Packwood Battles Senate on Diaries : Ethics: Vote expected today on subpoena of his papers in sexual harassment probe. Senator argues for right to privacy but no one openly defends him.

WASHINGTON —  The Senate, facing an unprecedented confrontation with one of its own members, Monday debated whether to go to court to force Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) to turn over hundreds of pages of personal diaries to its Ethics Committee, which is investigating allegations of sexual harassment and possible criminal wrongdoing.

After seven hours of often tedious debate over legal technicalities and constitutional questions, the Senate retired for the night, its leaders vowing to vote sometime today on whether to support the committee’s effort to obtain the diaries by subpoena.

So sensitive was the issue, that no senator openly defended Packwood, although several raised legal points on his behalf. And while only a few indicated how they would vote, informal comments by others demonstrated that Packwood faces an uphill fight in his effort to persuade the Senate to side with him on privacy grounds.

“We are being tested here,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). “Let’s tell the American people we are not going to cover up and we’re not going to have a double standard.”

Throughout the day, a visibly nervous Packwood pleaded for his colleagues’ support, arguing in forceful style that requiring him to surrender the disputed pages of his diaries would violate his constitutional right to privacy and set a dangerous precedent. He even dangled hopes for a last-minute compromise in which an independent legal expert would review the documents and decide which ones were relevant.

“No one had ever seen them except the woman who typed them. . . . My former wife never saw them, my children, no other staff member,” said Packwood in arguing to withhold the memoirs. “Is there humor in them? Sure. Are there nasty comments about some of you when I got mad at something? Sure. Are there warm comments? You bet. They’re personal beyond all measure.”

But members of the Senate Ethics Committee, which had voted unanimously to press its quest for the diaries with a subpoena, brushed aside Packwood’s concerns--and apparently his offer of compromise--arguing with equal passion that nothing less than the Senate’s integrity is at stake in the dispute.

“I deeply regret the necessity of being here this afternoon, but the actions of Sen. Packwood and his counsel leave us no alternative,” said Ethics Committee Chairman Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.).

Gathered in solemn assembly, almost every senator listened in hushed silence to the debate--one most of them had hoped would not happen. Never before in its history had the Senate contemplated a court order to force one of its members to turn over documents requested by an investigative committee.

For several months, the Ethics Committee has been investigating allegations of sexual harassment against the 61-year-old Packwood. As part of that inquiry, committee counsel has been reviewing thousands of pages of his diaries, which initially were offered by Packwood to help prove his innocence. In the course of its perusal of the diaries, however, the committee uncovered what it said is evidence of possible criminal conduct and sought additional entries. But Packwood balked, claiming that the request violated his privacy and the committee voted to subpoena the material.

Last week, in what was viewed by some as a thinly veiled threat, Packwood disclosed that some of his entries contained information about the romantic lives of colleagues.

Undeterred, however, the committee proceeded with its request for Senate approval to go to court.

Although the initial investigation involved sexual harassment charges by two dozen women, there was almost no talk on the Senate floor of the senator’s sex life--or any one else’s.

“The allegations in this case are not the subject of today’s debate,” declared Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), vice chairman of the Ethics Committee. “Nor is the debate about the secret sex lives of the Senate--although that is bound to disappoint a lot of C-SPAN viewers out there. This debate is about whether the Senate Ethics Committee can fully obtain and review evidence.”

Throughout the daylong debate, Packwood was alternately conciliatory and combative during exchanges with leaders of the ethics panel.

At one point, he tried to turn the tables and attacked Bryan, the mild-mannered chairman of the committee, asking: “You have enough information to call me a criminal?” Bryan replied: “I’ve never said that.” Accompanied by two of Washington’s highest-priced attorneys, Packwood accused the ethics panel of acting as “prosecutor, jury and judge” in his case. Later, he said he was “confused” about just what information the committee wants, although Bryan said that Packwood’s lawyers were fully informed about the details.

But Packwood failed to shatter the united front of the three Democrats and three Republicans who voted to subpoena the diaries.

At one point, Packwood, striding up and down an aisle, suggested that he might be willing to agree to a procedure whereby former Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr, a Republican member of the Washington legal Establishment, would screen diary entries to exclude privileged and personal family matters from committee scrutiny.

But Bryan argued that Packwood and his lawyers had reneged on previous agreements to produce parts of the diary after the panel’s staff had examined more than 5,000 pages of the memoirs. Packwood contended, however, that his attorneys believed that the Ethics Committee broke its agreement not to pursue unrelated matters.

In one of his few direct references to the sex-tinged diaries, Packwood said that one entry recorded the statement of one of the women who has filed a complaint against him a year after the alleged harassment. As Packwood related the incident:

“This one (woman) who had complained was drinking wine with me in the office one night. She stood up, approached me, put her arms around me and gave me a great big kiss and said: ‘You are wonderful.’ I responded: ‘Warts and all?’ And she laughed and she knew the reference.”

But the committee members were not distracted. As Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), the only woman on the panel, put it: “We are not the Senate select committee on voyeurism. . . . We need access to the facts and we need to be able to follow all leads.”

Sen. Robert C. Smith (R-N.H.), another committee member, suggested that the subpoena is not only a legal matter, declaring: “It’s an issue of integrity.”

And as if the Senate needed a reminder about the political stakes involved, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said that a vote against the resolution would send a clear message to all women in America that, if they are sexually harassed, they should keep quiet because they will never get justice.

There was no indication from the Ethics Committee what it is trying to learn from the diaries. But Packwood read into the record part of a story from the Portland Oregonian which suggested that he put pressure on a lobbyist and former staff aide to hire his wife, Georgie, while in the midst of divorce proceedings in Oregon.

The lobbyist, identified as Steve R. Saunders, offered Mrs. Packwood a job escorting wives of his clients on tours of antique stores, but she declined the offer, the Oregonian said. While he did not refer to the article, McConnell said that the diary entry was “inconclusive” on Packwood’s conduct.

Times staff writers Ronald J. Ostrow and Mark Bousian contributed to this story.

Showdown in the Senate

Quotes and background on Monday’s Senate debate over Sen. Bob Packwood’s diaries:

ETHICS COMMITTEE MEMBERS

“I deeply regret the necessity of being here this afternoon but the actions of Sen. Packwood and his counsel leave us no alternative.”

-- Sen. Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.), panel’s chairman

*

“We’re not the Senate Select Committee on Voyeurism.”

-- Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.)

*

“The committee has shown deep concern over the legitimate privacy interests of our colleague Sen. Packwood.”

-- Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), panel’s vice chairman

SEN. PACKWOOD

“(Senator Bryan) has branded me all over the country as a liar.”

The Senate Ethics Committee is behaving like “prosecutor, jury and judge.”

“Is there humor in (the diaries)? Sure. Is there nasty comments about some of you . . . ? Sure. Are there warm comments? You bet. They’re personal beyond all measure.”