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


.                                  

                         [H.A.S.C. No. 118-41]

                      MERITOCRACY IN THE MILITARY
                      SERVICES: ACCESSION, PROMOTION, 
                           AND COMMAND SELECTION

                               __________

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD

                           SEPTEMBER 20, 2023

                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
54-213                     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.............................     2

                               WITNESSES

Cheeseman, VADM Richard J., Jr., USN, Chief of Naval Personnel 
  and Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Personnel, Manpower, and 
  Training), U.S. Navy...........................................    15
Greenway, Robert, Director, Center for National Defense, The 
  Heritage Foundation............................................     4
Kelley, Katharine, Deputy Chief of Space Operations for Human 
  Capital, U.S. Space Force......................................    18
Levine, Peter, Former Acting Under Secretary of Defense for 
  Personnel and Readiness........................................     5
Miller, Lt Gen Caroline M., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for 
  Manpower, Personnel and Services, U.S. Air Force...............    17
Stitt, LTG Douglas F., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, U.S. Army.....    15
Strobl, Michael R., Assistant Deputy Commandant for Manpower and 
  Reserve Affairs, U.S. Marine Corps.............................    16
Thibeau, William, Director, American Military Project, Center for 
  the American Way of Life, The Claremont Institute..............     3

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Banks, Hon. Jim..............................................    33
    Cheeseman, VADM Richard J., Jr...............................    69
    Greenway, Robert.............................................    40
    Kelley, Katharine............................................    88
    Kim, Hon. Andy...............................................    35
    Levine, Peter................................................    49
    Miller, Lt Gen Caroline M....................................    82
    Stitt, LTG Douglas F.........................................    55
    Strobl, Michael R............................................    75
    Thibeau, William.............................................    36

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    Mr. Mills....................................................    95

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Gaetz....................................................    99
    Ms. Stefanik.................................................    99
    Mr. Waltz....................................................   100
    
    
MERITOCRACY IN THE MILITARY SERVICES: ACCESSION, PROMOTION, AND COMMAND 
                               SELECTION

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
                        Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
                     Washington, DC, Wednesday, September 20, 2023.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in 
room 2212, 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 subcommittee will come to order. I ask 
unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized to declare a 
recess at any time. Without objection, so ordered.
    The hearing will now come to order. I ask unanimous consent 
that the Chair be authorized to declare a recess at any time 
and, again, without objection so ordered.
    I want to welcome everyone to this hearing of the Military 
Personnel Subcommittee. Today's hearing is on meritocracy in 
the military services, from recruiting and accession to 
promotion and command selection.
    I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today. I 
hope this hearing provides an opportunity for our members to 
have a productive exchange with our witnesses and provide 
answers to their questions.
    The questions we ask today may be focused on the military's 
personnel system. However, they have much broader implications. 
These questions go to our Nation's founding principles: 
meritocracy, talent, and equality of opportunity. Across the 
country, these principles are under attack. They have been 
sacrificed at the altar of diversity, equity, and inclusion 
bureaucracies, bureaucracies which demand racial and gender 
quotas regardless of ability.
    These performative social justice goals require government 
agencies, large corporations, top-tier universities, and the 
military to trade skill, productivity, hard work, and ingenuity 
for a workforce which looks good on a brochure. This is 
demeaning for all Americans, including those singled out by 
those quotas. Millions of Americans are frustrated with the 
social justice agenda that pervades our schools, corporations, 
and now the Pentagon bureaucracy.
    For example on August 9th, 2022, a memo from the Secretary 
of the Air Force explicitly laid out quota goals for its 
officer applicant pool. Apparently, Air Force officer 
applicants should be 15 percent Hispanic, 10 percent Asian, 67 
percent White, 36 percent female, and so on. Americans are fed 
up with that. There is one place we simply can't afford to 
trade equal opportunity for radical ideology, and that's the 
United States military.
    We must do whatever it takes to ensure that effort, hard 
work, and results are the only relevant measure of our service 
members, not only because every American deserves to be judged 
by their character, but because no matter what our military 
does in peacetime, lethality is the only standard that will 
matter on the battlefield.
    If these policies continue, we are placing military 
readiness and our national security at risk, and we are putting 
an end to one of the last great meritocratic systems in the 
United States.
    Today you will hear from two panels. The first panel is a 
group of experts that will explain the cost of military 
readiness associated with trading merit for diversity quotas. 
In the second panel, we will hear from DOD's [Department of 
Defense's] military personnel chiefs. They will describe the 
factors and characteristics used to select military members for 
promotion and command.
    Additionally, they will address demographically targeted 
recruiting and accessions. Before hearing from our witnesses, 
let me offer Ranking Member Kim an opportunity to make opening 
remarks.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Banks can be found in the 
Appendix on page 33.]

 STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY KIM, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY, 
       RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

    Mr. Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our witnesses 
for coming forward. And I just want to start by taking a step 
back here to say, I believe all of us in this room want the 
same thing. We want the strongest possible military to defend 
our Nation. And that goal requires the best leaders to step up 
and lead this military. And in pursuit of this absolute need, 
we need a process of accession, retention, and promotion that 
is fair and transparent, and based on skill and merit. All of 
us want and demand a meritocratic system.
    But let's keep in mind that meritocratic means weighing 
both quantitative and qualitative qualities. There is no solely 
quantitative way to identify the best leaders. Academic 
achievement and tactical proficiency are easy to measure. You 
either have a degree or you don't. You are either a marksman or 
an expert with your assigned rifle. But assessing and defining 
factors such as leadership, character, and integrity cannot be 
perfectly reduced to a number.
    I am interested in hearing from our witnesses how they 
assess those hard to measure attributes across the spectrum of 
service, how we recruit, how we retain, how we decide to 
promote our service members.
    I also hope to hear our witnesses' insights on what 
improvements we need to make so our processes work as intended. 
And I hope Congress, and the Department of Defense, make every 
effort to encourage service from people of all types of 
backgrounds as we engage in this process.
    We should work together to foster a culture that encourages 
and rewards excellence, creativity, innovation, and critical 
thinking so our military can continue to meet emerging 
challenges around the globe.
    As I close, I also just want to say that our desire for the 
promotion of the best military leaders should also encompass a 
need for Congress to fulfill its own role in this process. And 
holding up military promotions is not the right way to make a 
political point.
    I hope all of us in this room can agree that our national 
security is vital and the threats we face are real. We need 
fully qualified leaders in their jobs doing the work to secure 
our Nation. We ask a lot of our service members. Now we need to 
make sure that they know we are supporting them and their 
mission.
    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 35.]
    Mr. Banks. I thank the ranking member. Each witness will 
have the opportunity to present his testimony. And each member 
will have an opportunity to question the witnesses for 5 
minutes. We respectfully ask the witnesses to summarize their 
testimony in 2 minutes or less. Your written comments and 
statements will be made part of the hearing record.
    With that, Mr. Thibeau, you may make your opening 
statement.

   STATEMENT OF WILLIAM THIBEAU, DIRECTOR, AMERICAN MILITARY 
  PROJECT, CENTER FOR THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE, THE CLAREMONT 
                           INSTITUTE

    Mr. Thibeau. Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, and the 
members of this subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify this afternoon.
    The military must only consider factors of policy that 
better the Armed Force's ability to fight and win our Nation's 
wars. Merit, or that which alludes to military professionalism 
and competence, must not be the first consideration, but the 
exclusive lens through which these leaders make decisions.
    Race and gender diversity exists, supposedly, as something 
that the military must embrace and promote as if the Armed 
Forces march to the beat of a corporate or a university drum. 
In reality, the existence of a professional, permanent military 
in a democratic liberal society demands that the institution 
must exist apart from the ideologies and politics prevalent in 
modern-day America.
    The military must balance functional considerations, or 
those capabilities required to fight and win our Nation's wars, 
with social considerations, or those ideologies which define 
American life outside the military.
    This means that the military must maintain such a strict 
separation between values not specifically related to the 
military profession and those other values that are more 
prevalent.
    A formal consideration of innate characteristics like race 
and gender is toxic for military units because it redefines the 
concept of standards. Standards are no longer how the military 
selects and promotes the very best, but they are the minimum 
floor of expectation before other considerations can be 
evaluated.
    This is a subtle but fundamental change. When we assume 
that the military must reflect the demographics of the Nation, 
we presume proportionalism into the experiences of everyday 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. Military leaders and 
the institutions they lead embed the imperative of racial 
representation into the lives of American service members, 
which is never guaranteed. The integrity of our republic is in 
tension with a military that evaluates matters of politics and 
identity. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Thibeau can be found in the 
Appendix on page 36.]
    Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Thibeau.
    Now, Mr. Greenway, you may make your opening statement. 
Turn on your microphone.

  STATEMENT OF ROBERT GREENWAY, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR NATIONAL 
                DEFENSE, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

    Mr. Greenway. Thank you, Chairman Bank, Ranking Member Kim, 
distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to discuss issues vital to the defense of our 
Nation.
    As a veteran, the ability of our Armed Forces to protect 
and defend us and those committed to serving in them is of 
personal significance.
    Like many of you, I see the unrelenting commitment to 
competence, which has long established our military as the 
finest in the world has ever known, being degraded by 
pernicious ideologies which would replace merit and 
demonstrated ability in our accessions and promotions systems.
    The result is a less capable and ready force, struggling to 
regain the trust of the public it serves and increasingly 
challenged to face the full range of threats that confront us. 
Diversity, equity, and inclusion, critical race theory, and 
related ideologies are eroding the effectiveness of our 
military by discarding that meritocracy and ensures our Armed 
Forces are led by the most qualified.
    Our military has encountered at least three periods of 
personal turbulence and crisis before--since the adoption of 
the All-Volunteer Force in 1973.
    The first was in 1978 following the withdrawal from 
Vietnam, the second in 1994 at the withdrawal from Somalia, and 
we're currently experiencing the third after the disastrous 
withdrawal from Afghanistan and the worst recruiting crisis we 
have ever faced.
    The present crisis bears hallmarks to those which preceded 
it. All three reflect challenges in recruiting environments, 
and a lack of focus on what matters--competence and 
effectiveness--and a focus on distractions like the adoption of 
corporate practices or the replacement of merit with various 
other criteria.
    In all three cases, the cause was clear. The recovery took 
years. But it involved significant congressional oversight. 
Ultimately, the primacy of competence was restored and the 
force recovered.
    War is an unforgiving enterprise. As a combat veteran with 
multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can attest to it. 
Without question, the only proven criteria for promotion in the 
Armed Forces are character and competence as reflected by 
demonstrated performance, recognizing the brutal reality of 
combat in which they are tested. This approach ensures the 
highest quality personnel enter and ultimately lead the force. 
We don't maintain a military to participate in war but to 
prevail.
    I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today and look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Greenway can be found in the 
Appendix on page 40.]
    Mr. Banks. Thank you.
    And finally, Mr. Levine, you may make your opening 
statement.

  STATEMENT OF PETER LEVINE, FORMER ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF 
              DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS

    Mr. Levine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Banks, 
Ranking Member Kim, and members of the subcommittee, thank you 
for inviting me here this afternoon. Even more than technology, 
our greatest military advantage over our competitors is our 
people. The capability of our total force, officer and 
enlisted, Active Duty and Reserve, military and civilian, 
organic and contractor, is multiplied many times over by the 
exceptional quality of our recruits and the unparalleled levels 
of their training and education.
    I would like to make three quick points today. First, 
diversity strengthens our military and military leadership is 
most effective when it appropriately reflects the force. Only 
by recruiting in every region of the country and every 
demographic group can the Department access the personnel and 
talent that it needs.
    A force that did not reflect the diversity of America would 
not only be smaller, it would be significantly less capable.
    Second, the military promotion system is merit-based, but 
that does not mean that it could necessarily be as objective as 
we would like. Federal law requires merit-based protection--
promotion decisions providing the selection boards convened by 
military departments recommend those officers whom they 
determine to be best qualified for promotion.
    Board members and service members involved in the selection 
process have described the process as exceptionally fair and 
express the belief that board decisions are made based solely 
on the strength of the record. There are no quotas, or 
affirmative action, in today's military promotion system.
    Third, the military has limited but important tools with 
which to promote diversity without undermining merit-based 
decisions.
    The twin objectives of promoting on the basis of merit and 
developing a diverse and inclusive leadership may sound 
inconsistent but they are not. One step the Department can take 
to build diversity without undermining merit is to ensure that 
the pipeline of individuals who enter into the merit-based 
promotion system is as diverse as possible.
    A second step the Department can take is to ensure that the 
boards that make the promotion decisions are themselves 
diverse. This is why section 612 of title 10, United States 
Code, requires that members of the selection board represent 
the diverse population of the Armed Forces concerned to the 
extent practicable. It matters who makes the decisions.
    Taking these steps does not require--does not mean that the 
services are now acting on a basis other than merit or 
promoting less-qualified officers. Rather, it is an indication 
that they are now able to recognize talent where they may not 
have been able to do so before. The result is a better and 
stronger force and one that draws on all of the many strengths 
of our society.
    Thank you for inviting me to participate in today's 
hearing. And I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Levine can be found in the 
Appendix on page 49.]
    Mr. Banks. Thank you to each of you for your opening 
statements. Each member will have 5 minutes to ask questions. I 
will begin with that time now.
    Mr. Thibeau, some people have claimed that a large portion 
of potential recruits see the U.S. military as racist or 
sexist. So that's why DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] 
training is necessary to correct their perception and to boost 
recruitment. Do you agree with that assessment?
    Mr. Thibeau. Mr. Chairman, I don't. I think when--if DEI 
training or recruitment based on race and sex is seen as the 
solution to perceived racism or sexism, that creates the 
``bogeyman'' that the military seeks to eliminate with those 
programs. Instead, the military should maintain absolute 
objectivity and frankly almost indifference to those kinds of 
ideologies to maintain a fighting force that is competent; not 
competent to consider all viewpoints, but competent to fight 
and win wars.
    Mr. Banks. So you're saying it's a self-perpetuating 
narrative?
    Mr. Thibeau. I think so.
    Mr. Banks. Interesting. Mr. Greenway, what policy or other 
changes should be made to ensure that service members with the 
most talent and ability get promoted regardless of their race, 
gender, or other visible characteristics?
    Mr. Greenway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one place to 
start is instructions to promotion and selection boards. For 
example, would you want the ``best qualified'' or a ``fully 
qualified'' physician attending you for medical care? I think 
the answer for most would be the ``best qualified.''
    But current instructions allow, I think, for far too much 
latitude and discretion against the subjective care and I think 
a lot of things can creep into the criteria. And so I would 
eliminate ``fully qualified.'' And I think we should look for 
the ``best qualified.'' And I think promotion boards are 
historically good at doing so.
    Mr. Banks. Many have argued that the Army Combat Fitness 
Test, the ACFT, results in disparate outcomes for women and 
men. Can you address why the ACFT is a good test for combat 
skill and fitness regardless of how it impacts women in the 
Army, Mr. Greenway?
    Mr. Greenway. I think the first point goes to the rigors of 
the environment in which we must prepare our service members to 
perform in. And I think it's always been a struggle for myself 
and others to recognize why we have different standards.
    And if the environment is the same, if combat in fact has 
the same conditions expected to perform in, we should probably 
have the same standard for everyone who is going to participate 
in it. And so I think the degree to which we don't, we create 
all kinds of problems for ourself, not least of which is 
inability to perform in combat.
    Mr. Banks. Mr. Levine, in your opening statement, you 
mentioned that the promotion system was not as color-blind as 
it should be. What concrete changes can the services make to 
ensure promotion systems are more color-blind?
    Mr. Levine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My point in the 
statement was that the promotion system cannot, in fact, be 
completely color-blind because even if we take photographs out 
of promotion files, we've still got names, we've still got 
histories, we've got seal associations, things that are on 
somebody's resume that will indicate historic background, 
including background of race. It's very hard to mask gender, 
for example, if you can see the nominee's, the candidate's 
name.
    On top of that, the main meat of a promotion board is the 
recommendations made by the officer's superiors and those 
recommendations are not blind. They are made by somebody who 
knows exactly who he or she is recommending or not 
recommending. So as much as we would like it to be color-blind, 
it can't be color-blind. And we just have to recognize that as 
a fact.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. I will yield back the rest of my 
time, and yield to Mr. Kim for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kim. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks again to the 
three of you for coming on out here. And, Mr. Levine, I wanted 
to just kind of drill in a little bit more on what you were 
just talking about here, just fleshing out some of your 
testimony as well.
    Just big picture, from what you see, is the process of 
military promotion as it is now, is it meritocratic? Is it 
based off of merit?
    Mr. Levine. I believe that it is. I do not believe that it 
is quota-based.
    I have participated in reviews which have, and reviewed 
studies in which people have interviewed numerous members of 
selection boards and the virtually unanimous view of people who 
participate in those boards is that they are merit-based. That 
they are making decisions purely on the basis of the file and 
extraneous considerations do not come into play.
    Mr. Kim. You just mentioned this idea about quotas. And it 
was raised as well in the opening. And I'm sure it will be 
talked about. But I guess I just wanted to kind of clarify 
this. What are we actually talking about here?
    You know, there obviously could be aspirational goals or 
other things like that. But just, when it comes to actual 
quotas dictating requirements of the services, does such a 
thing exist? Do those types of quotas exist in the current 
process?
    Mr. Levine. I will tell you that it would be against 
current law, existing law. You don't need--you have a new 
statute that would also prohibit. But existing statute would 
prohibit having a quota saying that you to have a certain 
percentage of nominations coming in based on race or gender or 
any other characteristic like that.
    So there are efforts to ensure, as I said, that the 
pipeline is diverse so that the people coming into the process 
start with--you start with a diverse group, but the decisions 
that are made with regard to whom to promote within that group 
are supposed to be made on the merits. And I believe that they 
are made on the merits.
    Mr. Kim. Oh, I see what you're talking about. So the idea 
is that, you know, the more that we can do our best to try to 
make sure that diversity is reflected writ large in the broader 
force. But when it comes to the actual promotions, that there 
is no quota. That that is done on that purely meritocratic 
approach. Is that what you're saying?
    Mr. Levine. Exactly. That is what I'm saying. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Kim. So just to kind of clarify, you know, we had in a 
previous hearing talk about affirmative action. Is any of that 
involved in the promotion process?
    Mr. Levine. I do not believe that there is affirmative 
action as is generally defined involved in the promotion 
process, no.
    Mr. Kim. The chairman cited a quote of yours that I thought 
was really interesting. Well, you said--I'll read it out. ``The 
military promotion system is merit-based, but that doesn't mean 
that we have been able to make it as color-blind or objective 
as we might like.''
    I just thought that was really interesting, what you just 
said back to the chairman kind of piqued my interest. I guess 
what I'm taking away from this in terms of what you just said 
is that in our minds sometimes we are associating the idea of 
meritocracy with objectivity. That that is what we should be 
achieving and striving for. But it sounded like what you were 
saying is that there is a limit to objectivity here. That there 
is always going to be some semblance of subjectivity, judgment 
because we're talking about things that are not always 
quantitative in that kind of way. Am I summing that up right?
    Mr. Levine. Yes. We want our evaluators and we want our 
promotion boards to be as objective as they can possibly be. 
But at the end of the day, we're relying on human judgment. And 
human judgment on assessing characteristics like leadership, 
communication skills, ability to work with others, key 
characteristics that we expect our leaders to have in the 
military and that we look to promote. And different people with 
different experiences see those in different ways.
    And, you know, the person I might see as a potential leader 
might be somebody that I recognize from my own past, the people 
that I've dealt with, the people that I have worked with, the 
kinds of characteristics of leadership that I've seen in my 
career.
    Somebody else who has a different career and a different 
background might recognize other characteristics of leadership. 
So that's why I say that having a diverse group of people 
making those decisions is important because you might recognize 
talent that you would not otherwise recognize just as a result 
of having a group--the group of people who were making those 
decisions not be all out of the same rubberstamp----
    Mr. Kim. Yeah.
    Mr. Levine.  [continuing]. And have the same set of views.
    Mr. Kim. No, that's a really important point. And one that 
I've been really meditating on is just this understanding of 
just what does it mean to be a meritocracy? You know, what is 
it that we're going at? And I think that it's important for us 
to recognize that, you know, there are limits to what, you 
know, just quantitative objective approaches can do.
    And in fact, if we do it solely based off of those things 
that we can measure in that kind of way, we'd be missing 
incredibly important characteristics that actually are there to 
help define and determine who is going to be the strongest 
leader. So thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate that. And 
I yield back.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. Mr. Gaetz, your 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, Mr. Thibeau, is there anything that should 
dictate whether or not someone gets a job in the DOD other than 
who is most qualified?
    Mr. Thibeau. No, Congressman, for that specific job, no. 
Whoever can do the job, whatever job it is best, should get it.
    Mr. Gaetz. Should we consider whether or not the job is in 
a red State or a blue State?
    Mr. Thibeau. No.
    Mr. Gaetz. Should we consider a State's critical race 
theory perspectives?
    Mr. Thibeau. No.
    Mr. Gaetz. Should we consider a State's thoughts on gender 
ideology?
    Mr. Thibeau. No.
    Mr. Gaetz. Should we consider our thoughts on a State's 
abortion policy?
    Mr. Thibeau. No, Congressman.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Greenway, can you think of anything other 
than the person's skill and their quality to align with the job 
that should be more important?
    Mr. Greenway. No, Congressman.
    Mr. Gaetz. None of the things I mentioned?
    Mr. Greenway. None.
    Mr. Gaetz. And why shouldn't a State's abortion policy 
influence what person gets what job in the military?
    Mr. Greenway. Because the military's unique responsibility 
is to perform in circumstances where no other part of our 
government can or is expected to. And that environment is 
unforgiving. And so the standard has to be prerequisite. And in 
this case, I don't think we can afford to fail in the defense 
of our Nation and its citizens because we compromise on that.
    Mr. Gaetz. Is that the same for like a State's maybe gender 
policy if you don't want the third-grade teacher picking your 
kid's gender, that shouldn't really impact who gets what job in 
the military, should it?
    Mr. Greenway. No, absolutely not.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Levine, do you share that perspective?
    Mr. Levine. I absolutely do, Congressman. We have a very 
diverse military. It reflects the diversity of American 
society. And if we were to pick and choose based on the views 
of people who were in the military, it would be very 
destructive to the military.
    Mr. Gaetz. And we shouldn't pick or choose based on the 
views of a State legislature either, should we?
    Mr. Levine. I can't see why we would.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yeah, I can't either. I'm glad to hear that 
universally presented. So, you know, Mr. Thibeau, if someone 
were to say, look, first I look at who is most qualified, but 
then I also look at maybe what a State's abortion policies or 
gender policies are. What's the risk of melding those things 
into one analysis about what jobs people do in the military?
    Mr. Thibeau. I think it creates, you know, two sides to a 
coin that doesn't exist, Congressman. You can either make it 
about who is most qualified, not merely who is qualified, or 
you can make it about other factors that a person doesn't 
choose, like their race or sex or like the State in which they 
may serve.
    And you can either admit that those latter factors don't 
matter and just choose who is most qualified anyways, or you 
can make compromises on who is truly the best person for each 
job based on other factors that have been deemed priorities 
from some spot in the chain of command. And I think that's what 
many of these diversity initiatives lead to.
    Mr. Gaetz. And so as I understand that, you are presenting 
a binary paradigm. Either it's the one most qualified, and then 
we have a meritocracy. Or it's the one most qualified plus 
anything else blended into that decision, you would say that is 
not a meritocracy.
    Mr. Thibeau. I think it creates a slippery slope to where 
you are making a choice about something else. And I think 
you're right, Congressman.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Greenway, do you agree that it is that 
binary? That once you start bleeding into the decision-making 
process, these other factors and other things, you can say that 
you consider first the qualifications, but really once it 
becomes muddled with something other than qualifications, the 
meritocracy train has kind of left the station?
    Mr. Greenway. Absolutely. And I will give two examples of 
that. The first is in the 1970s corporate policy started to 
influence promotion process and we suffered significantly. It 
took us about 6 or 8 years almost for the force to recover.
    And the second is in graduate degrees. It seems on the 
surface of it, a good idea to have the professional 
qualification of a graduate degree. And thankfully the pilot 
who ejected from the F-35 in South Carolina survived, but----
    Mr. Gaetz. Got it, got it, got it. I got that. With my 
remaining minute, I'm going to play a video.
    [Video shown.]
    Mr. Gaetz. I yield back.
    Mr. Banks. Mr. Waltz, your 5 minutes.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Does anyone disagree that 
our level of diversity in the military, at least according to 
race, exceeds that of the American public? We have more African 
Americans in the military than the public? We have more 
Hispanics in the military than broadly in the population?
    Mr. Levine. Congressman, that's generally true. It's not 
necessarily true if you look at all levels of----
    Mr. Waltz. Right. So that's the next--that's what we tend 
to hear is yes, yes, yes, ``but.'' That quick ``but,'' though, 
touches all kinds of things we do in recruiting, enlistment, 
DEI training, let's kind of brush aside. But the general 
officers corps.
    Does anyone disagree that at least across the services, 
most of our general officers are chosen from within, for 
example, in the Army combat ranks or the combat MOSes [military 
occupational specialties]. And for a whole variety of reasons, 
we tend to see more minorities in the service and the service 
support usually because there is different skills or different 
preferences there.
    So at least in my experience and what I've seen is that the 
generals are chosen from combat arms. And they tend to tilt 
more towards men. And they tend to tilt more towards White men. 
A reasonable explanation, one would say, right?
    Mr. Levine. That's generally accurate.
    Mr. Waltz. Okay. So then we start skewing that percentage--
sorry, Mr. Levine, what then in our general officer corps, 
since it tends to be less diverse, is acceptable? Is it to 
match the population?
    Mr. Levine. I don't believe that there is a percentage 
that's an acceptable percentage. I think that as we look at the 
type of factor that you just described, the reaction of the 
military has been a reasonable one which is why are we seeing 
minorities go--minority officers go into support functions? Are 
there things that we can do----
    Mr. Waltz. Are support functions less important?
    Mr. Levine. Not necessarily. But are there things we can do 
in terms of mentorship, or encouragement, to persuade them that 
perhaps they should look at the combat arms functions as well 
because if they are more--as you indicated, if they are more 
strongly represented in the lower grades in those functions, 
they're more likely to fleet up to the upper levels.
    And that is the kind of action that we take to encourage 
diversity.
    Mr. Waltz. So how do we then do that for females and 
general officers? Let's just stick with that because there are 
all kinds of places we could go with that. But let's stick with 
that. How then do we do that, we encourage more females when--
particularly when physical fitness and the ability to perform 
to a certain standard is a key metric, let's say in Army combat 
arms, infantry, armor, what have you?
    Mr. Levine. You don't necessarily have the fully ability to 
do that with regard to women. And you have to defer to what--
which [simultaneous speaking].
    Mr. Waltz. Would you agree then, really what this is about 
it's about standards? And it should be, if we have a 
meritocracy, and we've had some definition of meritocracy, it's 
about standards period. It's the standard needed to be an 
infantry man or woman. That may be a different as it applies to 
physical than it would be to say be a cyber warrior.
    Mr. Levine. We have----
    Mr. Waltz. Different physicality needed to be in the 
infantry than to type on a keyboard.
    Mr. Levine. Yes, Congressman. We have physical standards 
for specific MOSes. And those standards do not vary based on 
whether you are a woman or a man.
    Mr. Waltz. Actually, they do. Actually, that's just 
blatantly incorrect. We have a dual standard. Myself and 
Senator Tom Cotton have legislation to make them gender neutral 
and to make them according to the standard required.
    Mr. Levine. Let me be clear. We have two different fitness 
standards. We have one fitness standard for an MOS. Those are 
two different things. The fitness standard is a general 
suitability to serve in the service, which you'll hear your--
you can ask the professionals in the next panel, but they will 
explain to you that's about your general standard of fitness.
    Mr. Waltz. Right.
    Mr. Levine. There is a separate standard, which is a 
standard for a combat arms MOS. And that does not vary. It does 
not vary based on gender.
    Mr. Waltz. But here is the issue with that. In order for 
promotion points and all kinds of other things, for example, 
you have a first female that goes through Ranger School, one 
standard. Proud of her, absolutely earned it. But she goes to 
command and infantry platoon and she has a now different 
physical standard than the men and women that she's asked to 
lead. That's unfair to her. That undermines her achievement. 
And, and, last I checked, the enemy's bullets don't make a 
distinction.
    Mr. Levine. Again, she had to pass the same standard to get 
through Ranger School. She didn't get a different standard 
through Ranger School.
    Mr. Waltz. Right.
    Mr. Levine. She had the same standard through Ranger 
School.
    Mr. Waltz. That's right.
    Mr. Levine. She has a different fitness standard which I 
would think--what you think of as a health standard as a woman.
    Mr. Waltz. No.
    Mr. Levine. The body weight is different.
    Mr. Waltz. No, it's called--it's deliberately called a 
combat fitness test. These are the standards you must hit for 
combat. They literally--the Army literally changed the name 
from physical fitness test, which is wellness and health, to a 
combat fitness test. And I think you are--frankly, I'm going to 
move on, but you are making a distinction without a difference 
there. And at the end of the day what I think we need to 
settle, and why this committee under the chairman's leadership 
is having so many hearings, it's about standards that we need 
to win and fight wars, not about all of these other factors.
    Mr. Levine. I agree with you, Congressman.
    Mr. Banks. Time is expired. Mr. Mills, your 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Will [Thibeau], you 
went to Ranger School. You know all about the ideas of going to 
Darby Phase and sitting up in Dahlonega, sitting in Florida 
Phase. When you went through based on your height, your size. 
or your physical strength, was your standards modified based on 
those things?
    Mr. Thibeau. No, Congressman.
    Mr. Mills. And do you feel that it would actually be 
something which is fair to modify Ranger School standards based 
on physical capability or capacity?
    Mr. Thibeau. No, Congressman.
    Mr. Mills. Mr. Levine, you just talked about, again, health 
and welfare. I have deployed multiple times as has my 
colleague, Mike Waltz, and our chairman. And I can tell you 
that 180-, 200-pound man with full kit, when he is shot, and 
you are actually trying to pull him off the X, it doesn't 
matter your gender. It matters your capability, capacity, your 
combat fitness and readiness.
    So do you feel then that it should be based upon what your 
capability is or what your gender or other type of distinction 
is on whether or not you can perform those same duties?
    Mr. Levine. So the performance in any MOS, in any 
assignment should be based on your capability for that 
assignment. And I agree with you, and I agree with Congressman 
Waltz, that that should be absolutely standard-based.
    The question is whether the standard for fitness for 
participating in the armed services as a whole should also be a 
single standard or whether it is okay for that to be a dual 
standard. And my view is we have lots of jobs that are as you 
describe them where you have to carry a 140-pound kit or 200-
pound kit, or whatever it is, and you better be able to carry 
it if you're going to carry it.
    We also have desk jobs. We also have jobs operating----
    Mr. Mills. But we have people who are actually having a 
different standard who are in those combat arm positions.
    Mr. Levine. I understand. So the question is can we let 
somebody into the service based on a fitness standard that is a 
gender-based standard for admission into--for accession into 
the service. It doesn't get you into a particular assignment 
because for that assignment, you have to meet the physical 
criteria for that assignment.
    Mr. Mills. Well, let me ask this question, because this is 
about meritocracy. This is about putting meritocracy over the 
ideas of DEI and all these other criterias.
    And in August of 2022, the memo from the Secretary of the 
Air Force detailed percentage goals based on race and gender. 
What any reasonable person would see as an absolute quota, but 
yet we try to say that we don't have a quota.
    Can you explain where these resources were redirected from 
in order to reach the race-based quota set out by the Biden 
administration? Anyone?
    Mr. Thibeau. So, Congressman, this is, you know, where I 
see a disconnect between the supposed premise of merit and the 
insistence that quotas don't exist because that memo you 
reference establishes percentage-based goals not based on where 
people live or how--you know, what their income level was 
growing up but based on their skin color and their sex.
    And so, again, that goes back to this two-sided coin that I 
don't think exists. Either we can admit those goals are 
meaningless, and the Department of the Air Force and the 
subordinate units don't do anything to make sure they meet 
those goals for White men or Black men, or we can acknowledge 
that those are quotas. I don't understand what the difference 
is other than the label we give that policy.
    Mr. Mills. Mr. Thibeau, I absolutely agree with you. And I 
would argue the fact that most of this body actually believes 
in completely eliminating DEI, which is part of what's led to a 
deterioration, not just in the promotion of meritocracy, but 
also I think it's had a dire impact on our recruitment. And I 
think that we can acknowledge that we are at our lowest 
recruitment level since I believe it was 1973.
    And so, my question to all three of you then would be how 
do you see pronouns, and by the way, of course, we are the 
greatest when it comes to the battlefield, we can out-pronoun 
any of our enemies. We can out he/her and she/him all day.
    But how does pronouns, quotas, and DEI strengthen or 
diminish our Armed Forces. And I will start with you, Mr. 
Levine.
    Mr. Levine. What I would say about pronouns is that there 
is a fundamental part of our military culture and our military 
values, which is treating others with dignity and respect.
    And I believe that that fundamental principle should apply 
in the case of somebody who wants to have different pronouns 
used, which is don't disrespect them, don't intentionally 
insult them.
    Now do I think that somebody should be directed to use a 
specific set of pronouns whether they believe it or not? No, 
not particularly. But should we treat somebody with dignity and 
respect?
    Mr. Mills. I don't think it's about dignity or respect. I 
think that it is absolutely the idea of trying to put ourselves 
into these individual sectors and boxes for division when the 
military is about cohesion, unification, not division.
    Mr. Greenway, same question if you would.
    Mr. Greenway. I don't see any benefit. But ultimately, 
these ideas lead exactly to that, to quotas that ultimately 
come at the expense of performance and merit. And when the 
Secretary of the Air Force promulgates written guidance, it is 
not seen as something that would be nice to achieve, at least 
unless the military has changed radically, and I don't think 
that it has.
    Promulgated written guidance means that that is exactly 
what you are supposed to do. And so aspirational though they 
may be, instructions issued to subordinate commands means they 
need to be followed.
    Mr. Mills. I absolutely agree. My time has expired, but I 
thank you gentlemen. Again, I hope our Armed Forces gets back 
to not serving political agendas but serving our Nation and 
that we can actually identify that meritocracy is the most 
important thing. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Banks. I want to thank the first panel. This was a 
great substantive healthy discussion that will precede another 
panel discussion that we will have with some of our senior 
leaders in the military.
    So with that, we'll take a 3-minute recess, change panels. 
My hope is that we can get through the opening testimonies 
before members are called to vote and then we'll come back and 
ask questions. Thank you.
    [Recess]
    Mr. Banks. All right. The hearing will now come to order. I 
would like to again welcome our witnesses. Each witness will 
have the opportunity to present his or her testimony. And each 
member will have an opportunity to question the witnesses for 5 
minutes. We respectfully ask the witnesses to summarize their 
testimony in 2 minutes or less. Your written comments and 
statements will be made part of the hearing record.
    With that, Lieutenant General Stitt, you may make your 
opening statement.

STATEMENT OF LTG DOUGLAS F. STITT, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, 
                           U.S. ARMY

    General Stitt. Good afternoon, Chairman Banks, Ranking 
Member Kim, distinguished members of this committee. Thank you 
for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the 
United States Army.
    The Army's mission is to deploy, fight, and win our 
Nation's wars by providing ready, prompt, and sustained land 
dominance as part of the joint force.
    Accomplishing this mission requires placing the right 
soldier into the right assignment at the right time. This 
starts with recruiting across the United States, casting a wide 
net to ensure that all who want to serve and to meet our 
standards are afforded that opportunity.
    Programs such as the Future Soldier Preparatory Course 
provide our applicants the means to further develop themselves 
for successful enlistment, and completion of initial entry 
training.
    Our promotion system operates under the construct of 
statute and DOD policies, ensuring that we consider all 
eligible soldiers and select only the best for advancement. As 
a standards-based organization, promotion board members 
consider each soldier's file and select only those who are best 
qualified based upon merit.
    Our structural requirements determine how many of those 
best qualified soldiers on an order of merit list will advance 
for promotion to the next rank.
    For the Army's most impactful leadership positions, our 
officers and NCOs [noncommissioned officers] undergo an 
additional assessment. Leaders who compete for brigade and 
battalion command as well as other select critical positions 
attend the Command Assessment Program, which ensures that we 
are selecting the right leaders, who in turn have the greatest 
impact upon the soldiers in our formations.
    Our Army is ready because our accessions, selections, and 
promotions ensure that we are a force comprised of quality 
leaders and soldiers at all levels.
    Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, members of this 
committee, I thank you for your generous and unwavering support 
to our talented soldiers, civilian professionals, and family 
members. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of General Stitt can be found in 
the Appendix on page 55.]
    Mr. Banks. Thank you.
    Vice Admiral Cheeseman, you may make your opening 
statement.

  STATEMENT OF VADM RICHARD J. CHEESEMAN, JR., USN, CHIEF OF 
     NAVAL PERSONNEL AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS 
         (PERSONNEL, MANPOWER, AND TRAINING), U.S. NAVY

    Admiral Cheeseman. Good afternoon, Chairman Banks, Ranking 
Member Kim, and distinguished members of this subcommittee. I 
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss 
meritocracy in the United States Navy.
    In everything we do, our primary objective remains taking 
care of our people in order to produce and preserve the best 
combat-ready naval forces in the world.
    To do that, our Navy will always maintain, train, and equip 
a combat-credible, dominant naval force to keep the sea lanes 
free and open, deter conflict, and when called upon, decisively 
win our Nation's wars.
    Our entire Navy must leverage the best of our Nation by 
investing in trained, resilient, and educated sailors that are 
self-assessing, self-correcting, and always learning toward one 
goal, delivering warfighting advantage.
    Our process for accessions, promotions, and command 
selections supports this by being solidly founded upon merit.
    The Navy has a deliberate process for recruiting 
candidates, advancing our sailors, and selecting our personnel 
for leadership positions, which is constantly reviewed to 
ensure the finest Americans are available for service at all 
ranks, in all pay grades. These processes are rooted in law and 
sound policy.
    I look forward to working with you as we continue shaping 
our Navy to meet future challenges and thank you for your 
unwavering support. I stand ready to answer your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Admiral Cheeseman can be found 
in the Appendix on page 69.]
    Mr. Banks. Thank you.
    Dr. Strobl, you may make your opening statement.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. STROBL, ASSISTANT DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR 
        MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. MARINE CORPS

    Dr. Strobl. Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, and members 
of the subcommittee, your United States Marine Corps is a 
meritocracy. We take pride in our commitment to recognizing and 
rewarding excellence in a fair, transparent, and methodical 
way, whether it is accessing, assigning, promoting, or awarding 
and retaining Marines, the Corps is dedicated to merit-based 
treatment of our warriors.
    Marines understand that their advancement and opportunities 
depend on their excellence, creating an environment where 
everyone has an equal opportunity for success.
    In our accessions, the Marine Corps' primary requirements 
are that an applicant wants to be a Marine, wants to defend our 
Constitution, and can meet our high standards of intellect, 
fitness, and character.
    We welcome individuals of any race, religion, color, 
gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation from anywhere in 
our country who can meet these standards or wants to try. 
Everyone will be given a fair shot at the opportunity to become 
a Marine.
    Similarly, we assign, promote, and select for command based 
on merit. Our officer promotion selection boards are grounded 
in law. For all our boards, both statutory and non-statutory, 
we use a standardized briefing format and conduct anonymous 
voting. Our explicit standard is to always select the best and 
fully qualified.
    The success of the Marine Corps' meritocratic approach is 
reflected in Marine satisfaction. Marines demand fairness and 
accountability. Our historically high retention rates suggest 
that they believe the Corps treats them fairly, cares about 
their satisfaction, and values their careers.
    Marines choose to stay Marines because they have confidence 
that their careers will be determined by their excellence. This 
trust in our meritocratic principles is a driving force behind 
our sustained success.
    Thank you and ``Semper Fidelis.''
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Strobl can be found in the 
Appendix on page 75.]
    Mr. Banks. Thank you.
    Lieutenant General Miller, you may make your opening 
statement.

 STATEMENT OF LT GEN CAROLINE M. MILLER, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF 
   STAFF FOR MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND SERVICES, U.S. AIR FORCE

    General Miller. Good afternoon, Chairman Banks, Ranking 
Member Kim, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am 
honored to have this opportunity to appear before you today to 
focus on the most significant competitive advantage the Air 
Force has over its adversaries, our airmen.
    Air Force talent management is focused on one simple 
principle: having the right airmen in the right job at the 
right time.
    To successfully achieve that principle, we rely on the 
strength of individual merits in all facets of our personnel 
system from accessions to promotions to selection for command.
    This year, the Active Duty Air Force is projected to fall 
short of recruiting goals by 11 percent. This is due to factors 
such as low propensity to serve and a decline in the eligible 
population.
    To counter, we are increasing our direct engagement with 
citizens in areas of the country that are underrepresentative 
in our service.
    To increase the eligible pool of applicants, we are 
modernizing our accessions policies to better align with the 
Department of Defense. Overall, our primary focus remains 
attracting and retaining individuals with superior abilities 
and talents.
    Meritocracy is the foundation of the Air Force promotion 
system. In accordance with law and DOD policy, promotion boards 
for commissioned officers recommend to the Secretary the best 
fully qualified officers based on a whole-person concept.
    Each officer selection record is assessed on its own merit 
without regard to race, gender, or ethnicity, using factors 
that demonstrate exceptional job performance and leadership 
potential.
    Although non-statutory, command screening boards use the 
same review process for selecting senior officers for command.
    Within the enlisted ranks, airmen are promoted to 
noncommissioned officer based on their objective cumulative 
score within the weighted airmen promotion system. Promotion to 
senior noncommissioned officer ranks follow a promotion board 
process similar to officers.
    Three- and four-star general officer [GO] positions are 
nominatively filled using a slate of highly qualified 
candidates produced by the GO Future Assignment and Strategy 
Tool. The tool objectively analyzes each position's 
requirements against qualifications of all general officers.
    To preserve our supremacy in today's world against our 
adversaries, the Air Force must ensure the airman is in the 
right job at the right time.
    Thank you for your continued advocacy for our airmen, both 
military and civilian, and their families.
    [The prepared statement of General Miller can be found in 
the Appendix on page 82.]
    Mr. Banks. Thank you.
    Ms. Kelley, you may make your opening statement.

STATEMENT OF KATHARINE KELLEY, DEPUTY CHIEF OF SPACE OPERATIONS 
              FOR HUMAN CAPITAL, U.S. SPACE FORCE

    Ms. Kelley. Thank you. Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
leadership and support you have provided to the United States 
Space Force. Your Guardians, both military and civilian, are 
preserving freedom of action in an increasingly contested space 
domain. It is a privilege to come before you today.
    Developing a combat-credible force, ready for contested 
action in space is our imperative. To ensure that, we select 
the best, incorporating education, training, leadership, 
abilities, team building, and capabilities for past performance 
to generate the talent necessary to fight and win our Nation's 
wars.
    We have also established in the Space Force values of 
character, connection, commitment, and courage.
    The Space Force promotion system is grounded in statute and 
Air Force policy. Our program fulfills the requirements of 
section 619 of title 10, U.S. Code, and Secretarial policy 
focused on selecting and promoting the best qualified 
commissioned and noncommissioned officers to serve in positions 
of increased responsibility and increased authority.
    Promotion boards are charged with recommending the best 
qualified based on whole-person concept, which includes their 
record, their education, their performance, and demonstrated 
potential.
    We assign Guardians to team roles and leadership positions 
based on the needs of the service and the qualifications for 
the job.
    As we continue to grow our foundation as the newest 
service, we are instituting policy and process to ensure we 
continue to attract the best our Nation has to offer.
    Through partnerships with our sister services, and the 
excellent support of the Air Force, we are pleased that today 
we are achieving our recruiting targets, our accessions goals, 
and our authorized end strength.
    Space is no longer a benign domain, and we know that. I am 
proud of the more than 13,000 military and civilian Guardians 
in the Space Force. Together we are building a force 
unilaterally focused on securing our Nation in, from, and to 
space.
    I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley can be found in the 
Appendix on page 88.]
    Mr. Banks. Thank you to each of you. I will begin with 
questions and yield myself 5 minutes.
    I understand that boards are done based on U.S. Code. 
However, this administration has made DEI front and center 
through Executive order and that affects the Department of 
Defense. This question is for each of you. Lieutenant General 
Stitt, we will begin with you. How do you balance requirements 
by the President for diversity with your duty to a talent-based 
system?
    General Stitt. Chairman Banks, the Army does not utilize 
demographic goals or quotas in its promotion system. And every 
individual who is eligible for consideration is viewed by the 
merits of their file, which contains both their educational, 
their performance, and their assignment data that is available 
to all board members to review.
    Those board members review that. They vote on a 1 to 6, 1 
being the worst, 6 being the best. Those votes are tabulated. 
And those that are best qualified are deemed and come forward 
for final advancement.
    Mr. Banks. Vice Admiral.
    Admiral Cheeseman. Chairman, thank you very much for that 
question. Much like my Army counterpart, our process is based 
solely on the best and most fully qualified standard.
    That being said, we do recognize that the Navy is made up 
of, you know, many people with diverse backgrounds. It is 
important to understand that. Indeed, we do operate throughout 
the entire globe. So being able to operate with folks from all 
walks of life is pretty important to us.
    But that being said, the standard is the best and most 
fully qualified, and the process is exactly the same as my 
counterpart mentioned.
    Mr. Banks. Doctor.
    Dr. Strobl. Thank you for the question. The Marine Corps' 
overarching objective is to be ready, most ready when the 
Nation is least ready, and to be most lethal on the 
battlefield.
    In order to do that, we follow the imperative to select the 
best and most fully qualified candidates for promotion, for 
command, for assignments, and for accessions.
    Mr. Banks. Lieutenant General.
    General Miller. Thank you, yes. Similar to my colleagues, 
we are a standard-based organization in the Air Force. And we 
are looking for the right person at the right time. And for 
promotion, we look at their career record and their 
performance. And we want to make sure that they are the best 
candidate for that position that is available.
    Mr. Banks. Ms. Kelley.
    Ms. Kelley. Chairman, it is based on the best qualified. 
It's based on their past performance. It's based on how well we 
think they are ready to advance to that next level of 
performance inside the service.
    We take into account education, but basically we are 
picking the best and the brightest inside the Space Force.
    Mr. Banks. So is it fair to say that all of you are 
ignoring the President's Executive order. Can anyone respond to 
that?
    Admiral Cheeseman. Chairman, thanks for the question. I 
don't think we are ignoring any specific Executive order. In 
the Navy, we do recognize diversity can be, you know, a force 
for good. As we are mining talent throughout the country, we 
are making sure we have the best and most fully qualified 
available.
    That must be the standard. The standard is who is capable 
of performing at the next higher administrative milestone or 
for the statutory position they are being considered for and 
that always will be the standard.
    Mr. Banks. Anybody else?
    General Stitt. Chairman Banks, under current statute, we 
provide board members guidance on considering diversity in 
assignment, educational background, and experiences when 
reviewing all eligible candidates for promotion. And that board 
member utilizes that in their own internal board voting 
philosophy, and resulting in selection of best qualified once 
the votes are tabulated.
    Mr. Banks. I think I will leave it at that and yield to 
Ranking Member Kim for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kim. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I just wanted 
to kind of pick up and make sure I kind of got it because over 
the course of the last panel there is a lot of criticism saying 
that you all are doing something. You're saying, I'm guessing, 
the opposite of that.
    So I guess I just want to start here with the Army and go 
down the line. Is the promotion process meritocratic and based 
solely off of capabilities? Army.
    General Stitt. Ranking Member Kim, the promotion process is 
fair and based on the merits assessed by the board members to 
determine those who are best qualified for advancement to the 
next rank.
    Admiral Cheeseman. Chairman, I can confirm that it is 
exactly a meritocracy. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Kim. Okay. Sir.
    Dr. Strobl. Yes, for the Marine Corps, the promotion 
selection boards are based on merit.
    Mr. Kim. Air Force.
    General Miller. Yes, the promotion board is based on merit.
    Ms. Kelley. It's the same in the Space Force.
    Mr. Kim. Now, if you don't mind, I'll go the reverse way 
just to kind of get this on the table. Is race or gender or 
sexuality, is that at all a part of the consideration being 
judged for a promotion?
    Ms. Kelley. It is not in the Space Force.
    Mr. Kim. Air Force.
    General Miller. It is not in the Air Force.
    Mr. Kim. Marines.
    Dr. Strobl. No.
    Mr. Kim. Navy.
    Admiral Cheeseman. No, sir.
    Mr. Kim. Army.
    General Stitt. It is not, sir.
    Mr. Kim. So thank you. I just wanted to kind of clear that 
up. I guess I just wanted to also kind of hone in. I'm not sure 
if you heard some of my questions in the first round, but, you 
know, I think sometimes on this committee, you know, I really 
do believe we're all trying to get to that place where we have 
the best leaders. I think a lot of us have that same goal in 
mind. I think there are difference of opinions on whether or 
not we're actually doing that. But it's often kind of used in 
this way of saying, look, we want an objective process. That we 
want to get rid of the subjectivity.
    But in the first panel, there was an interesting comment 
sort of saying, look, when we are assessing leadership, that is 
not something that numbers alone are going to tell you. So I 
guess I just wanted to kind of go down one more time, is that 
something that you would agree with, that there is still--you 
know, that we try to be objective as much as we can, but there 
is going to be certain elements of this in terms of qualities 
of leadership. So if you don't mind, just kind of--do you agree 
with that and can you give me an example of some question of 
leadership that you feel like does require some judgment? Army.
    General Stitt. Ranking Member Kim, utilizing the Command 
Assessment Program that I had spoke about in my opening 
statement, that's where we start to peel back and look at 
cognitive and non-cognitive abilities of those individuals 
before we place them into brigade, battalion command or a 
senior noncommissioned officer billet at the brigade or 
battalion command level.
    We look at information from their peers and subordinates. 
These candidates participate in a double-blind panel before 
general officers who ask them a series of questions to 
determine their readiness and fitness for command.
    Mr. Kim. Navy.
    Admiral Cheeseman. Congressman, similar answer from the 
Navy. We have developed pilot programs, Navy Leader Assessment 
Program modeled off of the Army's lead.
    We are doing exactly that on the front end of the selection 
process to really get at that character determination on the 
front end so we can mentor and train, you know, future naval 
officers to do the things we need them to do in positions of 
higher authority.
    As mentioned in the first panel, character is hard to 
assess, and we do everything we can through our processes to 
ensure we have an accurate understanding of that before we 
place folks into positions of leadership.
    Mr. Kim. Great. If you don't mind, I just want to pause 
since I'm kind of running a little low on time. I just want to 
get to one last question here. To the Air Force, in a previous 
testimony, there was some talk about this August, I guess, 2022 
Air Force leadership memo detailing new diversity and inclusion 
goals for the Air Force officers.
    This was criticized as setting quotas. The memo talks about 
aspirations. I guess I just want to ask you to explain what 
impact this memo had on the promotion board processes since it 
was signed. What changed because of that memo? What changed at 
all in that process?
    General Miller. Yeah, thank you for the question. Actually, 
for the promotion process, absolutely nothing changed. I mean, 
we still are merit-based. We are looking for the whole person.
    That memo that General Brown signed essentially was talking 
about goals for accessions. There was, you know, we want to 
make sure that we have the best and brightest. That everybody 
across the United States has an opportunity to serve. And so he 
was just making sure that we did not eliminate----
    Mr. Kim. Just to be clear here, nothing changed in the 
process after that memo.
    General Miller. In the promotion process, nothing changed. 
Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Kim. Okay. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Banks. Mr. Gaetz, 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gaetz. So I guess I have the same question that I had 
for the last panel, and I will start with you, General Miller. 
Should a State's gender policy affect who is aligned to what 
position in the military?
    General Miller. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Gaetz. Should it----
    General Miller. It's the needs of the Air Force.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yeah, so it shouldn't mean the abortion policy 
either?
    General Miller. It's the needs of the Air Force and where 
[inaudible].
    Mr. Gaetz. I just want to be really--I want to draw a fine 
point on it. The needs of the Air Force----
    General Miller. Yes.
    Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. Do not require the Air Force to 
consider a State's abortion policy or gender policy before 
assigning a service member to a position in that particular 
State?
    General Miller. We do not.
    Mr. Gaetz. So what was that general in that video talking 
about when she said that there are 400 anti-LGBTQ [lesbian, 
gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer] laws that have to be 
considered before she aligns an applicant to a position?
    General Miller. Congressman, I cannot speak for General 
Burt and what she was talking about there.
    Mr. Gaetz. You're both in the Air Force, right?
    General Miller. Sir, she's in the Space Force.
    Mr. Gaetz. Oh, Space Force, maybe you can tell us, Ms. 
Kelley. What was she talking about?
    Ms. Kelley. Sir, my understanding of what her intent behind 
those comments is that she is really describing the assignments 
matching process in the Space Force.
    Mr. Gaetz. Okay.
    Ms. Kelley. And that is what I believe she was describing.
    Mr. Gaetz. Right. Okay. So when we--I get that. That is 
pretty evident. But in that assignments matching process, 
should a State's abortion policy come into play?
    Ms. Kelley. So I don't want to speak for her, sir, but I 
will tell you----
    Mr. Gaetz. I am asking you.
    Ms. Kelley. And I will----
    Mr. Gaetz. Should a State's abortion policy come into play?
    Ms. Kelley. What we take into account in the Space Force is 
the needs of the service, the Guardian themselves and whether 
they are qualified for the job.
    Mr. Gaetz. Do you take into account a State's abortion 
policy?
    Ms. Kelley. We take into account the preference of the 
individual if they are interested in the particular job.
    Mr. Gaetz. Okay. Fascinating. I am not asking about those 
things. I am asking about whether or not you take into account 
a State's abortion policy.
    Ms. Kelley. We do not because it needs----
    Mr. Gaetz. Do you take into account a State's LGBTQ policy, 
whatever that is?
    Ms. Kelley. No. We do not, Congressman.
    Mr. Gaetz. Okay. So why did your fellow space warrior with 
a bunch of stars on her, you know, lapel, stand up and give a 
speech that said, when she is aligning someone to a particular 
job, she is evaluating these 400 anti-LGBTQ policies? Why did 
she say that?
    Ms. Kelley. Sir, I can't speak for why she said that.
    Mr. Gaetz. Was that a mistake?
    Ms. Kelley. It certainly doesn't reflect what our processes 
are and what I know them to be.
    Mr. Gaetz. All right. Okay. So this is a moment here. This 
is a bit of a moment. Because we heard a senior person in the 
Space Force say one thing, and then you are here in front of a 
congressional committee saying that this is not what the Space 
Force believes.
    So I got to get to the bottom of this. So I sent a letter 
to General Burt saying, you said there are these 400 anti-LGBTQ 
policies that you are actively considering when you are 
aligning people to jobs. So I said, list them. If there are 400 
of them, I would love to read them. And the answer that I got 
back from someone called Alex Wagner is that to answer your 
specific request, the Department of Air Force does not maintain 
a list of pending or enacted laws that impact military 
readiness.
    So does the Space Force have such a list?
    Ms. Kelley. No, we do not, Congressman.
    Mr. Gaetz. We are policymakers that have to make decisions 
based on the representations of people who work at the 
Pentagon, right? And what you are providing us are conflicting 
and irreconcilable representations. And then when we ask 
follow-up questions so that we might be able to reconcile those 
things, the answer is we don't have a list.
    So as you are here today, can you just clear it up by 
denouncing those comments and saying that they are not the 
practice of what you all do?
    Ms. Kelley. Sir, I've described the practice that we do. 
And we do ask Guardians for their preferences on duty 
assignments. And we try to match Guardians to----
    Mr. Gaetz. Okay. So if one of those preferences is someone 
saying I don't like Florida's views on critical race theory. 
Would you consider that in whether or not to send that person 
to Florida?
    Ms. Kelley. No. The Guardian would----
    Mr. Gaetz. So what if they said the abortion policy. Would 
you consider that?
    Ms. Kelley. Sir, the Guardian would have to prove that 
there is some sort of hardship to them, which----
    Mr. Gaetz. You don't accept as a de facto hardship that a 
6-week abortion ban is a hardship, right?
    Ms. Kelley. That is not in our policy, no, sir.
    Mr. Gaetz. I am just trying to figure this out, Mr. 
Chairman. And I think we might have to do further investigative 
work to maybe get General Burt here to--it is unfair to ask you 
to characterize those comments. But at the end of the day, we 
have to figure out where to send the money and what authorities 
and restraints to put on that money. And if General Burt has 
gone rogue and engaged in some ultra vires act to create a 
secret list of 400 policies that she deems discriminatory, I 
would sure like the committee to see them. Thanks, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Banks. Mr. Waltz.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you. Just to build on that for one more 
minute. I am also from Florida. So essentially what you are 
saying is you described the policy today; Lieutenant General 
Burt violated that policy, or at least what she described as 
her efforts as a senior commander to reassign people based on 
series of criteria. That's not in accordance with your policy--
with the policies you described for the Space Force, correct?
    Ms. Kelley. Sir, I described our policies as you have 
heard.
    Mr. Waltz. But her statements, as you heard today, in 
accordance with your policy.
    Ms. Kelley. Well, she said she is compelled to consider. 
She did not say that she had.
    Mr. Waltz. Even if they are less qualified, was her 
statement.
    Ms. Kelley. We have multiple Guardians who are qualified 
for our positions, sir.
    Mr. Waltz. So, and you mentioned preferences, if--I mean, 
just to build on Representative Gaetz here, if perhaps their 
family feels unsafe because of a gun control policy, and they 
don't feel like they can appropriately buy firearms to protect 
them, would you consider that?
    Ms. Kelley. Sir, there is an exception to the process. But 
the Guardian would have to prove that there is some sort of an 
undue hardship on them.
    Mr. Waltz. Okay.
    Ms. Kelley. I would highly doubt that would meet the, you 
know, standard.
    Mr. Waltz. I would hope. Because I think what we have--what 
we are trying to demonstrate here is we have opened--statements 
from the senior leaders like that opens a Pandora's Box of 
political issues put on the table, enacted by State elected 
officials that in our view should not be considered. I am 
reassured to hear you say they should not be considered.
    But when you have three-star generals saying not only 
should they be, she is doing it. Do you see how that introduces 
doubt into our constituents, and the American people, that the 
senior leaders of the Space Force or the rest of the services 
are following the law?
    Ms. Kelley. Sir, I certainly see how that could be 
construed, yes.
    Mr. Waltz. Is she still in her position?
    Ms. Kelley. She is.
    Mr. Waltz. So there was no consequences for that statement, 
which is not in accordance with the policy that you have 
outlined?
    Ms. Kelley. Again, she did not make a statement publicly 
that she has actually reassigned anyone.
    Mr. Waltz. No. She made a statement that she is considering 
it. And specifically State law in Florida, I mean, specified a 
State, specified a law that she is considering in furtherance 
of her command, and she is still in command.
    Ms. Kelley. I did not hear a specific State law specified.
    Mr. Waltz. Well, as it pertained. It was a pride event as 
it pertains to LGBTQ. That was specific.
    Ms. Kelley. She was speaking at a DOD event, sir.
    Mr. Waltz. Okay. I think the broader issue is we are 
hearing your testimony today. But when we have events like 
that, when we have a non-quota quota memo, goals, from the 
Secretary of the Air Force; when we have an orientation at the 
Air Force Academy, a slide that with a woman holding a picture 
saying ``if you don't see my race, you don't see me''; when it 
instructs cadets to not use the term ``color-blind,'' yet you 
are testifying that race isn't a factor; when the 
Superintendent of the Air Force Academy tells me in a meeting 
that he finds the term color-blind offensive; then we have 
either some massive disconnects or what my suspicion is is you 
have an informal set of policies that may not be specifically 
in writing. You may not call it a quota. You may call it a 
goal, where these factors are being considered.
    General Stitt, you just testified that guidance is given in 
furtherance--or during the promotion board of how to 
incorporate diversity. That may not be directive, per se, but 
guidance is often taken as such.
    So let me just ask you this in the time I have remaining. 
Does anyone on the board today have any data that you can 
provide the committee that shows that a more diverse or less 
diverse--let's take a submarine in the Navy, a crew, is more 
effective, is more ready?
    Admiral Cheeseman. Congressman, thanks for the question. We 
do not have any specific data right now that talks about any 
diversity, equity, inclusion efforts and how it relates to 
combat effectiveness.
    Mr. Waltz. Okay.
    General Stitt. We do have an ongoing study at the Naval 
Post-Graduate School that is reviewing inclusion and how it 
relates to the topics that we are discussing. And we expect 
that study in the January 2024 timeframe.
    Mr. Waltz. General Miller, we have the non-quota quota 
memo. Do you have any data that a squadron, a bomber crew, any 
unit in the Air Force is more or less ready based on the 
percentages of their racial diversity?
    General Miller. No, sir, not on the percentages. No, sir.
    Mr. Waltz. Does anyone have any data showing--I mean, I 
understand the narrative that, you know, diversity of thought 
leads to a better unit. But do you have any data that shows 
that?
    Mr. Banks. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Waltz. I didn't think so, because it doesn't exist. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. Mr. Mills, quickly.
    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just going to 
follow-up on two things. One, I am pretty sure that everyone is 
aware of Henry II who had made the very popular statement where 
he said ``can no one rid me of this turbulent priest ,'' or 
``no one rid me of this troublesome priest,'' which resulted in 
his knights going off and killing an archbishop.
    I bring that up because as my colleague, Mr. Waltz, just 
pointed out, General Stitt, things like ``we are providing 
guidance'' could very much be perceived as an actual directive. 
And so that is something that we might want to be very cautious 
of because that does lead--when you have as many stars as you 
do, sir, and being a noncommissioned officer as I was--as a 
directive more than it is just a basis of guidance.
    I would also like to go back to General Burt because I am 
curious still on why there was no actual counseling, 
disciplinary actions, or at least something that had led to the 
statement of you may need to be cautious with what you are 
saying because it is against our actual policies and how we run 
things. Why was nothing done after that statement?
    Ms. Kelley. Sir, it is quite possible that a conversation 
like what you just described did happen.
    Mr. Mills. On record and it is in her file?
    Ms. Kelley. I am not aware of it.
    Mr. Mills. Okay. And General Miller, in August of 2022, the 
Secretary of the Air Force set the new race and gender goals 
for the Air Force's commissioned officer applicant pools, which 
we heard about earlier in my testimony. Can you please describe 
the steps and how you have taken to meet those goals?
    General Miller. These are accession goals--are you talking 
about the memo from the Chief of Staff, right?
    Mr. Mills. Mm-hmm.
    General Miller. They are accession goals. And they are just 
aspirations to make sure that we reach everybody across the 
United States.
    Mr. Mills. And can everyone--and I will let you 
individually go, and I will talk with you first, General Stitt. 
How does redirecting resources away from critical needs and 
towards DEI initiatives deter adversaries like China?
    General Stitt. I believe that our force today is ready, 
sir, to answer the Nation's call and take on a peer or near-
peer adversary around the globe.
    Mr. Mills. Sir, I appreciate that. I am going to go back 
and ask for a more defined answer than just that. How does 
redirecting resources away from critical needs towards DEI 
initiatives help us prepare for China?
    General Stitt. Representative Mills, in order to give you a 
more detailed answer, may I take that question for the record, 
please?
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 95.]
    Mr. Mills. Please do. Vice Admiral.
    Admiral Cheeseman. Congressman, thanks for the question. 
The Navy is focused on making it a place where all Americans 
can see themselves succeeding. And to do that, we want to be an 
inclusive environment. We want to make sure that every American 
who can meet the standard has a place in the Navy because we 
know the people are the ones that will fight and win our 
Nation's wars. So that's what we are focused on.
    Mr. Mills. You are talking about inclusiveness as if that 
didn't exist. So I guess when I was in the military, then it 
didn't exist back then and we had to frame an entire funding 
pool towards DEI to ensure inclusiveness that didn't exist 
previously?
    Admiral Cheeseman. Congressman, I'm not saying that at all. 
I'm certain it did exist. I've enjoyed that for 34 years in my 
service.
    Mr. Mills. That is exactly my point.
    Admiral Cheeseman. It absolutely is. My point is that we 
have areas of the country where we are underserved, where our 
word has not gotten out. And we need to mine talent from every 
possible ZIP Code to get the mission [inaudible].
    Mr. Mills. All right. Thank you very much. And to the 
Marine Corps, look. I almost don't need to ask the question. 
You know, hoorah Marines. You guys are the ones who are 
actually getting to your recruitment goals and continue to 
maintain. So I will let you comment on it, but we know what you 
guys are doing.
    Dr. Strobl. Thank you, Representative. The Marine Corps is 
interested in being inclusive and exploiting the talents of all 
Americans who are willing and qualified to serve. And that 
focus on inclusivity, I think, has contributed to our historic 
high retention rates over the last 2 years, which will directly 
help us in any conflict with any adversary in the future.
    Mr. Mills. So you feel that additional resources was 
necessary for that?
    Dr. Strobl. I don't know that they were additional. I think 
we already were resourcing.
    Mr. Mills. Well, I can tell you by the line items, it was 
definitely additional funding.
    Mr. Banks. Mr. Mills, in the interest of time, we will 
never make it to votes if we don't leave right now.
    Mr. Mills. All right.
    Mr. Banks. So I want to thank all of the panelists. I am 
going to save my closing statement. A very important 
conversation today. Thank you for joining us once again. Thank 
you for your service. The hearing is over.
    [Whereupon, at 2:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    
=======================================================================

                            A P P E N D I X

                           September 20, 2023
     
=======================================================================


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                           September 20, 2023

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
      
=======================================================================


              WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                              THE HEARING

                           September 20, 2023

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

      

              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLS

    General Stitt. Our Army is a superior fighting force on all 
accounts--and its true strength is in its people. The diversity of our 
Force does not detract from deterring our adversaries, but instead is a 
critical foundation for readiness and mission effectiveness. In 2022, 
RAND published research showing that integrated and diverse teams 
produce positive operational impacts, including exchange of a wider 
range of information, enhanced ability to project influence, and 
improved engagement with partners, allies, and domestic and 
international audiences. A more representative institution can also 
help to increase trust and legitimacy between the military and the 
society it serves. When people feel that the military is representative 
of them, they are more likely to trust it and be supportive of its 
actions. Ultimately, a diverse Army that represents its nation 
demonstrates the superiority of American democracy.
    As the Nation becomes increasingly more diverse, the Army must 
continue capitalizing on the ideals of inclusion, embracing the 
opportunity to innovate, focusing on excellence, and expanding 
capabilities. We must acquire, develop, employ, and retain the best and 
brightest of America's talent pool. Our increasingly complex global 
responsibilities require that we not only acquire people with different 
skillsets, experiences, values, and backgrounds, but also invest in the 
development and employment of all our Soldiers and Civilians. 
Investment in our people as our strongest asset directly influences our 
ability to successfully execute the mission, as research shows that 
highly unequal armies suffer higher casualty rates and attrition than 
more inclusive ones. Failing to account for the human elements of war 
presents risks to mission success.   [See page 26.]
     
=======================================================================


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                           September 20, 2023

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

      

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. STEFANIK

    Ms. Stefanik. To address the current recruitment crisis, the US 
Army is currently operating the Army Future Soldier Prep Course. In 
your testimony, you highlighted the success of this course graduating 
95% of the over 10,000 participants. Can you provide additional insight 
into your assessment of the Future Soldier Prep Course program? 
Additionally, how can Congress support the expansion of this program?
    General Stitt. The Army's Future Soldier Prep Course (FSPC) aims to 
provide Soldiers the academic and fitness capabilities to be successful 
in the Army. This program is holistically intended to invest in 
individual Soldiers so they can overcome obstacles and serve in a 
capacity they previously didn't see as a possibility. While initial 
results of the pilot program have been promising, the Army's Research 
Institute is utilizing longitudinal data collection measures and 
methodology to perform a comprehensive assessment of the Army's 
academic portion of the Future Soldier Prep Course. By performing 
comparative methods of similar populations of non-FSPC Soldiers, the 
Army can make lasting policy decisions for the program. The Army will 
continue to assess and scale the course to ensure we are successfully 
preparing and building quality Soldiers who will thrive in the Army's 
all professional force. If further expansion is planned, congressional 
support for this as part of the President's budget would assist the 
Army's accession efforts.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GAETZ
    Mr. Gaetz. Based on the response of the Assistant Secretary of the 
Air Force (AF) Alex Wagner, dated September 8th, 2023, the Department 
of the AF (DAF), ``does not maintain a list of pending or enacted 
[state or federal] laws that impact military readiness. Additionally, 
the Department does not declare state laws to be ``anti-any 
demographic.'' Yet LTG. DeAnna Burt made political statements that do 
not reflect DAF or the Department of Defense (DOD) policy. She made 
these comments at an official DOD event in her official capacity as a 
General Officer and a Commander within Space Force. Did her actions 
violate DOD Directive 1344.10, ``Political Activities of the Armed 
Forces on Active Duty?'' Furthermore, section 4.1.5. prohibits 
activities that may reasonably be viewed as directly or indirectly 
associating the DOD with a partisan political activity or is otherwise 
contrary to the spirit or intent of this directive. Lastly, section 
4.3.3.2. prohibits making statements or answering questions to the 
media regarding political issues or regarding government policies or 
activities unless specifically authorized by an appropriate supervisor 
or commander. After todays hearing we know, the comments made by LTG. 
Burt were not authorized and don't reflect the DOD or DAF's policy. Why 
hasn't she been punished and will the DAF pursue accountability and 
corrective actions based on violations of DODD 1344.10 against LTG. 
Burt?
    General Miller. Lt Gen Burt is a member of the U.S. Space Force and 
is, therefore, subject to a separate chain of command outside of my 
purview. As the Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel, and 
Services, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, I am the senior Air Force 
officer responsible for comprehensive plans and policies covering all 
life cycles of military and civilian personnel management for Airmen 
and civilians assigned to the Air Force. Personnel matters and 
management of Guardians and civilians assigned to the Space Force fall 
under Ms. Katharine Kelley, the Space Force's Chief Human Capital 
Officer, and I refer you to her to address any Space Force personnel 
management questions you may have.
    Mr. Gaetz. Based on the response of the Assistant Secretary of the 
Air Force (AF) Alex Wagner, dated September 8th, 2023, the Department 
of the AF (DAF), ``does not maintain a list of pending or enacted 
[state or federal] laws that impact military readiness. Additionally, 
the Department does not declare state laws to be ``anti-any 
demographic.'' Yet LTG. DeAnna Burt made political statements that do 
not reflect DAF or the Department of Defense (DOD) policy. She made 
these comments at an official DOD event in her official capacity as a 
General Officer and a Commander within Space Force. Did her actions 
violate DOD Directive 1344.10, ``Political Activities of the Armed 
Forces on Active Duty?'' Furthermore, section 4.1.5. prohibits 
activities that may reasonably be viewed as directly or indirectly 
associating the DOD with a partisan political activity or is otherwise 
contrary to the spirit or intent of this directive. Lastly, section 
4.3.3.2. prohibits making statements or answering questions to the 
media regarding political issues or regarding government policies or 
activities unless specifically authorized by an appropriate supervisor 
or commander. After todays hearing we know, the comments made by LTG. 
Burt were not authorized and don't reflect the DOD or DAF's policy. Why 
hasn't she been punished and will the DAF pursue accountability and 
corrective actions based on violations of DODD 1344.10 against LTG. 
Burt?
    Ms. Kelley. Active duty Service members are prohibited from 
participating in partisan political activities, which is defined in 
Enclosure 2 of DODD 1344.10 as ``activity supporting or relating to 
candidates representing, or issues specifically identified with, 
national or State political parties and associated or ancillary 
organizations or clubs.''
    Lt Gen Burt's remarks at the official DOD Pride Month observance 
did not constitute direct advocacy for or against a political party, 
candidate, or partisan cause. She spoke hypothetically on the possible 
effect of certain policies on readiness. This type of statement is not 
partisan political activity as defined by DODD 1344.10.
    The Space Force regularly reinforces the obligations of its members 
to abide by DODD 1344.10 and its prohibitions on certain political 
activities and takes disciplinary action for violations of DOD and DAF 
regulations when it is appropriate to do so.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WALTZ
    Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting 
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting 
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness 
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a 
10,000 soldier shortfall.
    I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure 
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help 
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
    The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to 
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote 
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the 
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
    Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the 
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
    Mr. Thibeau. JROTC expansion is an important step for the military 
to incentivize to alleviate recruitment goals. Many enlisted and 
officer recruits start to consider military service in high school, and 
JROTC programs can provide an early ``net'' into more serious 
discernment. A recent article in Real Clear Defense makes clear how 
JROTC offers one of the more cost-effective means of military 
recruiting. JROTC provides for a recruit acquisition cost of 
approximately $8,500 per recruit, while other recruiting strategies 
average almost $20,000 per recruit. (1)
    Even more, JROTC can serve an essential cultural mission to re-
establish our conception of the military as an institution in civil 
society. In culture, school, and in media, young Americans are 
surrounded by a sense of individualism. JROTC programs can offer a 
critical alternative of teamwork, sacrifice, and professionalism that 
is essential to the flourishing of the military as an institution.
    (1) https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2023/10/20/
solving_the_ recruiting_ crisis_reaching_the_next_generation_through_ 
jrotc_987591.html#::text=Roughly%
2020%25%20of%20all%20recruits,or%20%248%2C500%20per%20JROTC%20
recruit.
    Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting 
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting 
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness 
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a 
10,000 soldier shortfall.
    I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure 
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help 
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
    The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to 
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote 
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the 
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
    Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the 
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
    Mr. Greenway. Yes, expanding the JROTC program to more communities 
could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls the services are 
currently facing. The program would educate young Americans in civics 
and patriotism, as well as exposing them to what military life looks 
like, and both would have a positive impact on improvement. JROTC 
programs have many benefits for American young people, like encouraging 
physical fitness, learning leadership and conflict resolution skills, 
as well as teaching important values like discipline and 
accountability. Expanding them would be a win for America's youth, as 
well as the services hoping to recruit them. The recruitment challenge 
could be helped if more young Americans were patriotic and understood 
the important role the military plays in defending the United States 
and Americans' way of life. It is no secret that young people today are 
woefully ignorant of even basic civics, and many do not express much 
pride about being an American. Patriotism and a willingness to serve a 
cause larger than oneself are important factors in motivating someone 
to join the military. Our society in general could use more patriotic 
young Americans, but especially needs them to fill the ranks. Expanding 
the program to more communities would have a positive impact here, as 
more students would be exposed to patriotism, and see examples of 
service.
    Those examples of service are perhaps the most important benefits 
the program would add to the recruitment challenges. Research has shown 
that 79% of young people who join the military had family members who 
served before them. This shows the importance that exposure to the 
military has on young people when deciding to serve. Many are simply 
unaware of what military life and its many benefits actually looks 
like. Having more servicemembers in more communities engaged in 
supporting JROTC programs would expand the number of young people who 
would see examples of service, and would also expand their 
understanding of what life in the military would actually look like. 
This would have a positive impact on recruiting, as well as society. 
Too many Americans are woefully ignorant of the men and women who make 
up our military services, and the only inputs to their perceptions come 
from the media, movies, and social media. These sources do not reflect 
the reality of military service.
    Additional reading and sources:
    Tom Spoehr and Isaac Tang, ``Why Junior ROTC Programs in U.S. High 
Schools Are Needed Now More Than Ever,'' The Daily Signal, May 23, 
2023, https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/why-junior-rotc-
programs-us-high-schools-are-needed-now-more-ever (accessed October 24, 
2023).
    Mackenzie Eaglen, ``The Secret to Fixing the Army's Recruiting 
Troubles,'' AEI, March 30, 2023, https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-
defense-policy/the-secret-to-fixing-the-armys-recruiting-troubles/
(accessed October 24, 2023).
    Kyle Rempfer, ``Army leaders weigh expanding JROTC in high 
schools,'' Army Times, November 7, 2019, https://www.armytimes.com/
news/your-army/2019/11/07/how-increased-footprint-in-high-schools-may-
help-army-fix-recruiting-shortfall/(accessed October 24, 2023).
    Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting 
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting 
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness 
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a 
10,000 soldier shortfall.
    I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure 
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help 
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
    The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to 
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote 
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the 
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
    Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the 
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
    Mr. Levine. I agree with your statement that lack of familiarity 
with and exposure to the military in many of our communities 
contributes to military recruiting difficulties. A large variety of DOD 
programs, including JROTC, seek to address this problem by making young 
people more aware of the Armed Forces and what they do. Expansion of 
these programs should help build propensity to military service and 
provide a more favorable background for recruiting. In general, 
however, significant trends in military recruiting appear to be 
attributable to larger economic and cultural developments that will be 
difficult to overcome through enhanced recruiting efforts alone.
    Mr. Waltz. In 2011, Army Chief of Staff Martin Dempsey and Sec Arm 
John McHugh signed the Army's Equal Opportunity and Discrimination 
Policy stating in part ``Soldiers will not be accessed, classified, 
trained, assigned, promoted or otherwise managed on the basis of race, 
color, gender, religion, or national origin, except as required by 
Federal law. Such discriminatory behaviors and practices undermine 
teamwork, loyalty and the shared sacrifices of the men and women of 
America's Army.''
    Is this still Army policy, or has it been revised or replaced?
    The statement contains the qualification ``except as required by 
Federal law.'' Can you identify which Federal law, if any, ``requires'' 
the Army, or DOD at large, to use race, gender, religion, etc. in 
accessing, classifying, training, assigning, or promoting military 
service members?
    General Stitt. The 2011 Army Equal Opportunity and Discrimination 
Policy is no longer directly relied upon as a source of current Army 
policy. The current Army policy is the Military Equal Opportunity and 
Harassment Prevention and Response Policy dated 7 March 2022. The 
current policy does not include the phrase ``except as required by 
Federal law.'' The current policy strives to maximize human potential 
and ensure fair treatment for all Soldiers based solely on merit, 
performance, and potential in support of force structure, 
modernization, and readiness.
    Eleven Title 10 statutes mention or relate to race, gender, 
religion, and other demographic categories in the context of accessing, 
classifying, training, assigning, or promoting military service 
members. Of these 11 statutes reviewed, none require or mandate the use 
of demographic categories when accessing, classifying, promoting, 
training, or assigning Soldiers.
    Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting 
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting 
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness 
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a 
10,000 soldier shortfall.
    I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure 
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help 
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
    The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to 
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote 
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the 
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
    Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the 
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
    General Stitt. Across all the Services, the presence of a JROTC 
program in high schools where a geographical military presence is 
small, helps reconnect those communities with our Armed Forces. Within 
statute, recruiters maintain access to high schools and the Army 
routinely works with OSD to ensure the execution of that program. JROTC 
Cadets have higher attendance, graduation rates, and GPAs than their 
peers who do not participate in the program. While JROTC is not a 
recruiting program, a large portion of Army enlistees came from a 
school with a DOD JROTC program. Army JROTC expanded to 1,729 programs 
in FY23 and will expand to 1,734 programs in FY24. The Army's JROTC 
program is an overwhelmingly positive youth citizenship program 
supporting more than 272K Cadets at more than 1,700 high schools across 
our nation. The Army will continue to ensue this initiative and explore 
all options.
    Mr. Waltz. The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) is the 
tool our military uses to monthly measure & assess combat readiness of 
all battlions/squadrons and above. The ``C-Level'' is the overall 
rating of a unit's ability to execute its wartime mission and has four 
specific subordinate ratings: P-Level (Personnel Authorized & On-Hand); 
S-Level (Equipment and Supplies Authorized & On-Hand); R-Level 
(Equipment Condition); T-Level (Training Status).
    In DRRS, is there a provision where race and gender are measured?
    Is race or gender a component of combat readiness?
    Is there any empirical data compiled by your service department 
which demonstrates that units with greater gender and racial 
integration correlates with combat readiness?
    General Stitt. In DRRS, is there a provision where race and gender 
are measured? No. Demographic data is captured and recorded in the 
Human Resources systems.
    Is race or gender a component of combat readiness? As noted above, 
DRRS data does not include race or gender.
    Is there any empirical data compiled by your service department 
which demonstrates that units with greater gender and racial 
integration correlates with combat readiness? It is not in DRRS, but 
the Department does study these issues, and we can connect you with the 
proper points of contact for further information.
    Mr. Waltz. Navy Aviation Incentive Pay is a retention tool, but the 
Secretary of the Navy is not following his own instructions on flight 
pay with regards to retaining aviators coming from Tactical Air Control 
Squadrons. I've read the Navy's report to Congress on the issue and it 
doesn't tell the whole story behind the self-inflicted problem that has 
effected dozens of Naval Aviators.
    What is the Navy doing to retain Naval Aviators who serve past 
their department head tours and why is the Navy stripping flight pay 
from aviators who are perfectly capable and willing to do flying jobs?
    Admiral Cheeseman. The Navy's primary tool to retain Naval Aviators 
is the Aviation Bonus which is currently offered at two critical points 
in a Naval Aviator's career. The Aviation Department Head Retention 
Bonus (ADHRB) is offered to aviators who have selected for Lieutenant 
Commander (LCDR) and is contingent on selection for aviation department 
head. This bonus generally obligates an officer for five years past the 
obligated service that resulted from flight training. However, three-
year contracts (sufficient to carry an officer through the department 
head tour) are also offered. In FY23, seven-year contracts were offered 
for the first time.
    Post-DH retention through the aviation command milestone is 
generally good and a retention bonus is not required to meet billet 
requirements involving flying at this stage of the career. The most 
common flying assignments at this point in aviation careers are 
commanding officer/executive officer of a squadron and permanent flight 
instructor, both of which hold competitive boards to select the best 
qualified officers for the limited opportunities. However, DH-served or 
serving aviators do receive a higher rate of Aviation Incentive Pay 
(AvIP) than those not selected for DH ($1,000 per month versus $840)
    The second critical career point for aviation retention is the 
post-command commander tour. The Navy pays the Aviation Command 
Retention Bonus to incentivize retention past retirement eligibility 
for command served aviators to complete critical tours at sea and 
ashore that require command experience and the skills of an aviator, 
although these billets generally do not involve flying as a pilot or 
aircrew.
    In addition to the Aviation Bonus, Navy offers education 
opportunities such as War College, a wide range of shore tours, and 
flying opportunities in the production pipeline to incentivize 
retention.
    With regard to AvIP, also known as flight pay, 37 USC 334 permits 
the payment to an aviator not currently engaged in operational or 
proficiency flying duty under regulations prescribed by the Secretary 
of Defense when the Secretary Concerned determines it is in the best 
interests of the Service. The Secretary of Defense has established a 
gate system that permits continuous payment of AvIP for officers who 
accumulate sufficient flying duty prior to the gate. The DOD 
regulations permit the Secretary Concerned to waive the gate 
requirements when in the interest of the Service. The Report to 
Congress explained the criteria used to determine if a waiver is in the 
interest of the Navy. A willingness to return to a flying job, medical 
qualification, and continued designation as an aviation officer are 
necessary conditions for a waiver, but they are not sufficient. 
Officers whose waivers are denied for continuous AvIP remain eligible 
for AvIP if and while assigned to flying duties past their flight gate
    Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting 
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting 
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness 
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a 
10,000 soldier shortfall.
    I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure 
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help 
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
    The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to 
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote 
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the 
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
    Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the 
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
    Admiral Cheeseman. The Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps 
(JROTC) program has historically had a positive impact on the Navy's 
recruiting efforts. JROTC instills a sense of patriotism and a desire 
for younger individuals to serve their country. This early exposure 
significantly increases the likelihood of students to consider a career 
in the Navy. JROTC emphasizes leadership skills by fostering personal 
growth and self-discipline in its participants. These qualities are 
highly valued in the Navy.
    By nurturing leadership abilities, JROTC prepares students for 
future Naval Service, making them more attractive candidates to 
recruiters. Most importantly however, the program's strong presence in 
high schools facilitates recruiter access to the student population by 
developing relationships with school administrators and their faculty. 
These relationships provide Navy recruiters with an easier path to 
engage with school officials, thereby gaining access to the student 
population. This access allows recruiters to provide firsthand 
information about Navy opportunities, career paths, and benefits to 
students who may be curious about the Service and those who may already 
be interested in serving.
    Mr. Waltz. The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) is the 
tool our military uses to monthly measure & assess combat readiness of 
all battlions/squadrons and above. The ``C-Level'' is the overall 
rating of a unit's ability to execute its wartime mission and has four 
specific subordinate ratings: P-Level (Personnel Authorized & On-Hand); 
S-Level (Equipment and Supplies Authorized & On-Hand); R-Level 
(Equipment Condition); T-Level (Training Status).
    In DRRS, is there a provision where race and gender are measured?
    Is race or gender a component of combat readiness?
    Is there any empirical data compiled by your service department 
which demonstrates that units with greater gender and racial 
integration correlates with combat readiness?
    Admiral Cheeseman. The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) 
does not track or measure race or gender to determine C-level ratings. 
For personnel readiness, DRRS measures authorized billets and assigned 
number of personnel filling the billets, tracking whether they are 
Active Duty, Reservist, enlisted, or officers filling the billets. For 
DRRS specifically, race or gender is not a component of combat 
readiness. DRRS determines combat readiness based on a unit's status in 
the maintenance, training, or sustainment phase of the Optimized Fleet 
Response Plan.
    The Navy is deepening and broadening its ability to use data to 
measure our culture, analyzing from the broader community level down to 
our units. In doing so, the service will train leaders on how to build 
great people and great teams that work together to enhance unit 
effectiveness by targeting risk factors (e.g. toxicity, hostility, and 
harassment), and building protective factors (e.g. inclusion and 
connectedness). As part of this, Naval Postgraduate School is working 
on a study entitled ``Assessing the Relationship Between Diversity, 
Inclusion and Navy Unit Performance.'' The study will look at the 
relationship between diversity and inclusion and objective unit 
performance measures in the Surface Warfare community and is 
anticipated to be complete in January 2024. The Navy will provide an 
update to Congress once the report is ready
    Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting 
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting 
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness 
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a 
10,000 soldier shortfall.
    I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure 
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help 
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
    The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to 
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote 
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the 
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
    Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the 
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
    General Miller. An expanded AFJROTC presence increases knowledge of 
the military to youth who may not otherwise have influencers with 
military experience available. This expansion could grow the propensity 
to serve.
    Investments in JROTC beyond what is included in the FY 2024 would 
require tradeoffs in other areas. Further, any expansion of the AFJROTC 
program would require careful selection by the Air Force of new unit 
locations. This ensures that new AFJROTC locations are not established 
ad hoc but follow a strategy based on a careful analysis of multiple 
factors intended to ensure sustained unit success.
    Mr. Waltz. The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) is the 
tool our military uses to monthly measure & assess combat readiness of 
all battlions/squadrons and above. The ``C-Level'' is the overall 
rating of a unit's ability to execute its wartime mission and has four 
specific subordinate ratings: P-Level (Personnel Authorized & On-Hand); 
S-Level (Equipment and Supplies Authorized & On-Hand); R-Level 
(Equipment Condition); T-Level (Training Status).
    In DRRS, is there a provision where race and gender are measured?
    Is race or gender a component of combat readiness?
    Is there any empirical data compiled by your service department 
which demonstrates that units with greater gender and racial 
integration correlates with combat readiness?
    General Miller. The Defense Readiness Reporting System, the 
readiness reporting system of record, does not contain demographic 
information on assessable units with respect to gender or race, nor 
does the system factor such demographics when analyzing and/or 
measuring combat readiness of assessable units.
    The DAF draws upon the broadest possible set of backgrounds, 
talents, and skills to maximize our warfighting capabilities, deter 
threats and challenges, and take advantage of new opportunities to 
strengthen the Total Force. With recruiting and retention challenges 
shaped by a competitive labor market and decreasing propensity to 
serve, attracting and retaining a wide range of skilled candidates is 
more important than ever. Reinforcing unit cohesion and mission 
effectiveness through evidence-backed policies and programs can help 
ensure we maintain the combat readiness of the Total Force.
    RAND research noted that highly integrated and diverse teams 
produce positive operational impacts, including the exchange of a 
broader range of information and the generation of original ideas 
through different communication styles. It also found that a diverse 
force has the potential to foster external legitimacy, enhance the 
ability to project influence, and improve engagement with partners, 
allies, and domestic and international audiences. Research shows 
diverse groups of problem solvers can outperform high-ability problem 
solvers since solely high-ability groups tend to congregate and 
experience groupthink.
    Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting 
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting 
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness 
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a 
10,000 soldier shortfall.
    I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure 
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help 
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
    The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to 
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote 
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the 
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
    Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the 
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
    Dr. Strobl. JROTC is among the largest youth development programs 
in the United States, and one of many ways we can reconnect the 
military with our communities. These programs instill the value of 
citizenship and civic responsibility, service to our country (including 
opportunities within the military, national, and public service 
sectors), personal responsibility, and a sense of accomplishment in 
participating students. Over the last decade, Marine Corps JROTC has 
served over 27,000 students in 254 high schools. The program seeks to 
provide a safe learning environment that fosters opportunities for 
personal development and skill building through co-curricular and 
extra-curricular activities, such as drill, cyber competitions, and 
physical training. It also helps students improve their career 
readiness by introducing them to emerging workforce careers in science, 
technology, engineering, math, computer science, and cybersecurity. 
Although recruiting is not the purpose of JROTC, our historical data 
continues to demonstrate a benefit of the program to service. The data 
from our last four cycles of graduates show the following:

 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Graduation Year                        2020            2021            2022            2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graduating Seniors                               4849             4683            4442            3652
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Academy Appointments                     35               29              40              38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROTC Scholarships                                88               75              143             150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Enlistments                              1011             853             1119            955
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Military Service                           1134             957             1302            1143
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage Military Service                      23.4%            20.4%           29.3%           31.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Mr. Waltz. The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) is the 
tool our military uses to monthly measure & assess combat readiness of 
all battlions/squadrons and above. The ``C-Level'' is the overall 
rating of a unit's ability to execute its wartime mission and has four 
specific subordinate ratings: P-Level (Personnel Authorized & On-Hand); 
S-Level (Equipment and Supplies Authorized & On-Hand); R-Level 
(Equipment Condition); T-Level (Training Status).
    In DRRS, is there a provision where race and gender are measured?
    Is race or gender a component of combat readiness?
    Is there any empirical data compiled by your service department 
which demonstrates that units with greater gender and racial 
integration correlates with combat readiness?
    Dr. Strobl. No, neither race nor gender are not metrics captured 
within DRRS. The Personnel (P-Level) is based on the unit's ability to 
provide deployable, Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) qualified 
personnel and DOD civilians to accomplish the unit's missions.
    No, neither race nor gender are components of combat readiness. 
Marines are trained and qualified to perform MOSs specific to the 
design and capabilities of the unit to which they are assigned. It is 
the correct mix of these MOSs that contributes to the combat readiness 
of a unit.
    No, we have not compiled empirical data demonstrating units with 
greater gender and racial integration correlate with combat readiness. 
Unit and combat readiness are accomplished through the aggregate of 
investments in personnel, training, and equipment to ensure units are 
prepared to perform missions at any time. In order to achieve this 
state of personnel readiness, we are committed to recruiting qualified 
candidates from across all populations of the United States.
    Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting 
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting 
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness 
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a 
10,000 soldier shortfall.
    I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure 
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help 
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
    The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to 
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote 
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the 
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
    Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the 
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
    Ms. Kelley. JROTC is a valuable program promoting citizenship, 
public service, and offers an avenue to reach the Nation's youth who 
may not have contact with influencers who have military experience. 
While expanding the program to more communities is a laudable goal, it 
is unlikely to alleviate recruitment shortfalls as experienced within 
DOD. In FY23, 35 of 517, or 6%, of USSF recruits had JROTC experience. 
The percentage of recruits with JROTC experience was about the same for 
FY22. While we may gain additional recruits with a broader 
institutional cohort, it is my professional opinion that an expansion 
is unlikely to fully mitigate shortfalls the Services experience.
    Mr. Waltz. The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) is the 
tool our military uses to monthly measure & assess combat readiness of 
all battlions/squadrons and above. The ``C-Level'' is the overall 
rating of a unit's ability to execute its wartime mission and has four 
specific subordinate ratings: P-Level (Personnel Authorized & On-Hand); 
S-Level (Equipment and Supplies Authorized & On-Hand); R-Level 
(Equipment Condition); T-Level (Training Status).
    In DRRS, is there a provision where race and gender are measured?
    Is race or gender a component of combat readiness?
    Is there any empirical data compiled by your service department 
which demonstrates that units with greater gender and racial 
integration correlates with combat readiness?
    Ms. Kelley. The Defense Readiness Reporting System, the readiness 
reporting system of record, does not contain demographic information on 
assessable units with respect to gender or race, nor does the system 
factor such demographics when analyzing/measuring combat readiness of 
assessable units. The captured demographic data is limited to a 
population break down between officer and enlisted populations within a 
unit.
    The Department of Defense Readiness Reporting System does not 
factor demographics such as race and gender when analyzing/measuring 
combat readiness of assembled units. The Space Force's greatest 
strategic advantage over the Nation's adversaries is our people. We 
strive to recruit and retain the best talent from across America in 
order to maintain and increase the effectiveness of our combat 
readiness. We recognize diverse units, groups, and teams come up with 
innovative ideas for solving problems. While the Space Force does not 
track diversity data within our readiness factors, we do recognize the 
diversity of our force increases productivity and innovation as 
validated in studies from the private sector.
    The DOD's current efforts are heavily grounded in existing research 
and data from a range of fields directly related to people, culture, 
the warfighting and security missions, and combat effectiveness. This 
research and data have repeatedly identified how diversity and 
inclusion lead to greater effectiveness and directly support DOD 
mission accomplishment by enabling the development of qualified and 
capable teams and organizations; driving innovation; increasing access 
to the most talented and skilled people possible; informing 
comprehensive, effective problem-solving in conflict conditions; and 
enabling effective operational decision-making.
    Finally, research, data, and lessons learned demonstrate inclusive 
leaders are more effective enhanced performance, and best match to the 
mission at hand. Absent these leaders, DOD may fail in adequately 
leveraging the strengths of its people, maximizing cohesion and trust, 
and fielding the most capable, ready Total Force.

                                  [all]