like to welcome everybody who's here. Without objection the chair may declare recess at any time. And without objection, we are honored to have the representative waltz of Florida. Wave onto the subcommittee. He's got a lot of military experience for the purpose of questioning the witnesses at today's subcommittee hearing. I recognize myself for the purpose of making opening statement. Good morning. Welcome, everyone. This hearing for the Subcommittee on national security board and foreign affairs. Today's hearing is the risk of aggressive ideologies and US military. I want express gratitude for witnesses for being here. It's my sincere hope that this hearing provides a platform for constructive dialogue on the issues that face today's military. The questions we need to address today are not about not just about readiness with military personnel system, but how ideological concerns and debates within civil society are important Into an Impact militaries have to recruit train and especially operate effectively in a dynamic environment. The term opens has become a topic of discussion both within and outside military circles, is prompting us to scrutinize ideological shifts may impact the readiness and effectiveness of the armed forces, as well as how our military is affected once they begin to adapt. This type of ideology is grappling with the ministrations social experiments of getting ready principles diversity, equity inclusion, or what's referred to as di into the ranks, Pentagon often fail to recognize the financial burdens placed on taxpayers, di managers $180,000 a year which in my mind sends a message that the department has recently requested 114 line for diversity initiatives or the President's fiscal 2024 budget request. Unbelievable. To be clear, acknowledging the various experiences of our service members may have the potential to enhance our overall strength resilience as a nation in fight force. At the other day, our differences must yield to what we have common duty to protect the American freedoms they held dear. I have concerns about how the DNI bureaucracy implements its framework within the military. Not to mention I think that the AI framework is not something that's even necessarily true. By unnecessarily divides people into that building up for building up cohesion. It has the potential harm unit cohesion and undermine your sailors effectiveness between this Undersecretary of Defense being incapacitated for several days and not telling anyone shows a concern about the seriousness with which the Biden ministration leads are unfortunate to be to understand the influence of progressive ideologies on military policy, and whether whether progressive progressive ideologies are even true. We need to understand the extent to which ideological considerations are shaping decision making processes our armed services have long been invested in meritocracy, whereas individuals or individuals are promoted based on their skills, competence and dedication to duty. It's crucial to examine whether the emphasis on an ideological framework is affecting the core principles of a merit based military. Furthermore, I think it's important to examine whether this D ideology is factually true or whether it just serves to divide Americans in today's hearing, we seem to understand the implications of these ideological shifts on military readiness and effectiveness. Our witnesses will provide insight and how these ideologies may influence training, operational procedures and overall cohesiveness of our military units. This hearing is an examination of ideological considerations. Even well intentioned ones, erode the fundamental principles that historically defined our military and ensured unit cohesion, force readiness. And throughout our history, our military understand that we are fighting for the greatest country in the world. And I think all of our soldiers and sailors won't understand that. Our focus is to ensure that our military means a beacon of excellence while adapting to evolving needs of our nation and threats we face our adversaries. It's about leveraging the full spectrum of talent within our nation for the cohesive strength of our services. Thank you again for appearing here today and I look forward to discussions of today's hearing. I now recognize Ranking Member Garcia for the purpose of making his opening statement
like he was chairman. And to be honest, I'm a bit dismayed disappointed to be here at this hearing today. Back in March we'll be hearing called ensuring force readiness examining progress business impact on all volunteer military, and back in in March, I will just meet the majority chose to ignore what I believe are the root causes and challenges. We're facing recruitment retention here on services, such as the need for improve medical support for service members to continue to implement the INS again activity to crackdown on sexual violence. The need for reliable affordable childcare for more fighters were deployed in moment's notice, and so much more, especially when our economy is being driven over the jobs in the private sector. And our military has to compete for top talent now didn't have ensure that sexual assault mental health care, affordable childcare, or all wheel factors affect military recruitment retention. And readiness training, many of us stresses recruitment, most recruitment most diverse in recent history. We also have military that looks like America has military which is not about bigotry with these ranks. But they also found that attacks on military leaders and family hardships may be significant factors in dissuading otherwise whenever young people to pursue military careers and of course depriving our country of incredible talent. The idea that, quote, witness is a top national security threat did not make any sense. Then it does not make any sense today. It makes even less sense now, given the world that we face. I believe an overemphasis on his far right talking point is what inspires entertaining to reveal too much is unprecedented blockaded military officer promotions. Now Senator Timberlake intentionally blocked with the 400 General invite officers within the DOD present automation and promotion. Even more than that officers lost opportunity to rise in rank with massive impact on factors such as retention pay attention and future opportunities. The standard far, far more to undermine our military readiness and anything else. It's like asking Anders consent to interrupt entered into the record once again, the letter I sent calling for a hearing on securing applications of Senators blockade military promotions into the record. Thank you, sir. And I can really understand why we're also holding a second hearing on this topic, when we could be working on a bipartisan way to address real challenges to our national security. And for Chairman, thank you for bipartisan work on it with the disclosure dome. I think that's a kind of bipartisan effort that should be working on today. We'll also be talking about a real national security threats our allies and Ukrainian aid we do support Taiwan and provide a course the Middle East that we could hold hearings against and evidence to Michigan Americans a boost managed security at minimal cost and highlight our as a part democracy and freedom against the brutal aggressions. We can even show how to create a directly benefit communities all across our country who benefit from investment in jobs and drive how these investments will pull the necessary in the long term. But instead, we're holding to crane and other crucial foreign aid hostage. Instead meander to be able to bring back into detention for children at the border, different Catholic Charities and indirect asylum looking back at impacts for national security. Some also appear to be using who's talking points they want to sell our allies and partners for destruction of course around issues around the border saying we don't want to support security actions. And one of our commercial colleagues even said the quiet part out loud and I'll quote, let me tell you, I'm not willing to do anything right now to have a Democrat or to help Joe Biden's approval ratings. That's not the type of bipartisan work that we need on this issue. And yet here we are investigating wokeness now it's not working as threatening national security, whatever that word actually means. The real threat for security is a far right extreme construction of dysfunction. And culture works tense is here to give disappointing before to working with our chairman and hopefully bipartisan solutions. I yield back.
I'm pleased to introduce our witnesses today. Our first witness is well Tebow, director of the American military project at the wonderful Claremont Institute, where he works on analyzing institutional integrity the US military, he also has experience serving in Iraq in the 75th Ranger Regiment to meter and county executive officer company executive officer actually witnesses net Lohmeyer former US fighter pilot former commander with US Space Force. He's also a best selling author and consultant on defense related issues. Our final witness is tied to Julie and retired US Army breeder gentlemen Professor of History at the US Military Academy. He's also a visiting professor at the Hamilton College and 2021 Secretary defense Lloyd Austin appointed him to the National Commission on base renaming. I welcome each of you here today. And look forward to your testimony. Pursuant to committee rule nine G the witness will have the witnesses please stand Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? So help you God? Let the record show all the witnesses answered the affirmative. Thank you. Can you take your seat? We appreciate you being here today and afford your testimony. They'll remind the witnesses and they read your written statements and will appear in full in the hearing record, please limit your oral statement to five minutes. As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of you so that when it is on, the members can hear you when you begin to speak in front of you will turn green after four minutes the light will turn yellow which means you have one minute left when the red light comes on. Your five minutes have expired and we ask you to wrap up as quickly as possible. I now recognize Mr. Tebow for your opening statement.
Good morning, Chairman Grossman. Ranking Member Garcia my fellow member of the Central subcommittee, my fellow panelists, it's my contention that the military must only consider factors of personnel programs and policy that genuinely better the Armed Forces ability to fight and win our nation's wars. Merit must not be the first consideration for this analysis of the exclusive lens through which elected officials and military leaders make these kinds of decisions. Diversity is an ideology that exists in our social mores is something that the military must embrace. As a point of fact as a principle, as opposed to just a byproduct of selecting the best people for the job. It's as if the Armed Forces marched to the beat of a corporate or university drum. In reality, though the existence of a professional permanent standing military demands that the institution exist apart from ideologies and politics prevalent in modern modern day America, regardless of their local affiliation, and therefore the military must balance function considerations again, there's capabilities required to fight win wars with social considerations or those political ideological realities which define American life for the rest of us. Increasingly though, objective military professionalism is now seen as one factor among many that allow leaders to quote comprehensively evaluate a person's system or policy. This of course, being a euphemism for any characteristics like race or sex. This programmatic of consideration for recruitment consideration of these new characteristics is toxic because it redefines the concept of merit based standards. When diversity goals exist for military units with service academies standards become minimum expectations to meet before fully evaluating other parts of the participants career or life standards are no longer how the military selects the best based on an order of merit list, but just how you get in the door. The mere factor of political considerations outside military competence demands that human characteristics one does not choose about themselves, become prickle filters for military decisions. consideration for diversity is one market the blend that the industry and Sam Huntington military mind made with the hallmarks of a society that are built on different ideals than that which makes military successful. Despite the Army's current recruiting status living the military is not a place where you can be all you can be instead it's.
A time of service and career for our nation where one gives all there is to give no matter the cost. Our military is filled with men and women who live by this principle.
Leads to members of the United States.
It should be a time of service and a career for our nation where one gives all there is to give no matter the cost. Our military is filled with men and women who live by this principle. But our policies and slogans should reflect this ethic of service. At stake, though, is much more than the relative quality of military units. The integrity of our Republic is in tension with a military that evaluates matters of politics and identity. When standards become minimum expectations, they are not markers of achievement to select the best and other sectors of society the consequences of shirking the exclusivity of merit amount to a bad hire in the finance department or or the wrong university president. Maybe a missed revenue predicts projection that last fiscal quarter but the military is and should be different. History is littered with examples of militaries whose consideration of political ideology precipitated a collapse in military professionalism led to defeat on the battlefield and all of which served as a precursor to the collapse of those nations. America should not wait to find out if we can outrun the drumbeat of such history. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to the conversation.
Thank you, Mr. Lamar.
Good morning, my name is Matt Lumiere and I'm an Air Force Academy graduate, former fftc fighter pilot and was Lieutenant Colonel and commander in Space Force, and 2021. I was fired from my command for writing a book trying to reverse the trend of the overt politicization of the Uniformed Services. Specifically, I criticized the military's diversity equity inclusion trainings which at my own base were illegally occurring despite an executive order from the commander in chief the Diversity Equity inclusion industry is steeped in critical race theory and is rooted in anti American Marxist ideology. I watched the trainings divide our troops ideologically and in some cases sow the seeds of animosity toward the very country they had sworn an oath to defend. Before writing that book, I submitted a formal written complaint to the Space Force Inspector General's Office detailing that such violations were occurring including illegal race based discrimination, but my complaint was never investigated, and was later dismissed by then Lieutenant General Stephen Whiting and the Senate just confirmed for sportstar. After two months, I received a written dismissal of my complaint from general reading. Personally, I have always advocated for a non political military work environment. Today I'm here to testify about the ongoing Marxist inspired efforts to subvert and weaken our military in broader American society. We often refer to these efforts as work ism, but it is also a cultural word. In this committee, there are differing views about whether there is such a thing as a culture, we're underway. Some members of this committee have been outspoken critics of Ei initiatives to include CRT directions on military bases, trans activism, LGBTQ pride, celebrations, and what military recruiting video is all things that are visible components of an ongoing culture war, Ranking Member Garcia as he just mentioned, on the other hand, and sorted as recently as two weeks ago, says that the culture wars are quote unquote phony, and are merely a political talking point Republicans. It's nothing if not incredible for a member of this subcommittee to assert that culture wars were phony, while another member who's not present at the moment of this committee is a member of a so called progressive squad was herself a Black Lives Matter organizer and activist, an organization whose publicly about ideology has Marxism and his activist ambition is social and cultural revolution. servicemembers who wear the uniform of our country do not want to see these things in a military workplace. They want to see them at the bases in most cases, this is true regardless of their race or their political worldview. Despite that reality, Pentagon officials requested 100 $40 million to expand with diversity initiatives in fiscal year 2024 double what has been the previous two years. There are a few things taxpayer such as myself feel less essential for the mission of the United States military than expanding diversity mandate to the doctor nation. And now important point, such aggressively opposed ideological worldviews competing for institutionalization through policy epitomizes and formalizes what is properly termed a culture war. The fact that these debates now in fact, the US military workplace is offensive to people like me, who love their country and all people regardless of their race, gender, sexual preference or background. I'd like to briefly draw attention to two of a handful of exhibits I've submitted for the Committee's review and for entering into the official record of today's hearing. The first is a 100 page document which includes real world unsolicited feedback for military service members. I submit it for the record because it's been even a few minutes but the document is to get a sense for how di trainings are hurting morale, dividing in distracting troops disincentivizing Americans from service and registering recruiting retention efforts. The second is a letter signed by 185 retired gentleman flag officers previously sent to leaders in the House which they did, in fact receive despite their warning about the size of its impacts in the military, workplace and the request for Congress to end funding for all such initiatives. The Congress ultimately did not use its power to put an end to the funding the recently approved NDAA thank you for those of you who by the way, we try to introduce legislation and then amended we sent that letter raised Morning boys and tried their best to respectfully influenced our nation's lawmakers. I said in my book back in 2021, that if we did not abandon diversity, inclusion trainings, then we would see an unprecedented recruitment, then we would see unprecedented recruitment and retention woes. That has been true and we've seen as a nation that it is not getting any better, hence the need for a hearing like this. I also said that unless we abandon our present hateful and divisive path and repent as a nation, we will destroy ourselves and I regret from that view here today. I'm grateful to answer any questions that the subcommittee may have. Thank you.
Chairman Robin, and ranking ranking member, committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak the committee. I served in the US Army for 36 years. My wife is an Air Force brat daughter to fighter pilot during her career, she supported families in peace and war for that entire time. We did an already hosted one at base raised our two boys, my son Peter, who's with me today serving the First Cavalry Division. We are an Army family for life. I have three points to make today. First, the United States Armed Forces are the best in the world because we reflect and represent the great country and world. Diversity is the military strength, because diversity is America's strength. Second, the military makes significant social changes primarily when Congress demands it. When President Truman ordered the military to desegregate in 1948 it didn't really happen until the 1970s. When Congress demanded the military reacts to Congress, not the other way. Around. Third, the military's half century commitment equal opportunity and diversity has created a more lethal, effective and cohesive force in 1971. The military was falling apart. Race relations were at its Nadir and drug use at its peak. Over the next 20 years. DOD instituted and internalize a culture of diversity that transformed the military diversity has worked for over 50 years. The last half of my career I taught history at West Point and studied the history of army back I brought for both the chair and ranking that West Point history the civil war that we wrote, while I was there, in 1948, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981, integrating the US military, it couldn't go through Congress because segregationist bloc civil rights legislation, without laws and military slow road integration, the last set of segregated military unit disbanded in 1954. In 1963 10, States still had zero black National Guardsmen. As late as 1969, Mississippi had one black National Guardsmen not 1% One in the 1960s. The army had 3% black officers and the Navy in the Marine Corps point 2% Black service members could not rent houses outside some basis, the children of black servicemembers still went to segregated schools as late as 1969. By the early 1970s, the effect of the Vietnam War, drug use and racial prejudice had created a broken military, the quote unquote race problem threaten our ability to defend the nation. In 1971. senior civilian leaders created the defense Race Relations Institute, they mandated race relations training for the entire force, recruiting for the all volunteer force force to the military to integrate and to try to solve the race problem. It worked imperfectly. Less than 20 years after the defeat in Vietnam, the US military shined again in 1991. during Desert Storm, we destroyed the fourth largest army in the world in days and that army had 31% African American NCOs the success of equal opportunity policy saved us after the defeat Vietnam created the all volunteer force and led us to victory. I know I commanded a diverse cavalry troop in the 82nd Airborne Division during the Gulf War. By of all women weren't allowed to serve in tank infantry and cavalry regiments for most of my career is just unAmerican and ineffective when the army deploys it bites on land and landed 8 million people reside on land. 51% of them are women. We must have women in the force and all ranks and what's going on top Cadet was unable to follow her dream to be an instrument while she was a Rhodes Scholar the combat exclusion ended. She rearranged infantry graduated for Ranger School and commanded an infantry company. She was the toughest brightest Cadet I met in 20 years. When I commanded a battalion we suffered under don't ask don't tell a policy that for servicemembers to lie. A friend deployed to Iraq. Her partner and their children could not access military facilities. No commissary, no health care, no childcare now because Congress ended Don't Ask Don't Tell. We have another proud military family. In both my experience and my study of history, diversity policies Equal Opportunity policies are neither progressive nor political. They are proven national defense strategies that have made our military more effective in our country safer for over 50 years. Thank you again for allowing me to join you today in the people's house.
is no program in the military have you seen?
Promoting Israel Omar wants to jump in he can as well. Have you seen people promoted or more lead into the military academies? Who are not the most meritorious because of this dei ideology? So, you know, I
never impugn someone's promotion or their selection I take, you know, the person that wears the uniform with the integrity that it comes with. But what is problematic is when West Point for example, has racial goals for every admissions class, and admissions leaders are evaluated whether or not they meet race, race based goals. I don't know what the difference is between a goal and a quota. To me, we should be we should do more to perhaps promote cohesive teams without implementing a personnel system, that that again alters the nature of how merit defines personnel policy.
Does this ideology create a mindset in which people view themselves as members of a subgroup or identify based upon where their grandparents or great grandparents were born? Perhaps,
you know, when I was in the army, just you know, a few years ago, we got training on on our conduct and how it was unacceptable to harass someone to harm someone. And it seems there are some examples where there is now training on on what you believe and and how how you could you get in
trouble by a bully pushing an ideology based on merit would that be a check against you you think in the military today? You know, Oh, my I wrote a book on it.
Yeah, yeah. I think you know, he he'd be better suited to speak on this, but I know there is I've heard from a number of, you know, friends and folks who want to speak out that there is a pervasive concern about speaking out for the genuine integrity of merit as the foundation for military
and everything, talked to somebody who wanted to leave the military, because it's ideology we're gonna Mr. Lohmeyer. You feel promotional decisions are being made primarily on diversity as opposed to pure merit in today's military.
I do not think that promotion decisions are being made, writ large, based on solely diversity of for the purposes of diversity. I think that we've got tremendous leaders in the military overall, I think that we still care a great deal about merit and that these policies that we're going to discuss today, however, do muddy the waters and we do establish quotas. I'm gonna provide one example that we'll just commented on that I experienced while I was in command and SpaceForce. I had young people, underrepresented groups, that means non white, coming to me and expressing their dismay, and what was the word that the ranking member use disappointment that they could no longer tell themselves? I don't know what their political affiliation was. I don't know what their religious worldview was. I do know what their ethnicity was. And they came to me expressing their disappointment that hey, look, my entire career. I've been promoted based on my skill, my ability to execute a mission and I'm not sure moving forward whether or not I'll be able to tell if I was promoted, based on the way I look, my accidentals, and I can provide a lot of examples of that kind of thing going on. It can also tell you that we've had a failed pilot training experiment. As recently as last year, the American pilot training class, it was in 2021, actually, in which we chose those selected for that pilot training class in Texas based on their gender and their ethnicity, so that we can make the pilot training class look more like the United States of America that didn't turn out well. And so we should look into that as well, but pretty clearly see what didn't turn out well. performance suffered. And that's that's the point I as an instructor pilot in t 38. I trained young men and women, from our allied partners and from foreign militaries like the general here I served with foreign militaries. I did an exchange for the People's Liberation Army Air Force Academy, in trying to in China, when we still did that and I'll tell you, we do have the best military on the earth. It's because there's a naturally occurring diversity in the Defense Department, especially that we allow in a merit based selection system, promotion system and so forth so that the best can be placed in these various positions that we hope they will use to execute a mission in defense of our country.
Thank you. Okay, Mr. Garcia.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, everybody, for being here. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us today. Appreciate your testimony, and especially in a minute, thank you for the decades of service across our nation. I'm gonna start by just getting a few facts out of the way quickly. I'm sure anybody saw the Billy Oppenheimer which was material over the years mainly with the Red Scare, and obviously you as a historian also familiar with the Army McCarthy hearings, which seemed to be replayed over and over getting in this house. I'm disappointed some of my colleagues also seem to want to replay those hearings in the scare tactics. But since you're here, I want to ask you very clearly is the military being destroyed by Marxist ideology? No, it's not. No, it's not. I don't really even understand how you can say it's Marxist and at least I studied Marxism and I don't understand how it relates at all. I agree with you, sir. And your expenses as a professor also at West Point in your 36 years. Of Service in uniform. Could you see any evidence of leftist indoctrination? No. How about critical race theory? No. Have you ever seen Antifa infiltrating our military? No. Well think in general, and I'm sure we can all feel a bit better knowing that there's no large communist menace or Antifa or others plotting to overthrow the US military which we know remains strong in the world. And we all think about in a bipartisan way agree that we have the best military in the world and we're very proud of now genuine open all seriousness, can you explain why policies are promote a military that reflects the diversity of our country and allows everyone to serve no matter who they love when it protects female soldiers from harassment and actually promotes and improves our national security? How does that actually reflect how to improve our actual military?
Thank you, Congressman.
I really believe that we look at a period before we had this which is the 1960s and see how terrible the military was in the military imploded without that, and if we have a an army, that's what I'm familiar with that has right now over 20% African American and yet have almost no leadership in that role, then we're going to have problems we don't have quota system. I was on the missions committee, West Point. We don't have quotas there. But we do want to make sure that our that we look like our client, our client is the American people. And we wanna make sure we reflect that. I have found that that diversity policies make us a stronger nation and a stronger country, and I'm unfamiliar with anything that make diversity policy somehow is going to melt our brains in some way when we take it's not been my experience. And I would agree with you like it's clear that a more diverse military is good for national security and is good as a reflection of the whole country. And the question is, do we want a military that actually reflects the entire country as an LGBTQ American myself, I also understand very clearly that it's not that long ago that an openly gay person and nobody person for my community did not contribute their talents in the military, but it's been changed the policy implementation that have made our military more reflective of who we are as a society. And so I I appreciate your comments gentleman reminds about some of the challenges our military has had to overcome as relates to segregation and as relates to racial tensions within ranks. Yes, I remember we were segregated only really into the 1970s we had very few cadets at West Point with only 23 Naval midshipmen in 1970. That's point 5%. We continue to have very low levels of general officers and in the in the army and in all services into the 1990s and beyond. So we have always had a problem making sure that the Army leadership or the military leadership reflects the enlisted ranks, and when we don't do that, we have problems and we saw that in the early 1960s in the 1970s. It's the same thing with other underrepresented minorities but remember, it's this body that changed it ended Don't Ask Don't Tell. It brought women to West Point into the combat exclusion Congress. is the one that did that Congress is the one that really changes the military. And, Jenna, would you agree that it's been like you said, it's been laws as to the intervention by Congress has been policy changes that have actually had to be enforced sometimes on the military to actually improve diversity? Most it's right, it's only been that usually we did not integrate when there was an executive order. It was only when Congress did in the 1973 Equal Opportunity Act that really started that but equal opportunity people in every battalion in the army and I think it's I think it's pretty clear that in order to achieve a military that reflects the rest of the country, Congress needs to push them and create action and appreciate all the efforts have happened in the past actually create a military that reflects the country and this idea that we should go backwards or our that we shouldn't embrace diversity to me is totally insane and crazy. Finally, what actually poses a bigger military threat and our security policies work to promote cohesion and tolerance and diversity with our military or historic disruption dogs often promotions caused by Senator Toomey bills, publicity stunt center tomorrow, I think Senator solid probably said it best on the floor. Why? Because people who seriously sacrifice for America Why punish patriotic military members over a policy dispute? They had nothing to do with and can't fix. There's a huge range of challenge and a huge morale challenge and yet amazingly, not one member of those general officers ever made a public complaint about it. It shows the professionalism portrait walls record that no one made a complaint despite the disruption and and cruelty of that policy. President Republicans think he's ready. Can I reiterate that that's the hearing we should be having is on an enormous disruption that happened in the Senate and how the health the house can help rectify that. Thank you.
I yield. Back. Mr. Jackson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lieutenant Colonel Lohmeyer. Thank you for your service and for being here today. In 2021. The United States Military Academy West Point taught cadets critical race theory through a seminar titled Understanding whiteness and white rage at an Armed Services Committee hearing earlier this year or last year, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley was questioned about teaching critical race theory. At the service academies General Milley defended the practice saying he thought it was important for those in uniform to be quote, open minded and openly rant unquote. He went on to say quote, I want to understand white rage. And I'm and I'm white, in quote, in your experience as a Squadron Commander with the US Space Force, with learning about whiteness and white rage help promote unit cohesion or team centered culture.
The answer is anyone who's focused on warfighting doesn't naturally think to talk about these things in the military workplace. We're focused on a particular mission in defense of the country to deter conflict into in our nation's wars. I do want to make one additional point if I may, that the general has just explained that he never saw some critical race theory in his time at West Point during his lengthy, honorable military career in doing research for my book that got me fired. I found that West Point cadets who'd recently graduated these are impressive people Black White, clearly leftist in their political worldview had produced a 40 page policy proposal is what it was called that I consider a communist screed anti American race baiting accusing leaders at West Point of failing the American people criticizing West Point as an institution for racism criticizing them for failing the army. And that they would continue to fail the army. What I found in that document is that this generals work is quoted throughout the entire 40 pages. So you can't say that you've never been exposed to critical race theory, when a bunch of left wing Marxist leaning students attack the West Point Military Academy relying on your work. And so I'd be I'd be curious to find out if they consulted with him in the production of that 40 page policy proposal to topple topple statues at West Point, to rename buildings. When that kind of invitation came to me as a commander to rename streets and buildings. Everyone at the base was allowed to populate the Excel spreadsheet that came to us as a Tasker from the Pentagon. And I saw George Washington's name on that list because ideology that poisons the mind doesn't disambiguate between racists, evil men and good men and hatred. What they did is they said he is a founder, he's white, I hate him, and we'd like to remove his name from buildings and streets. This is the kind of thing that ideology does to the military divides people and the best evidence we've seen so far, excuse me. 10 more seconds. Is the recent testimony from President university presidents who tried to excuse and contextualize genocidal rhetoric and what CRT diversity equity inclusion.
mandates and Marxist ideology due to a university precedent, or to the Chinese PLA they will do to an American service member, and I've seen it firsthand.
Thank you. I think it would be wise for the committee to follow up on the report that you're talking about. So I hope we'll be able to do that. According to the Department of Defense website, its mission is to, quote provide the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation's security and quote, do you think that teaching our future military leaders about whiteness and white rage will better prepare them to deter war and defend our nation? No, I do not. And do you believe promoting divisive concepts? You've already indicated this, like critical race theory have an impact on military recruitment and retention?
Well, I've got some some polling data here. If we have time I can cite but this is one of the prevalent themes that shows up among active duty service members who have been polled about their concerns about the direction the military has headed, why they're choosing to leave the service and young Americans where they're choosing not to join. They sometimes call a witness that's colloquial, but they specifically if they know what they're talking about, refer to critical race theory. And if you know what you're talking about, you know that it's written Marxist ideology.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter to the record any document that Mr. lomandra has a such as that survey in the minutes of this hearing.
I'm sorry, you didn't ask me to speak? Well,
I'm just going to ask one more question. Are there specific recommendations you have for maintaining a strong and cohesive military culture while addressing concerns about ideological influences?
Yes, ma'am. I think every American citizen veteran or having never served looks to the Congress to use the power of the personnel their military accountable. But we also need brave men and women in uniform to respectfully give feedback, use their voice and stand on the principle. We don't all have to agree but we do have to agree that the mission of the United States military is paramount. And merit based selection of promotion is the only effective principle to keep a strong military I don't care what people's views are on diversity, equity inclusion, I really don't. But we can't use our individual political or social cultural worldview. To make military selection processes of all institutions. The long trusted US military must remain a merit based system, otherwise you'll lose that system. Thank
you. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Goldman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to see if we can find some common ground here. Mr. Deveaux. I heard you say a little earlier that you support diversity as at least one variable to focus on to either admit in the service academy students in service academies or officers evolving officer promotions that right when I said, Mr. Holman, is that I am willing to accept in sport diversity is a byproduct of good military policy. It's not something we should certainly not something we should avoid. But it's not something that the military should cater policies to promote natural Do you think that do you think that diversity of backgrounds is beneficial to the military
as it relates to a person's ability to do a job in the military? Yes, if something doesn't have capability, it doesn't exist in the military. We need someone with a more diverse background to get that job than yes, it's important, but what I don't think that means is that a person's skin color is relevant to those jobs, you know, in House Armed Services. I
hear you I just follow up on that. Because I think there's some contextual things that we need to talk about here because you and I are talking about merit based merit. Based and focusing on that. But, you know, when you look at the history of discrimination in the military, what you have to consider is that everybody does not start from the same place. So, Mr. circlets family growing up with a general in the military has advantages in terms of entering the military that someone whose family does not have would not have you agree with that? Right? Yes. Okay. So if the military was segregated, if non whites and women were not allowed, if, if the LGBT community would because it Don't Ask Don't Tell we're not allowed. You therefore understand how those people from those different groups are not starting at the same place. In terms of evaluating quote, merit based right. But Congressman,
I think that's a false binary. The choice is not between discriminate against non whites and, you know, choose anyone,
I'm not talking about discriminating. And there's there are only a certain number of people that can be admitted to a class that can be promoted. And if you're basically saying that you cannot consider anything else other than what you call pure merit, and there's no definition for pure merit, you are unnecessarily perpetuating discrimination that has occurred for generations. And when you start to see things such as government reviews, the Air Force independent review that said 40% of in 2021 40% of black African American service members indicated a lack of trust in their chain of command to address racism, bias and unequal opportunities. You are necessarily not acknowledging not addressing what is a fundamental problem not only for retention, but also for promotion. And if women are leaving the service 20% more because of sexist culture, family planning or sexual assault, that has to be addressed that you cannot I do not believe you are sitting here and saying that it is okay. You mentioned something about you support training on harassment. But if there is implicit or explicit racism, or discrimination, you would agree that has no place in the military, right? Of course, okay. There needs to be training because a lot of people don't know what that means. And they often don't know that what they are saying is actually discriminatory. So there needs to actually be training so that everyone from every walk of life in this country can have an opportunity to participate to represent our country to be in the military. And the problem that we run into when we try to say purely race neutral, merit based and, you know, again, once again, we're obviously talking about a disproportionate number of white people primarily, who are in positions of authority who are elevating people who are admitting people, if they are not trying to address some of the historical wrongs to give people who have not had that access to the military to this opportunity. Give them that opportunity, then we're just going to perpetuate that historical discrimination for forever. So I'm not saying marriage doesn't matter. I think it absolutely matters and I certainly understood Mr. Coronavirus point that we do not want to put people who are unprepared in bad situations but to simply say that diversity should have no impact whatsoever on our military will continue to perpetuate the discrimination that has unfortunately been embedded in our military history. And with that, I yield back Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And God bless you for your service. I really, really appreciate your sacrifices on behalf of this nation. As often is the case my position here on this day is my my five minutes most of it will be spent correcting in my opinion, the record of the things that have been said previous as opposed to the questions I might have asked each of you so I'm gonna go through a couple of things here and maybe it's not only correction, but it's clarification of the record as I would like to say, Sir, Mr. Seidel is actually scheduled sorry about that. My apologies. We're gonna run for years. I'm sure name time you probably difficult. I just want to make the remark in the point that the segregationist that blocked integration were decidedly in one political party and I think it's important to note that because they will be up here acting like they never did that and it's important for the historical record as a fan of history that, that you can appreciate that there is there are consequences that America cannot forget and should not forget. regarding diversity. I hear that all the time. diversity is our strength. diversity is our strength. And it's Mr. Deveaux. You just answered a bunch of questions about that. And it is a strength when we have different viewpoints about how to solve a problem. And if we're all in a boat a rowboat there's four of us in a row. But we all have a different idea of where we're going in a different order. Diversity is not going to be much of a strength, right? We're all going to be rolling in four different directions. So diversity is a strength of all pointing in the same direction, otherwise, it's not a strength. And I don't know how that can be refuted. But if somebody wants to, they're welcome to do that. Regarding the comment that there was a defeat in Vietnam. I want to make sure because I grew up during that time, as you did, I imagined, sir, just gauging from from seeing you here. It was not a military defeat. It was people like Walter Cronkite and other leftists and political activists in the United States of America that impose that defeat and it's important to me, I revered my uncle when he came home from Vietnam and his uniform as a guy who served and the sacrifices he made it did color my decision to join the military. And it's important, again, for the record to remind Americans that the military did not lose that war. That was a politically lost war. And I don't want that to be attributed or ascribe to the to the military regarding the McCarthy hearings. I want to remind everybody in the room that while I disagreed with his tactics as most Americans did, if they read Whittaker Chambers witness and if they go through of unknown a transcript, almost every single person he named was a communist sympathizer organizer, and involved in the subversion of the United States government. Let's not forget that. Regarding those folks that were held up by Mr tumble provide Senator Tuberville and the fact that they didn't complain Well good for them because when I wear the uniform, yours is not the question why yours is just to do and die. And we don't talk about political things because it is against the regulation. So they weren't doing anything grandiose. They were doing their duty as they should. And Tucker Bill was doing his duty as he should. The policies in the military regarding the subject at hand are wrong. And thank God somebody was willing to fight for them. There is a specific definition I would ask my colleagues, you can go look up any search engine and see it. I joined the military. And I loved my time in the military. It defined me and I defined it. And it was based on merit, and I didn't have a leg up. I knew my uncle who served in Vietnam, but when I raised my hand, as an E one, no one knew anybody I knew, and it didn't matter. And I loved the fact that even coming from a broken home, with no connections, and no clue about anything, I could work my tail off and make something of myself and even though I didn't have my commander's recommendation to go to Officer Candidate School, I got into Officer Candidate School that become the president of my class. And even though I didn't have a recommendation to go to flight school, where you're measured within a 10th of a point, I graduated second in my class alongside soldiers and service members from the Air Force Academy and West Point, which I was not allowed to go to, because I wasn't good enough, and I wasn't good enough. But the point is, I worked my tail off because it was based on merit, and I can make something of myself and while I complained to myself I didn't complete anybody else when I didn't. When I tried to get an intertribal inner service transfer from the army to the Air Force because instead of flying cobras I wanted to fly F 16. And a friend of mine, a friend of mine, he got to go he was a black man, but when I applied to the same unit, I was told, sorry, you will fit the position. You know what I did? I got after my job as a co pilot. I got it from my job and I went on with my life and cried my eyes about it. There's a bunch of people that are up on this stage today. They're gonna complain to you and tell you about your life in the military who have never served and don't have a damn clue about any of this. But Mr. Lohmeyer, in particular, Mr. Deveaux in particular, God bless you for your viewpoints. And your willingness to sacrifice what you have for the things that you believe in because you are correct. Our military is being destroyed right now. And we all know it. We all know it. And while I wish and I hope that it still remains the best military in the world. I'm not sure that that's the case anymore. We better damn well come to that realization and get after that, Mr. Chairman, I yield. Thank you. Good points, Mr. Frost.
Thank you so much for sharing. I want to point out to what my colleague just said, as you know, as it relates to members of the United States military whose promotions were being held up because of a Senator who had problems from an ideological point of view with bodily autonomy. The message to them was ours is not to reason why but to do or not. But then to the gentleman here who did complain fight wrote a book about his issues. The message was completely different, which just shows I think, shows the hypocrisy in this room right off on the other side of the aisle. I'm from the state of Florida. This Warren book ism is not new to me. And it's a shame that Republicans on this committee haven't caught on to my Governor DeSantis failing presidential campaign is based on this more on woke and this made misplacement on woke ism in the military endangers America's national security by ignoring the real threats. Some of the real threats to our national security are low military recruitment, retention rates, which is what I want to focus on today. servicemembers aren't leaving the military because of the EI Training, or because abilites military base was renamed or because someone accessing abortion. But what I do hear from my constituents is this. I've had folks write about problems with housing allowance being to limit the military, people messaging me about saying medications are too expensive. And folks worrying that service members won't be able to get paid if Republicans in Congress shut down the government. These are the real things that resonate with American the American people because these are the issues that this committee needs to be addressing. General you testified that the army became more diverse and welcoming to soldiers of color over your time in service how was that inclusion, how to retain talented service members?
We have a greater Thank you, Commissioner. We have a greater pool to draw from we didn't use people to draw for people of color or women or do we had LGBTQ they were kicked out of which I knew many that were kicked out. We have a broader think we need every person to be able to serve and we can't do that if we are trying to kick people out. We're not allowing people serving, not making welcoming we're better already because of our diversity.
I 100%. agree. I agree with you. I mean, we know that we're at West Point that black students had highlighted during their time, the art memorializing the traitor Confederate General Robert E. Lee that hung on the wall and the fact that the only black person hanging on the walls was someone who was a slave. And I think that things like that hurt our military readiness and national security when it makes our servicemembers uncomfortable. diversity, equity inclusion strengthens our national military, it does not work against it. General, you've also testified about your own story of service, quote, I didn't choose the army because of patriotism. I signed up for the money No, and I don't bring that up as a disparaging thing because we know that this is something that is true for many of our servicemembers, especially when I speak with folks who look like myself in my community. That are looking at joining the military, you joined before college, your college and ended up staying for more than four decades. So thank you so much for your service. We know that many soldiers enlist for financial reasons, but then choose not to reenlist because it's unaffordable for them. Have you observed any trends around how economic struggles can stunt soldiers career?
I think you've heard Yes, I personally think that's true because our soldiers don't deploy or actually rotate so often Eastern Europe to South Korea, into the Middle East and without additional money for that. And so if you're doing to nine month rotations to one of those two places, plus National Training Center or other things, it's incredible, difficult, particularly family at home because they have no great childcare options.
Yeah, and I would love to host a hearing about that instead, and to see how we can handle those struggles. Since at least the 1940s. Congress has given me the United States military money to create citing and re enlistment bonuses to incentivize service members to join and stay in the service. General.
Do you think the military should be collecting data on why and when bonuses are helpful so we can better understand the financial hardships of our servicemembers? Yes, we've been doing bonuses at least since I've been here. And they work because just like I was a poor kid coming from rural Georgia, I had no way of getting to college now. There's financial sense Maverick and an all volunteer
force. A second thing that this committee should be hosting hearings on to figure out how we can better our national security and military readiness preparedness look. And I know we have Lohmeyer and folks who have had uncomfortable or maybe negative interpretations or experiences with the EI and I would never take away someone's experience from them. But what I do want to call out is there's a difference between seeing something that you see value in diversity, equity and inclusion, or diversity in our military and saying, We ought to fix these problems. I think there's some problems with it. I think we got to fix them versus saying we should just completely get rid of it. I mean, in 1954, when we began to desegregate schools in this country, we knew it would be uncomfortable. We knew they would be problems, but we did it. Because it was the right thing to do. This hearing is entitled The risk of progressive ideologies in the US military dei is not a progressive ideology. It's just the right thing to do. If we want to talk about progressive ideology and militaries, we can talk about affordable housing and food. We can talk about tuition assistance, we can talk about universal health care that the military provides progressive ideologies in the military, but not the DEI. Thank you. So much. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our panelists for being here today. I joined the Army in 1988. Again, boot camp in 1989 as private, one session here to training wanted to be an MP that ended up working out for me, but one of the one of the initial lessons that you learn very quickly, when you step off on that bus, and you have to face these guys in the car from granite wrapped in a leather cabinet brown round against your forehead, because you are no longer you. You now belong to the United States Army to discuss diversity, as if it was ever some sort of an effective mechanism by which a deadly force could be established. To fight and win wars across the world to liberate the oppressed for generations, is insane. We don't care about anything other than just the deadly effectiveness of our army. It requires this discrimination because developing deadly skills and horsemen requires us to recognize distinction to discriminate between those who can become lethal weapons and those who cannot. Nobody cares about your color of your skin, your cultural background, your ethnicity, who your mama your daddy was, your ask now belongs in the army, and we're gonna make a soldier out of you or we're gonna remove you from this unit. You go to something else, no problem. The world needs insurance salesman and everybody else. When you won't be a soldier. We're going to call you into what it is to be a soldier. I don't understand why my colleagues can't see the difference between civilian life and military life. Nobody's firing live rounds at us up here. That's not part of our designated job description. What a damn short is a job description for our soldiers. And we can't fill our ranks in United States Army right now. You know why? I think you do know why. Because conservative families across America that have a deep lineage of military service are not encouraging their sons and daughters to join the army because it is crap that our sons and daughters are having to deal with now in the army, that my colleagues are applauding, like, hey, you know, we need to diversify them to diversified into one called uniform for a reason. We must be uniformly deadly and effective, rapidly deployed, where we care not what the color of the skin is the soldier next to us whether or not he's gay or straight, that has zero to do with the performance of our army. And yet we are indeed attempting to indoctrinate those very civilian considerations into our military as well. You can't fill the ranks because traditional American families know that that's a that's a wrong formula. Ranger Tebow. Rangers lead the way on Twitter. So I'm going to ask you to your opening line of your state of your statement. You rightly draw upon a distinction regarding consider between those who join the military, and those who choose just the courses of life you choose are quote, trained in the United States Army is meant to melt away the effects in civilian life and to forge Americans into soldiers ready to devote their lives to the mass application of violence on behalf of American interests. Can you speak to the uniqueness of what it is to be a soldier as opposed to being a civilian in America?
To be soldiers to live a life where you take for granted the fact that you would die for the person next to you and that you would enter an arena where that death is possible on purpose and that you would be prepared as a team and as a person to do whatever it took not to survive but to win and even if that requires a man suffering, sacrifice and inconvenience everyday for you and your family.
Did you ever have a one day at any time? Consider the diversity of the Ranger next to you. Thank you very much. Mr. Tebow. Mr. Mr. Lomira. General, thank you all for your service. Mr. Chairman. I yield. Okay, Miss Miss Porter.
Was that my recognition? Okay, Miss Porter. Alright. Mr. Mr. Do you agree with President Trump's executive order? 91?
I'm so sorry. I don't know he's done executive orders.
Do you agree with President Truman's order to integrate at the armed services despite the fact that separate but equal was still the law of the land at the time?
Let me say that there isn't a board point. The congressman to your left has said he wanted to find common ground. There's a lot of what the General has said today. I don't disagree with whatsoever. But that seems to be irrelevant. The discussion of progressivism as an ideology, the military workplace. Let me point out one example and answer to your question of what I am opposed to reintroduction. Consequences here it's my time of the AI initiatives we've got Mr. Chair, I'd like to reclaim my time tradition because of AI and I'm happy to talk to that.
This will allow me to try again. Do you agree? I appreciate it. You have a cadenza, you're entitled to have them I'd like you to try to answer the question I'm asking with respect, sir. Do you agree with President Truman's executive order 91 that integrated the armed services despite the fact that separate but equal was still the law of the land at the time.
I agree that the military has led the way in integration and unity particular strength of United States military, but we're undoing it all with diverse I think universal
equity, but anytime that decision was progressive at the time, in other words, the military went to a place of integration and efforts to have black and white soldiers working alongside each other. It wasn't always perfect. It wasn't always easy, but it was literally the definition of progress and progressive and beyond existing law. General determines actions to make military under E. oh nine anyone be directly to any readiness deficits,
your military story of like the first thing you did concurrently was integrate our international cemetery.
Mr. Mueller, you weren't active duty. And thank you for your service Air Force officer in 2010. Is that correct? Do you think were there any problems in military readiness in 2010?
That was a young flyer, I never paid attention to what you folks were doing. I never paid attention to reports on readiness lethality. I simply focused on the mission. It was learning how to fly an aircraft and at that time, it was training our allied partners and foreign military pilots and flight jets
and hunters who were able to focus on your military duties. And it seems to me that your own testimony here is a really good example of the fact that the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell did not cause a disruption in your ability or the military readiness of the Air Force to do its job in general. Is there any empirical evidence that the Americans serving only has military readiness? So historically, when the military has been progressive has gone beyond we or other policies, maybe has tried to encourage diversity we're welcome people to be diverse in there and to learn about each other. There has been no harm to force readiness. When considered consider President Trump's executive action on diversity initiatives like general Truman's one 100 People with this general concern consider President Trump's executive action on diversity initiatives. Yes. How about the pretender people don't ask don't tell us. So in your view to the military rollback of those diversity policies, absolutely not. Mr. Deveaux. Do you think that should roll back those initiatives?
No, Congressman, I don't because the integration of our forces in 1948 was a recognition that militaries differ from society. And so it's so it should march to the beat of different rungs. And that's why I think it was such a good policy because it ensured that we had the best that's exchanged. 1961 military became a beacon for affirmative action and quotas. But I agree with you that it was good policy for you. And would you repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No, because it's a means by which the military attracts the best talent but what I would object to is if the military had a quota for LGBT Americans, do you think not that I know if they do for Black, White Hispanic Americans, and I think there's general is that correct?
I know we are my brother served. He went to the States Naval Academy. He served five years he led he served on a nuclear submarine I don't recall him ever enforcing being part of as an officer any type of quota system there are no quota. Systems. I don't recall that being it was altering policy. I'm gonna remember passing a law since we're in Congress, so we make the rules. I don't remember ever passing a law with regard to that. Our military's more effective when it's diverse and you can't have an effective, diverse team without teaching people how to work effectively together. That's what these initiatives should focus on. I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
Gosar. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for all your service. Appreciate it. The US armed forces are under attack by a foreign adversary but from within their own ranks. Well, policies have infiltrated the US military and caused a failing recruitment or retention rates, low morale and quite frankly pose a national security threat. Our source members are heroes and must endure external challenges in their sacrifice determination. Their focus should not be compromised, politically motivated critical race theory, LGBTQ training and dei and pro abortion policies. Perhaps recruitment retention efforts have failed. Not because of the military's lack of diversity, but rather because sometimes are afraid of retaliation for speaking out against aggressive policies. Just a few months ago, we heard about heard from General Mark Milley, who said that service academies should teach about white rage, while simultaneously claiming the military is not welcome. When Austin an unprecedent move in October 22. required the DOD to pay for the travel there was no seeking to end the life of their unborn children. Our servicemen and women deserve more from our leaders. Now, let me ask you both Mr. Tebow and Mr. Lamar is warfare.
Can you repeat that? Did you say is warfare? No.
So in the comparison versus education versus war, that's not an equal application isn't
no commercial. Do it are different stations diverse printers that can
be filled. For example, a advised IED player scan the north your day whatever, right? That's right. The enemy care what color you are. That's really interesting. So the DoD funds relies on data from a group called Start the national consortium as A Study of Terrorism responses to terrorism. Dark came out with a figure in one of these reports that depict the type of alleged extremists in the military. I think I'll bring it up on the screen here, please. Shockingly, the vast majority are considered right wing extremists. Categories extremists include militia, which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, including secondment numerous times, you know, supremacist anti abortion. My question for you, Mr. Tebow. Do you think sometimes within the military because they may be considering consider extremist or simply building abortion owning a gun or belief in official family?
I don't think so. Probably not. The Inspector General's report on extremism came out I think a few weeks ago on Friday afternoon without much fanfare, when they said that there's no difference in extremism in military compared to society there. There was nothing to find. The married couples project surveyed veterans, hundreds of recently separated veterans and the biggest reason why people left why they wouldn't join is because of a distrust of politicized military leadership, which I think speaks to the point in the value of this hearing.
Another question is only the militia is extreme. The word is mentioned five times in the Constitution. And the second limit says a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. Does that mean the Constitution is an extreme document, according to his military funding group.
There seems to be discrepancies or some some targeted distance there. But you know, I don't know what that words are assigned to different different meanings, but I think most servicemembers are well intentioned and good Americans and both sides should do well to remember that Gotcha. Mr. Lamar,
thank you again for your service. Many of the talented women of the Air Force reside in my district at Luke Air Force Base out in Arizona so I have a cold jab mandate negatively affect the military's readiness.
There are a number of ways it seems it's impacted negatively already. I'm not the expert on that issue. However, it's not what we're talking about. In fact, the mandates are rolling out at the time I separated from active duty but I've got two good friends and colleagues who would be perfect to testify about that issue.
So sadly, the DOD has refused to reinstate the 1000s of service members kicked out of the ticket rejecting the terminal COVID shot would rename these service members help improve the military readiness.
Well, it's possible that a good congressman, the question is probably understated whether or not any of those forts out for the decision or the discrimination that led to divorcing would even have any interest in coming back. There are groups actively working at the moment to try and take action on behalf of those who either were injured or killed to their family members or were forced out for their religious convictions or for violating the conscience to take what they consider to be an illegal immoral or unethical quarter. And that has ripple effects today in the service again, I'm not the expert on that. But I'm friends of many who are who'd be happy to testify about it. Well,
I want to thank you very much, all three for your service. Appreciate your heroes in my book and in our district. Thanks very much. I yield back.
Thanks, Mr. Raskin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to thank all of our witnesses for their excellent testimony today and also for their service the country and also members of the committee, who served in uniform as well as in this body. So Mr. Sehgal, gentlemen, I want to look at three attacks on politicization or diversity changes. And the thing that I guess people are calling look at my start with leaving the military, of course, women were systematically excluded from military for a long time and there's to struggle about that. And finally, women were able to enter the armed forces on a relatively equal status. I don't know if my friend Mr. Higgins would consider these part of the traditional American soldiers or not, but women have served for a long time different families now have equality. But if I'm assuming that women are the military want the same rights that women across the country do and after Donald Trump's gerrymandered Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade and women's right to choose, which was in the last one to half century, women across the country, have rejected that and have stood up for their full reproductive freedom, including in Kansas, Wisconsin and Michigan, California. We're not getting everyone has been on the ballot. The vast majority of women and men have supported women's rights to do so I assume. Now, I don't understand women in the military feel the same way and that they would want to maintain the right to choose their own healthcare. Now, Senator Tuberville interfered with hundreds and hundreds of military promotions for many, many months in order to stop women in the military from having their complete full access to reproductive choice into health care. Now, who do you think is politicizing the military? Is it Senator Tuberville with his anti choice agenda where he wants to dictate to all the women in the military what their access will be to healthcare or is it those women themselves? Are they the ones that are somehow perpetrating a book agenda by saying that they want to have equal choice? And don't we depend on women in a military? Do you think last night I was talking with 18 or 20%? You know, even an army so please insert into it. I would say that certain people created political pawns how those general officers we have a non political army and we're going to a country that has never had military coup d'etat and it's probably because you're not clinical yet. It's an attempt to create a clinical moments for policy disagreement. I couldn't disagree more with him for doing that hurting our force editor Walter White officers in the military also depends on lots of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, that's just a reality. You might love it. You might hate it. You might be ambivalent about it. You might disagree. But anyway, that's the reality, as I understand it, in any event, the army decided that it wanted to rename military bases that could be named not after us generals, but after Confederate generals who joined the Confederacy in rebellion against the union. So like Fort Benning, was renamed after a pro union. Pro American general Fort Gordon was renamed as Fort Eisenhower fort Hill. was renamed to sport Walker. And yet I take it this is part of the big anti woke arraignment and indictment of a military that we have renamed military bases after pro union, pro American soldiers, generals, people who've been loyal and faithful, as opposed to those who have opposed to your arms against the Union. In traitors, traitors insurrection now who's politicizing this question? Is it the people who go along with the Army's decision to say that's where they should be named after pro Americans or the people who are wanting to stick to the old Confederate battle names and I'd like you to address that and also Mr. Limiter. I think you're taking the position against changing the name to remember the name of Congress because this body voted overwhelmingly overrode the veto present Trump created any commission which I served as vice chair he was my proudest moment to reading goes after true American heroes and not those who chose treason to Mr. slavers pick your into to agree with that.
And I'll say that it's my view of the sector defensively, Lawson has politicized the military. As soon as the Supreme Court decision was made, he issued a policy memorandum blaming the Supreme Court's decision to reverse Roe v Wade on the recruitment. I'm asking about the naming of our military bases. I mean, if you don't address it, say you don't answer Black Lives Matter Plaza yesterday with a Chinese American. And she advocated for leaving those who wants to wants to
answer the question, because I wasn't going to on your iPhone, whatever you want to answer. That's fine. So yes, about the renaming of the bases after pro union pro American elements
are asking I'd like to answer that question and more than just answering the format I walked Black Lives Matter. Plus yesterday was even fleet Chinese, Maoist, cultural revolution survivor and I had an interesting conversation with her in which she advocated I never thought about this before. By the way to address this topic. In my book I read about Marx's critical history. She said, I'd recommend that once we see what goes on, we leave all of the Black Lives Matter paint on the ground and the signs naming the streets. I asked her why she said because it's a reminder that once you're on the rest of the White House, we had a revolution. A Marxist Revolution take place. And I agree with that. It's a reminder that there has been such a divisive conflict and it's important people are willing to find the force to hurt one another.
I have no problem with generals efforts. If I understand you correctly, I'm trying to torture what you're saying is that we should have already bases named after Confederate generals or Nazi generals.
I'm not willing to put words in my mouth and we're over here. So we're just gonna let Mr. Lohmeyer finish and has it so my point is, this is not an issue in which I've actively been involved. The renaming of books I wrote a book about Marxist Dei, Marxist medical history. That's my expertise. I have no personal issue with the fact that this gentleman to my left who honorably served this country has been part of a commission to do that. I have personal opinions about why it's wrongheaded to put an ideological push, but this is not my view would not have renamed him in other words, we're gonna have we're gonna go that's not something.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the witnesses being here today. So, Mr. Lohmeyer, when we look at to some of the things that have been said by the gentleman to your to your left, and it really depends on the moment as it relates to Mr. Sehgal. Yes. Thank you. And I read I read your testimony. I'm interested to know, your reaction to to his position with regard to the diversification of military Sure. The
one point that the general made with which I disagree is the diversity is our strength. I don't think there's any evidence for that, but definitions matter. Words matter and we're losing touch with us. I would reject the notion that diversity is our strength based on the EI definitions of diversity, equity inclusion, merit based Okay, I'm gonna wait for that because if we're trying to find unity of understanding, let's say that the scale and performance matter in the military if you'd like to deter conflict and donations work theory, as a commander in military I had a black Colonel fly across the country to promote me to Lieutenant Colonel because I love the hell out of the guy and respect his views on the Federalist Papers. He was teaching me after work hours and because he's the best leader I've ever worked with. The best airmen that I have working for me, incidentally, was a transgender airman. So no bullshit me and say that you think you know, you're talking about you've never served, you don't understand how this works. We care about performance in a military period. You don't know we're talking about. Most of the people in this room know what they're talking about when you validate in the military, period. All of the stuff you guys talk about the minimum of uniform don't think about, they're gonna play Call of Duty and I definitely learned our mission and execute that mission period. They don't know what you're talking about. They don't know what you're voting on. They don't care about your sexual preference. I don't care what you look like. They don't care what the person next to them looks like, period. I'm a citizen of this country and I can dislike you and criticize you all I want here but our men and women in uniform cannot and so I speak on their behalf when I say we value matters, merit based selection of promotions matter. And your ideology doesn't matter one bit, and we need to identify principles which will preserve our union and preserve the unity of Unite States military, if we do not will lose that union. And it's my contest, whatever Truman did decades ago. You ask your average military service member when Truman was the president, I states I can even tell you but my point is they're focused on what's happened since the George Floyd riots. There are things that have happened last three years and our military that we're here to testify about not the not the things that happened 60 years ago, were great today because of what we've done for the last half century in the fighting of the Cold War.
And so much of what has happened last few years that is costly, led to deteriorate in military.
There's been an overt politicization of the military workplace, and the forcing of trainings that are anti American to criticize our founders that allege that white supremacy is a problem within the military ranks. Which has never been proven. And all of that rhetoric that occurred one sector defensively often took office led to a bunch of moaning and bitching and complaining behind closed doors of our service members, and I heard it as a commander. And so I wrote the formal written IG complaint about it that was dismissed by senior leaders because they were afraid of the political and racial climate that we've created in this country. And so they were afraid to hold one another accountable for their politics, senior leaders, so they're not held accountable for their political elite, but young people will be held accountable. I'm living evidence, and I'm living example of the fact that the diversity initiatives discriminatory discriminatory, I was kicked out for saying I'd like to politicize the workplace not for advocating for Republicanism or excuse me, smaller Republic not for advocating for Republican candidates not for criticizing Democrat candidates. I never publicly advocated for anyone politically, but I was forced out because of the viewpoint discrimination diversity initiatives are discriminating and inclusion initiatives are exclusive of my viewpoint. And so I'm living evidence that the politicization of the workplace the past several years is discriminatory and discriminate specifically against conservatism because you don't agree. Mr. Chairman,
I want to submit for the record, something called the declaration military countability an open letter to America people were signatories with different declared declaration military countability into the record. And then I apologize. I want to ask the questions for Mr. Tebow, Mr. Specifically, as well. But we've run out of time and I'm thinking to get the addition to the minister to the ranking member. Mr. Lynch,
I think it's good also, Julie, first of all, thank you all for your service to our country. I really do appreciate it. I remember this many for about 20 years. And when I have not served the military, I don't lead multiple 20 trips to Afghanistan, over 20 trips to Iraq to try to understand because I have not served, but I thought if I spent enough time on the ground that I might learn, I might learn I might understand what is our servicemen dealing with? One of the last trips to Afghanistan before and visited a place called Camp Leatherneck and had a chance to participate in a citizenship ceremony. And what they did was they have a couple of programs one of the programs with non citizens of the United States concerning the military, and it improves their chances it doesn't guarantee but improves their chances of becoming citizens. It's one of the progressive idea I think you Okay, so you are taking that particular ceremony there were over 100 men or women of all colors in face on shore. They all took the oath, they all had the Moroccan flag on the shoulder, they had been chasing the Taliban up and down that province, you know, in combat. So, you know, it just struck me you know, you think about that the quote, you know, Jack Kennedy's called, asked not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country. It seemed like this group anyway, this group of young men or women in uniform, they want to be a US citizen for all the right reasons, all the right reason I actually think that having spent time with a couple of rifle platoons, that so that that experience is, you know, they were in the unit. So, you know, it wasn't just all one group, but a lot of, you know, native born American citizen soldiers serving right beside them. There seem to be high levels of camaraderie in a really dangerous environment. So they were pretty tight as far as I can see. And General, essentially, even though that's somewhat of a progressive idea is that that's something that you think promotes strengthen military or is that a progressive idea that you think might deteriorate in a long time because they aren't. They weren't non citizens up to that
point, immigrants in our military that one of our great strengths were great superpowers, we spoke over 100 languages and we're we're one we've had immigrants like in every war we've ever had. And it's one of things that we do better than any other army or military the world. I hope that we can get more of them out because they serve their nation greatly and become great Americans.
Thank you on its face, I don't disagree with that. It doesn't necessarily mean that they'll perform any given job to put in extra for any American and we're not doing anyone to join these people.
I wholeheartedly accept the you know, the great Americans who have served, you know, coming into military as immigrants, I would make a distinction between some policies that are suggested to bring illegal immigrants into service but they are good American.
They're good numbers, mostly because they're gonna go to military not because of the color standard because they're right. I should have added there was a requirement. I had talked to the officer, the drivers were claiming that they have sort of a clean bill of health that they can present to the military to escape justice or anything like that. So but that's all I got, miss. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you.
Thank you much, Mr. Sessions. Mr. And thank you very much.
This hearing today is being conducted by the National Security Board in foreign affairs to examine how progressive ideologies affect military readiness
