Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Fleming amendment.

I think there is a basic misunderstanding here about the needs of people who lack a particular faith tradition. I would also point out that we already ordain nontheistic chaplains in our military, including Buddhists, which is a nontheistic faith. Some Unitarians may also have a nontheistic faith tradition. However, over 20 percent of the members of our military identify as nonbelievers. While, of course, their needs should be catered to by members of the chaplaincy from diverse faiths, it's only fair to have their humanism, or outlooks, represented.

Now, why is this different than a reason a member of the military might seek support from a medical professional or from a psychologist as the gentleman has argued one should? Those are different needs.

A psychiatrist or a medical professional is not equipped to answer those kinds of existential questions that a member of the military might seek out to discuss with a chaplain: Why am I here? What's the meaning of life? How do I justify the use of force? People who are nontheistic in their outlooks and who are humanists wrestle with those same existential questions as those of us of faith. So I strongly encourage my colleagues to not adopt an amendment that would be restrictive on the military.

Now, to be clear, the military has not announced plans to move forward with ordaining humanist chaplains; but what this amendment does is to lock in place a 2004 rule, placing it in statute and preventing the military, even if they feel the need should arise for the good of the chaplaincy, from having the flexibility they need to appoint humanist chaplains.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for his efforts on behalf of the chaplaincy. I agree with his interpretation of the rules and responsibilities of the chaplaincy. And we try to represent the diverse faith tradition of the men and women who serve.

In that faith tradition are those who look at objective fact, free thinkers, humanists, atheists. They too have the same mentoring, spiritual existential needs as others. And, of course, just as Catholics have to handle the needs of Jews and Muslims in the service and Buddhist chaplains handle the needs of others, they're all trained to handle the needs of soldiers. We also want to make sure we have a chaplaincy that reflects the broad diversity of belief systems.

Over 20 percent of today's members of the military don't have a theistic outlook, are nonbelievers. That's an important thing to represent in the chaplaincy. Many major universities have humanist chaplains. Hospitals have humanist chaplains. Many of our allied European militaries have humanist chaplains.

As one of the other gentlemen argued, there is no political goal or secular agenda here. We simply want to make sure the military is not prevented from providing chaplaincy services for the men and women who put their lives at risk defending our country every day. Every man and woman who serves should be able, when the need arises, to have a private consultation with a chaplain; and we should include in the chaplaincy people who represent the full diversity of the beliefs of the quality of men and women who serve.

Increasingly, there are seminaries who prepare humanist chaplains for ordination and work in the field, in hospitals, in universities, and again in the militaries that have them. I personally hope that this is a direction that our military considers in the future. We ran a similar amendment that would move it in this direction to an authorization bill; 150 Members voted for it. I'm confident even more Members will want to vote against restricting the military from moving in this direction.

Again, to be clear, the Obama administration and the military have given no indication that they want to go this way; but as we reassess our ongoing personnel needs and how best to support the men and women who serve, I believe that many members of the military will come to the conclusion that this is an excellent way to do this.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment.

I salute the leadership of Chairman Kline who fully understands the public education side and the military side. We are bringing forth this amendment as another opportunity to make sure that what is already clearly the will of this House, as articulated through the NDAA, actually comes to pass.

Very simply, this is a provision that ensures that any student who receives a diploma from a legally operating accredited secondary school in compliance with the education laws of the State and district in which the person resides is given the same opportunity to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces as a traditional bricks and mortar high school graduate. This includes graduates of online schools and hybrid schools who completed their secondary education and earned a degree.

Currently, these classified students who attend online schools are called tier 2 for purposes of military enlistment. What this effectively means is they can enroll in the military; however, on the Armed Forces qualification test, they have to score 50 or higher instead of 31 to 36, depending on the service branch, for a bricks and mortar high school.

What we should care about in public education and in the military is preparedness for the job, not what particular type or model or size or shape of school that they went to. From the military perspective, we need young men and women who are capable and able to execute their responsibilities to serve our country.

From the education perspective, we want to encourage innovation, and we shouldn't be sending a message--and this body has spoken clearly and has the opportunity to speak clearly again--that we discourage innovation within public education. We should not say that just because a particular school is distributed or doesn't have a bricks and mortar campus, as long as it is fully accredited by a school district and held to the same standards as any other public school, that should not be dealt with in a separate way in this matter.

Congressional intent is clear. The NDAA bill includes language to not let the DOD make a distinction between graduates of traditional high schools and those who attend online schools. This amendment would ensure that all students are held to the same standard when it comes to being eligible for military service.

That is why I am proud to join Chairman Kline and Representative Paulsen, leaders for charter schools and education choice and online education, to propose this amendment to the defense authorization act which would ensure that no funds are used to give a lower enlistment priority to students from online schools as compared to traditional bricks and mortar high school diploma graduates.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source