[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 113-76]
RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE ARMED SERVICES
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
JANUARY 29, 2014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-966 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
Dave Giachetti, Professional Staff Member
Debra Wada, Professional Staff Member
Colin Bosse, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2014
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, January 29, 2014, Religious Accommodations in the
Armed Services................................................. 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, January 29, 2014...................................... 23
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2014
RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE ARMED SERVICES
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel..................... 2
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................. 1
WITNESSES
Magness, Reverend James B., Bishop Suffragan of the Armed Forces
and Federal Ministries, Washington National Cathedral.......... 5
Penrod, Virginia S., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Military Personnel Policy, Department of Defense............... 3
Tidd, RDML Mark L., USN, Chief of Navy Chaplains, U.S. Navy;
accompanied by BG Charles R. Bailey, USA, Deputy Chief of
Chaplains, U.S. Army, and Brig Gen Bobby Page, USAF, Deputy
Chief Chaplain, U.S. Air Force................................. 4
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Magness, Reverend James B.................................... 46
Penrod, Virginia S........................................... 28
Tidd, RDML Mark L., joint with BG Charles R. Bailey and Brig
Gen Bobby Page............................................. 35
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 27
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Statements from:
American Civil Liberties Union............................. 85
Americans United for Separation of Church and State........ 79
Anti-Defamation League..................................... 96
Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.................... 65
Chaplain MG Douglas L. Carver, USA (Ret.).................. 57
Family Research Council.................................... 130
Hon. Doug Collins, a Representative from the State of
Georgia.................................................... 136
Interfaith Alliance........................................ 126
Liberty Institute.......................................... 141
Major Kamaljeet Singh Kalsi................................ 119
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.................. 128
Sikh Coalition............................................. 106
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Wittman.................................................. 147
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Dr. Fleming.................................................. 151
Mr. Forbes................................................... 157
Dr. Heck..................................................... 151
Ms. Tsongas.................................................. 151
RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE ARMED SERVICES
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, January 29, 2014.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mr. Wilson. Ladies and gentlemen, the hearing will come to
order. Welcome to a meeting of the House Armed Services
Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Today, the subcommittee
will examine religious accommodations in the armed services,
including the military services' interpretation, enactment, and
enforcement of religious accommodation statutory and regulatory
guidance.
Historically, the armed services have supported religious
freedom and, when possible, accommodated service members'
religious beliefs and practices. I believe we can maintain a
proper balance between religious accommodations, which will
promote military readiness, unit cohesion, and good order and
discipline. This should not present challenges to the military
services.
Chaplains have always been vital to our military. I am very
grateful the chaplain school is located in the district that I
represent, at Fort Jackson. One of the strengths of our
military is its diversity with mutual respect. And as such, it
has been important for Congress to work with the Department of
Defense to ensure that appropriate statutory and regulatory
guidance is in place in order for the services to meet the
important spiritual and religious needs of our troops.
Recognizing that there have been challenges in accommodating
religious practices and beliefs, we have engaged in various
efforts to clarify the role of religion in the military,
prevent religious discrimination, and provide appropriate
religious accommodations for those service members who seek it.
Our goal today is to better understand how the Department
of Defense has balanced the implementation of the religious
accommodations policy with maintaining military readiness, unit
cohesion, and good order and discipline.
Before I introduce our panel, let me offer Congresswoman
Susan Davis, the ranking member from California, an opportunity
to make her opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 27.]
STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to also welcome our witnesses today. Thank you
very much for being with us. Today's hearing on the
accommodation of religious beliefs, including the right to
observe no religion at all, by service members is an important
issue. Over the past several years, the committee has attempted
to balance the accommodation of religious beliefs of service
members and chaplains with the need for commanders to establish
and to maintain good order and discipline among their ranks. It
is especially difficult for military chaplains who face
difficult and unique challenges, unlike our chaplains or our
rabbis in communities where congregations are able to self-
select where and whom they choose to receive their spiritual
support.
Military chaplains must provide spiritual care for all of
those who serve in the military, most of which may not share
their particular faith, or religious beliefs. This challenge
has often created the perception that the Department of Defense
or the services are prohibiting chaplains and service members
from practicing the tenets of their faith. Often in these
discussions what is lost is a recognition that a military
chaplain's responsibility is not just to his or her tenets of
their faith and those who follow that specific faith, but we
know that ultimately, responsibility of military chaplains and
why we have chaplains in the uniform at all, is to provide
nondenominational, inclusive, spiritual support to all of those
in uniform and their families, regardless of their specific
religious belief.
Our Armed Forces is a reflection of our country. Our
country, which is comprised of individuals from all walks of
religious beliefs, to those who have no belief in a specific
religion, including atheists and free thinkers. Our diversity
is what makes our country stronger and our ability to respect
different cultures and beliefs, including religious beliefs, is
the bedrock of our American values. We need to ensure that
these values are upheld and protected for all service members
and military clergy alike.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing
from our witnesses.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Davis, and I appreciate your
commitment to our clergy serving in the military.
I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses. Ms. V.
Penrod, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military
Personnel Policy; Chaplain Mark L. Tidd, Rear Admiral, Chief of
Navy Chaplains; Chaplain Bobby Page, Brigadier General, Deputy
Chief of Chaplains, U.S. Air Force; Chaplain Charles R. Bailey,
Brigadier General, Deputy Chief of Chaplains, U.S. Army; Right
Reverend James B. Magness, Captain Retired, U.S. Navy, Bishop
Suffragan for the Armed Forces and Federal Ministries; and our
last witness, who could not be with us today, due to unusual
winter weather, a unique snow storm from Florida in the
southeast United States this week, was Mr. Douglas Carver,
Chaplain Major General Retired, U.S. Army, Executive Director
of the North American Mission Board.
We will enter his testimony for the record.
[The statement of Mr. Carver can be found in the Appendix
on page 57.]
Mr. Wilson. I now ask unanimous consent that Congressman
Robert Wittman of Virginia, Congressman Randy Forbes of
Virginia, Congressman Dr. John Fleming of Louisiana,
Congressman Steve Palazzo of Mississippi, Congressman Rich
Nugent of Florida, Congressman Tim Huelskamp of Kansas,
Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of Missouri, Congressman Jim
Bridenstine of Oklahoma, Congressman Mike Rogers of Alabama,
Congressman Doug Lamborn of Colorado, Congressman Bradley Byrne
of Alabama, and Congressman Alan Nunnelee of Mississippi be
allowed to participate and ask questions after all members from
the subcommittee have had the opportunity to question the
witnesses.
Without objection, so ordered.
In addition, I ask unanimous consent to enter the following
statements into the record: From the Chaplains Alliance for
Religious Liberty, from the Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, from the American Civil Liberties Union, from
the Anti-Defamation League, from the Sikh Coalition, from the
U.S. Army Major Kamal Kalsi, from the Interfaith Alliance, from
the Religious Action Center, from the Family Research Council,
and from Congressman Doug Collins of Georgia.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The statements referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 65.]
Mr. Wilson. Ms. Penrod, we will begin with your testimony.
We will follow with a statement from Admiral Tidd,
representing the chaplains, and then to our non-governmental
witnesses.
As reminder, keep your statements to three minutes. We have
your written testimony for the record.
Following your testimony, each member will participate in
rounds of 3 minutes each until adjournment. And there are
extraordinary time constraints. We just learned that votes may
be at 10:20. And certainly, everyone would be given the
opportunity to provide questions for the record.
Ms. Penrod.
STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA S. PENROD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Ms. Penrod. Good morning, Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member
Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you
for the opportunity to provide testimony today. The Department
places a high value on helping chaplains as well as military
personnel and their families to observe the tenets of their
faith.
As you now know, we have revised and published policy on
the accommodation of religious practices within the military
services to ensure the protection of rights of conscience of
members in the Armed Forces in accordance with the 2013 and
2014 National Defense Authorization Act [NDAA]. Part of the
delay in publication was necessary to incorporate the changes
in law in the last two NDAAs.
In response to concerns of the Congress, I conducted a
teleconference with over 30 of our hard-working chaplains in
the field. I asked if they are allowed to preach or practice
according to the tenets of their faith. Their response was an
overwhelming yes. They felt they were given the support they
needed from command. When asked if they were forced to perform
ceremonies that went against their faith, 100 percent said no.
There were a few chaplains that felt some of the leadership
positions tend to be overly reactive to social media. However,
almost all believed the key to a productive and trusting
climate was good communication and continued training on the
rights of chaplains and not only the chaplains, but also for
commander. Our chaplains and commanders continue to navigate
recent policy changes, such as same-sex marriage, but have not
expressed a difficulty in doing so.
The group felt that social media and rumors were the source
of most misinformation, and these create constant challenges to
keep the chaplains properly informed of the facts. I am and
continue to be most impressed with our military chaplaincy.
Although a small sampling, my direct communication with the
chaplains reinforced what the service chiefs of chaplains have
been telling us, that they have open communication with their
chaplains and that their chaplains are not concerned regarding
the free exercise or expression of their faith. If an incident
does occur, they are confident it will be worked appropriately.
Your concern for our chaplains gave me the idea to pulse
the field for direct feedback. As we continue to pulse the
field, another form will be the survey, as directed by the 2014
NDAA.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the
distinguished members of this subcommittee for your strong
advocacy on behalf of the men and women of the Department of
Defense and your steadfast support for military chaplaincy. I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Penrod can be found in the
Appendix on page 28.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And Captain Tidd.
STATEMENT OF RDML MARK L. TIDD, USN, CHIEF OF NAVY CHAPLAINS,
U.S. NAVY; ACCOMPANIED BY BG CHARLES R. BAILEY, USA, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, U.S. ARMY, AND BRIG GEN BOBBY PAGE, USAF,
DEPUTY CHIEF CHAPLAIN, U.S. AIR FORCE
Admiral Tidd. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and
esteemed members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to address how the
chaplaincies of the military departments support the religious
and spiritual needs of our people.
With my colleagues here, we are members of the Armed Forces
Chaplains Board, and together, we do have a few decades of
experience in military ministry. And that has been our
privilege and honor. Part of the genius of the American way is
that we are committed to recognizing that each person has the
right to determine his or her own deepest convictions,
including one's religious convictions.
As chaplains, we work together cooperatively to meet the
religious needs of as many of our people as we can, always
guided by the teachings of our religious bodies. And we care
for all with dignity and respect and compassion, whatever their
religious beliefs.
For many of our people, religious faith is an essential
component, even the foundation, of their resilience in the face
of adversity. Chaplains bring a message of hope for all who
seek our support, often in times of our deepest human need.
Chaplains oversee religious ministries around the globe, aboard
ships at sea, in battalions and brigades, on flight lines, in
our installation chapels, in military hospitals, and in combat.
These ministries build resistance--resilience, and they help
our people to be ready to meet the demands of military service.
We also act as advisors to commanders on unit morale, on
morals and ethics, and on the free exercise of religion. In the
last 8 months, the chiefs of chaplains have communicated with
our chaplains to reaffirm the protections afforded them by the
Constitution, by law, and by policy when performing their
religious ministry. We have also provided guidance on ways to
resolve issues that they might face in providing religious
ministry.
When we are made aware of a situation that appears to
challenge the religious freedom of service members, including
chaplains, we are eager to step forward to help resolve it. We
expect our chaplains to be guided by the teachings of their
religious bodies to work together and to provide outstanding
religious ministry that includes responsive pastoral care. Our
chaplains are meeting the religious needs of our people around
the world to the greatest extent possible.
Again, Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. We look forward to
answering your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Admiral Tidd, General
Bailey, and General Page can be found in the Appendix on page
35.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Chaplain Tidd.
And we now proceed to Right Reverend Magness.
STATEMENT OF REVEREND JAMES B. MAGNESS, BISHOP SUFFRAGAN OF THE
ARMED FORCES AND FEDERAL MINISTRIES, WASHINGTON NATIONAL
CATHEDRAL
Rev. Magness. Good morning, Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member
Davis, and esteemed members of the committee.
Thank you for inviting me here today. It is an honor to
speak with you. Since 2010, I have been the Bishop for the
Armed Forces and Federal Ministries for the Episcopal Church.
In that capacity, I endorse and work with all Episcopal
chaplains in the Armed Forces.
I have had the honor of serving the Navy in two capacities
during my military career. I served first as an enlisted person
on ships and in Vietnam, later becoming a Navy chaplain,
retiring in the rank of captain and served as Command Chaplain
of U.S. Joint Forces Command and Fleet Chaplain for the U.S.
Fleet Forces Command.
Based upon my own service, my work now with the Episcopal
chaplains who serve, I would like to share my thoughts with
you. Based upon my service now--in 1976, my Navy enlisted
service, I stood before a Navy officer to take the solemn oath
of office as a Navy Chaplain Corps officer. Instinctively, I
knew that when I took the commissioning oath, I was committing
myself as never before to serve our service men and women. Not
only was I taking this oath as an officer, I was making the
pledge that I would support their rights that are guaranteed by
the First Amendment to the Constitution.
I have learned that the military chaplain may at times be
required to place the needs and rights of the service member
ahead of his or her own needs and rights. I learned that as a
religious leader, the ministry of a military chaplain is in
some very significant ways different from that of their
civilian counterparts. Normally, a civilian religious leader is
only responsible for and accountable to the congregation to
which called; whereas, the military chaplain has a far broader
set of responsibilities. These responsibilities are to care for
America's sons and daughters, who come from every sector of
this country.
During my first active duty assignment as a chaplain, I
learned a meaningful lesson when I was asked to participate in
a retirement ceremony and offer prayers for the retiree, a Navy
captain of the Dental Corps. Using my distinctively Christian
Book of Common Prayer, I created a prayer, which as I recall,
ended with these words, ``through Jesus Christ our Lord.''
Later, the retiring officer came up to me to thank me for
being available to assist and then, in a calm and reasoned way,
said to me, ``You might want to know that all of the members of
my family and I who are present here today are practicing
Jews.''
It didn't take me long to realize that I had just excluded
and offended the honoree and all of the members of his family
by offering an inappropriate prayer. I learned that when in
uniform, my responsibility is to care for all of those who are
present, not just those of my own faith tradition; for all
people, Christian, Jew, Muslim, nontheist, straight, gay, or
lesbian, all people.
I tell this story because in a number of ways it gets to
the heart of the subject of this hearing. I believe that the
current law and the Department of Defense policies provide more
than adequate guidance in matters of religious accommodation
for service members and chaplains alike. I am satisfied that
when there have been instances of religious discrimination, the
service leaders have invariably taken swift and appropriate
action to ensure that fairness and equality and mission
accomplishment are all held in a productive balance.
In today's very complex social and cultural environment, I
believe that the service leaders are doing a splendid job of
using existing law and policy and finding creative ways to
ensure universal religious accommodation for all people. Thank
you for having the opportunity to speak with you.
[The prepared statement of Rev. Magness can be found in the
Appendix on page 46.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Reverend.
Thank you very much, and as we proceed, David Giachetti is
going to be maintaining a 3-minute rule, including on me.
And I am so grateful that we have had so many colleagues
who wanted to be here today because this issue is so important.
And indeed, Chaplain Tidd, I think it confirms what you
said, that the chaplaincy is an essential component of military
service, and for our family, my oldest son served for a year in
Iraq, and his roommate was Chaplain Steve Shugart. We learned
firsthand what extraordinary service and how meaningful that is
for our military service members.
Ms. Penrod, what was the delay in publishing the
implementing instruction enacting this legislation, and why was
the provision on chaplains not included in the published
instruction?
Ms. Penrod. Well, thank you for those questions, Mr.
Chairman.
We were actually in the process of publishing our
instruction that included accommodation of religious practices
in the military services. That particular instruction includes
the protection of rights of all our service members, which
includes our chaplains. It takes anywhere between 9 months to
18 months to publish an instruction in the Department, although
not ideal. I will be the first to criticize the process.
However, when the watch was changed in 2013, we decided to
include the change in law in that instruction, which required
us to pull the instruction and begin the process over. So there
was a delay. We are not pleased with the delay, but we did want
to include the change as far as it pertained to all our service
members. The specific section of law, 533(b) that pertains to
chaplains will be included in a different instruction. That one
is the guidance for appointment of our chaplains. That
instruction is under revision, and we are pushing hard to have
that completed by this summer.
Mr. Wilson. And so you would anticipate completion by July
1.
Ms. Penrod. I would not want to give a specific date, Mr.
Chairman, but our goal is to have it this summer.
Mr. Wilson. And as soon as possible. It is just so helpful
to our military. Additionally, how long do the services have to
publish their companion regulations on this issue, and will the
Department be able to meet the 90-day deadline to publish
further implementing regulations as required by the fiscal year
2014 National Defense Authorization Act?
Ms. Penrod. I can leave it to the chaplains to speak to the
specific instructions, but I believe they have already put out
a guidance through memos and emails to the field, to--so that
they know that these changes are in place.
Mr. Wilson. And for everyone, again, I appreciate your
being here, but you can tell the Members of Congress are
vitally interested, our constituents, service members, military
families, veterans, are vitally interested in your input and
your service. And that is why, to me, this is a record turnout
at any subcommittee and truly a reflection of the concern of
the people of our country about supporting the service of our
chaplains.
I now turn to Congresswoman Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ms. Penrod, I
wanted to--again, please, I understand that the Department has
investigated allegations of chaplains being required to perform
duties inconsistent with the tenets of their faith but have not
necessarily been able to substantiate those claims. Is that
correct?
Ms. Penrod. Yes, Congresswoman Davis, I cannot speak to
specific cases, but to my knowledge, we have not had instances
where we can pinpoint a specific chaplain that has complained
or provided evidence that they have been forced to provide a
sermon or attend a ceremony or oversee a ceremony that went
against the dictates of their particular religion.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. I wonder also then if the Department
or the services track complaints by service members who were
subject to inappropriate proselytizing by other service members
or by military chaplain. Do we know anything about that?
Ms. Penrod. Chairman Davis, I would need to defer to our
chaplains to speak to any specifics.
Admiral Tidd. Ma'am, we have not received those kinds of
complaints. It is not something that we have been tracking, but
we are certainly very sensitive to those and eager to get
information on that if that is the case.
Mrs. Davis. But to your knowledge, there haven't been any
that have come to you or to others who have spoken with you?
Admiral Tidd. Not to my knowledge, ma'am.
General Bailey. It is the same with the Army, ma'am. There
are no complaints that we have received, nor have we had any
accumulation of those complaints, but we are sensitive to that
and are monitoring constantly any issues that are out there.
General Page. That would also be true for the Air Force. It
is something very, very important to us that all airmen are
free to practice their faith, and I am not aware of any cases
where airmen are complaining about or alleging that they have
been mistreated for lack of faith or disagreeing with someone.
Mrs. Davis. Okay, thank you.
And Bishop Magness, if I could turn to you, and I
appreciate the story that you shared with us. One of the--could
you talk just a little bit more about how you feel that
allowing sectarian prayers at military ceremonies would harm
unit cohesion and other important goals and laws that we have?
Rev. Magness. Yes, thank you for the question,
Congresswoman Davis. And I base most of this on my own
experience, both as a practitioner of religion within the
Department of Defense and also as one who had occasion to
supervise a large number of chaplains from time to time.
The issue of good order and discipline and unit cohesion is
incredibly important, and when we find ourselves offending
others by the use of sectarian prayers, that has a significant
negative impact upon good order, discipline, and unit cohesion.
In the case that I cited with this Navy captain and the Dental
Corps, he certainly was of senior rank and able to come forward
and state his complaint. And I was a lieutenant, Navy
lieutenant at the time.
However, in other cases, I fear that those who have their--
feel that they have their rights violated and have intrusive
prayers offered with them, sectarian prayers, will not come
forward. They don't feel the opportunity to come forward. They
don't feel that they have a voice in the organization because
of their situation, place in the system that they--in which
they participate. So I think unit cohesion is incredibly
important in this issue.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
My time is up.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Ms. Davis.
And indeed, the significance of appreciation of chaplains
is indicated. We have been joined by the chairman of the House
Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon of California.
So, Chairman McKeon, thank you for being here.
We proceed now to Congressman Dr. Joe Heck of Nevada.
Dr. Heck. Thank you Mr. Chair.
And thanks Ms. Penrod, Chaplains, Right Reverend, thank you
all for being here to talk about this important issue. And as
we can see, it is also not just a big issue from the sake of
the chaplaincy, but also for the Sikh community. Several
members are present here today.
And Ms. Penrod, I know that DODI 1300.17 [Department of
Defense Instruction] was recently revised. But it is my
understanding that there is still within the DODI a presumptive
ban on members of the Sikh religion from joining, from having
to give up their articles of faith, from having to seek an
accommodation every time they have a change of assignment, and
whether or not there is still some question as if they are
allowed to access into the service, whether or not they have to
stop wearing their head gear, or shave while going through boot
camp until an accommodation is granted.
Can you please explain why there remains the presumptive
ban? I know, previously, I served with Colonel Sekhon, who is
one of the trailblazers when he was commander of the 349th CSH
[Combat Support Hospital] and seemed to be able to overcome
every obstacle that the military tried to put in his way from
effective service. I am curious why the DODI still maintains
those bans.
Ms. Penrod. It is good to see you again, Dr. Heck. What the
DODI, what the changes do, it tries to balance the needs or
provides the service the ability to balance the needs of the
service member with the needs against mission accomplishment.
What we have done is decisions relating to any waiver of a
regulation or policy that pertains to uniform, wearing of
religious articles of clothing is now elevated to the service
secretary and cannot be delegated below a three-star level. So
it is at a very high level and the decision with the--we have
delegated that to service, and the reason behind that is the
service is in the best position to determine their readiness
needs, to determine unit cohesion, safety and health of not
only the individual, but the unit.
The service has the responsibility, though, to look at the
request of the individual, and it has to be a compelling
governmental interest before they make that decision. They will
look at the facts. They will look at precedence in making that
decision. So that is what we have done in this particular DODI.
Dr. Heck. But does it still require, correct me if I am
wrong, but does it still require a new waiver every time there
is a change of assignment? If it is now elevated to the three-
star level, you would think that that would carry through in
the person's lifetime of service, as opposed to every time they
change assignment.
Ms. Penrod. Well, Dr. Heck, when you look at military
readiness, each unit of assignment has a different
responsibility. The service has to make that determination if
now this new position or new job that the individual would be
performing impacts safety, health, the unit, they may deny the
accommodation.
Dr. Heck. I understand. I know we are short on time today
because of a compressed timeframe, I would like to discuss this
more offline with you, and we can kind of do a bigger deep dive
into this issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Heck.
We now proceed to Congressman Dr. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I found that when I served in theater in Iraq
that, you know, there was definitely an effort by the chaplain
to be respectful of all religions. And I found that our
chaplain was able to provide compassion and comfort for anyone
who was in need, even if they were nonbelievers of any type.
And I think that that is an effective role of a chaplain, and I
think chaplains display a tremendous ability to be
accommodating.
You know, personally, I am not offended by anyone praying
in their own way. That doesn't bother me. Some people do get
offended if someone is praying in a different way.
I don't really have a question today, but I would caution
us as we proceed just to recognize that there is a fine line
between accommodating and respecting all religions and
restricting religious freedom. And that is the line that we are
walking on here. And I think we have to be very cautious. And I
hope that we are going in the right direction in trying to
accomplish that.
And I thank you all for being here today.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Wenstrup.
We now proceed to Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I share the same concerns that my colleague, Dr.
Wenstrup, shares.
I have a specific question, though. As a Christian, I am
very respectful of other people's right to practice their
faith. We have a First Amendment in this country. It is what
our country was founded on; founded on the First, protected by
the Second. And it seems that in the military people of my
faith can get reprimanded for a statement as simple as one
saying that my priorities in life are a commitment to my Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ, a commitment to my family, and a
commitment to my country, in that order. I am aware of a
colonel that got reprimanded in a change of command for saying
that on the stage. He didn't say that anybody in the crowd had
to believe as he did or share his priorities. And my question
is, can you give me any example of a person of a faith other
than a Christian faith, where they were reprimanded for a
statement that was that simple?
Ms. Penrod. Congressman, thank you for your question. I
cannot give you an example of anyone that was reprimanded for
expressing their religious beliefs because really it is free
speech. We become concerned in the Department if an individual
is coercing any other individual or impacting unit cohesion.
Again, I can defer to the chiefs of chaplains if they know
of any instance, but I do not know.
Mr. Scott. Ma'am, if I may, we know of instances where
Christians have been reprimanded for statements as simple as
that. Are you saying that you know that there are no other
instances of people of any other faith?
Ms. Penrod. I know of no instances of any faith. If you do
have examples, the Department would be more than willing to
look into specific examples.
Mr. Scott. We will get you that information. And I would
ask for the different branches, if they would, to--this was an
Air Force colonel that the reprimand came to. If each of you
would speak briefly to that, I have got 30 seconds.
Admiral Tidd. Sir, I am not aware of any of those
instances.
General Bailey. Also, I am not aware either, sir, but also,
that there is--if there was an instance possibly, a chaplain
would be there to advise the command that that was a wrong
procedure to go by.
General Page. Thank you for bringing up this issue.
Commanders are also airmen. Airmen are free to practice
their faith. In order for the airmen under that commander,
under any person of authority, to practice their faith, it is
necessary that the commander, as the agent of the government,
if you will, exercise some discretion and some wisdom in what
he, she, would do, so that the people under him, under her,
would be able to practice their faith.
So as long as the person of authority, as long as it is
clear that what he is saying is personal and not official, not
an expectation, he is free to practice his faith and speak of
his faith.
Mr. Scott. My time is expired, thank you.
And we will get you a copy of the reprimand if he will
share it with us. It is clearly biased.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
We now proceed to Congressman Dr. John Fleming of
Louisiana.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And before I ask questions, I would like to address the
chair if I could. First of all, we have about an hour for a
subject that could go on for days. I am very concerned about
that. We have many Members here who are not even on this
subcommittee, which, again, shows you how much interest there
is. There is a long line outside down the hallway, and so what
I would like to say, first of all, is that we definitely need
to repeat this hearing and perhaps at the full committee level.
So I would ask that.
Secondly, just to begin my questions here, in terms--if you
do want to know about the problems that we are seeing with
religious liberty, all you have to do is go to ``Clear and
Present Danger.'' It is an FRC [Family Research Council] Web
site. There is a huge tabulation that has occurred over recent
years. I have spoken with the head chaplain of the Air Force. I
have made him aware of this. And again, I am disappointed that
we don't have General Boykin and others who can actually tell
us about all of these problems.
But let me say this, I feel very good about the fact that
there has not been a single complaint or problematic complaint
with proselytizing. Yet, we hear from our sectarian atheist
friends that that is a huge problem in the military, and that
is the reason why we have to change the culture of the
military.
So if people are free to express their religious beliefs,
why do we have a growing number of complaints? And again, I
won't go into those, but I would refer to that Web site,
because of lack of time.
Here is my question, Ms. Penrod, you know, last week DOD
[Department of Defense] issued an instruction, 1300.17,
regarding the accommodation of religious practices within the
military services. Were these revisions the Department's
official response to the congressional requests in the NDAA
2013, and/or 2014?
Ms. Penrod. Congressman, thank you for that question. The
accommodation, the DODI, is the official document that includes
the changes in law in 2013, 2014.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. So, in the fiscal year 2014 NDAA,
language was included that said, quote, ``In prescribing such
regulations, the Secretary shall consult with the official
military faith group representatives who endorse military
chaplains,'' end quote. Did the DOD comply with the fiscal year
2014 NDAA by consulting with the official military faith group
representatives in formulating this instruction?
Ms. Penrod. Well, the instruction was under revision as the
law was being deliberated. Actually, it was pretty much
completed. However, we had the opportunity on January 16th, to
meet with over 100 religious endorsers.
Dr. Fleming. Well, I am running out of time. Just to make
it clear, the answer to that is, no.
Ms. Penrod. No, the answer is yes.
Dr. Fleming. It is no. And that is why we need more
hearings, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Fleming.
Congressman Doug Lamborn of Colorado.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You all know, I am sure, of Chaplain Dale Goetz, who died
in Afghanistan. I have legislation to name a post office in his
memory. If and when that day arrives, I would like to invite
you all to help memorialize that occasion and to honor his
memory. So please be aware of that.
Chaplain Tidd, do you agree that chaplains should be free
to prepare and deliver sermons or teachings according to the
faith traditions of their endorsing agency without interference
from a commander?
Admiral Tidd. Sir, that is correct. That is our policy, and
that is our practice.
Mr. Lamborn. And would anyone disagree with that answer he
gave?
[Nonverbal response.]
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Chaplain Page, should chaplains be free to write public
essays about a faith's teaching and the tenets of their
personal faith in particular?
General Page. Absolutely.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay, thank you. And would anyone disagree
with that answer?
[Nonverbal response.]
Mr. Lamborn. For any one of you, chaplains are not only
members of the Armed Forces but also representatives of faith
groups and accountable to an endorsing agency that holds to
specific faith tenets. If the chain of command has veto power
over the content of religious speech in the military, would the
core of the chaplaincy be compromised?
Chaplain Tidd.
Admiral Tidd. Sir, as we have discussed, it is hard for me
to conceive that the chain of command would want to have veto
power particularly over a sermon, a Bible study, teaching like
that. So that is just not part of who we are as a military, as
well as a chaplain.
Mr. Lamborn. And that situation would be unacceptable in
your opinion?
Admiral Tidd. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay, thank you. Should DOD policy determine
in any way what is an acceptable body of moral or religious
beliefs to discuss, teach, or share in the military?
Ms. Penrod.
Ms. Penrod. No.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay, thank you.
And would anyone disagree with her answer?
[Nonverbal response.]
Mr. Lamborn. Lastly, it is our understanding that
additional regulations regarding chaplains are forthcoming.
Will you commit to come back before the committee and discuss
these regulations?
Ms. Penrod.
Ms. Penrod. Yes, I will.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you all very much for your answers and
thank you for being here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
We now proceed to Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank all of you so much for being here. You know, it
is my contention that those who defend our country are the most
noble figures in society. And often, in the process of doing
that, they put themselves at mortal risk.
And it is also my contention that part of military
efficiency and cohesion and capability is rooted in their own
ability to have refuge in their own faith when they face death
for all of us, and it is not a small issue, and it is not just
a religious freedom issue. This is about a military capability
that we protect religious freedom, and religious freedom goes
to the very heart of who we are as a people and as a Nation.
And in terms of when prayers are written by some commanding
officer or something like that, you understand the danger that
if we have to proscribe or prescribe any prayer to the chaplain
or someone that has dedicated their life to a particular tenet
or faith, it can vitiate the entire reason that they pursue
this entire impetus. And I was struck by Reverend Magness'
comments and very respectful of it, but was struck by it. If
the people had approached you and said, well, we are atheist
and we are offended by any prayer, would that have motivated
you to say, well, we wouldn't pray at all? And my question here
to all of you is, when it comes to prayers that chaplains make
before an official crowd or anything else, is there anything in
the military code or anything in the practice of the military
or anything in the anticipated regulations that would prohibit
a prayer that--say if it is a Christian prayer, in Jesus' name,
like you mentioned, or if it was a Jewish prayer in some other
way, would there be anything anticipated or anything in the
military code that would prohibit any person officially or
quasi officially from being able to pray in a public setting,
even in an official setting, according to the tenets of their
faith? It is a specific question.
If it is all right, Ms. Penrod, I will talk to you and then
just go down the line here.
Ms. Penrod. Yes, Congressman.
There is absolutely nothing in policy or code that
prohibits a chaplain from praying in accordance with the
dictates of their faith.
Mr. Franks. And Chaplain Tidd, would you agree with that?
Admiral Tidd. Yes, sir. Chaplains are always free to pray
according to the manner and forms of their religious
organizations. We also as a matter of practice understand that
not every setting is a worship service. And so we are free to
work within the parameters of our religious traditions to pray
in a way that is meaningful for that particular group.
Mr. Franks. But any reports of people being said that, you
know, in the case of Reverend Magness, it was voluntary on his
part, but any reports of anyone saying, no, you cannot pray in
that way, or is there anything anticipated in the regulations?
Admiral Tidd. Sir, I am not aware of that. If a chaplain
feels that they can't pray in a way that would be meaningful
for that group, they always have the opportunity to
respectfully withdraw from that with no kind of retribution.
The commander is also free to choose any chaplain that the
commander would like to offer a prayer.
Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all very much.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Franks.
And we now proceed to a brand new Member of Congress, Brad
Byrne of Alabama.
Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Bishop Magness, I wonder if I could start with you.
Just so you know, I am a cradle-to-grave Episcopalian and the
nephew of an Episcopal priest who was a chaplain. And I was
struck by your comments, and I want to make sure that we give
you an opportunity to clarify if you need to.
Many of our prayers in the ``Book of Common Prayer'' end
with that simple statement, ``In the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ.'' Do you feel like that there are times for you or for
other chaplains when you feel inhibited in being able to invoke
the name of Jesus or invoke the name of God because of a
particular thing that is in the code or just because of a
practice in the military?
Rev. Magness. Thank you for the question.
Speaking personally for myself, I never felt that I was
inhibited in any way as a military chaplain from praying in any
particular way, nor do I think there should be any policy that
prohibits that. This is a matter of education and training. We
train chaplains and continue to train chaplains, as I train our
Episcopal priests, to be able to understand and learn and read
situations, to know the distinctions between a religious
service and a command function, and to know that in certain
settings, certain things are appropriate and other settings
they are not, that they can be offensive.
One of the things we do in the Episcopal Church when we
take our baptismal vows is to say that we will respect the
dignity of every human being. I take that very seriously, and I
expect my chaplains to take that very seriously. And I will not
restrict them from praying in any way that they want to or need
to at any particular place; yet to be mindful that they have an
effect as a command leader upon the dignity of everyone who is
there with them.
Mr. Byrne. And if you know that there is, if you are
speaking to an audience and it includes people who happen to be
Jewish, you know that there may be an appropriate way to state
your prayer that is in keeping with your own faith and with
their faith as well.
Rev. Magness. I believe that there are a lot of different
ways to pray. I don't think that from my own personal
preference of the ending subscription, ``in Jesus' name,''
always has to be there. In fact, not every prayer I pray always
has that at the end.
Mr. Byrne. And I wonder if I could direct this to you, Ms.
Penrod. My uncle told me, the first time I ever heard it, that
there is no such thing as atheists in foxholes. Maybe we have
them today, but during World War II and the aftermath of that,
he didn't feel that way.
Do you think it is appropriate for our chaplains to be able
to witness to the men and women in our armed services when they
are going through these difficult times and to witness in a
personal way, not just in some sort of an abstract way, but to
personally witness to them?
Ms. Penrod. Sir, what the Department believes is that all
members have the right to practice according to the tenets of
their religion or no religion. If an individual is comfortable
with that, absolutely.
Mr. Byrne. By ``any individual,'' you mean a chaplain as
well, not just an individual service man or woman?
Ms. Penrod. Absolutely. And if the individual is
uncomfortable with the chaplain praying, they can address that
with the chaplain.
Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Byrne.
We now proceed to Congressman Rob Wittman of Virginia.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank our panelists for joining us today.
Ms. Penrod, I want to begin with you. Can you give me some
perspective about the Defense Equal Opportunity Management
Institute and what they use as a metric in communicating to
units out in the field? And can you tell me, do they consider
the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate groups to be a
reliable indicator of extremist groups in the United States?
Ms. Penrod. Well, Congressman, thank you for that question.
That organization is out of the purview of my responsibilities.
I will need to take that for the record.
Mr. Wittman. Okay, because my concern is that as these
groups have been identified as extremist groups, they include
some religious groups, which to me is very troubling. Can you
tell me if there are any steps in the plan that the Defense
Equal Opportunity Management Institute puts out that determines
recommended resources for EO [equal opportunity] trainers for a
further study to look at how they identify these extremist
groups and whether they do include religious groups that I
think do intersect into the idea of religious freedom by
identifying certain groups on a very subjective basis, and how
that is communicated out to the field with the EO trainers?
Ms. Penrod. Again, Congressman, I would need to get the
specifics for you, so I will take that for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 147.]
Mr. Wittman. Okay. Let me ask you, this was specific to the
Army and how the Army was communicating as to whether certain
religious groups were extremist groups. Has the Army made any
changes to training or anything that they are doing as far as
identifying religious groups as extremist groups and how they
train their men and women?
Ms. Penrod. I will defer to Chaplain Bailey.
Mr. Wittman. Chaplain Bailey.
General Bailey. Yes, sir, thank you. They have stopped all
training and revised the training packets to ensure that all of
the information is correct. This that you are talking about was
an isolated case in which information was brought in from on
outside source. It was a mistake, and it was quickly corrected
at the time.
Mr. Wittman. Okay, so that has been corrected. I understand
that those training courses were stopped in order for this to
be considered. So what you are saying is, changes have been
made. Are the new training courses now being reinstituted? Are
trainers now continuing with that EO training based on a new
directive from the Army?
General Bailey. Sir, it is outside of my perimeter of
information. However, I understand that they have stopped that.
They have got better information in, and they are starting the
training back up again with the correct information.
Mr. Wittman. Okay, very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Wittman.
We now proceed to a very proud military dad, Congressman
Rich Nugent of Florida.
Mr. Nugent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I certainly do thank our chaplains for your service to
this country and particularly to our service members. You know,
much has been made about our military's role in religion, and
there are those who argue it is the responsibility of the
military to promote religious values, specifically, Christian
values. Others argue it is the responsibility of the military
to create a purely secular environment, where no person would
ever be exposed to religious beliefs or challenge--that
challenge their own.
I am the father of three sons currently serving in the
United States Army, and I am a Christian. I believe it is the
military's responsibility to provide for the spiritual needs of
warfighters of any faith. The dedicated chaplains and support
assistants meet that need everywhere our armed services are in
the world.
Would you please confirm with me, or confirm to me the
military's level of commitment to religious need of all
personnel while validating the following facts: The Air Force
had 2,472 chaplains and 3,344 enlisted assistants who have
served since the program was created in 1975; 1,870 chaplains
and assistants currently serve today in the Air Force. Two died
while deployed. Navy, total number of chaplains could not be
found, but the largest the chaplain corps has ever been was
1,487 serving during the same time during World War II. Today,
2,042 chaplains and assistants serve currently. Fifteen
chaplains died while deployed, and two chaplains received the
Medal of Honor. In the Army, more than 25,000 chaplains and
assistants have served in the Army; 6,400 chaplains and
assistants currently serve. Three hundred have died while
deployed, and six chaplains received a Medal of Honor.
I just want to make sure that the commitment of the armed
services is to provide for that spiritual need of any service
member within any of the organizations. Does that commitment
still stand today? I think by the numbers, would you agree with
those numbers? And I know you may not know specifically the
numbers, but in general terms.
Admiral Tidd. Sir, I would say for the Navy, that is
roughly right, and I would have to check on the specifics; but
absolutely, our commitment is strong to honoring the religious
and spiritual values of our people and supporting religious and
spiritual values of all of our people.
Mr. Nugent. It is not just spiritual values, I would think,
from my time when I was in basic training, and my sons, who
currently serve; it really is to minister to any. It matters
not if they have a religious affiliation. They are there as a
counselor and a shoulder to lean on and talk to get help if
necessary. And so I do appreciate all that the chaplains do. It
is a huge service to this country, and to our warfighters, and
please continue.
I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Nugent.
We now proceed to Congressman Mike Rogers of Alabama.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Penrod, late last year, I had a young woman in my
district go to a VA hospital down near Montgomery, Alabama. The
young woman made homemade cookies and packaged them up to take
to the VA Hospital, a couple of hundred packages to give to
some of the veterans in the hospital in honor of her late
grandfather. But when she arrived at the VA hospital, she was
denied the ability to hand out those cookies because the
packaging had the word ``Christmas'' on it.
While this incident occurred in a VA hospital, I am curious
if it had been a DOD facility, do you all have a policy that
would prevent somebody from doing something for our men and
women in service if the word ``Christmas'' or ``Hanukkah'' or
whatever was on the packaging.
Ms. Penrod. We do not have such a policy.
Mr. Rogers. Thanks.
On another subject, current DOD policy states that service
members can share their faith or evangelize but must not force
unwanted intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or
no faith to one's beliefs. My question is, who makes the
determination of the relative comfort of others, and what is
the practical application of that policy?
Ms. Penrod. I will defer to our chiefs of chaplains.
Admiral Tidd. Sir, as we share our faith, as service
members share our faith, we are always open to do that. It is
always an option for us to do that and to do so respectfully
and gracefully. And that is something that is worked out
between the individuals. If an individual says, ``Thanks, I am
not interested,'' that is an appropriate time for the other
person to step back. If they say, ``I would like to hear more
about that,'' then, absolutely, we continue.
Mr. Rogers. All right, thank you.
That is all I have.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Rogers.
We now proceed to Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of Missouri.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last week, the DOD issued an instruction indicating that
it's DOD policy that religious expression of service members
should be accommodated as reiterated in the NDAA, and of
course, the intent is that expression is not just a belief, but
it is also in practice. So my question is, can--and I guess I
will start with General Bailey--can you give me examples of an
expression of religious belief, whether verbal or nonverbal,
that is considered to be borderline inappropriate?
General Bailey. Thank you, ma'am. I would think that a
statement that would indicate that their religious beliefs are
better or more--have more importance than another belief system
and how they would phrase something like that and state that in
some sort of way, that their god or their higher being, that
they--who they call would be something that is the supreme over
anything else, where maybe that would suppress another
individual to think that they are not less in their faith, that
would be a wrong statement to make in that sense.
Mrs. Hartzler. Here is an example. So the respectful
expression of an individual's conscious or religious belief
while engaging in personal conversation in public space would
be considered inappropriate. So if you said, you know, I
believe I am a Christian because of this reason, and it--that
would entail as a faith that you believe he is the Son of God
and all of that. So you couldn't get into that without
reprimand?
General Bailey. No, ma'am. That is perfectly okay for that
individual to state what they believe openly, understanding who
is around the area; that is a private conversation within their
own convictions of what they believe. When it is in conflict
with those around, that is denouncing them or intruding on
them, then there is a sensitivity there that we have to help
that individual understand through training and through other
means like that. But they are never told they cannot share
their own personal faith of any sort.
What we try to do, though, for the discipline purposes, is
to understand that every faith has to be respected and
dignified as well as those who have no faith whatsoever. So you
must state your faith in a sense that, and hopefully they will,
in a sense of that respect, but never suppressed in any sort of
way.
Mrs. Hartzler. I think that is a fine line, but it is
important to be sensitive to others, but I just hope through
your training, it doesn't result in suppression of that because
that is very important.
How about an invitation from one service member to another
to attend a Bible study or other religious function? Would that
be inappropriate?
General Bailey. No, ma'am, not whatsoever.
Mrs. Hartzler. A religious text or symbol that is visible
in a commanding officer's office?
General Bailey. No, ma'am. A commanding officer can have
whatever he has on his desk, a Bible, or a Quran, or whatever
it may be. That is up to him. That is his individual conviction
whatever it may be.
However, the chaplain, that is what our role is to advise
the commander of the impact that would have or possibly any
repercussions of that. The commander will make a wise decision
at that point, understanding his or her role as a leader of all
faiths in regard to religious accommodation or a lack of faith,
whatever it may be, of the choices of the service members they
lead. So that will be their individual right.
Mrs. Hartzler. All right, thank you. My time is up.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Hartzler.
We now proceed to Congressman Tim Huelskamp of Kansas.
Mr. Huelskamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I certainly appreciate the ability to be here today.
Appreciate the leadership of many on this committee.
First question I would have, and I believe one of the
colleagues here had asked, all of the above, in terms of
sermons, whether or not folks should be able to preach,
chaplains preach what they believe in a particular homily or
sermon. And perhaps for the Right Reverend, are there any cases
in which military has censored in advance anything you
anticipated to preach?
Rev. Magness. Neither has that been the case in my
experience nor has it been the case with any of my chaplains
who serve around this globe in all the services.
Mr. Huelskamp. And as I understand from the others, that
was a pretty firm commitment that that doesn't happen.
But one instance I would like to refer to that I was
worried about. And I believe General Bailey might be able to
address this. January of 2012, every Catholic chaplain in the
Army was forbidden to use one particular sentence in a sermon
that every other Catholic across the country was allowed to
hear. Do you not consider that censorship? And exactly can you
describe how that decision was made by which that was a
forbidden sentence in our--to be uttered by our Catholic
chaplains?
General Bailey. Yes, sir, thank you very much. At the time,
if I believe, the endorsing agency for the Roman Catholic
Church, a bishop had put out a letter to all to be read and
sermonized and to all the Roman Catholic services throughout
the military, the Department of Defense at that time. Our chief
of chaplains at that time went to our Judge Advocate General,
screening that letter as properly to be done to look at to make
sure that it was in good order and discipline, that it would go
against the chain of command, things of this nature that we are
supposed to do to ensure that we do say the right things in
that regard. And so through that means and through that
mechanism, the one sentence that was said would be misconstrued
and possibly from the judicial perspective in that sense from
the chain of command, that information was fed back to the
Roman Catholic Church to understand that that would not be. In
fact, the Roman Catholic endorser met with the Secretary of the
Army over that issue, and they discussed it, and it was agreed
to that it was not to be used, as well as that every--the
letter be read by everyone Catholic priest to the congregates
in the sense that they all know what is being said by their
endorser. So all the information was let out to the people.
Mr. Huelskamp. Sir, the last sentence, not all information,
the one sentence was stricken in every Catholic chaplain's
homily in every military base in this country, as I understand.
Do you not think that is censorship?
General Bailey. No, sir, I don't. What I do believe is that
we worked with the bishop's office to understand that that one
sentence was not the intent of the bishop, what he was trying
to say. And because the culture of the military being
misconstrued against the President, against all what was going
on at that time.
Mr. Huelskamp. Sir, in my definition of censorship, when
the government demands something not be said and forces that--
again, every Catholic in America heard that one sentence unless
you were in an Army installation at a Catholic mass. So I am
very frustrated by that, frustrated by your response. And the
fact is I believe that is censorship. And I would love to
discuss at length why that sentence was problematic to you and
not problematic to every other Catholic in this country.
And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Huelskamp.
As we proceed, votes have been called.
But fortunately, we have time for our last Member. I am
delighted the number of persons who are here.
And, Dr. Fleming, I agree with you that this issue is so
important, we will be having another hearing, and it would fit
right into when the companion regulations are released within
the next 60 days. So this shall occur.
And thank you again, Dr. Fleming, for your passion on this
issue.
We will be concluding with Congressman Alan Nunnelee of
Mississippi.
Mr. Nunnelee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for having this hearing and for allowing me, a
nonmember of the committee, to be part of it.
Ms. Penrod, I want to follow up with a line of questions
from Mr. Wittman specifically concerning the equal opportunity
that--the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. Mr.
Wittman's questions were asked, and we get the same answer we
continually get, and that is this is an isolated incident; it
will not happen again. And then it happens again.
Just a quick chronology of a couple of events. April of
2013, a Pennsylvania Army Reserve unit: Evangelical Christians
are examples of religious extremists; Catholics are equated to
the Ku Klux Klan, Al Qaeda, and Hamas. Fall of 2013, Fort Hood,
same institute: Christians are a threat to the Nation and any
soldier that donates to these groups will be subject to
punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. October
of 2013, similar statements at Camp Shelby. December of 2013,
soldiers were told, don't use the word ``Christmas.'' Might be
offensive. Army's investigated these. What is the purpose of
these equal opportunity briefings? Who thought it was a good
idea to have these briefings? And what has been done to those
that made the decision to have such briefings?
Ms. Penrod. Well, Congressman, again, I do not have the
specifics of those cases. I will need to get that for the
record for you.
Mr. Nunnelee. Mr. Chairman, if we could have a follow-up
hearing and have representatives from this Department of
Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, I think it
would be most helpful.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Nunnelee.
And as we proceed with the additional hearing, any
suggestions anyone has, please let me know.
Ms. Davis, do you have any concluding comments?
Again, thank you all for being here. I think you can see
the intelligence and appreciation of chaplains. That is why--
you had a record turnout in terms of Members of Congress who
came who are profoundly and very positively concerned but also
supportive of our chaplains in the U.S. military. We are
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
January 29, 2014
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
January 29, 2014
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.027
?
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
January 29, 2014
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6966.115
?
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
January 29, 2014
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN
Ms. Penrod. DEOMI's website, www.deomi.org, is a wealth of
educational, training, and research material for Equal Opportunity and
Equal Employment Opportunity practitioners assigned throughout the
Department of Defense. The programming of the site allows a usage
report to be generated that indicates the traffic flow to each page and
the number of training products downloaded from the site.
The site includes a wide selection of relevant human relations
Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) lessons online that anybody can
take, anytime, from anywhere. In addition, DEOMI's website is where the
Department will house standardized training template lessons on various
human relations topics. These templates may be downloaded for use and
will be accompanied by usage instructions provided by the Office of
Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity. The availability of these
standardized lesson templates will be communicated to the Services and
Department as they become available through various established DOD
communicating vehicles. The template topics include:
Handling Dissident & Protest Activities
Religious Accommodation
Sexual Harassment
Bystander Intervention
Communicating Across Differences
Prejudice & Discrimination
Cultural Awareness
DEOMI does not endorse the SPLC, or its list of hate groups, nor
does DEOMI curriculum currently use any sources of information from the
SPLC. In addition, DOD does not publish a list of hate groups.
The DOD does not recognize or endorse any list of extremist or hate
groups. EO practitioners will have access to the DOD-approved
standardized templates based on the policy outlined in Department of
Defense Instruction 1325.06, November 27, 2009, ``Handling Dissident
and Protest Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces.'' [See page
16.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
January 29, 2014
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS
Ms. Tsongas. Since 2009, the U.S. Army has allowed three Sikh
soldiers to wear turbans and maintain unshorn hair and beards as
required by the Sikh religion. It is my understanding that under the
Department's new religious accommodation guidelines, service members
will need to request individual waivers on a case-by-case basis for
each new assignment. Will Sikh service members have to remove their
turbans, cut their hair, and shave their beards while their
accommodation requests are pending?
Ms. Penrod. The Army has enlisted or appointed several Soldiers in
recent years that have been granted exceptions to uniform and grooming
policy. Each of these requests was considered on a case by case basis.
In August 2013, the Army DSC, G-1 granted exceptions/waivers for six
soldiers; three soldiers of the Sikh faith for their beards, unshorn
hair and turbans and three soldiers of the Jewish faith for their
beards. These accommodation waivers are valid for the length of these
soldiers' military service.
However, Service members who are now granted an accommodation
waiver retain it according to the specific elements of the respective
Service approval. Upon significant changes in a Service member's duty
(such as new assignment, transfer of duty station, deployment), at the
discretion of the Secretary concerned, continuance of an approved
accommodation must be requested. This initial approved accommodation
remains in effect during the continuance re-evaluation process. DOD
policy clearly supports accommodation in that it directs the
Secretaries of the Military Department to disapprove cases only when
there is a compelling governmental interest.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. HECK
Dr. Heck. Does the DOD currently have a presumptive ban on Sikhs
displaying their articles of faith to include wearing of their
religiously mandated turban and unshorn hair and beard?
Ms. Penrod. There is no presumptive ban in DOD-level policy.
Military personnel may request accommodation of individual expressions
of sincerely held religious beliefs and each such request is determined
by the respective Service on a case-by-case basis.
Dr. Heck. While attending IET, are Sikhs required to give up
turbans and shave their beards while they are awaiting a religious
accommodation waiver? If a waiver is not granted and the Sikh refuses
to shave or give up their turban, will they be processed for
separation? And if so under what conditions?
Ms. Penrod. While preparing our response, we determined that the
Services have differing policies regarding approval of religious
accommodations during the enlistment process. We are currently
reviewing those policies and recruiting practices with the Services.
Dr. Heck. During the hearing, Ms. Penrod suggested that a religious
accommodation waiver was necessary with each new duty assignment in
order to consider potential health and safety issues that may arise
with each new unit or assignment. However, assuming that a Sikh is
provided a religious accommodation while in IET and completes all
training, to include MOPP training (properly fitting and sealing of a
gas mask), what other health and safety issues are anticipated that
necessitate a reconsideration of a religious accommodation waiver?
Ms. Penrod. DOD anticipates that some career fields, such as
aircraft maintenance on flight lines, would be included as health and
safety issues. Length of hair/beard could be a concern when in close
proximity to moving components. Headgear may be excluded on flight line
due to a potential foreign object damage (FOD) hazard. Even though
turban headgear is permitted, it is excluded on the flight-line.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. FLEMING
Dr. Fleming. Section 533(b) of the FY2014 NDAA says, ``In
prescribing such regulations, the Secretary shall consult with the
official military faith-group representatives who endorse military
chaplains.'' While testifying before the committee on January 29, 2014,
Ms. Penrod indicated that the DOD was in compliance with the law in
issuing the DODI 1300.17 as the official response to the FY2013 and
FY2014 NDAA.
Ms. Penrod. Yes, the Department is in compliance with the law.
Dr. Fleming. Could the DOD please provide the dates, times, names
of the groups the DOD met with, topics discussed, and other pertinent
details regarding any such meetings DOD had with official military
faith-group representatives in revising the 1300.17 DODI?
Ms. Penrod. The revision of Department of Defense Instruction
1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices in the Military
Departments was briefed during the 2013 Armed Forces Chaplains (AFCB)
Board Endorsers Conference. At the January 16, 2014 AFCB Conference,
attendees were offered the opportunity to present their concerns to a
panel consisting of the Principal Deputy of Military and Personnel
Policy and the Service Chiefs of Chaplains.
Topics discussed included: the status of Chaplain Corps ministry in
a pluralistic environment; strategic plans for communication with
endorsers; the accession and retention of chaplains; and the support
and protection of religious freedoms.
American Baptist Home Mission Societies
American Council of Christian Churches
Anglican Church in America, The
Assemblies of God, General Council of
Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North America
Associated Gospel Churches
Bible Fellowship Church (NAE)
Calvary Baptist Church (All Points Baptist Mission)
Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa
Central Conference of American Rabbis (JWB)
Chaplaincy Full Gospel Churches
Christian and Missionary Alliance, The
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Christian Churches and Churches of Christ
Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) (NAE)
Church of God Ministries
Church of God of Prophecy
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The (LDS)
Church of Lutheran Brethren
Church of the Nazarene
Coalition of Spirit-Filled Churches Inc.
Congregational Methodist Church, The
Conservative Baptist Association of America (NAE)
Convocation of Anglicans in North America, The (CANA/ACNA)
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Inc
Episcopal Missionary Church
Evangelical Congregational Church
Evangelical Lutheran Conference & Ministerium
Federated Orthodox Catholic Churches International
First Baptist Church of Kingstowne
Free Methodist Church--USA
Full Gospel Fellowship of Churches and Ministers International
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Int'l (John Vaughn is the endorser)
Grace Brethern Churchs, The Fellowship of
Grace Churches Interational
International Christian Church (CFGC)
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel
National Assoc Council Armed Forces
National Association of Evangelicals
North American Mission Board (SBC)
Orthodox Anglican Church
Orthodox Church in America
Plymouth Brethren
Presbyterian and Reformed Commision on Chaplains and Military Personnel
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), The
Regular Baptist Churches
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
Unitarian Universalist Association, The
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church, The
United Pentecostal Church International
Dr. Fleming. While testifying, Ms. Penrod cited a January 16, 2014,
meeting with over 100 military faith group representatives as evidence
for DOD compliance with the above-mentioned requirement within the
FY2014 NDAA. My understanding of the January 16th meeting, however, is
that this was an annual meeting at which the DODI 1300.17 was not
discussed nor did the DOD request the input of the faith group
representatives in attendance. Please clarify as to how the January 16
meeting, or any other consultations the committee should be aware of,
puts the DOD in compliance with the requirement within the FY2014 NDAA.
Ms. Penrod. A panel consisting of the Principal Deputy of Military
and Personnel Policy and the Service Chiefs of Chaplains consulted with
132 official military faith-group representatives from over 50 faith
group religious organizations and solicited their views concerning the
pending changes in policy.
All recommendations from these official military faith-group
representatives received before, during and after the conference were
considered in the revision of DODI 1304.28 which pertains to the
guidance for the appointment of chaplains and 1300.17, even though no
specific issues concerning the latter were expressed by faith group
representatives.
Dr. Fleming. Please clarify the input official military faith-group
representatives provided the DOD as it revised the 1300.17 DODI,
including examples of the input provided, an explanation of where in
the revised DODI such input is reflected, and a description of the
process used in incorporating such input into the revised DODI.
Ms. Penrod. The revision of Department of Defense Instruction
1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices in the Military
Departments was briefed during the 2013 Armed Forces Chaplains Board
Endorsers Conference As part of the registration process for the 2014
Armed Forces Chaplains Board Endorsers Conference, official military
faith-group representatives were offered the opportunity to submit any
concerns or questions regarding religious issues. They were also
offered the opportunity to present their concerns during the panel
discussion during the conference. All inputs received from them prior
to and during the 2014 conference regarded chaplains and did not
directly apply to DODI 1300.17.
Dr. Fleming. DOD has indicated that DODI 1304.28 regarding
chaplains is currently under review and that the revised DODI will
incorporate section 533(b), the consultation requirement. Please
explain the process DOD will be using to gather the input of official
military faith-group representatives and how it will be incorporating
such input into the 1304.28 DODI.
Ms. Penrod. DODI 1304.28, Guidance for the Appointment of Chaplains
for the Services, provides specific guidance for chaplains. All input
received from official military faith-group representatives regarding
chaplains, that was received before, during or after the 2014 Armed
Forces Chaplains Board Military Chaplain Endorser Conference, were
considered in the revision to DODI 1300.28.
Dr. Fleming. The 1300.17 DODI reads that: ``The DOD places a high
value on the rights of members of the Military Services to observe the
tenets of their respective religions or to observe no religion at
all.'' It also explains the process for a religious accommodation
request. Does the Department consider an atheist or humanist request as
a legitimate religious accommodation request as defined by the 1300.17
DODI? Please describe how the 1300.17 DODI is able to accommodate the
requests filed for those who do not profess any faith, while
simultaneously protecting the religious freedom of chaplains and
service members who express religious beliefs through speech and
practice, on or off duty.
Ms. Penrod. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1300.17,
Accommodation of Religious Practices in the Military Departments, does
not include guidance for non-religious requests for accommodation. Non-
religious requests for accommodation are processed through the chain of
command in accordance with the standard for what is religious as
defined in DODI 1300.06, Conscientious Objectors.
Dr. Fleming. Religious expression includes more than just an
outward display of clothing, certain grooming practices, or dress; yet,
the 1300.17 revised DODI appears to largely focus on religious
accommodation for specific clothing or jewelry displayed on one's
person. While I appreciate that the Department is taking a close look
at these apparel regulations, this Instruction does not address the
censorship of religious speech and fear of reprisal for such speech
that the FY13 and FY14 NDAA intended to address. Please explain where
in this revised DODI protection is provided for a service member's
freedom to discuss, explain, mention, and reference their specific
faith tenets either in private or in public while completing an
official military duty or more broadly as a member of the armed
services, as intended by the FY13 and FY14 NDAA?
Ms. Penrod. The most recent publication of Department of Defense
Instruction (DODI) 1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices in the
Military Departments, paragraph 4b, protects this freedom for all
Service members and DODI 1304.28, Guidance for the Appointment of
Chaplains, paragraphs 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, specifically expands this
protection to chaplains while performing their official duties
according to the tenets of their faith.
Dr. Fleming. The intent of Congress in the FY13 and FY14 NDAA was
not that religious expression through speech and practice be subject to
a request for accommodation, rather that the default position for DOD
policy should afford respect for religious expression and religious
practice by service members. The reported incidents of censoring speech
and religious practice are a DOD problem, not the burden of service
members to prove why they should be able to speak or honor their faith
both within and outside a chaplain service. The revised 1300.17 DODI
further clarifies the process for seeking religious accommodation on
matters pertaining to dress and grooming. Is it DOD policy that other
aspects of religious expression such as religious or moral speech must
also be submitted in a request for accommodation? If so, why?
Ms. Penrod. No, a request for accommodation for religious or moral
speech is not required. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of all
speech to include religious or moral speech and Title 10, Chapter 47,
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Subchapter 10--Punitive Articles
defines the parameters associated with inappropriate speech and actions
that threaten good order and discipline.
Dr. Fleming. In the Department's revisions to the 1300.17 DODI, you
chose to define ``substantial burden'' in a way that forces commanders
to make theological judgments about the importance of service member's
religious practices. Courts have overwhelmingly rejected this approach
noting that government officials lack both authority and competence to
make such judgments. DOD's definition of ``substantial burden'' runs
contrary to Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise and
Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. The definition will both
limit service members' liberty and invite litigation. Can the DOD
explain why this definition was rewritten rather than adopting the
standard that has been favored by the courts and has protected
religious liberty for all Americans for two decades?
Ms. Penrod. Congress used the term ``substantially burden'' in
enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. Congress did
not define the term nor has it done so since enactment. The
department's definition of ``substantially burden'' attempts to give a
reasonable interpretation of the term consistent with court opinions.
It is possible that the Supreme Court may provide more definitive
guidance when it decides Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Dr. Fleming. A number of media reports have indicated that the
religious liberty of service members is being stifled within the
services, yet the DOD and the various services have denied that a
problem exists. Please describe the process used in reviewing the types
of cases being reported in the media. How is the DOD making sure that
all relevant facts are being reported up the chain of command? Please
provide members of the House Armed Services Committee with pertinent
facts and explanations of some of the incidents being reported,
including explanations of corrective actions taken.
Ms. Penrod. There are multiple avenues (e.g. Chain of Command,
Chaplains, Military Equal Opportunity, Inspector General) of recourse
for individual Service members who believe their religious liberty is
being limited. Attached are the facts associated with incidents alleged
in the Family Research Council, ``Clear and Present Danger'' report. As
you can see from the facts provided, Service leaders champion the
protection of religious liberty for all Service members.
Dr. Fleming. Recent media reports and testimony from outside
organizations point toward a trend of a work environment that is
hostile against religious expression within the military. What has the
Department done to ensure that service members are fully aware of their
rights under the First Amendment to express religious beliefs without
fear of career reprisals, censorship, reprimands, or action being taken
against them under the UCMJ?
Ms. Penrod. The Department published Department of Defense
Instructions 1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices in the
Military Departments, and 1304.28, Guidance for the Appointment of
Chaplains, both of which include language regarding individual
expressions of religious beliefs. The Military Departments are updating
their Service regulations and policies to implement this guidance.
Dr. Fleming. A number of media reports have indicated that the
religious liberty of service members is being stifled within the
services, yet the DOD and the various services have denied that a
problem exists. As an example, LTC Kenneth Reyes posted an article on
the history and context of the phrase ``No atheists in foxholes'' on
the Chaplains Corner blog at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. The
article was initially removed from the blog, only later to be
reinstated. Please provide the facts surrounding this incident and
describe the process used in reviewing this case. In addition, please
provide an explanation of the corrective action taken. Was there an
acknowledgement from commanders that taking down this blog post was a
violation of the First Amendment?
Ms. Penrod. Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) Wing Chaplain,
Lt Col Kenneth Reyes, wrote an article for the ``Chaplain's Corner''
feature of the base newspaper entitled ``No atheists in foxholes:
Chaplains gave all in World War II.'' The article was posted on the
official base web page on July 17, 2013, and distributed on base via
newspaper on July 19, 2013.
On July 23, the 673d Air Base Wing Commander received a complaint
regarding the article. In order to ensure the appropriate balance
between the author's free exercise of religion and the prohibition
against government establishment of religion, the Commander directed
the article be removed for review. After reviewing the article, the
Commander had the article re-posted on the web page. A disclaimer was
added to the web page in order to communicate that all ``Chaplain's
Corner'' featured articles are those of the author and are not endorsed
by the government. The ``Chaplain's Corner'' continues to be a weekly
part of the JBER web page.
Dr. Fleming. While testifying, Ms. Penrod cited a January 16, 2014,
meeting with over 100 military faith group representatives as evidence
for DOD compliance with the above-mentioned requirement within the
FY2014 NDAA. My understanding of the January 16th meeting, however, is
that this was an annual meeting at which the DODI 1300.17 was not
discussed nor did the DOD request the input of the faith group
representatives in attendance. Please clarify as to how the January 16
meeting, or any other consultations the committee should be aware of,
puts the DOD in compliance with the requirement within the FY2014 NDAA.
Admiral Tidd. During the January 16, 2014 meeting, I attended as
the Navy Chief of Chaplains and was one of several panel members from
the Department of Defense who discussed a range of topics with
representatives of various faith groups. However, I respectfully defer
to the Office of the Secretary of Defense on explaining how the
Department of Defense fulfilled its obligations under the FY2014 NDAA.
My personal observation after nearly five years as the Deputy Chief of
Chaplains and the Chief of Chaplains, including 18 months as the chair
of the Armed Forces Chaplains Board, is that we have a collegial
relationship with the ecclesiastical endorsing agents representing our
chaplains and that we have had open and productive discussions on
religious liberty issues with them.
Dr. Fleming. A number of media reports have indicated that the
religious liberty of service members is being stifled within the
services, yet the DOD and the various services have denied that a
problem exists. Please describe the process used in reviewing the types
of cases being reported in the media. How is the DOD making sure that
all relevant facts are being reported up the chain of command? Please
provide members of the House Armed Services Committee with pertinent
facts and explanations of some of the incidents being reported,
including explanations of corrective actions taken.
Admiral Tidd. The investigative approach to any given allegation
will generally be driven by the particular facts at issue. For example,
some religious liberty matters may be categorized as equal opportunity
issues addressed under the Department of Navy's equal opportunity
policy or through the complaint of wrongs process. Alternatively, a
complaint regarding religious liberty dealing with abuse of command
authority might be addressed through a command investigation, through
the Navy Inspector General, or, if criminal wrongdoing is alleged or
suspected, through the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, depending
on the facts of the complaint.
With regard to Navy chaplains, on September 27, 2013, I provided
written guidance reminding Navy chaplains that they may contact their
senior supervisory chaplains, the Chief of Chaplains office, or their
respective ecclesiastical endorsing agents (who have direct access to
the Chief of Chaplains), if they feel that they are being required to
act in a manner contrary to the tenets of their religious
organizations. On October 3, 2013, I provided a copy of that letter to
the ecclesiastical endorsing agents. Additionally, at numerous training
venues (attended by over 60% of Navy chaplains), my deputy and I have
discussed options for resolving religious liberty concerns.
Dr. Fleming. While testifying, Ms. Penrod cited a January 16, 2014,
meeting with over 100 military faith group representatives as evidence
for DOD compliance with the above-mentioned requirement within the
FY2014 NDAA. My understanding of the January 16th meeting, however, is
that this was an annual meeting at which the DODI 1300.17 was not
discussed nor did the DOD request the input of the faith group
representatives in attendance. Please clarify as to how the January 16
meeting, or any other consultations the committee should be aware of,
puts the DOD in compliance with the requirement within the FY2014 NDAA.
General Bailey. (BG) Bailey was not in attendance at the meeting
with Endorsers on January 16, 2014 and therefore is unable to comment
on the event. The event was sponsored and facilitated by the Armed
Forces Chaplain Board, which falls under the Office of the Secretary of
Defense. We are not aware of any other consultations where this issue
may have been addressed.
Dr. Fleming. A number of media reports have indicated that the
religious liberty of service members is being stifled within the
services, yet the DOD and the various services have denied that a
problem exists. Please describe the process used in reviewing the types
of cases being reported in the media. How is the DOD making sure that
all relevant facts are being reported up the chain of command? Please
provide members of the House Armed Services Committee with pertinent
facts and explanations of some of the incidents being reported,
including explanations of corrective actions taken.
General Bailey. The Army Office of the Chief of Chaplains routinely
monitors the media for reports that are relevant to the Chaplain Corps.
If the Chief of Chaplains becomes aware of media reports of challenges
to or violations of religious liberty, religious expression, or
religious accommodation, he informs key Army leaders and staff, and
requests more information from the installation or unit involved to
confirm or deny the report and determine if any action is required from
the Chaplain Corps. Commanders are responsible for investigating and
responding to any credible reports of misconduct. Pertinent facts and
explanations of reported incidents can be provided on a case-by-case
basis.
Dr. Fleming. While testifying, Ms. Penrod cited a January 16, 2014,
meeting with over 100 military faith group representatives as evidence
for DOD compliance with the above-mentioned requirement within the
FY2014 NDAA. My understanding of the January 16th meeting, however, is
that this was an annual meeting at which the DODI 1300.17 was not
discussed nor did the DOD request the input of the faith group
representatives in attendance. Please clarify as to how the January 16
meeting, or any other consultations the committee should be aware of,
puts the DOD in compliance with the requirement within the FY2014 NDAA.
General Page. A panel consisting of the Principal Deputy of
Military and Personnel Policy and the Service Chiefs of Chaplains
consulted with 132 official military faith-group representatives from
over 50 faith group religious organizations and solicited their views
concerning the pending changes in policy.
All recommendations from these official military faith-group
representatives received before, during and after the conference were
considered in the revision of DODI 1304.28 which pertains to the
guidance for the appointment of chaplains and 1300.17, even though no
specific issues concerning the latter were expressed by faith group
representatives.
Dr. Fleming. A number of media reports have indicated that the
religious liberty of service members is being stifled within the
services, yet the DOD and the various services have denied that a
problem exists. Please describe the process used in reviewing the types
of cases being reported in the media. How is the DOD making sure that
all relevant facts are being reported up the chain of command? Please
provide members of the House Armed Services Committee with pertinent
facts and explanations of some of the incidents being reported,
including explanations of corrective actions taken.
General Page. There are multiple avenues (e.g. Chain of Command,
Chaplains, Military Equal Opportunity, Inspector General) of recourse
for individual Service members who believe their religious liberty is
being limited. Attached are the facts associated with incidents alleged
in the Family Research Council, ``Clear and Present Danger'' report. As
you can see from the facts provided, Service leaders champion the
protection of religious liberty for all Service members.
Dr. Fleming. A number of media reports have indicated that the
religious liberty of service members is being stifled within the
services, yet the DOD and the various services have denied that a
problem exists. As an example, LTC Kenneth Reyes posted an article on
the history and context of the phrase ``No atheists in foxholes'' on
the Chaplains Corner blog at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. The
article was initially removed from the blog, only later to be
reinstated. Please provide the facts surrounding this incident and
describe the process used in reviewing this case. In addition, please
provide an explanation of the corrective action taken. Was there an
acknowledgement from commanders that taking down this blog post was a
violation of the First Amendment?
General Page. Chaplain, Lt Colonel, Ken Reyes, Wing Chaplain at
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), wrote an article entitled ``No
atheists in foxholes: Chaplains gave all in World War II'', which was
printed in the base newspaper, ``The Arctic Warrior,'' and distributed
on July 19, 2013. The same article was posted on the JBER web page on
July 17, 2013, in the ``Chaplain's Corner'' section. The wing commander
directed that the article be removed from the website for review after
receiving a complaint regarding the article. The wing commander
reviewed the content of the article because at that time all
information published on the JBER official web page implied the
approval and endorsement of the wing commander. The wing commander
wanted to ensure the information on the web page was balanced
appropriately between the author's free exercise of religion and the
possible appearance of the wing commander endorsing a religion.
After thorough review, the wing commander had the article re-posted
to the web page with the following disclaimer:
``The `Chaplain's Corner' offers perspectives to enhance spiritual/
religious resiliency in support of Air Force and Army Comprehensive
Fitness programs. Comments regarding specific beliefs, practices, or
behaviors are strictly those of the author and do not convey
endorsement by the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, the
Army, the Air Force, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, or the 673d Air
Base Wing.'' The ``Chaplain's Corner'' continues to be a weekly part of
the JBER web page.
Following this event, the Air Force Chief of Staff (CSAF) directed
the Chief of Chaplains to prepare a card to help commanders make a more
deliberate response to complaints from outside groups and prevent
``knee-jerk'' reactions. This card was sent to commanders on December
11, 2013, and is briefed to every wing and group commander course. CSAF
also directed the creation of a ``help line'' commanders can call, if
needed, to get answers directly from Air Staff on religious freedom
questions. The card provides a checklist and a direct line to a team of
chaplains and JAGs who are prepared to answer their questions. It has
been well-received by commanders.
In addition, the ``Religious Freedom Focus Day'' hosted by the
CSAF, provided recommendations to the CSAF in four areas: 1) policy, 2)
educating the force, 3) handling complaints, 4) strategic messaging.
These recommendations were approved by the CSAF and assigned to Offices
of Responsibility with suspense dates not later than July 1.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES
Mr. Forbes. The conscience protections as passed by Congress in
Sec. 533 of the NDAA for FY 2013 and amended in the NDAA for FY 2014
read:
Unless it could have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit
cohesion, and good order and discipline, the Armed Forces shall
accommodate individual expressions of belief of a member of the armed
forces reflecting the sincerely held conscience, moral principles, or
religious beliefs of the member and, in so far as practicable, may not
use such beliefs use such expression of belief as the basis of any
adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion,
schooling, training, or assignment.
Under current military policy, what meaning, if any, is ascribed to
the following phrases: ``adverse impact,'' ``military readiness,''
``unit cohesion,'' ``good order and discipline.''
Ms. Penrod. Congress chose not to define these terms when it
enacted, and amended, section 533. Similarly, these terms are not
specifically defined in DODI 1300.17. The Department of Defense takes
very seriously its responsibility to safeguard the First Amendment
rights of all military personnel. We strive to provide accommodations
for requests of individual expressions of sincerely held religious
beliefs, to include accommodations associated with grooming standards,
religious apparel, worship practices, and accommodation of dietary and
medical practices, unless such accommodation would have an adverse
impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, and good order and
discipline. In general, ``adverse impact'' means having a negative
effect on something, ``military readiness'' means the ability of
military forces to fight and also to meet demands of all assigned
missions, ``unit cohesion'' means the relationship among members of a
unit that results in the measure of the units efforts being greater
than the sum of the efforts of each individual in the unit, and ``good
order in discipline'' means that the members of a unit comply with all
orders, rules, policies, etc. in an acceptable manner.
Mr. Forbes. Did President Obama's signing statement, made on
January 3, 2013, on the passage of the NDAA for FY 2013 calling the
conscience protections unnecessary and ill-advised, impact DOD's
development of the new regulation? If so, how? If not, why?
Ms. Penrod. The revisions to DODI 1300.17, The Accommodation of
Religious Practices Within the Military Services, were not impacted by
the President's statement.
Mr. Forbes. Did President Obama's signing statement, made on
January 3, 2013, on the passage of the NDAA for FY 2013 calling the
conscience protections unnecessary and ill-advised, impact DOD's
development of the new regulation? If so, how? If not, why?
Ms. Penrod. The revisions to DODI 1300.17, The Accommodation of
Religious Practices Within the Military Services, were not impacted by
the President's statement.
Mr. Forbes. Revised DOD Instruction 1300.17, issued on January 22,
2014, incorporates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
However, it undermines the purpose of RFRA by redefining a well-
grounded constitutional term of art, ``substantial burden.'' Why did
DOD alter this time-tested standard?
Ms. Penrod. Department of Defense policy protects the civil
liberties of its personnel, including religious practices to the
greatest extent possible when consistent with military requirements.
The definition was rewritten to shift the burden of proof for
justifying the accommodation request from the individual Service member
to the commander considering the request. In doing so, the standard for
disapproval was limited to only those cases where the commander
determines that approval of the request would adversely mission
accomplishment.
Mr. Forbes. What avenues of review are available to a service
member who believes her expressions of a religious belief have
wrongfully be determined to interfere with good order and discipline
and is facing administrative or disciplinary action? Is it possible
that military culture discourages a service member from challenging a
commander's decision in the current channels available to service
members? What notice, if any, is provided to the Chiefs of Chaplains
when a service member faces administrative or disciplinary action for
the expression of religious belief?
Ms. Penrod. Department of Defense and Military Department policies
have established standards for appeal by Service members facing
administrative and/or disciplinary actions. This process ensures a
Service member's right to appeal a commander's decision through their
chain of command. The Service Chief of Chaplains may be notified if
such actions involve a chaplain within the Service.