[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10567-H10568]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   ``DEAR COLLEAGUE'' LETTER FROM THE PAST APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT

  (Mr. HOKE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from a ``Dear Colleague'' 
that was signed by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] who just 
spoke, as well as the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] just a few 
years ago.
  Quote,

       As the Ethics Committee prepares its recommendations to the 
     full House, it should release only the information which the 
     committee agrees is relevant and necessary to support its 
     findings. To ask a Member, any Member, to also respond in the 
     court of public opinion to allegations, rumors and innuendo 
     not deemed worthy of charge by the Committee would be totally 
     unfair and a perversion of the process. Especially in a time 
     of press sensationalism.
       Public release of material not germane to formal Committee 
     action would be similar to the process used during the Joe 
     McCarthy era: Ignore the discipline of due process and firm 
     evidence, and dump unproven allegations out in public and let 
     the ensuing publicity destroy the person's reputation and 
     career.

  Signed, Richard Gephardt, Pat Schroeder, Harold Volkmer, John Lewis, 
John Dingell, Martin Frost, et cetera.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:


                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, April 13, 1986.
     Re: Wright case raises crucial fairness issue
       Dear Colleague: Calls by some Members of this House for 
     release of all gathered background material on Speaker 
     Wright--no matter how irrelevant to specific recommendations 
     of the Ethics Committee--threatens every Member of Congress. 
     And it should offend every Member who values this institution 
     and fair play.
       We all support the ability and the obligation of the Ethics 
     Committee to take a close, hard look at all responsibly made 
     charges formally brought against any House Member. But, every 
     Member, from the newest freshman up to the Speaker, is 
     entitled to protection and fair treatment at the conclusion 
     of the internal inquiry.
       This requires that only supporting material on those 
     charges the Committee decides to proceed on should be 
     released. Releasing

[[Page H10568]]

     the other material--unsubstantiated charges, rumors, innuendo 
     and speculation--on Speaker Wright would be a terrible 
     precedent for the House, threatens all Members and makes a 
     mockery of fair play.
       The Outside Counsel has followed every lead, pursued every 
     rumor, and reported on each to the Committee. Appropriately 
     so,
       But as the Ethics Committee prepares its recommendations to 
     the full House, it should release only the information which 
     the Committee agrees is relevant and necessary to support its 
     findings. To ask a Member, any Member, to also respond in the 
     court of public opinion to allegations, rumors and innuendo 
     not deemed worthy of charge by the Committee would be totally 
     unfair and a perversion of due process. Especially in a time 
     of press sensationalism.
       Consider this: More than 70 Members of Congress were 
     investigated in the outside counsel's inquiry into the sex/
     drugs page scandal in 1983, of which only two Members were 
     eventually proceeded against. Would it have been fair to 
     release unedited, unsubstantiated or inconsequential 
     allegations that the Committee considered against the other 
     68 Members?
       For the Ethics Committee to release raw material not deemed 
     by the Committee to be worthy of formal action sets the stage 
     for the ruination of any Member's career--possibly triggered 
     by the political or personal animosity of any other Member or 
     outside group.
       Public release of material not germane to formal Committee 
     action in the Wright case would be similar to the process 
     used during the Joe McCarthy era: Ignore the discipline of 
     due process and firm evidence, and dump unproven allegations 
     out in public and let the ensuing publicity destroy the 
     person's reputation and career.
       Is that the procedure we want the House to adopt? Is that 
     what this institution and our Ethics Committee stand for? We 
     hope not.
       We hope the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will 
     adhere to its distinguished history of fairness in the matter 
     of releasing unsubstantiated, uncharged items. Fairness to 
     all Members requires the same treatment now.
     Dave Nagle.
     Jim Moody.
     Robert T. Matsui.

       Below is a list of 100 Democrats who signed a ``Dear 
     Colleague'' letter asking for the suppression of information 
     in the Wright inquiry.

 These Members Did Not Want Full Disclosure of Information on Speaker 
                            Wright's Ethics

       Alexander, Bill; Andrews, Michael; Bilbray, James; Borski, 
     Robert; Brennan, Joseph; Brooks, Jack; Brown, George; Bryant, 
     John; Bustamante, Albert; Campbell, Ben Nighthorse; Cardin, 
     Benjamin; Chapman, Jim; Clarke, James McClure; Clay, William; 
     Coleman, Ronald; Collins, Cardiss; Cooper, Jim; Coyne, 
     William; Darden, George; DeFazio, Peter; de la Garza, E; 
     Dellums, Ronald; Derrick, Butler; Dingell, John; Dorgan, 
     Byron; Durbin, Richard; Dymally, Mervyn; Edwards, Don; Espy, 
     Mike; Evans, Lane; Fascell, Dante; Flippo, Ronnie; Foglietta, 
     Thomas; Ford, William; Frost, Martin; Garcia, Robert; 
     Gejdenson, Sam; Gephardt, Richard; Gibbons, Sam; Glickman, 
     Dan; Gordon, Bart; Harris, Claude; Hawkins, Augustine; Hayes, 
     Charles; Hayes, James; Hefner, W.C. (Bill); Hughes, William; 
     Jenkins, Ed; Jones, Ben.
       Kaptur, Marcy; Kennedy, Joseph; Kennelly, Barbara; 
     Kostmayer, Peter; Laughlin, Greg; Leath, Marvin; Lehman, 
     Richard; Leland, Mickey; Levine, Mel; Lewis, John; Lowey, 
     Nita; Luken, Thomas; McCloskey, Frank; McDermott, James; 
     Manton, Thomas; Mavroules, Nicholas; Mfume, Kweisi; Moakley, 
     Joe; Neal, Richard; Oberstar, James; Olin, Jim; Ortiz, 
     Solomon; Owens, Major; Owens, Wayne; Payne, Donald; Pease, 
     Donald; Penny, Timothy; Perkins, Carl; Pickle, J.J.; Rangel, 
     Charles; Richardson, Bill; Rostenkowski, Dan; Roybal, Edward; 
     Sabo, Martin; Savage, Gus; Sawyer, Thomas; Scheuer, James; 
     Schroeder, Patricia; Slaughter, Louise; Staggers, Harley; 
     Stenholm, Charles; Synar, Mike; Tallon, Robin; Tauzin, W.J. 
     (Billy); Thomas, Robert; Unsoeld, Jolene; Volkmer, Harold; 
     Williams, Pat; Wilson, Charles; Wise, Robert.

                          ____________________