Firing of House Chaplain Causes Uproar on Capitol Hill

April 28, 2018 by admin
Filed under Choosing Lingerie

Comments Off

But the dismissal appears to be an unforced error in a political year when Republicans cannot afford mistakes. The controversy exposed long-simmering tensions between Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians over who should be lawmakers’ religious counselor. And a public clash between Southern evangelical Republicans and Northern Catholics could play to the advantage of Democrats, who are pressing hard to bring working-class Catholic regions in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin back into the Democratic fold.

The controversy was heightened when Representative Mark Walker, Republican of North Carolina and a Baptist minister, said Thursday in an interview with The Hill newspaper that he hoped the next chaplain of the House might come from a nondenominational church tradition who could relate to members with wives and children.

Catholic Democrats quickly called his remarks anti-Catholic, as Catholic priests are celibate, and Mr. Walker’s spokesman later said Mr. Walker was not excluding a particular faith group. One Republican, Representative Peter T. King of New York, took issue with the comments.

“To be excluding one religion up front, that has all sorts of connotations coming from the evangelical community,” Mr. King said in an interview. He said he had received several inquiries from priests about Mr. Ryan’s decision, and he told the speaker, “This issue is not going to go away that quickly.”

A House Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, said Mr. Ryan gave the Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, an additional reason for Father Conroy’s ouster: Mr. Ryan said he was upset that the chaplain had granted an interview to The National Journal.

In the interview, Father Conroy expounded on matters like sexual harassment and a possible spiritual crisis in Congress. He said he was asked during his job interview whether he had ever molested a child. And while he said he had never been asked to counsel a victim of sexual harassment or assault, he had handled cases of workplace abuse during his tenure in the House.

“Think about it: Who are the people that run for office?” he was quoted as saying. “Are they all highly skilled in every endeavor? No! They’re not. Many of them, I can tell you, don’t know how to say hello in the hallway, let alone work with office people that maybe they don’t think they have to listen to.”

Continue reading the main story

Ms. Pelosi issued a statement arguing that Mr. Ryan did not have the authority to dismiss the chaplain. “I have expressed my forceful disagreement with this decision to the speaker,” she said. “It is truly sad that he made this decision, and it is especially bewildering that he did so only a matter of months before the end of his term.”

The outrage broke down largely along party lines. Of 148 members of Congress who signed a letter to Mr. Ryan demanding answers on why he ousted Father Conroy, just one, Representative Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, was a Republican.

“This will have ramifications,” Mr. Jones said Friday afternoon. “This is bigger than Father Conroy and the House of Representatives. This is about religion in America.”

The controversy was multifaceted, pitting evangelicals against Catholics but also resurfacing lingering anger over this Congress’s singular accomplishment, the 10-year, $1.5 trillion overhaul of the tax code.

To supporters of that legislation, especially to one of its chief architects, Mr. Ryan, the prayer issued by Father Conroy would have stung: “May all members be mindful that the institutions and structures of our great nation guarantee the opportunities that have allowed some to achieve great success, while others continue to struggle,” the priest said in the midst of the debate. “May their efforts these days guarantee that there are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans.”

Father Conroy, who was named to the post in 2011 by another Catholic Republican speaker, John A. Boehner, said that he did not regard his November prayer as political in nature.

“If you are a hospital chaplain, you are going to pray about health,” he said. “If you are a chaplain of Congress, you are going to pray about what Congress is doing.”

He said Mr. Ryan’s remarks to him afterward marked the only time anyone from the speaker’s office had chastised him for veering into the political realm.

Continue reading the main story

“I’ve never been talked to about being political in seven years,” he said.

In an election that ultimately will revolve around President Trump, the controversy may well prove ephemeral.

“Whatever Democrats try to do, if they try to politicize this or capitalize on this, I just think it is way too obscure,” said Douglas Heye, a longtime Republican political strategist and a Catholic. “If you are having a larger conversation about ‘Catholic issues,’ Trump is going to dominate that.”

Ten years ago on Capitol Hill, the number of Catholic Democrats in the House was more than double the number of Catholic Republicans. Now it is nearly even.

Some on the left see an emerging issue for Mr. Ryan and his supporters. “Partisans will likely frame this as a Catholic versus evangelical contest,” said Christopher J. Hale, a strategist who did Catholic outreach for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. “They made a political football out of a good Catholic priest.”

The spat is particularly pointed because religious power in Washington has shifted drastically under Mr. Trump to white evangelical leaders. Unlike Mr. Obama, who relied regularly on a religiously diverse group of interfaith advisers, including prominent Catholics, Mr. Trump has elevated a select group of conservative evangelicals who routinely defend his political agenda, and it is rare to see a Catholic bishop in the White House.

Mr. Trump himself famously feuded with Pope Francis during his 2016 presidential campaign over Mr. Trump’s push to build a wall on the southern border with Mexico, which Francis called “not Christian.” Last year, some of Mr. Trump’s evangelical advisers sought to quiet Vatican criticism of the rightward direction of American Catholicism.

Before Francis became pope, the Vatican seemed to favor Republican mainstay issues, such as opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Francis’ rise helped reset the role of Catholicism in American public life, and prioritized political and economic messages on immigration and climate change.

The pope, like Father Conroy, is a Jesuit, an order of priests viewed by some as more liberal. Father Conroy’s resignation is all the more contentious in Catholic circles because Mr. Ryan is a Catholic conservative.

Continue reading the main story

“We are a long way from Pope Francis at the White House and in the Capitol,” said John Carr, the director of the Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life at Georgetown University. “The divisions are greater, they are more stark and they are more angry.”

On Friday, the Catholic Association, a more conservative group, came to Mr. Ryan’s defense. Maureen Ferguson, a senior policy adviser with the organization, called criticism surrounding his decision to ask Father Conroy to step down “downright absurd.”

“Anyone who knows Speaker Ryan knows he is a devoted Catholic,” she said. “Much ado is being made about nothing.”

For others, it far more serious. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and an editor at large of America magazine, said he has heard from Catholics who are “dismayed” that a chaplain would be fired for apparently defending the poor, and he worries about the anti-Catholic dog-whistling.

“The implication that, as one legislator said, a ‘family man’ would be more suitable smacks of anti-Catholicism,” Father Martin said. “By that yardstick, Jesus wouldn’t qualify either.”

Continue reading the main story

Share and Enjoy

Tags: Choosing Lingerie

Scott Pruitt admits little culpability in EPA controversies, mostly blames aides and staff

April 27, 2018 by admin
Filed under Choosing Lingerie

Comments Off

This post has been updated.

Scott Pruitt gave little ground Thursday as he testified before two House panels about controversial spending and management decisions he has made while at the helm of the Environmental Protection Agency, blaming aides for exorbitant spending and saying career officials signed off on other controversial decisions.

Bolstered by Republican lawmakers, who praised his push to unravel Obama-era regulations and cut the agency’s workforce, Pruitt suggested that the censure he’s faced in recent months stems largely from opponents who want to stall President Trump’s environmental policies.

“Those who have attacked the EPA and attacked me are doing so because they want to derail the president’s agenda. I’m not going to let that happen,” Pruitt told members of the House Energy and Commerce environment subcommittee during the morning. “A lie doesn’t become true just because it appears on the front page of the newspaper.”

Whether Pruitt’s composed performance will be enough to preserve his job remains unclear, but there were few signs Thursday that House Republicans were ready to abandon him. Few GOP lawmakers — among them, Rep. Ryan Costello (Ill.), who is retiring, and Rep. Leonard Lance (N.J.), who is locked in a tough reelection fight — criticized Pruitt during more than five hours of questioning.

Three White House officials said Pruitt’s testimony — while “not good,” in the words of one — did not deliver a knockout blow to his tenure. The EPA chief has little support among senior aides there, and the president has voiced more concern as allegations and investigations involving Pruitt have accelerated. Multiple probes are underway by the agency’s inspector general, as well as by the House Oversight Committee, the Government Accountability Office and the White House itself.

Trump did not watch much of the administrator’s testimony live, one official with direct knowledge of his schedule said, but will likely view segments later along with media coverage.

Democratic lawmakers pushed Pruitt hard on several fronts, prompting him to concede that he had known in advance of an aide’s pay hike, that he had not sought an ethics ruling on his rental of a condo from a lobbyist and that a costly soundproof phone booth installed in his office did not constitute the kind of secure communications facility commonly used by federal officials for classified discussions.

“I’m not afraid to admit that it has been a learning process,” he said.

Pruitt repeatedly faulted staff for spending decisions that have drawn intense heat and denied that he had reassigned or demoted anyone who questioned those expenditures. Several people — including Pruitt’s former deputy chief of staff for operations, Kevin Chmielewski — have charged that they faced retaliation after challenging plans to spend taxpayer funds on first-class travel, office upgrades and other perks for him.

The EPA chief insisted there was “no truth” to such reports, adding, “I’m not aware of that ever happening.”

He also said he had no idea that his request to install a secure phone line in his office would lead to the customized phone booth costing $43,000. “I was not aware of the approval of the $43,000,” Pruitt said at one point, “and if I had known about it, congressman, I would not have approved it.”

Midafternoon, Pruitt moved over to a House Appropriations subcommittee and was again pressed on how that phone booth came about. The decision to install it “should not have been made,” he said.

Referring more broadly to management and spending missteps at the agency, Pruitt told the panel, “If there are processes that have not been followed internally . . . I commit to make those changes prospectively.”

He addressed questions about his first-class travel by saying that, even with ongoing security concerns, he had returned this year to flying coach. “I recently made changes to that because I felt like, from an optics and perception standpoint, it was creating a distraction,” he said.

He said he was aware of the move to give agency senior counsel Sarah Greenwalt a raise but did not push for it. She and another staffer received significant raises this spring over the objections of officials in the White House Personnel Office. “I was aware of one of those individuals” receiving a raise, Pruitt told Costello.

Greenwalt got a 52 percent increase last month, while Millan Hupp, director of scheduling and advance, got a 33 percent boost. The Washington Post first reported last week that Greenwalt had emailed a colleague in EPA’s human resources department that the raises had been “discussed” with the administrator in advance. Each woman had worked for Pruitt in Oklahoma before coming to Washington.

Earlier, when Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) asked Pruitt if he had authorized chief of staff Ryan Jackson to sign the raises, Pruitt had replied, “I was not aware of the amount, nor was I aware of the [Personnel Office] process not being respected.” He said he had delegated authority to Jackson to review and approve such personnel actions — a move that was documented by a March 2017 memo the agency released Thursday.

Jackson reversed both raises on April 5, according to EPA documents.

While Costello and Lance bore in on his spending on security and travel, other Republicans lauded his aggressive actions to roll back regulations, most prominently the Obama administration’s signature effort to cut carbon emissions from power plants.

“The greatest sin you’ve committed, if any, is you’ve actually done what President Trump ran on, won on and what he’s commissioned you to do,” Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) told Pruitt during the first hearing.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) mounted a defense on Pruitt’s behalf. “You’re not the first person to be the victim, for lack of a better term, of Washington politics,” the lawmaker told him. Referring to the fact that the administrator frequently traveled in first class during his first year at EPA, Barton inquired, “Is it illegal to fly first class?”

Pruitt said that those tickets had been approved by the agency’ travel and security offices, prompting Barton to reply, “But it’s not illegal. It may look bad, but it’s not illegal.”

Rep. David B. McKinley (R-WVa.) described the myriad allegations Pruitt faces as “a classic display of innuendo and McCarthyism,” adding that he was disappointed his colleagues across the aisle couldn’t restrict their questions to ones about policy. “Some just can’t resist the limelight, the opportunity to grandstand,” he accused.

The EPA’s press office issued a news release shortly before the second hearing, with quotes from Pruitt’s congressional supporters, including Cramer’s comment: “I never cease to be impressed by the level of detail you know.”

But Democrats were unsparing in their criticism. Tonko, the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee’s top Democrat, delivered a fusillade as Pruitt looked on impassively. After ticking off several allegations about the administrator’s personal financial dealings and professional decisions, the lawmaker said, “In almost all cases, the more we have learned, the worse they get.”
He concluded by telling Pruitt, “You have failed as a steward of American taxpayer dollars and of the environment.”

Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (N.J.), the Energy and Commerce’s top Democrat, was even harsher. “You are unfit to hold public office, and you are undeserving of the public trust,” he told Pruitt.

Pallone pressed Pruitt on whether he had retaliated against employees who questioned some of his spending decisions. “Has it always been your practice to fire people who disagree with you?” he asked.

Pruitt rebutted the charge. “I don’t ever recall a conversation to that end,” he said.

The administrator did retreat some during an exchange with Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.). Previously, EPA officials had likened the privacy phone booth to a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) that Pruitt needed for secure conversations with the White House and other officials. A recent GAO report did not assess the booth’s security merits but said Pruitt violated federal spending laws by spending more than $5,000 upgrading his office without advance notice to Congress.

The phone booth “is actually not a SCIF,” Pruitt said, even as he rejected the GAO’s conclusion. He acknowledged that he has only used the booth sparingly. “It’s for confidential communications, and it’s rare,” he added.

At times, he professed to be unfamiliar with some of the technology his aides had installed in his office.

“What is a biometric lock?” Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) asked.

“I don’t know,” the administrator replied. “I just put a code in.”

‘A factory of bad ideas’: How Scott Pruitt undermined his mission at EPA

Pruitt’s round-the-clock security has cost taxpayers nearly $3 million

Pruitt unveils controversial ‘transparency’ rule limiting what research EPA can use