Rep. Hunter Defends His Use of Bank

An unrepentant Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Coronado) said Wednesday that he has routinely taken advantage of the House Bank’s toleration for overdrafts since 1981 and estimated that, in the last three years alone, his account has had insufficient funds at least 160 times.

Declaring he would never deal with a bank that doesn’t protect against overdrafts, Hunter said he averaged about three to five shortages a month at the now-closed House Bank and had a similar overdraft rate at his account at the Bank of Coronado.

“I won’t apologize for it,” said Hunter. “These overdrafts, and there were plenty of them, occurred in the regular course of business. (Those accounts) can be a whirlwind of activity . . . that’s why I have always relied on overdraft protection.”

To justify his systematic overdrafts, Hunter pointed to a scholarship fund he set up in 1985 to aid needy district students. Hunter argued that, by making voluntary $147-a-month payments, he was in effect paying for the “perk” of using the loosely run House Bank.

In a statement issued Wednesday night, Hunter included the bank in a list of House privileges--doctor’s office, library, gym, free parking, ambulance service and others--”not afforded to (the) general citizenry.”

“I’m paying for (overdraft protection),” Hunter said. “That brings me into moral balance on the issue.”

Asked how he thought voters would regard his explanation, Hunter said, “Let them draw their own conclusions.”

“I’ve paid $12,000 (to the district through the scholarship fund) since 1985. That’s far more than any overdraft protection would cost,” said Hunter.

And Hunter said the $12,000 was more than enough to cover the years he used the bank before he set up the scholarship fund.

Hunter said he relied on “courtesy calls” from the bank about insufficient funds since taking office in 1981.

He said he was “not concerned” that the overdrafts would affect his reelection chances and has mailed hefty packages of copied checks and bank statements to his five opponents.

Most private banks charge for overdraft protection, but the unadvertised tradition at the House Bank, a modest payroll-cashing facility on the first floor of the Capitol, was to cover the checks of members at no charge.

Members were notified by phone when a shortage occurred and were allowed to transfer money into the under-funded accounts.

The House Ethics Committee, which just released its report on the intensifying scandal, has recommended that the names of the 24 worst check-cashing abusers be made public. These members ran up overdrafts in excess of a month’s pay in 8 out of the 39 months the committee studied.

Although it could not be verified from the material that Hunter released Wednesday night, he said he was confident he would not show up on any list of major abusers of the bank.

The range of shortages in his account could not be determined Wednesday night. Hunter said most of the checks were covered in about five days. Some were took as long as 12 days, he said.

Hunter said he would provide a more exact accounting of his overdraft activity after he has had more time to study his financial records.

When the controversy began last fall, Hunter proclaimed that “nobody has ever had a Duncan Hunter check returned for insufficient funds.”

The statement allowed Hunter to deflect attention in the early going. And he stood by that statement Wednesday night during an interview in his office.

“Bounced” checks--those returned for nonpayment--were never the key issue in the scandal, for the House Bank merely held them until they could be covered.

The House on Friday is scheduled to vote on which bank abusers will be made public. Hunter said he was inclined to vote for full disclosure of all 355 members and former members that the ethics panel said had even one overdraft during the last three years.

“I will listen to the debate. I have fully disclosed my activity, but I am still concerned about (the fairness of) retroactively withdrawing the overdraft protection at the bank.”

Two of Hunter’s San Diego colleagues, Reps. Bill Lowery (R-San Diego) and Randy Cunningham (R-Chula Vista), have already become ensnared in the bank scandal.

Lowery has been told by the sergeant-at-arms office, which used to run the bank, that he has a “handful” of overdrafts, but Lowery has offered no specifics and will await the House ethics report.

When the story first broke, Cunningham declared he had never bounced a check. Then, after requesting a letter from the House Bank to verify his claim, Cunningham received his own “October surprise.” According to the sergeant-at-arms, Cunningham came up about $1,000 short to cover a $15,000 check he wrote last March to a buy a new car in Pennsylvania.

Cunningham insisted he was unaware of the overdraft and had given the dealership instructions not to deposit the check for a week. The dealer supplied a letter to Cunningham backing up his version of events.

Since the scandal first broke last fall, Rep. Ron Packard (R-Oceanside) has maintained that his bank record is clean.