House Asked to Name 24 Bad-Check Writers : Ethics: Panel proposes disclosure of worst offenders. Split vote signals floor fight as some charge ‘whitewash.’

A divided House Ethics Committee on Thursday proposed disclosing the names of 19 members of Congress and five former members who it said were the worst offenders in writing bad checks on their accounts at the now-closed House bank.

Dissenters on the panel, however, immediately branded the plan a “whitewash” and said that they would recommend disclosure of all the names of House members who overdrew their accounts.

The 10-4 split on the panel signaled a bruising floor fight next week with potentially serious political consequences for members of Congress who already fear strong anti-incumbent sentiment in this election year.

Rep. Matthew F. McHugh (D-N.Y.), acting chairman of the ethics panel, who led a six-member subcommittee that examined the bank records without knowing the names of account holders, said that the House would be asked to approve the limited disclosure.

The bank, which disbursed members’ pay and allowed them to cash checks drawn on their accounts, was shut down in October after revelations about the overdrawn accounts. No public funds were lost because of the transactions. But the bank’s permissive policies on check writing was seen by critics as giving special treatment to members of Congress. No financial penalty was charged for the overdrafts.

Almost 20,000 checks were written by members in the 39 months examined between July 1, 1988, and last Oct. 3 without sufficient funds on deposit to cover them, according to Rep. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), one of the four dissenters on the Ethics Committee. Nearly 200 members were overdrawn by more than a month’s salary and scores of members wrote hundreds of bad checks, he added.

The 24 lawmakers the committee would name were selected because their House accounts were overdrawn by more than a month’s net salary for at least eight of the 39 months examined, McHugh said.

But Kyl said that he would demand full disclosure of every bad-check writer, no matter how small the amount, declaring: “We’ve got to come clean.”

The proposal to release 24 names was unanimously adopted by the six-member subcommittee, McHugh said. The House resolution establishing the inquiry asked the committee to focus on House members who routinely and repeatedly wrote bad checks in a significant amount, he said.

Under the plan, the House will be asked to approve disclosure of details of the 24 legislators’ accounts. The list would be made public after a 10-day waiting period. During that time, those listed would have a chance to rebut the charges in confidential sessions with McHugh and the ranking Republican on the panel, Rep. James V. Hansen (R-Utah).

But the sharp dissent within the committee indicated the likelihood of a sharp debate when the full House takes up the proposal next week.

“I don’t think it can pass the smell test,” Rep. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), one of the four dissenting panel members, said of the plan approved by the committee.

But Hansen defended the plan, noting that the bank was poorly run and never cracked down on members who repeatedly wrote bad checks. “The political ramifications of this thing are absolutely awesome,” Hansen said.

Rep. Fred Grandy (R-Iowa), another panel member who supported the limited disclosure plan, said that the House also would be asked to approve a system that would allow members to obtain their banking records from the committee.

The proposal for limited disclosure ran into heavy opposition from a group of Republican freshmen who call themselves the “gang of seven.”

“Whitewash,” said Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa).