My colleague, House Majority Leader Thomas S. Foley, has further confused the Iran-contra debate with his recent essay, "We Made Ourselves Quite Clear" {op-ed, July 7}.

Mr. Foley argues that Congress cut off covert aid to the contras "because of an extraordinary sense of frustration and because members could no longer put any trust in administration statements."

Is this what we've come to in this bicentennial season -- government as psycho-drama? Because Congress was "frustrated," it cut off aid to the Nicaraguan resistance? This is an astonishing admission in its own right. What will Congress do when next frustrated? What are our allies to think of government by emotion rather than reason? His analysis is as misleading as it is astonishing.

Mr. Foley's colleagues in the majority and some of my ill-advised colleagues in the minority voted against aid because they did not believe in the cause of Nicaraguan resistance. Whether this is because some members actually favor the Sandinistas or whether the aid cut-off was perceived, illogically, as a means toward a negotiated settlement with the Sandinista regime, the essential fact remains the same: aid was cut off because not enough members of the House of Representatives and the Senate believed the Nicaraguan resistance deserved U.S. support.

At a later date we can argue about the meaning of the situation in which some members of Congress actively supported a regime whose anthem condemns the "Yankee enemy of human kind" and in which other members remain blithely indifferent to the significance of that grim fact.

For now, though, Mr. Foley and those who support the Boland Amendment are not to be let off the historical hook with vague claims about their frustration. They have made a policy judgment and should be candid enough to admit it. The majority leader is right to judge our constitutional process a precious heritage. It rests on a minimum of candor about the nature of our disagreements. The ends of democratic government are not well served when the majority leader misrepresents the nature of a policy disagreement of such grave historical consequence.

HENRY J. HYDE U.S. Representative (R-Ill.) Washington