[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
.
[H.A.S.C. No. 118-16]
DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION:
IMPACTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE AND THE ARMED SERVICES
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
MARCH 23, 2023
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-920 WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
JIM BANKS, Indiana, Chairman
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York ANDY KIM, New Jersey
MATT GAETZ, Florida CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
MARK ALFORD, Missouri TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
CORY MILLS, Florida STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada
Hannah Kaufman, Counsel
Ilka Regino, Professional Staff Member
Alexandria Evers, Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Banks, Hon. Jim, a Representative from Indiana, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................. 1
Kim, Hon. Andy, a Representative from New Jersey, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................. 3
WITNESSES
Cisneros, Hon. Gilbert R., Jr., Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense............ 4
Parker, Hon. Franklin R., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Department of the Navy........... 7
Schaefer, Hon. Agnes Gereben, Assistant Secretary for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs, Department of the Army.................... 6
Wagner, Hon. Alex, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Department of the Air Force...... 8
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Banks, Hon. Jim.............................................. 43
Cisneros, Hon. Gilbert R., Jr................................ 48
Kim, Hon. Andy............................................... 46
Parker, Hon. Franklin R...................................... 65
Schaefer, Hon. Agnes Gereben................................. 57
Wagner, Hon. Alex............................................ 71
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Mr. Gaetz.................................................... 81
Mr. Waltz.................................................... 92
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Davis.................................................... 101
Ms. Stefanik................................................. 99
Mr. Waltz.................................................... 99
DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION: IMPACTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
AND THE ARMED SERVICES
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
Washington, DC, Thursday, March 23, 2023.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:00 p.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Banks
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM BANKS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
INDIANA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mr. Banks. The hearing will now come to order. I ask
unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized to declare a
recess at any time. Without objection, so ordered.
And I ask unanimous consent to allow members not on the
subcommittee to participate in today's hearing and be allowed
to ask questions after all subcommittee members have been
recognized. Without objection, so ordered.
I want to welcome everyone to this hearing of the Military
Personnel Subcommittee. Today's hearing is focused on
diversity, equity, and inclusion and its impact on the
Department of Defense and the armed services. I want to thank
our witnesses for being with us today. I hope this hearing
provides the opportunity for our members to have a productive
exchange with our witnesses and provide answers to their
questions.
Let me set the stage by saying the military services
continue to be one of the most meritocratic organizations in
the United States of America thanks to the principles
established by President Truman in Executive Order 9981, that
there shall be equal treatment and opportunity for all persons
in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion,
or national origin. These principles enabled me, a working-
class kid from Indiana, to be the first in my family to go to
college and later join the Navy Reserves and serve my country
in uniform.
That is what meritocracy provides, an opportunity for
everyone, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin,
or gender, to raise your right hand, to serve your country, and
to succeed on hard work and determination alone. And that is
what I found in the Navy: no evidence of widespread racism,
just sailors of every color, background, and religion working
hard to get the mission done.
But we are now in danger of losing those meritocratic
principles to the politicization of our Armed Forces. Thanks
first and foremost to the ever-expanding bureaucracy of
diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, regulations, and
trainings. This DEI apparatus is based in faulty science and
misguided principles. In fact, anti-bias training efforts may
be ``having literally any effect including to actually increase
bias.''
In a review of 418 prejudice-reduction experiments,
Elizabeth Levy Paluck and her co-authors concluded that much of
the anti-[bias] training is ``misguided.'' And even in the few
studies that showed any effect at all of reducing bias, those
effects actually disappeared over a short period of time. Yet
the Department of Defense and the services have embraced DEI
training full cloth without empirical evidence. And, worse,
they very well may be increasing racism and division in our
military.
This comes at a time when existential threats from China
and Russia have never been as pronounced as what they are and
at a time when recruiting struggles put our All-Volunteer Force
on the brink. With these looming threats, we must emphasize the
readiness of our Armed Forces.
In a response to then-Ranking Member Senator James Inhofe
of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman Milley
reported that DOD [Department of Defense] expended 5,359,311
man-hours for Secretary Austin's extremism stand-down and an
additional 529,711 man-hours for DEI-specific training. That is
a lot of training hours spent away from honing warfighting
capabilities, knowledge, and skills.
Civilian control of the military is the bedrock of our
system, and avoiding partisan political ideology is essential
to the strength and viability of our military. Chairman Milley
crossed the line during an Armed Services Committee hearing in
the summer of 2021. He testified that it is important to study
critical race theory because ``I want to understand White rage.
What is it that made thousands of people assault this building
and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of
America?''
The highest-ranking military officer in our Armed Forces
interrupted the Secretary of Defense, connected racism to the
Capitol riot, all to score partisan political points while
wearing the uniform. Should we be surprised by the erosion of
trust between the administration and our service members or
between our military and the American public? This cannot
continue.
Our service members and our Nation deserve a military that
does not make ideological judgments. I agree with Secretary
Austin, who testified in the same hearing that all service
members and DOD civilians ``deserve an environment free of
discrimination, hate, and harassment.'' I want us to work
together to develop a system that remains true to our
meritocratic values, that ensures the performance of all
service members, provide opportunity not because of the color
of their skin or the God that they pray to, but because they
have worked hard and identify as soldiers, sailors, Marines,
airmen, and guardians.
This is very personal for me. I was the product of a
meritocratic system that afforded a boy from Indiana an
opportunity to go to college and serve my country in uniform
later and now to become a Member of Congress. And I want to
make sure that we do everything we can to preserve that system,
the American system. That is a difficult topic with passionate
voices all around, not because we hate each other but because
we all want what is best for our country and the men and women
in uniform.
Before hearing from our witnesses, let me offer Ranking
Member Kim an opportunity to make any opening remarks. I yield
to Ranking Member Kim.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Banks can be found in the
Appendix on page 43.]
STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY KIM, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY,
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mr. Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are all here today
because we want to take a look at how diversity, equity, and
inclusion, or DEI, are affecting our national defense, our
service members, and our recruitment and retention. I had a
chance to review your testimonies before today, and I noticed
two common themes among them.
First, you all define diversity by saying that it meant
more than just demographics alone. You said it encompasses
knowledge, culture, values, and more, and I agree. Second, you
also noted the value of bringing people with diverse
backgrounds together to solve problems and matters of national
security, and I agree with this, too.
As the services face an increasingly challenging recruiting
environment, we should be taking steps to widen the pool that
we can draw from for our All-Volunteer Force. That is common
sense. I am not suggesting that we compromise the quality of
recruits we bring into the services, just that we don't
arbitrarily limit who can join the ranks.
That is what this effort in service--is in service of,
ensuring that we can continue to build our military with the
size and capabilities needed. We ask a lot of our service
members. We ask them to risk their lives to protect our
country. Making sure that they know we have their backs, that
we are supporting them, and making them feel included shouldn't
be too much to ask.
I believe, and I am sure that everyone in this room would
agree with me, we owe it to our service members to give them
the best possible chance to succeed in every mission, in every
task, and with every order given. That starts with how we treat
every single member in every branch. As our military has grown
more diverse and inclusive, our Nation's lethality remains as
strong as ever.
It is a false choice to say that we have to choose between
embracing and strengthening diversity and building an effective
and formidable military. As our witnesses have stated,
diversity is instead essential to our effectiveness. It does
not distract, it focuses. It does not hurt recruitment, it
grows it. It does not reduce lethality, it supports it.
I am proud of our military and believe we have the
strongest fighting force in the world. And I hope that is
something all of us on this committee can agree with. This
doesn't have to be controversial.
It was the Trump administration that created the DOD Board
of Diversity and Inclusion. Our Armed Services Committee, that
we are all a member of, voted overwhelmingly in a bipartisan
way to support the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act]
that established some of these DEI initiatives. So, instead of
looking for ways to polarize our military, we can instead focus
on ways to support its growth and success.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing today so we
can discuss the important benefits that this provides to our
DOD. And thank you to the witnesses again for being here. And I
yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kim can be found in the
Appendix on page 46.]
Mr. Banks. I thank the Ranking Member. Each witness will
have the opportunity to present his or her testimony, and each
member will have the opportunity to question the witnesses for
5 minutes. We respectfully ask the witnesses to summarize their
testimony in 5 minutes or less. Your written comments and
statements will be made part of the hearing record.
With that, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, Mr. Cisneros, you may make your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. GILBERT R. CISNEROS, JR., UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Cisneros. Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today to discuss the Department of Defense's greatest
strength, our people. Current diversity, equity, inclusion, and
accessibility efforts are fundamentally about supporting our
people. Today's total force, the most lethal force the world
has ever known, is a testament to the Department's decade-long
leadership on equal opportunity.
But the Department is not immune to bias and prejudices,
which is why it remains a priority. The diversity of the U.S.
Armed Forces is one of our greatest strengths. As the Chief
Diversity and Inclusion Officer for the Department, it's my
responsibility to ensure that we build and draw upon the
strengths, talents, capabilities, and skill sets of all service
members regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, geography, or
diversity of thought.
I help provide advice on policy oversight in coordination
for these matters in working with the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretaries of the military departments, and other leaders in
this space. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are essential to
unit cohesion and trust. A failure to leverage the strength of
our people including failures to end discrimination, whether
conscious or unconscious, undercuts unit cohesion necessary for
forces to train and fight as one and to deter and defeat
adversaries.
Consequently, our DEI efforts are designed to address
inappropriate actions that undercut our ability to generate
cohesive units. Our efforts today are not new. Diversity and
inclusion has been widely supported by bipartisan
administrations for decades.
Seventy-five years ago, President Trump issued an executive
order to racial desegregate the forces, and Congress took
action to allow women to serve. In the summer of 2020, then-
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper directed immediate actions to
address DEI opportunities across the Department. He established
a DOD Board of Diversity and Inclusion, which made
comprehensive recommendations on recruitment, accessions, and
means to retain and propel into leadership more diverse
candidates and ideas to address climate and culture challenges
that create barriers for minority members in the workplace.
Congress has also been a strong partner in recent DEI
efforts. The fiscal year 2021 NDAA which passed with bipartisan
supermajorities contained groundbreaking DEI provisions which I
am now diligently working to implement. These include creation
of the DOD Chief Diversity Officer position.
Additionally, requirements included creation of a diversity
strategic plan and the incorporation of strategic goals related
to diversity and inclusion in the Armed Forces within the
National Defense Strategy. The Department has made progress in
aspects of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. For
example, current demographics of enlisted service members
reflect clear progress in a force more representative of our
Nation's total population.
Recent initiatives to support a culture of equity, dignity,
and respect include removing photographs and references to
race, ethnicity, and gender from personnel files and promotion
and selection processes; enacting stronger protections against
harassment and discrimination; training to detect and respond
appropriately to bias; reviewing hairstyles and grooming
policies; and training leaders on how to guide discussions on
discrimination, prejudice, and bias. Yet other areas require
continued efforts. The officer population is not as diverse as
the enlisted force, and women are significantly
underrepresented.
Many factors contribute to the lack of diversity at our
highest grades, but one thing is certain. We must maintain a
strong pipeline of diverse candidates. By building a diverse
cohort of young, talented, and driven service members, we hope
to see their accession up the chain of command and eventually
placement in the highest ranks of leadership based on merit.
Recently, we implemented talent management sprints to test
promising initiatives to remove barriers and increase their
opportunity across the career life cycle. We expanded ROTC
[Reserve Officers' Training Corps] preparatory and military
service academy nomination programs to access a broader pool
for officer commissioning opportunities. We are studying
barriers that negatively impact career advancement for service
members and civilians.
Secretary Austin has emphasized that one of the
Department's top priorities is to ensure that all who seek to
join the community and share in our common purpose have the
opportunity to leverage their capabilities, realize their full
potential, and rise to the highest level of responsibility in
the Department. I am committed to working with you on the
subcommittee to ensure our service members and civilian
employees have every opportunity to succeed and contribute to
the mission. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear here
before the subcommittee, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cisneros can be found in the
Appendix on page 48.]
Mr. Banks. Thank you.
Now Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs, Ms. Schaefer, you may make your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. AGNES GEREBEN SCHAEFER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Dr. Schaefer. Good afternoon. Chairman Banks, Ranking
Member Kim, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the
men and women of the United States Army. At the end of December
2022, the Senate confirmed me to be the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
And I joined an amazing Army team that works tirelessly
every day to improve the lives of our Army soldiers, civilians,
and their families. I bring both deep and broad expertise to my
current position as well as a renewed emphasis on leveraging
data and analysis to assess the effectiveness of our policies
and programs to better target our resources in alignment with
the Secretary of the Army's six main objectives. Between my
previous position as the senior advisor to the current Deputy
Secretary of Defense and my 16 years at RAND [Corporation]
supporting the Department of Defense through research and
analysis, my focus every day for years has been on improving
our military's readiness to meet the objectives of our National
Security Strategy and to improve the lives of our Active and
Reserve Component members and their families.
In my current role, these continue to be my focus in
service of our soldiers, civilians, and their families. My
three priorities are readiness, including quality of life and
prevention of harmful behaviors; manning the Army of 2030; and
the strategic modernization of our personnel policies,
processes, and systems across the entire spectrum of our Army
People Strategy.
Readiness ensures that we have the ability to project
combat power whenever, wherever it is required.
Manning the Army of 2030 requires not only the new weapon
systems and doctrines to succeed in the future of warfare but
also the people who have the appropriate skills and
competencies for tomorrow, not just today.
Strategic modernization includes how we recruit and hire,
how we grow, employ, and manage our talent and how we create a
workplace culture that enables people to thrive and want to
grow and expand their careers in the Army.
The Army's mission remains unchanged: to fight and win our
Nation's wars. We do this with a trained and ready force,
prepared to respond to the evolving threat landscape. There is
no better investment to ensure the readiness of the Army than
our people. Our people are our strength and our strategic
advantage. We draw talent from every State and territory,
building cohesive teams of people with infinite backgrounds,
talents, and viewpoints they bring to the fight. Therefore, our
number one priority is people, our soldiers, our Army
civilians, their families, and veterans who are soldiers for
life.
In 2019, the Army published the ``Army People Strategy''
which describes a clear framework to acquire, develop, employ,
and return the diversity of talent needed to achieve total Army
readiness. The vision of this strategy is to build cohesive
teams that capitalize on the positive and powerful aspects of
Army culture, create people-focused commands and organizations
that prevent harmful behaviors and build trust across our
formations. The nation we serve is becoming increasingly
diverse and the soldiers and Army civilians we recruit will
reflect those trends.
To keep our Army strong and accomplish the mission, we must
attract, recruit, and retain people who embody the best of
America. And we must offer them opportunities that allow them
to fulfill their aspirations. A diverse and talented force of
trained and cohesive teams is the most important indicator of
our readiness.
Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, members of the
subcommittee, I thank you for your generous and unwavering
support of our outstanding soldiers, civilian professionals,
and their families. I look forward to our discussion and your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Schaefer can be found in the
Appendix on page 57.]
Mr. Banks. Thank you.
Mr. Parker.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANKLIN R. PARKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE
NAVY
Mr. Parker. Good afternoon, Chairman Banks, Ranking Member
Kim, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I want
to convey on behalf of Secretary Del Toro and the senior
Department of the Navy civilian and military leadership that
our ultimate objective is to produce the best combat-ready
naval forces in the world.
To meet our mission with an All-Volunteer Force, we must
therefore make the idea of service attractive to all Americans.
As many leaders in the Department of the Navy have said, the
best way to accomplish this is to build a force that reflects
the America it deserves. We strive to cultivate a force that
draws strength from America's boundless diversity, one that
seeks out the intrinsic value in our differences woven into an
inclusive maritime force that not only incorporates racial and
gender diversity but diverse experience in varied backgrounds,
ethnicities, and beliefs.
The active inclusion enables us to bridge our collective
differences and to solve problems on and away from the
battlefield. Inclusion is founded on respect which breeds
trust, fostering healthier command climates, and therefore
fostering readiness. Our greatest asset is our sailors,
Marines, and their families along with our civilian workforce.
To retain our competitive advantage in these times, we must
leverage the strengths of all people. Valuing diversity is a
way of enabling all segments of our society to understand that
their capacity to serve is valued and to help create conditions
in which they will not only want to serve but also will stay
and have the opportunity to realize their full potential. This
will allow the Navy and Marine Corps to more fully avail
ourselves of the best possible talent that all America has to
offer.
Our Navy and Marine Corps team must foster a culture of
warfighting excellence. Treating each other with dignity and
respect is foundational to that effort. To that end, we're
exploring data-driven approaches to increase our understanding
of existing challenges and improve our efforts to address them.
We are making progress in creating an environment that
embraces diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. Our
country is more diverse than ever. However, that diversity is
not fully reflected in our military, especially in the senior
military leadership ranks.
Similarly, the majority of our service members come from
only a portion of our Nation, leaving other areas of the
country less represented. Competing in today's complex global
environment requires us to expand our geographic diversity, to
find the most innovative and open-minded cadre of recruits from
every part of this great Nation.
Harnessing a new generation of talent will best be
accomplished by actively seeking to incorporate skilled
individuals from all regions, backgrounds, and segments of
society. The retention of our best qualified from all corners
of America is equally important. As leaders, we must
concentrate on the fundamentals of good leadership, knowing
that engaging our people, supporting their development, and
equipping them to succeed will help them find fulfillment in
their careers consistent with their faithful commitment to
serving our country.
Our Nation needs a strong, well-trained, and well-equipped
Navy and Marine Corps to address the wide array of challenges
and threats we face. To be a combat-ready force, we must
leverage the strengths of our people. We are doing our utmost
to build a force that draws from and therefore reflects our
entire Nation, thereby increasing our military readiness and
maritime dominance by assessing the full range of our Nation's
talent.
As we look forward to the future, we must not take for
granted what makes our Navy and Marine Corps unparalleled and
unmatched: the people, Active Duty, Reserves, civilians, and
their families who serve this country. I look forward to
working with you to ensure that our efforts meaningfully and
effectively support the well-being of our sailors, Marines,
civilians, and their families and that we always best position
them to fulfill their vital roles in support of our national
security interests. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
today. I stand ready to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Parker can be found in the
Appendix on page 65.]
Mr. Banks. Thank you.
Mr. Wagner.
STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX WAGNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR
FORCE FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
FORCE
Mr. Wagner. Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I'm proud to testify
today about the Department of the Air Force's efforts to
recruit and retain the most lethal, effective, and
collaborative force possible. Dominant air and space power
derives not only from our exquisite platforms but from the
dedicated and talented people that operate them. Intentional
diversity and inclusion efforts allow us to tap into the full
talents of the American people and then leverage those talents
to defend the Nation.
Our diversity and inclusion initiatives are focused on
talent acquisition and development and informed by science and
business best practices, congressional mandates, data-focused
policy reviews and assessments, and the lived experiences of
airmen and guardians working together every single day. As the
People's Republic of China seeks to increasingly compete with
us in the air and space domains, I believe that having a
cohesive, diverse team, including both race and gender but also
regional, cultural, and intellectual diversity, provides us
real advantages on the battlefield of the future.
But we're not only competing on the global stage, we're
also in a race with the private sector for the same talent.
That competition is as intense as ever with record low
unemployment and record high wage growth. To recruit and retain
the world's most capable workforce, our diverse nation must see
our military as an employer of choice. The challenging
recruiting environment combined with a growing lack of
understanding of the military has resulted in historically low
youth propensity.
We've got to expand our efforts among previously untapped
markets of diverse talent. Anyone eligible to serve who meets
our high standards and is courageous enough to say they'll
support and defend the Constitution should be able to do so.
And if we don't invest in growing propensity among women and
the Nation's fasted growing racial and ethnic groups, we risk
the future of the All-Volunteer Force.
Of course, despite strong 90 percent retention overall, our
data tells us that airmen and guardians of color, and
especially women, have lower retention rates. To fix this,
we're taking proactive steps fueled by an inspector general-led
series of reviews to better understand and analyze disparities
in military justice and promotion rates and career development
selection. You've all got my opening statement for the record.
So, I want to close by sharing a personal experience that
influenced my appreciation for how diversity and inclusion
drives better outcomes.
At my last job, we planned to release a report on aerospace
and defense in the year 2050. And I wanted to do it at South by
Southwest [SxSW], the Nation's largest technology and
innovation festival. To reach that type of educated creative
workforce at South by [SxSW], we needed to compete for
attention with consumer-facing brands that often spent millions
to launch their products or TV shows.
I thought we could get noticed by giving away cool swag
alongside the report. And my idea was branded socks. We spent
some time debating the color of the socks, the logo, and just
how many to order.
And just before finalizing the plan, a young woman on my
team came in and asked if she could speak to me privately. She
confided, ``Alex, you know women don't really wear crew
socks.'' I asked, ``Well, what do they wear?'' And she
responded, ``Ankle socks.''
It had never occurred to me to order any other kind of
socks than the kind that I was familiar with. Her suggestion
had merit and we ended up ordering half ankle and half crew
socks. Of course, the socks were a hit.
But what was telling was the demand for the ankle socks by
both women and men was higher than for the crew socks and
substantially so. Our entire project was more effective because
a woman on my team was comfortable sharing her perspective with
a pretty opinionated male boss and that I was open to that
input. Intentionally building a diverse team and then creating
an environment where everyone feels like their voices are
valued and heard is not only the right thing to do but it gets
you better outcomes.
Given the DAF's [Department of the Air Force's] high-stake
mission, we need every tool available to defend the Nation and
our interests and maximizing the talents and unleashing the
problem-solving skills of all of our people, provide America
with distinct advantages. With that, I look forward to the
conversation and your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wagner can be found in the
Appendix on page 71.]
Mr. Banks. Okay. Thank you very much. To begin questions, I
will yield 5 minutes to Representative Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Chairman Banks. Mr. Cisneros, are
you familiar with the tweet--it is both on the screens, it
should be up there and right behind me--by the former DODEA
[Department of Defense Education Activity] Chief of Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion, Kelisa Wing? Are you familiar with the
tweet? Can you please read the tweet aloud?
Mr. Cisneros. ``So exhausted at the white folx [sic] in
these PD [professional development] sessions. This lady
actually had the caudacity [sic] to say Black people can be
racist too. . . . I had to stop the session and give Karen the
business . . . we are not the majority; we don't have power. (A
thread) why ask for assistance.''
Ms. Stefanik. And, again, for the viewers who are watching
this, this is the former chief of DEI for DODEA, for schools in
our Department of Defense. This is wildly inappropriate and
unacceptable. Would you agree with that, Mr. Cisneros?
Mr. Cisneros. I do agree that that is not acceptable. It's
not condoned by--it's not something I would condone. It's not
condoned by DODEA or the Department of Defense.
Ms. Stefanik. Well, when I raised this issue, in fact, I
wrote a letter to the Department of September of last year and
did not receive a response. It was only when I wrote a follow-
up letter on November of last year. We did finally get a
response in December stating the Department was conducting an
inquiry into this matter.
Today, 6 months after that initial inquiry, you responded 3
hours prior to this hearing which is a trend for Biden
administration officials at the last minute scrambling before
these hearings, claiming that you determined Ms. Wing was
speaking ``in a personal capacity and that her colleagues never
heard her make similar comments at work.'' However,
interestingly, in the letter, which I want to submit for the
record----
Mr. Banks. Without objection.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
Ms. Stefanik [continuing]. It also states that she has been
transferred as part of headquarters restructuring. She was
reassigned to another position that does not include diversity,
equity, and inclusion-specific responsibilities. I have a
feeling that has to do with the fact that we have shined light
on this. But my question for you is, will you commit to making
the review and the findings publicly available to Congress and
to service members?
Mr. Cisneros. Ma'am, you did get the letter today. I
apologize that it did not come sooner. But I will say, also, my
team has been down here, the DODEA team as well, to talk with
staff on this topic.
Ms. Stefanik. No, there was no response to the letter. We
were promised 30 days; 30 days after September would be
October.
Mr. Cisneros. The director of DODEA schools, Tom Brady--the
director of schools, Tom Brady, was down on the Hill to talk
with staff as well.
Ms. Stefanik. Don't cover up for the trend of the Biden
administration. This is the second hearing in 2 weeks where the
response to a letter delayed is given the day of, or the day
before the hearing with FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation]
Director Chris Wray. My question for you is: Will you make the
findings of this review publicly available to Congress and to
service men and women?
Mr. Cisneros. Ms. Wing is a GS [General Schedule] employee.
She's not a senior executive. There are personnel--there are
restrictions that we have to follow. But we will look into the
matter as far as to see what can be shared and what can't.
Ms. Stefanik. Well, we are requesting that. My next
question for you is: Have you read Kelisa Wing's books titled,
``What is White Privilege?'', ``What Does It Mean to Defund the
Police?'', ``What is the Black Lives Matter Movement?'' Have
you read those books?
Mr. Cisneros. I have not read those books.
Ms. Stefanik. Are you aware, however, that those books are
in DODEA K-12 schools throughout the country?
Mr. Cisneros. I do not know--I can't say with certainty. I
do not know that they are in those libraries at all or if they
have been or if they are now.
Ms. Stefanik. Well, they are. Do you think that is
appropriate?
Mr. Cisneros. I don't know for a fact that they are.
Ms. Stefanik. They are. I am telling you they are. That is
why I asked you the question. You should know. You're a DOD
official. I am informing you. You should know the answer that
they are available.
Mr. Cisneros. Well, I----
Ms. Stefanik. And one reason you should know that is
because in her own presentation as a DOD employee at a DODEA
summit, she stated ``my passion work is dismantling disparate
discipline systems and I'm hugely passionate about dismantling
the school-to-prison pipeline. I've written a book, `Promises
and Possibilities: Dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline'.
Shameless plug.'' That is her words, end quote.
So, while conducting her official duties as a DODEA
employee, she advertised not only her personal social media
accounts, which included this tweet, her personal websites, but
she advertised her personal books. Are you aware that this is
illegal for DOD employees to advertise and promote their
personal books that they will profit off of those sales?
Mr. Cisneros. Again, this was a book that she wrote, and a
personal matter. It was on her personal tweet, I guess, from
what I understand----
Ms. Stefanik. No, no. It was not a personal tweet. It was
at a DOD summit. In her capacity presenting as a DOD official,
she promoted her book. And, in fact, she said, she stated, this
is a shameless plug for her book. Is that illegal and is that
appropriate?
Mr. Cisneros. I don't know who she was talking to or what
the summit was. I'm not aware of that, but I can look into it
and I'll get back to you.
Ms. Stefanik. You seem to not know a lot of what is
happening in the Department. You seem to be inappropriate. So,
my expectation is that we will continue educating you on what
is happening in the Biden administration Department of Defense.
But this is absolutely unacceptable. We expect that report. And
I will take it as a result that we deliver, making sure that
she should have been fired completely, but she was at least
moved somewhere else, not dealing with our kids' educational
systems.
Mr. Cisneros. Well, there are restrictions. Again, she is a
GS employee. She's not a senior executive. The inquiry did
find, you know, the tweets that she made or comments that she
made were not in line with the Department of Defense or DODEA
schools. But they were made on a personal basis. That was the
result of the inquiry.
And we will look into the privacy that's in there. And we
will share--we will look into what we can share and what we
can't share.
Ms. Stefanik. I yield back to the Chair.
Mr. Banks. Yield 5 minutes to Ranking Member Kim.
Mr. Kim. I am going to yield to Congresswoman Jill Tokuda.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you very much. You know, taking a look at
the testimony, I appreciate all of you being here today. We do
see that there is an increase in AANHPI [Asian American and
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander] recruitment. Hawaii, where I
represent, is actually one of the hot spots historically for
recruitment where you have a significant number coming from our
Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander communities.
Now according to the military's workplace equal opportunity
survey from 2017, almost a quarter of Asian American servicemen
reported racial or ethnic harassment or discrimination. My
question to you is, during the pandemic, our country witnessed
a significant rise in AAPI [Asian American and Pacific
Islander] hate and discrimination incidents. Has there been an
updated survey done post-pandemic that has tracked to see if
this is the same case with our military service men and women?
Mr. Cisneros. The discrimination that's been taking place
amongst our AAPI community throughout the country because of
the COVID [coronavirus disease] pandemic was just unacceptable
and very unfortunate. But I will tell you I have not received
since I've been the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer,
since I've been the Under Secretary for Personnel and
Readiness, I have not come across any cases within the
Department of Defense where I've seen any cases of
discrimination based on that.
Ms. Tokuda. Okay. Well, sir, it was more than unfortunate.
We are talking about lives being in danger. We are talking
about discrimination and hate racism in our country.
And in fact, even 2017, before the pandemic, when we were
talking about COVID and we had things like ``Kung Flu'' being
flung out from the highest offices of this country, you already
had one in four service members of color of AAPI background
saying that they felt intimidated, felt discrimination. I can
only imagine that would have increased. So, are you telling me
that you have never heard of any incidences of AAPI hate,
discrimination taking place in the last 2\1/2\ years when we
have literally seen people beaten in our streets?
Mr. Cisneros. If you're talking in general across the
United States----
Ms. Tokuda. I am talking about within the services, sir.
Secretary Cisneros [continuing]. Yes, I have. Within the
Department of the military, I have not come across or none have
been open to me where people have been discriminated or put in
a situation to where----
Ms. Tokuda. Clearly you folks have not updated the survey.
I would humbly ask that if we did the survey in 2017 and we saw
a trend where one in four members felt discrimination at this
time, felt ethnic harassment, then I would guess that we should
be doing a follow-up survey, disaggregated by ethnicity, so we
can see across the board, where is discrimination and
harassment taking place? What are we doing to actually address
this?
I want to move on to my next question, still somewhat
related. As we focus our attention now on strategic competition
with China, combating anti-AANHPI hate, bias, discrimination,
and xenophobia is not just going to be about protecting the
civil rights of our people. It is also going to be a strategic
imperative.
Now DEI initiatives help combat anti-AANHPI hate and
discrimination and should be creating a welcoming and
attractive environment that can draw the best talent and
workforce to the Department and enhance our competitive edge
with China. We need people that have critical language and
cultural understanding to meet the demands in this vastly
diverse Indo-Pacific region right on the edge of my district.
And that includes China because competition is not just about
the assets and capabilities we can field, but also more
importantly, the strategies and doctrines we employ.
To succeed in that requires the empathy to understand both
the culture and the philosophy that define the way our
strategic competitors think and perceive the world. It is hard
to be able to do that and acquire that without strong AAPI
representation in our military and especially in its senior
leadership. We know that this works.
One only has to look back to World War II. My grandfather
was in the Military Intelligence Service. Thanks to these brave
men, we know for a fact that the war was shortened and lives
were saved.
And yet we also know that for these AANHPI men, when they
came home, many of them came home to racism, discrimination,
hate. To the panel today, now as we look forward to having to
engage critically with strategic competition with China, how
are we going to learn from the mistakes of the past? And how
are we going to better protect and foster a positive
environment that will allow us to recruit and retain and take
care of the civil rights of our AANHPI servicemen and civilian
personnel?
Mr. Cisneros. Ma'am, we want to make sure the environment
is inclusive for all of our service members and all those that
want to join the service, whether they're AAPI or any racial or
ethnic background. My family is a melting pot. I have an aunt
that is Chinese. I have cousins that are Chinese.
One of my first department heads when I was in the U.S.
Navy was Filipino. I had the pleasure of working with many of
them throughout serving in the United States Navy and in the
Armed Forces. So, making sure that they're all treated fairly
and everybody is treated fairly is a big thing, and we need to
do better----
Ms. Tokuda. I agree we need to do better.
Secretary Cisneros [continuing]. At recruiting them and
promoting them.
Ms. Tokuda. Sir, my time is about to yield. And I
appreciate--yes, I hope you treat every service man and woman
like it was your family, your friend, that you were taking a
look. And I can tell you right now if we have no data to even
say whether or not----
Mr. Banks. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. Tokuda [continuing]. They face discrimination, then we
are not taking care of them like we would our own loved ones.
Mr. Banks. Yield 5 minutes to Representative Gaetz.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gaetz. I would like to go back to the tweets of the
racist person that works for you. What does caudacity mean?
Mr. Cisneros. I have no idea, Congressman.
Mr. Gaetz. You took 6 months to investigate one tweet. You
didn't even figure out what the words meant?
Mr. Cisneros. I didn't investigate the thing. She's a DOD--
--
Mr. Gaetz. Well, you said in a Fox News article that you
were going to take 30 days and investigate, and it took you 6
months. In a 6-month investigation, you guys didn't learn what
caudacity meant? I think you know. I think every person that is
going to watch this exchange knows you know. She is trying to
lash audaciousness with someone being Caucasian, isn't she?
Mr. Cisneros. I have no idea, Congressman.
Mr. Gaetz. Wow, what an investigation.
Mr. Cisneros. Well, I did not--I will say I did not do the
investigation. She is a GS employee that's employed by DODEA.
DODEA conducted the investigation.
Mr. Gaetz. Gosh, the Pentagon told Fox News Digital that
Gil Cisneros would provide a final decision in 30 days. So,
someone at the Pentagon is throwing your name out there as
being responsible for this. And now it looks foolish that you
are suggesting you don't know what that means.
Mr. Cisneros. Well, I would say that quote did not come
from me. I don't know who that came from.
Mr. Gaetz. PD--hold on. PD sessions--let's go to this, Mr.
Cisneros. What is a PD session?
Mr. Cisneros. My guess would be personal development.
Mr. Gaetz. Personal development? You don't think it is
professional development?
[Simultaneous speaking.]
Mr. Gaetz. Another open matter for the investigation that
it didn't resolve. So, you don't know what caudacity means. She
is obviously talking about professional development there. And,
like, when she says I had to stop--or let's go to the next
claim, ``the caudacity to say that Black people can be racist
too.'' Mr. Cisneros, can Black people be racist, too?
Mr. Cisneros. I've already stated, Congressman, that I
didn't agree with her statements.
Mr. Gaetz. But I am asking you about that position. Can
Black people be racist?
Mr. Cisneros. This question is about me or my personal
beliefs. But again----
Mr. Gaetz. You are the leading official over DEI .
Mr. Cisneros. I don't agree----
Mr. Gaetz. A racist person who works for you puts out these
tweets, and you won't say whether you agree or disagree.
Mr. Cisneros. I told you----
Mr. Kim. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind members to
observe standards of decorum.
Mr. Gaetz. This is decorum. It is my time. Can Black people
be racist?
Mr. Cisneros. I do not agree with that tweet.
Mr. Gaetz. Do you agree with that statement? I am asking
you a statement. Can Black people be racist?
Mr. Cisneros. I'm not going to answer that, Congressman.
Mr. Gaetz. Why not?
Mr. Cisneros. Because you're asking me a personal opinion,
and that's not what this is about.
Mr. Gaetz. Well, actually, I am asking you in your capacity
as a senior DOD official in the Biden administration who is--
where we see recruiting falling off the table, whether or not
the embrace of racist tweets, whether shuffling these people
around rather than firing them, and whether this little
exchange here is helping or hurting recruiting. Let's go ahead
and put up the recruiting.
Mr. Cisneros. I will tell you we do not support racist
tweets. We do not support racism----
Mr. Gaetz. Well, did you----
Secretary Cisneros [continuing]. In the military.
Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. Fire this lady?
Mr. Cisneros. Again----
Mr. Gaetz. You hired her.
Secretary Cisneros [continuing]. As I--I did not hire her.
Mr. Gaetz. DOD hired her.
Mr. Cisneros. As it was stated earlier, she's a DODEA
employee. She's a GS employee. The inquiry that was done said
these tweets were done on a personal matter.
Mr. Gaetz. Oh, a personal matter. How do you know----
Mr. Cisneros. It was personal, and it was within----
Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. It is a personal matter if you
don't know that the PD could stand for professional
development? Mr. Cisneros, this a professional development
session where she attacked White colleagues and took the
position that Black people can't be racist. Now you can't
answer basic questions about it, and here is what I would
propose to you.
This is what we are looking at in recruiting right now. It
has fallen off the table. And when you have employees that you
don't fire who do racist things and say racist things, then you
really hurt the ability to recruit people who want to be part
of an inclusive and diverse force.
Mr. Cisneros. I would say the data that we have is not--the
recruiting is not falling off because of that. But again, the
Department of Defense, DODEA does not agree with the tweets
that she made.
Mr. Gaetz. It was at-3:00 o'clock during the workday. You
didn't fire her. If someone puts out racist things, do you fire
them or do you just move them around?
Mr. Cisneros. That was not an official--that's her own
personal Twitter account.
Mr. Gaetz. See, there is the problem with the double
standard, Mr. Cisneros. When Caucasian members of the military
post about the Second Amendment, or supporting building the
wall, you all seem to be on a White supremacy snipe hunt. You
seem to take people's personal views and weaponize them against
them.
And I have had people in my district who serve that wonder
whether or not some joke that they forwarded or meme that they
liked is going to result in the ruining of their careers. But
you have no such interest when it is a person like this. You
delayed the investigation.
Your own name was what DOD put out as conducting the
investigation. You delayed it. This lady makes, like, 160,000
dollars a year. Do you really think today the taxpayers should
be paying this lady that amount of money?
Mr. Cisneros. The investigation was not conducted by me.
That was never----
Mr. Gaetz. Well, why did the Pentagon say it was you?
Mr. Cisneros. I don't know who in the Pentagon said that.
But I will tell you it's a misstatement----
Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chairman, I seek to enter--well, I will tell
you what.
Mr. Cisneros. The investigation was conducted by DODEA
because she's a DODEA employee.
Mr. Gaetz. Well, if you just fired racist people, then
maybe you wouldn't have to go through this. But, Mr. Chairman,
I have a series of unanimous consent requests.
Mr. Banks. Without objection.
Mr. Gaetz. So, first, is ``Pentagon drags out decision
after probe into woke diversity chief accused of anti-White
people tweets.'' The second is ``Wing selected as DODEA Chief
of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.'' And that is from
DODEA.edu. The next is ``Everybody can be racist: DOD Chief
diversity educator defends tweets targeted toward white
educators.''
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 81.]
Mr. Banks. Without objection, so ordered. Gentleman's time
has expired. I yield 5 minutes to Representative Houlahan.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I feel that the
conversation that we are having right now by its literal very
nature and its words is divisive and politicizing of the
military. And I feel as though it's one of the reasons why, not
the reason why, recruiting may be seeing a sag is that people
don't see themselves in the military.
They don't see their nation in the military. And I am
embarrassed by the tone and tenor of this conversation. It does
not reflect the dignity of this body, and it's not respectful
of the people who are sitting in front of us today.
My questions do have to do with my own personal experience
having served as a woman in the military in the late 1980s and
the early 1990s, and about the progress that we are making with
51 percent of the population who really do have the interest
and the will of serving our all-volunteer military. But we have
some work to do in this area. And so, I would like to ask you
some questions about that.
The ceiling on the percentage of women allowed to serve in
the military was repealed in 1967. Women continued, however, to
be prohibited from serving in many positions by statute and by
policy, particularly those occupations that were related
directly to combat arms specialties. In 1993, all laws
prohibiting females from serving in any occupation were
repealed.
However, by policy, women were still excluded from serving
in units or occupations involving in direct combat. It took
another 22 years until December of 2015 for all combat jobs to
be open to women with no waivers and with no exceptions. So, my
question is first to you, Under Secretary Cisneros, but really
for any of you all.
In the years since that, we have learned a lot about the
full inclusion of women in the military. Does the current DOD
training and policy increase the opportunity for women to fully
participate and serve, including in combat roles? And do you
believe that the addition of this giant demographic of 51
percent of our population has enhanced our readiness?
Mr. Cisneros. Representative Houlahan, to answer your
question right there, the last one first is yes. They do
enhance our readiness. And I think women are an integral part
of our military service today that serve in the military.
They are nearly 20 percent of the force. We know that in
order to improve and to increase our force that we need to be--
we need to be more inclusive of women joining the force. And we
know that we need to do a better job of ensuring that they stay
around so that they can move up the ranks.
Ms. Houlahan. And if there is a way--given that you gave me
the exact statistic that I hold as well which is that women do
make up about 20 percent of the officer corps right now. But
they are unfortunately less than 10 percent of our highest
leadership positions. And here is likely why.
My argument would be to you and to this committee here that
a true meritocracy is not possible right now. And as much as I
value a meritocracy as many of us do, it is not possible when
the military personnel system does not typically allow for
lateral entry. And therefore, the average general or flag
officer has been in service for about 30 years which means that
females who have been in the service for about 40 years do not
likely have the qualifications or the ability to be able to be
considered for these promotions because of these restrictions
that existed while they were rising through the ranks.
As a retired Air Force General Lester Lyles who chaired the
Military Leadership Diversity Commission stated, ``We know that
the exclusion--this exclusion hinders women from promotion.
They are not getting credit for being in combat arms and that
is important for their consideration for most senior flag
ranks.'' So, with my remaining minute and a half, Mr. Cisneros,
can you talk about why given in this context, focusing on
retention of female service members is indeed important and
critical to fulfill the services' goals of promoting a diverse
and inclusive leadership policy as is outlined by the DOD?
Mr. Cisneros. Congresswoman, the data we have shows that
women service members are outperforming their male counterparts
as they move up the ranks. But what we're also seeing is that
they leave more often than their male counterparts do. That is
something that we found out when we conducted the sprints that
we did last year.
This is something that we need to continue to work on to
solve. I think Secretary Austin has done a tremendous job of
searching out and finding those qualified individuals. We have
four within the--within the Department of Defense, our TRANSCOM
[U.S. Transportation Command] commander, our [SOUTHCOM] [U.S.
Southern Command] commander, our Vice CNO [Chief of Naval
Operations], are all four-star GFOs, general and flag officers.
The Commandant of the Coast Guard is a woman as well.
But I, by no means, would tell you that we can't do better.
We need to do better. And I am committed to that we will do
better.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. I know that is so much more that I
have to ask, and I have no time left. I yield back, and thank
you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Banks. Thank you. I yield 5 minutes to General Bergman.
Mr. Bergman. Good afternoon, all. The title of this
hearing, ``Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Impacts to the
Department of Defense and the Armed Services,'' the bottom line
is readiness. Are we ready to fight?
There is only one reason for the military and that is to
protect and defend our citizens and our country. Other than
that, we don't need one. So, I would like to--this is going to
be real easy. This is going to be not even multiple choice. The
answers are going to be positive or negative. Okay?
And what I would like to do is here is the basic question.
Does DEI affect--and I am going to read things here and we are
going to start with you, Mr. Cisneros, and say positively or
negatively. For example, does DEI as it exists today in the
Department of Defense affect recruiting, positive or negative?
Mr. Cisneros. Positive.
Dr. Schaefer. Positive.
Mr. Parker. Positive.
Mr. Wagner. Congressman, we need to recruit from all of
America and make sure we get the talent----
Mr. Bergman. Positive or negative?
Mr. Wagner. Very positive, sir.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. So why haven't we made our numbers?
Mr. Cisneros. Well, Congressman, as you look at the data--
--
Mr. Bergman. So, it takes a while. So, what you are saying
is your programs will take effect over time.
Mr. Cisneros. What I'm telling you right now is there's not
a propensity to serve right now within the general population.
Mr. Bergman. And DEI is going to solve that?
Mr. Cisneros. I think DEI is going to give us a larger pool
to recruit from. And now it's not just DEI , as we said, by
sexuality, race----
Mr. Bergman. I don't want--I have got some more questions.
I will look forward to the numbers when we see September 30th
whether we hit our numbers or not in recruiting to see the
effects.
Good programs, and there is a lot of good ideas in DOD. But
they are not evaluated over time, and we have too many programs
that are still on the books--I'm not going to start naming
them; you have seen them in your departments--that we need to
stop doing. The hardest thing we have to do sometimes is stop
doing something that isn't working. Okay. Retention, positive
or negative?
Mr. Cisneros. Positive.
Dr. Schaefer. Positive.
Mr. Parker. Positive.
Mr. Wagner. Definitely positive.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. Promotion?
Mr. Cisneros. Promotion, positive.
Dr. Schaefer. Positive.
Mr. Parker. Positive.
Mr. Wagner. Congressman, of course, it is always a good
thing.
Mr. Bergman. Positive or negative.
Mr. Wagner. It is always a positive when we have more
diversity.
Mr. Bergman. Command selection?
Mr. Cisneros. Positive.
Dr. Schaefer. Positive.
Mr. Parker. Positive.
Mr. Wagner. Positive.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. The point is annually we look at
everything from command selection rates to promotion rates to
retention rates. And the one I didn't ask was family readiness
and family preparedness because, to your point, when people
leave the service, leave active service, they leave usually for
a reason. And one of those reasons in today's military is the
effect on the family, the overall, and that may be a reason to
leave.
But the reason I wanted to ask you all those questions is
that we are going to have this same question next year. I am
going to ask it exactly the same way. And what I expect to--
when you say positive, I want to see numbers. Okay?
But most importantly, what I am concerned about is command
selection and command environment because when we fight, we
deploy our units all over the world. And at that point, you
don't have the opportunity to go back to a program or a class
that you went to in the Pentagon or wherever your base was
before you deployed. You are in the fight.
And if you don't have a unit that believes in itself and it
believes in itself because of its commanding officer and its
senior enlisted, there is no other reason--there is no other
reason that that unit will be successful. And being successful
means you accomplish the mission and you bring people home. So
having said that, I look at this as teeing it up to make sure
that next year when we have this hearing, we want to see
substantial numbers that show that you said was positive, was,
in fact, positive, and not just posturing. And with that, I
yield back.
Mr. Banks. Thank you. I yield 5 minutes to Rep. Strickland.
Ms. Strickland. Thank you very much, Chairman Banks and
Ranking Member Kim. When we talk about recruiting and
retention, we know that when the economy is strong, when
unemployment is down, when wages are up, in addition to the
challenges that we face in the military, housing, childcare,
pay, spousal employment. That all has an impact on whether or
not serving in the military is attractive.
And it is a little troubling to me that instead of
addressing this national security issue that we have some folks
on this panel who are obsessed with tweets which, by the way,
if you are going to be obsessed with tweets that say things
inappropriate, a lot of people that we serve with would be
disqualified from public service. But I digress.
My first question is for Ms. Schaefer. I understand that
the training pipeline to become part of infantry includes about
2 hours of equal opportunity training between basic and one
station unit training. Does that sound accurate?
Dr. Schaefer. It does.
Ms. Strickland. And I also understand that over that period
of time, the same trainee will get over 250 hours of rifle
marksmanship training. Is that more or less, correct?
Dr. Schaefer. Correct.
Ms. Strickland. So, Ms. Schaefer, do you think that this
disparity, 2 hours of DEI training versus 250 hours of rifle
training, represents something that is going to contribute to
the decline of the effectiveness of the Army?
Dr. Schaefer. No, and I would clarify that the 2 hours of
DEI training, it's actually 1 hour depending on which part of
basic training you go through. That is actually statutorily
mandated MEO [Military Equal Opportunity] and EEO [Equal
Employment Opportunity] training.
Ms. Strickland. Alright, thank you. Evolving national
demographics mean that almost half of the 70 million or so
Generation Z Americans are racial minorities and almost a third
are immigrants or children of immigrants. RAND studied this on
behalf of the Army, and their research shows that individual
recruiter characteristics such as gender and race are directly
related to recruiter productivity. In other words, young
Americans are more likely to join the military if their
recruiters look like them. Mr. Cisneros, can you please
describe how changing demographics inform the Department's
long-term approach to talent recruitment and retention?
Mr. Cisneros. As you stated, right, the demographics of the
Nation are changing. Eventually one day, we're going to be a
minority-majority nation. And not only are we changing, the
minority population increasing, but it's also spreading out
through different parts of the country as well.
Being Hispanic, Hispanics are typically part of the
southwest. But now they've kind of moved into other areas of
the country, down in the south and the northeast as well. But
looking at this, what we want to do is really kind of ensure as
you said, right?
We want to--we want to ensure that we can show that
individuals--you know, when somebody is being recruited, that
they're looking--that they can see people that look like them
and they can imagine that ``Hey, I can do this as well one
day.'' And so, it is important, right, to make sure that
individuals are able to see themselves in this career field,
right? I think the personal touch is very important.
And when I first took over this job, I met with the
commanding officer, Recruit Command in the Army. You know, we
have to be sure that we set people up for success. And he told
me a story about how they had an Asian--an Asian service member
who was serving--was from Southern California. But they put him
to recruit in the Bronx, in New York.
So, they quickly realized their mistake. And they moved him
back to the community where he was from so he could appeal to
those individuals. Now that doesn't mean our recruiters can
only recruit people that look like them. But, you know, I think
when we go after certain communities, it is important that
they're able to see someone like themselves that they can
picture that in their future.
Ms. Strickland. Great, thank you. And I just want to share
something about diversity training. In 2017, the DOD did an
equal opportunity survey, and here is what we discovered.
Diversity training is effective and popular. Eighty-two
percent of service members reported diversity is important to
building a high-quality workforce. Eighty-three percent
supported their service's diversity efforts, and 75 percent
reported that diversity initiatives positively affected their
service.
Ninety-two percent said that training was effective in
reducing or preventing harassment and discrimination. So, the
people who are serving, the vast majority of them say that DEI
efforts are, in fact, effective. I yield back.
Mr. Banks. Thank you. I yield 5 minutes to Representative
Waltz.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to
start out and make something very clear to all of our
witnesses, everybody watching, and my colleagues. We would not
be having these conversations if we did not consistently--
certainly, well, I will say from my perspective, if I did not
consistently have soldiers, cadets, family members, and their
extended networks incredibly upset, disturbed, offended, and
bringing us things like, ``How to Understand Your Whiteness and
White Rage,'' a lecture taught at West Point, taught by a woman
who said the Republican Party today, not years ago, not in
history as part of a history class, today is a party of White
supremacy, that White people are outraged by the advancement of
Black people. A lecturer at the United States Military Academy,
and I can go on.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will enter all of these into the
record. Orientation training at the U.S. Air Force Academy:
don't say--recommending to brand-new impressionable cadets,
``Don't say Mom and Dad; say parent.'' ``Don't say boyfriend
and girlfriend. Say partner.'' ``Don't say color-blind.''
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 92.]
Mr. Waltz. You know, we can go down the list. So, I guess
my point is, and to my colleagues as well, this isn't coming
from us. I think, deep down, a lot of people think that
Republican lawmakers are making this stuff up just to score
political points.
I would have no idea about any of it unless I had whole
binders full that cadets and soldiers were bringing to us. So,
what you need to ask yourselves, and I said the same thing to
your enlisted leaders across the services, why aren't they
coming to your chain of command? I said this to the Air Force
Academy Superintendent. Why didn't they feel comfortable coming
to him or his chain of command? Why did we have a conservative
Muslim cadet who was disturbed and offended, didn't feel
comfortable, or a Caucasian cadet who thought they would be
canceled? You need to ask yourselves this as we deal with this
recruiting crisis.
And I ask you to pull those filters back and maybe look at
kind of the other side of this equation. So, we had the first
African American Secretary of Defense order a service-wide,
entire Department, 2.5 million-member stand-down over extremism
in the ranks. Yet--and we had a hearing in this committee on
the same topic.
Yet a year later, the Pentagon's own study shows 100
service members out of 2.5 million--in case everybody wants to
do the math, that is 0.0004 percent--engaged in any form of
extremism. And we hear a lot about, well, we need a military
that reflects society.
In fact, the military is overrepresented compared to
society with--by 2020 figures, 20 percent African American
compared to 13 percent, 18 percent Hispanic compared to 18
percent. So, I am trying to figure out, what is the crisis that
you're trying to address, Mr. Cisneros? We have less than 0.001
percent engaging in extremism. We have a representation, a
strong representation, a proud representation of minorities
within our ranks. Why this focus on DEI?
Mr. Cisneros. I don't think there's a crisis that we're
trying to address. But we want to ensure that all individuals--
--
Mr. Waltz. We had a training stand-down from the Secretary
of Defense as the first order. Not on accidents, not planes
crashing, not on ships crashing, although those things are
happening. We didn't have servicewide stand-downs then. We had
one on extremism in the ranks, though their own study showed no
extremism.
Mr. Cisneros. Well----
Mr. Waltz. And we have an overrepresentation. We do have a
military that reflects society----
Mr. Cisneros. There are--there are cases----
Mr. Waltz [continuing]. That my colleagues would assert.
Mr. Cisneros. You just said yourself, sir, that there are
cases of extremism. Now you may say it's, like, not that many.
But I think 100----
Mr. Waltz. We lose more people in accidents.
Secretary Cisneros [continuing]. 100 cases of extremism----
Mr. Waltz. Out of 2.5 million?
Secretary Cisneros [continuing]. Is 100 too many. I mean,
we had an individual just this month who got sentenced for
trying--he was a neo-Nazi----
Mr. Waltz. And that is horrific.
Secretary Cisneros [continuing]. Who was trying to turn his
platoon over.
Mr. Waltz. I want to be clear and on the record that should
always be prosecuted. We should never stand for it any more
than we should stand for those tweets. I want to get--so the
goal is the elimination then of any type of racism in the
military? Because racism will always exist. So, we have to look
at priorities with limited dollars.
Mr. Cisneros. Well, I think we are looking at priorities.
And Secretary Austin's priorities are defend the Nation----
Mr. Waltz. Could I just ask you very quickly? What is the
difference in equality and equity? Equity is equal outcomes.
How do you get equal outcomes in the United States military?
Mr. Cisneros. How do we get equal outcomes is by ensuring
that everyone is treated equally. Ensuring----
Mr. Waltz. That would be equal opportunity, my friend.
Equal outcomes is communism.
Mr. Cisneros. Well, we want----
Mr. Banks. Gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Banks. I yield 5 minutes to Representative Horsford.
Representative Tokuda? So Representative Davis, 5 minutes.
There we go.
Mr. Davis. Thanks so much, Mr. Chair, and to the witnesses
that are here today. I want to direct my first question to Mr.
Cisneros. In my district, the First Congressional District,
there are many rural communities.
Recently, school administrators have shared with me their
concerns about the criteria for maintaining JROTC [Junior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps] instructors. In rural areas
in North Carolina, there is clearly student interest in JROTC
programs participating and engaging. However, we are
experiencing challenges recruiting instructors. So, what are
your thoughts on how we can engage in rural communities?
Mr. Cisneros. Congressman, you know, the JROTC programs are
programs that have wide bipartisan support I believe here on
the Hill; they have the support of the Department of Defense.
They are community programs that are used to engage individuals
that are in high school.
So, they're very popular programs. Schools like them as
well. We want to do what we can to make sure that these
programs succeed. And also, you know, hopefully with the
support of Congress, we can expand these programs into other
areas as well.
Mr. Davis. Are you familiar with any barriers in particular
in rural communities that we may currently face to actually
keep JROTC programs active?
Mr. Cisneros. I'm not familiar with any particular program
that may be facing difficulties with keeping it active in a
rural community. But again, I think we're looking--we're more
than happy to work with your office to kind of find out any
solutions or hear about any issues that you may be experiencing
in your district.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, and I look forward to that. I want to
direct my question to Mr. Wagner and then come back to Mr.
Cisneros on this question as well. I am actually a proud former
assistant professor of aerospace studies at Detachment 600,
served as commandant of cadets at the time at East Carolina
University.
I am so proud to represent Elizabeth City State University
which is an HBCU [historically Black colleges and
universities]. The university, they have made significant
investments in their aviation program. And they are getting
great results to get interest amongst students and so forth in
the community.
They are also interested in activating the Air Force ROTC
program. I understand there is one HBCU in the Nation, one in
the Nation, that is actually viable. And my question to you is,
how do you recommend or suggest that we cultivate and utilize
HBCUs, especially those who are actually motivating students
towards aviation and space?
Mr. Wagner. Congressman, I'm very familiar with that
college. When I was at the Aerospace Industries Association, we
developed a partnership with leadership to cultivate students
at Elizabeth City. And one of the things and the challenges
that we've seen is that we need a better partnership with the
American people but also through their elected representatives
to get the word out for what we're doing to encourage ROTC but
specifically at HBCUs. You know, the Air Force has a program
where if you are a freshman at an HBCU, you meet a 2.5 minimum
GPA [grade point average], you meet our medical accession
standards, and you can pass our PT [physical training] test,
you can get a full scholarship for the next 3 years, including
a $10,000 housing allowance.
Mr. Davis. But let me ask this question. When we are
talking 1 in the Nation that is deemed viable and I believe
between host and cross-town, about 15. One? What are we doing
to cultivate the relationship and especially when we see areas
that are motivating students towards aviation----
Mr. Wagner. So, our----
Mr. Davis [continuing]. And space?
Mr. Wagner [continuing]. Our viability matrix involves a
number of graduates who are able to commission. So, I think it
begins with finding a better way to raise the visibility of
careers in the Air Force and Space Force, helping people
understand what the military is, reducing that familiarity gap.
And then I think we'll be able to partner aggressively to
figure out better ways to attract and then access more
officers, particularly given all the things we're doing with
HBCUs.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Cisneros, give a brief response. Thank you.
Mr. Cisneros. We definitely support, you know, our
partnerships and relationships at our HBCUs amongst all the
services and OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense]. Just
this past--just earlier this year, the Secretary was down at
Howard where the Air Force partnered with Howard University and
a number of HBCUs to create a UARC [university-affiliated
research center] that is going to help fund $90 million of
research for HBCUs, led by Howard University, that's going to
really help raise the level of research and development that's
done at those universities and help hopefully raise them up to
R1 status.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chair, I appreciate it. There are other
HBCUs. Howard is the one that is viable. And I would love to
see the Secretary make it to others. Thank you, and I yield
back.
Mr. Banks. Thank you. Five minutes to Representative Mills.
Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
everyone that is here. I first want to start out by saying that
I am a very proud United States Army combat veteran. Served a
lot of my time overseas, happily spent a lot of that in Fort
Bragg and the 82nd Airborne Division where I served with a
Cambodian gentleman who was born in Cambodia and lived in Los
Angeles.
I served with a Black gentleman who was born in Brooklyn. I
served with a Caucasian gentleman who was born in Lombard,
Illinois. There was quite a bit of diversity. We'd come from
different walks of life.
But what brought us together wasn't DEI and critical race
theory-based training. It was cohesive training and
understanding of what it was to have increased lethality and
bring us together knowing that we would be there to fight and
protect one another. Now I want to ask a quick question to all
of you. When is the last time each of you had walked through
Arlington Cemetery?
Mr. Cisneros. Congressman, I was just there last week.
Dr. Schaefer. I walk through there almost every day. I live
in that area.
Mr. Parker. Two years ago, Congressman.
Mr. Wagner. Congressman, I used to be the Chief of Staff to
the Army Secretary which as you know is the executive agent for
Arlington. So, it's been----
Mr. Mills. Excellent, so then you can all answer this
question very easily. How is our headstones aligned? Are they
in rows by race or by gender or by what their religious belief
is or their sexual orientation?
Mr. Cisneros. Some of them are done by religious belief. I
believe those Jewish service members have a different tombstone
than a cross. But, you know, they are aligned diagonally and
make sure they're aligned in formation.
Mr. Mills. But is it aligned by their race or by their
genders? It is not. I will help you with that. It is aligned by
who you were fighting and who you died beside, what battlefield
that you fell on, what ultimate sacrifice that you made for
this Nation.
Now that seems like a really positive thing whenever you
talk about the fact that they didn't look at who it was that I
was next to that I died but the fact that we were all fighting
the same fight because at the end of day, we all bled green.
Kind of the military I came from where we believed in increased
lethality and readiness and not CRT [critical race theory],
DEI, and pronouns. But as I said before, Mr. Cisneros, we
absolutely, 150 percent can out-pronoun every single one of our
adversaries.
And China and Russia I am sure are quaking in their boots
over this. Now would you be surprised that the American
Psychological Association put potential focus on questions
regarding the training that don't improve diversity or counter
bad biases. And according to the APA's literature review, their
study actually shows that, in fact, some studies have indicated
these trainings had the opposite effect.
You see diversity in our military is a good thing, and we
can all agree to that. But allocating additional training time
and starting to identify and ensure that we drive a wedge as
opposed to cohesiveness is not a good thing. And as my
colleagues talked about, there should be an equal standard with
regards to how we identify racism because anyone can be a
racist. Is that not true?
Mr. Cisneros. Racism is not specific to one gender, race,
or----
Mr. Mills. Thank you so much. Finally, we got an answer out
of that one because I know my colleague had been asking for
quite some time. And you are a fantastic politician. I will
give you that because you have been able to walk around
questions, and I have seen it multiple times. Since
implementing DEI , have we seen our recruitment numbers
increase?
Mr. Cisneros. Congressman, DEI is nothing new to the
Department. We've been integrating the force actually since--
again, since President Truman's----
Mr. Mills. I never had a single----
Secretary Cisneros [continuing]. Order.
Mr. Mills [continuing]. Hour of DEI training, I can tell
you right now. Has DEI in your terms since you have included it
as part of the actual basic combat trainings or boot camps, has
it increased our recruitment numbers?
Mr. Cisneros. Again, this training is not new. DEI
training----
Mr. Mills. We have never had it in my military time. So,
you are going to tell me this was in place when I was in the
military?
Mr. Cisneros. I'm going to tell you when I was in the
military, we did have diversity training. We did have equal
opportunity training. We did.
Mr. Mills. Equal opportunity is a totally different thing
than what you are describing. And especially when you talk
about things like the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Waltz, was
talking about with regards to ``White rage training'' and
things like this. I can tell you I didn't experience that
during mine. Did you experience that during your trainings?
Mr. Cisneros. I did not experience that under my training
either. But I will tell you from what the Superintendent of
West Point has said, they're not conducting that type of
training at West Point either.
Mr. Mills. Do you think that our recruitment numbers are
where they need to be at 25,000 in deficit?
Mr. Cisneros. I am telling you we do have a problem with
recruiting.
Mr. Mills. Do you think that has----
Mr. Cisneros. I did not deny that.
Mr. Mills [continuing]. Anything to do with the morale that
has been killed and determined that DEI and CRT has become the
priority over increased lethality and readiness of our U.S.
forces?
Mr. Cisneros. I would say our readiness of our forces is
the most important thing. This Nation is ready to be defended
by our armed services.
Mr. Mills. Well, then I look forward to you actually
prioritizing our actual lethal force as opposed to DEI.
Mr. Cisneros. DEIA [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and
Accessibility) is not--DEIA is not the problem with recruiting.
Mr. Mills. Thank you so much. And with that, I yield back
my time.
Mr. Banks. I yield 5 minutes to Representative Sewell.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
all of our guests. Today's topic is very important, and it
saddens me to see that some of our members are using it as an
opportunity to focus in on one employee who on their personal
email made comments that have been discredited by the armed
services as the barometer for diversity and inclusion efforts
in our military.
The reality is as a former lawyer, a reformed lawyer, it is
important that we realize that discrimination in the workplace
is illegal. And we all have a part to play in that. And
employers often have training on sexual harassment, on
diversity and inclusion.
It is an acknowledgment that diversity is truly the
strength in America. And it is something that we should take
seriously and not politicize or weaponize. With that said, I am
the proud representative of Alabama's Seventh Congressional
District which is a civil rights district.
It includes historic cities like Montgomery and Birmingham
and my hometown of Selma. Our forefathers and foremothers,
Black and White, different religions, came together and made
this Nation realize, live up to the ideals, the highest ideals
of equality and justice for all. It saddens me to see that my
HBCU's ROTC programs are not up to par.
It saddens me to see that we are not trying to give more
resources. It is about readiness, right? And we want the very
best players on the field. And so often, some of the very best
players don't get a chance to come in because they have not
been given an equal opportunity to reach their God-given
potential.
One of my colleagues asked the difference between equality
and equity. Equality is giving everyone the same opportunity.
Equity? Equity is acknowledging that not everybody starts at
the same place.
And so, a reallocation of resources such that some people
need a little bit more help to do that. Why? Because of
generations of slavery, generations of redlining. We can go on
and on and on about--I mean, it is not disputed, racism in this
country.
Having said that, we are making progress. But we can only
make progress if all of us working together acknowledge that we
have a role to play. Now in the military, I want the very best
on that field.
I know that our military is already the very best. But it
can only stay the very best if we are giving opportunities
equally and we are providing resources to those who have
systematically and institutionally been left behind. So, I say
that to say I am going to send a letter to Secretary Austin
inviting him to Tuskegee to its ROTC program.
It may not be one of the--Howard is one of the--is the 1 of
15 ROTC in HBCUs that passes the test. And yet we have smart,
capable, able young men, and young women in our ROTC programs
across this Nation in HBCUs. It is a ready-made source of
talent. It just is.
Okay. Having said that, my question is to you, Alex--Mr.
Wagner. Can you talk a little bit about America's rapid
demographic shifts that are occurring right now? Do you agree
with me that this is a serious readiness issue if we are not
being inclusive in acknowledgment that there are demographic
shifts and we are falling behind in the military in recruiting,
retaining, and promoting?
Mr. Wagner. I do, Congresswoman. And I'd also add that we
need to keep pace with America's rapid demographic changes, not
only in our enlisted corps but also in our officer corps. And
Air Force last summer put in place aggressive goals for our
applicant pool based on gender and racial and ethnic
classifications in order to target resources and to target
priority and expanding the pool so we can keep pace with
America's changing demographics
Ms. Sewell. And I would like to say in closing that you
have to see it to believe it. You can be told that you have the
opportunity. But unless you see it, touch it, feel it, which is
why having Secretary Austin, a four-star general, come to
Tuskegee will show a commitment and a level of commitment from
this military that HBCUs matter and that people of color
matter. And we want to touch it, feel it, see it to really
believe that we can achieve it. Thank you.
Mr. Banks. Gentlewoman's time is expired. Yield 5 minutes
to Representative Alford.
Mr. Alford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member Kim, and our distinguished witnesses for being here
today. Appreciate it.
Considering the threats posed by China and other
adversaries, I think these woke programs are really detracting
from our readiness. I think we have talked about this before.
Since January of 2021, the military has spent 529,771 man-hours
on diversity, equity, and inclusion training, almost half a
billion on contract support and administrative costs.
Meanwhile, China is getting ready to invade Taiwan. We have
got to be focusing on our adversaries and not our pronouns and
not DEI. Americans trust in our military, but it is declining,
declining rapidly. We are facing a recruitment crisis as you
know. Only 9 percent of America's youth are even interested.
I have got a question that I want all of you to answer if
you would, please. And I will start with you, Mr. Cisneros.
Does our strength in our military lie in our diversity or our
commonality?
Mr. Cisneros. First, Congressman, let me tell you----
Mr. Alford. Can you just answer the question? I am sorry. I
don't have much time.
Mr. Cisneros. I'm trying to answer the question.
Mr. Alford. I know we are all tired. We are hungry. Does it
lie in our diversity or our commonality?
Mr. Cisneros. Let me say that----
Mr. Alford. Does it lie in our diversity or commonality?
Mr. Cisneros. Our armed services is ready to defend this
Nation.
Mr. Alford. Sir----
Mr. Cisneros. They are ready to fight.
Mr. Alford. Mr. Cisneros, does our strength of a military
lie in our commonality or diversity?
Mr. Cisneros. I believe diversity does----
Mr. Alford. Thank you. Ms. Schaefer----
Secretary Cisneros [continuing]. Add strength to our
military.
Mr. Alford [continuing]. Diversity or commonality?
Dr. Schaefer. Diversity.
Mr. Alford. Mr. Parker,
Mr. Parker. Congressman, I believe both.
Mr. Alford. Both? So, you are going to have it both ways,
diversity and commonality?
Mr. Parker. I believe both.
Mr. Alford. Mr. Wagner,
Mr. Wagner. Congressman, not only do I not believe they're
mutually exclusive, I believe they're mutually reinforcing.
Mr. Alford. Look, I didn't serve in the military. This man
did. Our strength is our unity in purpose. It is the pride in
our Nation.
That is what is lacking. That is why young people are not
interested in being in the military. Does the enemy, does a
future Chinese soldier holding a gun or a Russian or Iranian
with their target trained on an American, do they care what
color he or she is?
Mr. Cisneros. Is that a question?
Mr. Alford. Yes, it is a yes or no question.
Mr. Cisneros. I don't know what the Chinese soldier thinks.
But I do know that the people----
Mr. Alford. Would you imagine----
Secretary Cisneros [continuing]. That the Chinese
government has discriminated against people because of their
race, their ethnicity, and because of their religion. And
that's not----
Mr. Alford. Do you think a Russian solider is more apt to--
--
Secretary Cisneros [continuing]. The type of military that
we want.
Mr. Alford [continuing]. Kill someone on the battle lines
that they have a racial bias against? Is that what you are
telling me?
Mr. Cisneros. What I'm telling is because of diversity, we
want to ensure that people are able to serve in our military
with respect and dignity----
Mr. Alford. Ms. Schaefer, does the enemy care who is
pointing a----
Mr. Cisneros.--and knowing that they can do that makes us a
stronger force.
Mr. Alford [continuing]. Gun or a missile at the enemy what
gender he or she is?
Dr. Schaefer. Again, I can't speak to the Chinese soldier.
Mr. Alford. How about you, Mr. Parker? Does the enemy care
what pronoun we are using when he or she is pointing a weapon
at us ready to kill us?
Mr. Parker. I cannot speak to the mindset in the
hypothetical.
Mr. Alford. What would you think? Does it even factor in?
Mr. Parker. You know, I would think in that situation, you
know, the adversary would be looking at the other adversary.
Mr. Alford. I tell you what. This is a troubling time in
America. And I know our freshmen class all had a resolved
purpose to give up everything they have to be here to do
something to help save America. And this DEI is not helping
save America.
It is helping divide America. And when my friend Cory here
talks about Arlington National Cemetery and going down and
seeing all those white gravestones, unless you know that
person, you don't walk over there to that gravestone, and you
don't know what color that person is that lies in that coffin.
We don't need to just be color-blind.
We need to walk with unity of purpose, with fortitude, and
strength that we live in the greatest nation ever. And I don't
care what color you are. I don't care where you are from. I
don't care what pronoun you use. We are in this together, and
we better get it right.
Mr. Banks. Gentleman's time----
Mr. Alford. I yield back.
Mr. Banks [continuing]. Has expired. Yield 5 minutes to
Representative Escobar.
Ms. Escobar. Well, good afternoon to our panelists. I want
to thank you all for your service to our Nation and for your
testimony here today. I have to tell you I am just a little
stunned by how this hearing has gone.
I am beginning my third term in Congress. And for the last
two terms, I have served on the House Armed Services Committee.
And I have specifically selected this subcommittee because I
care about our service members.
I want to make sure that we are doing everything possible
to give our service members the kind of quality of life that
they need, the kind of training and support, and that we care
for their families as well. I never in my wildest dreams would
have thought that the important work of this subcommittee would
devolve in this way, what we have seen here today. And frankly,
it is really embarrassing, and it is a little depressing.
And just for some background, I heard, and I did not want
to believe, that this subcommittee would essentially be allowed
to be deeply politicized for the purposes of performative
politics. But that the Military Personnel Subcommittee work
that needs to be done would then be relegated to a panel. So,
this would be the ``woke subcommittee,'' and the real work
would happen through a panel to address quality of life issues.
What a waste of resources, time, and energy when we have so
much important work to do. And the important work that we have
to do really is on behalf of these service members. I know all
of you have heard about the second death of a service member, a
Latina at Fort Hood, Private Basaldua Ruiz. And her family has
come forward to express concerns around sexual harassment that
she had dealt with in a way that is not dissimilar to what
Vanessa Guillen, another Latina service member at Fort Hood,
who died while in service, had to endure.
And so, when my colleagues decry the need to understand
what should come with diversity and equity inclusion, it
completely dismisses the journey that these families and
service members have had to go through. And we should want all
of these service members to have a place so that they can serve
side by side and defend our country, so that they can seek a
career in the military, so that they can have opportunities,
just as many of the members of this subcommittee have talked
about enjoying. But what is disconcerting is the unwillingness
to walk in someone else's shoes or understand what another
service member might have gone through.
And I would encourage my colleagues to talk to women
service members, to talk to service members who are people of
color, who come from different backgrounds so that they can put
themselves in the shoes of another American service member so
that we can do the job we were sent here to do instead of the
performances that unfortunately have taken up too much of our
time here today. Mr. Wagner, I have a question for you.
In line with the tragedy of Vanessa Guillen, the tragedy of
Private Basaldua Ruiz, this is the Army Pulse survey that was
recently released. And it was titled Spotlight on Barriers to
Service. And in ranking overall barriers to entry identified
the concern that women and racial or ethnic minorities are
discriminated against in the Army.
That was the second most common perception that was held by
the study group of potential recruits. And it was a diverse
group of potential recruits. And if we are saying we want
recruitment numbers to go up, we have to acknowledge that we
want a broad pool as Mr. Cisneros mentioned. So, could you tell
us how does this perception harm the ability to recruit service
members, especially in the very communities of color that we
need to increase our outreach with?
Mr. Wagner. Congresswoman, I'll defer on the specifics of
the Army study to my colleague, Secretary Schaefer. But what I
will say is that the Department of the Air Force is laser
focused on making sure that service members, where there are
disparities in military justice, in education benefits, and
command selection, and promotions up and down the chain, we are
looking for where there are disparities. We had our inspector
general in 2020 conduct a comprehensive investigation.
We followed it up in 2021 with an additional investigation.
Each of those IG [inspector general] investigations produced a
series of recommendations identifying the disparities. And
we're currently undergoing a data-driven process in order to
figure out where those disparities exist and put against those
disparities key elements to mitigate them.
Mr. Banks. Gentlewoman's time has expired. I yield 5
minutes to myself. Secretary Cisneros, how do you eliminate
political bias or partisan politics from DEI training?
Mr. Cisneros. Congressman, thanks for the question. But
when we do DEI training, we don't emphasize any type of
politics, right? Again, for us, it's about ensuring that people
are treated with respect and dignity.
Mr. Banks. Do you have discussions among your team about
how to eliminate partisan politics and ideology from DEI
training? Does that discussion ever occur? Have you ever had
that discussion with your team?
Mr. Cisneros. We haven't had that discussion because that's
not what we emphasize--or that's not what we're talking about.
When we're talking about DEIA, it's ensuring that individuals
are able----
Mr. Banks. For the record, I want to make this very clear.
You have never had a discussion about how to prevent political
ideology from entering into DEI training? That has never
happened on your watch?
Mr. Cisneros. Any----
Mr. Banks. You are saying it is not necessary, it is not
needed. I am asking you if it has ever occurred and you are
saying no?
Mr. Cisneros. I'm telling you our focus on DEI training is
about ensuring that individuals----
Mr. Banks. Yes or no, has there ever been a discussion
among your team on how to eliminate political ideology from
creeping into DEI training?
Mr. Cisneros. I will say my team has never had a discussion
with me about how to eliminate politics----
Mr. Banks. Yes or no? Has the discussion ever occurred?
Mr. Cisneros. They have not.
Mr. Banks. Okay. Secretary, are you aware of any promotions
that have ever been made in the military, at least on your
watch, that have ever been based on race or gender? Does that
ever occur? Does race or gender ever factor into a promotion?
Mr. Cisneros. No, Congressman. I would say that race does
not factor in. The promotions are made on merit.
Mr. Banks. So, you are not aware of any case where that is
ever--any promotion of a uniformed member of our armed
services----
Mr. Cisneros. Since I have been a----
Mr. Banks [continuing]. Has ever been----
Mr. Cisneros. Since I have been a member of the Department
of Defense serving in the position of Under Secretary of
Personnel and Readiness, nobody has ever brought that up to me
that somebody was promoted solely on their race rather than
their merit.
Mr. Banks. So, for the record for each of you and starting
with you, Secretary Cisneros, will you personally commit to
opposing any effort to promote or recruit service members based
on their race or gender? Can you commit to that--at least
commit to that personally today?
Mr. Cisneros. To solely to not recruit? I believe we need a
diverse pool. I believe it's important for us to recruit
members that are----
Mr. Banks. So, you won't commit----
Secretary Cisneros [continuing]. That are diverse.
Mr. Banks [continuing]. To opposing efforts to promote or
recruit service members based on their race or their gender?
Mr. Cisneros. I believe it's important to recruit a force
that looks like America. And I believe that we need to recruit
in the Hispanic community. We need to recruit in the Black/
African American community. We need to recruit in the AAPI
community. And we need to recruit in the White community.
Mr. Banks. Okay. What about Secretary Schaefer? Will you
personally commit to opposing any effort to promote or recruit
service members based on their race or gender?
Dr. Schaefer. Sir, we will abide by all laws, applicable
laws regarding promotions. Some of those are tied to NDAA----
Mr. Banks. So, you won't commit to----
Dr. Schaefer [continuing]. Things like that.
Mr. Banks. You won't commit to us either. Secretary Parker,
will you personally commit to opposing any effort to promote or
recruit service members based on their race or gender?
Mr. Parker. I think similar to my colleagues. We'll abide
by the laws----
Mr. Banks. So, you won't personally make that commitment
either. Secretary Wagner, will you personally commit to
opposing any effort to promote or recruit service members based
on their race or gender?
Mr. Wagner. Mr. Chairman, I believe that promoting solely
based on race or gender is inimical to our values as a service.
But I will commit to you to continue to do everything possible
to reach the broadest segment of America, whether it means
increasing the number of women in our force or people of color.
And I'll commit to you that we will continue those efforts to
have a more diverse force.
Mr. Banks. Thank you. Secretary Cisneros, how many billets,
civilian and uniform, are DEI-related in DOD and each service?
And what is the total cost to administer DEI training and
initiatives?
Mr. Cisneros. I do not have the number of----
Mr. Banks. You are in charge of it.
Mr. Cisneros. I am. But to say, like, people--people
perform many duties. For myself, I'm the Chief Diversity and
Inclusion Officer, but I'm also the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel Readiness. I do not have a number for you to say
that these people----
Mr. Banks. So, you are in charge of it, but you can't tell
us the total cost to administer DEI or how many billets,
civilian and uniform, in the military are DEI-related?
Mr. Cisneros. I can tell you that people perform many
duties within the Department of Defense. And those that perform
DEIA are also performing other duties as well. So, it's hard to
say that. I do not have a number for you, but I'll----
Mr. Banks. How many DEI experts do we need in the military?
Mr. Cisneros. I don't know if you can put a number on that,
either. I know we have DEIA professionals that do a number of
things.
Mr. Banks. Sounds like you think we need more of them.
Mr. Cisneros. I did not say that we need more of them.
Mr. Banks. Do we need more of them, yes or no?
Mr. Cisneros. It's----
Mr. Banks. You are in charge of it.
Mr. Cisneros. Well, we need to have a focus on----
Mr. Banks. You can't tell us how much----
Secretary Cisneros [continuing]. DEIA.
Mr. Banks [continuing]. It costs. You can't tell us how
much time is geared toward DEI. You can't answer how many DEI
experts we need in the Department. I think that speaks volumes.
I yield 5 minutes to Representative Kim.
Mr. Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cisneros, you have
had a couple questions come your way about why aren't we
hitting our recruitment numbers. And we saw that chart there.
They had a really steep cliff in 2020. Can you elucidate to us
what might have been happening in the year 2020 that would have
hurt our recruitment?
Mr. Cisneros. Well, I will tell you what definitely hurt
the recruitment was the pandemic that was going on. Recruiters
didn't have access to high schools where they could go in and
talk with individuals. And they will tell you personally that
direct access, one-on-one contact is crucial to recruiting
people into the military.
Mr. Kim. Thank you. Thank you. It is so important that we
have this context because I have been listening to this whole
hearing. It just kind of boggles my mind honestly in terms of
how we are trying to make what seems like mountains out of
molehills here. I mean, it just really feels like we are trying
to say that the entirety of the recruitment problem that we are
facing is because of DEI. And that is just manipulation of
data, manipulation of--and frankly, misunderstandings that are
being pushed out to the American people about this.
Another aspect about it, is this conversation makes it
sounds like that is all we do, that the only training that we
are providing to people is DEI. So, I guess I just wanted to
ask each and every one of you if you have concerns that we are
doing this too much, if this is taking away or coming at the
expense of other types of training? So Dr. Schaefer, why don't
we start with you.
Dr. Schaefer. Absolutely not.
Mr. Kim. Mr. Parker.
Mr. Parker. Absolutely not. I have no concerns.
Mr. Kim. Mr. Wagner.
Mr. Wagner. Definitely not. And I'd echo the remarks before
this subcommittee of the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force
a couple weeks ago where she expressed concern that what is
hurting our recruiting is characterizing the military as not
focused on warfighting and not focused on readiness.
Mr. Kim. Thank you for that context. That was very powerful
testimony just the other week. There was a number thrown out
here at the beginning of the hearing and kind of scattered
throughout as well.
I was looking it up. Chairman Milley said that 5,889,082
man-hours have gone towards DEI, the extremist stand-down, and
other types of efforts during this administration. So, I am
looking at that number and I am thinking to myself here, well,
look, we have, what, an Active and Reserve and Guard force,
about 2.4 million. Is that about right, Mr. Cisneros?
So, we are going to take that number there. Let's divide it
by the number of people that we have to just get a sense of how
much time are people being asked to be able to spend on DEI.
So, we are taking this 5.9 million, 2.4 million, about 2\1/2\
hours. Does that sound about right, what we are seeing?
Mr. Cisneros. Sounds about right, Congressman.
Mr. Kim. So, we are spending here this entire hearing which
frankly at this point when we end will be about 2\1/2\ hours
maybe. This is what we are talking about, just a context I want
people to understand, is that we are talking about something
that is good for us to do, to embrace our diversity, to
recognize that some people want us to make sure that we are
listening to them, that we see them. But we are doing it in a
way that is calibrated.
We are doing it in a way that recognizes lots of other
things that we need to make sure that our service members are
able to learn and are able to go forward on. And I think that
is something that Congressman Bergman was kind of getting at.
And I agree with him, that we want to make sure that we are
looking at the metrics of how effective our military is and
whether or not that lethality is continuing to be strong.
So, I guess I just want to ask you each here as we are
putting this into context. The challenges we face with
recruitment in large part because of the pandemic, that we have
DEI training but it is not something that is overwhelming,
taking over the entirety of the training of our service
members. But with each and every one of you, is your service
any less capable or lethal due to this 2\1/2\ hours of training
or other types of DEI training that we are doing? Dr. Schaefer.
Dr. Schaefer. No.
Mr. Kim. Mr. Parker.
Mr. Parker. No.
Mr. Kim. Mr. Wagner.
Mr. Wagner. Congressman, I believe that anything that
creates a stronger, more cohesive team, and many of these
trainings do, helps us with our lethality and our readiness. So
absolutely I don't believe so.
Mr. Kim. Yeah, thank you. And one thing, Mr. Wagner, I just
want to kind of pull on because I am running out of time here
is I just thought you had a really eloquent point in your
statement that I just want to end here on. You said anyone
eligible to serve who meets our high standards and is
courageous enough to pledge that they will support and defend
the Constitution should be able to do so.
I think that that is what this committee should always
focus on, not get caught up in this performative nonsense that
sometimes we find ourselves in. So, I hope that we can continue
to work together in a way that lives up to that statement.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Banks. Gentleman's time has expired. Five minutes to
Representative Horsford.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Chairman Banks and to our ranking
member, Mr. Kim. I know a lot has been discussed today. I just
want to focus on the important role that our military academies
play in developing leaders who share the Department of
Defense's vision for a diverse and inclusive force.
In July of 2022, the GAO [U.S. Government Accountability
Office] recommended that each service secretary ensure that
their respective service academy develop and implement
diversity and inclusion performance measures to assess the
effectiveness of their program and develop a standardized
process to document discrimination and harassment allegations
that are not entered into the formal complaint processing
system. Can each of you expand on how your service has
implemented this recommendation to date?
Mr. Parker. Congressman, with respect to the Department of
the Navy, the Naval Academy is putting performance measures in
place. So, we are in the process of establishing performance
measures even though there still is some work to be done. We
have issued policy and with respect to documenting complaints.
And so, we are in the process of documenting----
Mr. Horsford. When is it scheduled to be done?
Mr. Parker. I will need to take that back and check to see
when the performance----
Mr. Horsford. Who is done with their process?
Mr. Wagner. Congressman, my understanding according to the
team at the U.S. Air Force Academy, we'll complete that by
April 7th of this year.
Mr. Horsford. Can you please report back with the structure
of those evaluation measurements, please? And if I could get
the answer for the others' service on the record. Service
members and their families also indicate that--the Blue Star
Families, excuse me, from 2021, a study found that Active Duty
family respondents of color made decisions about military life
based on perceptions of racism and fear for their family's
safety in communities.
The study found that nearly half of Active Duty, that is 46
percent of family respondents of color, report that they have
considered racial-ethnic discrimination in their installation
ranking decisions and 42 percent consider concerns about safety
due to their or their family's racial-ethnic identity. So, can
you please talk about how service members and their families
deserve to feel safe in their communities? What are the
services doing to address these concerns and what can Congress
do to help?
Mr. Wagner. Congressman, I'll take this one on, on behalf
of the Department of the Air Force. I'm very concerned. It's
not only the Blue Star Family Study. In 2021, the Association
of Defense Communities also surveyed a statistically
significant sample of service members and their families. And
they found that 50 percent of African Americans didn't feel
safe in their communities.
I just got back from F.E. Warren Air Force Base, one-third
of our nuclear ground based triad where we've had to move four
airmen and their families out of that installation because of
incidents of racism in the community. What I can tell you is
our wing commanders and our numbered Air Force leadership is
committed to working with local government officials and in
some cases mayors and governors to have a long-lasting,
enduring solution. And what we're doing in the Department of
the Air Force is taking a look at how we could partner with
Blue Star Families and with the Association of Defense
Communities to come up with some kind of matrix to give
families more information about where they might want to be
stationed because they don't always get to pick, but also to
incentivize good behavior in these communities.
Mr. Horsford. Yeah, I think it is imperative as has been
stated by several of the members on the committee. And we also
need to ensure that the values of the U.S. military are upheld
in our recruitment practices and that we continue to weed out
those with ties to extremist groups or movements. I saw in an
earlier study from the University of Maryland that found more
than 1,000 people who had been charged for actions taken in
connection with the attack on the Capitol, at least 17 percent
of those charged appear to have connections to the military as
either Active Duty members or veterans.
That is why diversity, equity, and inclusion is important,
in the military, in the private sector, in nonprofits, and yes,
in government. And I wish that my colleagues on the other side
would spend more time figuring out how we can support our
military families with housing, with childcare----
Mr. Banks. Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Horsford [continuing]. With food, and not dividing us
as a nation, as a country----
Mr. Banks. Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Horsford [continuing]. On wedge issues because of race.
It is unacceptable. It is un-American.
Mr. Banks. The gentleman's time has expired. I want to
thank all of our witnesses for your testimony, both written and
verbal. In closing, as I said in my opening statement----
Mr. Mills. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Banks. Representative Mills.
Mr. Mills. I offer unanimous consent to enter into the
record this press release from the Department of Defense that
is entitled, Department of Defense Announces Recruiting and
Retention Numbers for Fiscal Year 2022 through March 2022,
which clearly defines that the deterioration of recruiting
shortfalls can no longer be solely attributed to the COVID-19
[coronavirus disease 2019] issue.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
Mr. Banks. Without objection. Thank you. In closing, let me
start over. In my opening statement, I mentioned that Chairman
Milley reported to us that the DOD expended 5,359,311 man-hours
for Secretary Austin's extremism stand-down and an additional
529,711 man-hours for DEI-specific training.
I have not heard a single statement today that defends a
single man-hour. I have heard a lot of opinions about why
diversity matters and how important that is to the military.
And just for the record, 48 percent of service members in our
military today identify as racial-ethnic minorities and/or
Hispanic-Latino; 40.7 percent of the U.S. population identifies
as racial or ethnic minority.
Therefore, the DOD is already more diverse, far more
diverse than the entire U.S. population. Our military is richly
diverse, and I benefitted from that. But none of you today,
have defended with any empirical evidence, any studies at all
that defends a single man-hour over 6 million man-hours of DEI
training in the United States military.
To my friends in the minority, that is why this hearing
matters. Why is it justified? What is the justification for
that giant investment?
Secretary, you couldn't even tell us how much we are
spending on it. How much of our resources are going toward it?
I think that is why this hearing matters. That is why we are
here today in our seats asking important questions about the
priorities of our United States military.
So, with that, I want to thank all of our witnesses again
for providing your testimony. There being no further business,
the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 23, 2023
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 23, 2023
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 23, 2023
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
March 23, 2023
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. STEFANIK
Ms. Stefanik. DODEA's former Chief DEI Officer, Kelisa Wing, has
authored or contributed to at least 23 books, including many that are
part of the Racial Justice in America series. How many books that Ms.
Wing authored, co-authored, or contributed to were in DODEA schools
prior to her becoming CDEI, in December 2021, and how many of her books
are in DODEA schools as of March 2023? Please provide a list with the
name and number of every book that Kelisa Wing contributed to or
authored in DODEA schools.
Mr. Cisneros. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Ms. Stefanik. DODEA's former Chief DEI Officer, Kelisa Wing, has
authored or contributed to many books including titles such as: What is
White Privilege?, What is Anti-Racism, and What Does It Mean to Defund
the Police?. These books contain lines such as: ``If you are White you
might feel bad about hurting others or you might feel afraid to lose
this privilege.'' Are the racially divisive comments in these books
consistent with DODEA's educational curriculum? Please provide
citations from DODEA's curriculum to show whether these racially
divisive comments are consistent with the curriculum.
Mr. Cisneros. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Ms. Stefanik. The Office of Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness conducted the 30-day review of Ms. Wing. Will
you commit to making the findings of this report available to Congress,
Servicemembers, and the public?
Mr. Cisneros. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Ms. Stefanik. During a May 2021 DODEA Equity and Access Summit, Ms.
Wing used her official title to give her book Promises and
Possibilities a ``shameless plug.'' According to DODEA's Misuse of
Position policy in their Standards of Conduct, a DODEA employee may not
use their Government position to endorse any product, service, or
enterprise, especially one that they have a conflicting financial
interest. Is Ms. Wing's ``shameless plug'' in violation of DODEA's
Standards of Conduct? What action has been taken to address this?
Mr. Cisneros. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WALTZ
Mr. Waltz. Tuesday, Chairman Banks and I wrote a letter to the
Superintendent of West Point, regarding a Dean's Weekend training
scenario, titled ``Its Not That Complicated'' under ``Cadet Facilitator
Guide 2023, Role Play Scenario #4'' where cadets participated in an
exercise in understanding and respecting the pronouns people prefer.
The scenario involves cadets sitting at a table when one gets a
phone call from a friend, and messes up their friend's preferred
pronouns, while 2 cadets tease him about the situation, and another
cadet them reprimands them for teasing him.
I am concerned how these sort of exercises may distract from the
core mission of West Point to develop the next generation of military
officers, while creating unnecessary conflict between cadets, all of
which affects unit cohesion. Do your DEI officers develop these type of
training exercise, or is it the Academy's faculty? (if faculty) Does
the faculty require Department approval before administering this
program to cadets?
Mr. Cisneros. Per Department of Defense Directive 1322.22,
``Service Academies'', commandants at Military Service Academies direct
and manage military education and training programs and exercise
command over cadets or midshipmen, as established by law and determined
by the superintendent. Training at Military Service Academies does not
require Department approval before it is administered.
Mr. Waltz. Can you explain how the Department distinguishes between
``equality'' and ``equity''?
Mr. Cisneros. There is no explicit definition of ``equity'' or
``equality'' in DOD policy. However, signed by President Biden on 16
February, 2023, E.O. 14091 ``Further Advancing Racial Equity and
Support for Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government,''
defines equity as ``the consistent and systematic treatment of all
individuals in a fair, just, and impartial manner, including
individuals who belong to communities that often have been denied such
treatment, such as Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native American, Asian
American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander persons and other
persons of color; members of religious minorities; women and girls;
LGBTQI+ persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural
areas; persons who live in United States Territories; persons otherwise
adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality; and individuals
who belong to multiple such communities.''
Additionally, the 2021 National Strategy on Gender Equity and
Equality refers to equality as the goal in which equal opportunity is
afforded to all people regardless of gender or any other factor.
As defined in DODD 1020.02E Diversity Management and Equal
Opportunity in the DOD'' equal opportunity is, ``critical to mission
accomplishment, unit cohesiveness, and military readiness,'' and that
``Service members are afforded equal opportunity in an environment free
from harassment, including sexual harassment, and unlawful
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion,
sex (including gender identity), or sexual orientation.'' At the same
time, the work of the Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity program,
defined in DODD 1440.1 ``The DOD Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) Program'', states that EEO is ``the right of all persons to work
and advance on the basis of merit, ability, and potential, free from
social, personal, or institutional barriers of prejudice and
discrimination.'' In alignment with the Administration's definitions,
the Department recognizes that equity is about promoting justice,
fairness, and impartiality when devising or implementing procedures,
processes, and programs. Equality ensures that the same resources are
being made available so everyone can have a fair opportunity to succeed
in our organization.
Mr. Waltz. Can you tell me how many civilian employees are employed
by DEI offices across the Department? Is that including contractors?
Do you know, on average, what General Schedule payscale they fall
under?
Do DEI officers have additional duties within the Department, aside
from managing DEI programs?
What exactly do DEI officers do all day?
Mr. Cisneros. The DOD DEIA workforce includes Federal employees
(military and civilian) and contractors who lead, manage, and support
programs consistent with law, oversight guidance, and DOD policy--
programs in Military Equal Opportunity, Civilian Equal Employment
Opportunity, Disability, and Civil Rights. The DOD DEIA workforce also
includes Federal employees and contractors who lead, manage, and
support programs in support of Executive orders, NDAA requirements, and
DOD policy for advancing diversity and inclusion (D&I) in DOD. D&I
provides a strategic advantage for mission readiness. For the DOD
civilian workforce of 830,689, DOD employs 88 civilians in D&I program
and policy offices across the Department, with an average civilian
grade level of GS13 to GS15 in the General Schedule (GS). However, step
in grade and locality are major factors in pay scale. This number does
not include contractors, since federal employee labor costs are tracked
separately from non-labor costs, such as contracts. The entire DEIA
workforce leads, manages, and supports DOD DEIA programs in support of
National Defense Strategy goals to: (1) Defend the homeland, (2) Deter
strategic attacks against the United States, our allies and partners,
(3) Deter aggressors while being prepared to prevail in conflict and
(4) Build a resilient joint force and defense ecosystem.
To get after this, DEIA programs and professionals provide support
for the Total Force focusing on supporting direct mission enhancement
efforts within the enterprise. To support this mission space, DEIA
professionals work to establish processes, policies, systems, and
technology that leverage the unique strengths of all people across the
total force to deter and defeat adversaries while ensuring the security
of the Nation. They cultivate an environment that provides the total
force the skill, competency, and ability to utilize ingenuity and
creativity in its mission execution through efficient coordination,
communication and engagement approaches within the enterprise, and with
global allies and partners.
Mr. Waltz. Tuesday, Chairman Banks and I wrote a letter to the
Superintendent of West Point, regarding a Dean's Weekend training
scenario, titled ``Its Not That Complicated'' under ``Cadet Facilitator
Guide 2023, Role Play Scenario #4'' where cadets participated in an
exercise in understanding and respecting the pronouns people prefer.
The scenario involves cadets sitting at a table when one gets a
phone call from a friend, and messes up their friend's preferred
pronouns, while 2 cadets tease him about the situation, and another
cadet them reprimands them for teasing him.
I am concerned how these sort of exercises may distract from the
core mission of West Point to develop the next generation of military
officers, while creating unnecessary conflict between cadets, all of
which affects unit cohesion. Do your DEI officers develop these type of
training exercise, or is it the Academy's faculty? (if faculty) Does
the faculty require Department approval before administering this
program to cadets?
Dr. Schaefer. West Point develops leaders of character who will
build cohesive teams comprised of trained, disciplined, and fit
Soldiers from a variety of backgrounds and walks of life, prepared to
fight and win our Nation's wars. These future Officers are committed to
the Army Values, Warrior Ethos, and most importantly, the United States
Constitution. Bystander Intervention training is an essential part of
Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of the Army directed primary
prevention efforts. This training develops the skills and confidence
necessary to intervene and prevent dishonorable actions and harmful
behaviors (including, but not limited to, sexual assault and sexual
harassment). Prevention-focused leader development training helps our
Cadets build the skillsets, confidence, and moral courage to intervene
where and when it matters most. The scenario highlighted (``It's not
that complicated''), like all five training scenarios, was designed to
put Cadets into various roles in an uncomfortable situation. It was not
focused on the use of pronouns or pronoun policy, but rather leveraged
a topic of current interest to train leaders on the importance of
treating people with dignity and respect, regardless of personal
feelings. The training exercises were designed by Cadets with oversight
from the United States Military Academy (USMA) staff and faculty, to
include the USMA SHARP Office. The intent behind this design was to
create scenarios that reflected everyday life within the Corps of
Cadets, so the training was more relevant.
Mr. Waltz. Can you explain how the Department distinguishes between
``equality'' and ``equity''?
Dr. Schaefer. Equity is the fair treatment, access, opportunity,
choice, and advancement for all Soldiers and Civilians. Equality means
being the same or equal in rights and status. The Army recognizes that
the concepts of equality and equity, when put into practice, enhance
opportunities for all Soldiers and Department of the Army (DA)
Civilians.
Mr. Waltz. Can you explain how the Department distinguishes between
``equality'' and ``equity''?
Mr. Parker. The Department of the Navy (DON) defines equality as
providing the same opportunities and resources to each individual.
Equity is the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial
treatment of all individuals.
Mr. Waltz. Can you explain how the Department distinguishes between
``equality'' and ``equity''?
Mr. Wagner. As used in Executive Order 14091 ``Further Advancing
Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through The
Federal Government,'' equity is commonly understood as ``the consistent
and systematic treatment of all individuals in a fair, just, and
impartial manner.'' Equity is about fair treatment, not equal outcomes.
It is consistent with Departmental policies which focus on equal
opportunities. As defined in DOD Instruction 1350.01, ``DOD Military
Equal Opportunity Program,'' equal opportunity is the right of all
persons to participate in, and benefit from, programs and activities
for which they are qualified. These programs and activities must be
free from social, personal, or institutional barriers that prevent
people from rising to the highest level of responsibility possible.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. DAVIS
Mr. Davis. Ms. Schaefer, in your respective written testimonies,
you make references to both DEI and DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion,
and Accessibility.).
Ms. Schaefer, in a similar vein, does the Army Diversity, Equity,
and Inclusion Council (ADEIC) plan to incorporate accessibility
training or add other components to its roadmap?
Dr. Schaefer. Traditionally, the field of practice has used the
term Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI). In 2021, President Biden
issued E.O. 14035 (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in
the Federal Workforce), which placed additional emphasis on
Accessibility, thus creating the acronym DEIA.
The Army uses the following definitions of Diversity, Equity,
Inclusion, and Accessibility to establish a shared understanding and
reference across the Army to facilitate future programs and
initiatives:
DIVERSITY. All attributes, experiences, cultures, characteristics,
and backgrounds of the Total Force which reflect the nation we serve
and enable the Army to deploy, fight, and win.
EQUITY. The fair treatment, access, opportunity, choice, and
advancement for all Soldiers and DA Civilians while striving to
identify and encourage elimination of any barriers that could have
prevented the full participation of the Total Force.
INCLUSION. The process of valuing and integrating each individual's
perspectives, ideas, and contributions into how an organization
functions and makes decisions; enabling workforce members to achieve
their full potential in focused pursuit of organizational objectives.
ACCESSIBILITY. Includes the provision of accommodations and
modifications to ensure equal access to employment and participation in
activities for people with disabilities, and the reduction or
elimination of physical and attitudinal barriers to equitable
opportunities.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Parker, in your respective written testimonies, you
make references to both DEI and DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and
Accessibility.).
Mr. Parker, can you explain whether you are using these terms
interchangeably and whether you believe that DOD should update its
terminology?
Mr. Parker. The Department of the Navy believes accessibility is a
critical component of creating a diverse, equitable, and inclusive work
environment for our service members and civilians. As such, we use the
terms diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and diversity, equity,
inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) interchangeably in accordance with
Executive Order (EO) 14035 (DEIA in the Federal Workforce), issued on
June 25, 2021. EO 14035 directs the Department of Defense (DOD) to
assess methods or actions that advance accessibility and opportunities
for individuals with disabilities, which includes collaborating with
the Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy to
examine and strengthen the Workforce Recruitment Program for civilians.
The DOD DEIA Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2022-2023 references
DEIA terminology. Each of the four DEIA principles are necessary to
building a workforce capable of maintaining readiness to deter war and
keep our nation secure.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Wagner, in a comprehensive report issued last year,
the DOD Inspector General called on the Department to establish
standardized policies for allegation reporting and tracking of
extremist activity. In particular, the IG cited Air Force case files in
the Automated Case Tracking System that will be marked with ``special
interest categories'' that did not line up with categories used across
other branches the military.
Mr. Wagner, can you commit to working to develop consistent, clear
standards for identifying prohibited activities to ensure that our
personnel are treated fairly and will have clear guidelines laying out
what is considered extremist behavior?
Mr. Wagner. Congressman, the DAF is committed to consistent, clear
standards for identifying prohibited activities to ensure that our
personnel are treated fairly and will have clear guidelines on what is
considered extremist behavior.
In reference to the DOD IG report on implementation of the FY21
NDAA's section 554 requirements, the IG wrote, ``In compiling the data,
we identified that the Department of the Army and the Department of the
Air Force used standardized terminology from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security to report their
allegation categories. However, the Department of the Navy did not use
these standardized allegation categories. This provides an example of
the differences in reporting between the MILDEPs'' (page 12).
Therefore, the DOD IG noted in its report that the Department of
the Air Force is tracking ``extremist, supremacist, and criminal gang
activities'' in our Automated Case Tracking System, and that the
Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force used this
``standardized terminology.''
[all]