Source: United States Navy
Jim Banks:
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. I want to welcome everyone to this hearing of the Military Personnel Subcommittee. And I want to start by saying that it has been some time — if I have it correctly, it’s been since 2019 that we have had the service personnel chiefs come in front of the military personnel subcommittee.
A lot has changed in that time. We now have a Space Force, the end of operations in Afghanistan, a Russian war in Ukraine on the eastern flank of NATO, and the ever increasing threat of the PRC military in the South China Sea and in other locations throughout the world. These changes are what makes this hearing so important.
Today’s hearing is focused on the personnel policy makers who are charged with developing the policies, guidance, and programs that affect the strategic objectives for accessions, recruiting, assignment — assignments, benefits, career development, and so much more. That is to say that you are largely responsible for developing tools that shape the total force in each of your services.
This is no small task. We are here to hear from you your perspective on the effectiveness and consequences of all of these policies, especially considering the current difficulties that we face in retaining talent and the challenges that we are encountering across the recruiting enterprise. And those are just two areas.
We have heard from a number of senior DOD officials touting the 2023 marks — that 2023 marks the 50th anniversary of the all volunteer force. This is indeed a tremendous achievement that speaks to the American spirit of patriotism that embodies many young people that are willing to put service in front of self, quite the difference when we consider the sometimes forced conscription militaries of our adversaries like China and Russia.
These societies oftentimes give no credence to the desires of their young adults. But this is to be expected from states that espouse despotism not democracy, which makes what we are going to discuss today here so much more important. I, for instance, had a choice when I raised my hand and volunteered for service to this great nation, something that I would do again over and over again, because it was this opportunity to serve in our military that helped shape who I am today.
That is why I can say the viability of our all volunteer force is at stake. I have said before at this subcommittee that there appears to be an erosion of trust between our service members and its — its senior leaders. That is why these personnel issues and these policies that you control could not be more important.
We owe it to our service members and their families to get it right. I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today and for their service to this nation. I also want to thank all of our service members, active duty, reservists, and Guard members who are serving this nation around the world as we speak, You and your families are really the subject of this hearing, as the policies and regulations controlled by these senior offices — officers profoundly affect your lives and the very decision to stay in service or to leave.
In our hearing on the 9th of March, we heard from the senior enlisted leaders that all things are not well, that the services have a trust issue, and some of our service members are not properly taken care of. This is our and your responsibility to — and our primary responsibility. As I said then, the all volunteer force has placed a covenant of trust in our military leaders.
You are those leaders entrusted with this obligation, this sacred responsibility, to develop policy and recommend legislation that maintains the force and takes care of people, their careers and their families, their very livelihood. Secretary Austin just released a memo strengthening our support to service members and their families.
I am heartened that many of these issues, long advocated for by this subcommittee and some legislated by this Congress, are finally being implemented. But is it enough? I would say no, it is not, and the service recruiting metrics over the last several years bear this out. Almost all of you are likely to miss your recruiting goals again this year, the Army alone by more than 15,000 just last year.
You have reduced your end strength requests below the 2023 authorized numbers. So, you must ask yourselves why, and I ask what are you doing about it. What are you doing to ensure that you have the required end strength to fulfill this mission — the mission requirements around the world, let alone issues like service members’ food insecurity, identified by you to affect 25 percent of the force.
That is unacceptable. So, what are you doing about it? So, today we want to focus on what concrete actions are you taking to address all the problems that you face, whether it’s recruiting, pay and benefits, food security, retaining talent, family issues, or the elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy. And we don’t want more of the same.
Clearly that is not working. What are you doing differently? In my view, the personnel system writ large, the totality of statute, regulation, culture, and tradition currently in place that determines how uniform service members and civilians alike are recruited, trained and retained, promoted, assigned, and compensated is out of date and needs to be reformed, reformed to be more agile, flexible, and adaptive.
The key challenge is to consider include policy bars to accessions like medical and physical standards, compensation of personnel, what do they — what do they value, money, assignments, family care, for example, and talent and career management policy. What are the barriers? Assignments, promotions, service, culture?
What are you doing to attract the next soldier, Marine, sailor, airman, or guardian that will be entrusted with defending our freedom? That is a lot, but all of that is a contract of trust that is critical to recruiting, retention, and people’s belief in service. It is critical to the implementation of the National Defense Strategy and the defense of this nation.
What’d I like to understand today is what have the services done to affect change to live up to this responsibility. What I know is there can be no doubt the lifeblood of the military is our great men and women that choose to serve, whether they be from Indiana like me, New Jersey like our ranking member, or any of the other states in this nation.
We have an opportunity to serve our service members and we must get it right. So, I want to welcome our witnesses, Lieutenant General Stitt, Vice Admiral Cheeseman, Lieutenant General Miller, Lieutenant General Glynn, and Katharine Kelley. But before we hear from our witnesses, let me offer Ranking Member Kim an opportunity to make any opening remarks as well.
ANDY KIM:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, everybody, for participating. A few weeks ago, as you heard, we heard testimony from your services’ senior enlisted leaders. They shared with us their concerns about recruiting and retaining the force. They also provided us with a snapshot of quality of life issues impacting military families.
Today I look forward to learning how your services’ personnel policies support our military’s greatest asset, which is our people. Without soldiers, sailors, Marine, airmen, and guardians, we couldn’t man military weapon systems, deliver humanitarian assistance, or effectively respond to aggression throughout the world.
I read your testimonies, and there is no doubt you are all concerned about our youth’s decreasing propensity to serve, their missing connections to the value of military service, and meeting your end strength goals. I share these concerns and would add that while — why I support taking steps, whatever necessary, to widen the pool of applicants we can draw from for our all volunteer force.
It’s also very clear that you are each exploring new ways to attract talent for your specific service and mission needs without impacting the quality of individuals we bring into the force. I’m encouraged by how you are employing innovative tools to increase the impact and effectiveness of your recruiters’ force, who often serve as the first line ambassadors in schools and communities across the country.
I know we recruit the service member, but we retain their family. It’s important not to lose sight of the importance quality of life has in reaching end strength goals. I often hear from many service members in my district at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst how they struggle to get access to medical care and child support they need.
And additionally, I think this is something my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can agree to. We need to address the lack of accessible mental health care across the force. This lack of care is impacting our ability to retain service members who have — who we have a vested interest in helping return to full duty.
We need to work together to solve this problem. From my time in national security, I remember that to take a comprehensive look at a problem, in this case recruiting and retention, we needed diverse experience and opinions. We may need to take a hard look beyond the department and how we can best encourage the next generation to serve.
As I’ve said before, we ask a lot of our service members. We ask them to risk their lives to protect our country, so we need to make sure they know that we have their backs and that we are supporting them however they need. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing today so we can discuss the importance of personnel policies on the lives of service members.
Thank you to the witnesses again for being here. And I yield back the balance of my time.
JIM BANKS:
I thank the ranking member. I ask unanimous consent to allow members not on the subcommittee to participate in today’s hearing, be allowed to ask questions after the subcommittees have — subcommittee members have all been recognized. And each witness will have the opportunity to present his or her testimony, and each member will have an opportunity to question the witnesses for five minutes.
We respectfully ask the witnesses to summarize their testimony in three minutes or less. We have your written testimony. We appreciate it. We’ve studied it. Your written comments and statements are made part of the — of the hearing record. With that, Lieutenant General Stitt, you may make your opening statement.
DOUGLAS 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 men and women of your United States Army. The Army’s number one priority is our people. Our soldiers, our Army civilians, families, and veterans are soldiers for life.
Nothing is more important for our combat readiness. In the Army, a pacing item is a critical — mission critical piece of equipment. Our people are our pacing items, and we must meet our pacing challenges by taking care of our most important resource, our people. We are working tirelessly across this nation in the most challenging recruiting landscape in a generation to fill our ranks with qualified people that want to be all they can be as a part of our Army team.
There is no one size fits all to the current challenge. We are committed to tackling these challenges head on by recruiting a force that looks like the nation it serves. We are laser focused on innovative efforts such as the Future Soldier Prep Course, which helps potential recruits become soldiers. This initiative and others are designed to increase the accession of qualified candidates under three principles: we will not sacrifice quality for quantity.
We will not lower our standards. We will invest in America’s youth so that those who want to serve can meet our standards. Last year, the Army achieved 104 percent of our retention mission in our active component, and we are on track to do so again this year. This demonstrates the value that our soldiers and their families see in service to our nation.
Personnel readiness relies on an installation and environment that allows our soldiers and families to thrive. High quality housing and barracks are key to ensuring overall health and wellness, contributing to their readiness, and critical for retaining Army soldiers and their families. The Army programmed approximately $1.6 billion from fiscal years 2024 to fiscal year 2028 to improve the government owned Army family housing inventory.
Additionally, we’ve invested in average of $1 billion per year in barracks for construction, restoration, and modernization across all three Army components. We are using a very selective process to create and sustain command climates at scale across our army, which now and over time permeate down to our lethal and ready squads, crews, and teams.
Resiliency programs and initiatives aimed at harmful behaviors are critical to help us combat sexual harassment and assault, and factors that contribute to death by suicide. Putting our people first as an Army priority and a philosophy continues to drive everything we do, and contributes to our quality of life and our combat readiness.
Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, distinguished members of this committee, I thank you for your generous and unwavering support to your Army, its soldiers, civilians, and their families. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
JIM BANKS:
Thank you. Vice Admiral Cheeseman?
RICHARD CHEESEMAN:
Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, and distinguished subcommittee members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. As the Chief of Naval personnel, it is my distinct privilege to represent the sailors of the United States Navy, who stand the watch 24 hours a day, seven days a week in every corner of the globe, above, on, and below the surface of the seas, preserving the American way of life and freedom around the world.
This year’s budget focused holistically on taking care of our people, where our sailors work and live, how they are compensated, and how we support them and their families. We must ensure that sailors and their families are afforded a quality of life and service on par with their responsibilities. They must be fairly compensated through pay increases, targeted bonuses, and appropriate allowances.
In addition, the budget prioritizes several initiatives that allows our Navy to maintain a culture to fight and win, including tools and education for our leadership specifically to address mental health, suicide, and sexual assault, prevention and response. We released our mental health playbook last month, which supports command leaders in minimizing mental health issues, but when they do occur, to empower them with the resources to connect sailors with the appropriate mental health care at the right level at the right time.
With proper use, the playbook enables everyone in a command to share an understanding of how to conduct mental health preventive maintenance. Continued commitment to invest in our sailors is necessary to sustain the fleet, and it is largely the reason why we have been able to maintain such a high retention rate.
I appreciate your strong support here in Congress on compensation to include vital special pays and bonuses, which are needed to target specific skills as technology changes the landscape of war. We have also leveraged several other monetary and nonmonetary incentives, to include extended hire tenure opportunities and billet based advancement.
As we navigate this area of strategic competition, we must continue to attract, influence, recruit, cultivate, and train talent from every corner of the country and every walk of life, and we recognize there is significant competition for that talent. As a result, we have thoughtfully and creatively implemented several targeted policy changes within our current authorities to widen our available pool of potential recruits.
As I have traveled around the country to visit and hear from our sailors, one thing is clear. They embody an American spirit that no adversary can define. I remain inspired each and every day by these men and women, who exceed every expectation, and it is my singular honor to serve each of them. We train every sailor that enters our ranks to be a warfighter, yet more importantly, we make better Americans to be leaders for our country, both in uniform and when they return to civilian life.
We owe it to them, the most junior sailors on the waterfront today and the youngest future sailors of tomorrow, to continue to build the best Navy we can. You and every American can be proud of your sailors and their families. I appreciate your continued support and partnership, and I look forward to your questions.
JIM BANKS:
Thank you. Lieutenant General Miller?
CAROLINE MILLER:
Good afternoon. Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am honored to have the opportunity to appear for you with my fellow service personnel colleagues. Today, for the first time in recent history, the United States is facing two peer competitors, China and Russia.
To prevail against these sophisticated adversaries, we must develop a networked team of airmen with unique expertise to — to develop game changing solutions. Only in this way can we increase our competitive advantage. We are currently working two lines of effort to prepare for the high end fight. First, we are refining future competencies and skills required for 2030 and beyond.
This effort includes targeted focus on digital and multi capable airmen, which will enable our forces to adapt to an evolving and uncertain future. Second, we are modernizing our talent management process and systems. A multiyear effort is underway to completely transform our talent management architecture by replacing 111 outdated legacy IT systems with six agile platforms.
This will enable unprecedented access to talent management data and allow us to make real time, risk informed force management decisions. As we move forward, we must enhance targeting the functional skill sets and leadership attributes of the airmen we want to retain. Our most recent data indicate our active duty population retention tends — trends are healthy.
Over the last five years, we’ve held steady at approximately 90 percent. That said, we do have critical skill sets on our retention watch list; cyber, special warfare, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, nuclear maintenance, and many rated career fields. However, while our retention rate indicates a strong force, our recruiting efforts are falling short.
We are not on track to meet our recruiting targets for 2023. Despite this, we remain resolute in strengthening our recruiting efforts. We know that family support is key to successful recruiting and retention. The Air Force is committed to alleviating the unique challenges associated with military service experienced by spouses and family members.
One of the most impactful challenges, economic insecurity, poses major readiness and retention risks to our force. I would just like to say thank you for your support in the FY ’23 NDAA to increase basic pay and allowances for housing and sustenance. Available, affordable, and quality child care programs for families and spouse employment are also key to recruiting and mission readiness.
We must continue to focus on ensuring our airmen and their families have a safe place to work and live, an environment in which all airmen are treated with dignity and respect, and able to reach their full potential. These play a critical role in retention, a critical role in warfighting mission readiness, and a critical role to deter our peer competitors, China and Russia.
Ready and resilient airmen and families are our competitive advantage, and the Air Force is committed to taking care of them. Thank you for the continued advocacy for your airmen, both military and civilian, and the families who support them. I look forward to your questions.
JIM BANKS:
Thank you. Lieutenant General Glynn?
JAMES GLYNN:
Chair Banks, Ranking Member Kim, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it’s my privilege to appear before you today, alongside my colleagues from the other services, to provide an overview of your Marine Corps personnel. I’ve submitted a written statement to the subcommittee, intending to keep these opening remarks brief, as you highlighted.
Your Marine Corps is strong. In the midst of Force Design 2030, we met our recruiting and retention missions last year, and are working hard toward that end this year as well. Recruiting, however, remains historically challenging, perhaps more so than last year, because our delayed entry pool was leveraged in the past year and is subsequently lower than we have habitually maintained it. As we continue to recruit and retain Marines, one thing will never change.
We remain a naval expeditionary force at the ready, committed to our standards that ensure we’re prepared to fight and win in every clime and place. In this 50 year — 50th year of the all volunteer force, we are reminded that we have an all recruited force and are mindful of the strategic advantage it provides: talent, capability, and warfighting excellence.
To continue its success, we need to do three things. One, engage in a persistent national dialog on service that highlights the positive benefits of military service; two, modernize recruiting to optimize advertising, in much the same way the commercial sector has; and third, improve access to young Americans, particularly in high schools.
As personal engagement is foundational to our recruiting efforts and its success, I’m pleased to report that Marine Corps retention efforts are modernizing to match the energy and enthusiasm of the force. This year, we have retained Marines at a historic pace, both in number and quality. It shows that once one becomes a Marine, they want to remain a Marine.
And that says a lot about our ethos. Being part of a team accomplishing the mission and taking care of one another remain sacred qualities to which Marines both in uniform now and the past hold tight. To further improve recruiting and retention, we have decisively stepped out on what we call a talent management design that continues to expand and gain momentum.
Talent Management 2030 is foundational to Force Design 2030 and the future success of our corps, and it leverages many of the authorities that Congress and this subcommittee has granted us in recent years, for which we remain grateful. It will help better maximize the number of fully trained, qualified, experienced, and deployed Marines in our operational forces.
The overarching goal of talent management is to increase Marine Corps warfighting capability and sustain our ability and, frankly, our responsibility to be the nation’s premiere expeditionary force in readiness, your fight tonight force. A pillar of warfighting readiness is built on trust, and that trust is maintained with a Marine support structure at home and in their communities.
To that end, we recognize and promote all the ways Marine and family programs support the force and allow them to keep a focus on the mission. Holistic performance, including spiritual, mental, social, and physical fitness are critical for Marines and their loved ones, and are a major line of effort for successfully achieving our talent management goals.
Family readiness, quite simply, is readiness. It’s my honor to represent your Marine Corps today, and I look forward to your questions. Semper Fidelis.
JIM BANKS:
Thank you. Ms. Kelly?
KATHARINE KELLEY:
Thank you. Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, distinguished members of this subcommittee, thank you for your leadership and the support you have provided to our guardians and their families. I just recently transferred from the Army. I’m delighted to be here representing with my colleagues here today. I am a service IST transfer as a civilian, a former officer, and a spouse of a — of a veteran.
Thank you for your time. Your guardians, both military and civilian, are preserving US freedom of action in increasingly contested space domains. Developing this force is a national imperative. We are comprised of a powerful mix of talent from all branches of the service, as well as young, innovative, bright minds from across the nation.
This is our most important operational advantage. We are committed to taking care of our people and positively shaping their professional and their family experience. We will continue to work with this committee and with our Air Force partners on tough issues such as pay and compensation, quality of life, child care, and family services.
The Space Force is proposing a new approach to military personnel management with flexible force design options. At a time when national propensity to serve is declining, winning the war for talent is the greatest strategic advantage. The proposal eliminates the complexities of traditional and regular reserve constructs, and provides a continuum of service aimed at retaining critical skill sets and offering a new way to employ talent through service managed part time opportunities, which today are not available in the Space Force.
This new model would facilitate a different conversation with prospective candidates. We believe it will better position the Space Force in the most competitive labor market we’ve seen in years. We understand that new statutory authorities are necessary, and we look forward to continued conversations. The Space Force is actively incorporating education, training, and individualized development, including access to schools and investment in brand awareness.
Beginning this year, we will partner with a private institution for senior level education, culminating in a master’s in public policy. This new approach is a collaboration between civilian academia and professional military education. We are also leveraging innovative ways to increase holistic health and fitness of the force, including mental health.
We are studying the most appropriate ways, including long term fitness standards, with an eye towards departing from single episodic testing to interactive fitness. Space is no longer a benign domain. I am proud of the more than 13,000 military and civilian guardians who have joined so far. Together we are building a force unilaterally focused on the mission of securing and defending America’s interests in space.
We thank you for your continued support, and I look forward to your questions.
JIM BANKS:
Thank you to each of you. I’ll yield myself five minutes to begin questions. And with that, I’ll start with you, Lieutenant General Stitt. What has been the — the practical effect of recruiting shortfalls?
DOUGLAS STITT:
Chairman Banks, where we see the practical impact of recruiting shortfalls is primarily within our skill level one inventory across the force. So, it’s those junior enlisted soldiers that we did not recruit. That — that’s where we see the holes in ranks.
JIM BANKS:
How has that changed the Army?
DOUGLAS STITT:
Chairman Banks, we have not changed. We believe that we are ready and capable of the fight tonight.
JIM BANKS:
So, even though we’re — we’re way short of our recruitment goals it’s not — you’re saying it’s not changing the — the strength of the Army.
DOUGLAS STITT:
Chairman Banks, yes, our overall end strength has decreased because we did not recruit and bring in the skill level one soldiers, those junior enlisted personnel last year.
JIM BANKS:
Let me ask this. Would you say that the difficulty in recruitment has driven your reductions in the end strength request for the FY ’24, or is it because of the reduced mission requirements of the Army?
DOUGLAS STITT:
Chairman Banks, I would ask that I take that question for the record, please.
JIM BANKS:
Ok, fair enough. What — what’s your outlook for recruitment moving forward? I mean, frankly, how are you going to fix it? How are we going to meet our recruitment goals when we’ve — we’ve continued to fail at it?
DOUGLAS STITT:
Chairman Banks, we’re taking, as I indicated in my opening statement, a robust approach, looking at opening our pool to get after as wide an applicant population as possible, utilizing, for instance, the Future Soldier Prep Course, where we can bring in applicants who do not meet the current academic or physical fitness requirements.
And on a conditional basis, we train them up down at Fort Jackson holistically, and we’ve also expanded this program now at Fort Benning. We’re seeing about 97 percent success rate too. And that is one of our big bolsters to recruiting that we initiated at the end of last year, and we’re seeing significant improvement this year.
JIM BANKS:
So, you’re — you’re admitting that we’re weakening standards to make up for recruitment shortfalls.
DOUGLAS STITT:
Chairman Banks, we’re — we are not lowering standards. As indicated, we are not sacrificing quality for quantity. These are applicants who are otherwise qualified for entry into the service, and we are just burnishing their skill sets prior to sending them on into basic combat training.
JIM BANKS:
All right. My — my next question is for all of you. How are we fixing the food insecurity issue in the military that I addressed in my opening statement? I’ll start with you, General Stitt.
DOUGLAS STITT:
Chairman Banks, we are looking and working with the Department of Defense through the quadrennial review of military compensation. But at the grassroots level, we continue to train and inform soldiers and family members, utilizing resources through family programs to educate them and train them on this is what you can do when you are promoted, when you add a family member, so that we are developing financial readiness and resiliency across the force.
JIM BANKS:
Admiral Cheeseman, what’s the Navy doing to fix the food insecurity issue?
RICHARD CHEESEMAN:
Sir, thanks for the question. Very similar response. I note from that survey that you discussed earlier, where about 25 percent of — of — of service members indicate some level of food insecurity, about 85 percent of service members also indicate they feel like they’re fairly compensated. So, you know, definitely endorse the Quadrennial Review of Military Commission.
But from a grassroots level, as my colleague mentioned, we are working very hard to, you know, help our sailors make good financial decisions. We start training on financial security in boot camp. We’ve provided programs at the fleet and family support centers at all waterfront levels, and each individual unit has a financial specialist that can help sailors with questions of these sorts, sir.
JIM BANKS:
General Miller?
CAROLINE MILLER:
Yes, Chairman Banks. Thank you. Similar to my colleagues, we’re doing very similar things. But I will tell you that one of the things that we focus, in addition to the training at multiple levels starting from basic military training, is connectedness. We’re making sure that our command teams understand and are — and know their airmen.
That way, they can tell what is going on not only in their professional life but what’s going on in their personal life. And so, if they find that they are having some challenges in food security or, you know, other areas, they can immediately make sure that they reach out to the appropriate resources to help those airmen.
JIM BANKS:
And quickly, General Glynn?
JAMES GLYNN:
Yeah. To not be repetitive, I would just highlight that — that any question about insecurity in any area, whether it’s housing or food, is indicative of the very small margin that we see in pay scales right now, and hence the reference to quadrennial review of military compensation. I would only offer in addition that what are we doing in addition is highlighting to folks the advantage they get by where they shop.
In this case, the commissary department has made concerted efforts to ensure commissary prices on staples are more than competitive, and ensuring that folks take advantage of those.
JIM BANKS:
Very good. Ms. Kelley?
KATHARINE KELLEY:
Yes, Chairman. I agree with all my colleagues. I would also just add, in the Space Force, there’s an education component and a team component to make sure that we’re aware of our needs from the Guardians. And we place a special emphasis on making sure that we’re aware, if there are those issues.
JIM BANKS:
Thank you. I yield to Ranking Member Kim.
ANDY KIM:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all again for taking the time to come on out here. I wanted to talk to you about something that’s — that we’ve been talking a lot about on the Hill since it came out. Last month, the Suicide Prevention and Response Independent Review Committee released about 125 — over 125 different recommendations to reduce the rate of military suicides.
There was one particular mention there in terms of an idea there that was — included creating a task force to modernize and reform the military promotion system to better reward and select the right people for the right positions at the right time. I wanted to just get your thoughts on that, because we’ve been kind of talking through that on our end and wanted to just see, you know, each of you, if you could respond to that.
So, if you don’t mind, maybe we’ll start over with Army.
DOUGLAS STITT:
Ranking Member Kim, the — the Army is participating in the IRC committee. And regarding in terms of promotions, one of the things that we have done is we’ve utilized, from the 2019 NDAA, putting some of those authorities into place, such as brevet promotion to reward and — and augment critical skills and shortage capabilities that we have that are already in place across the service.
We are all — also utilizing the merit based promotion system that also came out in the 2019 NDAA. And we look forward to participating in future and ongoing efforts to look at our promotion system.
ANDY KIM:
Vice Admiral?
RICHARD CHEESEMAN:
Thank you for the question, sir. Very similar answer. Bottom line in the Navy for any promotion board is about the best and fully qualified for that sailor or that officer. And we enjoy maintaining that standard. To that end, we do enjoy the authorities, as my colleague mentioned, from the FY ’19 NDAA, and we’re using each one of those appropriately.
I look forward to working with my colleagues here on the panel and my OSD partners and getting out the recommendations from that report, sir.
ANDY KIM:
Ok. Thank you. Lieutenant General?
CAROLINE MILLER:
Yes. Thank you for the question. I won’t repeat what they’re saying. We’re doing much of the same thing. But we are also — we’re ready to support the Department of Defense and where they go with the SPRIRC — the SPRIRC release report. Additionally, we are — we have some initiatives that are going on with the DAF for the suicide prevention, to include a go slow campaign, which is basically putting time and space in between behavior.
And so, we’ve got a big initiative on gun locks and safe storage material. And additionally, we’ve — we’ve launched recently a comprehensive lethal mean safety plan in 2022.
ANDY KIM:
Ok. Thank you. Lieutenant General?
JAMES GLYNN:
Ranking Member Kim, thanks for the question. There are many similarities, so I — I think I’ll highlight one. I’m happy to report, inside that Talent Management 2030 that I described, we’ve already undertaken an aggressive look at our enlisted retention and promotion approach, specifically leveraging one of the authorities that you’ve provided previously, which is merit reorder.
We’ve applied that across several officer ranks to see its effect, and — and this year have a pilot going on the enlisted side as well, to address what we hear from Marines, at least, is how — how do I know that I’m — my performance is recognized, how is that reflected in the pace and rate at which I’m promoted.
And that’s what specifically it’s intended to address.
ANDY KIM:
Thank you. Ms. Kelly, do you have anything to add here?
KATHARINE KELLEY:
I do. Thank you, Ranking Member Kim. I would offer, in the Space Force, one of the things we’re thinking about with respect to promotion, and — and to the specific asked from the committee for innovative ideas, we’re looking at all the jobs that we have in the Space Force. There’s a little bit of an advantage to our small size that we can do this.
And we are looking through a lens of competencies that are necessary for the type of work that we have in the Space Force, a highly technical, predominantly STEM focused environment. But aligning the competencies and then communicating them to guardians so that they understand what it is going to take for them to be promoted is one of the goals of our competency work, sir.
ANDY KIM:
Now, some of the other ideas and recommendations that came out, several of them focused on length of assignments, greater flexibility in a career trajectory, more predictability in unit training. I guess I just wanted to ask more broadly, is — is that something that that stands out to you as — as something that we need to be moving towards, not just for the — the prevention of suicide, but just more broadly as employers here?
Is there anyone that wanted to jump on that? Vice Admiral?
RICHARD CHEESEMAN:
Yes, sir. Thanks for that question. It’s a very important discussion to have. We — we find that, as we’re — we’re modernizing our enlisted talent management strategy, we have something called detailing marketplace assignment policy. And that’s where we provide a number of monetary and non-monetary incentives to get — to — to, you know, incentivize sailors to stay on sea duty.
And to your point, it’s not just about money. It could be about, you know, geographic stability. It could be about assignment choice. So, more today than ever before, a young enlisted sailor has a say in what they’re doing for their career, and we’re having positive impacts from that, sir.
ANDY KIM:
Thank you. I’m out of time, but I’ll follow up with — with the rest of you. I’d love to continue that conversation.
JIM BANKS:
Yield five minutes to General Bergman.
JACK BERGMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for — for being here. And thanks for all you do every day. In 1998, The Wall Street Journal did a little survey on values. And the point is they just recently redid that. And I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but the number one now in increase for young people is the desire for money, desire for money.
Be rich, Ok? What’s been displaced? And here’s the point from the article. Patriotism listed as a value has basically gone from 70 percent to 38 percent. I’m not going to deal with the others, but patriotism. Ms. Kelley, you mentioned — you used the word propensity to serve. And according to my favorite app, that’d be the Webster Dictionary, propensity, an often intense natural inclination.
And when we think about recruiting young men and women into the military, there’s a certain intensity that draws people into the military. So, having said that, and I’d just appreciate a simple yes or no answer from all of you, I don’t need elaboration on the following question. The subject is GENESIS. Do you believe that the new MHS GENESIS system is having a positive, negative, or neutral impact on your all’s ability to recruit?
General?
DOUGLAS STITT:
Positive, sir.
RICHARD CHEESEMAN:
Sir, and I second that positive from here.
CAROLINE MILLER:
Positive.
JAMES GLYNN:
Sir, I would say neutral, too soon to tell.
KATHARINE KELLEY:
I agree with neutral. I think it can get to positive, but I think it just needs to work out some of the kinks.
JACK BERGMAN:
Yeah. What I’ve heard from the recruiters is that it’s encumbered them with timelines, delay in decision-making, and all this kind of stuff that may not add to the — the value proposition for that young person, or maybe not so young. But the bottom line is, that person who would show a propensity, they feel they’re getting messed, you know, delayed with, screwed around with, whatever you want to call it at that — that — that we can’t — we, the United States military, the Department of Defense, can’t make a decision yes or no. On March the 9th, your senior enlisted leaders from each of the service sat before this committee for the same topic, and I asked the those leaders two questions.
And for the record — I asked them to take it for the record, but I’m still awaiting the answers for the record, so I’ll ask them to you all. Number one, are the recruiters — are your recruiters getting access to the schools? Are the school influencers, the boards of education, the teachers, the counselors, the coaches, the principals, welcoming recruiters into the schools?
And if you know the answer, I’d love to hear it. If you’d like to take it for the record, I’d like to know that too. But when you do take one for the record, we do need an answer, Ok? I mean, anybody want to make a comment on that before I go on to the next one?
CAROLINE MILLER:
Yes, sir, I will comment on that. I think that it depends. I think there are some schools that are very welcoming. I’ve worked with superintendents when I personally was with the 502nd Airbase Wing at Joint Base, San Antonio. And I worked with superintendents across San Antonio and they were very welcoming.
They wanted people in there. But I also think that there are communities in — which are not exposed to the military, and so they’re a little more hesitant because they don’t know what our mission is. And so, we’ve got to make sure that we open our gates. We have people out there to explain what the military is, and we’ve got to change the national narrative on what — the positive things about serving in the military.
JACK BERGMAN:
So, having said that, in your opinion, and I’d like an answer from all of you on this, what DOD policies are currently inhibiting your ability to lead in your departments? And are there policies countering the positive efforts that you’re expected to comply with? In other words, what are the extra rocks in your pack that are making it tough for you to meet mission?
Anybody want to offer in from a policy standpoint?
JAMES GLYNN:
Congressman, I — I don’t have a single one. But I — the point is taken that much has been added. And so, when you —
JACK BERGMAN:
Much — many rocks to your pack?
JAMES GLYNN:
Over time —
JACK BERGMAN:
Ok.
JAMES GLYNN:
With very few removed.
JACK BERGMAN:
Well, then let’s do this. I know my time is up. Let’s talk about — I’m always — and I know I — I speak for — I think for all of us here. I don’t care what side of the aisle you’re on. We’re not — we’re not interested in adding rocks to your pack that don’t add value to what you’re trying to achieve.
And looking forward to our next conversation. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
JIM BANKS:
Thank you. Representative Escobar?
VERONICA ESCOBAR:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. And thanks to our panelists for your time with us here this afternoon, but especially for your service to our country. Wanted to share a couple of observations with you, and not necessarily for your response or your comment. I have other questions, but just a couple of interesting things I’d like to share.
First, as I have gone on a number of codels over the last 12 months to different countries, allies, mostly in Europe, and — and when I’ve had the opportunity to speak to their military leaders, I’ve asked about how their recruitment is going. And not consistently, but I would say invariably, most of our friends and allies are struggling with the same challenge.
So, this is not a uniquely American challenge, the challenge with recruitment. So, you’re all nodding. So, it sounds — it looks like you all are familiar with the fact that this is — we’re not alone in facing this challenge. Our country is not alone. The second thing I’d like to put on your radar, I get to meet with incredible young people who apply to our service academies.
And I frequently asked them about recruitment as well. Not to a person, but I — I have conversations with many of them. Almost to a person, they’ve told me that they believe recruitment needs to start far earlier, and that many of their peers and friends who are very — who become very interested as they learn of the service academies and begin thinking about their own future feel like they learn about it too late.
So, just wanted to — to share those two items with you. But I represent El Paso, Texas, home to Fort Bliss, which has — is the largest joint mobilization force generation installation in the Army. And we get — we have a lot of military families, a lot of veterans. I’m very proud of that. We’re a very proud military community.
And so, quality of life issues for our personnel, especially because so many of our personnel make contact with Fort Bliss, those are a priority for — for me and my team and my office. Lieutenant General Stitt, as the Army struggles with recruitment and retention efforts, we need to acknowledge the dire need for quality of life infrastructure.
Reporting yesterday indicated that the Army alone found over 2,000 facilities across the service with mold problems, which is obviously unacceptable. The problem at hand is not merely a matter of simple upkeep. It’s housing service members and buildings that are long past their service life. In your testimony, you stated that improving barracks and housing for our soldiers and families is a top priority for all Army senior leaders.
I know the fiscal year ’24 budget request identified barracks across a few installations as quality of life projects, but the Army has a long way to go, to include CDCs and other housing. Can you please speak to your efforts to convey these infrastructure needs to your installation management counterparts thus far?
And how can Congress be a partner in addressing this problem? Representative Escobar, thank you for the question. And the Army remains committed to providing safe housing, barracks infrastructure, and other facilities for our soldiers, families, and civilians. A critical aspect of this commitment is ensuring that all our facilities are — are inspected and — and brought into standards.
So, to go back to the survey that was brought out, this was done with experts from industry partners and health care professionals to assist in our efforts to train and certify these inspectors and remediation teams across the Army. And we are also empowering leaders at the lowest level to highlight these concerns that they see so that they can take immediate action, such as what was done at — at Fort Bragg, North Carolina when — when mold was discovered and — and soldiers were displaced.
And we are also, with our contracted housing providers, holding them accountable when we see issues arise. Thank you so much. I’m just about out of time, so I’ll have to follow up with my question about service member spouses. But, you know, in — in my community as well, we hear a lot from the spouses who are struggling to find employment, and would love to explore that with all of you as well at a — at a later date.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
JIM BANKS:
Thank you. Five minutes to Representative Gaetz.
MATT GAETZ:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to begin by seeking unanimous consent to enter into the record a press release from last year from the Department of Defense entitled Department of Defense Announces Recruiting and Retention Numbers for Fiscal year 2022 through March of 2022. And it reads, overall it is clear the broader recruiting market continues to deteriorate and recruiting shortfalls can no longer be solely attributed to COVID-19.
JIM BANKS:
Without objection, so ordered.
MATT GAETZ:
So, we just heard from Secretary Austin moments ago that COVID was the driving headwind. That was — headwind was the term he used in these recruiting challenges that trouble us all. But the department is saying that it’s not COVID. So, I guess I’m just trying to figure out what do you guys think is the driving factor of the recruiting collapse that we are currently overseeing?
Any — any of you who are particularly interested?
DOUGLAS STITT:
Representative Gaetz, that’s a great question. And what we are seeing is that it’s not just one factor. It is a variety of factors. When we look at obesity, physical fitness, misconduct, behavioral health challenges, knowledge gap of — what we saw from our data was that individuals that we surveyed identified that they would be potentially putting their life on hold if they serve.
So, not attributable to one single factor, but a multitude.
MATT GAETZ:
I — I agree with that. We’ve got a younger generation that’s too dumb, fat, slow, addicted, and on video games to be eligible to serve in the military. And it’s really troubling to hear that the response is to thin the soup rather than to do what we can earlier on, maybe through our education system or our nutrition programs, whole of government to try to get a greater share of our folks capable.
Do you — does anyone here attribute any of the recruiting challenges we face to the new DEI push? And any of you? Raise your hand if you do? None of you. Well, I would suggest that that is misguided. I have heard directly from people that this — this embrace of DEI and white fragility and white rage harms our recruiting effort in the area of the country where we do our best recruiting, in the American South.
I have additional questions for you, General Miller. How many Republicans running for Congress had their personnel records unlawfully compromised by the United States Air Force?
CAROLINE MILLER:
Thank you for that question. So, we did have a PII breach. 11 individuals overall, their data was released.
MATT GAETZ:
When you say — when I hear breach, what I hear is that like someone hacked or broke in or got the information. You gave this information.
CAROLINE MILLER:
Yes, we did. No, the Air Force takes —
MATT GAETZ:
Right. So, it wasn’t a breach. It was an illegal release.
CAROLINE MILLER:
It was a — yes, it was.
MATT GAETZ:
Right.
CAROLINE MILLER:
You’re right. We take full responsibility for that.
MATT GAETZ:
How many?
CAROLINE MILLER:
11.
MATT GAETZ:
11.
CAROLINE MILLER:
Yes.
MATT GAETZ:
And all Republicans, right?
CAROLINE MILLER:
I don’t know the answer to that. I know some of them were, but I think that
MATT GAETZ:
But if I represent to you that — that it’s all or almost all Republicans —
CAROLINE MILLER:
Almost all Republicans. That’s correct, yes.
MATT GAETZ:
And this information was given to the Due Diligence entity, right?
CAROLINE MILLER:
There was — there were — there was an entity, yes, that was ultimately —
MATT GAETZ:
Yeah. And it’s an opposition research entity that gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial campaign apparatus, right?
CAROLINE MILLER:
I don’t know that much about Due Diligence, but there’s — I know that we released the information inappropriately.
MATT GAETZ:
Why? Why did you do that?
CAROLINE MILLER:
It was a — you know, it was an error. We did an investigation as soon as we found out. We notified all of the members in which their data was released. We have put in place multiple layers of checks and balances. We did a retraining.
MATT GAETZ:
Who’s been fired for doing this?
CAROLINE MILLER:
We have taken the appropriate action.
MATT GAETZ:
Ok. Who’s been fired?
CAROLINE MILLER:
We’ve — we’ve taken the appropriate action.
MATT GAETZ:
That’s a fascinating answer, just not to my question. Who’s been fired?
CAROLINE MILLER:
I can’t answer that —
MATT GAETZ:
Has a single person been fired?
CAROLINE MILLER:
I do not know the answer to that.
MATT GAETZ:
Shouldn’t you, though? I mean, here we are having recruiting challenges. You guys are releasing personnel information of predominantly Republicans to a Democrat opposition research firm. You run personnel for the United States Air Force. And you can’t tell me whether anyone has been fired for this unauthorized release.
CAROLINE MILLER:
Congressman, I can tell you that we have taken the appropriate action based on —
MATT GAETZ:
Well, but — but you deem it appropriate. But what if we don’t? Because — because we have civilian control of the military.
CAROLINE MILLER:
Um-hmm.
MATT GAETZ:
We may have to change our laws to hold people accountable. And pardon me for not trusting your vague reference to the layers that you’ve put on. But, Mr. Chairman, I — I request that this committee get specific answers for what the accountability regime was for this unlawful action by the United States Air Force and that we not take as an article of faith the representation that they think they’ve taken the appropriate action.
They’ve taken the illegal inappropriate action to compromise these records, and I think we should hold them accountable for it.
JIM BANKS:
On that note, General Miller, for — for the record, can you submit to the committee what those appropriate actions were?
CAROLINE MILLER:
Yes, you certainly may.
JIM BANKS:
Ok. I yield five minutes to Representative Houlahan.
CHRISSY HOULAHAN:
Thank you all very much for your testimony today. I am going to try an experiment that I haven’t tried before with my five minutes. I served in the military. My father and grandfather served more than 20 and 30 years respectively in the military. My brother did. My cousins do currently. And I am interested in two questions.
One is, assuming that we have a qualified individual who has the — has the propensity to be able to serve, let’s make that first assumption. I’m going to give you a list of — of reasons, and I’d like you to write this — these lists down. And I alphabetized them so they’re not in any value based order.
Please write down child care. Please write down don’t feel welcome or I don’t see myself. Please write down I’m afraid for my health or my life. Please write down housing. Please write down another job is more attractive. Please write down pay is not competitive. And finally, please write down spouse or partner.
So, to review again, we have childcare, don’t feel welcome or don’t see myself, I’m worried about my health or life, housing, other job’s more attractive, pay not competitive, and spouse or partner. So, with these seven, again alphabetically listed, I’m actually interested, assuming a qualified and willing participant, somebody who has the propensity to serve, my two questions are, one, why I didn’t join the military?
Could you please take a couple of minutes, 15 seconds or so, to pick your top four reasons why I didn’t join the military? And when you look up, I’ll assume that you guys have got your four. I might have been a teacher once. The next question is why I didn’t stay in the military. Again, your top four. Now, I only have two and a half minutes left.
And so, quickly I would like you to go through your top four why I didn’t join, and then we’ll go through again your top four why I didn’t stay. So, General Stitt, first you. Why I didn’t join?
DOUGLAS STITT:
Representative Houlahan, great question. And thank you for your service and for your family’s legacy of service. What we are seeing is primarily three reasons why individuals do not join.
CHRISSY HOULAHAN:
Ok. Could you list them, please?
DOUGLAS STITT:
There’s a knowledge gap, a trust gap, and — and identity. So, from —
CHRISSY HOULAHAN:
From the list that I gave you, what are the three reasons then?
DOUGLAS STITT:
For the — the three reasons, we would see that the putting their — individual’s life on hold. So, I — I think that — that —
CHRISSY HOULAHAN:
Ok, life or health. Ok, number two?
DOUGLAS STITT:
Don’t — don’t see themselves.
CHRISSY HOULAHAN:
Don’t see themselves, Ok.
DOUGLAS STITT:
And then concern for their safety.
CHRISSY HOULAHAN:
That’s life. Ok. And the third?
DOUGLAS STITT:
And then where we see our — the spouse, partner.
CHRISSY HOULAHAN:
Great. Thank you. Vice Admiral Cheeseman, please? And unfortunately we’re going to run out of time for this, so I’m going to ask you to submit your answers for the record on this. Vice Admiral, please?
RICHARD CHEESEMAN:
Congresswoman, thanks for the question. Similar to my colleague, everything we see in the Navy, it’s about feeling like you have to put your life on hold. So, specifically spouse opportunity, pay and compensation, something else may be more attractive because of that. And they just don’t see themselves in the Navy because there’s other opportunity.
CHRISSY HOULAHAN:
General Miller, please?
CAROLINE MILLER:
Yes, ma’am. I said spouse and partner. They don’t want to, you know, move with a — with their spouse. I also said there’s other jobs available.
CHRISSY HOULAHAN:
Um-hmm.
CAROLINE MILLER:
And then my third one was that they would — that they’re not comfortable or they don’t know Enough about the military, so perhaps would not feel welcome.
CHRISSY HOULAHAN:
General Glynn, please?
JAMES GLYNN:
Congresswoman, thank you. Very, very similar. I think to your time available, the one difference in joining and staying, child care.
CHRISSY HOULAHAN:
Ok. Thank you. That’s helpful. And General — and Ms. Kelley, please?
KATHARINE KELLEY:
Thank you. I would — I would only offer that I think the — the issue of coming in really rests on the lack of knowledge on what the service really is for that individual.
CHRISSY HOULAHAN:
Yeah, and that’s why I think so many of us have served in families that serve.
KATHARINE KELLEY:
Yes, ma’am.
CHRISSY HOULAHAN:
I know I’ve run out of time, but I guess my point is I’ve sat through this hearing and I’ve also sat through the other hearing with the military folks who are the most senior ranking enlisted people. When we asked the most senior ranking enlisted people, if DEI was a positive thing, they all said yes. When we asked you if it was a factor at all, you all said no. And so, I’m frustrated because there’s so many complex reasons why a person joins or doesn’t stay.
And I — I just really want us to qualify and quantify that rather than politicize this — these issues. Thank you. I yield back.
JIM BANKS:
Representative Mills?
CORY MILLS:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to enter into record the NAV purse [Ph], which I will be referring to as Annex A.
JIM BANKS:
Without objection.
CORY MILLS:
Behind me, as you can see, is exhibit — what I consider as Exhibit A. It is a page 13 service record book entry that — currently being given to Navy reservists, asking them to acknowledge that they will not get points for the time they were dropped, discharged, or otherwise prohibited from participating because of being unvaccinated.
But it is also threatening that, if they don’t come back, they can have adverse administrative actions taken against them. This — this question is to you, Vice Admiral. By what authority is the Navy threatening adverse actions against the people it forced out in order to force them to come back in?
RICHARD CHEESEMAN:
Congressman, thanks — thanks for that question. I’m not familiar with that specific page 13 there, but I’ll talk to you in general. There is no authority for adverse actions right now because of the vaccine mandate and the rescission of that said vaccine mandate. In fact, we have taken painstaking efforts to go through our sailor’s records to make sure that we’ve removed negative connotations from their records.
And as a — as a measure going forward, for selection boards and promotion boards, we have guidance there that no negative indications because of COVID should be considered, sir.
CORY MILLS:
And this is for everyone. We know how important — and I’m prior military as well, have spent time with the United States Army, was a proud combat veteran out of the 82nd. And I thank you all for your service and for your time today. We know how important our reentry codes are when it comes to our DD-214. And many of our service members who, in my opinion, were unconstitutionally purged out of our military, up to the 8,400 personnel, were receiving things like code 3s and code 4s. And we know the difficulty, and in some cases the absolute refusal, to allow them to enter back into service.
What are we doing to correct and change that? I’ll start with you, Lieutenant General Douglas.
DOUGLAS STITT:
Representative Mills, thank you for the question. Thank you for your service. If there is an individual who was separated under the auspice of COVID-19, that — that individual is allowed to pursue reentry by contacting their local recruiter and/or pursuing reentry through the Army Board of Correction of Military Records.
RICHARD CHEESEMAN:
Congressman similar question for the Navy. Any prior service sailor can petition to have the record changed through the BCMR process. And once complete, they can, you know, attempt reentry to the service by contacting their local recruiter, sir.
CAROLINE MILLER:
Yes, sir. It’s very similar for the Air Force. We’ve identified all the individuals that were separated with — for COVID and for the vaccine. And we’ve reached out to them so that they can come back through the BCMR process as well.
JAMES GLYNN:
Congressman, same process. I’d just highlight, for the Marine Corps, we were very intentional about the assignment of that RE code so that it highlighted, you know, what it was for and — and gives very clear — gives clarity to the process of — of what has to be changed.
KATHARINE KELLEY:
Sir, I would tell you the — the Space Force did not separate any guardians solely for COVID vaccination. However, we would follow the same process that the Air Force does.
CORY MILLS:
Go guardians. All right, moving on. So, did the DOD or your individual service perform any studies or analysis of the number of service members who would refuse to take the mRNA product based on religious or medical objections? Was there any study conducted as a result of that? Because — and — and here’s the reason I asked this question.
The DOD inspector general said that, on average, the time taken to determine whether or not a person qualified for medical or religious exemption was 12 minutes. And in my opinion, do you feel that you could determine a person’s religious or medical exemption within 12 minutes? We’ll start with you, Lieutenant General Stitt.
DOUGLAS STITT:
Representative Mills, I am unaware of the DOD survey that you are referencing. I know that, within the Army, we handled and looked at each individual exemption case, medical or religious, on a case by case, individual by individual basis.
CORY MILLS:
Well, I could tell you right now, having worked for the government, we don’t do anything in 12 minutes. So, that’s probably one of the rapidest time. And I would advise you all to please look at this DOD inspector general write up that’s very clearly stating that these were decisions made within 12 minutes.
And I don’t consider that to be a subsequent amount of time to vet a person’s religious or medical reasoning for exemptions. I want to say for the record as well, how many of you would support, and I’d this quick in the ten seconds, reentry back into the military for those unconstitutionally purged out with back pay, full benefits, and their ability to finally serve their United States military as opposed to any political agenda?
I’ll start with you, Lieutenant General Glynn.
JAMES GLYNN:
Sir, in terms of reentry, we — we address that part. And the back pay would be a decision not made by a service.
CORY MILLS:
But is it something that you would support for those who want to continue their service and you’ve — that was unconstitutionally purged?
JAMES GLYNN:
I support them coming back in.
CORY MILLS:
Lieutenant General Miller.
CAROLINE MILLER:
I support them coming back in through the process.
CORY MILLS:
Vice Admiral?
RICHARD CHEESEMAN:
Congressman, same thing. I support the BCMR process and their ability to come back, and it should be adjudicated as such.
CORY MILLS:
And Lieutenant General?
DOUGLAS STITT:
Supportive through the BCMR process.
CORY MILLS:
Well, I hope you guys do. And I look forward to try and help work with my colleagues and with our chairman to get legislation in place that will actually allow that to happen so people can finally come back and serve our military, hopefully filling the ranks of the 25,000 plus recruitment shortage that we have today that, in my opinion, is partially due to the morale drop and the DEI that has been implemented as opposed to increased lethality.
With that, I yield back.
JIM BANKS:
Gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Moylan?
JAMES MOYLAN:
Thank you Mr. Chairman. You know, early — earlier today, I was — I had the opportunity to ask Secretary Austin a question regarding the recent reduction of COLA for service members on Guam when he testified before the full committee. However, I would also like to pose that — pose it to you folks as well here today.
So, given that there’s a COLA reduction as a result of department policy, what can be done to increase the cost of living allowance for service members on Guam, who live at the — the latter end of the supply chains and the service and serve in one of the most unique parts of the United States? So, basically that’s my question, right?
I — I suppose you all want to ensure that the COLA is there for our troops, the most forward deployed, but now we have a situation where they’re going to lose that COLA. So, how good is that for us — for the members to ensure they — the quality of life is there, right? So, I’m just posing that to you folks as — as well as what I did to the — the secretary, Secretary Austin, earlier today.
Whoever’d like to answer, please?
DOUGLAS STITT:
Representative Moylan, thank you for the question. We would participate with the Department of Defense quadrennial review of military compensation to look at cost of living allowances, basic allowance for housing, basic allowance for subsistence, the entirety of pay and benefits so that we can collect the information and review that, and ensure that our service members and their families are adequately compensated for their service and their sacrifice.
And if there are any decrements to COLA, we would request from the Department of Defense that the services receive notification so that we can work with respective chains of command to inform our — our soldiers and families and support them if they require assistance.
RICHARD CHEESEMAN:
Congressman, thank you for that question. Very similar answer. I think we need to work with our OC partners to — you know, on possible ways to modernize how we determine COLA. But more specifically, to what my colleague said here, we need to have an active campaign with our service members to understand the purpose of COLA. And then when there are changes with specifically reductions, we give them enough of a heads up so they can plan for it appropriately in their budgets, sir.
CAROLINE MILLER:
I would just add one thing to my colleague. Thank you for the question. I — I would like to see compensation for service members structured so that they don’t have to get any other additional service. It should — should be able to — they should be able to live on the compensation in which we provide.
JAMES GLYNN:
Like — like Lieutenant General Miller, I think, sir, that your question gets to the point of, if service members are so sensitive to a — a move in COLA up or down, then it’s indicative of the combined effect of many economic factors. We hear about it when it changes in housing. I’m sure you’ve heard about BAH. We heard about changes in the price of gas, food, any number of items.
I think it speaks to the margin and how narrow the margin has become, particularly for our junior enlisted folks, when it comes to being able to afford and absorb some of the fluctuations.
KATHARINE KELLEY:
Representative, thank you for the question. The only other thing I would add is the agility for the department to react to market conditions. And — and we’re talking about financial market conditions that move quickly, and we’ve got to be rapid in how we adjust.
JAMES MOYLAN:
I appreciate all your — all your responses. And one answer to that the Secretary Austin did give us was it’s not a matter of law. It’s Department of Defense. So, I — I think this is really important for us right now in the Indo-Pacific, to ensure that we just can’t cut off that coal — COLA or reduce it like what has happened.
So, we’re expecting an answer by the end of — by the end of next month, according to Secretary Austin. And with your understanding with your troops, I’m doing this to support, especially — we’ve got a Marine Corps base, right, coming out to Guam, which we already rededicated that flag, 4,000 Marines coming on over for Okinawa.
And that flag is going to be there to stay, General. So, we want to make it the best way possible for the morale and the welfare of our troops to ensure their families are taken care of while they defend our United States and our district of Guam. So, I — I thank you for that, and I appreciate your continued support to ensure that our troops are well taken care of, especially with the COLA. So, thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I — I relinquish my time. Thank you, sir.
JIM BANKS:
Thank you. And I want to thank all of our witnesses again for their service and for — for providing testimony this afternoon. I would close by requesting that you take the issues that we have identified and discussed here today back to your service chiefs, and let them know that we will be looking for the concrete actions they intend to take to mitigate the problems that we have identified in this hearing and how they intend to fix them.
With that, there being no — being no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
List of Panel Members
PANEL MEMBERS:
REP. JIM BANKS (R-IND.), CHAIRMAN
REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-N.Y.)
REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FLA.)
REP.JACK BERGMAN (R-MICH.)
REP. MICHAEL WALTZ (R-FLA.)
REP. BRAD FINSTAD (R-MINN.)
DEL.. JAMES MOYLAN (R-GUAM)
REP. MARK ALFORD 9R-MO.)
REP. CORY MILLS (R-FLA.)
REP. MIKE ROGERS (R-ALA.), EX-OFFICIO
REP. ANDY KIM (D-N.J.), RANKING MEMBER
REP. CHRISSY HOULAHAN (D-PA.)
REP. VERONICA ESCOBAR (D-TEXAS)
REP. MARILYN STRICKLAND (D-WASH.)
REP. JILL TOKUDA (D-HAWAII)
REP. DON DAVIS (D-N.C.)
REP. TERRI SEWELL (D-ALA.)
REP. STEVEN HORSFORD (D-NEV.)
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WASH.), EX-OFFICIO
HUMAN CAPITAL DEPUTY CHIEF KATHARINE KELLEY
MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL DEPUTY CHIEF CAROLINE MILLER
G-1 DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF DOUGLAS F. STITT
MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS JDEPUTY COMMANDANT JAMES GLYNN
NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR PERSONNEL DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD CHEESEMAN JR.