U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–850 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 114–590 

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION TO 

OPEN ALL GROUND COMBAT UNITS TO WOMEN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

CHRISTIAN D. BROSE, Staff Director 

ELIZABETH L. KING, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2016

Page 

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION TO OPEN ALL GROUND COMBAT UNITS

TO WOMEN ............................................................................................................. 1 

Mabus, Honorable Raymond E., JR., Secretary of the Navy ............................... 5 

Murphy, Honorable Patrick J., Under Secretary of the Army ............................. 10 

Milley, General Mark A., USA, Chief of Staff of the United States Army ......... 12 

Neller, General Robert B., USMC, Commandant of the United States Marine 

Corps ..................................................................................................................... 13 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 96 

(III) 

(1) 

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION TO 

OPEN ALL GROUND COMBAT UNITS TO 

WOMEN 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in Room 

SD–G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John McCain 

(chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators McCain, Sessions, 

Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Reed, 

Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 

Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman MCCAIN. Good morning. The Senate Armed Services 

Committee meets this morning to hear testimony about how the 

Army and Marine Corps are planning to implement the Secretary 

of Defense’s decision to open all ground combat units to women. 

We welcome our witnesses this morning: Secretary of the Navy 

Ray Mabus; Commandant of the Marine Corps General Robert 

Neller; Acting Secretary of the Army Patrick Murphy; and Army 

Chief of Staff General Mark Milley. We thank you for being here 

this morning and for your many years of distinguished service. 

This hearing is not about whether women can serve in combat. 

The fact is that women have served honorably in our military for 

years. They have filled critical roles in every branch of our military. Some have served as pilots like Congresswoman Martha 

McSally who flew combat missions in Afghanistan. Some have 

served as logisticians like Joni Ernst who ran convoys into Iraq. 

Others have served as medics, intelligence officers, nuclear engineers, boot camp instructors, and more. 

Many of these women have served in harm’s way. Women like 

Army Specialist Monica Lin Brown who ran through insurgent 

gunfire and saved the lives of her wounded comrades by using her 

body to shield them from incoming mortar fire. Women like Army 

Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester who led a counterattack that defeated 

an ambush by 50 insurgents and saved the lives of her fellow soldiers. 

Many women have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of 

our Nation, including 160 killed in the wars in Afghanistan and 

Iraq. We honor their service and sacrifice, and we honor them. 

2 

That is why when then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta lifted 

the ban on women serving in combat 3 years ago, I supported that 

decision. But as I said then, as this decision is implemented, ‘‘it is 

critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made 

the American military the most feared and admired fighting force 

in the world.’’ We have a responsibility to do the right thing, but 

we also have an equal responsibility to do the right thing in the 

right way. That is what this hearing is about, ensuring that as 

women move into more positions across our military, the readiness, 

combat effectiveness, and the safety and wellbeing of all service 

members, both men and women, remain our paramount priority. 

On December 3rd, 2015, Secretary Carter announced that the 

Department of Defense would lift the ban on women in ground 

combat units. In advance of this decision, both the Army and Marine Corps sought to assess the physical and readiness impacts of 

integrating women into their ground elements, including through 

special field studies. The Army study simulated tasks to determine 

what the gender-neutral standards should be for each occupational 

specialty based on physical tasks. The Marine Corps simulated the 

combat environment with men and women marines living and 

working together under combat-like conditions. 

These studies, while different in their approach, are complementary in their results. For the first time, they helped establish objective, scientifically based standards for the tasks required for 

ground combat. They found that certain women could meet these 

standards. But both studies also found that when performing brute 

physical tasks, on average these higher-performing women were 

generally comparable to lower-performing men and that in the 

process, women sustained higher rates of injury than men. Indeed, 

only two women marines were able to complete the combat activities simulated in the Marine Corps study due to extremely high 

rates of injury to lower extremities. 

In short, the Army and Marine Corps studies demonstrated that 

biological differences between men and women can have implications when it comes to the sustained physical activities involved in 

combat. 

Rather than honestly confront these realities, some have sought 

to minimize them. Indeed, we have even heard attempts to disparage the women marines who participated in the study at 

Twentynine Palms as somehow less than our best. In fact, these 

women were top caliber marines, self-selected and chosen to participate based on their aptitude and physical strength. I hope that 

Secretary Mabus and others who have spoken ill of these women 

will repudiate these comments. 

Put simply, I am concerned that the Department has gone about 

things backwards. This consequential decision was made and mandated before the military services could study its implications and 

before any implementation plans were devised to address the serious challenges raised in the studies. Indeed, our services now have 

the authority to begin contracting women for ground combat positions, but the Congress has yet to receive any implementation 

plans. Our witnesses are here today to address these concerns and 

the many questions that still remain. 

3 

For the members of this committee to perform our oversight responsibilities, we need to know what the gender- neutral military 

occupational specialty tests will look like, when they will be administered, how often they will be administered, and how they will 

interact with the current physical fitness standards which are currently gender- normed. We need to know how women service members will be set up for success to serve long and healthy military 

careers while maintaining high standards. And while the services 

are committed to maintaining standards that are tied to specific 

military occupational specialties, we know that over time political 

pressure will come to bear to increase the number of women in 

combat arms specialties. We expect to hear the witnesses address 

these important concerns. 

Most importantly, we need to hear from a professional military 

perspective how integrating women into scout sections, infantry 

squads, tank crews, artillery batteries, and combat engineers will 

improve the readiness and combat power of our ground units. After 

all, that is the overriding mission of our Nation’s military. 

Recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq serve as a stark reminder that close combat remains brutal and uncompromising. 

Warfare has changed over the years, but the duty of our fighting 

men and women, from the Second World War to Vietnam to today, 

remains the same, to close with and destroy the enemy. It is conducted in dangerous and austere environments. No other human 

activity is more psychologically straining, morally demanding, and 

more physically stressful. High physical standards alone do not assure success in ground combat. Ultimately these standards must be 

devised and implemented in a manner that ensures that we treat 

our soldiers and marines fairly, but that we never offer the enemy 

a fair fight. 

That is why we must be uncompromising in our insistence on 

training to high standards. That is why we must preserve the 

small unity cohesion and discipline that ensure small combat units 

can win and survive on the forward edge of the battlefield. Troops 

in close combat bear the heaviest burden across the entire Department of Defense. And going forward, it is the wellbeing of those 

service members, whether they be men or women, that must override every other concern. 

Senator Reed? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED 

Senator REED. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 

would like to join you in thanking our witnesses for joining us 

today to provide testimony on how their respective services will 

successfully integrate women into combat occupations and the 

ground combat forces in particular. 

I would like to thank each of you and the services you represent, 

as well as the Air Force, which is not represented here today, on 

the deliberative processes that you have taken in studying this 

issue over the past several years. Secretary Panetta and General 

Dempsey initiated this effort in 2013, and since then, each service 

has conducted research and studied performance to validate occupational standards for every military occupation. While today’s 

hearing is focused on the difficult and challenging aspects of inteVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Apr 05, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\REIER-AVILES\2016\2016 HEARINGS SENT FOR PRINTING\24850.TXT WILDA
4 

gration within the ground combat forces, it is important to remember that hundreds of thousands of positions have been opened to 

service by women over the past several years. Many of these positions were considered not too long ago as available for men only for 

many, many reasons. This assumption has been disproven by the 

performance of female personnel in those occupations already open 

to all genders. 

Now that the decision to open all positions to women has been 

made, it is important that we turn our focus to the successful integration of females into these positions. Leadership is the key to ensuring both individual and collective success, as it was when other 

military occupations where opened to women. I have every confidence that each of you will implement this decision smartly and 

successfully. 

Part of this process, as I mentioned, is the statutory requirement 

to establish gender-neutral physical, mental, and technical occupational standards which any service member, male or female, must 

meet as a condition to serve in any particular occupation, including 

the combat arms. This is critical. As many members have said over 

the past several years, it is important that our warfighting capability not be reduced. There is a tendency, however, to equate 

warfighting capability solely with physical capability. Fighting and 

winning wars, as I am sure our panelists know well, much more 

so than I, involves much more than that. I believe that the full and 

successful integration of women into the combat arms, for a variety 

of reasons, will strengthen and enhance our warfighting capabilities. 

Integrating women into ground combat units also must be reflected in how and who we recruit and how we assess capabilities 

at the recruit stage to maximize successful service and minimize 

attrition. Not all women will be able or even interested in serving 

in the combat arms. But I believe many, particularly those with the 

required physical ability and the necessary mental toughness for 

service in the combat arms, may now be drawn to the ever greater 

equal opportunities provided by military service. I look forward to 

hearing how the services plan to recruit and assign individuals for 

service in the combat arms, what plans you have for developing 

predictive tests at the recruit stage to assess the potential for success of a given recruit, and what challenges you face and foresee. 

Finally, I believe it is important for the services, but particularly 

Army and the Marine Corps, to develop plans and strategies to 

mitigate the physical stress and toll that a career in the ground 

combat profession has on every soldier and marine, men as well as 

women. Part of successful implementation will be ensuring the 

ability to serve a full career regardless of gender. 

I thank you for your time and your expertise and look forward 

to your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. We would like to begin with you, Secretary 

Mabus. 

5 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE RAYMOND E. MABUS, JR., 

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY 

Mr. MABUS. Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, members 

of this committee, the issues before us today are of vital importance, as you have heard, to the future of the United States Marine 

Corps, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, 

and our Nation as a whole. 

The question at issue is very straightforward: how do we maintain and improve the combat effectiveness of our military as we 

execute the decision to open all previously closed positions to 

women. 

Serving as Secretary of the Navy is the greatest honor of my life. 

Every single decision I make is in support of maximizing the combat effectiveness of the United States Marine Corps. For almost 7 

years as Secretary, I have been talking to marines face to face 

about being marines, about making marines, and the marines 

warfighting ethos. I have seen them at Quantico, at Paris Island, 

at San Diego, and at nearly every stop that I have made in the almost 1.2 million miles I have traveled as Secretary, including every 

single forward operating base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. 

I have spent time with marines where they are serving and have 

seen firsthand that this decision to open all previously closed positions to women is putting policy in line with what is already reality, acknowledging the critical role women play and have been 

playing in mission success. 

The Marine Corps is the most formidable expeditionary fighting 

force the world has ever known. That legacy is proven through the 

Corps’ storied history, from the halls of Montezuma to the valleys 

of Afghanistan, and that reputation is unquestioned in America 

and around the globe. No better friend, no worse enemy. The 

strong traditions of the Marines help make that reputation and 

among those traditions is a commitment to evolve, to be flexible, 

in one of the common instructions given to young marines, improvise, adapt, overcome. 

Throughout its history, the Corps has maintained its combat 

power and its lethality by adapting to changing conditions, evolving 

training and tactics to meet new challenges and new threats. Today’s School of Infantry is not the same as it was just 25 years ago 

during Desert Storm, and the change is even more dramatic since 

Vietnam or World War II. In a world where the threats and the 

battle space are all increasingly complex, failing to reevaluate everything from personnel policies to weapons programs can be dangerous if not fatal. A response of ‘‘that is the way we have always 

done it’’ is not, cannot, and never has been an acceptable rationale. 

In the Department of the Navy, we are continually evaluating 

the way we operate. After Secretary Panetta and Chairman 

Dempsey set us in 2012 on the path toward opening all billets, including ground combat, to women by this year, the Navy and Marine Corps, along with our sister services, conducted extensive 

studies on this issue. These studies helped inform the Department’s recommendation to Secretary of Defense Carter and his subsequent decision to open all previously closed positions in all services to women. But they were not the only source of information 

that was gathered in reaching that recommendation. 

6 

However, the Marine Corps study has drawn special attention, 

and at least some of what has made it into public discussion is less 

than accurate. Among the misperceptions is that the Marines relied 

on just one study. In fact, their conclusions were based, in part, on 

a number of studies and reports. I have spent a lot of time closely 

reviewing all of them, especially the Marines’ own study. In addition, I have had numerous discussions with senior Marine leadership, with junior officers, with enlisted personnel. 

First and very importantly, I absolutely commend the marines 

who volunteered for this experiment for their work in assisting the 

Corps with approaching this integration process. I also appreciate 

the thoughtfulness, the diligence, and the sincerity of Marine leadership. Their time and effort helped to develop these standards, reinforce the importance of leadership, and set specific metrics for 

these demanding ground combat jobs. 

The most surprising finding of the Marine Corps study was that 

standards for many Marine Corps military occupation specialties, 

MOS’s, just did not exist. An incredibly important thing that came 

out of this study was the establishment of operationally relevant, 

occupation- specific, gender-neutral standards. 

The Marines deconstructed every job in ground combat to specifically detail its requirements so that individual members could 

function better as a team. So what we have now are a set of standards based on the actual requirements and demands for every Marine MOS, and the Corps is more effective and more ready because 

of this work. 

As I thoroughly examined the Marine Corps study, it was clear 

that the conclusions focused on the average performance of female 

marines rather than on individual abilities. Averages do not tell 

the abilities and performance of an individual marine. There were 

and are capable women who can meet the arduous standards the 

Marine Corps set for ground combat arms units. And we all know 

that marines have never been about average. 

We also know, as Commandant Neller regularly and very correctly notes and as the chairman in his opening statement said, 

this is not about women in combat. Women have been serving in 

combat and serving with distinction, and they have been recognized 

for it. 422 female marines have earned the Combat Action Ribbon 

for their service in Iraq and Afghanistan for the various roles they 

have played, to include the Lioness Program and Female Engagement Teams. 

Female marines have enhanced combat effectiveness by running 

convoys and security patrols, flying close air support missions, and 

leading engineering platoons. They have performed exceptionally 

on the front lines in places like Fallujah, Ramadi, and Sangin. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Mr. Secretary, I would like you to try to 

truncate your remarks and summarize. We have other witnesses 

and questions by the committee. 

Mr. MABUS. The Marine Corps leadership have developed 

thoughtful and deliberate plans to execute this transition effectively. The Corps has already notified the 231 women who have 

successfully completed ground combat arms MOS training at formal learning centers that they can switch to these previously 

closed jobs immediately if they chose to. 

7 

Part of this transition is the evaluation of the training and education that we provide at every level, from recruits and officer candidates to the highest levels of leadership, and the Secretary of Defense highlighted education and training as a focus area as we 

begin implementation of this policy. 

A point of discussion has been that the Marines are the only 

service which separates men and women at boot camp. I directed 

the Marines to brief me on a plan to integrate basic training. 

The Marines prepared a very thoughtful briefing and went 

ahead, which provided timely and informative considerations as the 

Department of Defense Implementation Group do their important 

work. With the benefit of their response, we can move forward in 

a measured and effective way using the lessons of fully integrated, 

gender-integrated OCS and the basic school, as well as lessons 

learned as Marines have opened up many MOS’s in the past 3 

years. 

With validated, operationally relevant, job-specific standards, the 

only test that is important is whether a person can meet those 

standards. Now, I know that suggestions have been made that 

those standards might be lowered down the road to achieve some 

quota, some numerical goal. But that is unacceptable, unacceptable 

under the law, unacceptable to me, unacceptable to every other 

senior leader in the Pentagon because it would endanger not only 

the safety of marines but the safety of our Nation. 

Lowering standards would also be unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable, to every marine, especially those women who choose to 

compete for those positions. One thing is inviolate: standards can 

never be lowered for any group or any job. Standards will evolve 

as threats evolve, but they will evolve for everyone equally. But 

just as there is no good argument to lower standards, there is also 

no good argument to bar anyone who has met those standards from 

serving. 

That is the American promise. It does not guarantee an outcome 

to anyone, but it does guarantee opportunity for everyone. For 

those who want to serve in these trying MOS’s, these high standards will not make it easy, nor should they. But every person will 

have the opportunity. And for those who succeed, they will operate 

side by side with everyone else who has met the standard to be a 

marine. Those marines and this Nation will continue to uphold the 

motto that marines have fought and died under for almost 2 and 

a half centuries: Semper Fidelis. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mabus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY MR.RAYMOND E. MABUS

Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, members of the Committee, the issues 

before us today are of vital importance to the future of the United States Marine 

Corps, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, and our nation as 

a whole. 

The question at issue is very straightforward: How do we maintain and improve 

the combat effectiveness of our military as we execute the decision to open all previously closed positions to women. 

Serving as Secretary of the Navy is the greatest honor of my life. Every single 

decision I make is in support of maximizing the combat effectiveness of the Marine 

Corps. For almost seven years as Secretary, I’ve been talking to Marines face to face 

about being Marines, making Marines, and the Marine warfighting ethos. I have 

seen them at Quantico, at Parris Island, at San Diego and at nearly every stop I’ve 

made along the 1,160,208 miles I’ve travelled during my time as Secretary, includVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Apr 05, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\REIER-AVILES\2016\2016 HEARINGS SENT FOR PRINTING\24850.TXT WILDA
8 

ing every FOB [Found Operating Base] in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. I’ve 

spent time with Marines where they are serving, and have seen first-hand that this 

decision to open all previously closed positions to women is putting policy in line 

with what is already reality, acknowledging the critical role women play, and have 

been playing, in mission success. 

The Marine Corps is the most formidable expeditionary fighting force the world 

has ever known. That legacy is proven through the Corps’ storied history, from the 

halls of Montezuma to the Valleys of Afghanistan, and that reputation is unquestioned in America and around the globe: No better friend, no worse enemy. The 

strong traditions of the Marines help make that reputation, and among those traditions is a commitment to evolve, to be flexible—in one of the common instructions 

to young Marines—to improvise, adapt and overcome. 

Throughout its history, the Corps has maintained its combat power and its 

lethality by adapting to changing conditions, evolving training and tactics to meet 

new challenges and new threats. Today’s School of Infantry is not the same as it 

was just 25 years ago during Desert Storm, and the change is even more dramatic 

since Vietnam or World War II. In a world where the threats and the battle space 

are all increasingly complex, failing to re-evaluate everything from personnel policies to weapons programs can be dangerous if not fatal. A response of ‘‘that’s the 

way we’ve always done it,’’ is not, cannot be, and never has been, an acceptable rationale. 

In the Department of the Navy, we are continually evaluating the way we operate. After Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey set us in 2012 on the path toward opening all billets, including ground combat, to women by this year, the Navy 

and Marine Corps—along with our sister services—conducted extensive studies on 

that issue. These studies helped inform the Department’s recommendation to Secretary of Defense Carter and his subsequent decision to open all previously closed 

positions in all services to women. But they were not the only source of information 

that was gathered in reaching that recommendation. 

However, the Marine Corps study has drawn special attention, and at least some 

of what has made it into public discussion is—to put it generously—less than accurate. Among the misperceptions is that the Marines relied on just one study. In fact, 

their conclusions were, in part, based on a number of studies and reports. I have 

spent a considerable amount of time closely reviewing all of them, especially the 

Marines’ own study. In addition, I’ve had numerous discussions with senior Marine 

leadership, junior officers, and enlisted personnel. 

First and very importantly, I commend the Marines who volunteered for the experiment for their work assisting the Corps with approaching the integration process. I also appreciate the thoughtfulness, diligence and sincerity of Marine leadership. Their time and effort helped to develop standards, reinforce the importance of 

leadership, and set specific metrics for these demanding ground combat jobs. 

The most surprising finding of the Marine Corps study was that standards for 

many Marine Corps Military Occupations Specialties—or MOS’s—did not exist. An 

incredibly important thing that came out of this study was the establishment of 

operationally relevant, occupation specific, gender-neutral standards. 

The Marines deconstructed each job in a ground combat unit to specifically detail 

its requirements so that individual members could function better as a team. So 

what we have now are a set of standards based on the actual requirements and demands for every Marine MOS, and the Corps is more effective and more ready because of this work. 

As I thoroughly examined the Marine Corps study, it was clear that the conclusions focused on the average performance of female Marines rather than individual 

abilities. Averages don’t tell the abilities and performance of an individual Marine. 

There were—and are—capable women who can meet the arduous standards the Marine Corps set for ground combat arms units. We all know the Marines have never 

been about average. 

We also know, as Commandant Neller regularly and very correctly notes, that this 

is not about women in combat. Women have been serving in combat, serving with 

distinction, and they’ve been recognized for it; 422 female Marines have earned 

Combat Action Ribbons for their service in Iraq and Afghanistan for various roles 

they’ve played, to include the Lioness Program and Female Engagement Teams. 

Female Marines have enhanced combat effectiveness by running convoys and security patrols, flying close air support missions, and leading engineering platoons. 

They have performed exceptionally on the front lines in places like Fallujah, Ramadi 

and Sangin—upholding the Marines’ incredible combat proficiency and impeccable 

traditions. This is about opening up the last few MOS’s in accordance with the direction by the Secretary of Defense and doing so in a way that maintains or increases combat effectiveness. 

9 

Last week, I was at Quantico to have a frank discussion with Marines and see 

them train. What the visit reinforced in me is just how exceptional these young men 

and women are. They are mission-focused and thoughtful, they are respectful and 

proud, and they are intent on doing what Marines do best: developing the world’s 

finest warfighters, irrespective of gender, color, religion or background because those 

things are irrelevant when it comes to meeting the standards required in combat. 

Officers Candidate School and The Basic School at Quantico are already fully gender integrated. The questions I received there from the Corps’ newest officers were 

far broader than the opening of the last few MOS’s. There were questions about how 

to lead in new, ever-changing environments and about emerging threats like cybersecurity. 

The Marines of history, those that fought at Belleau Wood, at Iwo Jima, at Hue 

City, at Fallujah and at Mousa Kala have always represented the best our country 

has to offer, have always adapted and overcome whatever threat has faced our country. My visit showed me that is absolutely still the case today. 

Marine Corps leadership have developed thoughtful and deliberate plans to execute this transition effectively. The Corps has already notified the 231 women who 

have successfully completed ground combat arms MOS training at formal learning 

centers they can switch to these previously closed jobs immediately if they choose 

to do so. 

Part of this transition is the evaluation of the training and education that we provide at every level, from recruits and officer candidates to the highest levels of leadership, and the Secretary of Defense highlighted education and training as focus 

areas as we begin implementation of this policy. A point of discussion has been that 

the Marines are the only Service which separates men and women at boot camp. 

I directed the Marines to brief me on a plan to integrate basic training and then 

to implement that plan by April 1. 

The Marines prepared a very thoughtful briefing and way ahead, which provided 

timely and informative considerations as the Department of Defense-wide Implementation Group, headed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, do their important work. I thank the Marine Corps 

for assembling this information. 

With the benefit of their response, we can move forward in a measured and effective way using the lessons of OCS and TBS [The Basic School] as well as the lessons 

learned as Marines have opened up many MOS’s in the past 3 years. 

With validated, operationally relevant, job specific standards—these are high 

standards—the only test that is important is whether a person can meet those 

standards. I know suggestions have been made that those standards might be lowered down the road to achieve some quota, some numerical goal. But that is unacceptable, unacceptable under the law, and unacceptable to me and every other senior leader in the Pentagon, because it would endanger not only the safety of Marines, but also the safety of our nation. 

Lowering standards would also be unacceptable to every Marine, especially those 

women who choose to compete for these positions. One thing is inviolate: standards 

can never be lowered for any group or for any job. Standards will evolve as threats 

evolve, as circumstances change, but they will evolve for everyone equally. But just 

as there is no good argument to lower standards, there is also no good argument 

to bar anyone who has met those standards from serving. 

The Secretary of Defense’s decision to open all previously closed MOS’s, including 

all Marine MOSs, to women is therefore an important step for our military and our 

country. This isn’t about quotas, and this doesn’t mean every, or even most, Marines 

will make it, but it does mean every Marine who wants to will have the chance to 

compete. 

And that is the American promise, which does not guarantee an outcome to anyone, but does guarantee opportunity for everyone. 

Americans have always worked to fulfill that exceptional promise made at our 

founding. We have continually broken down artificial barriers to equal opportunity 

based on race, religion or gender. Our military forces have followed that same history and made themselves stronger and better and more effective because of it. 

Implementing this policy breaks down a last barrier. 

For those who want to serve in these trying MOS’s, these high standards will not 

make it easy, nor should they, but each person will have the opportunity. And for 

those who succeed, they will operate side by side with everyone else who has met 

the standard to be a Marine. Those Marines and this nation will continue to uphold 

the motto Marines have fought and died under for almost two and a half centuries: 

Semper Fidelis. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Secretary Murphy? 

10 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE PATRICK J. MURPHY, UNDER 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

Mr. MURPHY. Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed—— 

Chairman MCCAIN. Your complete statements will be made part 

of the record. Please go ahead. 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. 

The Army remains in full support of Secretary Carter’s directive 

to open every job to every soldier regardless of gender. Following 

3 years of study, then-Secretary John McHugh recommended that 

no exceptions be made in the implementation, and I concur with 

his recommendation today. 

This is the right decision for our Army. Our Army represents 

America and embodies the best of our values. The personal courage 

and selfless service made by women in our Army is no different 

than that exhibited by our men. We owe them the respect and 

honor to offer them the opportunity to succeed anywhere in our 

Army based upon only the merits of their performance. 

Practically this is the right decision for our Army as well. As our 

Army gets smaller, our success increasingly depends upon our ability to maximize the contributions of every volunteer that fills our 

ranks. A soldier’s ability to meet established standards that contribute to our success will remain our overriding factor moving forward. 

Recognizing these imperatives, the Army began integration efforts several years ago to take full advantage of America’s diverse 

and deep talent. Practical knowledge gained from these efforts complemented by several years of extensive research, collaboration, 

and practical evaluation have led us to three primary conclusions. 

First, that women are capable of performing every job in the 

Army. This is not to say that every woman can do every job, just 

like every man cannot do every job. But no job in our Army has 

standards that cannot be met by women. Therefore, every soldier 

will have the opportunity, should they choose to do so, to compete 

against established standards for every position, to include the infantry, armor, and special forces. 

Next, we will maintain high individual standards of performance 

and professional conduct. These standards will continue to be based 

upon the requirements of the position and nothing else. We will 

continue to enforce them fairly and objectively across the force. Our 

guiding principle for these standards is and will remain exclusively 

their contribution to mission success. 

Finally, leadership is critical to integration. As Secretary Carter 

noted, the performance of teams is important and integration will 

change these dynamics. Our leaders, enabled by comprehensive 

and deliberate education, will closely monitor these efforts. We cannot anticipate or control for every impact of integration, but this 

will not slow our progress. We will continue to monitor and report 

the lessons we learn so that our Army can collectively integrate the 

force and share our experiences. But we are prepared to act and 

benefit from integration now. 

Full integration will likely take several years, both to adjust the 

culture and to grow individual skills within our force. But I am 

confident that every leader in the Army will understand and reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Apr 05, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\REIER-AVILES\2016\2016 HEARINGS SENT FOR PRINTING\24850.TXT WILDA
11 

spect the increased readiness that integration will bring. Underpinned by strong, professional leaders, we will remain true to the 

values of the Army and to America and emerge as a stronger, more 

ready Army as a result. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy and Mr. Milley follows:] 

THE JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. PATRICK J. MURPHY AND GENERAL MARK

A. MILLEY, UNITED STATES ARMY

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION TO OPEN ALL GROUND COMBAT UNITS TO WOMEN

Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of America’s Army. 

Following three years of careful and comprehensive study, the Army recommended all military occupational specialties (MOS) be open to women. In our 

view, the best-qualified Soldier, regardless of gender, should be allowed to serve in 

any position. 

Every volunteer who swears to support and defend our Constitution should be afforded the opportunity to serve according to their merit in any military career field. 

Full integration will result in a stronger Army. Establishing specialty-specific, 

operationally-relevant gender neutral standards, based on combat experience that 

are rigorously enforced for both men and women will likely increase overall readiness of the Army to conduct operations anywhere at any time against any foe. 

Women represent greater than half our population and the Army intends to take 

full advantage of this talent pool. 

The Army has previously and continues to successfully integrate females into 

units based upon a phased, deliberate approach that maintains Army standards, ensures equitable treatment, and reinforces Army values of dignity and respect. Our 

guiding principles of implementation are first, to maintain readiness that is standards-based. Second, to have a deliberate and methodical process that is transparent. 

And third, that leadership and accountability are key to success, with no quotas and 

equitable treatment. As we continue to move forward to fully integrate our Army, 

we intend to build upon these principles. 

The Army has deployed gender integrated Brigade Combat Teams over the last 

decade. Since 2011 the Army opened 9 military occupational specialties and approximately 95,000 positions in Combat Arms units, down to company and platoon level. 

Since 9/11, over a thousand U.S. military women have been killed or wounded while 

deployed to combat zones. Today, women serve in every Active Duty Infantry, Armor 

and Field Artillery battalion. The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment was 

opened to women in 2014, and the Army’s Ranger Course was opened just last year. 

The Army has had success with its deliberate methodical approach. Additionally, 

over 9,000 women have received the Army Combat Action Badge for ‘‘actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy,’’ and two have received the Silver Star for ‘‘gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States.’’ 

We have identified several tasks required for full integration. We will implement 

published, measurable, gender-neutral standards based solely on combat requirements and that will not be compromised for any reason. Next, we will initiate gender-neutral training, and assign leaders first, followed by female enlisted Soldiers. 

This will allow us the opportunity both to learn from measured implementation as 

well as to build a cadre of female officers and NCO (Non Commissioned Officer) 

leadership. Additionally, we will improve our accessions vetting to better screen and 

manage individual Soldier qualifications. 

We estimate that effective integration will require 1–3 years of deliberate, monitored effort with continued rigorous assessment. We have already begun to ensure 

our facilities meet legal and Army guidelines for accession as well as basic and initial training of female Soldiers. Additionally, we are providing leaders and Soldiers 

with appropriate education to support these changes. This spring, female cadets and 

officer candidates who qualify will be given the opportunity to request assignment 

to Infantry or Armor branches. As those women who volunteer complete necessary 

training for their new MOSs, they will serve as the basis for our integrated programs. 

While real challenges remain, we are confident they are manageable. These challenges include: inconsistent enforcement of existing standards and perceptions of 

double-standards; cohesion; sexual assault and harassment; ignorance of Army policy; small numbers of volunteers or high attrition; injury rates; career management; 

and discipline. Through a variety of policies, rigorous training, enforced standards, 

12 

and leader education—all grounded in the importance of ground combat—full gender integration is possible. The Army will regularly assess our long-term strategies 

and continue earlier studies to better understand critical areas. Combined, this will 

inform future policy adjustments and education plans to support full gender integration. 

The Army has an established record of success in opening occupations previously 

closed to women. These experiences and the results of five careful and deliberate 

studies have informed and enabled the Army to successfully implement this guidance and increase our overall readiness, thereby making us a more combat effective 

Army. As the Army moves forward, you have our commitment that we will do so 

in a manner that is fully transparent to the American people and to the Congress. 

On behalf of the Army, thank you for your support of our Soldiers, Civilians, Veterans, and their Families. 

Chairman MCCAIN. General Milley, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL MARK A. MILLEY, USA, CHIEF OF 

STAFF OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY 

General MILLEY. Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate it. And Ranking Member Reed and thank you all for the opportunity to appear 

before you on behalf of America’s Army and to discuss the Army’s 

implementation plan for full integration of women. 

For the record, I fully support opening any military occupational 

specialty and all military occupational specialties in the United 

States Army to all soldiers regardless of gender. It is my solemn 

duty as the Army Chief of Staff to ensure that the Army remains 

ready to defend this great Nation and to do so, we need the most 

capable and qualified men and women. 

Readiness is the Army’s number one priority, and I believe that 

full integration of women in all career fields will either maintain, 

sustain, or improve the overall readiness of the United States 

Army and our capability of the force. If and only if we maintain 

and enforce rigorous combat readiness standards, we remain a 

merit-based, results-oriented organization and we apply no quotas 

and no pressure. We cannot compromise combat readiness and effectiveness for any reason whatsoever. 

The Army’s implementation plan will be guided by a set of first 

principles. We will maintain readiness by adherence very strictly 

to a set of standards, and we will not impose quotas on ourselves. 

We will execute a very deliberate, methodical, and transparent 

process. We must not rush to failure. And in this particular project, 

I believe that slow is smooth and smooth will be fast at the end 

of the day. We will set conditions by positioning female leaders and 

units who are engaged and those units’ leaders will be accountable. 

These principles are aligned with the guidance given to us by the 

Secretary of Defense. 

The Army has identified several key tasks required for full gender integration. When the SecDef approves our plan, we have developed and will implement published, measurable, gender-neutral 

standards based on combat readiness requirements. 

Next, we will initiate gender-neutral training for all officers, noncommissioned officers, and junior enlisted. And to ensure the success, our plan calls for the deliberate, methodical approach that begins with assessment, selection, training, and assigning of female 

infantry and armor leaders, both officers and NCOs, to units. That 

is our leaders’ first principle. And then we will assign junior female 

enlisted to those units. 

13 

I estimate that effective female integration into infantry armor 

and special forces will require no less than 1 to 3 years of deliberate effort in order to develop the individual skills and grow our 

leaders. The Army is currently in the process of ensuring our facilities comply with law and DOD policies for accession in gender-neutral living standards at both our basic and individual training. 

Additionally, we will provide leaders and soldiers with integration education and training to enhance our integration efforts over 

the course of this year. This spring, female cadets and officer candidates who meet the gender-neutral standard will be given the opportunity to request either infantry or armor branches, and that 

process is currently ongoing. 

The Army’s integration plan is based on a successful record of 

opening occupations previously closed to women. Since 2011, the 

Army has opened nine MOS’s and approximately 95,000 positions 

in combat arms units. In fact, today every single active duty infantry, armor, and field artillery battalion has women in them. Additionally Task Force 160th—the 160th special operation aviation 

regiment—was open to women in 2014, and of course, as you know, 

the Army’s Ranger School was opened last year. These experiences 

have informed and will enable the Army to successfully implement 

gender integration to increase our combat readiness. 

Make no mistake about it. This process is going to have challenges. But if we proceed with a methodical and deliberate execution and like all previous integration efforts, it is my belief that the 

Army will be successful. 

I have personally witnessed in multiple tours of very intense 

ground combat—I have personally witnessed women perform, and 

their tasks were not much different than any other man that was 

on that battlefield. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind in my 

professional judgment that some women can perform every single 

job in the United States Army, to include infantry, armor, and special forces. 

Army leaders will continue to assess and we will adjust the process to ensure that our standards and combat readiness are maintained and you, the committee, have my word on this. You also 

have my commitment that we will move forward in this endeavor 

in a very transparent and collaborative manner with this committee, with the American people, and with the Department of Defense. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

Chairman MCCAIN. General Neller? 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL ROBERT B. NELLER, USMC, 

COMMANDANT OF THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 

General NELLER. Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, in 

the interest of time, I would ask that my oral statement be submitted for the record. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of General Neller follows:] 

14 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY GENERAL ROBERT NELLER

Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, distinguished members of the Senate 

Armed Services Committee, thank you for your continued interest in ensuring the 

ongoing readiness of the Nation’s Marine Corps. Successful execution of gender integration implementation will be key to sustaining our readiness, as well as ensuring 

all Marines have the greatest opportunity to succeed as valued members of our 

team. 

As you know, then-Secretary of Defense Panetta fully rescinded the Direct Ground 

Combat Definition and Assignment Rule (DGCDAR) in January 2013. He directed 

the Services to integrate female service members into the remaining closed military 

occupational specialties (MOS) and units throughout the Department of Defense beginning in January 2016. Secretary Panetta also offered a period of time to study 

the implications of this policy change and directed the Services to return with any 

exception recommendations. The Marine Corps did not stand idle. Under the guiding principles of the Secretary of Defense, we implemented a deliberate, measured, 

and responsible research effort to better understand the aspects of gender integration in those remaining closed MOS’s, and setting the conditions for successful policy implementation. Our research was about ‘‘how’’ to integrate, not ‘‘if.’’ 

Our first action was to form the Marine Corps Force Innovation Office (MCFIO), 

led by a General Officer. This group had the primary task to develop what we now 

call the Marine Corps Force Integration Plan (MCFIP). The MCFIP is a research 

and implementation campaign plan consisting of four lines of effort: 

1) assigning female Marine officers, staff non-commissioned officers, and non-commissioned officers serving in combat support MOS’s to 20 active and nine reserve ground combat arms units which were previously closed; 

2) training female Marine volunteers at the entry-level, MOS-producing schools 

for infantry, artillery, tank and assault amphibious vehicles to gain insights 

into the relative propensity among new female Marines to serve in various 

ground combat arms occupations, as well as relative success and injury rates 

and causes, by gender; 

3) establishing a Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force (GCEITF) to inform the development and validation of gender-neutral individual performance 

standards, as well as to conduct scientific research to understand the impacts, 

if any, of gender integration on unit-level performance (collective tasks) under 

conditions most closely approximating actual ground combat conditions; and 

4) opening eleven MOS’s that had previously been closed due principally to the 

co-location restriction within DGCDAR. 

In support of our campaign plan, the Marine Corps directly, and through third 

parties, conducted numerous studies and reviews within the time allotted to ascertain the benefits, impacts, risks, and potential mitigation measures, if needed, of a 

fully gender integrated ground combat force. This effort included visits to allied 

militaries with experience integrating female service members in ground combat 

arms specialties, equipment adaptation studies, literature reviews, surveys, and 

focus groups. In addition to our Marine Corps Recruiting Command; Training and 

Education Command; MCFIO; Operations Analysis Division; and the Marine Corps 

Operational Test and Evaluation Activity, the following external research partners 

supported the MCFIP: 

-Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) 

-University of Pittsburgh Warrior Human Performance Research Center 

-Michigan State University 

-George Mason University 

-Research and Development (RAND) Corporation 

-Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) 

-Naval Health Research Center (NHRC) 

A MCFIP status update was included in the quarterly and, subsequently, semiannual Women in Service Review (WISR) written updates provided through the Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary of Defense. Additionally, a MCFIP update brief 

was provided to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) ‘‘Tank’’ sessions on a quarterly basis 

over the past two years as part of regularly scheduled JCS WISR updates. 

Our research has analyzed the performance of individual Marines in our formal 

MOS-producing ground combat arms courses; as a result, we developed, refined, and 

implemented improved occupation-specific physical standards and the associated 

screening tools for obtaining these MOS’s. But the individual is only one aspect. The 

Marine Corps fights in teams—as units—and it was important to understand the 

relative performance of units as well. We studied both gender integrated and nonintegrated units, operating as squads, teams, and crews; and we did this under liveVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Apr 05, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\REIER-AVILES\2016\2016 HEARINGS SENT FOR PRINTING\24850.TXT WILDA
15 

fire conditions that most closely replicate actual ground combat conditions. This is 

the first time this level of research has been conducted. To ensure accuracy, our 

study was peer reviewed by a team from George Mason University. 

In my professional opinion, the research we conducted and the plan we executed 

in response to Secretary Panetta’s guidance was deliberate, measured, and responsible. We believe the data was compelling and supported our decision to request an 

exception to policy based on best military advice. 

Marines follow orders. In response to Secretary of Defense Carter’s decision in December 2015, the Marine Corps is stepping out smartly to facilitate the integration 

of all qualified Marines into previously closed MOS’s. Informed by our research, integration will be executed in a well-planned and responsible manner. We have already awarded additional MOS’s to all Marines who earned it through primary 

MOS-producing schools, and two female Second Lieutenants are currently undergoing MOS training at the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course. Also, Marines 

awarded these additional MOS qualifications can now request formal reclassification 

into the combat arms designation. 

We will build upon previous integration experiences and will strictly adhere to the 

refined individual performance standards that have resulted from the studies we 

have conducted. The framework of our study was—and continues to be—viewed 

through three interrelated lenses: first and foremost, the combat effectiveness of our 

Marine units; second, the health and welfare of our individual Marines; and finally, 

with an eye toward the best talent management of our total force—both today and 

into the future. Our readiness will remain the guiding focus as we implement our 

plan. 

We owe a debt of gratitude to all Marines, both female and male, who participated 

in our Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force experiment. They were volunteers and did not have to put themselves through the demanding rigors of this 

months-long research. I believe they volunteered because, ultimately, Marines always seek a challenge; want to provide service to their Corps; and because they are 

committed to being part of a Marine Corps that is the best fighting force in the 

world. 

We also owe a debt of gratitude to our many allied military partners, and to all 

our research partners. 

As we move forward with our gender integration plan, we are establishing a 

methodology for assessment, just as we do with any plan we execute. The Marine 

Corps is a learning organization. We will evaluate the success of our plan and inform in-stride adjustments throughout this ongoing process as we: recruit, train, develop, deploy, and retain the highest quality force. Specifically, we will assess our 

integration efforts to: 

1) ensure we understand the impact (positive or negative) on recruiting and retention; 

2) ensure we understand the impact (positive or negative) on the combat readiness of our units; and 

3) ensure we understand the impact (positive or negative) to relative competitiveness of the individual Marine to be the most successful they can be in achieving their goals. We will seek the greatest talent management objectives in concert with seeking the most combat ready units. 

In closing, I’m confident of the rigor we applied to our testing, our methodology, 

and the proud professionalism of all Marines involved in this process, especially 

those who volunteered for our experiments and schools, and paved the way to make 

us a better organization. Your Marine Corps is not focused on the past, but on the 

future. We have a responsibility to our Marines and the American people to ensure 

we get this right. Many have strong opinions about this issue. I am very proud that 

those within our ranks have stayed focused on what is important—training hard 

and being ready when the Nation calls. The continued success of your Corps is 

based on a simple tenet: placing the best and most fully qualified Marines where 

they can succeed and make the strongest contribution to the broad range of missions 

the Marine Corps executes as the Nation’s expeditionary force-in-readiness. 

I look forward to your questions. 

General NELLER. We are ready for your questions, sir. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Well, thank you. 

General Neller, you made a recommendation to request an exception to policy to keep some ground combat elements closed to 

women. Is that correct? 

16 

General NELLER. Yes, sir. Commandant Dunford made that recommendation, and I was witting and I supported that recommendation. 

Chairman MCCAIN. General Milley, do you agree or disagree 

with General Neller’s exception to policy to keep some ground combat elements closed to women? 

General MILLEY. Senator, I made the recommendation to open up 

all MOS’s. 

Chairman MCCAIN. I see. 

Secretary Mabus, your web site has a counter that shows you 

traveled over 1 million miles on trips as Secretary of the Navy. 

How many of those miles took you to Twentynine Palms and Camp 

Lejeune for the purpose of viewing the Marine Corps Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force study? 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, I have been to Twentynine Palms several 

times, and I have been to Camp Lejeune several times. 

Chairman MCCAIN. How many of these took you there for purpose to view the Marine Corps Ground Combat Element Integrated 

Task Force study? 

Mr. MABUS. I did not, sir. 

Chairman MCCAIN. So you with a straight face made claims that 

the Marine study was flawed and biased even if you did not even 

go see the study being performed. 

The 1,000-page Marine Ground Element Study was released to 

you on August 31st, and 1 day after the release of the report on 

September 1st—this is a 1,000-page document—you gave an exclusive interview with the Navy Times in which you stated you saw 

no reason for an exemption to the gender integration policy. It is 

important to note you received the recommendation of the Commandant on September 17th, 2015. 

General Milley, how were you informed that this decision was 

going to be made? 

General MILLEY. For the gender integration, I was informed—I 

made my recommendations and then there was a session with the 

Secretary of Defense, the service secretaries, and the service chiefs. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Well, when were you informed that the decision was made? 

General MILLEY. The decision for this, opening up the MOS’s— 

I would have to go back, Senator, honestly and check the notebooks 

and give you an exact date, time. But he made the decision to open 

it up, we had a session and he announced it to us shortly before 

the announcement. 

Chairman MCCAIN. General Neller, when were you informed of 

this decision? 

General NELLER. Chairman, General Dunford made his recommendation you said on the 17th. I assumed this office on the 

24th. I do not know the exact date that the Secretary forwarded 

his recommendation to Secretary of Defense Carter. But when that 

was done, that is when I was informed. 

Chairman MCCAIN. One of the areas of some concern that have 

been voiced is the integration of basic training, given the fact that 

when a person enters basic training, they have not been exposed 

to the discipline associated with basic training. Is that of any concern to you, General Milley? 

17 

General MILLEY. Senator, right now for infantry and armor, the 

Army does not have integrated basic training, similar to what the 

Marines do right now for their recruit training. It is at Fort 

Benning. 

I anticipate that after we set the conditions for this year, we will 

probably enter women into infantry and armor basic training at the 

maneuver center down at Fort Benning sometime in the early fall, 

probably September-October of this year. So there are concerns and 

we have got to make those adjustments between now and then in 

order to have women received at that basic training center. 

Chairman MCCAIN. I move that we require all studies the Marine Corps and Army conducted and considered for the decision to 

open combat units to women be included as part of the record for 

this hearing. 

I move that we include statements from outside organizations 

that were submitted in advance of the hearing today. 

Senator REED. Okay. 

Chairman MCCAIN. So moved. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The information has been received and is retained in the Committee files. 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your testimony. 

General Milley, I was, as you I think suggested in your comments, very impressed that three female officers graduated from 

Ranger School, very demanding. From your professional experience 

and my retrospective experience, they would seem to be entirely capable of leading an infantry unit in combat. Is that your conclusion? 

60 

General MILLEY. Yes, Senator. I would say that those three 

women that graduated could perform satisfactorily in an infantry 

unit in combat. 

Senator REED. And your approach and I presume the approach 

of the Marine Corps also will be moving forward on a step-by-step 

basis and integrating what you learned as you move forward so 

that it is clear this is going to happen from your standpoint, but 

that it is going to happen in an informed, careful way so that the 

capability of the unit combat effectiveness is not jeopardized. Is 

that fair to say? 

General MILLEY. Absolutely correct, Senator. 

Senator REED. One other aspect of this issue too—and I think it 

was alluded to in all the testimony, and it is also reflected in a 

great deal of academic research recently—is that it seems that 

groups’ collective intelligence increased as the number of women 

joined the group. And in fact, I think, General Neller, that one aspect of the Marine Corps study was that in those problems, those 

field problems that had more challenging cognitive elements than 

just simply brute strength, the study found that the integrated 

teams performed as well or better than the all-male teams. Is that 

a fair estimate? 

General NELLER. Senator, in the evaluation we did in that one 

particular part of the trial, there was a positive aspect of problem 

solving when the teams were integrated. 

Senator REED. Right. 

And I think one of the other aspects—and again, this is more observation than conclusion, but we see battlefields that are increasingly more complex. I mean, what you have seen in Afghanistan 

and Iraq is not a force-on-force, front line of LD [Line of Duty]— 

it is cultural activities. It is integrating with the community. It is 

picking up intelligence. It is doing lots of things that have a much 

more significant cognitive development than I would—again, this is 

more anecdotal than anything else—suggest might have happened 

on the battalion versus battalion warfare of World War II and 

other combat we have engaged in. That might suggest strongly that 

this direction is exactly the right direction to take. 

One other aspect, of course, is that—and I assume this, but I 

want your response—if in fact the Marine Corps is not granted an 

exemption, you are fully prepared and expect the Marine Corps 

successfully will integrate women into their ranks. Is that correct? 

General NELLER. Senator, the Secretary of Defense has made a 

decision that we will not grant an exemption. So we are in the 

process and we have a plan, which we submitted, to successfully 

integrate women into these previously restricted MOS’s and previously restricted units. 

Senator REED. And you are confident that the Marine Corps will 

succeed as it always seem to succeed. 

General NELLER. I want every marine to succeed, Senator. So 

that is our goal. 

Senator REED. Yes, sir. Thank you for that. 

One of the other aspects going forward with respect to this issue 

is that essentially being able to recruit individuals in a very difficult, for want of a better term, market—roughly 25 percent of the 

young people that are of enlistment age are physically and otherVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Apr 05, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\REIER-AVILES\2016\2016 HEARINGS SENT FOR PRINTING\24850.TXT WILDA
61 

wise qualified right now because it is generally looked at as male 

dominated. But this would expand—i.e., giving the options for 

women would expand—the number and the quality, I presume, of 

recruits that you could access. Is that a fair judgment? Then I will 

ask Secretary Mabus and Secretary Murphy to comment. 

Mr. MABUS. That is a very fair judgment, Senator. As you correctly pointed out, only one out of four Americans aged 18 to 24 

qualify for our military for physical reasons, educational reasons, 

or criminal records. And to shrink that pool deprives us of a lot of 

talent. 

Senator REED. Secretary Murphy? 

Mr. MURPHY. That is correct, Senator, that we do not want to exclude 50 percent of the potential talent pool in America. We need 

all the able bodied men and women, the best and the brightest and 

the toughest, to join our ranks to sustain the all-volunteer force 

that we have had. 

Senator REED. Just a final comment/question very quickly and 

that is this is not just about the individual qualifications, it is also 

about the group performance. And that is a concern you all have 

to take into consideration as you move forward. But I just reflect, 

Secretary Mabus, for the longest time, submarine crews were all 

male because of the presumption that in that close, confined, extended tour, 6 months at sea, that dynamic would not work. And 

you have successfully and the Navy has successfully integrated the 

crews on submarines so that they are both male and female. And 

what I am hearing is that the record is very, very good in terms 

of performance. Is that fair? 

Mr. MABUS. That is absolutely correct, Senator. The decision was 

made in 2010. Women have been going to sea in submarines since 

early 2011, and they perform magnificently and there has been no 

decrease and we think an increase in combat readiness for those 

submarines. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Cotton? 

Senator COTTON. I first want to associate myself with the views 

of General Neller and General Milley, that to discuss women serving in combat is something of a misnomer. Women have been serving valiantly in combat certainly for the last 15 years and in reality 

much longer than that. So this is not really a question of women 

being in combat. This is about a limited number of roles, primarily 

in the Army and the Marine Corps, although the Air Force and the 

Navy do have some elite special operations forces that will be impacted. And within those two services, it is primarily about infantry and a few other combat-related roles. 

General Neller, since your service had requested an exemption, 

I would like to direct this question to you. Secretary of Defense 

Carter has said he is confident that you can address all concerns 

of implementation. The Ground Combat Integration Task Force, 

though, did conclude that there are irreducible and obvious physiological differences between men and women. That is one reason 

why there are men’s and women’s athletic events at the Olympics. 

Could you elaborate a little bit on how you plan to address these 

implementation questions? 

62 

General NELLER. Well, Senator, we learned a lot from the evaluation and the additional studies and other countries we looked at. 

So there are a lot of pieces to how we are going to implement this 

in a successful way. Part of it is going to be the standards that 

have been established to get into the entry level before you actually 

enlist, when you are at recruit training, and then the MOS qualifications. We are going to look at other ways to improve the physical capability of not just female but all infantry marines to reduce 

injury because incidence of injury is a concern. 

But I am not sure how far we can go with that just based on the 

simple fact in the infantry, the load-bearing requirements and the 

oxygen use, endurance between men and women—there are always 

exceptions. I mean, they are what they are. 

So we are going to look at this. We are going to monitor it. Part 

of our process is a continued study and evaluation to see what we 

can do and cannot do to mitigate this because at the end of the 

day, we have to maintain our readiness and we want every marine 

to be successful. 

Senator COTTON. Thank you. I am confident that whatever the 

policy direction you receive, you will do the very best job you can, 

as will General Milley, to ensure that your marines and your soldiers are set up for success, men and women alike. 

Secretary Mabus, I would like to go to an interview conducted 

last September about the study the Marine Corps conducted. You 

said, ‘‘it started out with a fairly large component of the men thinking this is not a good idea, and women will not be able to do this. 

When you start out with that mindset, you are almost presupposing the outcome.’’ 

Which men in the Marine Corps had that mindset? 

Mr. MABUS. What I based that on, Senator, was some of the conclusions drawn from that study that were presented to me, which 

was that the marines that were chosen, the marines who volunteered and who I brag on for doing that—they did a great job in 

terms of establishing standards. 

However, some of the conclusions that were drawn was that male 

marines did not know how to—had not had any experience—— 

Senator COTTON. Well, Secretary Mabus, the conclusions speak 

for themselves. You are questioning the motives of the Marine 

Corps leader in that statement it sounded like to me. 

Mr. MABUS. No, sir, I am not. I am speaking to the conclusions 

that were drawn, that the male marines in that experiment—most 

of them had had no experience working with women in these occupations, and they simply did not know how to do that. And that 

was one of the conclusions, and that was one of the conclusions 

that said you had to provide that leadership, which is part of the 

implementation plan, that leadership, to make sure that all marines, male and female, know how to deal with the other gender 

in these very demanding roles. 

Senator COTTON. Well, let us speak about the female marines in 

that study. You also were quoted in that interview as saying, ‘‘I 

mean, in terms of the women who volunteered probably should 

have been a higher bar to cross to get into the experiment.’’ Do you 

owe an apology to the women that participated in that study? 

63 

Mr. MABUS. Senator—and I have the entire interview here. I 

know exactly what you are talking about. What I kept talking 

about was there were no standards for any of these when you started out. So the only thing that the women—— 

Senator COTTON. The women in the Marine Corps’ physical fitness test—the women in that study outperformed the average female marine, as compared to the man performing the average male 

marine. So the women were actually out performing the average female marine as compared to men in that study. 

Mr. MABUS. On the generalized physical fitness test, combat fitness test, nobody had had to meet a standard for these ground 

combat units. Nobody. There were no standards in there. One of 

the ways that General Neller just talked about that you ensure the 

integration is successful is by training to these very intense physical standards and starting at recruit training, starting at MOS 

schools, starting there and not just going to the very basic physical 

fitness test or combat fitness test. 

Senator COTTON. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator McCaskill? 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. 

I think one of the questions we have to address now is registering for the selective service. As some of you may know, there 

was a Supreme Court decision back in 1981 when in fact the question was put in front of the Supreme Court whether women should 

be required to register for the selective service under current law. 

Justice Rehnquist wrote, ‘‘the existence of combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress’ decision to exempt women from 

registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft 

of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress 

concluded they would not be needed in the event of a draft and 

therefore decided not to register them.’’ So in other words, the rationale that Rehnquist used for saying there was no requirement 

of women to register for the selective service has now been eliminated. 

And I guess I want to ask all of you your sense of this. Part of 

me believes that asking women to register, as we ask men to register, would maybe, possibly open more recruits as women began 

to think about, well, the military is an option for me. And if you 

would briefly go down the line and give me your sense as to whether or not Congress should look at requiring selective service registration for all Americans. 

General NELLER. Senator, it is my personal view that based on 

this lifting of restrictions for assignment to unit MOS, that every 

American who is physically qualified should register for the draft. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Secretary Mabus? 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, I think you correctly pointed out this needs 

to be looked at as part of a national debate, given the changed circumstances. 

The one thing you did say, not selective service- related, but that 

we do believe that this will open up recruiting, that more women 

will be interested in—I will just talk about the Marines—in the 

Marines because these last restrictions have been removed. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Secretary Murphy? 

64 

Mr. MURPHY. Senator, I believe that, yes, there should be a national debate and I encourage the legislative body to look at that. 

I would say that unlike the decision in 1981 where we are now in 

the longest war in American history over the last almost 15 years, 

that we have had over 1,000 women killed or injured in combat. 

Now, with this implementation, if you can meet the standard, you 

are on a team no matter what MOS it is. So I highly encourage 

that national debate, ma’am. 

Chairman MCCAIN. You would encourage what? 

Senator MCCASKILL. The debate. 

Mr. MURPHY. The national debate, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. You were asked for your opinion, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. General Milley? 

General MILLEY. Senator, I think that all eligible and qualified 

men and women should register for the draft. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I do too. I think it is the right thing 

going forward. 

I know that the Air Force has established a goal of having 30 

percent of its active duty applicant pool be women. Have there 

been any goals established in either the Army or the Navy? 

Mr. MABUS. No, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Secretary Murphy or General Milley, either 

one? 

Mr. MURPHY. Senator, approximately 14 percent of our soldiers 

are women. At West Point, when I was a professor there in 2000, 

16 percent were women. Now it is 22 percent are women. But the 

Army looks to be reflective of our society. 

General MILLEY. Senator, you asked about goals. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right, just a goal. 

General MILLEY. The short answer is no. We have not set a goal 

for women in the infantry or the armor in terms of numbers or percentages whatsoever. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Okay. 

General NELLER. Senator, could I just—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Sure, sure. 

General NELLER. Right now, just under 8 percent of the Marine 

Corps are female marines, officer and enlisted. Even prior to this 

decision, I directed our recruiting to look at the possibility of increasing the number of women in the Marine Corps to 10 percent 

and to see if we can make that goal. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I want to briefly give a shout-out. I do think 

there is some culture here. Nobody here wants the standards to be 

lowered. And I think frankly the people who really do not want the 

standards to be lowered are women. The last thing in the world a 

woman needs is to join a unit with everyone looking over their 

shoulder saying, well, you are not the same as we are. So I do not 

think anybody here thinks that standards should be lowered. 

And I want to point out that the sapper course at Fort Leonard 

Wood—I do not think that anybody think that sappers—that course 

is easy. Obviously, you are combat- trained in that course. For people who are not aware, this is for specially trained combat engiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Apr 05, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\REIER-AVILES\2016\2016 HEARINGS SENT FOR PRINTING\24850.TXT WILDA
65 

neers. And they have been taking women since 1999 at Fort Leonard Wood for this course. And it is tough. 

Now, the interesting thing about that, while there have not been 

a lot of women that have taken it, the percentage of women who 

have completed is identical to the percentage of men who have 

completed, 50 percent. So I would certainly urge all of you to take 

a look at what Fort Leonard Wood has done and how they have 

done it in one of the toughest physical challenges. You know, it is 

not the same as combat training, but they have to be combat-ready 

to graduate from the sapper course. So I certainly wanted to give 

a shout out to what I think is great work being done at Fort Leonard Wood. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Wicker? 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. 

And let me just say there is a real risk for anybody discussing 

this issue to appear insensitive or politically incorrect. And I really 

appreciated the way the chairman began the discussion this morning by outlining the very significant role that women, including 

members of this committee, have made for the military in terms of 

aviation, in terms of very, very difficult and demanding jobs. And, 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciated you pointing out that is not what this 

hearing is about. 

What this hearing is about and what this change is about is the 

very demanding subspecialty of close combat. And as the chairman 

pointed out, close combat is brutal. It is physically brutal. The 

training for that is physically brutal. And so the question is how 

can we open this to a group of people when the physical realities 

seem to indicate that this is really a departure from what can 

work. 

Let me ask General Neller and General Milley. General Neller, 

let me start with the infantry officer course. Women have entered 

this course. Am I correct? But no women have passed this course. 

Am I correct there? 

General NELLER. Yes, sir. 29 marine officer females have attempted and have not yet successfully completed the course. 

Senator WICKER. Why is this test so rigorous? Why is it necessary it be so rigorous? 

General NELLER. It is an MOS-producing school. 

Senator WICKER. And for the benefit of people watching that 

might not know all of our jargon, tell us what MOS—— 

General NELLER. Military occupational specialty. This is where a 

marine officer goes to become MOS qualified to lead an infantry 

platoon, rifle platoon, or a weapons platoon. So the standards that 

exist there involve tactics, physicality, physical fitness, understanding weapons, and it is a very tough and demanding course. 

Senator WICKER. Why? 

General NELLER. Because they are going to lead their marines in 

combat, and they have to be able to lead from the front and they 

have to be able to understand all aspects of their profession. And 

they have to be physically fit enough and strong enough to be able 

to withstand the rigors of combat. And so the attrition is 25 percent of the men that go to this course. So it is a very tough, demanding course. 

66 

Senator WICKER. General Milley, would you comment on that in 

the same vein, sir? 

General MILLEY. I would agree with General Neller in that the 

rigors of ground combat are brutal and they are hard, and we have 

very, very high standards and they are directly related not to gender. They are related to the combat tasks that you are expected to 

execute engaged against the enemies of our country. And we have 

developed and the Marines have developed very, very rigorous 

standards over many, many years. So those that make it, great. 

And if they do not, then they do not. 

Senator WICKER. You know, we have had testimony from Secretary Mabus that reducing the standards would be unacceptable. 

Members of this committee have reiterated that. That is absolutely 

something that must not be done. But it is hard to imagine down 

the road, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, if we do not have 

successful graduations from this physically demanding program— 

it is hard to imagine that this conversation will not take a different 

tone. And I do not see how we can guarantee that in the future, 

these standards will not be diminished. 

And so I would just say, you know, I realize that you are in a 

tough spot, and you two generals have given us your best military 

judgment and that is what we are asking you in the testimony 

here. 

But as Senator McCain mentioned, we have an overriding mission, and that is to overwhelm the enemy however we engage 

them. And in this special part of combat where it is close combat, 

it never needs to be a fair fight. We need to put our strongest and 

we need to put our best and we always need to have the best people. 

Let me ask you this, General. When people who are unlikely to 

pass the test are admitted, are we expanding the pool of candidates 

to accommodate women candidates for the infantry officer course? 

Are they keeping someone who might pass from getting a shot at 

this? Is that a consideration that we need to think about at all? 

General NELLER. Senator, any officer at the basic school who 

wants to compete for an opportunity to be an infantry officer has 

the opportunity to do that. 

Senator WICKER. Are there limited numbers of slots? 

General NELLER. There is a number per course, but if the course 

were full, they would be able to elect to stay. But each graduating 

class has a certain number. And there is a period of time. Sometimes the course is full and we allow a group of officers to stay and 

prepare. There is actually a preparation time because of the rigors 

of the course. So there is no effort to deny anybody an opportunity 

to compete. 

Senator WICKER. Well, I appreciate the task that you have been 

given as somebody who takes orders, and I wish you the best. We 

want to work with you, but I must say I have serious misgivings 

about moving to this particular point in our military. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Shaheen? 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I hope my good friend from Mississippi is not suggesting that if 

all of the positions are opened up to women, that standards will 

67 

automatically decline over time. That is what it sort of sounded to 

me like you were saying. So I hope that is not—— 

Chairman MCCAIN. I am sure the Senator can give you an explanation in private. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was pleased to hear everyone who has spoken today talk about 

the performance of women on the battlefield time and again and 

pleased to hear most of you say that if a woman meets all the 

standards for the position, that she is qualified and that she should 

be allowed to serve and that should be the end of the discussion 

and that now the important thing is to focus on implementation of 

this policy. So I appreciate that and hope that on this committee 

and in Congress, we can do everything possible to support you in 

that effort. 

Secretary Mabus, you have received criticism, as has been indicated this morning, for your support of combat integration. And I 

wonder if you could elaborate. You alluded to why you think this 

is so important. But can you elaborate on why you think it is important and how you think it could strengthen our all-volunteer 

force? 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, a more diverse force, as you heard from the 

question from Senator Reed, diversity of outlook, diversity of experience is a stronger force. We have proven it over and over again. 

When we integrated the armed forces in the late 1940s, we came 

out with a stronger force. The same thing when we began to recruit 

larger numbers of women in the 1980s, we came out with a stronger force. The same thing when you repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, 

we came out with a stronger force at the end. And as long as you 

keep the standards and as long as those standards are not arbitrary, that they are operationally relevant, they are job-related, 

then gender ought to be irrelevant because what a marine on the 

line wants to know about any marine on either side is did they 

have to meet the same standards. Do they have to do same things 

that I had to do to be here? 

And that is why I believe that this will strengthen the armed 

forces, that this will strengthen the Marine Corps. Senator Reed 

asked about submarines. We have seen how it has strengthened 

Navy units that are fully integrated, and it is virtually every one. 

So I do believe that a more diverse force, not about quotas, not 

about gender, but just about experience and perception, is a stronger force. And that is all of our jobs, is to make this a more effective, 

more lethal fighting force. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much. 

Secretary Carter directed the services to provide their final detailed implementation plans no later than January 1st of 2016. 

General Neller and General Milley, can you confirm that those implementation plans have been provided? And do they have to be approved, and has that been done yet? 

General NELLER. Senator, we provided our plan to the Secretary 

of the Navy, and he forwarded it to the Secretary of Defense. We 

are still waiting for those plans to be approved, and we expect that 

that is going to happen here shortly. 

Senator SHAHEEN. General Milley? 

68 

General MILLEY. Same thing, Senator. We provided our plan to 

the Secretary of Defense, and we are waiting on approval. 

Senator SHAHEEN. And you expect that to happen in the near future? 

General MILLEY. I really do not know when. I do expect it at 

some time in the relatively near future, but I do not know when. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Again, part of that directive required the services to begin implementation no later than April 1st, 2016. So are 

we assuming that we are on course to do that? Is everybody in 

agreement with that? 

General MILLEY. Well, it is no later than 1 April pending approval. So the Secretary had a session with us and he told us execute when I have approved your plan. The target date is 1 April, 

but we are not supposed to execute prior to his approval. 

Senator SHAHEEN. General Neller? 

General NELLER. The same thing, Senator. As General Milley 

said, this is not going to happen 1 April that we are going to see— 

I mean, some of it has already happened. We have got 239 females 

in what were previously restricted units in MOS’s they already 

hold, and we have been doing that for several years. So that is already ongoing. But beginning to recruit those that can meet the 

standards that now exist before you go to recruit training, while 

you are at recruit training, and the MOS standards at school—that 

has not yet begun, and that is going to take some time. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I am out of time, but my final question was, 

does part of the plan address a response to concerns that may be 

raised by other folks who are part of this effort about fully implementing the policy? We will submit that for the record to ask you 

to respond to that. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes. The Army is providing leaders and Soldiers with integration 

education and training to enhance our integration efforts. This is supporting leadership efforts to facilitate the cultural change necessary to ensure successful gender 

integration into all Infantry and Armor units. 

General NELLER. The Marine Corps will use both an Education Plan and an Assessment Plan to address the concerns and questions of service members during integration. The Education Plan will use a train-the-trainer approach to connect with 

all Marines throughout the Corps in both the active and reserve components. The 

curriculum will include classes on the Integration Plan, relevant orders and directives, best practices, leading institutional change, and understanding cognitive/unconscious bias. Marines will be led through relevant vignettes to foster healthy discussion and address potential issues. Mobile training teams made up of trained subject matter experts will start training O–5 and O–6 level commands throughout the 

Corps this May. Those leaders, in turn, will educate and train their subordinates 

until every Marine has been addressed by his or her leader regarding this issue. 

The Marine Corps will also use our online integration education portal to provide 

additional, enduring resources for all Marines to help address these issues as they 

arise. 

Furthermore, the Integration Implementation Assessment Plan provides a feedback mechanism that will help Marine leaders evaluate the progress of integration 

and identify any issues that need to be addressed. A variety of direct and indirect 

indicators will be available to help determine whether Marines have questions or 

concerns about integration that persist or could negatively affect progress. Other indicators such as reenlistment rates and propensity to serve in ground combat arms 

MOS’s will reflect progress. Finally, the Assessment Plan will collect empirical performance-related data that can be used to further inform Marines and challenge 

misconceptions about integration. 

69 

Both the Education and Assessment Plans are enduring plans that will comprehensively, responsibly and convincingly inform Marines, both leaders and subordinates, how to successfully manage integration throughout our Corps. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Ernst? 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a statement followed by questions. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Without objection, your statement will be 

made a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Ernst follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR JONI K. ERNST

As I have said on numerous occasions, I fully support providing women the opportunity to serve in any military capacity, as long as standards are not lowered and 

it enhances our combat effectiveness. However, I remain concerned that some within 

the Administration, and some of my colleagues in Congress, are rushing toward this 

historical change in policy without much concern for the second and third order effects to our men and women in uniform and our combat capabilities. 

In order to ensure women are fully integrated into these previously closed positions, the implementation strategy must be fully developed, and methodically and 

deliberately implemented, to include having an understanding of second and third 

order effects to ensure we do not set women, or men, up for failure. These are the 

men, and will be the women, who meet our enemies in close combat—their lives depend on it. 

Over the past few weeks, I have visited Fort Bragg, NC and Marine Corps Base 

Quantico, Virginia to speak with Soldiers and Marines about this topic. During my 

trip to Fort Bragg, I sat down with special operations soldiers and paratroopers 

from the 82nd Airborne Division to discuss gender integration. At Quantico, I had 

the same open discussion with Marine infantrymen and scout snipers. Both of these 

groups comprised mostly of mid to senior level NCOs and junior officers—the 

servicemembers who over the past 14 years of war have met the enemy in close 

combat—and who will do so again in the future with their female counterparts. 

Our discussions began with the understanding that gender integration is the new 

policy, and now it is time to move forward. Primarily, these young Soldiers and Marines were concerned that gender integration was not being done for the right reasons—to enhance their combat capabilities—and instead as a social experiment. To 

this point, even as a supporter of gender integration, I share their concern due to 

the haphazard way this process has been led by some in DOD’s civilian leadership. 

This was especially troubling as we witnessed a distinguished military leader muzzled, inappropriate comments from civilian leadership about our female Marines, 

and disturbing, unmerited, and unprofessional assertions that our Marine leaders 

do not value the service of our female Marines. 

The other primary concern expressed by these Soldiers and Marines was the implementation strategy, for which I also share their concern. This Congress is being 

asked to support a policy for which the implementation strategy—which is key to 

ensuring our military will maintain its combat effectiveness—has not yet been fully 

developed or revealed. Nor has it taken into account the impacts on women’s health, 

lodging, physiological differences between men and women which could lead to female physical fitness test scores, on average, being lower than their male counterparts, and how that could affect their ability to compete for promotions, schools, and 

senior command positions. 

For example with command positions, most of our Army senior leaders have 

served in elite units during their time as junior and field grade officers—which is 

often key to being slotted into command positions from battalion commander and 

above. GEN Milley is a Special Forces veteran, and others have served in the elite 

75th Ranger Regiment like the Army Vice Chief of Staff, LTG John Nicholson—who 

may be confirmed as the next commander of our troops in Afghanistan, our next 

potential CENTCOM commander, the 18th Airborne Corps Commander, and division commanders of the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions, the 10th Mountain Division, and 3rd Infantry Division. 

Also, while there have been three female graduates of Ranger School in the Army, 

the unfortunate truth is an Infantry officer without a Ranger tab is often looked 

down upon by their fellow infantrymen, and tab-less Infantry officers are often not 

as competitive for senior leadership positions. 

In the Marine Corps, some of our female Marines have voiced concerns that they 

anticipate there will be pressure to lower standards if not enough of them are able 

70 

to qualify to serve in combat positions. Lowering standards for more female participation is against the best military advice of our military leaders, but I agree with 

these women that the pressure will come—likely from civilian leadership—who have 

motives other than supporting gender integration to enhance our nation’s ability to 

destroy our enemies on the battlefield. 

Female Marines have also voiced that leadership and training will not solve physiological differences between men and women, and some are worried that they will 

be involuntary assigned to combat MOSs or even assigned to an infantry unit in 

a support position which would require them to meet the higher physical standards 

for infantry units. 

Furthermore, retention of female Marines and their ability to continue to serve 

if they are injured while serving in a combat position is an area of concern for some 

of them. The data is clear—women do get injured at a higher rate than their male 

counterparts when performing combat arms tasks. Will we allow women to continue 

to serve in another role or will we medically discharge them if they are injured 

while serving in a combat position or combat unit? If it becomes commonplace that 

female combat arms Marines are injured while training, how will that impact unit 

cohesion, especially for those who will be platoon and company commanders? 

After nearly 15 years of war, our country, and many within this Administration, 

are disconnected from our combat soldiers who have borne the brunt of the battle. 

These Soldiers and Marines are the best we have. They have taken the majority of 

the casualties since the founding of our nation and on the battlefields from Yorktown, Gettysburg, Iwo Jima, and Normandy—they have made the difference between Americans enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or being subjugated by foreign powers. Their life is one of mostly suffering and hardship, and 

they honorably carry that mental and physical burden not only in service, but afterwards as well. We must honor them by ensuring this process moves forward in a 

thoughtful and methodical way. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Let me be clear. I fully support providing women the opportunity 

to serve in any military capacity as long as standards are not lowered, our combat effectiveness is maintained. But in order to ensure women are fully integrated into these previously closed positions, the implementation strategy must be fully developed and methodically and deliberately carried out. It must include an understanding of second- and third-order effects to ensure that we do not 

set women or men up for failure. These are the men and will be 

the women who meet our enemies in close combat. Their lives depend on it. 

That is why over the past few weeks I have visited Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina and Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia to speak 

directly with Army and Marine infantrymen about this topic. I 

spoke with groups comprised mostly of mid- to senior-level NCOs 

and junior officers, the service members who over the past 14 years 

of war have met the enemy in close combat and who will do so 

again in the future with their female counterparts. 

After those conversations, it is clear that we need to ensure that 

we are taking into account the impacts on women’s health, lodging, 

physiological differences between men and women which could lead 

to female physical fitness test scores on average being lower than 

their male counterparts and how that could affect their ability to 

compete for promotions, schools, and senior command positions. 

I would encourage all of the members of this panel and our witnesses to go talk to our service members, hear for yourselves what 

their concerns are, and help ensure we ultimately get this right. 

Our combat armed soldiers and marines are the best we have. 

They have taken the majority of casualties since the founding of 

our Nation and on battlefields from Yorktown, Gettysburg, Iwo 

Jima, and Normandy. They have made the difference between 

71 

Americans enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or 

being subjugated by foreign powers. Their lives mostly involve suffering and hardship, and they honorably carry that physical and 

mental burden not only in service but afterwards as well. We must 

honor them by ensuring this process moves forward in a thoughtful 

and methodical way. 

General Neller, I would like to start with you, sir. As you know, 

some of our female marines have voiced concerns that they anticipate there will be pressure to lower standards if not enough of 

them are able to qualify to serve in combat positions. While I am 

glad that lowering the standards for greater female participation is 

against your best military advice, I agree with these women that 

pressure may come likely from civilian leadership who may have 

motives other than supporting gender integration to enhance our 

Nation’s ability to destroy our enemies on the battlefield. 

Also, in order to boost participation, some female marines have 

voiced that leadership and training will not solve physiological differences between men and women, and some are worried that they 

will be involuntarily assigned to combat MOS’s or even assigned to 

an infantry unit in a support position which would require them 

to meet the higher physical standards for infantry units. 

Do you share these concerns, sir? And what concerns do you have 

regarding the retention of our best female marines who may now 

be assigned to combat arms MOS or units? 

General NELLER. Well, Senator, as the committee members in 

unanimity have talked about today, we would have to do everything possible to not lower standards. In fact, we should be looking 

at how we can raise the standards to improve our capability. 

Right now, there is no intent to involuntarily assign anybody 

who wants to compete in any of these MOS’s. A little more problematic is the assignment of a marine in a non-combat MOS but 

assigned to one of these units because in the past, because it was 

restricted to men, we did not ask the communicator or a supply 

marine if they wanted to go to an infantry battalion. So we have 

established an assignment policy, which has a minimum physical 

standard, before we would do that. 

So we are working our way through that and that is part of the 

implementation process. But we are aware of that. That is kind of 

an outlier that was not considered as part of this decision. 

As far as career progression, there are a lot of things we do not 

know and we are going to find out and we will have to continue 

to monitor. We are looking at this as a decade, minimum, long 

study to see how this all turns out, what effect is there on propensity to enlist, propensity to reenlist. What is the competitiveness 

for promotion? What is the injury rate for all marines? Because we 

really have not looked at this in the past because there were 

enough people, and there are still enough people. 

So those are concerns, but they are concerns about something we 

do not know the answer to. So there are a lot of different views, 

as you found, when you talked to people. So we are taking all of 

this into consideration. We are going to try to mitigate as much of 

this as we can. And then we will come back and report, and we will 

keep the data and we will be able to have a better analytical view 

72 

on how this is all working as we go through this in a very methodical, objective way. 

But the three lenses we are looking through in this whole process 

is the effectiveness and readiness of the unit, the health and welfare of all the marines, and the ability to manage the talent. 

I think one of the things that I am confident is going to be—in 

fact, I know it has already happened—is the assignment of female 

marines to previously restricted units in the MOS’s that they have. 

In the past, if you were an infantry or armor battalion commander 

and the best—pick an MOS—intelligence officer, communications 

officer, motor transport officer in the division was a woman, she 

could not work in your unit. So now you have the opportunity to 

have her serve with you. So the talent pool has expanded, and that 

should make the unit better. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. Thank you, General. 

General Milley, many of the command positions—with those positions, most of our Army senior leaders have served in various 

elite units. You have served in a special forces capacity. Many of 

those advancing to very high levels within the Army have served 

in Ranger regiment and other high-performing infantry type units. 

While there have been three female graduates of Ranger School 

in the Army, which I applaud—I think that is tremendous—the unfortunate truth is an infantry officer without a Ranger tab is often 

looked down upon by their fellow infantrymen, and tabless infantry 

officers are often not as competitive for senior leadership positions, 

just like many of those that will serve in these elite type units with 

very, very high standards. 

So as you branch female officers to infantry and potentially accept branch transfers for captains and field grade officers, how will 

this affect their ability to integrate into the infantry community 

and be competitive for those higher levels of command? 

General MILLEY. A couple of points, Senator. One is you are correct. There is an institutional bias, especially in the infantry, if you 

do not have a Ranger tab, on career progression. So we encourage 

all infantry officers to attend Ranger School, a very demanding 

school, as you well know. And for women, it would be the same 

thing. If they go in the infantry, we would encourage them to go 

to Ranger School because it does enhance your performance and 

skills, but it also enhances your credibility with peers, superiors, 

and your subordinates as well. So Ranger School is a very important school especially for the infantry. 

As far as long-term goes, the core business, the core business, of 

the United States Army is to close with and destroy the enemies 

of our country in close combat. And that means infantry and 

armor, supported by attack aviation and aviation and combat engineers. But infantry and armor is the very essence of the United 

States Army. And those, as we note and we are here discussing, 

have been previously closed. So the senior officers of the Army over 

many, many years have been infantry and armor officers because 

that is the essence of their business, so to speak. So I would expect 

that over time, 25–35 years sort of time, we will see women in infantry and armor units eventually rise to command. 

73 

We opened up Apache helicopters 25 years ago and recently we 

now have Apache battalion commanders that are female. So I think 

the same phenomenon will occur over an extended period of time. 

Senator ERNST. Very good, gentlemen. I appreciate that. 

I do have one question and I would just like a response for the 

record, follow-up. But, Secretary Mabus, I was disturbed to read 

that the Director of Naval Intelligence has not had active clearance 

for over 2 years. Your decision to keep him in a position with such 

great responsibility without access to critical information sets a terrible example for our sailors and makes a travesty out of naval intelligence and our national security. And for the record, I would 

like to know what is preventing you from having a sailor with an 

active security clearance in this position today. And I would like a 

follow-up on that, sir. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Do you want to respond now? 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, I am as frustrated as you are about this 

particular individual. There is an investigation ongoing. We have 

no information one way or the other as to whether anything improper happened. But because of the sensitive place that he occupied, I felt that I had to withdraw his access to classified information until the investigation was finished. The investigation has 

drug on and on and on. And we are in the process of putting up 

another officer to take that person’s place. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 2 years is a very long 

time not to have access. And I do believe that there should have 

been another officer assigned to that billet. 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, I agree with you. This has been a very long, 

very drawn-out process, and it has been frustrating for everybody 

involved. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Heinrich? 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

What I find fairly remarkable in this conversation is the amount 

of consensus from both our witnesses and from people on the dais 

here that we should simply set MOS standards based on the performance that we need for the job and then let the chips fall where 

they may. And sometimes in the case, for example, of the military 

infantry officer school, that is going to be some very, very difficult 

standards to meet. That said, I have no doubt that some day a 

woman is going to meet those standards. 

So, General Neller, I wanted to ask you, given your previous support for a waiver, do you have any concerns with that kind of approach of simply setting the bar where it needs to be for the performance that you need and then letting the chips fall where they 

may? 

General NELLER. Well, Senator, it was brought up by Secretary 

Mabus—and it is a fact—that part of the value of the evaluation 

we did was to come up with these standards. So now we have these 

standards. I mean, there were always standards. There were standards because any of these marines that were involved in the evaluation completed an MOS school which had task admission standards to which they had to successfully complete. So it was not like 

there were no standards. To get into the school, the females had 

74 

to go and pass the male scoring on the male PFT [Physical Fitness 

Test] and CFT [Cadet Field Training]. 

So where we are now is we have a decision. We provided our best 

military judgment based on what we learned in an evaluation involving teams, crews, and squads, something that has never ever 

been done, not just in the history of the United States, but from 

what we can tell, nowhere. No one ever looked at it in this way. 

That said, we have a decision and we are in the process of moving out, and we have established a process to where any marine 

who wants to serve in these physically demanding MOS’s has to 

meet a certain standard. And we will see where the chips fall. 

Again, our hope is that everyone is successful, but hope is not a 

course of action on the battlefield. So we will learn and we will 

study and we will do everything we can because it is important, as 

General Milley brought up and everybody has brought up, that we 

have to be successful on the battlefield. And marines have always 

been successful on the battlefield, and I am confident we will in the 

future. 

Senator HEINRICH. General, as you heard, Secretary Mabus 

brought up the fact that there were surprising gaps in set standards for some of these MOS’s. Do you have an opinion as to what 

the impact on the service is going to be simply on the Corps of 

clearly articulating the standards in all of these MOS’s and how 

that will impact overall performance for the Corps moving forward? 

General NELLER. I think, based on the fact that we have set 

these standards and that the overall quality of the marines that 

serve in these MOS’s should be higher than it was in the past. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you. 

Secretary Mabus, I was hoping you could expand a little bit on 

what Senator Reed brought up around the transition particularly 

within attack submarines, how that is going on the USS [United 

States Ship] Mississippi, and how you feel about that process overall. 

Mr. MABUS. The process of integrating women onto all of our 

submarines—as you know, it started with ballistic missile strategic 

submarines and guided missile submarines. It is now moving to attack submarines. It has gone fine. In all of these, the first two have 

completed a lot of cruises now. We have got a lot of experience 

under our belt. We have seen that women earn their dolphins at 

the same speed as men do in the submarine service. 

It is part of the implementation experience that we can bring to 

bear for this, having a detailed implementation plan, having a well 

thought-out way to do it, having a deliberate but timely way to do 

it. The attack submarines were done last because of the closer 

quarters, and a few, but only a few, physical changes had to be 

made. And we are very pleased not only with the integration of 

women officers, but the beginning of the integration of women enlisted on all types of Navy submarines. 

Senator HEINRICH. Well, thank you, Secretary, for your work on 

that. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Lee? 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of you 

for your service to our country and for your testimonies today. 

75 

This is a subject like so many others that we cover on this committee that is of exceptional importance to our country, to our national security. As we approach this issue, which is fraught with 

a lot of opinions, a lot of facts, a lot of details, I hope that we will 

maintain our focus on maintaining the readiness and the capability 

of our men and women in service and especially on the safety of 

the men and women who protect us. 

First of all, General Milley, I wanted to follow up on a question 

that was asked by Senator Ernst to General Neller. She asked 

General Neller whether women might be involuntarily transferred 

into some of these combat positions against their will. Do you want 

to provide an answer from the Army perspective? 

General MILLEY. I am going to have to give you ‘‘it depends.’’ 

Right now, we have no requirement because we are filling our 

needs for the infantry in both officer and enlisted, and currently we 

do not involuntarily put anyone in the infantry, but again, we are 

meeting our needs. 10 years, 15, 20 years in the future, it depends. 

So look back at World War II. A lot of people were involuntarily 

put in the infantry. But right now, we do not and I do not anticipate that situation at any time in the near future. 

Senator LEE. Okay. Thank you. 

General Neller, the Marine Corps report stated that there were 

some noticeable differences in performance between all-male 

squads on the one hand and those that were gender integrated, not 

just squads, but teams and crews as well. In your professional military opinion, could you tell us what were the most notable reasons 

for these differences and then also whether these are factors that 

could easily be remedied through training and improved techniques 

and processes? 

General NELLER. Senator, when we put together the Ground 

Combat Element Integrated Task Force, there were infantry and in 

infantry you have mortars, you have machine guns, you have rockets, you have TOWs [Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided]. There were tank crews, artillery crews, amphibian vehicle 

crews, and light armor vehicle crews. So in each of those, there 

were some number of differences between the integrated and the 

all- male crews, squads, or teams, but the two that were most significant, what we would call load-bearing units or the infantry, 

march under load with a weighted load over a distance. And then 

the other was during a fire and movement drill with load, as you 

get fatigued, the effect on your accuracy when you fired your weapon. 

So the study showed two things. Under the march under load, 

the heavier the load, the more degraded the ability of the integrated squads. And then when you would do movement to contact, 

the accuracy of the integrated squads and the firing of females due 

to physiological things that are documented was lower. 

Senator LEE. And are those things that can be remedied through 

improved training and techniques? 

General NELLER. I think to some degree but a lot of it is—we 

learned that being—and the same applies to any one of a smaller 

stature. Being big, strong, having a certain body mass gives you an 

advantage. So one of the things I have heard as I have gone around 

and talked to the female marines is, hey, I am out working out, I 

76 

am lifting weights, I am getting bigger, and now I am outside the 

height and weight standards. Are you going to change the height 

and weight standards? And we are looking at that right now. So 

we know that mean body mass has an effect on your ability to 

carry a load. 

As far as the conditioning and your ability to have a higher level 

of energy and exert yourself, that is what we are going to find out, 

what we are going to learn. 

And again, we did this for just 5 months. We do not know what 

is this going to do over years and years and years of being in these 

particular occupational fields. We know anecdotally what the effect 

is on the male body, and we do not have data yet, and eventually 

we will, of what the impact is on the female. 

Senator LEE. My understanding is that one of the findings in the 

report that was released by the Marine Corps indicated some evidence of higher injury rates among women than men when asked 

to perform the same tactical tasks. Can you tell us how this factor, 

when extrapolated across combat units in the Marine Corps—call 

you tell us how that might impact your overall military readiness 

and capability and how you could deal with that? 

General NELLER. We know from data that we have now for certain points of training that female marines suffer a higher incidence of injury, normally lower body injury, than men. So part of 

the review, not just for body size and height and weight, is also 

conditioning. So the one way we believe we can do this is through 

better preparation, better conditioning to mitigate that. So that is 

something that we do not know what we do not know. And that 

will be one of the things that we are going to have to continue to 

study and monitor as we go through this. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator King? 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Before beginning my questions, I cannot resist pointing out that 

40 years ago I sat back where you folks are sitting, and my boss, 

Senator Bill Hathaway from Maine, led the effort to open the military academies to women, which at the time was a radical idea. So 

there is some history here for me in this conversation. 

It seems to me that this is really about talent pool. Mr. Secretary, you mentioned that. Mr. Secretary, you also mentioned it. 

We need the best people we can get, whoever they are, wherever 

they come from. And the shocking figure that we have already discussed today is that only one out of four young people is qualified 

for military service either for physical or other kinds of intellectual 

issues. We need people. And the secret of the success of this country in my opinion is access and opening up access to more and 

more people. And I have no doubt that limiting access to virtually 

any job, eliminating 50 percent of the talent pool is always a bad 

policy. 

The question, it seems to me, though is how do we design gender-neutral standards that are in fact gender- neutral but also 

meet the requirements of the job. And that is going to be the challenge. General Neller, I thought your exchange with Senator Lee 

was very informative. And the issue, for example, of weight. I visited the Marine Corps officer school in Quantico and saw what 

77 

those young people have to carry. As I recall, the lightest pack was 

something like 75 pounds and they go up from there. I think your 

response was an important one, that this could be a question of, 

A, who physically can do it regardless of gender and, B, training 

and readiness over a period of time. 

I think the great danger, though, is that we do not let the standards diminish in order to meet some kind of arbitrary requirements. The word ‘‘goals’’ has been used here. Goals, unfortunately, 

can often turn into quotas. And, Mr. Secretary, I presume that that 

is not your intention in any way, shape, or form. 

Mr. MABUS. Absolutely not, Senator. Number one, it would go 

against the law. But number two, you cannot lower standards. This 

is not about quotas. It is not about equality of outcome. It is about 

equality of opportunity. And you have got to keep those standards. 

You have got to keep them job-related. You have got to keep them 

very rigorous, and you have got to evolve those standards as our 

threats and as our challenges evolve, but they have got to evolve 

for everybody. 

Senator KING. I would assume that the performance of women in 

these very rigorous top-end MOS’s, Ranger School, Marine training, 

will improve over time as they are given the opportunity to set 

their sights on that career. General Milley, would you agree with 

that? 

General MILLEY. I would expect that to be true over time as 

women’s experience in those skills is expanded over time. Absolutely. 

Senator KING. And it seems to me, General Neller, that may be 

one of the answers to the data that you developed in this initial 

study because it was an initial study. In other words, you did not 

have 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 years of women who had worked through this 

process. Would you agree that that may be the case? 

General NELLER. We would have liked to have had more time to 

look at this because I think anyone that does this type of analysis 

would tell you that a year-long is not enough to draw a lot of conclusions. We have the data that we have. So that is why, Senator, 

part of our implementation process is to continue an analysis of a 

whole number of variables and factors. 

And I do, though, agree that the women that are in the Marine 

Corps today are very different, not that the ones that were there 

before were not of quality and great Americans and served our Nation well, but the overall quality of marines in general is much 

higher than it was when I joined this organization 40 years ago. 

And our hope is people will maybe see this as an opportunity and 

then they will want to compete in whatever it is. 

So I think—I mean, I have got a daughter. I raise my daughter 

in the way I raise my daughter. She is very competitive. And I 

think people raise their girls, females, Americans. They do different 

things than they did 30 years ago. It is a different place. So we will 

find out. 

That said, there are certain physiological differences that exist. 

There are always going to be people that are outliers. 

I think what Senator Ernst asked me was a fair question. Where 

does the top of the women capability overlap with the male capability, and is that going to make them competitive in the long run? 

78 

We are going to find that out, but that is part of what we do not 

know. 

Senator KING. And it seems to me part of what this whole—— 

Chairman MCCAIN. Your time has expired. 

Senator KING. I am sorry. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Fischer, with Senator Sessions’ indulgence. 

Senator FISCHER, Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to 

Senator Sessions. I need to get to the chamber to preside, but I did 

want to ask a few questions here. 

When we are going to be looking at monitoring the implementations, how well prepared do you think we are at that process specifically with regard to making changes? If I could ask Secretary 

Murphy and Secretary Mabus about that. How do the services plan 

to track the outcomes of the changes and ensure that when we see 

any unintended consequences come forward that we can act on 

those promptly and be able to address any concerns that we see? 

Secretary Murphy, if you would like to begin. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thanks, Senator. 

As we said, Senator, we are going to have gender- neutral, operational-relevant standards with no quotas whatsoever. But as the 

Army, we assess everything as we move forward. We assess physical fitness, how you are doing your job, OER’s [Officer Evaluation 

Report], et cetera. So we will continue assess this as we move forward and make sure we are doing what is necessary to accomplish 

our mission, and that is to fight and win our Nation’s wars. 

Senator FISCHER, And do you have that in your implementation 

plan? It is always good to say you are going to be flexible, you are 

going to be able to address it, but are there really steps that are 

laid out in your plans? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, ma’am. I would also like if the Chief could respond as well, that would be helpful. 

Senator FISCHER, If we could have Secretary Mabus first please. 

Mr. MABUS. As part of the formal process of looking at this continually, one of the things that is required by the law and one of 

the things that is in everybody’s implementation plan is that the 

inspector general of each service will look at, number one, whether 

these standards continue to be validated, job-oriented, mission-specific, gender-neutral, but number two, what are the results of this 

integration. The first report is to be undertaken this year as we 

begin the integration process, and each service has already ordered 

that review to go forward. 

Past that, as Secretary Murphy has very correctly pointed out, 

we are always looking at every single standard as threats evolve. 

As I said in my opening statement, infantry school today is very 

different than it was just 25 years ago because our threats have 

changed, and we are going to continue to do that. And that is one 

of the things I think that marines do exceptionally well. They 

adapt. They improvise and they overcome. 

Senator FISCHER, Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

And, General, would you like to have any comments? 

General MILLEY. Just briefly. We have developed explicit written, 

gender-neutral tasks, conditions, and standards for every MOS in 

the United States Army right now today. And when we execute for 

79 

the infantry, armor, and special forces, those will be implemented. 

They will be tested and they will be validated and they will be 

monitored closely. The Secretary of Defense has established a Secretary of Defense level organization to monitor implementation. We 

have done the same thing at the Secretary of the Army, the Department of the Army Secretary, and we will be doing routine 

monthly and quarterly monitoring of implementation and execution 

of this. 

Training and Doctrine Command, United States Army, has primary responsibility for phases one and two. Our plan has four 

phases. And phases three and four primary responsibility is General Abrams and Forces Command, which is the operational force. 

That will be coming up next year and the year after that. So it is 

a very, very rigorous program of implementation and monitoring. 

Senator FISCHER, And thank you for that very clear explanation. 

I appreciate it. 

General Neller, you had mentioned before that the Marines had 

studied some foreign militaries and what they have done with the 

integration of their women into the combat positions. Can you comment on any of the findings that you had? 

General NELLER. We looked at the Canadian, the Australian, the 

UK [United Kingdom], and the Israeli militaries. The first three 

have integrated these MOS’s. The numbers are very small, but the 

lessons they learned in speaking to the service members there that 

were part of that was leadership, maintenance of standards, setting 

up a cohort or some number of people to support so that the individual females in this case did not go down there completely cold. 

But the number one thing was the standards. They also mentioned 

the potential benefits of gender-separate recruit training. 

The Israelis I believe had done this at one time, and then they 

have walked away from it. They do have one predominantly female 

border unit. But they do not allow women to be assigned in these 

combat MOS’s, infantry, armor, or airborne. 

Senator FISCHER, What would be their reasons for that with the 

Israelis? Is it due to the standards that are in place, or is it concern about the neighborhood they live in? 

General NELLER. I think there are a number of reasons, Senator, 

but I think one is they are just trying to take and make the best 

use of the talent of the population that they have. So if you go to 

an Israeli school that teaches these, the majority of the instructors 

are females teaching ground combat things. 

Senator FISCHER, Thank you, sir, very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator REED [presiding]. On behalf of the chairman, let me recognize Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And to all of our witnesses, this is an important issue, and I echo 

what Senator Heinrich said about the degree of consistency among 

the witnesses and folks here serving. 

A story that I find relevant. Women were not allowed to run the 

marathon in the Olympics until 1984. There was a belief that physically they would not be able to run it. The longest race for women 

in the 1980 Olympics in Moscow was a 1,500-meter, and even that 

80 

was somewhat recent. It had been an 800-meter was the longest 

race a woman could run. 

Today, 30 years later, the men’s world record in the marathon 

is 2 hours and 3 minutes, and the women’s world record in the 

marathon is 2 hours and 15 minutes. There is an advantage to 

men. But that women’s world record time would have won the gold 

record in the men’s marathon during most of the history of the 

Olympics. 

And now—and this is a joke—the marathon is for wimps now because now there are ultra-marathons. One common ultra-marathon 

event is a 2-day run, 48-hour run. Men have the edge on the track. 

The women’s record is 370 kilometers in 2 days, and the men’s 

record is 430 kilometers in 2 days. 

But there is another one that is kind of interesting to me. How 

fast can you through-hike the Appalachian Trail, 2,200 miles? And 

there is a record for doing it all on your own, not having support, 

having to carry everything, big backpack carried. The men’s record 

is 58 days and the women’s record is 54 days. The woman has the 

record for having to carry it all. 

Combat and military service is different. But what this tells me 

is—and, General Neller, you kind of talked about it. Daughters 

raised today are going to be raised different than daughters 30 

years ago. When there is a social cap or ceiling or limitation, that 

sort of gets absorbed by people and they do not even focus on what 

they might be able to do. They get raised in a particular way with 

the thought that that cap is going to be there. When the cap is lifted, all of a sudden there are all kinds of possibilities and people 

start to focus on opportunities they might have and train themselves up for them. And just like when you lift the ban on running 

the marathon in the Olympics and allow women to do it, suddenly 

there are fantastic marathoners, ultra-marathoners, AT [Appalachian Trail] hikers with packs. 

Parenthetically the physiological difference in women in carrying 

weight leads a lot of backpack manufacturers to make different 

packs for women that can actually erase some of that physiological 

difference. 

I have a high confidence—a high confidence—in the American 

military and all the service branches to do this because you are always are super can-do and you always figure it out. I mean, I have 

that confidence in you. 

One of my kids, as some of you know, has been through ROTC 

[Reserve Officers’ Training Corps] and OCS [Officer Candidate 

School] and TBS [The Basic School] and IOC [Infantry Officer 

Course] with women. It is more of a norm now than an earlier generation of Marines. And he understands how hard it is for everybody and that this will be a challenge to implement. But this is a 

can-do operation that is going to figure it out. I have complete confidence in them. 

I am kind of interested in the topic of standards setting. And, 

General Neller, you talked a little bit about this. I tried to write 

this quickly down. You talked about in preparing for integration of 

women in MOS’s and studying it, you did a lot of studies of the 

standards. I think you said because of our standards setting, our 

overall quality will be higher for men and women. 

81 

I would kind of like to ask all of you. Was the standards setting 

that you did and analyzed around the integration question, set 

aside integration of women into MOS’s—did it have strong, independent value for your service branches to do that standards setting and analysis exercise in terms of figuring out what the right 

requirements for the MOS’s are given the nature of contemporary 

warfare? And that is a question I would like each of you to address. 

General NELLER. The standards that we established were established on 30 September, actually before the decision was made, because we recognized, as part of the analysis, that whether there 

was going to be an exception granted or not, we needed to have a 

more performance-related standard. I mean, there’s training on the 

things you did. So we actually codified it. And so since that time, 

the men that have gone through infantry training battalion, armor 

school, artillery school, engineer school have been getting their 

MOS qualification based on the standard. And the completion rate 

has been 99-plus percent. So that just goes to the overall quality 

of the marine that we are getting now. 

So I have every confidence that if there is a female marine out 

there who can meet the other standards before they come into recruit training or what they have to do at entry level training and 

recruit training, we will find out. We will know because the females that did go through this training and get awarded the 

MOS—they did not have to do this. So, again, Senator, we do not 

know yet what we do not know. There are things you can train to, 

but you have to have the physiological capability to move fast and 

bear a load and lift heavy weights. 

Senator KAINE. I see my time has expired. Thank you. 

Senator REED. Thank you. On behalf of the chairman, Senator 

Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much. And I thank all of you 

for sharing your thoughts with us on this important matter. 

General Neller, the Marine Corps did a study and completed it 

in 2015. Is that correct? And what was the purpose of that study? 

General NELLER. Senator, the purpose of the study was after 

Secretary Panetta in January 2013 stated that there was going to 

be no exception for gender to assignment to MOS’s in unit and gave 

the services a period of time to take a look at this. It was the final 

process of what we did. We first put female marines in previously 

restricted units and MOS’s that they had. We sent 448 females 

through infantry training battalion to see how they would do, and 

then we realized we could not assign them to a unit, so we had to 

create a unit and we wanted to see how they did in the context, 

not just meeting individual standards but how they would function 

within a squad, team, or a crew. 

Senator SESSIONS. And do you feel like that was, as reasonably 

as you can, a fair analysis of the challenges that you would be facing if you moved to integration of combat units? 

General NELLER. The evaluation was designed to try to replicate, 

as best we could in a live fire environment, those types of skills or 

tasks that you would have to do in combat. 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, the purpose of the report says this. 

‘‘Central to this historic research effort has been the clear recognition that the brutal and extremely physical nature of direct ground 

82 

combat, often marked by close interpersonal violence, remains 

largely unchanged throughout the centuries of warfare despite 

technological advancements.’’ 

Now, you served a long time in the Marine Corps. Do you agree 

with that? 

General NELLER. The character of war may have changed with 

the overall nature of war, depending upon the fight you are in, at 

the end of the day can still come down to that type of an environment. Yes, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, the report said this. The Marine Corps 

fights as units. Therefore, developing and maintaining the most 

combat-effective units must always be at the forefront of any contemplated institutional change. Do you agree with that? 

General NELLER. I do. 

Senator SESSIONS. And do you agree with the report’s finding, 

‘‘combat effectiveness, the health and welfare of individual marines, and talent management,’’ are key evaluating factors on the 

performance? 

General NELLER. Those are three of the major lenses through 

which we looked at the report and looked through implementation. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, here are the summary of the research 

findings. See if they are inconsistent with your experience in the 

Marine Corps. Overall, ‘‘all male squads, teams, and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69 percent of the tasks 

evaluated—that is 134 tasks—as compared to gender-integrated 

squads, teams, and crews. The integrated squads were superior in 

two events out of the 134.’’ The rest I guess were equal. Do you dispute that or is that consistent with your experience? 

General NELLER. That is the data that we derived from the evaluation. 

Senator SESSIONS. Speed is important in combat. ‘‘All male 

squads, regardless of infantry MOS, were faster than the genderintegrated squads in each tactical movement.’’ 

Lethality. All-male 0311 squads—that is the rifle infantry, rifleman squads ‘‘had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated 

squads. There was notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system except the probability of hit and miss 

with the M–4.’’ That is the individual carbines. Is that what the 

report found, and do you dispute that? 

General NELLER. No, sir. That is accurate as to what we found. 

Senator SESSIONS. Also it found all-male infantry crew-served 

weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits 

on target as compared to gender- integrated infantry crew-served 

weapons teams with the exception of M–2 accuracy. Was that part 

of the report? 

General NELLER. It is. 

Senator SESSIONS. All-male squads, teams, and crews in genderintegrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in 

their performance of the basic combat task of negotiating obstacles 

and evacuating casualties. So that is the combat lethality question. 

Health and welfare of the marines themselves. You put them in 

very stressful positions. ‘‘In addition to performance, evidence of 

higher injury rates for females when compared to males performing 

the same tactical task were noted. Within the research at the inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Apr 05, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\REIER-AVILES\2016\2016 HEARINGS SENT FOR PRINTING\24850.TXT WILDA
83 

fantry training battalion, females undergoing that entry level training were injured at six times the rate of male counterparts.’’ Is the 

injury rate a factor you need to consider when you put people 

through training? 

General NELLER. Yes, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. During the assessment, ‘‘musculoskeletal injury rates were 40 percent for females compared to 18 percent for 

males.’’ 

And one more thing that people talk about. We cannot let it 

dominate our thinking. But how do you evaluate all of that? I 

mean, how do you evaluate the risk of injury and the ability to perform effectively on the battlefield when you consider the integration of combat forces? You made your recommendation, but how do 

you evaluate that? 

General NELLER. Well, Senator, when we evaluate it, we are 

going to find out. This is part of what we found out and also what 

we found out, that we believe that there are ways that this can be, 

to some degree, mitigated. How much? Again, we do not know what 

we do not know. So the physical capability of the individual marine, their susceptibility to injury, their overall fitness, this is all 

part of the evaluation that everyone has talked about. And General 

Milley stated it on there. We have got very specific questions in 

areas that we are going to monitor as we go through this implementation process. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I have served in an Army Reserve unit 

for 10 years with fabulous women, soldiers and officers. The commander of that unit now is the first one that has received two stars 

in the unit’s history. She is a two-star general and doing a great 

job, and we have tremendous military soldiers and officers who are 

women. And it is an important part of the military. And I think 

you are wise to do this careful evaluation and let us see how we 

can continue that tradition in the most smartest way. 

Senator REED. On behalf of the chairman, Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You were just asked a series of questions relating to differences 

in performance of women and men. And I think, General Neller, 

you indicated that there may be ways to mitigate these performance differences. But I am wondering. Did you come to the conclusion that—and we always have to worry about attributing cause 

and effect to any performance differences. So did you come to a conclusion that there is something innately about being a female that 

causes these kinds of differences in performance? Have you come 

to that conclusion? 

General NELLER. Senator, I think the data, not just from this 

evaluation but data that exists throughout the sports world or 

other place is that there are physiological differences between the 

average male and the average female. Now, the question is to what 

degree can we mitigate that. So the conclusion, if we have come to 

anything, is, hey, these are things that we need to pay attention 

to. Now, whether they will manifest themselves in the future or 

not, we will find that out. 

Senator HIRONO. So in those instances where what we are measuring is something that requires physical strength—I mean, there 

will be some women who are physically a lot stronger than men, 

84 

but as a general proposition that where physical strength is measured, women will come out—they will be less able to perform. That 

is the conclusion you have drawn. 

General NELLER. On the average, yes. 

Senator HIRONO. So when we talk about gender-neutral standards—let me turn to that because nobody here is talking about lowering of standards. But there are some concerns that some of these 

standards that relate to performance necessary for the job may be 

unnecessarily high or inaccurate. We are not talking about lowering of standards. 

So my question is how are these standards validated. Who validates these standards for the Marines, for the Army? Secretary 

Mabus, would you like to respond to that? 

Mr. MABUS. The uniformed head of each service validates that 

they are occupationally relevant, that they are mission-oriented, 

and that they are gender-neutral. 

Senator HIRONO. I think, though, that may be difficult really to 

measure. So I think what I heard you saying is that the implementation and to make sure that these standards actually are required 

for a performance on the job, that there will be monitoring and reevaluation of these standards because one hopes that standards are 

somehow set by a neutral objective body. 

So in addition to the physical standards that must be met, I assume that in a combat situation, one also cares about things such 

as the mental state of the person or the judgment of the person. 

Are those part of the MOS standards? 

General NELLER. The MOS standards for the entry level—there 

is a basic general technical classification test score that you have 

to meet. And so when you go through your academic part of your 

training—and there is academics in any of these. Some for gunnery 

and artillery and tanks is very complicated. It involves mathematics and things. So there is an intellectual piece to this, and you 

are going to find out some people may be superior in this area. But 

at the basic level, at the entry level, whether it is an infantry platoon commander or a junior marine or soldier in a squad, the physical requirements that they have to perform are—you cannot ignore 

those facts. 

Now, as people become more senior, then it starts to balance out, 

and your ability to exercise judgment and your ability to make decisions—that may become more important, but it does not remove 

the requirement for the physical requirements that you have to 

perform. 

So to the point on who validates, we have looked at this. We 

have training commands who have an analyst and people that do 

this for a profession. We know exactly from every step what you 

have to do to load a Howitzer, to load a tank, to lift—you know, 

it is very mundane stuff, Senator, like, hey, you have to lift an artillery round that weighs 98 pounds up to the truck. So there are 

certain fundamental tasks to be part of a tank crew, a gun crew, 

to be in a rifle squad. And so those were the things that we looked 

at that we thought were the mission-essential tasks to be effective 

in these MOS’s. And we have had third parties look at this because 

we wanted to ensure that the standards were valid and they were 

not too high or too low. 

85 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Tillis? 

Senator TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Actually I want to continue maybe along that line of questioning. 

One of the things that I have had in my discussions with some 

of you and others is that this process has been good and that it has 

really made you think about documenting and setting standards for 

things that you kind of knew you had to do but you had not articulated them. So that is healthy. 

And I have heard other discussions. And when we have looked 

at it, maybe we need to raise the standards a little bit. To what 

extent do we run the risk of being able to do that because it appears to be lessening or diminishing our opportunity to provide 

women more opportunities in combat positions, which I happen to 

support? General Neller, do you want to start with that? 

General NELLER. Senator, I think the standards—I cannot speak 

for the Army, but I looked at their standards and their standards 

are different but they are also I think fairly demanding and would 

show a high probability of being able to be successful in any of 

these ground combat MOS’s whether they be load-bearing MOS’s or 

non-load-bearing. 

So whether they are too low or too high, we have done an analysis as to what is kind of the average. We are producing a large 

number of marines to do these things. In the Army, an even larger 

number. So we are looking for that point to where you have to do 

this in order to be effective and be effective within the team. And 

there are always going to be individuals that fall across the spectrum on that scatter chart. 

Senator TILLIS. And, General Milley, maybe if you respond to 

that, you could share whether or not—as you are going through 

this and thinking about women having increasing opportunities in 

combat roles, can you think of any physical standards that you 

think should be lowered? 

General MILLEY. No, not physical standards. 

But let me make a comment on standards, though. I do not want 

anybody on the committee to think that either the Army or the Marines or the Navy or the Air Force did not have standards until we 

suddenly went through this. The United States Army has standards since Baron von Steuben showed up at Valley Forge. We are 

a standards-based Army. We are a standards-based military. Always have been. And they are written down and they are codified 

and we adjust them over time based on the realities of battlefield, 

new technologies, et cetera, et cetera. 

In this particular case, for infantry and armor, we have developed a new set of gender-neutral standards. And those are measured against one thing, neither male nor female. They are measured against the requirements of combat. And to answer Senator 

Hirono’s comment, those have been rigorously reviewed. We will be 

glad to provide them. Peer-reviewed through all kinds of technical 

analysis. But we are definitely standards-based. These are rigorous, and they will be fairly applied to both males and females. 

Senator TILLIS. General Neller, the Marines have the entry-level 

recruit training that is segregated I guess. It is on a glide path to 

be integrated. Do you believe that is a good idea? 

86 

General NELLER. I would not describe it as segregated. At entry 

level, at recruit training at MCRD [Marine Corps Recruit Depot] 

Paris Island—— 

Senator TILLIS. That is a great point 

General NELLER.—we allow our female marines to train separately, and then as they get further into the training, they do more 

and more integrated training with the male recruits. 

Senator TILLIS. What in your professional military opinion are 

the benefits of that approach? 

General NELLER. Because of the data we have on the physical 

differential and because of the opportunity for these female recruits 

to be led by female drill instructors and female officers, they see 

females as role models. There is no distraction and they are allowed to compete. They see other women that can lead and compete. They get an opportunity to improve their physical fitness, and 

then that gives them an opportunity to gain some confidence before 

they would then be put in—is there going to be eventually—I 

mean, once they graduate as marines, every part of our training 

from marine combat training to our MOS training of the operational force is fully integrated, men and women serving side by 

side. 

Senator TILLIS. Do you agree, as some do, that it sets them up 

to actually better compete for those positions as they progress 

through their training? 

General NELLER. My personal view right now is at the beginning 

that initial part is critical and sets them up for success. 

Senator TILLIS. And, Mr. Chair, I will just close with this comment. I would like to get from the Secretaries, given the work that 

has been done, the policy that is being implemented, some understanding of what the long-term cost could potentially be as we implement this program, anything from MILCON [military construction] costs to health care costs, a number of other factors. We have 

heard numbers about injury rates, a number of other things. I am 

assuming that that was looked at before the policy recommendations were put into place, and I would like to get that information. 

We will make a request to your agencies. 

Thank you. 

The information referred to follows: 

Mr. MURPHY. We do not anticipate any significant increase in pay and allowances 

as a result of implementing gender integration. The Occupational Physical Assessment Test will ensure Soldiers have the proper physical aptitude for their military 

occupational specialty. The estimated cost for this testing is $2.1 million per year. 

Mr. MABUS. The Department of the Navy has identified the primary areas where 

costs will be incurred for complete integration. The DoN has fully integrated all previously closed occupational specialties in both the Navy and Marine Corps. Additionally, recurring costs of integrating the Submarine community are included. The two 

primary areas impacted by the decision to fully integrate women into the Armed 

Forces are the Marine Corps and the Naval Special Warfare community. Below are 

the estimated costs with integration of females within the Department of the Navy: 

Submarines: 

• Ohio-class 

° $5.5 million non-recurring expense (planning) 

° $6.6 million per ship ($5.4 million labor/$1.2 million material) 

• Virginia-class (Block IV) 

° $8.5 million non-recurring expense 

° $1.5 million per ship 

87 

• Specific Los Angeles and Seawolf submarines will be evaluated for integration 

as demand for female billets dictate, on the basis of cost-effective privacy and 

berthing modifications over the remaining service life of the hull. With the expected construction of two Virginia-class submarines per year, the submarine 

force anticipates that the pace of integration will not exceed construction rate 

of the Virginia-class; making it unlikely that the submarine force will exercise 

the option of modifications to Seawolf or Los Angeles-class to sustain integration 

of women. Should modifications be deemed necessary, Navy will notify Congress 

per title 10 United States Code, section 6035. 

Naval Special Warfare (NSW): 

• Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) barracks 

° $175 thousand for security cameras and associated hardware, i.e.: 

– night vision IP cameras: $93 thousand, 

– data storage servers: $72 thousand, and 

– installation: $10 thousand 

• San Clemente Island Facilities 

– $100 thousand for head/showers 

• Minor berthing and head adjustments will be required to facilitate integration 

of women in NSW pipeline training. NSW officer candidates are able to reside 

off base, while enlisted members are housed in on-base facilities. NSW strives 

to provide privacy while minimizing segregation in order to optimize integration. 

Marine Corps: 

• Facilities Requirements 

– $977 thousand projects completed 

– $1.5 million projects remaining 

Medical Costs: 

• The extent to which healthcare is expected to increase or decrease is not known 

at this time and a lack of historical data on women’s injury rates associated 

with the full integration of females in combat prevents estimation. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Blumenthal? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses who are here today for your 

extraordinary service to our Nation and for your very thoughtful 

and insightful testimony today. 

In the military, as elsewhere, women are breaking down barriers 

and proving they are equally capable professionally and personally. 

And I happen to believe that our military will be made stronger by 

the policies that you are implementing, policies that are the result 

of planning an action that began in 2012, and our military will be 

made stronger as we open billets to women without lowering standards and without imposing quotas. 

And I think, Secretary Mabus, you made that point extremely 

well, and I am going to quote it again. Lowering standards would 

be unacceptable to every marine, especially those women who 

choose to compete for these positions. I think that is a very profoundly important point here, that women do not want standards 

lowered. They do not want outcomes dictated or quotas for positions. It is simply about equal access, in fact with higher standards 

not lower standards. 

And the other point that you made very well I thought, Secretary 

Mabus, is that this is not about women in combat. Women have 

been serving in combat and have been proving themselves in combat. In fact, they served, for example, in Iraq in the Lioness Program where female marines and soldiers volunteered to join combat troops at checkpoints and conducted outreach operations with 

Iraqi women. I remember listening to Admiral McRaven describe 

88 

the role that women play with his special forces teams in both Iraq 

and Afghanistan. And I am very proud of the work that they have 

done in the Army as well. U.S. Army Special Operations Command 

created an all-woman cultural support team to work along with 

Green Berets and Army Rangers in combat zones. And just last 

year, women again proved they are capable of competing in combat 

positions by meeting the grueling gender-neutral standards required to pass Army Ranger Schools, including a native of Connecticut, Orange, Connecticut, Captain Kristen Griest. 

I want to ask a question that focuses on a different part of this 

process, as the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, 

whether we are doing enough to plan—both the Department of Defense and the VA [Veterans Affairs]—for the cooperation that is 

necessary to meet the needs of our women veterans after they leave 

the service. Connecticut just opened a women’s health care center 

within the West Haven facility, a profoundly important step forward, but many facilities, hospital facilities and others, around the 

country have failed to provide those women-oriented health care 

centers. And they require specialties that are not present for men. 

So I would like to ask that question generally of this panel, whether there has been sufficient planning, what more should be done 

for our women veterans. 

Mr. MABUS. Well, Senator, as you very correctly pointed out, 

women have been serving for a long time with distinction and are 

becoming an ever-increasing part of our veterans community. And 

we owe all of our veterans that have served us so well that standard of care. 

And I think that speaking for the Defense Department, we are 

trying to make it more seamless as you leave the service and you 

move into the VA system. We are trying to make it an easier process, a process that does not put the members under stress. To a 

point that Secretary Murphy made a good bit earlier, now 18 percent of Navy is female. At the Naval Academy, this year it is 29 

percent that are female, and it is going up every year. And so that 

is something we have got to pay very close attention to not only 

while people are in but as they transition back to civilian life. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Ayotte? 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Chairman. 

I want to thank each of you for your leadership and service to 

our Nation. 

I fully support giving women the opportunity to both meet and 

exceed the high standards set by each of our branches of the military. But as the chair of the Readiness Committee, what I would 

like as a commitment from each of you is that as we implement 

this policy, that we ensure that individual and unit standards are 

focused solely on combat readiness and nothing else. And I think 

the women of this Nation would want that. I think the women who 

are going to have the opportunity and who have served so admirably and defended this Nation already in combat would want that. 

So I want to make sure that I have the assurance of each of you 

that that will be the case. 

General NELLER. Yes, Senator. 

Mr. MABUS. Absolutely. 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, ma’am. 

89 

General MILLEY. Yes, Senator. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

I want to bring up an issue, when we talk about women serving 

in our military, that is really one that has bothered me, and that 

is that we have women guards who are guarding the prisoners and 

terrorists at Guantanamo. And they are women who are fully 

qualified, capable to guard anyone there. Yet, there has been a 

court order in place since January of last year for, in particular, 

the 9/11 terrorists that essentially says that the women who are 

guards there are not permitted to actually transport the 9/11 five 

to legal meetings and commission proceedings. And Senator Capito 

and Senator Scott and I went to Guantanamo. We met with the 

women guards there. And I can assure you what they told us is we 

just want to do our jobs. 

So as we are here having a hearing today on giving women an 

opportunity in all billets in the military, here we have a billet that 

women are already serving and yet there is a court order in place 

that I believe OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] has not 

stepped up aggressively enough to stand up for the rights of our 

women in the military to perform their jobs and that we have essentially let terrorists dictate terms that are completely unreasonable, not based on any religious views, even though they are claiming it. And your predecessor—not your predecessor but the former 

Commander of SOUTHCOM [United States Southern Command], 

General Kelly, was very upset about this, brought this to my attention. Previously Secretary Carter has been before this committee 

and also described this as outrageous. 

So I would like to know, especially General Milley—most of these 

women guards serve in the Army—and Secretary Murphy as well, 

but all of you, what do you think about this. And should we not 

be more aggressively standing up for the rights of our women in 

the military to do their jobs rather than what exists right now, 

which is the right of the 9/11 terrorists that are bogus in terms of 

the ability of our women to do their jobs in the military? So I want 

to get your comment on this. 

General MILLEY. I personally think it is ridiculous that these 

women are not allowed to do that job. I probably have other words 

that cannot be said behind this microphone right now about how 

I feel about that whole situation. I agree with you, Senator. 

Mr. MURPHY. Senator, I concur with the Chief. And let me be 

clear. We do not take orders from the terrorists but there was a 

court order here and we take an oath to support and defend the 

Constitution. 

But I will tell you, ma’am, that I will go back—I am now 4 weeks 

into this job. I will go back and meet with our general counsel, Mrs. 

Starzak, and look at this issue and report back to you. 

Senator AYOTTE. I would appreciate it because I have been completely unsatisfied, having been a former prosecutor myself, with 

the level of defense that has been given and advocacy on behalf of 

our women in the military here. So I hope you will do that, please. 

Secretary Mabus? 

Mr. MABUS. I share exactly your words. It is outrageous. Women 

need to be able to do the jobs that they are qualified to do. 

General NELLER. Senator, I agree with the rest of the panel. 

90 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you all, and I do appreciate your willingness to pursue this, Secretary Murphy, because I think we can do 

a much better job for standing up for their rights as opposed to 

what is in place right now. To me, to let these 9/11 terrorists dictate what our women in the military can do is outrageous. Thank 

you. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Gillibrand? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We have had a lot of discussion about the Marine Corps’ assessment, and I want to clarify something. I think we can all agree 

that the women who volunteered to do the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force assessment were exceptional in their 

willingness to participate in a study that they were not specifically 

trained for and did not have the experience necessary to actually 

compete in that study effectively. 

The design of the research overall was very flawed. First of all, 

these female marines were screened for the basic physical fitness 

test, but were competing in a large part with male marines who 

had years of experience and training and many of them in combat 

positions. 

Further, there was no bar that the groups competed had to meet. 

Rather, they were competing against each other. So all we really 

know from the study is that groups that had the right experience 

and training and more training did better. We do not actually have 

data that can be used because these women who were asked to participate did not have the same training and experience as those 

who had been doing it for a long time. 

And similarly, on the injury rates, for those women who did do 

this, they only had the basic standard PT [Physical Training] test. 

They did not do specific training to do these missions and to complete them. 

So I just want my colleagues to fully understand that this assessment is not designed to give us the data that we actually need. I 

think it is fundamentally flawed. 

So, Secretary Mabus, I would like your view on that, and then, 

General Neller, I would like your view on that. 

Mr. MABUS. When Secretary Panetta and Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs Dempsey set us on this road, they said that the default position—that the assumption was that every position would be opened 

and that any sort of exception would have to be very narrowly tailored and would have to be based on job-specific individual standards. 

And the Marine test, as I have said here before, did one great 

thing that General Neller has talked about, and that is it codified 

the standards that each individual marine in a unit had to meet 

in order to get that MOS. 

But I think we have to focus on individuals. If an individual 

meets that standard, if an individual meets the gender-neutral, 

combat-specific, job-specific standard, then that person should get 

to do the job. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Well, I just think that too many of the Senators who were listening to that summary of what the Marine 

study showed are having a misimpression. We are not comparing 

average women to average men. We are talking about extraorVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Apr 05, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\REIER-AVILES\2016\2016 HEARINGS SENT FOR PRINTING\24850.TXT WILDA
91 

dinary women. And if you look at the three women who just completed Ranger School, these three women are extraordinary women. 

And so if we were to assess can they do the job, yes, they can do 

the job. But again, to base too much or to rely too much on a study 

that did not have that level of training and rigor ahead of time so 

that they had the same experience, the same background, it is unfair to draw too many conclusions from it is all I want to say. I just 

hope you do not draw any conclusions. 

And also, no one mentioned the fact that when they actually tested for complex problem solving tasks, the mixed units did better. 

So there is an area where women are improving the results of 

these units. 

And we all know that combat is going to continue to become 

more and more complex over time. Warfare is going to continue to 

become more and more complex over time. So please do not lose 

sight of the assets that these extraordinary women are going to 

bring to your missions. They have skills beyond what a typical marine may have. And so that is going to enhance what you will be 

able to do long-term. 

General Neller, I would love your thoughts too. 

General NELLER. Well, Senator, first of all, I think it would be 

unfair to any of those marines, but particularly the females that 

participated in the GCEITF, to say they were not trained. They all 

went to MOS school, and so they received and have now received 

the MOS whether it is infantry, artillery, armor. 

When I look at their physical data, the male PFT, pretty consistent. The one differential was in pull-ups. But as you said, these 

were exceptional female marines. They did not have to do this. 

They volunteered. They did our Corps, our country a great service, 

and we owe them a debt of gratitude. And that is one of the reasons their unit received a meritorious unit accommodation at the 

conclusion of their training. 

Now, after they went to the MOS training, they formed into this 

Ground Combat Element Task Force for 4 months of preparatory 

training where they trained with men and developed the skills that 

they needed to go do this evaluation. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. But the 4 months does not compare to the 

years that a lot of these units had been already working together 

doing this MOS. 

General NELLER. None of these marines had been in this unit. 

This was a formed unit. But it is fair to say—I will agree with 

you—that their experience in these MOS’s was probably not up to 

the level of their male counterparts. But in every other standard 

that I can tell, I would say that they were as good, if not better, 

in overall quality in their service as their male marine counterparts. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAIN. So do you believe that the study was fatally 

flawed? 

General NELLER. Sir, I do not. We have had the study peer-reviewed by numerous groups. 

Chairman MCCAIN. So you think it was a legitimate study. 

General NELLER. Within the time we had, yes, Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Sullivan? 

92 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

hearing. 

I appreciate all of you testifying today on a very, very important 

issue, but I think from your testimony and the questions you are 

seeing from the members of this committee, it is certainly not an 

easy issue. 

You are talking about schools. I happen to have been through the 

Marine infantry officer course, a recon school, SERE school. These 

are very difficult schools that most men have a hard time with because it is about a tough profession. 

I think Sergeant Major LeHew, when he was talking about this 

recently, the Marine Corps sergeant major put it very succinctly. 

In regards to infantry, there is no trophy for second place. You perform or die. Serious, serious discussion here. 

And I am a Marine infantry officer but like General Neller mentioned, I am also someone who has three daughters, three teenage 

daughters. All their lives, my wife and I have been telling them 

that if they work hard, earn something, that they should be able 

to do anything anyone else does—anyone. 

So I support the opportunity for women to serve in any capacity 

in the military as long as the standards are not lowered. And I 

think you are seeing that as a consensus here. 

One thing that has not been talked about enough—I want to talk 

a little bit about the process. We know that Secretary Panetta allowed the services to request an exemption, and after thorough 

study with hundreds of marines and men and women serving gave 

their all to put together a study. 

Secretary Mabus, I have to tell you I have been very disappointed in terms of the process, how you have dealt with the Marine Corps’ desire to look at this really difficult issue. As soon as 

the Marines published their study, within 24 hours of this 1,000- 

page study, you came out and said you saw no reason for an exemption. Did you read the study? 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, what I said, I said countless times, since 

the time that Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey had set 

us on this path, that the presumption was that we were going—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. You said I do not see any reason for an exemption the day after the study was published. Based on what? 

Mr. MABUS. The conclusions. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Did you read the study? 

Mr. MABUS. I have read the study. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Did you read the study before you stated 

that? 

Mr. MABUS. I had read the conclusions that the Marines drew 

from the study prior to that, and those conclusions which were 

based on averages and not on individual marines—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me ask another question related to the 

study. And Senator Gillibrand just talked about it. You then implied that the women marines involved in the study were not the 

top-flight marines. General Neller I think just said that was not 

the case. 

And then on public radio, you essentially told the American people that the Marines were not looking at this in an objective manner. You said, ‘‘it started out with a fairly large component of the 

93 

men in the Marine Corps thinking that this is not a good idea and 

women will never be able to do this. When you start out with that 

mindset, you are almost presupposing the outcome.’’ I think the 

only person presupposing the outcome in this entire process was 

you. 

General Neller, were you presupposing the outcome on this after 

millions of dollars and hundreds of marines to put together this report? Is that what you were doing, sir? 

General NELLER. We were all waiting for the results of the study, 

but I think we had been out and visited and we had seen some 

things. But there was a lot of analysis that had to be done, and 

it was a short period of time. No, I was not presupposing it. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me just make another point. I think, Secretary Mabus, for whatever reason you have seemed agitated, annoyed about what the Marines have been doing about their study— 

your public statements. And yet, they were the only service, as far 

as I can tell, doing the hard research on a very, very difficult issue. 

To me it seems like you might want to think about complimenting 

the leadership of the Marine Corps as opposed to implying that 

they were not taking this seriously. They were clearly taking it seriously. In my view, they were probably the service that was taking 

it the most seriously. 

Let me ask one final question that relates to this. On January 

1, you directed the Marines to come up with a detailed plan to integrate boot camp within 15 days. Now, I am a little biased here, but 

I think it is commonly known that the Marine Corps probably has 

the best basic training of any service in the United States military, 

probably any service in the world. 

I have been on this committee for a year. I do not think I have 

seen a more outrageous or ill-advised order from a service secretary 

to tell the Marines that they are going to take boot camp, which 

has been honed and put together for the benefit of the American 

people over decades—and you are going to tell them and order 

them to get a detailed plan in 15 days. Is that even remotely possible? And why did you issue such an order when nobody on this 

committee thinks that that was remotely possible to integrate boot 

camp? Did you read the Kassebaum-Baker report, unanimous committee? 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, it was not only possible, but the Marines 

met that. They had been working on this for months and years—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. Did you read the Kassebaum—— 

Mr. MABUS.—how boot camp is organized. And you will be happy 

to know, Senator, that they met that deadline. They fully briefed 

me on January 14th and came up with—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. That is because the Marines are a can-do organization, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. MABUS. The Marines are an incredibly capable organization. 

I am in awe of the Marine Corps and of individual marines and the 

sincerity and the service and the work that they have done on behalf of this country. And as I said in my opening statement, it is 

the greatest honor of my life to lead the United States Marine 

Corps and the United States Navy. 

What we have come to, because the Marines did such a good job 

of coming up with this, is the Marines have developed a very delibVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Apr 05, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\REIER-AVILES\2016\2016 HEARINGS SENT FOR PRINTING\24850.TXT WILDA
94 

erate plan, a very ordered plan to begin to look at lessons learned 

and how they can more fully integrate boot camp to give us better 

marines, which they have done. As Commandant Neller and I have 

talked about several times, boot camp has changed over and over 

and over again and always with the same aim and that is to make 

better marines, to make a better Marine Corps, and have a more 

lethal, more effective Marine Corps. 

Senator SULLIVAN. How does your order square with the Kassebaum-Baker unanimous committee recommendation on the integration of our boot camps in the military? 

Mr. MABUS. Well, Senator, I looked at all sorts of reports, but I 

also have gone on my almost 7 years—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. It does not. Does it? I mean, it directly contradicts the unanimous recommendation of that committee. Right? 

Just for the record. 

Mr. MABUS. I think that is a completely irrelevant point, Senator. 

Senator SULLIVAN. It is not irrelevant. 

General Neller, do you think in your professional opinion having 

14 days, because—you probably did not take the day off on New 

Year’s Day because you got an order and you were probably working on it. Do you think having 15 days to put together a detailed 

plan to integrate the Marine Corps boot camp, an issue that has 

been studied, debated, on one of the most incredibly important institutions in not only the Marine Corps, in my view the United 

States military—do you think that was a reasonable request? It 

sounds like you did it, which does not surprise me. That is the Marine Corps ethos. Was that a legitimate request to do that within 

14 days, one of the biggest issues I am sure the Corps as an institution has been struggling with for years—14 days to do that? 

General NELLER. Senator, what we did is we briefed the Secretary on how we do recruit training, and in part of that discussion, I believe—I am not going to speak for him, but he understands and has a better view of why we do it the way we do it. 

And as he stated, part of that discussion is that we are always trying to get better, and we will continue to look at ways that we can 

further improve recruit training. 

Chairman MCCAIN. You are not answering the question, General. 

You are not answering Senator Sullivan’s question. Repeat the 

question. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Was it a reasonable order, given the years 

and years and years that the Marine Corps has been looking at 

this and studying this and committees like the Kassebaum-Baker 

unanimous committee said it was not a good idea, to have 14 days 

to come up with a, ‘‘detailed plan to integrate Marine Corps boot 

camp?’’ I just think it was outrageous, but I am wondering in your 

professional military judgment. 

General NELLER. When we briefed on the 14th, we did not provide a plan of fully integrated recruit training but talked about 

how we do conduct recruit training. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Well, it is unfortunate. 

Your time has expired. 

You know, Secretary Mabus, this would have been a lot easier 

if you had not called in the press immediately and debunked what 

95 

many of us view was a legitimate study without even reading it, 

and I do not believe that you read a 1,000- page document in one 

day. I am sorry. But I do not believe it. And so your handling of 

this issue has really complicated the whole situation for those of us 

who fully support the integration of women in the military. It was 

done on a peremptory, ‘‘go to the media first’’ fashion. 

General Neller, I would just like to ask. Do you want to, for the 

record, articulate the concerns that you have about this entire evolution? 

General NELLER. Senator, there are a lot of concerns that we 

have talked about, and General Milley articulated them. There are 

a lot of things we do not know. 

I will tell you that one of my biggest concerns is that the perception, which is totally inaccurate, that the Marine Corps does not 

value the service of the females that serve in the Marine Corps. As 

I stated earlier, we are looking at how we can increase the number 

of females in the Marine Corps. This is about combat effectiveness. 

This is about health and welfare of the force. This is about talent 

management, putting every marine in the place where they can 

best contribute. 

So we have been given an order to integrate. We have, we believe, a fully detailed plan to integrate. We are going to give every 

marine the opportunity to compete. We have the standards that we 

think will allow them to be successful. 

Chairman MCCAIN. I asked if you had concerns, General. 

General NELLER. I have concerns about retention. I have concerns about injury rates. I have concerns about propensity to reenlist, career progression. I have concerns about what is going to happen if the numbers are low, which they probably will be at the beginning. But I think the plan that we have—again, I have concerns 

about things I do not know what the answers are going to be too, 

Chairman. But I think we have a plan in place where we can monitor that. And I would ask that we continue to be required to come 

back to this committee and report on how we are doing on implementation. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Reed? 

Senator REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator, so I believe that Kassebaum report was done in 1997. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I believe it was 1998. 

Senator REED. 1998. So we are looking at an evolving situation. 

I just want to make that clear in terms of reference to the report. 

The final point I want to make is that what I have discerned 

from the entire panel is this is going to be a very careful, orchestrated, multiyear process, which will be reviewed, should be reviewed, should be reported back to the committee, and that the ultimate test will be the effectiveness of units. And that rationale is 

because that is what makes Marine regiments work, its platoons, 

companies, battalions that function, and that will be the test. And 

I think unless anyone disagrees with me, I will conclude with that 

point. 

Chairman MCCAIN. I thank the witnesses. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] 

96 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KELLY AYOTTE

USE OF INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION TO ACHIEVE BUDGET DRIVEN END STRENGTH

REDUCTIONS

Eric Fanning wrote in his nomination hearing two weeks ago, ‘‘Without any future 

increases to the budget, in order to achieve an [active component] end strength of 

450k by 2018, a reduction of 40k soldiers, the army will require approximately 14k 

(35 percent) involuntary separations.’’ 

1. Senator AYOTTE. Secretary Murphy and General Milley: What number of those 

14,000 soldiers who the Army will have to order to leave the service involuntarily 

will be well-preforming individuals who are not retirement eligible? 

Mr. MURPHY and General MILLEY. A board process is used to determine those Soldiers and officers selected for separation, therefore it is impossible to predict the 

outcome of the selection process. However, the Army projects that 75–85 percent of 

the involuntary separations will not be retirement eligible. The largest programmed 

losses are officer losses. Those losses will be determined via promotion selectivity 

targeting younger year groups from the ‘‘Grow the Army’’ years 2007–2011. 

2. Senator AYOTTE. Secretary Murphy and General Milley: Is it safe to say that 

many or most of those soldiers will have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan at least 

once or twice? 

Mr. MURPHY and General MILLEY. Yes. Of the personnel selected by involuntary 

separation boards, approximately 95 percent have deployed at least once for 30 days 

or greater. This includes over 500 Captains and 260 Majors with more than 18 

months deployment time. We are committed to treating every Soldier with dignity 

and respect, recognizing their service and sacrifice. 

3. Senator AYOTTE. Secretary Murphy and General Milley: Will you continue to 

do everything in your power to minimize the use of involuntary separations for wellpreforming service members—especially those not eligible for retirement? 

Mr. MURPHY and General MILLEY. Yes. The Army uses an iterative, systematic, 

and flexible personnel drawdown plan to achieve future force structure requirements. Involuntary separations are only used sparingly and as necessary to supplement routine attrition to achieve targeted endstrength goals and timelines. 

4. Senator AYOTTE. Secretary Murphy and General Milley: Will you let me and 

my staff know if there is anything I could do to assist you in that effort? 

Mr. MURPHY and General MILLEY. At this time, we believe we have all of the necessary authorities to execute the drawdown, however, we will engage with you and 

your staff if future needs arise. 

5. Senator AYOTTE. Secretary Murphy and General Milley: Do you commit to fully 

complying with section 592 of the FY2016 NDAA? 

Mr. MURPHY and General MILLEY. Yes, the Army continues to be in compliance 

with the reporting requirements of Section 592 of the FY16 NDAA and commits to 

remaining so. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS

COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS

6. Senator SESSIONS. Secretary Mabus and Secretary Murphy, if it is demonstrated by objective data that this new policy lessens the combat effectiveness of 

our combat forces in any way, will you amend this new policy? 

Secretary MABUS. Every decision I make is in support of maximizing combat effectiveness. The Department of the Navy is committed to sustaining and improving 

combat effectiveness through systematic application of standards. As part of its recent study, the Marine Corps established standards required to maintain combat effectiveness; therefore, anyone who meets those standards will—by definition—maintain or enhance combat effectiveness. The Department’s ability to put the best and 

most capable Sailors and Marines in the military occupations for which they are 

most qualified increases the overall combat readiness of our force. Integration of 

women in our military has enhanced combat effectiveness by running convoys and 

security patrols, flying close air support missions, leading engineering platoons. 

They have performed exceptionally on the front lines in places like Fallujah, Ramadi 

and Sangin. As we access women into newly opened positions we will continue to 

97 

carefully evaluate—as we always do—the combat effectiveness of our forces and 

make decisions that best support our Sailors and Marines. 

Secretary MURPHY The Army is committed to maintaining and enforcing rigorous 

combat readiness standards. We anticipate that the full integration of women will 

maintain or improve the Army’s overall readiness. The Army cannot compromise 

combat readiness and effectiveness for any reason whatsoever. Our Army leaders 

will continue to assess and ensure that our standards in combat readiness are maintained. If at any time we see combat effectiveness or readiness decline or deteriorate 

by objective data then we will advise the Secretary of Defense and this committee 

and provide our recommendations on any policy changes required. 

COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS

7. Senator SESSIONS. General Milley and General Neller, in your professional military judgment, will this new policy improve the combat effectiveness (i.e., Lethality) 

of our forces? 

General MILLEY. Yes. We believe the full integration of women in all career fields 

will maintain, sustain, or improve the overall readiness of the United States Army 

and the capability of our force, if, and only if, we maintain and enforce rigorous combat readiness standards. We remain a standards- and merit-based, results-oriented 

organization, and we apply no quotas. 

General NELLER. The combat readiness and effectiveness of our force is always 

our principal area of focus. As with any new policy, it would be premature to make 

a prediction regarding its outcome. We believe we have an appropriate overarching 

plan in place to both implement the new integration policy and, equally important, 

assess the effects of integration, especially regarding future combat effectiveness. 

We will be prepared going forward to provide more detailed data regarding the effects of this new policy on combat effectiveness, whether positive or negative. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KIRSTIN GILLIBRAND

RECRUITMENT

8. Senator GILLIBRAND. General Milley and General Neller, now that we have 

opened up combat positions to women, we must turn our attention toward ensuring 

that women are successful in these positions. One way to reach this goal is to improve our recruitment strategies for women by targeting those that are most likely 

to meet the rigorous demands of combat positions, such as the captain of the lacrosse or rugby team. Has your service developed a targeted strategy for identifying 

and recruiting the best women for combat MOSs? 

General MILLEY. Opening up all positions provides opportunity and access for top 

talent who meet the standards. Now with OSD approval of our implementation 

plan, we have initiated a deliberate and methodical approach to identify and recruit 

the very best. 

General NELLER. The Marine Corps attracts and recruits the best qualified and 

eligible individuals in order to meet Total Force manpower requirements. In keeping 

with our ethos of ‘‘every Marine a rifleman,’’ all Marines, both enlisted and officer, 

male and female, have been trained in basic infantry tactics for many years. Therefore, we believe our current recruiting and advertising methods will yield high quality women who are eligible to serve in combat arms MOS’s. The Marine Corps continues to partner with the Women Basketball Coaches Association, the Female 

Coaches Leadership Workshop, and female leadership forums at our annual Summer Leadership and Character Development Academy. Additionally, we conduct 

twelve workshops annually at each of our Recruit Depots to provide educators, 

coaches, and key influencers an opportunity to immerse themselves in Marine culture. Similarly, at the college/university-level, influencers come to Quantico, Virginia to learn about officer opportunities. Finally, we will continue to use current 

research and assessment data to actively monitor propensity and other market indicators that shape future advertising initiatives to reach female population groups, 

and to plan and execute advertising initiatives to spread awareness of Marine Corps 

opportunities to female audiences. Examples of this include: updated digital and 

web properties to reflect new female opportunities, plans to execute a female web/ 

digital campaign, and to create a female Marine enlisted brochure. 

INTEGRATED BASIC TRAINING

9. Senator GILLIBRAND. General Neller, the Marine Corps is the only service to 

conduct segregated basic training for recruits. What are the plans to integrate basic 

training in order to better prepare women for full participation in the Corps, along 

98 

with their male counterparts and to prepare their male counterparts to serve alongside them? 

General NELLER. The Marine Corps is currently executing the Marine Corps Integration Implementation Plan (MCIIP) in response to SECDEF direction to integrate 

all Military Occupational Specialties (MOS’s) without exception as soon as practical 

after 2 Jan 2016 but no later than 1 Apr 2016. Under the guidance of the 

DEPSECDEF and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their Implementation Group, the Marine Corps must ensure that implementation is pursued with the 

clear objective of improved force effectiveness. Implementation must also delineate 

transparent standards, consider the effect of a small female population, contemplate 

the physical demands and physiological differences between men and women, examine the conduct and culture as it exists and how it will change, ensure best practices 

in talent management, consider the ability to operate abroad, and assess and make 

in-stride adjustments as necessary. 

On 14 Jan 2016, SECNAV was briefed on the current methodology of gender integration at Marine Corps Recruit Depots and Officer Candidates School; specific 

points of integration in training were identified, as were the areas where training 

is separate and how that approach contributes to the development of Marines, and 

how the Marine Corps has and will continue to evaluate the best ways to train Marines in execution of the integration plan. In a Memorandum for the Commandant 

of the Marine Corps dated 29 Jan 16, SECNAV stated that the Marine Corps has 

fully met the requirements of his 1 Jan 2016 memo regarding integration of basic 

training. 

As always, the Marine Corps will continue to evaluate its entry level training 

process to ensure we produce the nation’s finest Marines. 

10. Senator GILLIBRAND. General Neller, what is the timeline for integrating basic 

training for recruits? 

General NELLER. The Marine Corps has not set a timeline for further integrating 

recruit training, but we always assess our processes to ensure we continue to 

produce the nation’s finest Marines. Currently, 61 percent of our recruit training is 

integrated, but all training is conducted using a common 70-day program of instruction for all recruits. We believe the areas where we separate men and women in 

the early days of recruit training provide a significant benefit which allows individuals to better deal with the initial adjustment to military life and provides leaders/ 

mentors of the same gender to assist this transition. 

11. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Mabus, what benefits have you seen in the 

Navy from men and women training side-by-side? 

Secretary MABUS. From day one, Sailors serve in environments that have men 

and women serving together. Immediately, they begin to establish the unit cohesion 

integral to mission accomplishment. Starting everyone in this environment ensures 

a diversity of perspectives is established initially and eases the transition from 

training to an operational environment. The training environment mirrors the operational environment, enhancing teamwork, camaraderie, and combat effectiveness. 

INTEGRATION STRATEGY

12. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Mabus, what lessons can we learn from the 

Navy in integrating women into combat roles? 

Secretary MABUS. Navy has successfully integrated women into aviation, surface 

ships, submarines, and riverine forces, as well as other small, high-risk operations 

teams, such as Explosive Ordnance Disposal and Navy Divers. We know how to integrate—it starts on day one of training with leadership reinforcement of team 

building behaviors. Several lessons from years of successful integration have revealed that leadership, transparency, enforcing consistent standards for both men 

and women, and professionalism are keys to successful integration. Four key lessons: 

• Female Sailors want to be held to the same occupational and performance 

standards. 

• Female Sailors perform better when there are female service members in a peer 

group or present in the training or leadership cadre to provide support and 

interaction among Sailors and with other leaders (instructors, officers, and chief 

petty officers). 

• As recently seen in the Submarine Force, when female service members are assigned to previously male-only occupations or commands, male service members’ 

initial concerns about integration are dispelled after they have an opportunity 

to train and work together. Additionally, Navy has found top-down leadership 

99 

is key to ensuring junior enlisted Sailors and leadership receive a strong, consistent message of support for female integration from their commanding officers and other senior leaders. • It is important to keep in mind factors that can affect how quickly females will 

access into previously male-only occupations, especially at the senior levels. Due 

to the training requirements, technical nature of the roles, and the timeline for 

leadership development, it typically takes 15–20 years from the time an officer 

receives a commission to the time she or he becomes a senior officer. 

13. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Mabus, what strategies has the Navy found 

successful in integrating women into combat roles? 

Secretary MABUS. Navy has successfully integrated women into aviation, surface 

ships, submarines, and riverine forces, as well as other small, high-risk operations 

teams, such as Explosive Ordnance Disposal and Navy Divers. We know how to integrate—it starts on day one of training with leadership reinforcement of team 

building behaviors. Navy has found the following strategies to be successful in integrating women into combat roles: Top-down leadership, transparency, enforcing consistent standards for both men and women, developing female peer group(s), professionalism, and ensuring formalized implementation plans address areas of concern, 

mitigating factors, and milestones with regular assessments and adjustments as 

necessary. 

14. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Mabus, Secretary Murphy, General Milley, and 

General Neller, women are currently underrepresented among general officers. 

What kind of message does that send to our service women? 

Secretary MABUS. The composition of the current generation of flag and general 

officers starkly portrays to all service members how opportunity was limited when 

the occupations and assignments critical for selection to the most senior leadership 

positions were closed to women. This is one of the reasons I strongly support the 

Secretary of Defense decision to open all military occupational specialties and positions, regardless of gender. It is important to keep in mind factors that can affect 

how quickly females will access into previously male-only occupations, especially at 

the senior levels. Due to the training requirements, technical nature of the roles, 

and the timeline for leadership development, it typically takes 15–20 years from the 

time an officer receives a commission to the time she or he becomes a senior officer. 

The Services will continue to apply validated operationally-relevant and objective 

standards for all career fields. The Department of the Navy is committed to building 

a force representative of the nation it defends. 

Secretary MURPHY and General MILLEY. The Army has 57 female general officers 

in the Total Force to include five three-star generals on active duty. The opening 

of infantry and armor will provide a greater opportunity for women to become general officers, since 83 percent of our currently serving four-star generals came from 

infantry or armor branches. 

General NELLER. In 2015, two of 92 active and reserve Marine Corps general officers are female. Female officers tend to retire or otherwise voluntarily exit the Marine Corps sooner than their male counterparts, well before encountering opportunities that would put them on the path to general officer. Those female officers who 

decide to remain in the Marine Corps are as competitive as their male peers for promotions and command opportunities. The Marine Corps is dedicated to better understanding retention challenges for female officers in an effort to increase senior female officer representation. 

15. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Mabus, Secretary Murphy, General Milley, and 

General Neller, what are you going to do to ensure that women can achieve leadership roles? 

Secretary MABUS. The Department of the Navy ensures that all Sailors and Marines, regardless of gender, receive the finest training and preparation for challenging and rewarding opportunities and assignments that make them competitive 

for senior leadership roles. Secretary Carter’s recent decision creates even more opportunities to compete for command and leadership billets within newly-opened occupations and units. The Department of the Navy is committed to building a force 

representative of the nation it defends. 

Secretary MURPHY and General MILLEY. With the opening of combat arms, the 

Army remains committed to all those who can meet the standard being given the 

opportunity to achieve their full potential, regardless of gender. We remain a meritbased, results-oriented organization. 

General NELLER. Female Marines are, and have been, leaders throughout the Marine Corps. We currently have three Colonel and 13 Lieutenant Colonel females in 

100 

command of units across our Corps. Secretary Carter’s recent decision creates future 

opportunities for female Marines to compete for additional command and leadership 

billets within newly-opened ground combat MOSs and units. Furthermore, we are 

improving our talent management practices to ensure the best career paths for all 

Marines. We are also taking this opportunity to address unconscious bias, dispel 

misconceptions and ensure full understanding of my expectations for inclusion and 

respect of all Marines via an Integration Education Plan that will be executed 

across the entire Corps. In combination, I expect all these factors to further facilitate female Marines in leadership roles. 

16. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Mabus, Secretary Murphy, General Milley, and 

General Neller, what plan do you have to incorporate women into officer positions? 

Secretary MABUS. The Department of the Navy is committed to implementing progressive reform proposals to keep the military competitive and enhance force readiness while removing barriers to maintaining and strengthening our nation’s NavyMarine Corps warfighting team. The plan to incorporate women into officer positions includes evaluation of the training and education that we provide at every 

level, from recruits and officer candidates to the highest levels of leadership. Recruiting, retaining, and advancing talented women is paramount while maintaining 

adherence to operationally-relevant and objective standards. 

Secretary MURPHY and General MILLEY. Our plan is based on a ‘‘leaders first’’ 

strategy. To ensure success, we will follow a deliberate and methodical approach 

that begins with the assessment, selection, training, and assignment of female infantry and armor leaders, both officers and NCOs. Once that leadership is in place, 

we will begin the assignment of junior enlisted Soldiers. 

General NELLER. Currently 7.1 percent of our Active Component officer population 

is female. Since 2009, the accession of female officers has increased, reaching 11.6 

percent in 2014. It is projected to be 10 percent this year. It is critical to understand 

that the propensity for women to choose the Marine Corps is low compared to the 

other Services. Fear of serious injury or death is the most often stated reason for 

not wanting to join the military for women ages 16–21. Beyond a low propensity 

to join the Marine Corps, we understand that retention of our female officers is a 

challenge. Addressing the fact that female officers exit the Marine Corps sooner 

than their male counterparts due to injury, other career opportunities, or family reasons is a component of my talent management strategy. 

17. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Mabus, Secretary Murphy, General Milley, and 

General Neller, are you considering mentorship programs to help with women’s career progression and retention? 

Secretary MABUS. Department of the Navy encourages participation in professional networking groups such as Lean-In Circles and leadership symposiums for 

women. Additionally, current unit mentoring programs enhance career development 

and improve retention. We continuously seek ways to improve mentorship, job satisfaction, career development, and retention of Sailors and Marines, regardless of gender. 

Secretary MURPHY and General MILLEY. Yes. Our ‘‘leaders first’’ strategy relies 

on mentorship from both male and female leaders. All Army leaders are expected 

to mentor their junior officers and enlisted Soldiers. Leadership is critical to integration. We will enable our leaders with a comprehensive and deliberate education plan 

to enhance our integration efforts and ensure our future combat arms women will 

have the opportunity to successfully compete and progress in their career fields. 

General NELLER. Marine Corps Order 1500.58 MARINE CORPS MENTORING 

PROGRAM (MCMP) establishes the policy, format, and guidelines to formalize previously informal relationships to help Marine leaders improve their ability to interact with their Marines on a personal and professional level. The MCMP provides 

the tools to help Marines to set goals to improve individual and team performance, 

and closely replicate at home station the relationships forged between Marines and 

leaders in combat. This construct remains in place and is an integral part of our 

‘‘Integration Education Plan.’’ 

RETENTION

18. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Murphy and Secretary Mabus, I’m also very 

interested in ensuring that, once we recruit these high-quality women, we retain 

them. Policies that support families, such as paid family leave, are key to showing 

women that the military can be a viable career for them. I believe our service members should be afforded the same leave policies that civilians have, and I was 

thrilled when, last week, Secretary Carter announced that all women could receive 

101 

12 weeks of maternity leave. However, there is still more to be done, such as providing leave for service members caring for a sick family member and extending 

leave for fathers and adoptive parents. Are you committed to policies such as paid 

family leave that support not just our women, but also our men in service and what 

are your services plans to implement these policies? 

Secretary MURPHY. Yes, I am committed to supporting all Army families. All Soldiers currently earn 30 days of paid leave annually. In addition to the recently announced 12 weeks maternity leave, Secretary Carter announced that he would seek 

Congressional authorities to expand paternity leave to 14 days. 

Secretary MABUS. As our nation continues to draw upon the great talents of our 

Sailors and Marines, we are bound to create an environment that provides the flexibility needed to retain our highly trained and skilled workforce. Important characteristics of this environment are policies that support our service members and their 

families. The Department of the Navy (DON) introduced several initiatives to support work-life balance, including extended maternity leave for new mothers, expansion of child care development center operating hours, and strengthening dual-military co-location. The Department of Defense also intends to seek to expand paternity leave to 14 days and to expand adoption leave. The DON has advocated for department wide authorities in these efforts. 

SOCOM

19. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Murphy and Secretary Mabus, the plan submitted by Special Operations Command to Secretary Carter asserts that recruiting, 

assessing, and training special operators is the responsibility of the components and 

the Services. Does your plan describe how you will recruit, assess, and train service 

women into special operations career fields? 

Secretary MURPHY. Yes. The plan includes how the Army will recruit, assess, and 

train service women into special operations career fields. The Army and USSOCOM 

have closely coordinated over the past 3 years and all required actions have been 

or are being implemented. Active recruitment has begun upon our release of the 

Army execute order, following Secretary of Defense’s approval of our implementation 

plan. 

Secretary MABUS. Yes; recruiting, accession and training will ensure that each 

candidate meets validated, operationally-relevant, gender neutral standards for selection and assessment in training pipeline courses to qualify in Naval Special Warfare/Operations and United States Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) career fields. 

20. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Murphy and Secretary Mabus, can you describe the timing of your efforts to recruit, assess, and train female special operators? 

Secretary MURPHY. The Army is prepared to recruit, assess, and train female special operators. Active recruitment has begun upon our release of the Army execute 

order, which has followed Secretary of Defense’s approval of our implementation 

plan. 

Secretary MABUS. We are actively engaging with potential candidates who are interested in the program. Candidates undergo some of the most mentally challenging 

and physically demanding training in the world. Training routinely exceeds 43 

weeks from entry into Naval Special Warfare Preparatory School until entry into 

Sea Air Land (SEAL) Qualification Training, which is designed to provide candidates with the core tactical knowledge needed to join a SEAL platoon. 

Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) is actively screening female Marines who volunteer for Assessment and Selection (A&S). The next A&S is scheduled 

to begin in August 2016 and is rapidly filling with qualified candidates. Upon selection at A&S, the female selectees will be slated for attendance at the Individual 

Training Course which is scheduled to commence in January 2017. 

Æ