Possibility of Criminal Conduct by Packwood Is Raised : Congress: Ethics panel chairman says diaries were subpoenaed in widening of sexual misconduct inquiry. He does not hint at nature of any alleged violation.

The chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee said Thursday that Sen. Bob Packwood’s personal diaries contain information about possible criminal violations and other forms of misconduct unrelated to allegations of sexual harassment against the Oregon Republican.

In an announcement that stunned Packwood’s Senate colleagues, Ethics Committee Chairman Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.) disclosed in a five-page statement that the committee had taken the unprecedented step of subpoenaing Packwood’s diaries with the intent of widening its sexual misconduct inquiry to include “questions about possible violations of criminal laws” by Packwood.

Neither Bryan nor other committee members would elaborate on the nature of the alleged criminal activity.

Bryan said that he had taken the unusual step of disclosing the committee’s reasons for subpoenaing the diaries because Packwood’s own accounts of the deepening dispute had been “inaccurate” and misleading.

The Senate is to decide Monday whether to permit the Ethics Committee to go to court to force Packwood to comply with the subpoena. The panel has spent nearly a year investigating allegations that the 61-year-old senator made unwanted sexual advances to more than two dozen female aides, lobbyists and associates and then attempted to intimidate them from telling their stories.

*

As part of that inquiry, the committee first sought the diaries two weeks ago after Packwood referred to them during a deposition by the committee staff. The senator has said that the diaries, amounting to 8,200 pages, contain--besides recountings of his official duties--details about his relationships with women, as well as romantic relationships on the part of some of his colleagues.

Initially Packwood turned over large parts of the diaries under an agreement in which passages involving privileged legal, medical or family matters were masked. He balked when the committee asked for additional sections of the diary, claiming that the remaining pages in his possession are irrelevant to the sexual misconduct investigation. It was then that the committee issued the subpoena.

Two days ago, Packwood further fueled the controversy over the diaries by claiming that a committee counsel reviewing some of the pages had removed a piece of tape to learn the concealed identity of a House Democratic leader whose affair with a Senate staff member had been described by the senator.

On Thursday, however, Packwood said in a speech on the Senate floor that he had misspoken when he alleged that the committee had looked at a name that had been masked out. But while Packwood apologized for the error, he failed to address Bryan’s most explosive disclosure: that the committee is now investigating the senator for possible criminal violations.

As he left the chamber, Packwood refused to respond to questions about the extraordinary dispute that has stunned the Senate and provoked sharp reactions from Republicans, who had hoped to avoid the embarrassment of a public debate and a vote on the issue.

That debate, now set for Monday, is likely to be not only embarrassing but also historic--the first time that the Senate has convened to seek court enforcement of a subpoena on one of its members.

Adding to the drama, Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) took the highly unusual step of banning all committee meetings Monday so that no senator would be absent.

Although the Ethics Committee, evenly divided between three Democrats and three Republicans, voted unanimously to issue the subpoena, partisan divisions erupted after Bryan’s statement was released.

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) rose on the floor shortly after Packwood left to denounce Bryan’s statement as “a prejudgment” of Packwood by the Ethics Committee chairman, who apparently acted without the concurrence of the committee’s Republican vice chairman, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. A spokesman said that McConnell was out of town on family business Thursday.

While Bryan did not disclose the nature of the possible criminal violations, his statement provided the most complete account offered to date by the usually secretive Ethics Committee of the events that led it to subpoena Packwood’s personal writings.

*

Responding to allegations made by Packwood’s lawyers, Bryan denied that Packwood’s constitutional rights are being violated or that the committee is seeking information about the sex lives of other members of Congress mentioned in the diaries.

“There is no witch hunt or fishing expedition under way. The Ethics Committee has no interest in pursuing information related to the private lives of members of Congress,” Bryan said.

At the same time, he added, neither the committee nor the Senate can permit “a senator to withhold information related to possible violations and misconduct.”