Wright to Mount a Fight for Honor : Speaker Says He Has ‘Clear Proof’ of Innocence in House Ethics Probe

A tearful Speaker Jim Wright, flanked by Democratic barons of the House, vowed Thursday to fight to preserve his reputation as “a person of honor” and to disprove the House Ethics Committee’s findings that he had violated rules of conduct.

Wright asked the House panel to allow him to appear personally as soon as possible to answer the charges against him. He declared that he would present “clear and convincing proof” that he is innocent of allegations that he improperly accepted gifts from a Texas business partner and evaded limits on outside income.

There was no immediate response from the committee, now in the final stages of deliberations on its 10-month investigation of Wright’s financial affairs. It voted, 8 to 4, in closed session on Wednesday to file formal charges in the House based on the gifts and on income Wright earned from his 1984 book, “Reflections of a Public Man.”

2 Democrats Break Ranks

Many of the Texas congressman’s backers expressed anger and surprise that two Democrats on the 12-member panel--Reps. Chester G. Atkins of Massachusetts and Bernard J. Dwyer of New Jersey--joined the six Republicans to form a majority against the Speaker.

Democrats hinted privately that there would be a behind-the-scenes effort to persuade Atkins and Dwyer to reverse their positions on Wright’s possible culpability before the committee issues its final report early next week.

Even without any switches, however, leading Democrats said that the show of Democratic support for Wright demonstrated that his sometimes lonely battle has become a party cause, and that his chances for retaining his top House position are not lost.

Crusty Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Tex.) echoed the fighting tone that Wright used at his press conference, telling reporters: “He’s not wounded. He’s not hurt. He’s just cut a little. He’s got some bruises. It doesn’t mean you don’t win the fight and stomp ‘em to death.”

Rep. Dave McCurdy (D-Okla.) took a more dispassionate approach, saying: “I think he becomes a liability, but I think he survives.”

On Thursday morning, Wright made an emotional plea for support to a closed-door caucus of Democratic whips that one listener likened later to the famed courtroom orations of Clarence Darrow. “It was an incredible presentation, emotional and very skilled,” the source said. “He was quite convincing.”

Hours later, Wright delivered his public statement before reporters and television cameras in the Rayburn Room of the Capitol with more than 50 leading members of the House standing with him on the podium in a dramatic show of support.

Those who appeared with Wright included the entire House Democratic leadership, chairmen of powerful committees, leading conservatives and liberals and such well-known members as Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) and veteran Rep. James H. Scheuer (D-N.Y.).

They burst into prolonged applause when Wright, his voice breaking and his chin trembling with emotion, portrayed one of the charges against him as an attack on the integrity of his wife.

His wife, Betty, earned the $18,000 annual salary she received from an investment business owned by Wright and Ft. Worth developer George A. Mallick Jr., he insisted. It was not, as the panel concluded, a gift to him from an associate with an interest in federal legislation.

Emotional Defense of Wife

“My wife is a good, decent, caring, thoroughly honorable person,” Wright said as tears welled up in his eyes. “I’ll damn well fight to protect her name from any challenge by any source, whatever the cost.”

Most of his 30-minute statement consisted of a lawyer-like rebuttal to the charges that his business partnership with Mallick was merely a sham designed to funnel money to the Wrights. He said it was a legitimate corporation that made small but “honorable” profits from 1979 until it was dissolved last year.

House rules ban members from taking more than $100 from persons with an interest in congressional business.

The Speaker also disputed the committee’s other charge that he evaded a House limit on outside income by channeling speaking fees into bulk sales of his book of speeches and essays. While there is a ceiling on speaking fees, royalty payments on books are exempt from any limits.

Citing that exemption, Wright asserted that there was no violation.

“I am 66 years of age--66 years of living and giving; striving and sometimes failing, and sometimes succeeding,” Wright said. “I believe I have earned a reputation as a person of decency, and as a person of honor and as a person of integrity.

“I know that my wife deserves to be known in that way and that, to me, is the most important thing and the only really important thing. And for my good name, which is the legacy I intend to leave my children and my grandchildren, I will fight to the last ounce of conviction and energy that I possess,” he said, his eyes moist from emotion as he concluded. Another burst of applause came from the Democratic supporters as Wright, refusing to answer any questions, shook hands with the throng as he left the room.

Questioned after Wright’s appearance, Rep. Charles Wilson (D-Tex.) predicted that Wright would survive a letter of criticism from the Ethics Committee in a House showdown, adding: “We’re gonna win this. We’re gonna circle the wagons and shoot the damn Indians.”

But other Democrats, who asked not to be identified, said that the crisis was far from over since the committee has said that it plans to release the full report made by Richard J. Phelan, the special counsel who shaped the charges considered by the panel. Details of Phelan’s findings, expected to take a particularly critical view of Wright’s conduct, could further inflame the controversy.

Ethics Committee Chairman Julian C. Dixon (D-Los Angeles) said that the panel probably would make no public statement on the allegations “until early next week.” He added: “Early next week could be Monday or Tuesday, I would think no later than Wednesday.”

Wright then would be given an opportunity to present his defense. Afterward, the panel, known officially as the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, would vote on whether to convene a disciplinary hearing to decide what punishment to recommend to the full House.

Meantime, three Democrats circulated a letter to all members of the House asking the panel to release only supporting material relating to charges against Wright which it has decided to endorse.

Concern on Due Process

“To ask a member, any member, to 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,” said the letter signed by Reps. Dave R. Nagle (D-Iowa), Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento) and Jim Moody (D-Wis.).

In his public statement, Wright said that the allegations against him primarily involve rules technicalities.

“I’m not accused of any personal immorality, or any dishonesty or any misuse of tax dollars,” he said. “I’m accused of three issues concerning my personal finances and the technical reporting requirements of the Congress.”

The allegation that Wright improperly accepted gifts is based on the income Mrs. Wright received from 1981 through 1984 from Mallightco, a Wright-Mallick investment partnership that has been dissolved.

During that period, she received more than $72,000 in salary and other benefits, including the use of a condominium in Ft. Worth and a 1979 Cadillac.

Lists Wife’s Duties

Wright has contended that his wife earned her salary by advising Mallick on real estate and stock investments but Phelan has alleged that she worked only 12 days in four years.

The seriousness of that allegation is compounded by Phelan’s contention that Mallick had a direct interest in legislation involving savings and loans, oil and gas development and an economic development grant for the Ft. Worth stockyards.

The other charge alleges that Wright, to evade the House limits on honorariums that members can receive, encouraged sponsors of some of his speeches to buy bulk quantities of his book rather than pay him a speaking fee outright.

Under House rules, a member cannot receive more than $2,000 for making a speech, and his total annual honorariums cannot exceed 30% of his government salary.

VOTING TO CHARGE WRIGHT:

Members of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

Rep. John T. Myers, R-Indiana Rep. James V. Hansen, R-Utah Rep. Charles Pashayan Jr., R-Fresno Rep. Thomas E. Petri, R-Wisconsin Rep. Larry E. Craig, R-Idaho Rep. Hank Brown, R-Colorado Rep. Bernard J. Dwyer, D-New Jersey Rep. Chester G. Atkins, D-Massachusetts VOTING NOT TO CHARGE:

Rep. Julian C. Dixon, D-Los Angeles Rep. Vic Fazio, D-Sacramento Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, D-West Virginia Rep. Joseph M. Gaydos, D-Pennsylvania