[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 130 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H10606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   ``DEAR COLLEAGUE'' LETTER FROM THE PAST APPLIES TO PRESENT ETHICS 
                          COMMITTEE SITUATION

  (Mr. HOKE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, three of the previous speakers, the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Lewis], and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], were all 
signatories to a letter that goes directly to this point that they are 
now arguing the other side of with respect to disclosure from the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It was written just a few 
short years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, it says:

       As the Ethics Committee prepares its recommendations to the 
     full House, it should only release the information which the 
     Committee agrees is relevant and necessary to support its 
     findings.

  Why is that? Because, it goes on,

     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

  In the Wright case,

     would be similar to the process used during the Joe McCarthy 
     era: Ignore the discipline of the process and firm evidence 
     and dump unproven allegations out in public and let the 
     ensuing publicity destroy the person's reputation and 
     character.

                          ____________________