FULL DISCLOSURE NEEDED ON HOUSE BANK SCANDAL

News stories out of the nation's capital seem to be filled these days with horrifying tales of what Congress can't do: balance a budget, tax its citizens fairly, keep members' hands off the hired help. Finally, we get a story about something Congress can do: dig itself deeper into a controversy. The House Ethics Committee suggested last week that only a fraction of those involved in the Capitol Hill rubber-check scandal will have their names released publicly. Quick, since the logic is not self-evident, someone explain it. It can't be done, so the full House of Representatives should decline this committee advice and make public all the names.

As it is fighting off claims that Congress is an institution steeped in arrogance, its membership continues to believe that citizens aren't well-equipped to handle the truth. In fact, only the re-election chances of those culpable members seem to pale in the face of this disclosure. Has Congress become so clubby a group that its overriding concern is institutional damage control? Do the wounds of this nation take second billing to congressional hemorrhages? Those questions overstate the matter, but we find it troublesome such insinuations would even be in the ballpark of credulity.

Embarrassments have been layered on embarrassments since this scandal was exposed last year. House members have enjoyed privileges at their own bank on Capitol Hill. Between July 1988 and last October, 296 current representatives and 59 former House members bounced checks at that facility. This wasn't just a matter a some poor bookkeeping by busy people. Consider that:

Some members had more than 800 rubber checks.

On more than 200 occasions, overdrafts surpassed the net amount of the member's next paycheck.

At least one House member overdrew his account by more than his next paycheck for 35 of the 39 months studied.

At least 24 account holders wrote bad checks of more than their monthly pay at least 20 percent of the time during the 39 months.

This is a disgrace. Adding to the disgrace is the decision of the ethics panel, which voted 10-4 behind closed doors Thursday to recommend that only 19 of the current members involved in the scandal (plus five former members) be named publicly. What is the rationale of this selectivity? Beyond parochial face-saving, there is none. Some offenders who the committee declared of a lesser order (in Congress, are members exempted up to a certain level of wrongdoing?) will go unknown to the public. Meanwhile, members who kept their personal financial affairs in order, who remain tainted by a scandal that is none of their making, are thrown into a pile with the rest of the scalawags.

The full House must act on this measure. Individually and collectively, that body should be made aware of America's desire for a full disclosure on this scandal. Let the names be released, let the offending members face up to their dishonor and let the chips fall where they may this November. Who knows? Maybe voters will want them back on the job even after their transgressions are made known. The key is giving citizens a full story and a chance to decide for themselves.