Ethics Panel Calls for Packwood’s Expulsion : Senate: Committee cites his ‘pattern of abuse.’ Lawmaker denounces unanimous, unprecedented vote.

In a stunning and unprecedented rebuke of one of Congress’ most powerful members, the Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend the expulsion of Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) because of a broad array of sexual harassment and official misconduct allegations that amounted to a “pattern of abuse of his position of power and authority as a United States senator.”

Packwood, who has served in the Senate 25 years and is now chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, immediately denounced the decision and the panel’s refusal to grant his request for a public hearing on the allegations against him.

“The vote by the Ethics Committee today was totally and absolutely unfair,” Packwood said. “This process makes the inquisition look like a study in fairness.”

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), the only woman on the committee, hailed the decision. “Sen. Packwood has shown a flagrant disregard for the victims, the Senate and the citizens of Oregon,” Mikulski said in a statement. “His conduct is a systematic abuse of women, power and this institution.”

Packwood has been accused of making unwelcome sexual advances--including forcibly kissing, groping and hugging women, many of whom were on his Senate or campaign staffs.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who had unsuccessfully sought public hearings on the case, said: “In recommending his expulsion [the committee members] are sending a very clear message that the Senate has zero tolerance for the type of behavior he exhibited over the course of his public service,” Boxer said.

Today, the Ethics Committee will release to the public all documents related to the case. “I believe that a thorough examination of this material will cause the American people to understand why the Ethics Committee made the decision it has,” said Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Ida.), a member of the committee.

The action by the panel--made up of three Republican and three Democratic members--throws an enormous wrench into GOP efforts to move an ambitious legislative agenda through the Senate this fall.

Although he will nominally remain chairman of the Finance Committee until his party either strips him of his chairmanship or the full Senate votes to expel him, the action hobbles him at a time when he was expected to play a key role in moving Medicare spending curbs, tax cuts and the welfare bill now before the Senate. A change in leadership at the panel is sure to complicate the Republican job of winning approval of those controversial measures.

If the Ethics Committee recommendation is approved by the Senate, it would mark the first time since the Civil War that the Senate has voted to expel one of its members and the only time that a senator has been expelled for anything but treason.

An expulsion recommendation has to be approved by 67 senators, a two-thirds majority, after the charges are debated on the floor. Packwood will be given an opportunity to defend himself during the debate. It was not clear when the Senate would take up the recommendation.

Packwood equivocated on the question of whether he would fight the charges. “I want to think about this for a minute,” Packwood said at a press conference after the Ethics Committee voted. “I would like to have a public hearing.” Later, in an interview on Cable News Network, Packwood was asked if he would rule out resignation. “Yes,” he responded.

“The committee strenuously urges, and fully expects, that its recommendation of expulsion shall be approved by the full Senate,” the Ethics Committee said in a statement announcing its decision. If the recommendation is not approved by the Senate, the panel said, it would recommend that he be censured and stripped of his seniority and his position as chairman of the Finance Committee.

The committee’s action came amid signs that Packwood was losing support among his Republican colleagues because of his reversal on the question of whether hearings in the case should be open. Faced with the prospect of a protracted hearing involving embarrassing personal details about Packwood’s encounters with women, many feared that the spectacle would bathe the entire Senate in the harsh glare of scandal and distract attention from the GOP’s legislative accomplishments.

The 6-0 vote by the Ethics Committee was the remarkable culmination of an investigation that began in December, 1992. The panel has been investigating allegations that Packwood made unwanted sexual advances toward at least 17 women between 1969 and 1990. He also was accused of trying to destroy evidence by altering his private diaries before they were subpoenaed by the Ethics Committee, and of seeking to use his official capacity to solicit a job for his then-wife.

The Ethics Committee was on the verge of deciding possible sanctions against Packwood before Congress began its August recess. But Boxer pushed her call for public hearings to a vote that she lost, 52 to 48.

All but three Republicans voted with Packwood and the Ethics Committee in opposing public hearings. Only one Democrat--Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York--opposed public hearings.

The day after the vote, the Ethics Committee abruptly announced that two additional allegations had surfaced--including a particularly damaging one involving a woman who was a minor at the time of the alleged incident.

While Congress was still in recess in August, Packwood announced that he had changed his position and wanted public hearings because of the committee’s decision to keep the investigation open to explore the two new allegations. That decision alienated some of his GOP colleagues who thought that they had taken considerable political heat to vote against hearings last month.

“There are some people who felt they were being hung out to dry,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) in an interview before the committee acted.

Although many senators thought it would be difficult for the committee to reject Packwood’s request for a hearing, the Ethics Committee did so in a meeting that lasted less than two hours Wednesday, when it approved a resolution calling for the harshest disciplinary action available.

The panel approved a resolution stating that Packwood “engaged in a pattern of abuse of his position of power and authority as a United States senator by repeatedly committing sexual misconduct.” The panel also concluded that he “abused his position of power” by trying to secure employment for his estranged wife and “endeavored to obstruct and impede” the committee’s inquiry by altering his diaries.

Packwood denied the latter two charges, noting that the Justice Department had dropped its investigation of the matter. And he dismissed the sexual harassment allegations as merely being “accused of kissing women . . . on occasion, perhaps over-eagerly.” In another document released by his office, Packwood noted that the allegations of misconduct extend back over 25 years and include only one allegation arising in the last 13 years.

He complained bitterly that the panel had not given him an open hearing at which he could confront his accusers. “The entire process is so unfair,” he said. “I’ve never had a chance to cross-examine my accusers.”

The committee said that it would ask Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) to bring the matter to the floor “promptly” but Dole’s office could not say exactly when it would come up.

If Packwood decides to resign rather than fight the charges, he would still be eligible for his government pension and other privileges accorded to former members of Congress.

The imbroglio throws into question the leadership of the Finance Committee. Next in line for the chairmanship of the panel is William V. Roth Jr. (R-Del.), who would bring a more conservative ideology to the leadership of the panel than does Packwood, who is one of his party’s more moderate members. Roth has been a strident advocate of tax cuts, while Packwood has resisted making deep tax cuts this year, even as a majority of his party has pushed for them.

However, some Senate sources say that Roth, who would have to give up his chairmanship of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to take over Finance, is regarded as a weak leader and some GOP senators might be reluctant to give him the reins of the committee at such a crucial time.