Some Don’t Buy Stark’s Apology for Overdrafts : Congressional perks: The lawmaker, a banker and a multimillionaire, admitted to bouncing 17 checks over a year at the House’s private bank.

WASHINGTON —  Like some representatives before him, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Oakland) stood up in Congress last week and said he was sorry for repeatedly bouncing checks at the private House bank.

Like some of his 133 fellow check-bouncers, Stark also said he voluntarily paid a $15 administrative fee--albeit after the fact--to cover each overdraft.

But Stark’s conduct stands out among his colleagues: He told of bouncing 17 checks over the span of a year, an average of about one overdraft every three weeks. So far that puts Stark in the upper stratosphere of congressional check-bouncers and well beyond anyone in the 45-member California delegation.

What makes the figure more surprising is that Stark has always handled other people’s money along with his own. A multimillionaire, a bank founder by the time he was 31, a former member of the House Banking Committee and current member of the Ways and Means Committee, Stark undoubtedly was aware that ordinary citizens cannot bounce so many checks without placing their credit ratings and checking accounts in jeopardy.

His string of bounced checks “illustrates a certain lack of being in touch with the realities of today’s world,” said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “How can someone who doesn’t appear to care about check-bouncing represent people in Oakland who don’t even have money to put into a checking account?”

As a 10-term legislator, Stark appears to epitomize the battered incumbent who faces growing public anger--not to mention a 1992 reelection in redrawn districts--in the wake of the nation’s banking crisis and a scandal over congressional perks. These concerns, some legislators suggest, may have led Stark to repent.

“I’m stunned and taken aback by his disclosure,” said Rep. Frank Riggs (R-Windsor), a California banker himself who has been outspoken in assailing colleagues for abusing the House banking privilege. “I can only deduce that it is further evidence . . . that Congressman Stark is the classic limousine liberal who has lost touch with the interests and concerns of the average American.”

At least five other California House members have acknowledged inadvertently writing a bad check or two, including Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove), who had previously denounced check-bouncers as “jerks.”

Stark himself had no comment except for his remarks on the House floor:

“I want to apologize to my colleagues for contributing to this controversy which has so distracted us from other key issues,” Stark said in his brief speech. “I deeply apologize to my constituents for any embarrassment I have caused them by being part of this problem.”

When he learned of the insufficient funds, Stark assured his colleagues, he made deposits to cover the overdrafts within a day. On other occasions, the bounced checks were paid and not brought to his attention, he said.

By disclosing no further details, Stark has left many key questions unanswered, questions other legislators have addressed.

What was the total amount of the 17 bounced checks? How could a self-made millionaire issue so many checks for more money than he held in his account? Were the overdrafts written in connection with the purchase of a house, as was the case involving Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Long Beach), or was it for consumer goods like the stereo equipment bought by House Speaker Thomas Foley (D-Wash.)? Were one year’s worth of bounced checks an indicator of a longer-term pattern?

Stark is not elaborating. He refused to be interviewed about his check-writing practices, and his office failed to respond to an earlier Times survey of California members of Congress on the matter.

“The statement on the House floor adequately addresses the issue,” said Stark spokesman Perry Plummart.

The account history of Stark and every other legislator will be painstakingly reconstructed by a special House committee, which has no plans at this time to name the worst offenders publicly. The panel, a part of the Ethics Committee, will recommend investigations of any individual members suspected of violating House rules.

A Stark aide predicted that the ethics inquiry will uncover no improprieties by Stark.

The probe was triggered by a government audit that identified 134 House members who each wrote at least one bad check for $1,000 or more from July, 1989, through June, 1990. In all, legislators issued 8,331 checks on insufficient funds, but did not suffer any financial loss under the private bank’s policy of levying no penalties.

The checks were covered from other members’ checking accounts in the bank. Responding to public outrage, Foley closed the bank earlier this month and is reviewing other House privileges after disclosures of more than $300,000 in unpaid restaurant bills.

Still, lawmakers are eager to distance themselves from the perks controversy. In a mailing sent to constituents this week, Rep. David Dreier (R-La Verne) wrote, “I have not bounced a check and my restaurant bill is paid in full.”

Stark was applauded for his candidness by several colleagues, who suggested that it is likely that dozens of other members of Congress may eventually be forced to disclose even higher numbers of rubber checks. Others said they were unaware of Stark’s public apology, noting that he chose to address the House on a slow Monday when many of his colleagues were traveling back to Washington.

A member of the powerful tax-writing Ways and Means Committee who was first elected in 1972, Stark intends to run again for his House seat next year. Before going to Washington, he founded his second bank by age 31. He turned Security National Bank in Walnut Creek from a single storefront operation into a $100-million enterprise within a decade.

An ardent supporter of leftist causes, Stark put a giant neon peace sign atop his bank during the Vietnam War and peace symbol motifs on the bank’s checks, attracting depositors from throughout the Bay Area. He recently disclosed financial holdings of more than $4.3 million, making him among the wealthiest members in the House.