National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -- (Senate - November 09, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to address some of the issues that have been presented by the amendment of Senator Inhofe. I do so with some perspective on issues of prayer at service academies. I spent 4 years as a cadet at West Point, 2 years as a faculty member at West Point, and today I am the chairman of the board of visitors at West Point. I am the first to recognize the importance of prayer, not only in the life of the service academies but in the life of people everywhere.

Over the course of 200-plus years of history, prayer has become an important aspect of life, not only at West Point but at Annapolis and other institutions.

Interestingly enough, when I was a cadet, there was a much more significant structure of religious participation. We were actually ordered to go to chapel, ordered to participate in activities. That was struck down in 1972 as an unconstitutional infringement.

This is a very difficult issue because it does implicate serious constitutional concerns, as well as the desire to maintain the traditions and the customs of the military and the service academies. Interestingly enough, my perspective now, after about 30 years, is that the faith communities at West Point are even more vital and vibrant today than years ago when cadets literally were ordered to participate in religious activities. In fact, last summer, as part of the operations of the board of visitors, I asked that the chaplains come together on an informal basis, and we talked about religious participation at West Point. What I heard from the chaplains is that it is alive and well, that it is something important to the individual lives of cadets and to the community at West Point. That is why I think, as we try to legislate these activities from the perspective of the U.S. Congress, we might be inviting more problems than we are solving.

As I look at the amendment of Senator Inhofe, it speaks of voluntary, nondenominational prayer at otherwise authorized activities of the academy, subject to the limitations of the Secretary of Defense, more or less. The real problem in the context of military activities is, what is voluntary? There is a strong sense that there is not much that is voluntary in the military. Anyone who has served on active duty understands that even in some cases volunteering isn't voluntary. I know I had a first sergeant in the 82nd Airborne Division who would walk in and pick three people and inform them they had just volunteered. That is a cultural aspect and a legal aspect of military service. So even though this speaks to voluntary, nondenominational prayer, the real issue in the context of the military is, Is it voluntary?

That issue is now being debated. One of the reasons prompting this particular legislative amendment is the fact that the Naval Academy has been questioned about a prayer at their luncheon meal. Whether it is nondenominational is not the point. The question is whether it is voluntary. I do not think we are going to escape that analysis and that issue by passing this legislation. In fact, my fear is by passing this legislation we are going to essentially invite litigation about a whole series of religious expressions at service academies, not just prayer in the mess hall at lunch but prayer at graduation ceremonies, at promotion ceremonies--all of that.

Frankly, on a practical basis, this legislation is not necessary. First, the superintendents already have the authority to prescribe what is happening at the academies--either explicitly or implicitly the current religious expression at the academies is being authorized by the superintendents.

Also, I think, given the fact that they are doing this and it seems to be working fairly well, this legislation does not give them any more authority than they have already. As I suggested previously, it raises, certainly, the profile, so it might engender the kind of controversies that will lead to seriously questioning and perhaps cutting back existing religious expression at these service academies. So I do not think, as a matter of either policy or of good sense, this legislation is in order or necessary.

In addition, what is happening at the academies now is not so much the sole issue of the propriety of prayer or religious expression at different authorized activities. There is another big issue out there that we have to recognize. It comes from the recent activities at the Air Force Academy, where there have been serious reports about proselytization, of superior officers using their rank and position to try to proselytize cadets, to try to insert in the activities of the academy a pronounced and sectarian religious approach. I think we are all familiar with many of the stories from the Air Force Academy.

As a result, the Secretary of Defense has issued interim guidance with respect to proselytization and other religious activities. I would note that the language of Senator Inhofe recognizes the right of the Secretary of Defense to do that. In fact, I would assume it lends further support and credence to the guidance that he is developing and will issue because, as the language says, ``subject to such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.''

I think what we are seeing, in terms of this legislation, is several results which might be unintended by those who are supporting it. First, I think rather than clarifying and settling the issue of religious expression at the service academies, it will prompt further discussion, debate, and perhaps even litigation. Second, it does specifically recognize that there is an ongoing process by the Secretary of Defense to redefine appropriate modes of religious expression at the academies. And, as I read it, it

does give sanction to those activities--in fact, legal sanction to those activities.

So for many reasons I think the legislation is not the most appropriate way to deal with this issue. Ultimately, my sense is that these issues, because they are dominated by constitutional concerns, will be settled in court, not by legislative enactment. There is nothing we could do legislatively to correct such constitutional faults. I think to try to do that misconstrues what we are about and what we could practically do.

As a result, I hope this legislation could be withdrawn, but I suspect that is not the case. So I think we should make some changes in the legislation in that at least reflects the fact that all of us are bound by the Constitution of the United States.

Again, I have been involved with these academies since I was 17 years old. I have seen personally the important role that prayer and religion play in the lives of cadets, soldiers, and officers. I recognize and cherish the customs of these academies, and these traditions. I think it is unfortunate that we may unwittingly be starting a dynamic that will seriously erode these customs and traditions, and I think perhaps to the detriment of the academies and to the military service and to the young men and women who proudly wear the uniform of our Armed Forces. So I hope we can avoid that.

But I think, also, we have to recognize that we are all governed, particularly when it comes to issues of prayer in the public space, by the Constitution of the United States, and that there is nothing, as I said before, that we can do that can insulate activities within the military from the Constitution. There is nothing we should do. I think whatever language we adopt today has to more explicitly reflect that clear, and I think obvious, fact.

As I mentioned before, the Secretary of Defense is dealing today with the issue of religious activities at the Air Force Academy. He has also indicated that, if his interim guidelines are practical, workable, and appropriate in his view, that he intends to extend those to the other service academies, effectively doing what this legislation is proposing to do. I think we should give the Secretary of Defense a chance to do that. I think he is working in a way that is evenhanded, appropriate, recognizing that soldiers are bound by the Constitution. That is their duty. That is their obligation.

I say if we march down this road, I think we are raising serious issues that are going to complicate the facts even more than they are today. So I hope we could wait. I hope we could wait until these guidelines have been fully vetted by the Secretary and he has made a decision with respect to their propriety, their appropriateness. Indeed, once again, as the amendment suggests, ultimately whatever the superintendents of the academies do will be subject to the guidance of the Secretary of Defense. Frankly, that guidance today, if you look at it, is drawing mixed reviews from both the proponents of the separation of church and state and those who want a much more aggressive posture when it comes to religious expression in public places. Maybe that is a good sign. Maybe the Secretary has struck that balance between the constitutional demands of separation of church and state and the individual's desires and needs to express themselves to the Divine.

I hope we could forbear on this one. If not, then I think we have to make some changes in the text to reflect the overarching constitutional imperatives that are at the heart of this debate.

I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/