2 Democrats Who Voted Against Wright Face Pressure

As the House Ethics Committee prepares to report its findings next week on rules infractions by Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.), extraordinary political heat is being focused on two Democrats who supported the charges against their party’s highest-ranking officeholder.

While the ethics panel is supposed to be free of partisanship, some House Democrats indicated that Reps. Bernard J. Dwyer (D-N.J.) and Chester G. Atkins (D-Mass.) will be lobbied to reverse their positions and, potentially, save Wright’s speakership in the process.

If they refuse to change course, Dwyer and Atkins could become party pariahs, shunned by colleagues and evicted from key committee assignments, congressional sources said Friday.

Joined Republicans

Earlier this week, Dwyer and Atkins joined the ethics panel’s six Republicans in an 8-4 vote to charge Wright with improperly accepting gifts from a Texas business associate and evading House income limits through bulk sales of his book, “Reflections of a Public Man.”

There was widespread anger among Democrats--including some in the House leadership--over the votes cast by Dwyer, who had been considered a party loyalist, and Atkins, who was characterized as more of a maverick.

The committee, concluding a 10-month investigation into Wright’s financial affairs, is expected to announce Monday or Tuesday its “statement of alleged violations” by the Speaker. The statement will be accompanied by a more exhaustive report compiled by the panel’s special counsel, Richard J. Phelan.

Can Present Defense

After release of the statement, which is similar in nature to an indictment, Wright would be allowed to present his defense. Afterward, the committee would vote on whether to convene a disciplinary hearing to decide what punishment to recommend to the full House.

If Dwyer and Atkins can be persuaded to reverse their initial position and cast their votes in favor of Wright at a later point in the proceedings, the result would be a 6-6, party-line standoff that would result in dismissal of charges under the committee’s rules.

Even if a majority of the committee still concluded that the violations had occurred, the votes of Atkins and Dwyer could be crucial in fashioning a penalty.

Wright, who once hoped for exoneration, now appears to be willing to accept a letter of criticism for the violations. Unlike a formal reprimand by the House, the letter of criticism probably would allow him to survive as Speaker.

So far, Atkins and Dwyer have been unwilling to discuss their committee votes. But some of their colleagues have not been so reticent.

When asked what he would say to Atkins and Dwyer about their votes, Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Tex.) replied ominously: “Pray!”

Other congressional sources suggested that both men could lose their coveted seats on the House Appropriations Committee.

Of the two, Dwyer’s vote caused the most surprise because he was regarded as a model of party loyalty, nearly always deferring to the Democratic leadership and reaping the benefits that such behavior provides.

Dwyer, 68, rose through the ranks of New Jersey politics as a party machine candidate until his election to Congress in 1980. A quiet, low-key lawmaker, he rarely attracted public attention in his four previous terms in the House.

Atkins, who observed his 41st birthday Friday, started his political career at the age of 22 by winning a seat in the Massachusetts Legislature.

While he comes from a wealthy family and was graduated from liberal Antioch College in 1970, Atkins got along in the cutthroat environment of Massachusetts Statehouse politics and eventually became chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the Massachusetts Senate.

In the House--where he arrived in 1985--Atkins became something of a Democratic maverick, but he managed to get the support of then-Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr. for a seat on the Budget Committee in his freshman term. More recently, he defeated Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) in a tough regional contest for a seat on the Appropriations panel.

“At every step, Atkins has shown unerring political instincts,” observed the Almanac of American Politics, a respected independent publication.

Atkins recently made news when he and Phelan, the committee’s special counsel, were robbed at gunpoint late at night on Capitol Hill after returning from dinner together at a Union Station restaurant.

Rep. Charles Wilson (D-Tex.), a Wright ally, said that Atkins’ vote against Wright could reflect that he was considered “a pal” of Phelan, a politically astute Chicago attorney who drew up a long list of proposed charges against the Speaker.

As for Dwyer, however, Wilson said he was puzzled, adding: “I don’t know what happened to Bernie.”

Dwyer and Atkins cast the critical votes when the ethics panel decided that Wright violated House rules by accepting benefits from his longtime Texas business partner, George A. Mallick Jr., and by arranging bulk sales of his book in lieu of speaking fees that would have exceeded House limits.

The four Democrats who sided with Wright--against Phelan’s recommendation--were Chairman Julian C. Dixon (Los Angeles), Vic Fazio (Sacramento), Joseph M. Gaydos (Pa.) and Alan M. Mollohan (W.Va.).

Phelan is a Democrat and was a delegate committed to the presidential candidacy of Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois at the 1988 Democratic National Convention.

Some of Wright’s associates have accused Phelan of trying to make a name for himself by rigging the evidence against the Speaker.

Dixon, however, has repeatedly expressed his confidence in the integrity and professional competence of Phelan and other members of his firm who worked on the case.

Meantime, in a last-minute appeal to the ethics panel, a total of 109 Democrats asked that the report be limited to information regarding charges that the panel has included in its “statement of alleged violations” by the Speaker.

Releasing the entire report--including unproven allegations and charges already dismissed--would “dump unproven allegations out in public and let the ensuing publicity destroy the person’s reputation and career,” said a statement by Rep. Jim Moody (D-Wis.).

“To ask a member (of Congress), 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,” Moody’s letter said.