National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, it's a very simple amendment. We, through our Chaplaincy Corps, need to support, and do support, various faith and philosophical beliefs among the men and women who bravely serve our country.

We already support some nontheistic beliefs. For instance, we have Buddhist chaplains. Buddhism is a nontheistic faith tradition.

And what my amendment would simply do is allow chaplains who are certified or ordained as secular humanists and ethical culturists or atheists to also be able to support the brave American and women who serve in our military.

Roughly 23 percent of the men and women in our Armed Forces either have no religion, or are atheists; but there are no chaplains that currently are able to represent this important and growing demographic.

Under current law, the Armed Forces only allow chaplains who are granted an endorsement by an approved religious organization and have received a graduate degree in theological or religious studies, precluding many of the seminaries and other institutions that can provide certification to nonreligious chaplains that could provide much-needed services, particularly to the roughly quarter of our servicemembers who have stated that they have no religious beliefs or are atheists.

There's no reason why the only faith tradition and philosophical tradition in our military without chaplains does not have any kind of support to address their health concerns.

Now, I've heard some say that, well, all members of our military, even those who are non-observers, are able to see psychiatrists or counselors for support. But that's a very different need than the spiritual needs and the philosophical needs that people have.

First of all, when someone sees a psychiatrist or counselor, it has a certain stigma that can be attached to it that doesn't exist when you're seeing a chaplain. It also doesn't enjoy the same confidentiality that a chaplain visit does, and the information discussed with a therapist can actually have an impact on the chain of command in terms of negatively impacting the servicemember's future military career.

So, again, the groundwork has already been laid with regard to nontheistic faiths like Buddhism, where we have active chaplains in our military. Many universities already have secular humanist chaplains, these including American University here in Washington, D.C. Other militaries have this as well. Our allied militaries in Belgium and the Netherlands have humanist chaplaincies.

And, again, it's a very simple concept and, I think, something that is long overdue to ensure that all members of the military, regardless of their faith background, whether they're believers or not, whatever their philosophy is in life, they have access to the chaplaincy to support their spiritual needs. And, of course, nonbelievers have spiritual needs just as believers do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Before further yielding, I yield myself 15 seconds just to say I think we're seeing a double standard here where, if it's a person of particular faith, as perhaps the gentleman approves of, then you say, oh, you go see a chaplain for your needs. However, if you're of no faith, you have to see a psychiatrist.

All of our men and women who bravely serve us deserve the same support.

I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, this is a very simple amendment to reduce funding for the advanced procurement of 14 Ground-Based Interceptor missiles that simply don't work and are inefficient, and for the refurbishment of the costly Missile Field 1 at Fort Greely, Alaska, until the Department of Defense can certify to Congress that these programs have been adequately tested and work. It's simply a question of making sure that something works before we spend additional money on it.

The missile defense program was designed to intercept limited intermediate and long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles before they re-enter the Earth's atmosphere. But Congress needs to ensure that these missiles are effective before we continue to provide the Department of Defense with a blank check.

Congress needs to verify every penny of taxpayer money we spend. We have a time of tradeoffs, and of course it's nice to be able to support every program, but during this time of deficits and sequestration we need to make sure we are vigilant to ensure that the money we spend on the Pentagon actually results in the maximum amount of heightened national security.

Since 1997, this weapons system has missed its target more than half the time. My amendment would limit the funding for the procurement of 14 Ground-Based Interceptors until the missiles have had two successful tests before 2015. Very reasonable. If it doesn't have two successful tests, why are we investing enormous amounts of taxpayer money in it?

So, two successful tests before 2015, certified by the Secretary of Defense to Congress as having the full confidence of the Commander of the United States Northern Command, and then it is allowed to move forward.

Now, opponents of this amendment--and I saw a Dear Colleague letter go out talking about how there are long-range missile threats from North Korea and Iran--there's no question, there is complete agreement about the dangers to this country, the dangers of a nuclear Iran, the dangers of a nuclear North Korea. What we're talking about here is the last thing we want to do is trust in an untested and unsuccessful missile to deter very real threats. We need a real threat deterrent system, not something that doesn't work. And my amendment simply requires that this is working.

My amendment would also limit funds for the missile refurbishment project in Missile Field 1 in Alaska. This field was never intended to be operational. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen in 2011 said:

Missile Field 1 was originally designed as a test bed, so it lacks required hardening and redundant power, and has significant infrastructure reliability issues.

There have also been reports of mold and leaks at the facility, and refurbishment would come at a tremendous cost to taxpayers without significantly improving the security that America has.

I urge Congress to demand that these programs work, that the programs we fund actually keep our families safe and are proven to work by certification by the Secretary of Defense.

We need to get our fiscal house in order, we need to make tough choices, and we need to make sure that our expenditures on national defense improve national security. And simply demanding that our costly missile defense system is actually capable of keeping our homeland safe is a very reasonable amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, I think that to have any type of meaningful missile defense against potential threats in Korea, Iran, and elsewhere, it needs to work. That's simply what this amendment says--two tests that work before $107 million in spending goes forth.

This is the financially responsible thing to do. Why would we want to spend first stage 107 million, over 6 years over a billion, on a system that doesn't work?

It's a very reasonable threshold to have a certification by the Department of Defense if this works. It provides an additional incentive to make sure that America stays safe, demonstrates this works, have an incentive to actually make it work before the rest of the money is released.

I think that's common sense. I think it aligns incentives of our contractors and our military and the defense of the American people. I think it's fiscally prudent. I think it improves our missile defense opportunities against threats from North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere; and I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to adopt this commonsense amendment that would save over 107 million for the ground-based interceptors in the first year, 135 million for the refurbishment of Missile Field 1, and also ensure that our missile defense system works by having two tests and a certification that it's operational by the Secretary of Defense.

I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source