Wright Offers to Step Down if Inquiry Erodes Support

Rep. Jim Wright (D-Tex.), awaiting the results of a House Ethics Committee investigation into his finances, said Tuesday that he will not seek reelection as House Speaker if the furor caused by the allegations undermines his support among Democrats.

Wright’s unusual offer to step down at the end of his current term in 1991 reflects a dramatic shift in his attitude toward the ethics investigation and its potential political impact on his future. Until now, he has condemned the investigation consistently as an unjustified, politically inspired witch hunt.

“I don’t have to be Speaker,” Wright said philosophically. “I don’t have to run for Speaker again. If I were convinced in my own mind that most of my colleagues don’t want me, I wouldn’t run again. If I weren’t convinced that my colleagues wanted me, I would not ask them to support me.

“There are a lot of guys who could be a good Speaker. There isn’t any indispensable man.”

Wright, speaking to a few reporters who were invited by him to a highly unusual, impromptu lunch in his office, also observed: “I lived a fine life before I was Speaker. I expect to live a fine life after I’m Speaker.”

House Democrats were stunned when they learned about the Speaker’s comments. But they noted that there is little likelihood they will call on him to resign in the highly charged partisan atmosphere that has grown up around the Wright inquiry unless the committee’s findings are extremely embarrassing to the party.

Wright, who has been under investigation for the last eight months, acknowledged that he expects the Ethics Committee to find fault with his past actions. But he insisted there will be no finding that he broke any law or rule of the House.

While the results of the investigation have not been made public, Wright presumably has received a summary of the evidence against him from his lawyer, William Oldaker, who has been permitted to sit though the committee’s closed-door deliberations.

“I probably have done things in hindsight that were poor judgment . . . but not dishonest or a violation of law,” he said. “If you take $1.5 million, give it to a high-powered Chicago law firm and set them loose, it’s likely that they might find something critical.”

Adhere to ‘Higher Standard’

Like anyone, he said, he has done “a lot of things that didn’t turn out the way you intend it to.” He emphasized that whatever he did wrong was in the distant past--long before he became Speaker in 1988--and that he now must adhere to “a higher standard.”

Wright, who often has been accused by his colleagues of being thin-skinned, emphasized that he does not intend to become defensive or combative during what is shaping up as a bruising battle over his ethical behavior. He said that he intends to maintain “my dignity, my equanimity and my composure.”

“If they say I did wrong, then so be it,” he added.

The Speaker noted that the Ethics Committee had looked deep into his past--back as far as 40 years ago--and even interviewed some of his early opponents for political office. “I’m glad they’ve done all of that,” he said. “Nobody could conceivably call it a whitewash.”

Wright said that while House Democrats are planning their strategy to defend him against Republican demands for a reprimand, censure or expulsion, he has not participated in the strategy sessions. “It would be a little bit presumptuous of me to do that,” he said.

The results of these strategy sessions were apparent Tuesday when House Majority Leader Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) and 15 other Democrats published a letter to all House members describing the investigation as “serious and legitimate” and accusing the Republicans of trying to turn it into “a political circus.”

Criticize Group’s Campaign

Both Wright in his comments and the Democrats in their letter criticized the efforts of a group known as the Conservative Campaign Fund--previously named Citizens for Reagan--which has organized picketing of the Speaker’s public appearances and has launched a direct-mail effort to bring public pressure on Republican members of the Ethics Committee to find Wright guilty.

Moreover, the group alleged that at a recent GOP caucus, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who brought the original complaint against Wright, challenged Republican members of the committee to find fault with the Speaker’s behavior.

Meanwhile, the Ethics Committee continued to meet behind closed doors and Rep. John T. Myers (R-Ind.), the ranking GOP member, said that he doubts the panel will finish reviewing the 450-page report of the investigators until next week.

“Hopefully, we can resolve this before Easter,” Myers said. “It would be in the interests of everyone.”

Rebuttal to Follow

Oldaker expects to finish his analysis of the still-secret report Tuesday, but the panel’s special counsel, Chicago attorney Richard Phelan, then will be allowed to present a rebuttal, probably beginning next Wednesday.

The investigation of Wright includes his complicated business dealings with George Mallick, a real estate developer from his hometown of Ft. Worth, who formed a company in 1979 to provide assistance to Wright and his wife.

Another major issue is whether Wright improperly evaded limits on outside income or campaign contributions by collecting $55,000 in royalties for publication of his 117-page book, “Reflections of a Public Man.”

Staff writer William J. Eaton contributed to this story.