[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 34 (Thursday, March 23, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1326-H1327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL PRIVILEGE--SELECTION OF HOUSE CHAPLAIN
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Based on press accounts examined by the
Chair, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) is recognized for 1
hour on a question of personal privilege.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I come to this well today following a long
period of prayerful consideration. I want to talk to you about the
choice of our next Chaplain, a man whose job it is to ask God's
blessing on our work.
When I became your Speaker last year, I stood in this very spot and
said that this House needed to heal. Impeachment had hardened the
hearts of too many of our Members and ruptured the trust necessary for
effective legislating.
Frankly, we had made progress toward that end. We successfully worked
together to bring economic security to our country. We worked together
to strengthen our schools and our national defense. And, working
together, we lowered our rhetoric from this well and we returned some
sense of civility to this chamber.
When I first heard that our current Chaplain wanted to retire, I
decided I wanted to build on that growing sense of trust. Instead of
simply appointing a Chaplain, as some of my predecessors had done, I
appointed the largest and most bipartisan search committee in the
history of this House.
I want to take a moment to describe that process because it has been
much distorted in the last 4 months.
I knew that finding the right person would be difficult. Many
religious faiths are represented in this House, and many of you had
candidates you believed would be good for the job.
The Search Committee the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and I
created was asked to review the many applicants and to send to the
leadership up to three unranked candidates for final consideration.
I suppose that the committee could have ignored those instructions
and sent us only one candidate because they believed he or she far
superior, that they stood out above all the other applicants. But they
did not.
In fact, I learned early and recently that the search committee
discussed that very option and rejected it. Instead, the committee,
under the able leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley),
a Catholic, and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a
Presbyterian, selected three outstanding candidates: Reverend Robert
Dvorak, Father Tim O'Brien, and Dr. Charles Wright.
These names were sent to us in alphabetical order. There was no
ranking of candidates. There was no first choice of the committee, as
some would have the public believe. And, in fact, there could not be a
first choice because the committee never set out to select a first
choice.
The report to this House by the bipartisan co-chairman of the
committee makes this fact abundantly clear. The truth is simple: each
of the three candidates was deemed as acceptable to the search
committee.
Along with Majority Leader Armey and Minority Leader Gephardt, I
interviewed the three candidates sent to us by the bipartisan search
committee. I was looking for a kind person with a caring heart. I was
looking for a person who had extensive counseling and pastoral or
parish experience. And I was looking for a person who Members of
Congress could take their problems to and find reassurance and wisdom.
I was not looking for a particular denomination or faith, and I did
not make my selection based on a candidate's religious doctrine or the
past history of other House Chaplains. I was trying to be fair to all
candidates.
While I found all three candidates to have impressive credentials, I
was most impressed with the pastoral experience and personal warmth of
Dr. Charles Wright, who for years has ministered to the needs of the
Capitol Hill community. And, in addition, he had years of experience in
the inner city, as well as the international community. He spent a long
time trying to break down the walls of apartheid in South Africa and to
seek common understanding between blacks and whites.
I made my selection based on that experience and the qualities that I
found in him. No one other than the candidates themselves influenced my
decision. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong.
After the interviews and a period of reflection, I consulted with
majority leader and the minority leader twice before I made my final
decision.
In the first discussion, one preferred Dr. Wright and one preferred
Reverend Dvorak. In the second discussion, one preferred Dr. Wright and
one preferred Father O'Brien. The choice was not unanimous. But both
signed off on the choice of Dr. Wright, and we issued a joint press
release announcing the selection. I thought we had reached consensus.
Following our joint press statement, there were immediate charges of
anti-Catholic bigotry, I was surprised and disappointed. Since there
was no bias in the decision, I assumed that the disappointment held by
some that a Catholic was not chosen would go away when people
understood the truth. But I was wrong.
I then thought that once the search committee issued their report and
laid out the facts of the selection process that the controversy would
be over. Sadly, the facts were ignored and the controversy continued to
be stoked.
It was then that I realized that a far more serious effort was afoot.
Some were trying to take political advantage out of what was
essentially a spiritual decision and charged me with anti-Catholic
sentiment.
Is there anti-Catholic sentiment still alive in our country? In fact,
is there anti-religious bias alive in our country? Sad as it is to
admit, I believe the answer to both these questions may be yes.
This bias comes in many shapes and sizes. Whether it be television
shows that hold the church in contempt, the activist who desecrates St.
Patrick's Cathedral, or the so-called ``artists'' who denigrate
important religious symbols, my friends, that is anti-Catholic and
anti-religious bias.
Certainly, there are those who differ with some of the views held by
the Catholic Church; and even some Catholics respectfully disagree with
some Church positions.
I agree with the Catholic Church on many things. I agree with the
Catholic Church that we should protect the unborn. I agree with the
mission of the Catholic schools to help so many Catholic and non-
Catholic students get a values-based education.
I wholeheartedly support the Catholic Church's great work to help the
poor. And I believe that the Vatican should have a seat at the United
Nations.
I have the greatest respect and admiration for the Pope, who has done
so much to bring peace to our troubled world and played such a critical
role in ending the scourge of communism in Eastern Europe.
I am a patient man. In my role as Speaker of the Whole House, I
believe I should try to be especially patient and seek compromise and
not confrontation. But even I did not easily take in stride carelessly
tossed accusations of bigotry. Where I come from, such slander is an
ugly business. I can only conclude that those who accuse me of anti-
[[Page H1327]]
Catholic bigotry either do not know me or are maliciously seeking
political advantage by making these accusations.
The institution of this House means a great deal to me. I believe
each of us, as Members of this House, should look out for this
institution and treat it with respect.
As your Speaker, I feel a special burden to do so. It is with that
conviction that I say to each of you that I believe the political
maneuvering on this issue may have catastrophic unintended
consequences, like children playing with matches.
In fact, in light of this controversy, some critics now advocate that
we get rid of the Office of the Chaplain altogether. There are
editorials being written to that effect in papers around this country.
I ask each of you to search your heart: Is that what is good for this
institution? I hope your answer is no.
But that, my friends, is where the political games could be taking
us. I think to lose the Office of the Chaplain would be a grave
mistake. Ever since the first prayer was offered in the Continental
Congress on September 7, 1774, 2 years before the Declaration of
Independence was written, Congress has been blessed by a daily prayer.
The daily prayer has served as a peaceful refuge for the partisan
wrangling. It has bound disparate factions under the unifying theme of
God's love.
The first amendment to the Constitution states clearly that
``Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of
religion.'' But, at the same time, the rules and precedents of this
House say that the Chaplain shall attend at the commencement of the
House and open the same with prayer.
These contrary impulses signify two great American themes: Americans
should have the freedom to practice any religion they want, but
Americans also believe that this Nation was founded under God to
fulfill a greater mission.
The House Chaplain must reflect both traditions. The Chaplain of the
House must submerge his or her own doctrinal views while reaching out
to all Members regardless of religious faith. He must say a prayer that
unites us rather than divides us.
Our current House Chaplain, Jim Ford, has blessed us with daily
prayers and counseled Members quietly with honesty and integrity.
Jim Ford is a Lutheran, but he does not preach Lutheran doctrine from
the House pulpit.
{time} 1615
His message is universal. In fact, Tip O'Neill, an Irish Catholic and
our respected former Speaker, often called Jim Ford monsignor as a way
to signify his approval of Ford's universal message. I believe that any
representative of any religion can provide a similar universal message
for the House of Representatives. My support for Charles Wright had
nothing to do with Mr. Wright's denomination or his religious doctrine.
Of the three candidates presented to me by the committee, I believed he
had the best ability to help the Members of the House based on his
extensive experience in counseling. I agree with our colleague Tony
Hall, who first suggested to Dr. Wright that he apply, that first and
foremost Charles Wright has a pastor's heart.
Sadly, it has become clear that the minority will never support
Charles Wright to be the House Chaplain. I have waited more than 4
months in the hope that voices of reason would prevail. Charles Wright
is a good and decent man. He would make an excellent chaplain. That is
why I asked Leader Gephardt to allow him to meet with the Democratic
Caucus and that is why our colleague Tony Hall, a man whose respect in
this House is unmatched, made the same request. But those requests have
not been fulfilled. Instead of hearing the positive voice of a Godly
and caring man, the only voices we hear are whispered hints in dark
places that his selection is the result of anti-Catholic bias.
My friends, in all my years in this Congress, I have never seen a
more cynical and more destructive political campaign. That such a
campaign should be waged in connection with the selection of the House
Chaplain brings shame on this House.
During the interview process, Dick Gephardt explained very eloquently
to one of the candidates that democracy was a substitute for war. He
was warning the candidate that if he became the Chaplain, his flock
would not always behave like folks on a Sunday afternoon picnic. He
went on to say that unlike war, where men set out to destroy one
another, in a democracy, we were constrained by a set of rules and a
common decency. It was a moving and profound observation that I have
often thought a lot about. But I must say that the history of this
Chaplain issue over the last 4 months does not appear to be constrained
by common decency. It looks a lot like war and it has an ugly face.
This institution, so important in the protection of our freedom, is
more important than which one of us sits in that chair. In the light of
this controversy, Charles Wright has told me that he does not want to
serve as Chaplain in a divided House. I reluctantly agreed that I would
accept his decision not to be our Chaplain. I regret that decision of
Dr. Wright, but I understand it.
So where do we go from here? As Speaker of this whole House, I will
act to stop those who want to persist in this unseemly political game.
I will not allow this House to be torn apart and the office of Chaplain
to be destroyed. Having formally received the resignation of Chaplain
Ford, I am today under the authority granted to me under the rules and
precedents of this House to fill vacancies naming Daniel Coughlin to
serve as Chaplain of the House. Father Coughlin is the vicar of the
Archdiocese of Chicago and comes with the highest recommendations from
a man of God for whom I have great respect, my good friend Cardinal
George of Chicago. I believe that Daniel Coughlin will bring to the
House a caring and a healing heart. He has been a parish priest and
spent the past several years counseling parish priests within the
Archdiocese. He brings 40 years of ministerial experience to this
House.
Daniel Coughlin is a Catholic. That does not make him more nor less
qualified for the job. But I am proud of his historic appointment. I
hope his appointment will help us to heal and that it will bring a
sense of pride to the millions of Catholic men and women around this
country who have had legitimate feelings of past discrimination which
some in this House have sought to manipulate.
I urge all of my colleagues to get to know Father Coughlin. He is a
good man who will provide this House with spiritual guidance and
counseling support necessary to bring us together again. Let me say to
every leader of this House and to every Member of this House: let us
embrace our new Chaplain, put this episode behind us, and move forward
to do the people's business.
____________________