 
case, Ukraine, and during my time on active duty as an 
intelligence officer, I helped train the Ukrainian Armed Forces 
for what was then a hypothetical scenario of Russia launching 
an invasion against Ukraine.
    Five years later, I watched footage of Yavoriv Training 
Center in Lviv where I lived for many months become engulfed in 
flames following a Russian attack. That footage reminded me, 
yet again, that our adversaries abroad are more emboldened than 
ever. And it is not just Russia. China continues its 
multigenerational effort to supplant the United States as the 
world's leading superpower.
    The CCP to this day is building hypersonic missiles that 
our radar systems can barely detect and, of course, threats 
remain from barbaric regimes in North Korea and Iran.
    In light of these rising threats, there is growing concern 
that our United States' military simply isn't ready. We stand 
amid a once in a generation military recruitment crisis. At the 
end of FY 2022, the Army fell 15,000 soldiers short of its 
recruiting goal, missing by 25 percent. Our military is facing 
the worst recruitment challenge since the advent of the all-
volunteer force following the Vietnam War.
    And apart from these manning shortfalls, other readiness 
issues abound. Just last year the Navy reported $2 billion in 
shipyard backlog for their service fleet. This report came 
during the same year that the USS Connecticut, an indispensable 
fast attack submarine, crashed into an underwater sea mount 
entirely due to avoidable human error.
    Avoidable accidents abound in the sky as well. The National 
Commission on Military Aviation Safety found that from 2013 to 
2020 our military lost 224 personnel and 186 aircraft worth 
over $11.6 billion to avoidable aircraft accidents.
    There are many factors that have led us to this dangerous 
position. Global supply chain challenges have made it difficult 
for the services to maintain their vehicles and equipment. Low 
nationwide unemployment rates have created a challenging 
environment for military recruitment and, of course, with 
rising teen obesity rates data shows that only about 23 percent 
of America's youth are even eligible to enlist.
    These factors do matter and play an important role in this 
recruitment crisis. However, these are factors beyond the 
military's control. I would like to focus on a few things that 
the military can control.
    The Reagan Institute annually conducts a Trust in the 
Military poll which analyzes the public's faith and confidence 
in the military. It should be of concern that the survey found 
an astonishing double digit decrease in the number of Americans 
with strong confidence in our armed forces, and the Pew 
Research Center had similar findings.
    This politicization of our military can be best described 
in terms of priorities and practices. That is, the things that 
the Pentagon says are important--the priorities--and the things 
that the Pentagon does--the practices.
    When Secretary Austin was sworn into office, he rightly 
identified China as a pacing threat. But he also identified and 
started expressing an emphasis on policies atypical to the 
military's core purpose.
    He included a huge amount of emphasis on diversity, equity, 
and inclusion, domestic extremism, and climate change. These 
are priorities that are more appropriate to the domestic 
political debates, and they just don't--and it is an odd fit 
for an institution purposed for a violent clash of arms against 
a tough and determined adversary. This has led to the 
perception that the Pentagon serves a political party rather 
than the American people as a whole.
    As a matter of practices, the Pentagon has followed through 
on its political agenda. In the wake of the Supreme Court's 
Dobbs decision, Secretary Austin made an unprecedented 
political announcement that the Department of Defense would pay 
for service members and their families to travel to different 
states to receive abortions and offer three weeks of paid 
vacations for those seeking these abortions, shoving the 
Department of Defense into one of the most polarizing political 
issues of our time.
    Further, recent Presidential administrations have ordered 
the replacement of long-standing equal opportunity programs 
with an entirely new DEI bureaucracy. The current program 
subjects some service members to 11-week resident DEI training 
classes, all this despite there being no measurable increase in 
racist incidents that demonstrated a need for such a dramatic 
increase in the number of DEI bureaucrats or such an extreme 
training requirement.
    As America watches the Chinese military grow in power and 
the largest land war in Europe since the Second World War 
unfold, we are given the impression that our military serves 
other masters beyond our national defense.
    The Pentagon cannot magically make American teens fit for 
duty or eager to serve, nor can they reverse cultural 
considerations beyond their control. But we can change the 
recent policies that have left our military unfocused, 
untrained, unmanned, and unprepared for combat.
    Congress has an opportunity to take politics out of the 
military and refocus the Department of Defense back to what it 
was made to do, to deter, fight, and win our Nation's wars.
    I look forward to your questions.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much.
    Lieutenant General Barno?

                   STATEMENT OF GENERAL BARNO (RET.)

                VISITING PROFESSOR OF STRATEGIC STUDIES

                   JOHNS HOPKINS, SCHOOL OF ADVANCED

                         INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

    General Barno. Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member Garcia, 
thanks for inviting me to speak here today.
    As we all have heard, the U.S. military is facing a 
recruiting crisis in the year 2023 of unprecedented magnitude. 
I served for 30 years of my life on active duty in the U.S. 
Army and commanded U.S. forces at every level from lieutenant 
to lieutenant general.
    I served in combat three times, culminating in my 19 months 
as the overall U.S. commander in Afghanistan during the early 
days of the war and, yet, I have never seen a greater challenge 
to the all-volunteer force than the one we see today.
    This crisis has many complex causes, but so-called wokeism 
in the military is not one of them. Let me be clear, there are 
no data that support the argument that wokeism has precipitated 
a decline in U.S. combat readiness nor is there any correlation 
between wokeism and the current difficulty in attracting new 
recruits.
    However, in my view, the overheated and unsupported 
rhetoric on this topic does have harmful consequences, which 
exacerbates the recruiting crisis and undermines military 
effectiveness in ways that are the exact opposite of what all 
of us intend.
    Since the draft ended in 1973, the U.S. military has had to 
fill its ranks with volunteers at every level. Every military 
mission since then has been conducted by high-quality 
volunteers who have rightfully earned the esteem of the Nation.
    Yet, today, that force is at risk. As you heard, the Army 
missed its recruiting goals last year and the other services 
barely met theirs. The current year's prospects for all appear 
equally dim.
    If the trends for the Army, alone, continues, service 
officials have warned that the Army could shrink by over 30,000 
soldiers between 2022 and the end of 2023, or nearly seven 
percent of its active force.
    If these trends don't change, the lack of qualified and 
motivated volunteers will jeopardize the national security of 
the United States by leaving our military too small to address 
the challenges and threats of the years and decades ahead.
    U.S. military recruiting today faces a crisis in both 
eligibility, those who are qualified to serve, and in 
propensity, those who want to serve. The percentage of young 
Americans who meet the military's entrance standards has 
hovered around 30 percent for more than a decade. But last year 
that number suddenly dropped to an all-time low of 23 percent.
    This is a shockingly low number that threatens the 
viability of the all-volunteer force.
    Equally disturbing is the other half of the equation, the 
propensity or willingness, interest in serving. Before the 
pandemic polls showed that only 13 percent of young Americans 
said they would consider military service. Last year, that 
number shrank further to a mere nine percent.
    These figures are simply unsustainable for the volunteer 
military to remain a robust high-quality force. Too few 
recruits means a shrinking military at a time when the 
strategic threats facing the Nation continue to multiply. The 
services are developing some innovative ways to deal with this.
    The Army has developed a pre-boot camp program that the 
Navy has now copied. Other services are looking at that as 
well. They are also examining ways to revisit some of the 
medical conditions that are now so commonplace in our society 
that have previously been disqualifications from military 
service such as successful treatment for ADHD or depression as 
a child. These need to be looked at carefully in terms of 
increasing potential eligibility numbers.
    Finally, propensity to serve--how to get more young 
Americans to consider military service--is a tougher problem. 
Although the all-volunteer force has seen great success it has 
one tremendous Achilles' heel. It has created an ever-widening 
gap between the U.S. military and the American people. Fewer 
and fewer young Americans today are exposed to the U.S. 
military.
    As we have heard, the U.S. military has become increasingly 
a family business. Today, more than 80 percent of the young 
people who join the military have a family member in the 
military. Between 25 and 30 percent have a parent in the 
military.
    Congress can help improve the propensity to serve by 
extolling the virtues of service in uniform in the ways that 
were commonplace throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Repeatedly and publicly castigating the U.S. military as a 
woke institution is both wrong and directly undercuts efforts 
at military recruiting among swaths of young American men and 
women.
    It effectively discourages our young men and women from 
serving in uniform at the very time when the services are 
struggling with this challenge. Recruiting young Americans 
demands the military find ways to attract more people who would 
otherwise not consider military service. To do that, and retain 
the very best of those, it has always emphasized equal 
opportunity for all regardless of race, creed, or color.
    Put unequivocally, military efforts to recognize that 
diversity, equity, and inclusion within the force are both 
valuable and essential. They have long been part of our force 
structure. The military is a team of team. It is a remarkably 
diverse force built on different people that make up the 
strength of America. We cut away at that at our very peril.
    In my first days at West Point, I got a class on race 
relations in a military that was fraught with racial tensions, 
with drug abuse, and indiscipline. The president at that time 
was Richard Nixon and the Secretary of Defense was Melvin 
Laird.
    Neither were well known liberal progressives, but they 
maintained this was an important program that even in my first 
days at West Point I should start learning about, and it helped 
me immensely as I went out to lead troops for the rest of my 
career.
    The successors of those programs exist out there today. We 
cannot afford to undercut them entirely and we can't afford to 
tell Americans who are thinking about serving that this 
military is not up to their expectations.
    We have the best and most powerful military in the world. 
You heard that from our Chairman at the beginning here today. 
We must sustain that by maintaining and growing programs to 
expand the number of people who are interested in the military 
and to make sure they understand it is a proud and honorable 
place to serve.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Thank you much. I will call upon myself, 
first of all, just to make a general statement.
    I, personally, believe--I am glad we have gone over 70 
years without having a war with China and I look forward to 
another 70 years, A. And, B, I recently ran into an employee 
back in my district of a manufacturing firm and she was a 
little bit sad because her company--this is in the private 
sector, you know, just a manufacturing firm--had gone from a 
very conservative company to one in which the employees had to 
put up with this woke training stuff and she regretfully said 
she might have to look for another job, and I thought that was 
too bad, but I thought if that is what is going on in private, 
you know, who knows in an area like the military what this woke 
training does.
    Now, a couple a couple of questions. First of all, we will 
start with Mr. Hunt.
    As far as physical requirements, are the physical 
requirements for the military today any different than, say, 
what they were 30 years ago?
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you for that question, Chairman.
    The physical requirements have changed, as we have seen in 
a lot of the different--in the new kind of research that is 
coming out now in terms of the standards that are allowing 
people to come in the military.
    I would say that a lot of those types of issues are kind of 
room for more research and I would hope that this body would 
continue to ask those types of questions.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. So, in other words, our military is not 
quite as physically strong today as they were 30 years ago--
your average soldier or sailor?
    Mr. Hunt. No, sir.
    Mr. Grothman. Oh, wow. That is concerning.
    How about mental problems? There was a time where I think 
mental problems would kind of disqualify someone from the 
military. Is there a change in the way we deal with mental 
problems today compared to, say, what we were dealing with 40 
years ago?
    Mr. Hunt. There have been some changes in that regard as 
well, Chairman.
    Mr. Grothman. Could you elaborate on it a little bit?
    Mr. Hunt. Well, I will just say the organization I am a 
part of, Veterans on Duty, a lot of our research has been done 
with looking at how we can make sure our military is ready. We 
have not done a variety of research into that particular 
question of mental aptitude and that kind of question. But we 
can get back to you with----
    Mr. Grothman. I think there was a time where if you were 
taking certain medications you couldn't get in the military. Is 
that still true?
    Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. More or less, or has it changed at all?
    Mr. Hunt. I would not be the best person to give you the 
answer to that.
    Mr. Grothman. Either one of the other--any of the other 
three know have we changed the--yes, Mr. Sadler?
    Mr. Sadler. So, with regards to certain specialties and 
ones that I am more familiar with in the nuclear submarine 
community and the ballistic missile program there are stringent 
medical as well as psychological requirements that are in 
prescreening and continually through the career. That has 
remained unchanging at least in the last 30 years.
    Now, outside of that, inside my foreign area officer 
experience, there is a very wide spectrum of differences based 
on location and the stressors that you might be on.
    And so, in that regards it is not uniform and it is--does 
change from time to time based on what the medical community--
the military medical community believes is important for that 
area for that operation.
    And so, you can't paint with one brush for all DOD or even 
one service, and it does change. Some of that there is some 
things to look at more closely.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. So, are things getting tightened up or 
are we loosening the standards?
    Mr. Sadler. What troubles me most when I hear from the 
military medicine community is that there is a tendency to get 
distracted from metrics or issues that are not medically 
focused and, again, this comes back to the influences of DEI 
type policies and that is, in my mind, a distraction from the 
provision of traumatic care for soldiers, airmen, and sailors 
that need, you know, help when they have an injury in either 
the day-to-day operations or in combat.
    Mr. Grothman. In other words, is what they are doing 
affected by the person they are dealing with?
    Mr. Sadler. There is some indication that is starting to 
become a mentality or thinking that is overtaking their 
approach to medicine.
    Mr. Grothman. What would be the reason, Mr. Hunt, why we 
changed the physical requirements?
    Mr. Hunt. That particular question I would ask many of the 
leaders right now in our Department of Defense of what is their 
criteria. I think a lot of times it is unclear, and I think 
that is part of the problem that this body should know exactly 
what that criteria is.
    Mr. Grothman. Yes. I have been told by people in the 
military academies that sometimes they change the physical 
requirements with regard to gender or what have you. Is that 
true?
    Mr. Hunt. I think you would have to ask the Department of 
Defense exactly what is going on because, quite frankly----
    Mr. Grothman. I see Ms. Mobbs kind of says that. Is it 
Mobes, Mobbs? I don't even know.
    Ms. Mobbs. Mobbs, sir.
    Mr. Grothman. Mobbs. OK.
    Ms. Mobbs. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. They have changed 
the physical fitness standards. So, when we had the army 
physical fitness test, which was the APFT, we switched to what 
was then called the Army Combat Fitness Test and that was 
designed to transform the Army fitness culture and improve 
readiness for ground combat.
    Many of the events within the Army combat fitness test were 
specifically expected to map onto combat related things like 
the sled carry, the shuttle run, amongst other things. I think 
the broader question is that when we adopted the Army Combat 
Fitness Test, we did not necessarily look holistically at what 
kind of an overhaul of fitness culture in the military looked 
alike.
    And so, to that point, we can't just look at a single 
physical fitness test as a measure of readiness within our 
armed forces. We must be better about addressing kind of all 
pillars of fitness to include things like sleep, nutrition, 
cognitive, psychological, to your point, Mr. Chairman, because 
that is how we are going to create the most lethal fighting 
force.
    Mr. Grothman. How about when we promote people? Does any of 
this diversity stuff get in the way there?
    Ms. Mobbs. So, in terms of if you are talking about 
specifically physical fitness, so those are used as indicators 
on report cards, if you will, for NCOs, junior soldiers, 
officers. That is the case. So, they are utilized in that 
capacity.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. So, to a degree is it ever possible that 
somebody would be promoted or not promoted on the margins based 
on diversity concerns?
    Mr. Sadler wants to speak.
    Mr. Sadler. Yes, I can weigh in a little bit on that 
concern and that is, if the emphasis on diversity equates with 
a quota or some ratio there is an unspoken or there can be an 
unspoken pressure to actually try to tip the scales in one way 
or the other, and that is a perception. That is something that 
is very real, and I would say that to say that it doesn't exist 
would not--would be a falsehood.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. This woke stuff--when I talk to people 
who work for big corporations, and I am talking of military 
people, they all have a low opinion of it. How much are we 
spending as far as you are concerned with these diversity type 
bureaucrats? I know we need--you know, there is so many things 
we need more of in the military to preserve our country. I 
wonder how much we are spending on these people.
    Mr. Hunt. Mr. Chairman, right now the numbers are $114 
million on DEI programs. In some cases, we are paying these DEI 
bureaucrats over $200,000 a year which is----
    Mr. Grothman. $200,000 for a diversity person?
    Mr. Hunt [continuing]. Tiple the mean of the household 
income in the United States--the average household income. So, 
this is a major problem that we are seeing where we are 
investing all of this money without any data that reflects, A, 
if it actually works, which we know it doesn't, and, B, 
whether--what the point is or whether there was any type of 
underlying data that would necessitate such dramatic increases 
in the funding of these programs.
    Mr. Grothman. I am sure it lowers morale to put up with 
this stuff. I mean, you like to look up to your commanding 
officer. You don't like to think that they are a joke.
    But in any event, I have used up my time. So, I suppose I 
will go on to Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    A couple of comments and some questions. Let me just, 
first, just make a couple of notes. I think that there is a lot 
of conversations and comments about diversity and inclusion 
programs and diversity in the military, and I think it is 
important to remember that we have been diversifying our 
military for decades and so this has been a priority of the 
United States to have a more inclusive military, a more 
inclusive force, since the 1960's and 1970's.
    And so, this isn't a new thing. This isn't, like, this has 
just started happening. This has been a critical mission of the 
U.S. and our military is stronger today because of the focus on 
inclusion and diversity. And so, I just want to make that very 
clear. I think it is important to note for the record.
    Our military changing and becoming more inclusive has been 
a very positive thing. Our military reflects the American 
people. As American people become more diverse and more focused 
on these issues, so should our institutions and, certainly, our 
military.
    The U.S., of course, has a long history of implementing 
changes to the military that affect its engagement with a 
variety of groups. For example, obviously, the integration of 
women into the military has been critical. The desegregation 
that happened across our forces have been critical, and the DOD 
today reports that our 1.3 million active-duty personnel has, 
of course, greater racial, ethnic, and other--and gender 
diversity than we have had in the past and from decades in the 
past.
    And so, if you look at just our current force today, 17 
percent of our active-duty members are female, 31 percent of 
our active-duty members identify with a racial minority, and 85 
percent of our military officers have a BA or an advanced 
degree. That is actually higher than any time, even if you look 
at the last decade.
    And so, our military continues to be more reflective of the 
American people. It continues to get more educated. It 
continues to include more people. So, if that is a reflection 
or an outcome of focusing more on diversity and focusing more 
on inclusion, then I welcome that and I think that is actually 
positive development as our military continues to grow.
    And I wanted to ask General Barno, because you mentioned 
some of this in your opening comments, how does a educated, 
racially diverse and gender diverse military actually make us 
stronger as a military?
    General Barno. I think one of the most important things to 
recognize, I think everyone on the panel would agree, is that 
military leadership has to build cohesive teams, that that is a 
leadership function. It may be the most important thing that 
leaders do is put together cohesive teams.
    The United States has an immense advantage over our 
adversaries in that we are a very diverse culture. We, since 
our history began, have been comprised of people from all 
ethnic groups, all races, all creeds, all colors, men and 
women.
    If you look to the Chinese military and look at the Russian 
military, you don't see that. They are going to operate at that 
permanent disadvantage. Our ability to knit teams together that 
can function well no matter what their educational background, 
no matter what their race, their religious beliefs are, or 
their gender that is an incredible advantage the United States 
has always brought to the battlefield out there. That is going 
to make us out-think and out-innovate the enemy in any future 
conflict.
    And so, building that cohesion in peacetime and recognizing 
that there is a way to make these differences into strengths is 
always something the military has tried to do.
    And I would just comment on, briefly, maybe on the 
Chairman's points. I think we actually have higher standards 
today in a lot of areas than we had when I came in the Army. We 
certainly have a higher physical fitness standard.
    The new Army combat fitness test is a very, very tough test 
for men and women both. It is much tougher than what it 
replaced, and we have also moved in the selection system to 
doing blind selections, which is far more reflective of equity. 
Without knowing--you don't know if you are seeing the file--the 
promotion file of a woman or a man, what they look like. And 
so, we have actually taken a lot of steps in the last few 
years----
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir, and I completely--I completely 
agree with that testimony and I thank you for, you know, 
reinforcing that.
    I also want to just note something right now. So today, the 
GAO released a report on active-duty recruitment and retention 
challenges and I ask for unanimous consent to put this report 
in the record. As you can see from the poster behind me, the 
GAO identifies a number of real factors that affect military 
recruitment and retention such as commercial sector employment 
opportunities, medical qualifications, dependent care, and 
family planning.
    Obviously, if we support our men and women in uniform 
rather than actually trying to score political points, we might 
actually make some progress on this issue.
    These are--there are real challenges we should be focused 
on, not necessarily the ones that are being brought up today at 
this hearing.
    General Barno, broadly speaking, what actions can the 
military take to effectively compete for the best and the 
brightest?
    General Barno. I think the military has got to get out 
among the American people and become better known than it is 
today. It is very geographically centered where the bases are 
in the country. It is very family oriented in terms of 
militaries being a family business. My father, all three of his 
brothers, myself, my three brothers, my two children all served 
in the U.S. military. We can't sustain the AVF on that model. 
So, we have to get out and see the American people. They have 
to see what a great military this is.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir. And I think just to close, you 
know, it is interesting we have a more diverse military today. 
We have more women in the military, of course more people of 
color in the military. We have a more educated military. Yet, 
somehow, we are worse off today than we were before. So, I 
don't understand that. I don't agree with that. I want to thank 
you all for your testimony.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    We will go on to Mr. Sessions.
    Mr. Sessions. Chairman, thank you very much.
    It seems like we have gotten off into equity and diversity 
and all these other matters. I would like to, if I can, go a 
little bit higher and go to the challenges of politically 
driven agendas, because I think politically driven agendas is 
more to the point rather than whether we are talking about who 
but what a political agenda is.
    I have two questions. I will just throw it open for you, 
No. 1, to talk about COVID. Why do I talk about COVID? Because 
my nephew, who could not wait to get into West Point and served 
United States Army for five years, literally was summarily 
dismissed from the Army as a United States Captain at the end 
of his five years because he would not submit himself to the 
knowledge that 30-year-old men did not do as well in the COVID 
experience, and the pandemic was over long before he ever had 
to make any decision about that. And they dismissed him. They 
told him his career was done. Thank you very much. Please get 
out.
    Anybody have a comment about that politically driven agenda 
placed on the military?
    Ms. Mobbs. I think in general, sir, we have to be data 
driven in our armed forces in the Department of Defense, and I 
think what you just spoke to reflects moving away from data 
driven science.
    What we know is that natural immunity was 2.8 times better 
in preventing hospitalizations and, in particular, this wasn't 
a risk for young people and, in particular, the vaccines for 
males that are young, aged 16 to 29, had a pernicious risk, 
potentially, of heart myocarditis and other associated risks.
    Mr. Sessions. That is the way he looked at it.
    General Barno. My dad did. If you come in the military, and 
we all have served there, the number of shots you get for all 
kinds of things from yellow fever to diphtheria to, you know, 
all variety of things--anthrax, in my case, at one point in 
time--is part and parcel of being in the military.
    COVID was something brand new. We didn't have a lot of 
experience in that. We had over 1.1 million Americans die of 
that and, I think, depending on when the decision was made, the 
military made a wise decision to try and vaccinate its people 
so they didn't have more incidents like USS Theodore Roosevelt 
having most of its crew gets sick with COVID and have to not be 
available for deployment.
    So, again, I would want to be looking back humble about 
what we knew when in that environment, and I am not a medical 
professional, but I can understand the logic of the decisions 
that were made.
    Mr. Sessions. Well, perhaps we can, if we were talking 
about early on that might ring true but not later as we gained 
more information and learned that the initial things that we 
learned, in fact, were falsehoods.
    I would like to move then to the political agenda of the 
transgender recruiting. If someone can talk with me about that 
it. I understand that they are actively recruited.
    Tell me what the process for bringing them in, going 
through bootcamp, and then what that process is including them 
going through that period of time with this transition.
    Anybody?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Sessions. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, please let the record reflect that we are--
the people that we have today to offer testimony do not offer 
any insight as to the trend--gender recruiting, the agenda, the 
amount of time, and that process, as well as the period of time 
that these individuals might be unable to serve the United 
States military, and what requirements would be placed upon 
them.
    So I would like to go next to a politically driven agenda, 
and that is what I believe is an overall belief and feeling 
about trying to encourage people to become a different person 
than what we might need as a warfighter, just the agenda that 
may be placed upon them, a discussion that may be placed upon 
them as--but what we need is our military to be warfighters. 
Does anyone have an idea about this?
    Mr. Hunt?
    Mr. Hunt. Absolutely, Congressman. I appreciate the 
question. It is incredibly important, especially as we look at 
our threats abroad and what is going on with our adversaries--
China, Russia, Iran, North Korea--that our military is focused 
on developing and training and developing warfighters.
    And so, that is why many of us here are concerned about the 
seeming shift away from the military's core mission in kind of 
a direction to more political ideas like climate change, the 
entire robust bureaucracy of DEI that has just exploded in this 
most recent Presidential administration, and this kind of a 
distraction from the most important task at hand, which is 
deterring, fighting, and winning our Nation's wars.
    Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Goldman. Chairman, could I have a point of order?
    Could I just ask the gentleman from Texas--were you citing 
a particular document related to the impact of COVID?
    Mr. Grothman. May I ask what the point of order is first?
    Mr. Goldman. Just--if he could just submit that document to 
the record--for the record so we could all see it.
    Mr. Grothman. Yes, what is the point of order?
    Mr. Goldman. The question is whether he could submit a 
document that he is citing from to the record.
    Mr. Grothman. Yes. That is not a point of order, though.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Grothman. Yes.
    Mr. Sessions. I will be very pleased to engage the 
gentleman. I was not citing anyone. I spoke about the very 
public information that the President was requiring COVID to be 
given on an order from the United States military by the 
Commander in Chief, and I felt like in the beginning, perhaps, 
that could have sounded true, but as we learned more it 
diminished and my question was about the diminish--as time 
moved the diminishment of the need for this and yet they 
continued their policies.
    I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. That is enough.
    Now, first of all, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record two documents pertaining to today's 
hearing: GAO report released today titled entitled, ``DOD 
active-duty recruitment and retention challenges,'' and a 
letter signed by myself and other Members--Majority Members of 
the Committee--from September 22, 2021, asking for documents 
and communications from the White House on the firing of 18 
Trump-appointed military service academy board members.
    Mr. Grothman. Let the record reflect that the White House 
did not respond to our inquiry.
    Now we will go on to Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Army fell short of its recruitment goals by 15,000 last 
year. Why has it become more difficult to recruit people into 
the military?
    Here is one theory. Potential recruits are not afraid of 
going woke. They are afraid of going broke. Pay and benefits 
are so low that the RAND Corporation estimates that more than a 
quarter, 26 percent, of our military service members are food 
insecure, and 14 percent actually use food assistance programs, 
like food banks, to meet their family needs.
    General Barno, how can our military improve the lives of 
our most junior service members so they don't have to struggle 
for basic necessities for their families like groceries?
    General Barno. I think the military has done well, over the 
last 20 years, is increasing the amount of compensation that 
military members get. But that applies least of all to the most 
junior members of the force. They come in and are still making 
a very, very minimal amount of wages.
    I can recall actually qualifying for food stamps myself 
when I was a first lieutenant with my wife and a new baby at 
one point in time. So, we fixed some of those problems over the 
years, but we still have a problem for our force that is in the 
E-1 to E-4 category, the most junior enlisted, and we ought to 
devote some more attention to making sure that they have a 
tolerable standard of living, especially if they are married 
and they, perhaps, have dependents.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I appreciate that. The Blue Star families 
which I have been in touch with suggests this is a real 
problem, not an illusory problem. It would be great if we 
actually had the Department of Defense here to speak to this 
question of what we are doing to compensate the newly recruited 
members of the armed forces.
    Ms. Mobbs, in your testimony you cite a recent survey which 
found that 30 percent of Americans ages 16 to 24 say that the 
possibility of sexual assault, rape, or sexual harassment is 
one of the main reasons that they would not consider joining 
the military, and I would like to submit for the record an 
article in the Military Times that has come out since then 
titled ``The military's sexual assault problem is only getting 
worse.''
    Will you elaborate on this point? To what extent do you 
think this is actually deterring women and men from going into 
the military?
    Ms. Mobbs. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate the 
question. I can't speak directly to the totality of the impact 
on preventing them from serving. I would say that it is clear 
that our focus on sexual harassment, sexual prevention within 
the military, those programs have not been as effective as they 
should have been over the years, which does decline trust in 
teams, and I would posit that focusing on improving programs 
like that are a far better use of resources than where some 
things are currently placed.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I appreciate that. But a lot of people 
would say those are precisely the programs that are promoting 
wokeism. To talk about sexual harassment or sexual assault is 
actually to try to impose a bar of political correctness, to 
politicize the Army, to engage in social engineering. What is 
your response to that?
    Ms. Mobbs. I would say that is not the case at all. I think 
that the military's ultimate function is to build the strongest 
teams possible and that is what its function should be and that 
it is regardless of identity, of gender, of race, which is why 
I do think some of these programs are particularly pernicious 
when it comes to the DEI overarching frame, which looks at 
individual characteristics versus building teams broadly.
    But to your point, Congressman, I do not think that 
focusing on sexual harassment or assault prevention is a bad 
thing. I think it is absolutely critical to build teams that 
have trust.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I appreciate that, and I would just like 
to remark, as the Ranking Member did, that, you know, it has 
been a historical struggle to desegregate the Army, to let 
African Americans into the Army, to let women into the Army, to 
let gay people serve in the Army publicly, and at every point 
there was a complaint that, oh, this is woke or this is 
politically correct or this is social engineering or what have 
you.
    In fact, it is the process of democratization and making 
the Army look like the rest of society and allowing everybody 
to serve.
    Lieutenant General Barno, are there any studies which 
document the rather extraordinary claim being bandied about 
today that fear of wokeism, or political correctness or what 
have you, is actually depressing recruitment to the military?
    General Barno. I am not aware of any studies that actually 
have any factual data that support that assertion. I also know 
that at least two service chiefs--the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps, General Berger; and the Chief of Staff at the Air Force, 
General C.Q. Brown--have both said that, you know, wokeism is 
not--there is no such thing. It is not affecting military 
readiness. They have seen--they see no evidence that this is a 
problem inside their two services, and I think that applies in 
the recruiting domain as well. But no, in terms of actual 
evidence, I have not seen that.
    Mr. Raskin. All right. Well, I want to thank all of the 
witnesses for their testimony and for their service.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    On to Mr. Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today.
    The question for each of you, and I hope you recognize that 
it is just a real short question, so I will start with you, 
General.
    Who is the biggest geostrategic adversary of the United 
States today?
    General Barno. I would say, as the National Defense 
Strategy says, China.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Hunt?
    Mr. Hunt. China, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. Ms. Mobbs?
    Ms. Mobbs. China.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Sadler?
    Mr. Sadler. China.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. So, I think maybe you might be 
surprised to know that our Commander in Chief said in June 
2021, that global warming is our greatest threat. So, it makes 
one wonder what the priorities of the military are.
    So, I am thinking of China with the vax mandate that we 
placed on our men and women in the military--8,400 active-duty 
left; 40,000 National Guardsmen left; 22,000 Reservists also 
left the service.
    Do you know whether China placed the same kind of 
constraints on their military, Mr. Sadler?
    Mr. Sadler. Their constraints are different as a communist 
society. So, if you don't follow the diktat of the Communist 
Party, you are politically----
    Mr. Biggs. Did they--do they drum you out of the service if 
you didn't--well, yes, they would. They would drum you out.
    Mr. Sadler. They would drum you out for political reasons, 
yes.
    Mr. Biggs. How about teaching CRT in their military 
academies?
    Mr. Sadler. I think they probably do as it is a neo-Marxist 
and a Marxist ideology.
    Mr. Biggs. Right. DOD prioritizing climate literacy.
    Mr. Hunt, do they do that in China?
    Mr. Hunt. I have seen no evidence to suggest that they are 
highlighting climate readiness.
    Mr. Biggs. How about environmental justice in China?
    Mr. Hunt. Not that I am aware of.
    Mr. Biggs. How about any kind of climate goals in China?
    Mr. Hunt. Not to my knowledge, Congressman.
    Mr. Biggs. Ms. Mobbs, do you think China requires its 
Federal defense contractors to comply with ESG and DEI 
requirements as ours does?
    Ms. Mobbs. Not to my awareness, no.
    Mr. Biggs. One thing that was said is that there has been 
no real study on this and that individual--a couple of 
individuals were cited by the General that nothing on wokeness 
really has an impact on--maybe you were limiting it to 
recruiting. I may be wrong. I don't want to expand--I don't 
want to say more than you were. So, I think maybe you were 
limiting it to recruitment. Am I right on that?
    General Barno. No, actually the two service chiefs said 
that they--as I recollect--this is fairly recent--did not see 
that wokeism was having any effect on the readiness of their 
service. They did not see that inside the service.
    Mr. Biggs. I see. I see. In May 2021, Deputy Secretary of 
Defense Kathleen Hicks said, quote, ``Every dollar we spend 
addressing the effect of climate change is a dollar that we are 
not putting toward other priorities like meeting the challenge 
posed by China and modernizing our forces,'' close quote.
    Additionally, we spent $87 million just on the Department 
of Defense Office of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity. We have 
also seen Air Force and the Navy paying DEI managers $180,000 a 
year. The person that was in charge of the DEI office of DOD at 
the Pentagon had to be let go for racist statements.
    This type of effort, whether it is climate change, whether 
it is gender equity, whether it is DEI, whether it is ESG 
mandates, seem to be diverting from military readiness and 
certainly might have an impact on whether individuals want to 
join the military.
    Ms. Mobbs, your comments, please.
    Ms. Mobbs. So, I think anytime that dollars are pulled away 
from doing operational or tactical training is problematic, 
broadly speaking. I do think to your point, Congressman, that 
that level of funding directed specifically to that program is 
also direct evidence of implementation of a broader agenda 
regarding diversity, equity, inclusion, that is, in fact, 
divorced from the original diversity inclusion that was spoken 
to by the Ranking Member.
    That is a drastic shift of what previously was acknowledged 
as being diversity and inclusion efforts that supported 
bringing in, kind of, more women or things like--but were not 
necessarily rooted in the critical race theory ideology that 
DEI is currently.
    Mr. Biggs. That we are teaching at our military academies. 
With that I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking Member 
for holding this hearing. I think it is very important. I had 
the privilege of chairing this National Security Subcommittee 
for the past two Congresses during which time we examined 
several critical issues affecting military recruitment and 
retention, including multiple CODELs by multiple Members here 
on this Committee to Fort Hood, Texas.
    Fort Hood has historically struggled with a crisis of 
homicides, suicides, and sexual assaults among troops who are 
stationed there with 11 homicides and over 50 suicides in the 
last five years and widespread reports of sexual assault.
    Importantly, in 2020, we initiated an extensive oversight 
investigation following reports of, again, sexual harassment 
and sexual assault at Fort Hood, an Army installation that has 
witnessed nearly 30 service member deaths in one year--one 
single year--including Army Specialist Vanessa Guillen and my 
constituent, Army Sergeant Elder Fernandes, from the city of 
Brockton in my district.
    Our investigation was followed by the removal and 
suspension of various members of senior leadership at Fort 
Hood. Just last year, we conducted robust oversight surrounding 
the management of the JROTC program, Junior Reserve Officer 
Training Corps.
    This program is instrumental in developing our young people 
who may be inspired to embark on a life dedicated to military 
or civilian public service. Regrettably, our investigation 
found serious gaps in the processes undertaken by DOD and the 
military services to address allegations of sexual misconduct 
made against JROTC instructors.
    General Barno, would you further discuss the impact of 
these incidences of sexual assault and other sexual misconduct 
on recruitment and retention efforts?
    General Barno. I believe there are several surveys out 
there. I have seen some of them that suggested one of the major 
deterrents for young Americans signing on to join the U.S. 
military is a belief that they will be at risk, that they could 
be male or female sexually assaulted or sexually harassed 
during their time in uniform and even beyond that, that they 
have a high chance of becoming injured or traumatically 
distressed by their time in service.
    And so, this is a huge perception out there and as several 
of the Members have noted, this has not gotten a great deal 
better in recent years, especially the issues of military 
sexual assault.
    So, I think it is an area where the services need to double 
down on what they are doing and find out what is causing this. 
But, again, as with Fort Hood, the leadership aspect of this is 
a critical component--getting the leadership right.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Lieutenant General, and thank you as 
well for your service.
    As a matter of fact, supporting your testimony, according 
to the latest military propensity update released by the 
Department of Defense, 30 percent of DOD youth poll 
participants indicated that, quote, ``The possibility of sexual 
harassment and assault is the main reason why they would not 
consider joining the military.''
    General Barno, the National Defense Authorization Act, that 
was enacted by Congress last year and signed by President 
Biden, included several military justice reforms designed to 
combat sexual assault and harassment in the military.
    Could you discuss the importance of these reforms to 
establish a culture within our military that alleviates some of 
the enlistment concerns expressed by our young people who 
aspire to serve in the military?
    General Barno. This is going to take time for this change 
to take hold and for it to be publicized among young citizens 
that are thinking about service.
    But it essentially takes, after many years of studying this 
and evaluating this and initially a lot of opposition from the 
military, there has been removed from the military chain of 
command oversight for the investigation and prosecution of 
felony-level cases such as sexual assault or other felonies, 
murders, et cetera. So, the commanders themselves are no longer 
the direct investigators and ultimately the judicial 
authorities for that.
    That is a huge sea change inside the military. We haven't 
seen anything like this in my lifetime, and I think it is going 
to take hold and eventually provide some additional credibility 
for prosecution of people that are suspected of these offenses.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
    And last, General Barno, would you agree that it is vital 
for us to demonstrate to those eager to serve our country in 
uniform and their families--especially the families--that we do 
not take the health and safety of our service members lightly?
    General Barno. No, I think that is critical. You know, 
individual young men and women don't make these decisions to 
join by themselves. They rely upon the advice from their family 
members, their teachers, their coaches, and if they--those 
older adults in the room don't perceive the military as safe 
for these people, they will never recommend they join.
    Mr. Lynch. Right. Thank you, General. I thank all the 
witnesses. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Thanks much.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all the 
witnesses for coming today.
    General Barno, do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces 
right now are currently conducting sensitivity training?
    General Barno. I have no knowledge of that, but I would be 
surprised.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes, and probably not concerned about pronouns 
either. Maybe more concerned about the 100,000 casualties they 
have suffered at the hands of the Russian aggressor, probably 
more focused on the 20,000-plus civilians that have been 
indiscriminately murdered by the Russian regime.
    And, listen, the military is overburdened. You all know it. 
We know it. They know it, and, you know, wasting time on 
valuable, quote/unquote, ``training'' like sensitivity 
training, diversity, equity inclusion, I am far more 
concerned--not concerned about diversity. I am far more 
concerned about the word talent because when you seek out 
talent you will get the diversity. We are a very diverse 
nation.
    And as a conservative, we understand that success comes in 
all shapes, sizes, and shades. I was in the military 30 years 
ago, and the first thing they did when you get into training--
when you finish your training, and you go on active duty--is 
they talked about the isms and there was zero tolerance for it 
because this is about culture. There was no room for racism or 
sexism or nepotism and it was zero tolerance. You can get 
kicked out.
    So, you build a culture over decades and now we see that a 
lot on the left, in particular, in this Administration, want 
the military to fight their political wars instead of preparing 
for an actual real hot fighting war. We had--I am on the Armed 
Services Committee--we had the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman 
sitting in the witness chair and saying that he wanted to 
understand White rage, and he is White. That is a political 
statement.
    General Barno, do you think that there is a serious problem 
in today's military with political extremism?
    General Barno. I think political extremism exists in 
military as it does in society, and I know that it is not 
tolerated in the military.
    Mr. Fallon. Sir, but do you think it is a serious problem?
    General Barno. It is a very serious problem with any 
individuals that serve in uniform that believe in those 
beliefs.
    Mr. Fallon. I think there is--one is one too many, but it 
is clearly not a serious problem because after much pulling of 
teeth and gnashing, we got some answers that in 2020--do you 
have any idea how many Army active-duty or Guard or Reservists 
were separated for military or political extremism?
    General Barno. No, I do not.
    Mr. Fallon. It was nine--out of 1.1 million. The Marine 
Corps out of 222,000 Active and Reserve, it was four. I don't 
believe that is a serious problem.
    We had the Secretary of Defense stand down the military in 
a staggered fashion and probably burned at least $230 million 
on training to remove--there were nine, four. I mean, there are 
a couple of dozen. I think that was a terrible waste of 
taxpayer money.
    We can't meet our recruiting goals and when you start 
seeing 20,000--my contacts in the Army are saying that we are 
going to miss our mark by 20,000 or 30,000 this year. I hope 
that is not the case.
    But you keep doing that year over year, you are not going 
to have a military. We lose the military, and we are not lethal 
and we can't deter and we can't project power, we are going to 
lose this country. It is a massive problem, and when you look 
at--they do these pulse surveys--that when you combined 
potential recruits' concerns for wokeism, the way they handled 
COVID and other recent events, 21 percent didn't even want to 
serve in the military.
    We only have 23 percent of the Americans that can serve. 
Nine percent are interested in serving and less than one 
percent do serve. So, I am very concerned about the direction.
    I don't want my military to be--I don't want Democratic 
generals and I don't want Republican generals. Damn it, I want 
American generals. I don't want to know your politics. We have 
some that serve like that, and then we have others that are 
serving political masters and wearing their ideology on their 
sleeve and then shoving it down the American people's throats.
    We do not want that. That is the one thing that unites us, 
is our military. And I don't want this Administration to deter 
that very narrow pool to service, because if you grow up not 
loving this country and believing it is worth fighting for, you 
are not going to serve. And there is too many people in the 
political arena that are doing just that.
    They are deterring and they are teaching young people, 
particularly at the universities, that America on balance is a 
net negative for the world. Always has been, always will be. 
Unless we follow some socialist Marxist path.
    I want to deter North Korea. I want to deter Venezuela. I 
want to deter Iran, and I especially want to deter and detour 
Russia and China.
    And thank all the witnesses. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of our 
witnesses for your service.
    My colleague from Texas just mentioned Ukraine's military 
preparedness in fighting Russian aggression.
    General Barno, I would like to know from your vast 
experience in the military how you believe that the Ukraine 
military, that is bravely fighting for democracy against 
Russian aggression, feels when politicians on the far-right 
express support for Vladimir Putin over Ukraine.
    General Barno. I don't think I can answer that question 
since I am not part of that force. But I do understand that 
they model themselves in many ways about--on the U.S. military, 
that they have been trained, as one of my colleagues here has 
trained Ukrainians in the past, by American military forces and 
the American military is the model for the most aspiring armies 
in the world and the Ukrainians are certainly part of that.
    So, I think they admire this force that we are so concerned 
about here in ways that, perhaps, is greater than some 
Americans do, as we look at it today.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Hunt, please define the term woke.
    Mr. Hunt. Congressman, I describe it as a loose collection 
of progressive political ideas that are constantly thrust upon 
our institutions in the United States.
    Mr. Goldman. What progressive ideals? What do you mean 
thrust upon our institutions?
    Mr. Hunt. So, thrust upon our institution. So, Secretary 
Austin making an unprecedented statement after a Supreme Court 
decision, having the military weigh in on the most polarizing 
political issue of our time about abortion.
    I would say at my old--at my alma mater, West Point, 
getting a lecture on Whiteness. When I was there, we weren't 
getting lectures like that. I don't understand why that is now 
being a part of the curriculum there.
    We have--at the Air Force Academy there are now cadet DEI 
officials walking around writing up their fellow classmates 
and, of course, we have the Air Force Academy professor who 
proudly teaches critical race theory and wrote about it in a 
very public op-ed in the Washington Post.
    So, I think it is fair to say that all these are very kind 
of political in nature, very--these are ideas that we just--we 
want our military to be apolitical. We don't want a Democrat 
military or Republican military. We want an apolitical military 
focused on their mission to deter, fight, and win our Nation's 
wars.
    Mr. Goldman. That is a long definition, but thank you.
    The other the other thing that I think is getting lost 
here, and I don't think anyone disagrees with you that we would 
like to have a military that is apolitical and prepared.
    General Barno, the question I have for you is, describe for 
us the benefits of having a diverse military.
    General Barno. As I mentioned earlier, one of the reasons 
the U.S. military is the envy of other militaries in the world 
is because of the incredible teams of diverse individuals that 
we have.
    If I go to any other major military they are almost all 
homogeneous in terms of their racial background, their ethnic 
background. Few have as many women as we have in the force. So, 
we bring a lot to the table in terms of thinking around all 
aspects of a problem, being able to harness that energy and get 
great synergy about having all those different kinds of people 
that work together as teams in our military.
    That is what every military would like to do, and we can 
bring in a lot of different thinkers with different backgrounds 
and experiences that, again, if you are a Russian or you are 
a--or even a Ukrainian for that matter, certainly a Chinese, 
you don't have that wealth of diversity to draw upon.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Sadler, you mentioned in your opening 
statement the benefits of the Navajo code talkers, and I 
believe you also referenced the benefits of having women in the 
military in Afghanistan being able to relate to women, which 
are clearly benefits of having diversity.
    Would you also agree that language accessibility in other 
countries is also a benefit to the military?
    Mr. Sadler. Absolutely. I was a foreign area officer for 
about eight years or so in the tail end of my career because of 
my growing up in Asia. So absolutely. That regional language, 
cultural understanding, definitely does have a military utility 
and that really should be part of the focus in forming this 
discussion about diversity.
    Mr. Goldman. Right. Well, in 2022, the DOD released a 
finding--a report--that found that 12 percent of the military 
stated that they experienced an unhealthy climate in the 
military and this group was far more likely to identify as a 
racial or ethnic minority, a woman, or not heterosexual.
    The point of DEI is to make minorities--racial or ethnic 
minorities or other underrepresented populations feel included, 
so they do not have to identify as having an unhealthy climate 
and I think that that point is very lost in much of what your 
testimony is here today.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Just a little bit of housekeeping 
here. On behalf of Representative Biggs, I ask unanimous 
consent to submit to the record a series of public reports on 
military readiness, and also, on behalf of Representative 
Raskin, I submit to the record papers which he forwarded to the 
Committee. So unanimous request. So ordered.
    Mr. Grothman. Representative Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank each of you 
for your service in uniform. We certainly appreciate it. The 
country does.
    I want to talk to you, sir, General Barno.
    In your opening statements, you said there was no data and 
no correlation regarding the description of woke policy, what 
have you, and the reduction in recruiting that has also been 
referenced multiple times in this hearing.
    Do you have any data at all that you referred to when you 
say there is no data and no correlation? Do you know of any 
studies that have been conducted in this regard?
    General Barno. No, my point is that there is no data that 
says that there is a correlation between wokeness and 
recruiting. So, I can't document data that there is no data.
    Mr. Perry. So, I agree with you, right. It is hard to 
quantify, I think, for a lot of people, but you certainly can't 
say that there is no correlation if there is no data. There 
could be a correlation. Just because you don't have the data, 
or we don't have the data, doesn't mean there is no 
correlation. It just doesn't--it just means you don't have any.
    General Barno. We don't have any evidence that says that is 
a more accurate way to say that I think.
    Mr. Perry. Right. Right. You have got a long and storied 
career in the U.S. Army serving commands at all levels and you 
talked about eligibility and propensity. When did--for 
instance, when did eligibility change? When did it go to 30 
percent? Do you know? Were you still serving in uniform?
    General Barno. I think it has been that way for over a 
decade. So, probably yes.
    Mr. Perry. OK. I would agree with you. I would agree, 
because I have heard that issue for some time, and I was 
serving during that last decade so I would agree with you. So, 
if it has been over a decade that we have had an eligibility, 
if not a propensity problem--an eligibility problem, how do you 
explain that is the worst now since 1973? So, this has been 
going on a long time. 25 percent in the Army--you are in my 
alma mater, right, our branch of the service. How do you 
explain the lack of ability to recruit? 15,000 short. If the 
eligibility has generally remained the same? What has changed 
if that hasn't changed?
    General Barno. One of the points--and I would like, I 
think, to submit an article that we wrote here a couple weeks 
ago on military recruiting for the record, but it specifies in 
there the drop from 30 to 23 percent last year is a huge drop.
    Mr. Perry. Yes. Can you attribute it all to that seven 
percent drop?
    General Barno. That is a significant factor in terms of the 
number of people that are out there.
    Mr. Perry. I understand you. Significant. But can you 
positively attribute it to that? Does your----
    General Barno. Attribute what, the lack of numbers last 
year?
    Mr. Perry. The lack of recruiting. Yes.
    General Barno. I think that is part of the answer to last 
year.
    Mr. Perry. How much? How much?
    General Barno. I don't know.
    Mr. Perry. Yes. I think that is the point.
    General Barno. I think if you have fewer people that can 
actually serve----
    Mr. Perry. Yes, absolutely.
    General Barno [continuing]. Logically then you are going to 
have a more difficult time recruiting.
    Mr. Perry. Absolutely. Absolutely. I think--I think that 
the Army, the military, the uniformed services, should focus 
generally on two things. I will just ask for each--lethality 
and readiness, those two things.
    Any disagreement Mr. Sadler? Dr. Mobbs? Mr. Hunt? Sir?
    General Barno. I don't disagree.
    Mr. Perry. OK. So, with that, because you served at all 
levels, did you always have enough time to train to proficiency 
in all the warfighting functions required for your units to be 
effective?
    General Barno. I think no one has enough time to train to 
the perfect level.
    Mr. Perry. I completely agree. So, how much time is 
appropriate to train on things like DEI, climate change, 
Whiteness or CRT? How much time did you want your service 
members to sit there and endure that?
    General Barno. I want to make sure my teams work and if my 
teams are composed of diverse individuals, I want to make sure 
we understand how to work together.
    Mr. Perry. Yes, I get it. I agree with you. So, when you 
joined, and when I joined, I served with people from Texas or 
New York. I served with women. I served with men--Black men, 
White men, Asian men, Catholic, Jewish.
    You know what we all did? We all got the same haircut. We 
put the same hat on. We shined our boots the same way. We used 
the same weapon. If that worked for all your career and all of 
my career, and it did, diversity of thought, diversity of 
background, diversity of capability, diversity in every single 
way, and it worked. Did it work when you were in command?
    General Barno. As I mentioned, I started receiving 
diversity training when I was a plebe at West Point. So, we 
have done this for 30 years of my career and beyond.
    Mr. Perry. Right. Right. Was it to the extent that it is 
now when you were a plebe at West Point?
    General Barno. I think it may be because the Army was 
suffering immense problems with race relations----
    Mr. Perry. So, throughout your career you kept revisiting 
it at the same level it is being imposed now.
    General Barno. I don't--I can't actually measure it year to 
year, but it was certainly a significant part of my career.
    Mr. Perry. Well, it wasn't a significant part of mine 
because we knew what the right thing was, and our focus was on 
the lethality and readiness. We knew who was going to get the 
job done. We knew we were from diverse backgrounds.
    It didn't matter, because we were focused on the mission, 
sir, and the mission for commanders for the military is 
lethality and our mission as leaders is lethality and readiness 
to make sure we are prepared and anything that focuses on 
anything other than that is a waste of our time, sir.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
to our witnesses for being here.
    I come from a military family. My father was in the Air 
Force, was actually in the Air Force band, I think one of the 
greatest recruitment tools. My grandfather was a First 
Sergeant. I wanted to join the Air Force after I watched ``A 
Few Good Men'', but found out I couldn't because of my asthma. 
So, I joined America's best kept secret, the Civil Air Patrol, 
and, you know, that was all I could do.
    But either way, you know, we have had many, many hearings 
on this Committee. I feel like we are getting to a place where 
we are valuing--not me, but our friends on the other side of 
the aisle--valuing quantity over quality, because as I hear a 
lot of the lines of questioning coming from my colleagues, they 
are just ridiculous, wild. They are not founded on facts.
    I mean, No. 1, this hearing is about the military and 
instead we just heard one of my colleagues disrespect retired 
Lieutenant General Barno here, lecturing him on what military 
readiness is.
    Another colleague went on a wild rant about China--asking 
you each about China and what they are doing with their 
military and his line of questioning to me sounded like he 
thinks the U.S. military should act more like the Chinese 
military and I just wonder if he actually believes that.
    And then we also have wild questions about transgender 
folks in the military and I just--you know, from one of my 
colleagues in talking--when we are talking about problems about 
recruitment and retention, I am not sure telling transgender 
soldiers that they don't belong in the military or that they 
are not fit to serve is the right thing to do when we talk 
about recruitment and retention.
    I am here to find solutions rooted in facts. It has been 
stated time and time again no data shows that DEI or woke or 
whatever impacts recruitment, retention, and/or confidence in 
the military in a big way and I think it is really important to 
know that these efforts, when we talk about diversity, equity, 
and inclusion, and they have been under many names, have been 
part of the U.S. military ever since the draft was abolished in 
1973 and these efforts traditionally have been supported by 
both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
    But I think because now we are seeing that the politics is 
kind of shifting and I guess woke is part of the Republican 
talking points now, we are having a hearing on this.
    I even heard somebody bring--up one of the witnesses--an 
unspoken rule on pressures of promotions can be based on quotas 
or DEI or et cetera. I think it is important to know 76 percent 
of active-duty officers in the U.S. military right now are 
White.
    And so, I just--I highly doubt that there is an unspoken 
pressure that is pushing people to promote based on DEI, race, 
or et cetera. Our military has about 1.3 million active 
personnel. However, women recruits continue to climb. Men still 
make up 82 percent of our military.
    I think it is important to know that recent surveys have 
found that an estimate 21 percent of women in the military and 
about four percent of men have experienced unwanted sexual 
contact in the prior year.
    Mr. Sadler, would you say that staggering numbers like that 
might, just might, contribute to some of the lapse in 
recruitment we have seen?
    Mr. Sadler. Well, I think you have to also put it in the 
context of the Nation because the military is a part of the 
American society.
    Mr. Frost. But do you think that is part of the numbers we 
are seeing in recruitment going down?
    Mr. Sadler. It is one of the parts, but it is not a new 
part.
    Mr. Frost. OK. Thank you so much.
    General Barno--yes, it is not new. Sexual harassment has 
been around. What we are seeing that, when we talk about these 
programs, we are looking to bring those numbers down and I 
think we also have to look at the way that our military 
personnel live and that is a huge reason why we are seeing 
lapse in recruitment.
    General Barno, 15 years ago, the U.S. Army established 
SHARP, a program to combat sexual assault in the ranks. Former 
Secretary of the Army, Ryan McCarthy, said it is clear we have 
significant work to do to regain our soldiers' trust in our 
sexual harassment and assault response. What additional steps 
do you think the military can take to accomplish this?
    General Barno. I think the U.S. Army who has the SHARP 
program has been dissatisfied with the results of that. 
Certainly, we haven't seen the numbers go down and I know that 
is a concern for all military leaders out there.
    My own exploration into that, having two sons on active 
duty during part of that time, is that I don't think the chain 
of command owned that program as much as they needed to, to 
make a difference. I think it became a program where, as with 
other programs, implementation of the program is a problem. The 
idea of the goals are laudable, but the implementation needed 
to be focused on the chain of command making that case to their 
soldiers and I don't think that is how it was set up.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you for your response. And while the 
military is moving in the right direction on this, there--with 
these modest improvements there is a lot more that needs to be 
done. I mean, it wasn't enough to save people like Private 
Nicole Burnham, who was sexually assaulted twice shortly after 
being stationed in South Korea and took her own life after her 
command did nothing. This is not an issue of wokeness. We are 
talking about the women in our military that are serving our 
country, defending our freedom, that deserve to not be 
assaulted in the workplace. And we, as Members of Congress, 
need to look at how are we protecting them, how are we ensuring 
that the quality of life for our service members are better 
than it is right now.
    And I want to ask, while we are here talking about 
wokeness, where is the outrage on ensuring that we can raise 
wages of military members? Seventy-four percent of our military 
budget goes toward contractors. Why are we not talking about 
that?
    Why are we not talking about what happened just last week 
on this Committee in this room where my friends on the other 
side of the aisle were gunning and going for telework, which 
military spouses disproportionately use to help support their 
household because the wages are not where it needs to be?
    So, this is about politics, not about policy. It is not 
about things rooted in facts and the facts show--well, there is 
no data that shows that wokeness is a part of the problems we 
are seeing in terms of recruitment.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Next, we have Mr. Higgins.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, a gradual emasculation of our country has 
been happening for decades, so the modern progressive woke 
movement is not completely to blame. But, we seek truth in this 
Committee, so let is talk about it and the first truth I will 
acknowledge is my deep respect for General Scott Perry, a 
combat veteran who has earned the right to ask his fellow 
combat veteran anything he wants to ask him on this Committee.
    I joined the Army in 1988, went through bootcamp in 1989, 
Military Police Academy right after. One station unit training 
at Fort McClellan. I didn't join for money. I left money to 
serve my country. That is why most young soldiers, with the 
encouragement of their family, which I will get to in a moment, 
that is why most young soldiers join the Army.
    In society, woke is a social discussion, but in the 
military, woke is weak and that is the problem. In the 1990's, 
I recall a recruiter friend. He called me. He said, Clay, most 
of these youngsters we are trying to sign-up by now they never 
been in a fistfight. It was an issue.
    The Army had to make adjustments. Said these kids have 
never climbed a tree, never been in a fistfight. So, this thing 
has been gradual for a long time. To not acknowledge that is 
not squared away. That was the 1990's. On March the 1st of this 
year, I was struck looking at the front page at Epoch Times. It 
says almost 80 percent of Americans aged 17 to 24 aren't fit 
for military service.
    Department of Defense reports that 77 percent of young 
Americans physically unqualified to enter the Army--enter the 
military. Unbelievable. And I was researching at that time, the 
Secretary of the Navy, for a meeting with him.
    Same day, from his website and the Epoch Times, same day. 
The most pressing challenges confronted in the United States 
Navy and Marine Corps three of the top four: climate 
instability, COVID's ongoing impact, and strengthening the 
naval culture of inclusiveness and respect.
    Not readiness and lethality, as this highly qualified 
combat commanding general noted earlier. Climate change, and 
diversity, and COVID, three of the top four concerns of our 
United States Navy right now.
    Since the United States ended the draft in 1973, young 
adults from southern states have been over-represented among 
new military recruits. No other region experienced as wide a 
disparity in military representation versus population. This 
way it works.
    Southern states have been providing the bulk of our 
military recruits for a long time, and what is happening now is 
families are holding our youngsters back, General. Families are 
saying don't join.
    You are right. I cite your own words, good sir. During the 
first years in recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many 
military experts worried that the constant deployments would 
break the force since they expected that fewer young Americans 
would volunteer to serve in a wartime military.
    Thankfully, that didn't happen. Yet, a perilous recruiting 
crisis began just after the United States fully withdrew from 
Afghanistan last summer when Biden was the President, when woke 
began in the military. We had young American families willing 
to go and join the military during heavy warfare. These are 
your words, General, an article you wrote.
    So, warfare didn't stop young Americans and American 
families from joining the Army but woke has because we are 
southern families, we are conservative families, and we are not 
going to encourage our young men and women to join and endure 
that stuff. I would like to have five hours with these folks, 
Mr. Chairman, but it appears my southern drawl has absorbed my 
five minutes here.
    Mr. Grothman. All right. Somebody ought to do a study and 
see if the same speech was read by someone in the north, how--.
    But in any event, Congressman Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today's military 
leadership has become the world's laughingstock, more concerned 
about appeasing the left-wing ideologues than about having the 
world's most lethal fighting forces. Eight-thousand-four-
hundred members of our military were kicked out because they 
refused an ineffective, harmful, and deadly vaccine. The U.S. 
military is permitting the recruitment of mentally troubled 
people who think they were born in the wrong gender and is even 
paying for their sex change surgeries and harmful chemical 
infusions.
    The Navy is hosting drag shows on their ships. By the way, 
I don't think China and Iran are too worried about diversity 
and gender ideology.
    Military schools are focused on describing oral sex, 
masturbation, and pornography in books too disgusting to 
mention out loud in this Committee room. Lloyd Austin, the 
Secretary of Defense issued, quote, ``a stand down'' of the 
entire military in 2021 because he falsely believed the 
military is systematically racist. What an insult to our brave 
men and women.
    General Milley, instead of fulfilling his constitutional 
duty to serve Donald Trump, the duly elected President at the 
time, representing the voice of the American people, conspired 
with both Nancy Pelosi and a foreign adversary, the CCP, on 
separate occasions, to hatch plans to overthrow the sitting 
President of the United States. What insurrection, you say?
    The point of all these actions is clear. Cleanse the 
military of conservatives and the consequences are devastating. 
Recruitment is down. Morale is down. Our enemies are 
emboldened. It needs to stop.
    Mr. Sadler and Mr. Hunt, in what ways does graphically 
describing oral sex, masturbation, and pornography in military 
school children's schoolbooks help military families?
    Mr. Sadler. I can't think of any circumstance that it 
would.
    Mr. Gosar. Mr. Hunt?
    Mr. Hunt. I doesn't.
    Mr. Gosar. How does paying for sex change surgeries and 
chemical infusions ensure military readiness?
    Mr. Sadler?
    Mr. Sadler. It doesn't, and in fact that is a distraction 
and from resources and time of a service member and they should 
be serving. They would have to be in medical and psychological 
care before going back to active duty. So absolutely not.
    Mr. Gosar. Mr. Hunt?
    Mr. Hunt. I think it is an embarrassment for our Department 
of Defense.
    Mr. Gosar. So, how has Lloyd Austin's stand down due to the 
imagined White supremacy improve military readiness? Can you 
think of anything, Mr. Sadler?
    Mr. Sadler. I think it was completely and wholly 
unnecessary. When you look at the figures before, during, and 
after the events of January 6, which was the trigger for 
supposed--this event, none of the facts bear reason for his 
action and it hasn't changed anything. In fact, the data 
collection has gotten a little better, but it still needs to 
go--little further to get better in the annual reports from 
DOD. But there is no seeming--no statistical change.
    Mr. Gosar. Mr. Hunt?
    Mr. Hunt. Absolutely I agree with my colleague here. There 
is there is no statistical change. If you look at the numbers 
this year, they looked at it and said there might be 100 cases 
of supposed extremism, and that is out of 2.1 million people in 
armed forces. That is .005 percent of our military are supposed 
extremists. But yet, our Secretary of Defense shut down the 
military for that reason.
    Mr. Gosar. It is crazy. So, now, how does throwing out 
thousands of soldiers for refusing to take a deadly 
experimental vaccine that led to over 20,000 deaths and over a 
million injuries affect morale, not just statistics up to the 
date? How would that affect the morale?
    Mr. Hunt?
    Mr. Hunt. I think it would absolutely destroy morale in a 
lot of units in our military.
    Mr. Gosar. Would you agree, Mr. Sadler?
    Mr. Sadler. I think the way in which it was executed was 
definitely lacking. The military has a history of this with 
anthrax. But if it is a lawful military order, you have to take 
the vaccine, unfortunately. How they actually dealt with 
religious exceptions and other follow-up and the way that they 
drummed people out that, I think, needs to be reviewed and 
probably rectified.
    Mr. Gosar. Continuing on that line of questioning, do you 
support--and looking back at these individuals that were 
excused from or forced out of the military--they weren't 
excused--to be able to become back fully pensioned?
    Mr. Sadler. Absolutely. I think they should have their 
situations reviewed.
    Mr. Gosar. Do you agree with that, Mr. Hunt?
    Mr. Hunt. I do absolutely.
    Mr. Gosar. Got you. What kind of message does General 
Milley's communications with Nancy Pelosi and the CCP behind 
President Trump's back send to rank and file military members?
    Mr. Sadler?
    Mr. Sadler. It sends a politicized one, quite frankly, and 
simply put.
    Mr. Gosar. Does it belong in the military?
    Mr. Sadler. Absolutely not, not for uniformed military 
leaders.
    Mr. Gosar. Who is the commander in chief?
    Mr. Sadler. The President.
    Mr. Gosar. Mr. Hunt?
    Mr. Hunt. I think it sends a message that our senior DOD 
officials seem to be more focused on political--pet projects 
than actually the insurance of readiness in our force.
    Mr. Gosar. Last question. Should they be held accountable?
    Mr. Sadler?
    Mr. Sadler. Absolutely.
    Mr. Gosar. Mr. Hunt?
    Mr. Hunt. Absolutely.
    Mr. Gosar. Thank you. I yield.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Like the rest of my Republican colleagues, I am concerned 
that politics is getting in the way of our military carrying 
out its vital mission. The Department of Defense, on its own 
website states, ``Our mission is to provide the military forces 
needed to deter war and ensure our Nation's security.''
    To me, that is a very clear mission statement. But this 
Administration has pulled out of thin air requirements that 
have nothing to do with the stated military mission.
    For example, in 2021, President Biden issued a pair of 
executive orders demanding that our military tackle the climate 
crisis as an essential element of national security and address 
the impacts of climate change by developing a Climate Action 
Plan.
    This led to the military leaning into environmental 
justice, changing all nontactical vehicles to electric by 2035, 
and the GSA proposing new emission standards for Federal 
contractors.
    In that list, I heard absolutely nothing that prepares our 
troops to deter war and ensure our Nation's security. Instead, 
perhaps our Democratic colleagues would like us to look like 
the shining example of climate virtuosity, China.
    China was responsible for 26 percent of the global 
emissions in 2019. The People's Republic of China now has the 
world's largest solar energy capacity.
    Moreover, the International Energy Agency states that 
China's share in all key manufacturing stages of solar panels 
exceeds 80 percent. Sounds like China is making great strides 
toward clean energy. But this is built on the backs of the 
Uighurs, a Muslim minority population that China is desperately 
trying to eradicate by forcing them into reeducation camps and 
slave labor.
    The United States Department of Labor estimates that up to 
45 percent of the material used to manufacture solar panels 
comes from the province in which the Uighurs reside. How can 
clean energy truly be clean when it is built on the backs of 
slave labor?
    And while China is using slave labor to fool my Democratic 
colleagues into believing they are a paragon of climate change, 
the Administration is running around in circles attempting to 
catch up with these false statistics rather than relying on 
what is actually necessary for our military to succeed.
    I support any energy policy that lowers costs of energy for 
Americans and, similarly, I support any energy policy that 
helps our military fulfill its mission to deter war.
    I do not see that at all in these progressive policies in 
our Nation's fighting force.
    Mr. Hunt, DOD policies mandated that all military 
nontactical vehicles transition to electric vehicles by 2035. 
Electric vehicles rely on lithium ion batteries. The 
International Energy Agency states that today's battery and 
mineral supply chains revolves around China.
    China produces three-quarters of the lithium ion batteries 
and is home to 70 percent of production capacity cathodes and 
85 percent of anodes. Over half of the world's lithium cobalt 
graphite processing and refining capacity is located in China.
    Do you think it is in the best interest of American 
national security be so reliant on China for sourcing lithium 
ion batteries that are essential for electric vehicles 
Democrats are demanding our military rely on?
    Mr. Hunt. No, I do not.
    Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Sadler, this summer I joined my 
Republican Energy and Commerce Committee colleagues in sending 
a letter to EPA Administrator asking for information on 
potential blackouts and grid instability.
    Like the military, California announced that all new cars 
sold must be electric by 2035. Yet, just two days later, 
California's electric grid was in crisis and officials were 
asking citizens not to charge their electric vehicles. If 
California cannot handle its current electric demands, I fail 
to see how it will thrive when so many new electric vehicles 
enter the market. Do you have any concerns about converting all 
nontactical military vehicles to electric by 2035?
    Mr. Sadler. Actually, I have two concerns with this.
    One, if the military----
    Mr. Armstrong. Just two? Because I have more.
    Mr. Sadler. Two big ones to mention on this particular 
topic. One, if there is a war that occurs with China it is 
going to rely on military footprint that is in the West Coast, 
California, obviously, home to a lot of these bases.
    If their infrastructure and logistics can't support 
military operations or the military can't have access to 
reliable energy, then that has a tactical impact on a war that 
could occur this decade.
    The second thing is, if you have a platform that is only 
reliable on an electrical source and you don't have multiple 
ways of providing that electrical energy, either solar, out in 
the field, as well as maybe a diesel generator located from 
place to place, you hamstring your operational resiliency.
    And so, therefore, it comes with a tactical cost, and I 
think right now the intent is just in the United States that 
mitigates only on that second point, but not on the first if we 
get into a fight with China.
    Mr. Armstrong. Ms. Mobbs, last week a headline on Defense 
One read wokeism is not an issue top military leaders say. The 
byline read inclusion is actually a critical part of unit 
cohesion, Air Force Chief and Marine Commandant said.
    Air Force Chief of Staff General C.Q. Brown and Marine 
Commandant General David Berger gave exclusive interviews to 
Defense One on the topic of this hearing.
    How do you refute their claims both as a former service 
member and an expert on the issue?
    Ms. Mobbs. Do I have time to respond?
    Mr. Armstrong. I am toward the end, so I am assuming yes, 
but I am not in charge.
    Mr. Grothman. Oh, yes. Sure. Sure. Absolutely.
    Ms. Mobbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Congressman, I think it is a very important question 
because I think ultimately what we are seeing here right now is 
the use of language to try to dissuade or dismiss some very 
real concerns about what DEI looks like, what diversity, 
equity, inclusion looks like in its current form. And the 
reality is, actually there is data that suggests that woke 
practices are impacting recruitment and retention. That does 
need to be answered.
    For example, the reason why the Reagan National Survey 
found a major decrease in confidence in the military was 30 
percent cited woke practices undermine military effectiveness. 
That data does exist. Secondarily, the Monitoring the Future 
survey, which has measured representative samples nationally of 
12th graders since 1975, found, in fact, that the biggest 
decrease was among Democratic White men.
    In 2018, 18 percent of them expressed a desire to serve in 
the military. That is now only 2.9 percent. So, that is a 
precipitous drop in a specific population receiving messages 
around what the military looks like with regard to things like 
diversity, equity, inclusion. And I think it is very important 
we begin talking about that, not in this kind of necessarily 
broad woke framework, but what the data actually shows in terms 
of how that impacts desire to serve and propensity to want to 
serve our Nation.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you. Thank you. I should have talked 
less and let you talk more. I apologize. I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Very good. Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 
being here today.
    It is a time of significant geopolitical upheaval. The fog 
of war hovers over Ukraine, communist China is increasing their 
aggression, and individuals on the terrorist watch list are 
slipping into our country through our porous southern border.
    Alarmingly, given this context, I have received numerous 
complaints from enlisted members of our military regarding the 
waste of valuable time and capital on frivolous matters like 
affirmational pronoun training and subject matter adjacent to 
critical race theory.
    The Biden Administration is prioritizing short-term 
political gains over our long-term national security. One of 
Congress' foremost duties is ensuring our brave servicemen and 
women have the resources that they need to defend America's 
interests at home and abroad.
    America's combat readiness is incumbent upon our troops' 
ability to fight alongside one another as a cohesive unit under 
one flag, regardless of demographic or creed. If service 
members are taught to view one another with suspicion on 
account of their upbringing or come to believe they are 
fighting on behalf of a country built upon inherently flawed 
principles, America's military strength will continue to be 
undermined.
    Forcing progressive ideology on our service members 
threatens to degrade the morale, camaraderie, and effectiveness 
of our armed forces.
    It is also important to note that American taxpayers are 
unknowingly subsidizing this divisive rhetoric. Recruiting 
shortfalls and the relaxation of physical standards have become 
a feature of the Biden Administration DOD agenda. I have long 
been a proponent of big stick ideology, but deterrence through 
militaristic strength doesn't work while we are wielding a 
twig.
    Mr. Sadler, your colleagues at the Heritage Foundation, 
Travis Fisher and Maya Clarke, have recently written about a 
proposed change by the Biden Administration to the Federal 
Acquisition Regulations I find deeply concerning.
    This pending rulemaking would force arbitrary greenhouse 
gas emission standards, as determined by the Paris Climate 
Accord, upon the Department of Defense and other major Federal 
suppliers and contractors. Not only would this weekend our 
defense industrial base and materials procurement capabilities, 
but it would take approximately $4 billion to implement this 
asinine rule. You could purchase 42 F-35 fighter jets for that 
sum.
    In your opinion, is there something else DOD contractors 
should be prioritizing over their greenhouse gas emissions?
    Mr. Sadler. Quite a long list, actually. If we are 
hamstrung by resources and budgets, leveling more requirements 
and more cost on an already overly constrained budget and 
resourcing to build the military needed, and also have 
contractors provide the supplies we need, it is the wrong 
direction and, in fact, at a dangerous time.
    What would be better would be to look at what the military 
requirements--look at what the services need in capability and 
capacity and readiness and fund to that.
    Transitioning to a green energy or transitioning into new 
regulations to try to meet a Paris Accord requirement distract 
from that, and we--certainly in a time when we don't have the 
resources for it.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. I think we have got everybody 
here. I would like to yield to Ranking Member Garcia one more 
time. He has got some closing remarks.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to just begin 
just by reading a couple consented following items into the 
record: an article by General Barno on addressing the 
recruiting crisis, also a previous article by General Barno and 
Dr. Benson Hill on the curse of racism in the military, a 
statement from Ms. Kathy Watt Bouquet of Blue Star Families as 
well. So, if I can put those into the record before I make my 
comments.
    Mr. Garcia. We have heard a lot of testimony today, some of 
it, quite frankly harmful. Much of the comments that we heard 
today I think we would have heard at hearings and congressional 
hearings in the 1960's, the 1970's, the 1980's and some in the 
1990's.
    Now, our military is drawn from our incredible people, 
reflects our ideals and its diversity. Our military will 
continue to change as does our country.
    I also want to address this idea that it has been said over 
and over again that the military is being used by the woke left 
for some sort of social engineering agenda.
    Was it woke for President Truman to desegregate the armed 
forces in 1948? During the Vietnam War, we saw racial tensions 
between Black Americans and Black servicemen and White 
servicemen.
    Was it woke then to address those issues for Black 
servicemen? Was it woke when we finally allowed gay men and 
women to serve openly in the military? Was it woke when we 
currently try to protect service members from rape or sexual 
assault?
    So, each of those policies at the time were considered by 
many progressives, traditionalists, and the right-wing as a 
version of woke, or a version too far, or too diverse or too 
inclusive.
    And so, I think that we are just hearing the same thing 
over again. As we note, the military continues to be the best 
in the world, and we all continue to support that mission.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much.
    First of all, so ordered on the paper you have there.
    I would like to thank you all for being here today. I wish 
we could go another couple hours, because there were some 
questions there at the end that I thought the answers were so 
very good and I think it is too bad some of our guys only got 
four minutes or five minutes to question.
    It is scary what you are telling us, which is kind of in 
line with what I have heard from talking to people in the 
military. I don't know whether Lieutenant General Barno knows 
it, but anywhere in the real world with this pronoun training 
is considered kind of embarrassing and foolish. I am 
disappointed to see we have some of that in our military.
    I think lowering physical standards is a scary thing. There 
are reasons the standards were there in the first place and our 
goal should be to be, as Mr. Perry said, a lethal fighting 
force, not one excessively concerned with bean counting.
    I think when you get over concerned with this diversity 
stuff, as Mr. Sadler said, there is always concerns that 
promotions will be made, not on the base of the best person to 
give us the best fighting force, but to make the form look the 
best.
    It is shocking to me that we pay people over $200,000 a 
year to do this diversity training. I mean, these people almost 
by definition when they get a major in something like this are 
inundated in their head with this idea that we have a horrible 
racist America and we have to do something about it.
    So, I think they would be overpaid for free. The fact that 
they are paid $200,000 when we are short of money in our 
military makes it all the more scandalous and it is scary that 
people at the top of the military apparently have such warped 
thinking, that they think it is a good expenditure of funds.
    But in any event, I am glad you were here today. If you 
have any more to give our Committee, please give us more. It 
was a great hearing and a lot of people sure missed it--missed 
out on it--all the empty seats we have behind you guys.
    But, again, thank you for being here one more time and, 
hopefully, Congress will do what we can to do what the average 
fighting man and woman wants and stand up to--as the corporate 
world has to put up with--stand up to some of the woke people 
who somehow have gotten themselves to the top.
    I suppose, you know, there are just--there is a certain 
type of person both in the corporate world and the military 
that seems to work their way to the top and it is a shame and I 
think that is what we were educated on today.
    So, thank you one more time and with that and without 
objection, all Members have five legislative days within which 
to submit materials and submit additional written questions for 
the witnesses, which will be forwarded to the witnesses for 
their response.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]