[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 34 (Thursday, March 23, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1328-H1329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               CONCERNING THE CHAPLAIN SELECTION PROCESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for 15 minutes.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for allowing us to 
express our thoughts on this important matter. I would begin my 
thoughts by joining the Speaker's expression of regret about the 
resignation of Dr. Ford, who has served this institution so well and 
been a dear friend and an important chaplain to each of us. I thought 
that at some point, I might, as cochair of the chaplain selection 
process, have the opportunity to address the body as to the version, 
our version in the minority, of the events that have transpired 
throughout this chaplain selection process. I did not anticipate it 
coming today, in the middle of the budget vote; and I did not 
anticipate following the Speaker of the House, a person for whom I have 
considerable regard relative to his obviously heartfelt remarks just 
delivered. My remarks are not prepared. I ask you to bear with me.
  I want to convey a deep sense of sorrow and regret that a process 
that began so honorably by the Speaker has ended in this fashion. 
Clearly, Speaker Hastert wanted to capture the bipartisan efforts of 
other Speakers as the chaplain was selected but improve upon it. So 
when Speaker O'Neill asked the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations to go and agree on a chaplain that he might then 
appoint, that was bipartisanship. It could have been improved upon and 
Speaker Hastert set upon a process that did improve upon it. It had 
even broader involvement, eight minority, eight majority. We were even 
given a cochair opportunity. We were very, very pleased and heartened 
by this gesture by the Speaker, because we believe that the chaplain is 
the chaplain of the House, not the Speaker's chaplain, not the majority 
chaplain, but the chaplain for all of us.
  We advanced with the work, and it was considerable. Thirty-eight 
resumes to pore through. We culled it down in a process that had more 
comity and agreement across the party aisle to 17 interviews. Going 
through the hours of interviews, we developed friendships across party 
aisles, members of the committee. I so enjoyed working with my cochair, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and each of the members, 
majority and minority alike.

                              {time}  1630

  We then got it down to six semifinalists working toward the list of 
three. And while the Speaker is absolutely correct, his letter to us 
says send up to three names, the discussion throughout was to send 
three names. And we did not seriously consider sending less than three 
names.
  As the final balloting occurred, even though this had been a process 
utterly without partisanship, there were, and it is not surprising, 
party distinctions in the relative support behind the candidates.
  The candidate that finished fourth had only Democrat support. The 
candidate that finished third, Dr. Wright, had Republican support, with 
1\1/2\ Democrat votes and a token showing across the party aisle. Two 
candidates, Dr. Dvorak and Father O'Brien, had significant bipartisan 
support, with Father O'Brien having the first showing in terms of vote 
totals.
  We did not rank these candidates. We decided not to rank them. 
Ranking involves making a judgment, who is the best one, who is the 
second best one. We thought all three were qualified individuals, but 
what was important was the bipartisan consensus behind them.
  Again, this is the chaplain of the House. It was a bipartisan 
process; and, therefore, the degree of consensus behind the final three 
is very important to us in the selection process, because this 
determines really the candidates that were able to capture support 
across the party aisle.
  In this respect, in my presentation to the Speaker, the Minority 
Leader, as they began their work of the final committee of three, I 
indicated that Father O'Brien had had the most support; that Dr. Dvorak 
had the second level of support; that Dr. Wright had the third level of 
support.
  I believed that the discussions that followed also captured this 
sense of consensus behind O'Brien, consensus behind Dvorak, not 
consensus behind Wright. So there were two meetings, as the Speaker 
just indicated, largely because they did not come to closure the first 
time. And the second time, in a divided vote, we in the minority know 
how divided votes go, you lose them. And the selection was made, Dr. 
Wright; not a consensus selection.
  Here is where I really hope you can understand where our hard 
feelings on this matter arise. We are asked to participate. We 
willingly participated. We cared a great deal about the chaplaincy, and 
we felt as though our view was ignored when the final decision was 
made. Majority only, once again. We felt that. We believed that.
  You may disagree with that interpretation, but that is what we 
believed. Others had another feeling as well, and that is that in the 
passing over of the top candidate, a Roman Catholic priest, there had 
to be some other motives that were at issue that were untoward. 
Frankly, I did not have that view.
  I felt that the problem was ignoring the bipartisan consensus for the 
candidate, that it did not have bipartisan consensus. We did not ask 
Dr. Wright to our caucus because Dr. Wright was not the issue for us. 
The process was the issue. The process was the problem.
  In reacting to how the Speaker has resolved this matter, we look 
forward to getting to know Father Coughlin, if I have the name right. 
He is an individual we have not met. I think we can do better than this 
going forward.
  I would ask each of us to seriously consider a resolution that will 
be offered this week by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) that 
would call for the selection of the chaplain to be much in the same way 
as the selection of Inspector General.
  At the end of the process, two votes, two for the majority, two for 
the minority. This is the chaplain of the House. This individual will 
be our minister. This individual will be our counselor. This individual 
will be our friend, not just the Speaker, not just the majority, but 
all of us.
  And so next time, we will never let this happen again, next time. I 
would ask that we pass this resolution, changing the rules by which we 
deal with the chaplain and so that both sides have equal say.
  Perhaps my deepest regret from this is, I felt a lot of good could 
come from the institution of the chaplain. I still have that hope for 
the institution and would only echo the Speaker's comments relative to 
the chaplain and what the chaplain might mean to this institution.
  I look forward to working collectively under the newly announced 
chaplain and with the chaplains to come in the future, should I still 
be a Member of this body. I do think it might be one institution that 
can play an important role in restoring a greater degree of civility 
and trust between us.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to say a few things in regard to what the Speaker said. 
First, nothing in anyone's mind today is anything but concern for Dr. 
Wright. I am sorry that it has come to this. And I would hope that we 
would welcome the new Chaplain that has been appointed by the Speaker 
and try our level best

[[Page H1329]]

to make his service in this Congress as positive as it possibly can be. 
I am very sorry that we have come to this point.
  I tried in what we did in our committee with Majority Leader Armey 
and Speaker Hastert to come to a bipartisan agreement on who the 
Chaplain would be. I had concerns when the process was announced that 
it would be maybe difficult to get to a bipartisan selection, but I 
hoped we could do that.
  We have a different view of the facts of what happened in the 
meetings, but that is not important. When we finally got to the point 
where there was not complete agreement between all three of us, I asked 
to come back to the bipartisan committee so that both the Speaker and 
Dr. Wright knew exactly the feelings of the members of our committee. 
And I tried in the best way that I could to get those feelings across.
  I have never said and never believed that there was bias of any kind 
in the making of this selection. And I have never said that.
  I do believe that in the future, as the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy) has just said, we can find a process that will ensure 
bipartisanship in the selection of this important office. I will 
certainly work toward that end.
  I respect the Speaker's choice, and for my part and our part we will 
do everything in our power to welcome this new Chaplain and to make his 
service here a positive force for every Member of this body.
  The SPEAKER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kleczka) rise?
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, since I was the one who asked Father Tim 
O'Brien to seek the chaplaincy, I would ask the courtesy of 2 or 3 
minutes to make a few comments.
  The SPEAKER. We will give the gentleman the courtesy of 2 to 3 
minutes, but first let us have the courtesy of swearing in the 
Chaplain.

                          ____________________