Packwood Appears Before Ethics Panel : Congress: Hearing is held behind closed doors. Senator faces allegations of sexual misconduct, evidence tampering and solicitation of favors from lobbyists.

Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) appeared before the Senate Ethics Committee on Tuesday to answer allegations of sexual misconduct, evidence tampering and possible criminal solicitation of financial favors from lobbyists.

The long-awaited hearing took place behind tightly closed doors, and neither Packwood nor any of the six senators on the ethics panel would comment on the three-hour session, beyond one member’s quip that it had “certainly been a content-rich” encounter.

But several lawmakers quietly acknowledged that the hearing represents the beginning of the end of a tortuously long process that could become publicly painful before it is over. It also could pose a political dilemma for Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and steep the still largely male Senate in the kind of embarrassing controversy that could make the Anita Faye Hill-Clarence Thomas controversy during Thomas’ Supreme Court confirmation hearings look “like a child’s bedtime story,” one Senate aide said.

Packwood, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, stands accused of a “pattern of sexual misconduct” that included grabbing or forcibly restraining women while kissing or fondling them against their will in a string of at least 18 instances between 1969 and 1990.

In the Ethics Committee’s May 16 “bill of particulars,” the panel’s equivalent of an indictment, he was also accused of tampering with subpoenaed evidence and with soliciting financial support for his ex-wife from “persons with an interest in legislation” before his committee--allegations that carry possible criminal penalties.

Packwood, who had said earlier that he welcomed the chance to defend himself before the Ethics Committee, refused to comment as he left the meeting surrounded by a phalanx of aides and lawyers. Previously, he has maintained his innocence publicly, although he has refused to comment on specific charges.

Beyond indicating that they were not through interrogating Packwood and would be meeting again at a time yet to be announced, committee members were equally tight-lipped.

Their reluctance to comment, although normal in ethics investigations, also reflected the enormous political dilemma--and the potential embarrassment for the Senate--that the Packwood case has become in the more than two years since the allegations of sexual misconduct first surfaced.

For GOP leaders, it is a dilemma because both the explicit nature of the allegations and the wealth of the evidence in the case make it extremely unlikely that Packwood could get off with a simple reprimand, the Senate’s mildest punishment, should the Ethics Committee find him guilty on any of the charges.

But a more serious punishment, which could include stripping Packwood of his committee chairmanship or even expelling him from the Senate, would deprive Dole of a key ally on the pivotal Finance Committee--a prospect that leadership sources acknowledged they are loath to face.

For Republicans in general, it was a potential embarrassment because the three Democrats on the six-member ethics panel are likely to insist that detailed hearings, the next step in the process, take place in open session.

An inkling of the kind of testimony that would likely be aired was provided by the May 16 indictment, which cited “substantial credible evidence” to support charges that Packwood on numerous occasions has “forced his tongue” into the mouths of unsuspecting women or “grabbed” at their undergarments while restraining them.

More serious because of the potential criminal penalties involved, Packwood is also accused of having altered his private diaries after learning that they might be subpoenaed by the committee and of having misused his office by soliciting job offers from lobbyists for his ex-wife--a charge that is also being examined by the Justice Department.