Senate Report 104-137 - RESOLUTION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION

[Senate Report 104-137]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 183
104th Congress S. Rept.
SENATE

1st Session 104-137
_______________________________________________________________________

RESOLUTION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION

_______

September 8 (legislative day, September 5), 1995.--Ordered to be
printed

_______________________________________________________________________

Mr. McConnell, from the Select Committee on Ethics, submitted the
following

R E P O R T

[To accompany S. Res. 168]

The Select Committee on Ethics, having considered an
original Resolution for Disciplinary Action, reports favorably
thereon and recommends that the resolution do pass.
Pursuant to Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the United
States Constitution, Senate Resolution 338 (88th Congress), as
amended, and Rule 5(f) of the Committee's Supplementary
Procedural Rules, the Select Committee on Ethics submits this
Report in support of its recommendation to the Senate that
Senator Packwood be expelled from the Senate.
If the Committee's recommendation is not approved by 67
Senators, a secondary Resolution of Disciplinary Action will be
presented to the Senate, recommending a penalty of censure with
loss of Committee chairmanship for the duration of Senator
Packwood's term and the stripping of his seniority.

I. Procedural History

On December 1, 1992, the Committee announced that it had
opened a Preliminary Inquiry into allegations by a number of
women that Senator Packwood had engaged in sexual misconduct.
On February 4, 1993, the Committee announced that it was
expanding the scope of its inquiry to include allegations of
attempts to intimidate and discredit the alleged victims, and
misuse of official staff in attempts to intimidate and
discredit.
Almost immediately after opening its inquiry, the Committee
began the process of taking the deposition of every woman who
was willing to come forward with an allegation of misconduct by
Senator Packwood, and interviewing or taking the deposition of
every witness who could corroborate those allegations, or who
could exonerate Senator Packwood, or who might have information
that could shed light on the allegations. The Committee also
mailed a letter and questionnaire to almost 300 women former
staff members of Senator Packwood, asking if they wished to
provide to the Committee information relevant to the
Committee's inquiry. Altogether, Committee staff interviewed,
took the deposition of, or obtained an affidavit or statement
from at least 210 witnesses in connection with the allegations
relating to sexual misconduct or intimidation.
The Committee reviewed at least 9,600 pages of documents in
connection with this aspect of the inquiry. The Committee also
served two requests upon Senator Packwood for documents that
were relevant to the Committee's inquiry, and subpoenaed
documents from several other persons. Although Senator Packwood
provided a number of documents to the Committee in response to
these document requests, he did not provide to the Committee
any entries from his diaries, which he had kept daily since
1969, and which had been transcribed by his former secretary.
On October 5, 1993, the Committee began Senator Packwood's
deposition, anticipating that at its conclusion, the Committee
could proceed to review all of the evidence that had been
gathered, and conclude the Preliminary Inquiry by the end of
1993. On the second day of Senator Packwood's deposition, it
became clear from his testimony that he had, at least
cursorily, reviewed his diaries, and that they contained
information that was relevant to the complaints that had been
made against him. The deposition was halted, and Senator
Packwood's attorneys and Committee counsel worked out an
agreement for the Committee staff to review Senator Packwood's
diaries.
Committee staff immediately began that review; over the
next six days in October 1993, staff reviewed, in the presence
of Senator Packwood's attorneys, between 4,000 and 6,000 diary
pages for the years 1969 to 1989, designating almost 300 pages
for copying. This review came to a halt, however, when
Committee staff discovered passages from 1989 that indicated
possible misconduct by Senator Packwood in areas unrelated to
the Committee's then-pending inquiry into allegations of sexual
misconduct and intimidation. These entries raised questions
about whether Senator Packwood may have improperly solicited
financial support for his wife from individuals with interests
in legislation.
When Senator Packwood's attorney was informed that these
entries raised new issues of potential misconduct, Senator
Packwood's attorney asked that the Committee treat these issues
as a separate matter, and not act upon them until the current
inquiry into alleged sexual misconduct and intimidation was
concluded. Committee counsel informed Senator Packwood's
attorney that the Committee was obligated to follow up on any
information of potential misconduct within its jurisdiction
that came to its attention. Senator Packwood's attorney
indicated that in light of this, they would proceed to mask
additional categories of material in the diaries. Senator
Packwood's attorneys were informed that additional masking was
not acceptable, and if Senator Packwood was not willing to
produce his diaries according to the original agreement, the
Committee would consider subpoenaing them. In response, Senator
Packwood broke off all further cooperation, refusing to allow
the Committee to finish reviewing his diaries from 1989 through
1993, and refusing to provide the Committee with copies of
approximately 170 pages from earlier years that Committee
counsel had designated as relevant to the inquiry relating to
allegations of sexual misconduct and intimidation.
On October 20, 1993, the Committee unanimously voted to
subpoena Senator Packwood for production of his diary tapes and
transcripts. When he failed to comply, the Committee introduced
a resolution on the floor of the Senate to authorize the
Committee to go to court to enforce the subpoena. After two
days of debate by the Senate, this resolution was approved on
November 2, 1993 by a vote of 94 to 6. The Committee was forced
to apply to the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia to enforce the subpoena on November 22, 1993, and
the matter was heard by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on
December 16, 1993.
The Committee took the deposition of Senator Packwood's
diary transcriber on November 22, 1993. Shortly thereafter, on
December 10, 1993, the Committee received an affidavit from
her, indicating that after the initiation of the Committee's
inquiry, Senator Packwood took back from her some audiotapes
that she had not yet transcribed, telling her that he was
concerned about a subpoena. He returned those tapes to her, and
when she listened to them, it seemed to her that he may have
made some changes to the tapes. In a second deposition to the
Committee, she testified that Senator Packwood confirmed to her
that he had, in fact, made changes to the audiotapes.
On December 15, 1993, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman
decided to investigate the issue of possible alteration of the
diaries as an inherent part of the Committee's Preliminary
Inquiry. All of the information provided by the diary
transcriber regarding possible alteration of the diaries was
publicly provided to Judge Jackson, who ordered that the diary
transcripts, as well as the corresponding audiotapes, be
deposited with the Court for safekeeping pending the Court's
decision on enforcing the Committee's subpoena.
Judge Jackson granted the Committee's application and on
January 24, 1994 ordered the diaries to be turned over to the
Committee. After hearing from both sides, on February 4, 1994,
he established guidelines for the Committee's review of the
diaries. Senator Packwood appealed Judge Jackson's Order to the
Court of Appeals, and also requested that the Court of Appeals
stay Judge Jackson's Order that he turn his diaries over to the
Committee while his appeal was being considered. The Court of
Appeals denied this request, and Senator Packwood appealed to
Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist to stay Judge Jackson's
Order. On March 2, 1994, Justice Rehnquist denied Senator
Packwood's request. Senator Packwood then withdrew his appeal
of Judge Jackson's Order from the Court of Appeals.
Judge Jackson's Order of February 4, 1994 established a
process for the Committee's review of Senator Packwood's
diaries wherein Senator Packwood would be allowed to mask
certain portions of his diaries. The Judge's Order designated
Kenneth Starr as Special Master for the Court to review the
Senator's masking. The Committee received the first volume of
masked diary transcript on March 30, 1994 and the last of the
transcripts on April 29, 1994. These transcripts, numbering
more than 2600 pages of single-spaced entries covering
virtually every day from 1989 through 1993, were compiled in
ten volumes. Upon completion of the Committee staff's review of
Senator Packwood's typewritten diaries, the Committee expanded
its inquiry again on May 11, 1994 to include additional areas
of misconduct by Senator Packwood, including solicitation of
financial support for his spouse from persons with an interest
in legislation in exchange, gratitude or recognition of his
official acts.
The Committee began receiving masked audiotapes from Mr.
Starr in October 1994. The Committee received the last of the
audiotapes corresponding to the ten transcript volumes on
January 13, 1995 and additional diary pages and tapes on
January 24, 1995. There was a final delivery of ten duplicate
tapes on February 27, 1995. The Committee received and reviewed
in excess of 350 audiotapes. Senator Packwood's deposition was
taken again from January 17 through January 21, 1995.
Committee staff attorneys conducted the Preliminary Inquiry
with the assistance of an investigator from the Office of
Special Investigations of the General Accounting Office.
Documents were provided by Senator Packwood in response to two
separate document requests by the Committee. Documents were
subpoenaed or requested from numerous other witnesses, and
numerous witnesses were deposed or interviewed.
The Committee began its review of staff counsel's
Preliminary Inquiry report on March 13, 1995. On the basis of
that report, the Committee unanimously concluded on May 16,
1995, that there was substantial credible evidence that
provided substantial cause for the Committee to conclude that
violations within the Committee's jurisdiction, including
possible violations of federal law, may have occurred.
Specifically, the Committee resolved that there was
substantial credible evidence providing substantial cause for
the Committee to conclude that violations within the
Committee's jurisdiction may have occurred, as follows:
1. Senator Packwood may have abused his United States
Senate Office by improper conduct which has brought discredit
upon the United States Senate, by engaging in a pattern of
sexual misconduct between 1969 and 1990.
2. Senator Packwood may have engaged in improper conduct
reflecting on the Senate and/or possibly violated federal law,
i.e., Title 18, United States Code, Section 1505, in that
between some time in December 1992 and some time in November
1993, he intentionally altered diary materials that he knew or
should have known the Committee had sought or would likely seek
as part of its Preliminary Inquiry begun on December 1, 1992.
3. Senator Packwood may have abused his United States
Senate Office through improper conduct which has brought
discredit upon the United States Senate by inappropriately
linking personal financial gain to his official position, in
that he solicited or otherwise encouraged offers of financial
assistance from five persons who had a particular interest in
legislation or issues that Senator Packwood could influence.
Senator Packwood was notified of the Committee's decision
immediately thereafter. Pursuant to Committee Rule 5(c), the
Senator was formally advised of this action and the relevant
evidence relating to the possible violations under
Investigation by letters dated May 23 and 24, 1995. The
Committee's May 16, 1995 Resolution for Investigation is
attached hereto as Appendix A.
On June 27, 28 and 29, 1995, Senator Packwood appeared
before the Committee pursuant to Committee Supplementary Rule
5(c) and presented a statement and responded to questions from
Committee members. Having been informed of his right to request
a hearing pursuant to Committee Supplementary Rule 5(d) on May
23, 1995, Senator Packwood informed the Committee on July 5,
1995 that he did not request a hearing, thereby waiving his
opportunity to such a hearing under Committee Rule 5(d). A copy
of Senator Packwood's attorney's correspondence to the
Committee dated July 5, 1995 declining his opportunity for a
hearing is attached hereto as Appendix B. Thereafter, during
the last two weeks of July and early August 1995 Members of the
Committee reviewed Senate Ethics Counsel's Report of
Investigation pursuant to Rule 5(f)(1).
On July 31, 1995, the Committee voted not to hold a hearing
on the matters specified in the Committee's May 16, 1995
Resolution for Investigation, and on August 2, 1995, the Senate
defeated an amendment which would have required the Committee
to hold hearings in connection with the announced
Investigation. Senator Packwood voted against hearings on the
floor of the Senate.
Thereafter, on August 3, 1995, the Committee announced that
two new allegations of sexual misconduct had been made to the
Committee and that the Committee would inquire into the new
allegations during the August 1995 recess period. Senator
Packwood reversed himself and wrote the Committee on August 25,
1995 requesting hearings on ``all pending Ethics Committee
matters,'' after the Committee had begun deliberations on the
matters specified in the Resolution for Investigation of May
16, 1995.
On September 6, 1995, the Committee unanimously approved a
Resolution for Disciplinary Action recommending that Senator
Bob Packwood be expelled from the United States Senate. The
Committee's findings in support of this Resolution are set
forth below. Also on September 6, 1995, the Committee decided
not to proceed with the two new allegations of sexual
misconduct.

II. Evidence Gathered by the Committee and the Senator's Response

The evidence gathered by the Committee in this case is
summarized in detail in the Report of Senate Ethics Counsel.
The evidence includes numerous documents subpoenaed or
voluntarily provided by Senator Packwood and others, the
testimony of complainants and other witnesses, and Senator
Packwood's extensive testimony and response to the allegations.
The Committee has made this evidence public in Volumes 1
through 10 of Senate Print 104-30 entitled ``Documents Related
to the Investigation of Senator Robert Packwood.''
The Committee accepts the factual findings and statements
contained in the Report of Senate Ethics Counsel, and by
unanimous consent adopts the Report of Senate Ethics Counsel
which is incorporated herein and attached hereto as Appendix C.

III. Applicable Law and Rule

Senate Resolution 338, Section 2.(a)(1) provides that:

* * * it shall be the duty of the Select Committee to
receive complaints and investigate allegations of
improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate,
violations of law, violations of the Senate Code of
Official Conduct, and violations of rules and
regulations of the Senate, relating to the conduct of
individuals in the performance of their duties as
Members of the Senate, or as employees of the Senate,
and to make appropriate findings of fact and
conclusions with respect thereto.

The historical application of this provision in prior
Senate cases is discussed in the Report of Senate Ethics
Counsel which is a part of this Report.
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1505 which provides
in relevant part:

Whoever corruptly * * * influences, obstructs, or
impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede
the due and proper administration of the law under
which any pending proceeding is being had before any
department or agency of the United States, or the due
and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which
any inquiry or investigation is being had by either
House, or any committee of either House or any joint
committee of the Congress * * * shall be fined not more
than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or
both.

IV. Findings of the Committee

The Committee makes the following findings respecting the
matters which are the subject of the Committee's Investigation.
The Committee finds that Senator Packwood engaged in
improper conduct which reflects upon the Senate, as
contemplated in section 2(a)(1) of Senate Resolution 338, 88th
Congress, 2d Session, as set out more particularly in the
Report of Senate Ethics Counsel.
In addition to the findings contained in the Report, the
Committee further finds, on the basis of the evidence before
it, that Senator Packwood committed violations of law and rules
within the Committee's jurisdiction as contemplated in Section
2(a)(1) of Senate Resolution 338, 88th Congress, 2d Session, as
amended. Specifically, the Committee finds that:

Senator Packwood endeavored to obstruct and impede
the Committee's Inquiry by withholding, altering and
destroying relevant evidence, including his diary
transcripts and audio taped diary material, conduct
which is expressly prohibited by 18 United States Code,
section 1505. The Committee further finds that these
illegal acts constitute a crime against the United
States Senate, and are reprehensible and contemptuous
of the Senate's constitutional self-disciplinary
process. Further, Senator Packwood's illegal acts
constitute a violation of his duty of trust to the
Senate and an abuse of his position as a United States
Senator, reflecting discredit upon the United States
Senate.
Senator Packwood engaged in a pattern of abuse of his
position of power and authority as a United States
Senator by repeatedly committing sexual misconduct,
making at least 18 separate unwanted and unwelcome
sexual advances between 1969 and 1990. In most of these
instances, the victims were members of Senator
Packwood's staff or individuals whose livelihoods were
dependent upon or connected to the power and authority
held by Senator Packwood. These improper acts bring
discredit and dishonor upon the Senate and constitute
conduct unbecoming a United States Senator.
Senator Packwood abused his position of power and
authority as a United States Senator by engaging in a
deliberate and systematic plan to enhance his personal
financial position by soliciting, encouraging and
coordinating employment opportunities for his wife from
persons who had a particular interest in legislation or
issues that Senator Packwood could influence. These
improper acts bring discredit and dishonor upon the
Senate and constitute conduct unbecoming a United
States Senator.

V. Recommendations and Referrals

A. Recommendation for Expulsion

Based on the findings specified above, the Committee hereby
recommends that the Senate agree to the following Resolution:

Resolved: That pursuant to Article 1, Section 5,
Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, Senator
Packwood is expelled from the Senate for his illegal
actions and improper conduct in attempting to obstruct
and impede the Committee's Inquiry; engaging in a
pattern of sexual misconduct in at least 18 instances
between 1969 and 1990; and engaging in a plan to
enhance his financial position by soliciting,
encouraging and coordinating employment opportunities
for his wife from individuals with interests in
legislation or issues which he could influence.

B. Referral to Department of Justice

That evidence related to Senator Packwood's attempt to
obstruct the Committee's inquiry be referred to the United
States Department of Justice pursuant to Committee Rule 8(a).
This Report on the Investigation of Senator Robert Packwood
is approved for submission to the Senate, and we recommend
expeditious consideration of the Resolution contained herein.

Mitch McConnell, Chairman.
Richard H. Bryan, Vice Chairman.
Bob Smith.
Larry E. Craig.
Barbara A. Mikulski.
Byron L. Dorgan.
September 6, 1995.

APPENDIX A

----------

Resolution for Investigation

Whereas, the Select Committee on Ethics on December 1,
1992, initiated a Preliminary Inquiry (hereafter ``Inquiry'')
into allegations of sexual misconduct by Senator Bob Packwood,
and subsequently, on February 4, 1993, expanded the scope of
its Inquiry to include allegations of attempts to intimidate
and discredit the alleged victims, and misuse of official staff
in attempts to intimidate and discredit, and notified Senator
Packwood of such actions; and
Whereas, on December 15, 1993, in light of sworn testimony
that Senator Packwood may have altered evidence relevant to the
Committee's Inquiry, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman determined
as an inherent part of its Inquiry to inquire into the
integrity of evidence sought by the Committee and into any
information that anyone may have endeavored to obstruct its
Inquiry, and notified Senator Packwood of such action; and
Whereas, on May 11, 1994, upon completion of the Committee
staff's review of Senator Packwood's typewritten diaries, the
Committee expanded its Inquiry again to include additional
areas of potential misconduct by Senator Packwood, including
solicitation of financial support for his spouse from persons
with an interest in legislation, in exchange, gratitude, or
recognition for his official acts;
Whereas, the Committee staff has conducted the Inquiry
under the direction of the Members of the Committee; and
Whereas, the Committee has received the Report of its staff
relating to its Inquiry concerning Senator Packwood; and
Whereas, on the basis of evidence received during the
Inquiry, there are possible violations within the Committee's
jurisdiction as contemplated in Section 2(a)(1) of S. Res. 338,
88th Congress, as amended.
It is therefore Resolved:
I. That the Committee makes the following determinations
regarding the matters set forth above:
(a) With respect to sexual misconduct, the Committee has
carefully considered evidence, including sworn testimony,
witness interviews, and documentary evidence, relating to the
following allegations:
(1) That in 1990, in his Senate office in Washington,
D.C., Senator Packwood grabbed a staff member by the
shoulders and kissed her on the lips;
(2) That in 1985, at a function in Bend, Oregon,
Senator Packwood fondled a campaign worker as they
danced. Later that year, in Eugene, Oregon, in saying
goodnight and thank you to her, Senator Packwood
grabbed the campaign worker's face with his hands,
pulled her towards him, and kissed her on the mouth,
forcing his tongue into her mouth;
(3) That in 1981 or 1982, in his Senate office in
Washington, D.C., Senator Packwood squeezed the arms of
a lobbyist, leaned over and kissed her on the mouth;
(4) That in 1981, in the basement of the Capitol,
Senator Packwood walked a former staff assistant into a
room, where he grabbed her with both hands in her hair
and kissed her, forcing his tongue into her mouth;
(5) That in 1980, in a parking lot in Eugene, Oregon,
Senator Packwood pulled a campaign worker toward him,
put his arms around her, and kissed her, forcing his
tongue in her mouth; he also invited her to his motel
room;
(6) That in 1980 or early 1981, at a hotel in
Portland, Oregon, on two separate occasions, Senator
Packwood kissed a desk clerk who worked for the hotel;
(7) That in 1980, in his Senate office in Washington,
D.C., Senator Packwood grabbed a staff member by the
shoulders, pushed her down on a couch, and kissed her
on the lips; the staff member tried several times to
get up, but Senator Packwood repeatedly pushed her back
on the couch;
(8) That in 1979, Senator Packwood walked into the
office of another Senator in Washington, D.C., started
talking with a staff member, and suddenly leaned down
and kissed the staff member on the lips;
(9) That in 1977, in an elevator in the Capitol, and
on numerous occasions, Senator Packwood grabbed the
elevator operator by the shoulders, pushed her to the
wall of the elevator and kissed her on the lips.
Senator Packwood also came to this person's home,
kissed her, and asked her to make love with him;
(10) That in 1977, in a motel room while attending
the Dorchester Conference in coastal Oregon, Senator
Packwood grabbed a prospective employee by her
shoulders, pulled her to him, and kissed her;
(11) That in 1975, in his Senate office in
Washington, D.C., Senator Packwood grabbed the staff
assistant referred to in (4), pinned her against a wall
or desk, held her hair with one hand, bending her head
backwards, fondling her with his other hand, and kissed
her, forcing his tongue into her mouth;
(12) That in 1975, in his Senate office in
Washington, D.C., Senator Packwood grabbed a staff
assistant around her shoulders, held her tightly while
pressing his body into hers, and kissed her on the
mouth;
(13) That in the early 1970's, in his Senate office
in Portland, Oregon, Senator Packwood chased a staff
assistant around a desk;
(14) That in 1970, in a hotel restaurant in Portland,
Oregon, Senator Packwood ran his hand up the leg of a
dining room hostess, and touched her crotch area;
(15) That in 1970, in his Senate office in
Washington, D.C., Senator Packwood grabbed a staff
member by the shoulders and kissed her on the mouth;
(16) That in 1969, in his Senate office in
Washington, D.C., Senator Packwood made suggestive
comments to a prospective employee;
(17) That in 1969, at his home, Senator Packwood
grabbed an employee of another Senator who was
babysitting for him, rubbed her shoulders and back, and
kissed her on the mouth. He also put his arm around her
and touched her leg as he drove her home;
(18) That in 1969, in his Senate office in Portland,
Oregon, Senator Packwood grabbed a staff worker, stood
on her feet, grabbed her hair, forcibly pulled her head
back, and kissed her on the mouth, forcing his tongue
into her mouth. Senator Packwood also reached under her
skirt and grabbed at her undergarments.
Based upon the Committee's consideration of evidence
related to each of these allegations, the Committee finds that
there is substantial credible evidence that provides
substantial cause for the Committee to conclude that violations
within the Committee's jurisdiction as contemplated in Section
2(a)(1) of S. Res. 338, 88th Congress, as amended, may have
occurred; to wit, that Senator Packwood may have abused his
United States Senate Office by improper conduct which has
brought discredit upon the United States Senate, by engaging in
a pattern of sexual misconduct between 1969 and 1990.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, for purposes of making a
determination at the end of its Investigation with regard to a
possible pattern of conduct involving sexual misconduct, some
Members of the Committee have serious concerns about the
weight, if any, that should be accorded to evidence of conduct
alleged to have occurred prior to 1976, the year in which the
federal court recognized quid pro quo sexual harassment as
discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, and the Senate
passed a resolution prohibiting sex discrimination in the
United Sates Senate, and taking into account the age of the
allegations.
(b) With respect to the Committee's inherent responsibility
to inquire into the integrity of the evidence sought by the
Committee as part of its Inquiry, the Committee finds, within
the meaning of Section 2(a)(1) of S. Res. 338, 88th Congress,
as amended, that there is substantial credible evidence that
provides substantial cause for the Committee to conclude that
improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate, and/or possible
violations of federal law, i.e., Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1505, may have occurred. To wit:
Between some time in December 1992 and some time in
November 1993, Senator Packwood intentionally altered diary
materials that he knew or should have known the Committee had
sought or would likely seek as part of its Preliminary Inquiry
begun on December 1, 1992.
(c) With respect to possible solicitation of financial
support for his spouse from persons with an interest in
legislation, the Committee has carefully considered evidence,
including sworn testimony and documentary evidence, relating to
Senator Packwood's contacts with the following persons:
(1) A registered foreign agent representing a client
who had particular interests before the Committee on
Finance and the Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation;
(2) A businessman who had particular interests before
the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation;
(3) A businessman who had particular interests before
the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation;
(4) A registered lobbyist representing clients who
had particular interests before the Committee on
Finance and the Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation;
(5) A registered lobbyist representing a client who
had particular interests before the Committee on
Finance.
Based upon the Committee's consideration of this evidence,
the Committee finds that there is substantial credible evidence
that provides substantial cause for the Committee to conclude
that violations within the Committee's jurisdiction as
contemplated in Section 2(a)(1) of S. Res. 338, 88th Congress,
as amended, may have occurred, to wit: Senator Packwood may
have abused his United States Senate Office through improper
conduct which has brought discredit upon the United States
Senate by inappropriately linking personal financial gain to
his official position in that he solicited or otherwise
encouraged offers of financial assistance from persons who had
a particular interest in legislation or issues that Senator
Packwood could influence.
II. That the Committee, pursuant to Committee Supplementary
Procedural Rules 3(d)(5) and 4(f)(4), shall proceed to an
Investigation under Committee Supplementary Procedural Rule 5;
and
III. That Senator Packwood shall be given timely written
notice of this Resolution and the evidence supporting it, and
informed of a respondent's rights pursuant to the Rules of the
Committee.

APPENDIX B

----------

Stein, Mitchell & Mezines,
Washington, DC, July 5, 1995.
Victor M. Baird, Esq.,
Chief Counsel, Senate Select Committee on Ethics,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Baird:
This is to notify you that Senator Packwood does not
request a hearing.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Muse.

APPENDIX C

----------

Report of Senate Ethics Counsel

I. INTRODUCTION
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Sexual Misconduct
1. Origin of Allegations
2. How the Investigation Was Conducted
B. Alteration of Evidence
1. The Committee's Pursuit of the Diaries
a. The Committee's Document Requests
b. The Committee Learns of the
Existence of Relevant Diary Entries
c. The Committee's Review of the
Diaries Comes to a Halt
d. The Committee Insists on
Completing Its Review of the Diaries
e. The Committee Votes to Issue a
Subpoena
f. The Senate Debates Enforcement of
the Subpoena
g. The Committee Proposes a Process
for Review of the Diaries
h. Senator Packwood Offers to Resign
i. The Committee Goes to Court to
Enforce the Subpoena
2. Evidence of Possible Alteration
3. Procedure for Production of Diaries to the
Committee, and the Committee's Review of the
Diaries
a. The Court's Order
b. Production of the Diaries to the
Committee
1. Diary Transcripts
2. Diary Tapes
C. Employment Opportunities for Mrs. Packwood
1. Origin of Allegations
2. How the Investigation Was Conducted
III. THE COMMITTEE'S AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE AND SANCTION
MISCONDUCT OF MEMBERS
A. Authority of the Congress to Discipline Its
Members
B. Private Versus Official Conduct
C. Improper Conduct Reflecting Upon the Senate
1. Historical Context of Improper Conduct and
Committee Precedent
2. S. Res. 266 and the Code of Ethics for
Government Service
D. Time Limitations
1. Historical Context
2. Limitations Applicable to S. Res. 338 and
the Senate Code of Conduct
IV. EVIDENCE REGARDING THE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
A. Packwood Staff Member
1. Testimony by Staff Member
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
B. Judy Foster-Filppi
1. Testimony of Judy Foster-Filppi
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
C. Mary Heffernan
1. Testimony of Mary Heffernan
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
D. Paige Wagers
1. Testimony of Paige Wagers
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
E. Eugenia Hutton
1. Testimony of Eugenia Hutton
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
F. Gillian Butler
1. Testimony of Gillian Butler
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
G. Packwood Staff Member
1. Staff Member's Testimony
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
H. Senate Staff Member
1. Testimony of Staff Member
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
I. Kerry Whitney
1. Testimony of Kerry Whitney
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
J. Jean McMahon
1. Testimony of Jean McMahon
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
K. Packwood Staff Member
1. Testimony of Staff Member
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
L. Packwood Staff Member
1. Testimony of Staff Member
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
M. Gail Byler
1. Testimony of Gail Byler
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
N. Packwood Staff Member
1. Testimony of Staff Member
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
O. Sharon Grant
1. Testimony of Sharon Grant
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
P. Gayle Rothrock
1. Testimony of Gayle Rothrock
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
Q. Jullie Williamson
1. Testimony of Jullie Williamson
2. Corroborating Witnesses
3. Senator Packwood's Response
4. Findings
R. Additional Findings
V. EVIDENCE REGARDING THE ALLEGATIONS OF ALTERING EVIDENCE
A. Summary and Overview of the Evidence
1. Results of Comparison of Tape to
Transcript
2. The Focus on Certain Changed Entries
3. Brief Summary of Senator Packwood's
Response
B. Testimony and Evidence
1. Testimony by Cathy Cormack
a. Historical Transcription of the
Diaries
b. Early 1993 Request to Transcribe
Excerpts
c. August 1993 Delivery of Tapes
d. Request to Bring Transcription Up
to Date
e. Senator Packwood Asks for the
Return of the Tapes
f. Discovery of Changes to Tapes
g. Completion of the Tapes
h. Comparison of Tape to Transcript
2. Testimony by Senator Packwood
a. Mechanics of Diary Keeping
b. Accuracy and Reliability of the
Diaries
c. Alteration of Diary Tapes
1. Review of Diaries in Late
1992, Early 1993
2. Fear of Leaks to the Press
3. Changes Made to the 1992
Tapes
4. Changes to the 1993 Tapes
5. Senator Packwood Returns
to Oregon Over Recess
6. Senator Packwood Asks Ms.
Cormack to Return the 1992 and
1993 Tapes
7. Changes to October and
Early November 1993 Tapes
8. Senator Packwood Reviews
Transcripts for Passages
Reflecting Criminal Conduct
9. Why Senator Packwood Felt
Free to Change His Diaries
3. Testimony of James Fitzpatrick
a. Requests for Information from
Senator Packwood
b. Failure to Provide Relevant Diary
Entries to the Committee
c. Receipt of Diary Transcripts from
Senator Packwood
d. Receipt of Diary Tapes from
Senator Packwood
4. Specific Entries from the Diary
a. Entries Dealing With the
Committee's Inquiry into Allegations of
Sexual Misconduct and Intimidation
b. Entries Dealing With Campaign
Activity and Use of Senator Packwood's
Senate Office for Campaign Purposes
c. Entries Referring to Senator
Packwood's Negotiations With the Oregon
Citizens Alliance During His 1992
Campaign
d. Entries Referring to Contacts With
Committee Members by Senator Packwood
During the Committee's Inquiry
e. Entries About Senator Packwood
Accepting Contributions to His Legal
Defense Fund from Lobbyists
5. Findings
a. Reliability of the Diaries
b. Alteration of the Diaries
c. Senator Packwood's Motivation for
Making Changes to His Diary
d. The Timing of the Changes
e. Destruction of Evidence
f. Reliance on the Advice of Counsel
g. Conclusions
VI. EVIDENCE REGARDING THE ALLEGATIONS OF SOLICITING
EMPLOYMENT FOR SENATOR PACKWOOD'S SPOUSE
A. Steve Saunders
1. Background
2. The November 1989 Diary Entries
3. Senator Packwood's Testimony
4. Brief History of Senator Packwood's
Involvement in the Japanese Patent Issue
5. Testimony of Steve Saunders
6. Other Diary Entries Referring to Foreign
Agent and Job Offers for Mrs. Packwood and
Related Testimony
a. 10/18/89
b. 12/16/89 Through 1/18/90
c. 1/24/90
d. 4/13/90
7. Mrs. Packwood's Testimony
8. Summary of Senator Packwood's Response to
the Evidence
9. Findings
B. Tim Lee
1. Background
2. Diary Entries Referring to Tim Lee and Job
Offers to Mrs. Packwood and Related Testimony
a. 10/18/89
b. 3/27/90
c. 4/12/90
d. 4/15/90
3. Legislative Matters of Interest to Tim Lee
4. The Status of Businessman One's offer in
August, 1990
5. Mrs. Packwood's Testimony
6. Summary of Senator Packwood's Response to
the Evidence
7. Findings
C. Bill Furman
1. Background
2. Diary Entries Referring to Bill Furman,
Job Offers to Mrs. Packwood, Greenbrier's
Legislative Interests and Related Testimony
a. 11/8/89
b. 11/9/89
c. 4/15/90
d. 5/2/90
e. 5/31/91
3. Bill Furman's Testimony Regarding Tim Lee
4. Summary of Senator Packwood's Response to
the Evidence
5. Findings
D. Ron Crawford
1. Background
2. Diary Entries Referring to Ron Crawford
and Job Offers for Mrs. Packwood and Related
Testimony
a. 10/18/89
b. 1/18/90
c. 3/27/90
d. 4/15/90
e. 6/6/90
3. Legislative Matters of Interest to Ron
Crawford
a. Cable Regulation
b. The Gun Lobby
c. Miscellaneous
4. Appointment of Lobbyist One's Wife to the
ITC
5. Mrs. Packwood's Testimony
6. Summary of Senator Packwood's Response to
the Evidence
7. Findings
E. Clifford Alexander
1. Background
2. Diary Entry Referring to Clifford
Alexander and Job Offers for Mrs. Packwood and
Related Testimony
a. 1/18/90
3. Clifford Alexander's Testimony
4. Legislative Matters of Interest to
Clifford Alexander
5. Mrs. Packwood's Testimony
6. Summary of Senator Packwood's Response to
the Evidence
7. Findings
F. Further Findings Regarding Solicitation of Jobs
VII. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS AS NOTICED AND SPECIFIED IN THE
COMMITTEE'S RESOLUTION

I. Introduction

Senate Ethics Counsel submits this Report in the matter of
Senator Bob Packwood pursuant to Rule 5(f)(1) of the
Supplementary Procedural Rules of the United States Senate
Select Committee on Ethics (the ``Committee''). This Report
contains findings based upon the evidence gathered during the
course of the Committee's proceedings in this matter.
Initially, the Report reviews the procedural background of
the matters which are the subject of the Committee's
Investigation. The Report then addresses the scope of the
Committee's authority to investigate and sanction misconduct of
Members, and discusses Senate precedents.
The Report then discusses in detail the evidence gathered
by the Committee with respect to each of the matters under
investigation. Based upon this evidence, Counsel makes findings
of improper conduct with respect to each of the three charges
contained in the Committee's Resolution of May 16, 1995.

II. Procedural Background

A. Sexual Misconduct

1. Origin of allegations

On November 22, 1992, the Washington Post published a story
detailing allegations against Senator Packwood of sexual
harassment and misconduct by Senator Packwood by seven women,
five of whom were named in the article, and two of whom were
anonymous.
By a letter received at the Committee November 30, 1992,
the Women's Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund
(WERLDEF), filed a complaint against Senator Packwood, and
requested an investigation of the sexual harassment and
misconduct allegations that had been made against him. By
letter dated December 1, 1992, the Committee notified Senator
Packwood of the complaint, and that the Committee had decided
to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the allegations.
On December 10, 1992, Senator Packwood held a press
conference, in which he read a statement saying, inter alia,
that he took full responsibility for his conduct, that all of
his past record was clouded because of incidents in which his
actions were unwelcomed and offensive to the women involved,
and justifiably so; that his past actions were not just
inappropriate, that what he had done was not just stupid or
boorish, but his actions were just plain wrong. He stated that
he ``didn't get it'', but that he did now. Without getting into
specific allegations, he admitted his mistake, and apologized
to the women involved.^{1
\1\ At his deposition in January 1995, Senator Packwood disavowed
any intent by this statement to admit to any specific conduct; he only
meant to say that if the conduct had occurred, he was sorry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 21, 1992, the Committee received a sworn
complaint, in which a woman alleged that Senator Packwood had
made an improper advance toward her, and asked that the
Committee investigate his behavior. Her attorney also requested
the Committee to conduct an inquiry into the pattern of Senator
Packwood's conduct over a period of years with regard to other
women.
The Committee received numerous letters from other groups
and private citizens urging that the Committee investigate the
allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct.
On February 4, 1993, the Committee announced that it was
expanding the scope of its inquiry to include allegations of
attempts to intimidate and discredit the alleged victims, and
misuse of official staff in attempts to intimidate and
discredit.

2. How the investigation was conducted

The staff took sworn depositions or statements from twenty-
two women who made allegations of sexual harassment or
misconduct against Senator Packwood. The staff also interviewed
or deposed witnesses who corroborated the allegations made by
some of the women accusers, by virtue of the fact that the
women had told them about the incident, although not always in
great detail, either shortly after it occurred, or well before
the allegations were published by the Post.
The staff also mailed a letter and questionnaire to 293
female former Packwood staff members, asking if they had
information relevant to the Committee's inquiry. 194
questionnaires were returned.^{2 39 signed returned receipt
cards were returned, but no corresponding questionnaires were
returned.^{3 47 of the questionnaires were returned as
undeliverable.^{4 Thus, out of the 293 questionnaires
originally sent, 280 have been accounted for, either by the
questionnaire being returned, by the return receipt card being
returned, indicating that the questionnaire was delivered but
the addressee did not wish to respond, or by the questionnaire
being returned as undeliverable.
\2\ Three of the persons to whom the questionnaire was directed
were deceased.
\3\ Some of the return receipts were not signed by the addressee.
The staff interviewed three of these persons independently of the
questionnaire.
\4\ The staff interviewed two of these persons independently of the
questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bulk of the persons responding to the questionnaire
(approximately 122) had no relevant information ^{5;
approximately 34 did not wish to become involved in the
Committee's inquiry.^{6 Approximately 35 women responded
that they had relevant information; most of these women
provided (by a written statement accompanying their
questionnaire, by a telephone interview, or both) statements of
support for the Senator, generally stating that they had a
wonderful experience working for him, that they had neither
experienced nor heard of any type of sexual misconduct by the
Senator, and that they viewed the Senator as a gentleman who
was genuinely interested in advancing women and women's causes.
A few of these women provided information about misconduct
involving women who have not chosen to come forward, some of
which corroborated information the staff had already uncovered.
Two persons who responded to the Committee's questionnaire have
come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct.
\5\ Two of these persons were interviewed by the staff
independently of the questionnaire.
\6\ One of these persons was interviewed by the staff independently
of the Committee's questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The staff also attempted to contact and interview or depose
every person who the staff had reason to believe, by virtue of
other testimony or information, might have knowledge either
implicating Senator Packwood in unwanted sexual behavior toward
his staff, or tending to exonerate him of such accusations.
The staff also took the depositions of Jack Faust, Senator
Packwood's longtime friend, campaign adviser, and attorney, and
Elaine Franklin, Senator Packwood's chief of staff.
Senator Packwood was served with two separate document
requests, on March 29 and July 16, 1993, asking for virtually
every document that dealt with the allegations of sexual
misconduct, or the women who were making the allegations. His
chief of staff, Elaine Franklin, was also served with a
document request, and Jack Faust was served with a subpoena for
documents.
Senator Packwood appeared for his deposition by the
Committee staff on Tuesday, October 5, 1993. During questioning
by the staff, Senator Packwood testified that he had kept
detailed diaries from the time he had taken office, which he
dictated and then had transcribed by a staff member. Senator
Packwood testified that he had reviewed some portions of the
diaries and scanned others, and that the diaries contained some
entries that were relevant to the complaints that had been made
against him.^{7
\7\ Senator Packwood stated that he had reviewed his diaries, but
that on the advice of his counsel, he had not reviewed them for the
purposes of preparing for his deposition. Senator Packwood's counsel
was under the mistaken impression that if Senator Packwood reviewed the
diaries in preparation for his deposition, Committee counsel would
demand to see the diaries pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence,
which provide that the opposing party may review any documents that a
witness has used to refresh his recollection in preparation for
testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At that point, the deposition was halted. An agreement was
reached for review of the diaries by Committee counsel and
counsel immediately began that review. After counsel discovered
entries in the diaries that appeared to implicate Senator
Packwood in other conduct that was arguably improper, Senator
Packwood refused to allow further review of his diaries. The
Committee voted unanimously to subpoena Senator Packwood for
production of his diaries. When he did not comply, the
Committee introduced a resolution on the floor of the Senate to
authorize the Senate legal counsel to file suit in Federal
District Court to enforce the subpoena. The resolution was
approved by a vote of 94 to 6.
The Committee's application to enforce the subpoena was
filed on November 22, 1993, and was heard by the Hon. Thomas
Penfield Jackson on December 16, 1993. On January 24, 1994,
Judge Jackson granted the Committee's application, and after
consulting with the parties, on February 4, 1994, established
guidelines for the Committee's review of the diaries. The
Committee received Senator Packwood's diary transcripts from
March 1994 through April 1994, and the diary tapes from October
1994 through February 1995. Senator Packwood's deposition was
concluded in January 1995.

B. Alteration of Evidence

1. The Committee's pursuit of the diaries

a. The Committee's document requests
The two document requests issued to Senator Packwood by the
Committee in March and July 1993 required him to produce all
documents of any kind, including personal records, regarding,
related to, communicating with, or memorializing communications
with a wide range of identified individuals, or referring or
relating to a set of identified events, within the scope of the
Committee's inquiry. The second request specifically stated
that ``[t]he Committee expects that you will conduct a
reasonable and thorough search of your Senate office files,
your personal files, campaign committee files, and other files
that are within your possession, custody, and control, or
otherwise would be available to you, in order . . . to ensure
full compliance'' with the Committee's document requests.
As defined in the requests, the word ``document'' included
any information stored on audio or videotape, or by any other
electromagnetic or electronic means.
The existence of diaries kept by Senator Packwood was known
to the staff, through a press report and a reference to them in
another document produced by Senator Packwood. Although Senator
Packwood produced a number of documents pursuant to these
requests, he produced no portions of his diaries. Further,
although the Senator informed the Committee that he was
asserting the attorney-client or work-product privilege with
respect to the production of more than 100 documents and
disclosed the existence of the documents that he was
withholding on that ground, the Senator never disclosed that he
was withholding, or asserting a privilege from producing,
diaries responsive to the Committee's document requests.^{8
\8\ The privilege log provided to the Committee by Senator
Packwood's attorneys listed 112 memoranda that were being withheld on
the grounds of either attorney-client or work-product privilege, and
identified them by date, author, recipient(s), and the name of the
complainant or potential complainant who was discussed in the
memorandum. The privilege log did not disclose that attached to many of
the memoranda were excerpts from Senator Packwood's diary pages, some
of which referred to women who had made claims of misconduct against
Senator Packwood. At his deposition, Jim Fitzpatrick, one of Senator
Packwood's attorneys at the law firm of Arnold & Porter, testified that
they viewed some of the diary entries as falling outside the scope of
the Committee's request, and some of them as falling within the scope;
to the extent that they fell within the scope of the request, he stated
that they were adequately identified on the privilege log. Six of the
memoranda identified on the privilege log pre-dated the November 1992
election. Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that their representation of
Senator Packwood began just after that election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The staff assumed in good faith that Senator Packwood had
complied with the two document requests, and had identified all
material that was responsive to the Committee's requests,
either by turning it over to the Committee, or disclosing its
existence but withholding it on grounds of privilege. Because
no entries from Senator Packwood's diaries were ever produced,
nor was the Committee advised that Senator Packwood was
withholding them on the basis of any privilege, the staff
assumed that the diaries contained no material responsive to
the Committee's document requests.
b. The Committee learns of the existence of relevant diary
entries
At his first deposition in October 1993, Senator Packwood
testified under oath that he had scanned more than ten years of
his diaries in connection with the Committee's inquiry, and
that his diaries contained materials concerning persons and
events that were the subject of the Committee's inquiry. He
gave no explanation for his failure to produce these materials
in response to the Committee's request, despite the fact that
he testified that they included relevant information.^{9
\9\ Also for the first time, Senator Packwood disclosed the
existence of daily records of events, which he had kept for over twenty
years, and travel records, neither of which had been provided to the
Committee in response to its requests. Senator Packwood provided those
records to the Committee within a few days after his deposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At that point, the staff requested that Senator Packwood
provide his diaries to the Committee so that the staff could
examine them before completing his deposition. The staff began
negotiations with Senator Packwood's attorneys for access to
the diaries. The Committee agreed to allow Senator Packwood to
produce diaries covering specific years (the last period of
which terminated with the then-present date, October 6, 1993),
and to mask with opaque tape passages covered by the attorney-
client privilege, the physician-patient privilege, or that
referred solely to personal, private family matters. The
Committee permitted Senator Packwood to mask entries dealing
with personal, private family matters, despite the fact that
such entries were not protected by any recognized evidentiary
privilege, to accomodate Senator Packwood's concerns about the
private nature of diary entries about his family. However, the
Committee did not accede to Senator Packwood's request that he
be allowed to mask entries dealing with consensual sexual
relationships, because such matters would likely bear on the
potential bias of witnesses before the Committee, and because
consent was at the heart of the issues before the Committee.
Senator Packwood's attorney specifically advised the staff that
the Senator had agreed to produce his diaries under these
conditions.
Before the staff began reviewing the diaries, Senator
Packwood's attorneys asked whether the staff would agree that
if, while reviewing the diaries, the staff identified passages
raising issues within the Committee's jurisdiction, but beyond
the scope of its inquiry into alleged sexual misconduct and
witness intimidation, the staff would not require copies of
those entries, but would set aside those additional issues for
later consideration. The staff refused to make such a
commitment.
On October 12, 1993, Senator Packwood began providing his
masked diaries for review.^{10 Over the next four days, four
Committee counsels reviewed an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 pages
spanning 1969 through 1983, and identified 115 pages or
portions of pages that contained relevant material. Senator
Packwood provided photocopies of those pages to the Committee.
\10\ The diaries requested by the Committee on October 6, 1993,
which were to be reviewed under the agreement were for the following
periods: January 1969 through December 1972; January 1975 through
December 1977; September 1978 through December 1986; and August 1989
through October 6, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As agreed, the diaries were reviewed by the staff only in
the presence of Senator Packwood's attorneys. Staff did not
take any notes, make any copies, or take custody of any of the
diaries. Staff marked for photocopying those entries it
determined had some relevance to the Committee's inquiry, with
the understanding that Senator Packwood's attorneys would
provide copies of these passages. As agreed, if there were
disputes about the relevance of any particular passages that
the staff requested be photocopied, which could not be resolved
at the staff level, Senator Packwood had the right to press his
objection before the Committee leadership, and ultimately
before the full Committee, for a ruling.
On October 14, while the staff continued to review the
diaries, Senator Packwood requested, by way of a letter
addressed to the Committee, that he be allowed to mask entries
relating to his consensual intimate activities during the years
since 1989. He suggested that Kenneth Starr be retained to
review any such masking to ensure that it dealt only with
consensual activity. The Committee rejected Senator Packwood's
request, because such material could be probative of potential
witness bias and could bear directly on one of the key factual
issues that the Committee would ultimately need to resolve,
namely, whether particular conduct was or was not consensual.
Senator Packwood continued to produce his diaries in accordance
with the previous agreement.
Committee counsel continued to review Senator Packwood's
diaries over the weekend of October 16 and 17, examining an
additional estimated 1,000 to 2,000 pages, and marking
approximately 170 pages or portions of pages for
photocopying.^{11
\11\ On at least two occasions during the Committee's review of the
diaries, the Senator's attorneys informed staff that particular
passages had been masked that did not fall within the agreed-upon
categories, but which related to extremely personal information about
third parties, and were in no way relevant to matters under inquiry.
Staff declined an offer to examine this material, and consented to its
masking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. The Committee's review of the diaries comes to a halt
On Sunday, October 17, Committee counsel came across two
passages from 1989 that indicated possible misconduct in areas
unrelated to the Committee's pending inquiry into sexual
misconduct and witness intimidation.
These entries raised questions whether Senator Packwood may
have improperly solicited financial support for his wife from
individuals with interests in legislation and whether such
solicitations may have been linked to his performance of
official acts. The entries implicated possible violations of
federal laws, as well as rules and standards of the Senate.
These entries appeared in the diaries on November 3 and
November 6, 1989. At that time, as reflected in the diaries,
Senator Packwood was contemplating divorce from his wife, and
was worried about the amount of support that he would have to
pay as part of the divorce settlement. The November 3 entry
stated that Senator Packwood had met with Steve Saunders, and
had asked him to put the Senator's wife on ``retainer'' for
$7,500 per year; the individual agreed, expressing relief that
the figure was an annual, and not a monthly, amount. The entry
also reflects that Senator Packwood had approached two other
individuals with similar requests.
A diary entry on November 6, 1989, three days after the
meeting with Steve Saunders, reflected that Senator Packwood
attended a meeting or hearing of the Senate Committee on
Finance, of which Senator Packwood was the ranking Republican
member. Senator Packwood recorded that he had raised questions
or suggested legislative language of some sort for Mr.
Saunders.
Senator Packwood's handwritten calendars, which he turned
over to the Committee after their existence was discovered
during his deposition, also confirm the November 3 meeting with
Mr. Saunders, and that on November 6, Senator Packwood went to
``Finance for Saunders.''
Committee counsel marked these entries in the diary for
photocopying, and on October 18, Victor Baird, Chief Counsel
for the Committee, advised the Committee leadership of the
discovery of the entries.
On Monday, October 18, Senator Packwood's attorney failed
to deliver the next series of diaries for review ^{12 under
the agreement. When Victor Baird inquired of Senator Packwood's
attorney when the diaries would arrive, Senator Packwood's
attorney expressed concern over one of the two passages that
had been marked for photocopying, claiming that it was not
relevant to the Committee's inquiry, and asking why it had been
marked. He was advised that the entry raised new issues of
potential misconduct, and was cited to specific laws, Senate
rules, and standards that might apply. The Senator's attorney
asked if these new issues could be treated as a separate
matter, and not acted upon until the Committee's current
preliminary inquiry was concluded. Mr. Baird informed him that
he could not agree to that, and that it was the Committee's
decision as to whether any new issues would be treated
separately. Mr. Baird reminded the Senator's attorney that he
had earlier raised this question, and that Mr. Baird had made
it clear that the Committee was obligated to follow up on any
information of potential misconduct within its jurisdiction
that came to its attention.
\12\ Senator Packwood also refused to provide the Committee with
copies of these November 3 and November 6 entries, or of any of the
entries designated for copying over the weekend of October 16 and 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later that day, one diary volume was produced for review by
the staff counsel. When Mr. Baird telephoned Senator Packwood's
attorneys to ask when additional diaries would be produced, he
was told that the next diaries in sequence for review were in
the process of undergoing additional masking in light of the
Committee's discovery of the new materials. Senator Packwood's
attorney explicitly confirmed that not only was he now masking
additional material based upon the Committee's discovery of
information relating to potential misconduct in new areas, but
that additional material had been masked in the single diary
volume that had been delivered for review by the Committee
earlier that afternoon. Senator Packwood's attorney was told
that additional masking was unacceptable, and if the Senator
was not willing to produce his diaries pursuant to the original
agreement, the Committee would need to consider subpoenaing
them. At that point, Senator Packwood broke off all further
cooperation under the agreement, refusing to provide copies of
any of the approximately 170 pages or portions of pages from
1984 through early 1990 that Committee counsel had already
reviewed and determined to be relevant.
d. The Committee insists on completing its review of the
diaries
The Committee requested that Senator Packwood immediately
complete his production of the remaining diaries. The Committee
proposed that the Senator deliver them, after masking them in
the three categories previously agreed upon, to Kenneth Starr,
who would review the masked material to ensure that it complied
with the agreement, and then forward the masked diaries to the
Committee counsel for review. Counsel would review only the
unmasked material, identify entries relevant to matters within
the Committee's jurisdiction for copying, and return the
originals to Mr. Starr for safekeeping.
Senator Packwood refused to accept this proposal, or to
resume abiding by his original agreement with the Committee.
Instead, he insisted on masking additional materials, including
all ``entries which relate to political, campaign, staff or
similar activities and are wholly unrelated to the sexual
misconduct/intimidation issues'' ^{13 He further demanded
that the Committee agree not to pursue at that time either the
new matters its counsel had discovered, or any other matters
outside the scope of the preliminary inquiry. The Committee
rejected the Senator's proposal.
\13\ Letter from James Fitzpatrick and Daniel Rezneck to Senators
Richard H. Bryan and Mitch McConnell, October 20, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. The Committee votes to issue a subpoena
On October 20, after advising the Senator's attorneys that
continued recalcitrance would lead to a subpoena, the Committee
voted unanimously to issue a subpoena to Senator Packwood,
requiring him to produce his diaries from January 1, 1989 to
the present, by delivering them to Mr. Starr. The subpoena
required production forthwith of:

All diaries, journals, or other documents, including
tape recordings and materials stored by computer or
electronic means, in his possession, custody, or
control, which were prepared by him or at his
direction, recording or describing his daily activities
for January 1, 1989 through the present.

Senator Packwood's attorneys were informed that he would
still be permitted to mask attorney-client and physician-
patient material, and information relating to personal, private
family matters, subject to Mr. Starr's review. The subpoena was
served on Senator Packwood on the morning of October 21. The
Committee informed Senator Packwood that, unless he complied
with the subpoena, the Committee intended to meet later that
day to consider reporting a resolution to the full Senate
seeking authority to initiate a civil action to enforce the
subpoena. Senator Packwood sought additional time to respond,
and repeated his attorneys' earlier proposal that the Committee
defer attempting to obtain information related to newly
discovered matters and limit its request to the sexual
misconduct and witness intimidation issues.
The Committee unanimously voted to report a resolution to
the Senate to seek civil enforcement of its subpoena unless
Senator Packwood produced the diaries immediately. Upon
receiving no response from Senator Packwood, on the evening of
October 21, the Committee reported the enforcement resolution
to the Senate.
f. The Senate debates enforcement of the subpoena
The Senate took up consideration of the resolution on
November 1. The Senate debated the resolution for approximately
fifteen hours on November 1 and 2.
At the request of Senator Packwood and his attorneys, the
Committee leadership and Committee counsel met with Senator
Packwood and his attorneys on the evening of November 1. In
response to Senator Packwood's claim that he did not know what
new matters in the diaries had drawn the Committee's attention,
Victor Baird again set forth, as he had done earlier to Senator
Packwood's attorneys, the precise provisions of federal law,
Senate rules, and standards that were potentially implicated by
particular entries in the diaries.
Senator Packwood then offered to produce all diary entries
that he judged to be relevant to either the initial matters
under Committee inquiry, or the new matters that had come to
the Committee's attention regarding solicitation of income for
his wife. He proposed that Mr. Starr (who was not aware of this
proposal) review the completeness of his production, but on the
condition that he not divulge any evidence he found of
potential new violations. The Committee met and unanimously
rejected Senator Packwood's proposal, and informed him that it
had the duty to investigate all credible information relating
to potential misconduct of a Senator, and could not erect a
barrier deliberately to screen itself from potential evidence
of wrongdoing.
After extensive debate, the Senate voted 94 to 6 to adopt
the Committee's proposed resolution to authorize the Senate
Legal Counsel to enforce the Committee's subpoena.
g. The Committee proposes a process for review of the
diaries
The Committee then wrote to Senator Packwood, to clarify
the procedures for complying with the subpoena and to respond
to questions that Senator Packwood had raised.^{14 The
Committee made it clear that the subpoena required production
of only Senator Packwood's diaries and no other documents, and
that the Committee would cut off production under the subpoena
at July 16, 1993, the date of its second document request to
him. The Committee also reemphasized that Senator Packwood
could continue to mask the three categories agreed upon
earlier. The Committee repeated that Mr. Starr would verify the
appropriateness of all masking, and that the Senator would
still have the opportunity to object to the Committee on the
relevance of any materials selected and copied from his diaries
by Committee counsel.
\14\ Letter from Senators Richard H. Bryan and Mitch McConnell to
Senator Bob Packwood, November 9, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
h. Senator Packwood offers to resign
On November 17, 1993, Senator Packwood wrote to Senators
Bryan and McConnell, stating that he did not choose to fight
on, and that he was ``emotionally, physically, and financially
exhausted.'' He asked that the Committee accept his plea of
nolo contendere to the charges involving sexual misconduct and
intimidation. The Committee met on November 18, and discussed
the letter over several hours. It was unclear from the letter,
for example, what Senator Packwood meant by his wish to ``put
this matter behind me, without further proceedings,'' or what
would be encompassed in a plea of nolo contendere; it was
decided that staff would meet with Senator Packwood's attorneys
to discuss these issues.^{15
\15\ The attorneys met with the staff, but there was a very brief
discussion with little or no elaboration on the proposal being advanced
by Senator Packwood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the time of this Committee meeting on November 18, the
Justice Department had already notified the Committee that it
intended to open an inquiry into possible solicitation of
employment by Senator Packwood for his spouse, and had asked
about the possibility of Committee staff meeting with the
Department to discuss coordination of the separate inquiries,
as the Department did not wish to interfere with the
Committee's inquiry.
At some time during November 18, Senator Packwood contacted
Senator McConnell and during the course of their conversation
indicated that he wanted a ``window of opportunity'' between
the termination of the Committee's proceeding and Justice
Department action so that he could destroy his diaries. Senator
McConnell immediately conveyed this information to the Chairman
and the Committee staff.
During the evening and early morning hours of November 18
and 19, an agreement was reached that Senators Bryan and
McConnell would meet with Senator Packwood in the presence of
staff counsel and attorneys for Senator Packwood. At around
11:00 a.m. on November 19 the meeting took place, with Senators
Bryan, McConnell, Packwood, staff counsel, Jim Fitzpatrick, and
Bill Diefenderfer, as a ``friend'' of Senator Packwood. It
became clear early on in the meeting that it would likely be
impossible for a resolution of the case to be agreed upon in
the absence of delivery of the diaries. Senator Packwood asked
that he and his attorney be excused, and Mr. Diefenderfer
presented a proposal on behalf of the Senator: Senator Packwood
would resign, the Committee would terminate the preliminary
inquiry and cease all discovery and subpoena enforcement
activity, and the subpoena would be withdrawn.^{16 During
this discussion with Mr. Diefenderfer, Senator Bryan
specifically mentioned the Committee's concern about document
preservation; Mr. Diefenderfer stated that he did not believe
that the Senator had any intention of destroying the diaries.
Mr. Diefenderfer agreed to give the Committee an hour to
respond to this proposal.
\16\ Informally, the Committee would not seek to curtail the
Senator's pension, an action which was not within the Committee's power
in any event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In view of the earlier notification from the Department of
Justice of their interest in the matter, and the concerns
raised by Senator Packwood's comments to Senator McConnell
about a ``window of opportunity'' to destroy the diaries, it
was agreed that communication with the Justice Department was
required, in order to preserve the Department's opportunity for
access to the diaries. Michael Davidson, Senate Legal Counsel,
joined the discussion, and agreed that it was appropriate to
contact the Department of Justice. Mr. Davidson contacted Jack
Keeney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal
Division, Department of Justice, and inquired about the
Department's intentions with respect to the diaries in the
event that the Committee withdrew its subpoena. Mr. Keeney
informed Mr. Davidson that the Department would immediately
subpoena the diaries from Senator Packwood.
The Committee met again at about 1:30 p.m. and agreed to
Senator Packwood's proposal to resign. Mr. Diefenderfer was
notified, and the proposal was reduced to writing in the form
of a letter which was signed by Senators Bryan and McConnell.
Before this letter could be delivered to Senator Packwood for
his signature, Mr. Diefenderfer contacted Senator McConnell and
told him that Senator Packwood had been served with a subpoena
for his diaries by the Department of Justice, and that he no
longer intended to resign. The Committee met later that
afternoon, and was so informed.
i. The Committee goes to court to enforce the subpoena
On November 22, 1993, Senate Legal Counsel filed an
application to Enforce the Subpoena in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia. Senator Packwood's
attorneys responded, claiming that the diaries were protected
from production by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the
Constitution. A hearing was held on December 16, 1993, and
argument was presented by both sides.^{17 On January 24,
1994, Judge Jackson issued his ruling, finding that the
Committee was entitled to production of the diaries. On
February 7, 1994, Judge Jackson issued a further ruling,
setting out the procedures for review by Kenneth Starr, and
incorporating the categories for masking of material that had
been suggested by the Committee in its November 19, 1993 letter
to Senator Packwood.
\17\ By this time, Senator Packwood had retained different
attorneys, the firm of Stein, Mitchell & Mezines, who continue to
represent him in this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Evidence of possible alteration

During the time that the Committee was seeking access to
Senator Packwood's diaries, news accounts and public statements
by Senator Packwood raised questions about how his former
secretary, Cathy Wagner Cormack, had been paid to transcribe
his diaries. The staff took Ms. Cormack's deposition in order
to determine whether she was paid from Senate or campaign
funds, as opposed to Senator Packwood's personal funds, for
transcription of the diaries.
After her deposition was transcribed and she had an
opportunity to review it, Ms. Cormack provided a sworn
affidavit to the Committee, indicating that after the
initiation of the Ethics Committee investigation, Senator
Packwood had taken back from her some tapes that he already had
given her to transcribe, and that at a later time it appeared
to her that he may have made some revisions to those tapes. She
also stated that Senator Packwood confirmed to her that he had
made changes to the tapes. Based on this information, Ms.
Cormack's deposition was taken a second time, on December 15,
1993, and she confirmed the information she had included in her
affidavit.
That Senator Packwood's diaries may have been altered was
set forth in a December 7, 1993 letter provided to the Chairman
of the Committee by Senator Packwood's attorney, which stated,
inter alia, that:

With what may be a few or possibly no exceptions, the
originals of these tapes (the diaries) are among the
materials now held by Arnold & Porter. * * * In
discrete instances, the transcripts depart from the
original tapes. Based on a recounting of events, it is
unlikely such transcripts were among the transcripts
examined by the Senate Ethics Committee staff.^{18
\18\ On December 10, 1993, Michael Davidson, Senate Legal Counsel,
wrote to Senator Packwood's attorneys, stating, inter alia:

[i]t would be helpful and appreciated if you could advise
us of the dates of the transcripts that depart from the
original tapes, and also provide us with any other specific
information that could shed light on the integrity of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tapes and transcripts.

Senator Packwood's attorney responded that his letter of December 10,
1993, ``must stand without comment.''

The information indicating possible alteration of the
diaries was provided to Judge Jackson, who, at the hearing on
December 16, 1993, ordered that all diaries, including
transcripts and audiotapes, be immediately deposited with the
Court for safekeeping pending the Court's decision on the
Committee's application to enforce the subpoena.
3. Procedure for production of diaries to the Committee, and the
committee's review of the diaries
a. The court's order
On February 7, 1994, after conducting a status conference
with the parties to discuss procedures to implement the Court's
January 24, 1994 Order granting the Committee's application to
enforce its subpoena, the Court issued an Order setting out
procedures under which the Committee would obtain Senator
Packwood's diaries.^{19
\19\ Senator Packwood petitioned the District Court for a stay of
its Orders of January 24 and February 7, 1994, while he appealed those
Orders to the Court of Appeals. The District Court denied this motion.
Senator Packwood's appeal for a stay was also denied by the Court of
Appeals on February 18, 1994. On March 2, 1994, Chief Justice Rehnquist
denied Senator Packwood's request for a stay, and Senator Packwood
subsequently withdrew his appeal of the Orders themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Starr was appointed Special Master,^{20 and the
tapes and transcripts that had been turned over to the Court as
a result of the December 16, 1993 hearing were transferred to
him. Mr. Starr was instructed to provide the transcripts and
tapes to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for duplication,
with copies to be provided to Mr. Starr, Senator Packwood, and
the Clerk of the Court. The original transcripts and tapes were
returned to Mr. Starr for possible later forensic examination
to determine the nature and extent of any alterations, if
requested by the Committee.
\20\ Mr. Starr also continued to act as the Committee's Hearing
Examiner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court's Order provided that Senator Packwood would have
a reasonable opportunity to mask portions of the transcripts
and audiotapes, according to the criteria for masking allowed
by the Committee.^{21 Mr. Starr would then review the
masking to determine if it met these criteria, unmasking any
portions that did not, and provide a copy to the Committee.
\21\ These criteria were the same as set out in the November 9,
1993 letter from the Committee to Senator Packwood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Production of the diaries to the Committee

1. Diary transcripts

The Committee began receiving copies of diary transcripts
^{22 that had been masked by Senator Packwood on March 30,
1994. Although these copies had not yet been reviewed by Mr.
Starr to determine if they had been properly masked, they were
provided to the Committee in an attempt to avoid unnecessary
delay in the Committee's review of the diaries. The Cormack
transcripts were designated as ``Q 1 through Q 10,'' with each
``Q'' representing six months of entries. As Mr. Starr reviewed
the Cormack transcripts, he provided the Committee with entries
that he had determined did not meet the criteria for masking.
This process continued through April 29, 1994, when the
Committee received the last of the Cormack transcripts.
\22\ To avoid confusion, the written diary transcripts that were
provided to the Committee by Senator Packwood, through Mr. Starr, will
be referred to as the ``Cormack transcripts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Diary tapes

The Court's Order of February 7, 1994, contemplated that
Senator Packwood would have the right to mask the audiotapes
that corresponded to the Cormack transcripts. It also provided
that Mr. Starr could reassess his judgment about the propriety
of any masking, if he discovered alterations in the Cormack
transcript or the audiotape.
Shortly after Senator Packwood began designating portions
of the audiotapes that should be masked, Mr. Starr informed the
parties that the audiotapes and the Cormack transcripts were
different in several respects. There were portions of the
audiotapes that did not appear on the Cormack transcript, and
portions of the Cormack transcript that did not appear on the
audiotapes. There were also entries on the audiotape that were
captured on the Cormack transcript, but in a different, or
paraphrased, form. Senator Packwood maintained that he had a
right to mask portions of the audiotape that fit the criteria
allowed for masking by the Committee, even if those portions
did not correspond to the Cormack transcript. The Committee
made clear its position that any entries on the audiotape that
did not match entries on the Cormack transcript, or vice versa,
constituted possible evidence of alteration, and could not be
masked by Senator Packwood. It appears that Mr. Starr permitted
further masking where he deemed it appropriate.
The Committee began receiving audiotapes that had been
masked and reviewed by Mr. Starr in October 1994. Because the
testimony from Ms. Cormack indicated that changes to the diary
were most likely made in 1992 and 1993, the Committee had
requested that it be provided with the tapes for these years
first. As the Committee received the tapes for 1992 and 1993,
it had them transcribed by a reporting service. The diaries
thus transcribed were compared to the Cormack transcripts. For
the years 1989 through 1991, the staff listened and compared
the audiotapes themselves to the Cormack transcript.
The last of the audiotapes corresponding to Q 1 through Q
10 were received by the Committee on January 13, 1995. A final
delivery of ten tapes occurred on February 27, 1995.

C. Employment Opportunities for Mrs. Packwood

1. Origin of allegations

The allegations involving inappropriate linkage of personal
financial gain to Senator Packwood's official position by
soliciting or otherwise encouraging offers of financial
assistance from persons having a particular interest in
legislation or issues that Senator Packwood could influence are
based on a number of the Senator's diary entries from the years
1989 through 1991.

2. How the investigation was conducted

Committee staff took sworn depositions from ten persons
referenced in the diary as possibly having some involvement in
extending employment opportunities to Mrs. Packwood. The
Committee also took the sworn deposition of Senator Packwood's
former wife and received sworn testimony from Senator Packwood.
In total, thirteen persons were deposed on this subject.
In addition, the Committee subpoenaed documents from each
of the individuals mentioned above. The subpoena called for all
documents referring or relating to either Senator or Mrs.
Packwood. The Committee also subpoenaed documents from Mrs.
Packwood and from Senator Packwood. In response to these
subpoenas, the Committee received in excess of four thousand
pages of documents.

III. The Committee's Authority To Investigate and Sanction Misconduct
of Members

A. Authority of the Congress to Discipline Its Members

The United States Constitution confers on each House of
Congress the power to punish and expel its Members. Article I
provides:

Each House may determine the Rules of its
Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly
Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds,
expel a Member.^{23
\23\ U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 2.

Pursuant to this authority, in 1964, the Senate adopted
Senate Resolution 338, which created the Select Committee on
Standards and Conduct, and delegated to it the authority to
``receive complaints and investigate allegations of improper
conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, violations of law,
and violations of rules and regulations of the Senate, relating
to the conduct of individuals in the performance of their
duties as Members of the Senate.'' ^{24
\24\ S. Res. 338, Sec. 2(a)(1), 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In those situations where the violations are sufficiently
serious to warrant sanctions, the Committee is authorized to
recommend to the Senate by report or resolution appropriate
disciplinary action.^{25
\25\ Id., amended by S. Res. 110, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977),
Sec. 2(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate has disciplined Members for conduct that it has
deemed unethical or improper, regardless of whether it violated
any law or Senate rule or regulation.^{26 As it adopted new
rules governing Members' conduct, the Senate has recognized
that the rules did not ``replace that great body of unwritten
but generally accepted standards that will, of course, continue
in effect.'' ^{27
\26\ ``Senate Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases From 1793 to
1972,'' S. Doc. No. 7, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 127, 157 (1972).
\27\ 114 Cong. Rec. 6833 (1968) (comments of Senator John Stennis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Private Versus Official Conduct

The Senate or House may discipline a Member for any
misconduct, including conduct or activity which does not
directly relate to official duties, when such conduct
unfavorably reflects on the institution as a whole.^{28 In
his historic work on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story
noted in 1833 that Congress' disciplinary authority for
``expulsion and any other punishment'' is apparently
unqualified as to ``the time, place or nature of the offense.''
^{29 Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently declared
that the Senate has far-reaching discretion in disciplinary
matters.^{30 Precedent within both the House and Senate has
reaffirmed this broad authority. In the censure of Senator
Joseph McCarthy, the Select Committee to Study the Censure
Charges in the 83rd Congress reported:
\28\ S. Rep. 2508, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 20,22 (1954); H.R. Rep. No.
27, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (1969).
\29\ Joseph Story, ``Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
States,'' Volume II, Sec. 836, (Boston 1833, De Capo Press Reprint
Edition, 1970).
\30\ See, e.g., In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 670 (1897) (in
upholding the authority of the Senate to require by subpoena testimony
of private persons in an investigation of Senatorial misconduct, the
Court noted the expulsion of former Senator Blount as an example of
Congress's broad authority: ``It was not a statutable offense nor was
it committed in his official character, nor was it committed during the
session of Congress, nor at the seat of government.''); United States
v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972) (in dicta, the Court observed, ``The
process of disciplining a Member of Congress * * * is not surrounded
with the panoply of protective shields that are present in a criminal
case. An accused Member is judged by no specifically articulated
standards, and is at the mercy of an almost unbridled discretion of the
charging body * * * from whose decisions there is no established right
of review.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``It seems clear that if a Senator should be guilty
of reprehensible conduct unconnected with his official
duties and position, but which conduct brings the
Senate into disrepute, the Senate has the power to
censure.'' ^{31
\31\ Report of the Select Committee to Study Censure Charges
pursuant to S. Res. 301 and amendments, S. Rep. 2508, 83rd Cong., 2d
Sess. 20,22 (1954) (a resolution to censure the Senator from Wisconsin,
Mr. McCarthy).

Additionally, in the report on Representative Adam Clayton
Powell from the House Judiciary Committee, which recommended
that Powell be censured for misconduct, the Committee noted
that the conduct for which punishment may be imposed is not
limited to acts relating to the Member's official duties.
^{32
\32\ H.R. Rep. No. 27, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (1969).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proposing a permanent standing committee on ethics in
the Senate, Senator John Sherman Cooper expressly referred to
the select committee that investigated the censure charges of
Senator Joseph McCarthy as a model--a committee that had
unambiguously asserted its authority to investigate conduct
``unconnected with [a Member's] official duties and position.''
Senator Cooper and supporters of the resolution emphasized that
the Select Committee was intended ``to be free to investigate
anything which, in its judgment, seemed worthy, deserving, and
requiring investigation'' ^{33 and ``would not be limited to
alleged violations of Senate rules, but it would take into
account all improper conduct of any kind whatever.'' ^{34
\33\ 110 Cong. Rec. 16,933, (1964).
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears that the intent of the Senate in adopting S.
Res. 338 was to convey to the Ethics Committee the authority to
investigate and make recommendations to the full Senate on
misconduct of Members over which the institution has
jurisdiction. Nowhere in the legislative history of this
resolution was there language which expressed or implied any
intent to reserve some authority only in the full Senate, or to
limit the authority of the Committee to investigate and report
to the full Senate concerning any misconduct of a Member within
the jurisdiction of the institution.

C. Improper Conduct Reflecting Upon the Senate

The Senate did not attempt to delineate all the types of
conduct or the guidelines which the Committee should follow in
determining which actions by a Member would constitute
``improper conduct'' reflecting on the Senate.^{35 It
appears that the standards and guidelines of what would be
deemed proper or improper conduct for a Member would change and
evolve, both as to the perception of the general public as well
as for those within the legislature itself.^{36 The drafters
of the resolution in 1964 intended that ``improper conduct''
would be cognizable by the Senate when it was so notorious or
reprehensible that it could discredit the institution as a
whole, not just the individual, thereby invoking the Senate's
inherent and constitutional right to protect its own integrity
and reputation.^{37
\35\ When asked about the types of misconduct the committee might
investigate, Senator Cooper explained as follows: ``I cannot foresee
every case * * * I believe one of the great duties of such a committee
would be to have the judgment to know what it should investigate and
what it should not, after looking into a question.'' Id.
\36\ See, e.g., Jack Maskell, Congressional Research Service
Confidential Report to the Select Committee on Ethics, ``Jurisdiction
and Authority of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics Over What Might
be Characterized as ``Personal'' or ``Private'' Misconduct of a
Senator'' (not published, March 3, 1993).
\37\ In the censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, the
Select Committee to Study the Censure Charges reported to the Senate:

``It seems clear that if a Senator should be guilty of
reprehensible conduct unconnected with his official duties
and position, but which conduct brings the Senate into
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
disrepute, the Senate has the power to censure.''

S. Rep. No. 2508, supra, note 6, at 22.
The House of Representatives has held a similar view. In the report
on Representative Adam Clayton Powell from the House Judiciary
Committee, which recommended that Powell be seated, and then censured
for his misconduct, the Committee noted that: ``Nor is the conduct for
which punishment may be imposed limited to acts relating to the
Member's official duties.'' In Re Adam Clayton Powell H.R. Rep. No. 27,
90th Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (1967).
See, also, for examples of recommendations for discipline for
conduct which brings ``the Senate into dishonor and disrepute'': S.
Rep. No. 382, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 14 (1990); S. Rep. No. 337, 96th
Cong., 1st Sess. 18 (1979); S. Rep. No. 193, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (S.
Res. 112, 90th Cong.) (1967); note discussion in S. Rep. No. 2508, 83rd
Cong., 2d Sess. 20-23 (1954); S. Res. 146, 71st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1929).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Resolution 338, as amended, which establishes and
sets forth the responsibilities of the Select Committee on
Ethics, provides, in part:
Sec. 2(a) It should be the duty of the Select Committee
to--
(1) ``receive complaints and investigate allegations
of improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate,
violations of law, violations of the Senate Code of
Official Conduct, and violations of rules and
regulations of the Senate, relating to the conduct of
individuals in the performance of their duties as
Members of the Senate, or as officers or employees of
the Senate, and to make appropriate findings of fact
and conclusions with respect thereto * * *'' ^{38
(Italics added)
\38\ S. Res. 338, 88th Cong., 2d. Sess. (1964), as amended by S.
Res. 110, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Res. 338 gives the Committee the authority to
investigate Members who engage in ``improper conduct which may
reflect upon the Senate,'' regardless of whether such conduct
violates a specific statute, Senate Rule, or regulation.
Indeed, the original Rules Committee proposal, rejected by the
Senate, would have given the Committee the authority to
investigate only alleged violations of the rules of the
Senate.^{39 In offering the amendment containing the
language adopted by the Senate ^{40, Senator Cooper
described his amendment as authorizing the new committee ``to
receive complaints of unethical, improper, illegal conduct of
members.'' ^{41 Senator Case, in discussing this amendment,
noted that the Committee ``would not be limited to alleged
violations of Senate rules, but it would take into account all
improper conduct of any kind whatsoever.'' ^{42
\39\ S. Rep. No. 1147, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1964).
\40\ S. Res. 338, Sec. 2(a)(1) (1964); 110 Cong. Rec. 16939 (1964)
(emphasis added).
\41\ S. Rep. No. 1125, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. 13 (1964).
\42\ 110 Cong. Rec. 16933 (1964) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Historical context of improper conduct and Committee precedent

The phrase ``improper conduct'' as used by S. Res. 338 can
be given meaning by reference to generally accepted standards
of conduct, the letter and spirit of laws and Rules ^{43,
and by reference to past cases where the Senate has disciplined
its Members for conduct that was deemed improper, regardless of
whether it violated any law or Senate rule or regulation.
\43\ In a report of a 1964 investigation into certain activities
undertaken by Robert Baker, then Secretary to the Majority of the
Senate, the Committee on Rules and Administration stated: ``It is
possible for anyone to follow the 'letter of the law' and avoid being
indicted for a criminal act, but in the case of employees of the
Senate, they are expected, and rightly so, to follow not only the
``letter'' but also the ``spirit'' of the law.'' S. Rep. No. 1175, 88th
Cong., 2d Sess. 5(1964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As early as 1797, Senator William Blount was expelled from
the Senate for inciting Native Americans against the
government, despite the fact that he had committed no crime,
and neither acted in his official capacity nor during a session
of Congress.^{44 In 1811, the Senate censured Senator Thomas
Pickering for reading a confidential communication on the
Senate floor, despite the fact that there was no written rule
prohibiting such conduct.^{45 In 1873, a Senate Committee
also recommended the expulsion of Senator James Patterson, for
accepting stock at a reduced price knowing that the offeror
intended to influence him in his official duties, for giving a
false account of the transaction, suppressing material facts,
and denying the existence of material facts which must have
been known to him.^{46
\44\ See In Re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 669-670 (1897).
\45\ S. Doc. No. 7, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 6 (1972) (``Expulsion and
Censure Cases'').
\46\ The Senate decided not to act on the Committee's
recommendation before the end of the session, and Senator Patterson
left the Senate at the end of his term. S. Rep. No. 519, 42d Cong., 3rd
Sess. VIII-X (1873).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1929, the Senate condemned Senator Hiram Bingham for
placing an employee of a trade association with a direct
interest in tariff legislation then pending on the Senate
payroll. In 1954, the Senate condemned Senator Joseph McCarthy
for his lack of cooperation with and abuse of two Senate
committees that investigated his conduct.
None of these cases involved conduct that was found to
violate any law, rule, or regulation, but in each case, the
conduct was deemed to violate accepted standards and values
controlling Senators' conduct.
After the passage of S. Res. 338 establishing the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct, the next case involving a
finding of improper conduct was the investigation of Senator
Thomas Dodd. The Committee investigated allegations of
unethical conduct concerning the Senator's relationship with a
private businessman with overseas interests; the conversion of
campaign contributions to personal use; the free use of loaned
automobiles; and the acceptance of reimbursements from both the
Senate and private sources. Although no Senate rule or law
prohibited the use of campaign funds for personal use at that
time, the Committee found that the testimonial dinners
investigated were political in character, and thus the proceeds
should not have been used for personal use.^{47
\47\ S. Rep. No. 193, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommended, and the Senate adopted, a
resolution censuring Senator Dodd for having engaged in a
course of conduct:

* * * exercising the influence and power of his office
as a United States Senator * * * to obtain, and use for
his personal benefit, funds from the public through
political testimonials and a political campaign.

Such conduct, although not violative of any specific law or
Senate rule in force at that time, was found to be ``contrary
to accepted morals, derogates from the public trust expected of
a Senator, and tends to bring the Senate into dishonor and
disrepute.'' ^{48
\48\ S. Res. 112, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1966, pursuant to S. Res. 338, the Select Committee on
Standards and Conduct began to develop recommendations for
rules and regulations regarding Senators' conduct. The
Committee ultimately proposed S. Res. 266, the Senate Code of
Official Conduct, which addressed outside employment,
disclosure of financial interests, and campaign contributions.
The floor debate on this resolution demonstrates that the Rules
were not intended to be a comprehensive code of conduct for
Senators, but were targeted at a limited area of activity, and
more importantly, that they were not intended to displace
generally accepted norms of conduct. During that debate, the
Committee's Chairman, Senator John Stennis, stated:

We do not try to write a full code of regulations * *
* [O]ur effort is merely to add rules and not to
replace that great body of unwritten but generally
accepted standards that will, of course, continue in
effect.'' ^{49
\49\ 114 Cong. Rec. 6833 (1968).

In addition, the Committee's Vice Chairman, Senator Wallace
Bennett, stated that it was impossible to develop written rules
that address every possible area of misconduct.^{50
\50\ Id. at 6842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1990, upon the recommendation of the Committee, the
Senate denounced Senator David Durenberger, in part based on
his financial arrangements in connection with a condominium in
Minneapolis, finding that his conduct was deemed to have
``brought discredit upon the United States Senate'' by a
``pattern of improper conduct,'' although the Committee did not
find that any law or rule had been violated in connection with
the condominium.^{51 However, the Committee Chairman noted
that the Senator's conduct violated the spirit of 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 431, which generally prohibits a Member from benefitting
from a contract with the federal government.^{52
\51\ S. Rep. No. 382, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 14 (1990).
\52\ 136 Cong. Rec. 510,560 (daily ed. July 25, 1990) (statement of
Senator Heflin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, in 1991 the Committee concluded that Senator
Alan Cranston engaged in improper conduct which reflected on
the Senate by engaging in an impermissible pattern of conduct
in which fund raising and official activities were
substantially linked. The Committee found that for about two
years, Senator Cranston had personally or through his staff
contacted the Federal Home Loan Bank Board on behalf of Lincoln
Savings and Loan during a period when he was soliciting and
accepting substantial contributions from Mr. Keating or his
affiliates, and that Senator Cranston's office practices
further evidenced an impermissible pattern of conduct in which
fund raising and official activities were substantially linked.
The Committee specifically found that none of the activities of
Senator Cranston violated any law or Senate rule. Nonetheless,
the Committee found that his impermissible pattern of conduct
violated established norms of behavior in the Senate,
and was improper conduct that reflects upon the Senate,
as contemplated in Section 2(a)(1) of S. Res. 338, 88th
Congress, as amended.^{53
\53\ S. Rep. No. 223, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 36 (1991).

The Committee found that Senator Cranston's conduct was
improper and repugnant, and that it deserved the ``fullest,
strongest, and most severe sanction which the Committee has the
authority to impose.'' The Committee issued a strong and severe
reprimand of Senator Cranston.^{54
\54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. S. Res. 266 and the Code of Ethics for Government Service

Part III of the Select Committee's Rules of Procedure sets
out the sources of the Committee's subject matter jurisdiction,
which include, in addition to those set out in S. Res. 338, the
Preamble to S. Res. 266, and the Code of Ethics for Government
Service. The Preamble to S. Res. 266, by which the Senate Code
of Official Conduct was first adopted, provides that:

(a) The ideal concept of public office, expressed by
the words, ``A public office is a public trust'',
signifies that the officer has been entrusted with
public power by the people; that the officer holds this
power in trust to be used only for their benefit and
never for the benefit of himself or of a few; and that
the officer must never conduct his own affairs so as to
infringe on the public interest. All official conduct
of Members of the Senate should be guided by this
paramount concept of public office.
(b) These rules, as the written expression of certain
standards of conduct, complement the body of unwritten
but generally accepted standards that continue to apply
to the Senate.'' ^{55
\55\ Preamble to S. Res. 266, 90th Cong., 2d. Sess. (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, in this Preamble, specifically set out as a source of
jurisdiction for the Committee under S. Res. 338, the Senate
has recognized that it has the authority to discipline its
Members for conduct that may not necessarily violate a law, or
Senate rule or regulation, but that is unethical, improper, or
violates unwritten but generally accepted standards of conduct
that apply to the Senate.^{56
\56\ The Committee has never relied specifically on the Preamble as
an enforceable standard, but prior to adoption of S. Res. 266, its
predecessor Committee on Standards and Conduct had recommended censure
for Senator Thomas Dodd in part because it found his conduct
``derogates from the public trust expected of a Senator.'' S. Rep. No.
193, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). The Preamble continues as a Standing
Order of the Senate. See Senate Manual, paragraph 79.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Code of Ethics for Government Service, passed by House
Resolution on July 11, 1958, with the Senate concurring, is
also specifically listed in the Committee's Rules as a source
of jurisdiction for the Committee under S. Res. 338. It sets
out ten broadly-worded standards of conduct that should be
adhered to by all government employees, including office-
holders. The first and last of these standards state that any
person in government service should:

Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to
country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government
department.
Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public
office is a public trust.'' ^{57
\57\ The Code of Ethics for Government Service, H. Con. Res. 175,
85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957).

Again, these standards of conduct generally encompass
conduct that may not violate a specific law, rule, or
regulation, but that is not consistent with ``loyalty to the
highest moral principles.'' ^{58
\58\ Although the House of Representatives has used the broad
standards set out in the Code of Ethics for Government Service as a
disciplinary standard in investigations of misconduct, the Senate has
never done so. See In The Matter Of Representative Austin J. Murphy, H.
Rep. No. 485, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1987); 133 Cong. Rec. H11686-96
(1987) (Member permitted official resources to be diverted to his
former law partner); In The Matter Of A Complaint Against
Representative Robert L. F. Sikes, H. Rep. No. 1364, 94th Cong., 2d
Sess. 3 (1976)(debate and reprimand of Member on charges concerning use
of official position for financial gain, and receipt of benefits under
circumstances that might have been construed as influencing official
duties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Time Limitations

1. Historical context

The United States Constitution which grants the Senate the
express authority to discipline its own Members contains no
apparent time limitation on this authority.^{59 Thus, the
Supreme Court, in 1897, implied an unqualified authority of
each House of Congress to discipline a Member for misconduct,
regardless of the specific timing of the offense.^{60 The
Court cited the case of the expulsion of Senator Blount by the
Senate as support for the constitutional authority of either
House of Congress to punish a Member for conduct which, in the
judgment of the House or Senate, ``is inconsistent with the
trust and duty of a member'' even if such conduct was ``not a
statutable offense nor was it committed during the session of
Congress, nor at the seat of government.'' ^{61
\59\ U.S. Const., art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 1.
\60\ In re Chapman, at 669.
\61\ Id. at 670; see, II Hinds' Precedents of the House of
Representatives, Sec. 1263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate Select Committee on Standards of Conduct,
predecessor of the current Committee, noted in a matter before
it in 1967, that the procedural rules for disciplining a Member
is a matter within the Senate's discretion, as long as the
institution abides by the basic guarantees of due process
within the Constitution.^{62 Since discipline of its own
Members is a power and authority expressly committed to the
Senate in the Constitution, the Senate may establish or choose
its own time limitations for investigations and disciplinary
proceedings, or may choose not to attach any specific
limitations on such actions. The specific procedure adopted and
followed by the Senate for its own internal disciplinary
actions would most likely not be subject to judicial review
because of the non-justiciability of the issue.^{63
\62\ Report of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct,
United States Senate on the Investigation of Senator Thomas J. Dodd of
Connecticut, S. Rep. No. 193, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1967).
\63\ U.S. v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 519 (1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, neither House of Congress has abdicated its
ability to punish a Member in the form of censure for conduct
which occurred in a Congress prior to a Member's re-election to
the current Congress. In the censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy
of Wisconsin, the Select Committee to Study the Censure Charges
in the 83rd Congress, after consideration of the fact that the
Senate is a continuing body, reported:

It seems clear that if a Senator should be guilty of
reprehensible conduct unconnected with his official
duties and position, but which conduct brings the
Senate into disrepute, the Senate has the power to
censure. The power to censure must be independent,
therefore, of the power to punish for contempt. A
Member may be censured even after he has resigned (2
Hinds' Precedents 1239,1273, 1275 (1907)). * * * While
it may be the law that one who is not a Member of the
Senate may not be punished for contempt of the Senate
at a preceding session, this is not a basis for
declaring that the Senate may not censure one of its
own Members for conduct antedating that session, and no
controlling authority or precedent has been cited for
such a position.^{64
\64\ S. Rep. 2508, 83rd. Cong., 2d Sess. 20 - 21, 22 (1954).

There have been indications that the Senate, in an expulsion
case, might not exercise its disciplinary discretion with
regard to conduct in which an individual had engaged before the
time he or she had been a Member.^{65
\65\ In the expulsion case of Senator John Smith, Senator John
Quincy Adams, reporting for the committee, noted that the power of
expulsion is ``discretionary'' and is ``without any limitation other
than that which requires a concurrence of two-thirds of the votes to
give it effect.'' See II Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1264, at 817-18.
Although the power was described broadly, Hinds' Precedents notes that
the charge that Smith made an oath of allegiance to a foreign king, was
not acted upon since it was to have been taken previously to the
election of Mr. Smith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Limitations applicable to Senate Resolution 338 and the Senate Code
of Conduct

The Senate does not have a rule which would limit an
inquiry into, or disciplinary action taken, within the
jurisdiction of the Select Committee on Ethics. However, the
Senate may not conduct an initial review or investigation of
any alleged violation of law, the Senate Code of Official
Conduct, or rule or regulation that was not in effect at the
time of the alleged violation.^{66 It should be noted that
the House of Representatives recently amended its own internal
rules of discipline to institute a ``statue of limitations'' on
internal disciplinary matters which would restrict inquiries
into conduct which occurred before the three previous
Congresses.^{67
\66\ S. Res. 338, as amended by Sec. 202 of S. Res. 110 (1977).
\67\ P.L. 101-194, Sec. 803, amending, under the House's rulemaking
authority, House Rule X, Clause 4(e)(2)(C), to provide: ``nor shall any
investigation be undertaken by the committee of any alleged violation
which occurred before the third previous Congress unless the committee
determines that the alleged violation is directly related to any
alleged violation which occurred in a more recent Congress.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Senate Ethics Study Commission of the 103rd
Congress (which included the members of this Committee)
recommended in its Report to the Senate that:

The Senate should not adopt a fixed statute of
limitations, but should continue its practice of
balancing on a case-by-case basis potentially relevant
considerations, such as fairness, staleness, integrity
of evidence, reasons for delay, and seriousness of
alleged misconduct, in evaluating the timeliness of
allegations of misconduct. High ethical standards
should be maintained throughout the period of service
within the Senate, and technical rules should not be
used to avoid the Senate's responsibility to redress
serious misconduct.

The Report further stated, in part:

Under current practice, in determining what action to
take in response to an allegation of potential
misconduct, the Ethics Committee has discretion to take
into consideration the interval of time since the
conduct allegedly occurred. A number of factors may
play a role in the Committee's determination of its
course of action, including the fairness in
investigating the allegations, the staleness of the
charges, the availability and integrity of relevant
evidence, the reasons the allegations were not
presented earlier, the seriousness of the alleged
behavior, and whether continuing effects from the
alleged misconduct persisted well after the conduct,
among others.

IV. Evidence Regarding the Allegations of Sexual Misconduct

The following is a discussion of the evidence regarding the
eighteen incidents outlined in the Committee's Resolution of
May 16, 1995. Senate Ethics Counsel finds that these incidents,
taken collectively, reflect an abuse of his United States
Senate Office by Senator Packwood, and that this conduct is of
such a nature as to bring discredit upon the United States
Senate.

A. Packwood Staff Member ^{68

\68\ This staff member is designated ``C-1'' in the Committee
Exhibits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Testimony by staff member

This staff member was hired in March 1990 by Senator
Packwood as the press secretary for the Senate Finance
Committee minority staff. In August 1991, she was hired as
Senator Packwood's personal press secretary; she left that job
on July 26, 1992 to take a job in Oregon.
Around July of 1990, the Senator learned that the staffer
loved old music, movies, and books, which were also interests
of Senator Packwood. Senator Packwood and the staffer
frequently exchanged music tapes, and Senator Packwood
occasionally invited her to his office to listen to music with
other staff members, or to look at his antique book collection.
They also had long discussions about politics and history.
According to the staffer, it was typical for Senator Packwood
to have wine available when she and others were in his office.
Senator Packwood and the staffer exchanged notes, usually
accompanying the tapes. Senator Packwood often let the staffer
know that he thought she was talented and creative, and he
singled her out in staff meetings for compliments.
In the early fall of 1990, perhaps in September, about 5:00
p.m., Senator Packwood called the staffer at the Finance
Committee offices and asked her to come to his office to listen
to a tape of songs by Erroll Garner and George Shearing. When
she arrived, Senator Packwood had a box of wine on his desk and
was getting out two glasses. This was the first time that the
staffer had been alone with Senator Packwood in his office.
Within moments of the staffer's arrival, Senator Packwood was
called to a vote; he told her to stay until he returned. As the
staffer waited in Senator Packwood's office, his secretary, Pam
Fulton, told her that she (the staffer) was new in the office,
and Ms. Fulton wanted to warn her that she should not be there
when the Senator returned.^{69 The staffer left the office
before Senator Packwood returned.
\69\ During an interview, Ms. Fulton stated that she had asked the
staffer not to hang around the office in the evenings, because if
someone was around to drink and talk with the Senator, he would stay
instead of going home. Ms. Fulton was worried about his drinking, and
felt that the staffer gave him an excuse to stay at the office and
drink.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About this same time, the tone of the notes that Senator
Packwood sent her with the tapes changed, and seemed to the
staffer to become more ``sentimental.'' She began to feel that
Senator Packwood wanted an ``emotional'' type of friendship
with her, of the type that she was not used to having with a
supervisor.
Toward the end of October 1990, possibly October 30,
Senator Packwood invited several staff members from the Finance
Committee, including the staffer, to join him at the Irish
Times bar to celebrate approval of the 1990 budget agreement.
He wanted to buy drinks to thank the staff for the long hours
they had put in during the preceding weeks. Senator Packwood
sat next to the staffer at the bar. Toward the end of the
evening, Senator Packwood yelled to her, over the music, that
they needed to find some way to ``do this'' without letting
Elaine Franklin, his chief of staff, know. He kept staring at
her, and repeated that they needed to pursue this, but that Ms.
Franklin could not come after her. The staffer finally realized
that Senator Packwood seemed to think that they were about to
start a relationship, and she began to feel very nervous. She
excused herself to go to the ladies room, and tried to
telephone her boyfriend (now her husband).
After the group had been at the bar for several hours,
Senator Packwood asked another staffer, Lindy Paull, and her
husband to drive him and the staffer back to his office. He
told them that he had something he wanted to show the staffer.
When they got to the office, Senator Packwood asked the Ms.
Paull and her husband to go to one of the adjoining suites down
the hall, because he had something he wanted to show the
staffer. Senator Packwood then started showing the staffer
cards in a card file that detailed the long relationships he
had with national labor leaders. Each time he showed her a
card, he asked her, ``Does Peter DeFazio know about this
friendship?'' The staffer's boyfriend was the legislative
director for Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, who was considering
running against Senator Packwood in the next election.
The staffer asked the Senator why he was doing this, and
told him that she was loyal, that she was not going to go to
Rep. DeFazio and tell him things about Senator Packwood.
Senator Packwood then grabbed the staffer by the shoulders
with both hands, exclaimed ``God, you're great!'' and kissed
her fully on the lips. The staffer was stunned. She did not
want the Senator to go any further, but at the same time, she
did not want to anger him. She made an excuse that she had to
go to the bathroom, and ran down the hall to another office.
She called her boyfriend and asked him to pick her up right
away, left the building, and waited for him to arrive.
The staffer avoided the Senator for a month or so. She made
sure that she was always the first one to leave a meeting, and
that she left in a crowd. She did not tape any more music for
Senator Packwood. Senator Packwood no longer singled her out or
paid her special compliments in staff meetings.
In August 1991, the staffer was promoted to press secretary
for Senator Packwood's personal staff, with a salary increase.
Near the end of April 1992, the staffer learned from her
former roommate that a free-lance reporter was working on a
story about sexual harassment in the Senate. The staffer felt
that it was her duty as Senator Packwood's press secretary to
share that information with him. She did not have any intention
of telling the reporter about her incident with Senator
Packwood.
When the staffer told Senator Packwood about the reporter,
he seemed frightened, and perplexed or confused about whether
he had harassed anyone, and about what exactly constituted
sexual harassment. The staffer pointed out to Senator Packwood
that if she did not respect him so much, she could claim that
he had harassed her 18 months earlier. Elaine Franklin was
called in, and she quizzed the staffer about how she knew about
the story, and which friend had told her about the story. The
staffer refused to say who had told her about the story, but
gave Senator Packwood and Ms. Franklin the name and phone
number of the reporter.
After the staffer told Senator Packwood and Ms. Franklin
about the story that was being written, the staffer was left
out of campaign meetings and strategy sessions. She felt that
there was a lack of trust in her, either because of the story
or because she had married her boyfriend, who worked for Rep.
DeFazio. Eventually, she decided to leave the office. When she
did so, in July 1992, Senator Packwood and Elaine Franklin
provided excellent recommendations to her current employer.
After the staffer told Senator Packwood and Elaine Franklin
about the story, Ms. Franklin pressed her repeatedly for the
names of others whom she told about the incident between
herself and Senator Packwood. The staffer told Ms. Franklin
that she had told no one, although she had told her husband and
her roommate; she was afraid that Ms. Franklin would hound them
if she knew that the staffer had told them about the incident.
Before the staffer left for her new job, Ms. Franklin warned
her not to say anything about the incident to her new
employers, or to any women's groups. Ms. Franklin continued to
call the staffer through the fall, pressing her for information
about whom she had told about the incident, and accusing her of
lying when she denied telling anyone.

2. Corroborating witnesses

Committee counsel deposed or interviewed four witnesses,
including the staffer's husband and her roommate at the time of
the incident, who recall the staffer telling them that Senator
Packwood had kissed her in his office one evening after hours.
The staffer's husband and her roommate recall that she told
them about the incident almost immediately after it
happened.^{70 Her husband testified that the staffer was so
hysterical when he picked her up that evening that he thought
at first that she might have been raped.
\70\ The recollections of the staffer and her roommate are slightly
different regarding the timing of when she told her roommate about the
incident. The staffer recalls that she told her roommate about the
incident the next day. Her roommate recalls that the staffer came home
the evening of the incident, upset and crying, told her what had
happened, and that she then went to her boyfriend's apartment.
Nevertheless, the staffer's roommate remembers specific details of the
incident as described to her by the staffer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another witness stated that the staffer told her in the
summer of 1991 that Senator Packwood had tried to kiss her
several times, once in his office after hours.
In addition, nine members of Senator Packwood's staff,
including his chief of staff, have testified that the staffer
told them that Senator Packwood had ``crossed the line,'' or
made an inappropriate advance, or kissed her, before word began
spreading about the anticipated Washington Post article.
Several of these persons indicated that the staffer did not
seem to take the incident all that seriously. Elaine Franklin
testified that when she heard from another staffer about the
incident, she spoke with the staffer, and the staffer indicated
that she was not concerned about it.
Several members of Senator Packwood's staff have stated in
depositions or interviews that when the rumors first started
surfacing about the proposed story on Senator Packwood, there
was much speculation in the office about whether the staffer
would be one of the accusers, since she had told people about
an incident before the possibility of an article came up.

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood testified at his deposition that he
recalled the staffer very well. He claimed that the staff, both
from the Finance Committee and his personal office, almost to a
person intensely disliked and distrusted her, and advised him
that she was unreliable and should be excluded from
meetings.^{71 However, he could not remember the name of any
person who had so advised him. He described it as the
``collective wisdom'' of the office, and as the staffer's
``general reputation'' in the office.
\71\ Senator Packwood testified that Lindy Paull had told Elaine
Franklin that she would not come to any meetings with the staffer, but
he could not recall whether he learned this while the staffer worked
for him, or after she left.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor could Senator Packwood recall when he had first heard
complaints about the staffer, or even who had made the first
complaint. He described the complaints as rather serious: that
she lied, fantasized, and leaked information to the
Democrats.^{72 He did not know if any of these complaints
had ever been documented in writing, nor did he produce
anything to indicate that they had been. He himself did not
instruct anyone to do so. During an interview with Washington
Post reporters in October 1992 about the allegation, Elaine
Franklin had told the reporters that she would look for office
records that reflected the staffer's poor performance. Senator
Packwood did not know if there were any such records, or if Ms.
Franklin had found any, or even if they kept such records. He
stated that he did not know what Ms. Franklin was talking
about, but that as far as he knew, there were no such files.
\72\ The staffer's fiance, later her husband, worked for Rep.
DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon. Entries in Senator Packwood's diaries
indicate that he attempted to capitalize on this fact by feeding
misleading information to the staffer's husband, in the hopes that he
would pass it on to his boss, and by using the staffer as a ``mole'' in
the DeFazio camp. When he was shown these entries, however, Senator
Packwood could not remember if he took advantage of the staffer's
relationship with her boyfriend to pass misinformation on to Rep.
DeFazio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood disclaimed responsibility for making the
decision to bring the staffer from the Finance Committee staff
to his personal staff, although he did concede that he was
aware of the decision, and that he had the power to veto it. He
stated that even if he were aware of the problems she had on
the Finance Committee staff at the time, he would have approved
her move to the personal staff, because he would assume that
whoever made that decision knew about the problems too, and he
did not feel strongly enough to veto that decision.
Senator Packwood's records indicate that the staffer
received raises while on the Finance Committee, and that she
received a small raise while she worked on his personal staff.
Senator Packwood would not concede that he approved this raise,
or even knew about it, saying that it could have been done
without his knowledge, if someone just gave him a list of
proposed raises which he signed without reviewing.^{73
\73\ Senator Packwood stated that he did not know if his signature
was even necessary to activate a pay raise, and it was possible that
people got pay raises without his knowledge or approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood claimed that once she was on the personal
staff, the staffer caused problems with everyone who came in
contact with her. He stated that she was a topic of common
complaint--that she was indiscreet, that she fantasized, that
she lied, and that she was not to be trusted--but again, he
could not remember any specific staff members who told him of
these complaints.
Senator Packwood was referred to three entries in his diary
where he reviewed the performance of his staff, something he
did periodically throughout his diaries. Senator Packwood
stated that these reviews reflected his judgments about his
staff members at the time, although he was sometimes wrong in
those judgments.^{74 His staff reviews dated August 3 and
November 5, 1990, do not mention the staffer, although he did
not hesitate to make unfavorable comments about several other
staffers. His staff review dated March 16, 1992 indicates that
the Senator viewed the staffer as ``okay,'' but immature; he
testified that by ``immature,'' he meant that she was a
``torrent of indiscretion.'' ^{75 However, Senator Packwood
did not mince words when describing the performance of other
staffers in this entry.
\74\ Senator Packwood would not say whether he attempted to
accurately record his thoughts and impressions of his staffers--he said
that he was ``not going to get into that.'' Nor could he vouch for the
accuracy or inaccuracy of these entries at the time he recorded them;
he would not say whether he intended these entries to be accurate.
\75\ In a diary entry dated May 12, 1992, in which Senator Packwood
records a conversation with Elaine Franklin about the possible Vanity
Fair article, he records Ms. Franklin's comment that this was another
example of the staffer blowing things out of proportion; he also
records Pam Fulton's opinion that the staffer was indiscreet, because
she told Ms. Fulton that she felt that she had to stay around and drink
with the Senator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, there are a number of references to the staffer in
Senator Packwood's diary during the time she worked for the
Finance Committee and on his personal staff. There is no
indication that she was causing any problems, or that her
conduct was as described by Senator Packwood in his deposition.
In fact, various entries indicate that it was good to have the
staffer taking control of the press (May 10, 1991); that she
continued to be the bright light--bold, imaginative, forward,
and sassy (July 29, 1991); that the staffer made Senator
Packwood believe (July 31, 1991); and that now that he was not
thinking of running for President, Senator Packwood would bring
her down as his press secretary once the election was over
(July 31, 1991).^{76
\76\ An April 1, 1992 diary entry records that the staffer is a
liar, after Senator Packwood learned that she had some complaint about
him making sexual advances toward her. There is also an entry in the
Cormack transcript for February 5, 1993, in which Senator Packwood
recorded that the staffer was a ``habitual liar;'' however, this entry
does not appear in the original diary tape. Senator Packwood testified
that he added it in late July or early August 1993. Another diary entry
in Senator Packwood's diary that indicates that the staffer was a liar
appears in July of 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood testified that he liked the staffer, and
tried to ignore the complaints for a long time. They exchanged
friendly notes, and tapes of music they both enjoyed. The
staffer invited him to attend a Mel Torme concert, he assumed
as part of a group. He testified that he later heard from
another staffer (he did not recall who) that the staffer had
intended to go to the concert alone with him, but that the
other staffer had reprimanded her. Senator Packwood did attend
the concert, with a group that included the staffer's
boyfriend, a reporter for the Oregonian and her companion,
Senator Packwood's companion, and perhaps a fourth
couple.^{77
\77\ Julia Brim-Edwards, a Packwood staffer, in a statement she
prepared for the Post in the fall of 1992, claimed that the staffer did
not intend to ask anyone else to the Mel Torme concert, and that a week
or so before the concert, she told the staffer that she thought it was
inappropriate that she had asked the Senator to go to the concert. She
claimed that the staffer agreed, and tried to round up others to go;
although there was not a lot of interest, she finally was able to find
others to attend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood's diary, however, has an entry several
weeks before the concert reflecting that the reporter who
attended the concert had been in his office that day, and that
she was one of the persons who would be attending the Mel Torme
concert.
Senator Packwood stated that the staffer often hung around
his office after work until he invited her in for a glass of
wine; she had wine with him more frequently than any other
staffer.
Senator Packwood testified that he has had to piece
together the events of the evening at the Irish Times.^{78
He had a dim recollection that a number of the staff went to
the Irish Times one evening, where they drank heavily. He
recalled that he and the staffer did some heavy drinking;
another staffer who was present told him later that they shared
three large pitchers of beer; others who were present told him
that after this other staffer left, the Senator and the staffer
continued drinking. He testified that he talked with the
staffer about labor leaders, and which ones would be supportive
of him in the campaign; he may have intended for her to pass
the information on to the Democrats through her boyfriend.
\78\ Although Senator Packwood claimed that he had been drinking
heavily that evening, and that he did not recall returning to his
office with the staffer, his diary contains an entry noting that he had
taken the staff to dinner at the Irish Times, that he had ``pushed a
little hard'' on the staffer, wanting her to be ``a mole and a spy into
the DeFazio organization because of her relationship with the guy she
goes with,'' and noting that the staffer talked about Rep. DeFazio's
support from the unions. Senator Packwood would not say if this entry
was accurate, and stated that he could have totally made up the part of
the entry discussing the conversation about labor unions. However, this
account of their conversation is consistent with the staffer's
recollection of the evening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood recalled ``next to nothing'' about what
happened after he left the Irish Times. He has pieced together
that he and the staffer were going to go back to the office to
look at cards. Lindy Paull and her husband gave the staffer a
ride, and offered to wait for her; she declined. He did not
recall how he got back to the office. He stated that once at
the office, he and the staffer began going through his card
file, and he pointed out the names of some labor leaders. He
did not recall kissing the staffer that evening, and has no
idea what happened after he left the office.
Senator Packwood testified that about a year later, around
October 1991, he and the staffer invited a reporter to come by
for a glass of wine. The reporter left about 7:00 or 7:15, and
the staffer stayed, and they continued drinking. Later, the
Senator got up to change a tape or to go to the bathroom. When
he came back, the staffer wrapped her arms around his neck, and
gave him a big romantic kiss, telling him that he was
``wonderful,'' ``warts and all.'' ^{79
\79\ This incident is recounted in Senator Packwood's diary. He
also recounted it during the floor debate on enforcement of the
Committee's document subpoena. The staffer has indicated, through her
attorney, that this incident never occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February or March of 1992, Elaine Franklin told the
Senator that she had heard from others that the staffer claimed
that the Senator had kissed her after the Irish Times party.
Ms. Franklin claimed that she had sat the staffer down and
asked her about it; the staffer told her that it was nothing,
they were both drunk, that it was a harmless kiss, and that she
was flattered. Ms. Franklin also told him that the staffer
drank a lot and could not hold her liquor well.
Senator Packwood did not recall that the staffer had talked
to him about the incident at any time, or more specifically in
the spring of 1992, when she met with him and Elaine Franklin
to tell them about the Vanity Fair article.^{80 He assumed
that the staffer was trying to help them, but that he and Ms.
Franklin just did not trust the staffer, as far as what she
said her sources were for the rumors about the story.
\80\ There is an entry in Senator Packwood's diary for April 29,
1992, recording this meeting with the staffer and Ms. Franklin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The staffer left Senator Packwood's office in 1992. He
recalled a brief conversation with her current supervisor,
asking if the Senator would mind if they hired the staffer.
Senator Packwood told him that he would not mind. He testified
that he was happy to have her go.
Senator Packwood was shown a press release from his office,
noting that the the staffer's new employer was getting an
experienced press person in the staffer, and quoting Senator
Packwood:

[The staffer] has spent years working on issues
related to the [new employer]. She will serve them
well. This is really a golden opportunity for
her.^{81
\81\ This press release was provided to the Committee by the
staffer's attorney.

Senator Packwood testified that he could not recall when he
first saw this press release, or if anyone else in his office
saw it before it went out. He did not know if it was customary
for his office to issue a press release when a staffer took
another job, or whether this was the first time such a press
release had been issued.
Senator Packwood testified that the staffer was overtly
friendly to him, hung around and drank with him, flirted with
him, and sought his attention and approval. He thought that she
wanted to be close to him, to be his ``number one.'' But he
stated that it would be too strong a characterization to say
that she wanted a romantic or sexual relationship with him. He
never had the sense that she wanted to have an affair with him,
or to go to bed with him.
Senator Packwood recalled that the staffer wore short
skirts and low-cut blouses to work, but he never said anything
about it. He learned from Lindy Paull, after the Post
interview, that she had talked to the staffer about
inappropriate and unprofessional dress.
In response to the Committee's document requests, Senator
Packwood provided ``Ramspeck'' application forms that had been
filled out for the staffer, dated April 29, 1992, in connection
with her application to her new employer. One of these forms
was signed by Senator Packwood's office manager, Jackie Wilcox,
and one purported to be signed by Senator Packwood. The forms
indicated that the staffer's performance as an employee had
been ``extraordinarily effective and efficient.'' Senator
Packwood testified that the signature was not his. He could not
say who in his office had the authority to sign his name to
official documents, but only that his office had a sort of
``rule of reason'' approach to the subject. Senator Packwood's
attorneys later provided a statement to the Committee from Ms.
Wilcox, stating that the staffer had asked her to fill out the
form, and that when she learned that she needed the Senator's
signature, she had asked Ms. Wilcox to sign it.
In his appearance before the Committee, Senator Packwood
repeated his claim that there had been many problems with this
employee. He also emphasized that other witnesses had claimed
that this staffer acted in such a way to suggest that she
wanted a sexual relationship with him, and that on the evening
of the incident, she was all over him. He told the Committee
that it was understandable that he might have perceived that
she wanted him to kiss her, and that he was only human.

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that the incident as alleged by
the staff member did in fact occur. Counsel notes that the
staff member's account of the incident has been corroborated,
in whole or part, by numerous persons, including Elaine
Franklin, Senator Packwood's chief of staff and several staff
members. Senator Packwood himself has not denied that the
incident occurred; he has testified that he was too drunk to
remember the details of the evening.
Counsel notes that Senator Packwood has gone to great
lengths to portray this staff member as untrustworthy. This
claim, even if proven, has no relevance to a determination as
to whether the incident as alleged actually occurred. The fact
that this staff member may have lied on other occasions, or
that she may have been untrustworthy because her boyfriend
worked for one of Senator Packwood's opponents, sheds
absolutely no light on whether she fabricated the incident in
question. Moreover, the accounts of the numerous persons whom
she told about this incident, including Ms. Franklin, his chief
of staff, overwhelmingly confirm that it did in fact happen.
Even if Senator Packwood's claims that this staff member
was untrustworthy were relevant to a determination of whether
this incident in fact occurred, these claims are belied by the
lack of any contemporaneous documentation from Senator
Packwood's files indicating that this staff member was indeed
the terrible employee that he portrays. In fact, she moved from
the Finance Committee staff to his personal staff, and received
several salary raises. A glowing press release was issued on
her departure. And although Senator Packwood made it a practice
to critique his employees frequently in his diary, and did not
hesitate to make fairly scathing comments about them, there is
not one mention in his diaries while this staff member worked
for him that indicates she was a problem employee. To the
contrary, there are several complimentary references to her.
Senator Packwood himself has as much as admitted that this
incident took place: he told the Committee during his
appearance before it that several of his staff members have
said that this staff member acted in a way to suggest that she
was interested in a sexual relationship with him, that it was
understandable why he might conclude that she wanted him to
kiss her, and that he only acted in a human fashion. In short,
he has suggested that the staffer enticed him into an overture
that he perceived as welcome. In fact, however, at his
deposition, when asked whether he concluded from anything that
the staffer did that she wanted a romantic or sexual
relationship with him, Senator Packwood responded that although
she wanted a close relationship with him, and her nature was
``obviously flirtatious'' with him, ``romantic'' or ``sexual''
would be too strong a word, and he never had the sense that the
staffer was saying ``let's have an affair,'' or ``let's go to
bed together.'' In other words, this staff member never said or
did anything that led him to conclude that she was interested
in a romantic or sexual relationship with him.
Senator Packwood proffers the fact that this staff member
continued to work for him, that she continued to send him warm
notes, and that she kissed him about a year later. Of course,
these facts, even if true, do not prove that the incident did
not take place. They may indicate that the staff member did not
take the incident seriously, as some of Senator Packwood's
staff members have testified. Or they may indicate that the
staff member did not feel that she had the power to do anything
about the incident, and chose to maintain a good relationship
with the Senator for the sake of her job and her career.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct
in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that reflects an
abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of conduct that
constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.

B. Judy Foster-Filppi

1. Testimony of Ms. Foster-Filppi

In the early 1980's, Ms. Foster-Filppi was a Packwood
supporter who frequently hosted get-togethers for Senator
Packwood and his wife and supporters at her home. She was an
important contact for Senator Packwood's campaign in the Lane
County and Eugene area, and by 1985 was discussing with a
Packwood staffer the possibility of heading up the re-election
campaign in Lane County.
On a weekday in early 1985, perhaps March or April, when
she had known Senator Packwood for about four years, Ms.
Foster-Filppi went to Bend, Oregon, with Senator Packwood and
Elaine Franklin, for a campaign appearance at a supporter get-
together. Senator Packwood and Ms. Franklin picked Ms. Foster-
Filppi up at her home in a motor coach, and they travelled
about three hours to reach Bend. The motor coach was driven by
another staff member, and they were also accompanied by another
woman staff member. That evening, there was dinner and wine and
dancing for thirty or forty business supporters at the River
House, which is where the group spent the night.
After dinner, when the group had moved into another room
for dancing, Senator Packwood asked Ms. Foster-Filppi to dance.
While they were dancing, Senator Packwood pulled her close, put
his hands on her back, and rubbed her back, buttocks and sides.
At least twice, she pushed him away, and tried to distract him
with conversation. She specifically remembers discussing
briefly whether Senator Packwood was going to run for the
presidency. Each time, Senator Packwood pulled her back, and
again rubbed her back, buttocks, and sides. He nuzzled her neck
several times, and several times pushed his hips and pelvic
area into her body as he held his hand on her lower back. When
the dance ended, she moved away. She knew that he had been
drinking that evening, although she did not think that he was
drunk. She kept her distance after that, and left the gathering
a short time later to return to her room. The next morning, the
Senator and his staff dropped her off in Eugene, and traveled
on to Portland in the van.
Later in 1985, possibly in the summer, Ms. Foster-Filppi
attended a small dinner party in Eugene, Oregon, along with
Senator Packwood and Elaine Franklin. When the party was over,
at Ms. Franklin's request, Ms. Foster-Filppi drove her and the
Senator back to the New Oregon Motel, where they were staying.
Senator Packwood sat in the front passenger bucket seat, and
Ms. Franklin sat in the rear behind the campaign worker. When
Ms. Foster-Filppi pulled into the motel parking lot, Ms.
Franklin gave her a hug, said goodnight, and got out of the
van. Senator Packwood told Ms. Franklin that he was just going
to say goodnight to Ms. Foster-Filppi and he would be right in.
After Ms. Franklin left, Senator Packwood moved towards Ms.
Foster-Filppi with his hands out. Ms. Foster-Filppi assumed
that he was about to give her a hug, just as Ms. Franklin had
done, and she moved towards him with her arms out. He grabbed
her face with his hands, pulled her towards him, and kissed her
on the mouth, forcing his tongue into her mouth. She put her
arms on his shoulders and pushed him away, and said goodnight.
The Senator said goodnight and got out, and she drove away.
The next day, Ms. Foster-Filppi called Elaine Franklin and
told her what had happened. She told Ms. Franklin that she was
upset, that she felt deceived, and she was not sure if she
could trust the Senator anymore. She asked Ms. Franklin if this
was the kind of behavior that she could expect if she became
involved in the Senator's campaign. Ms. Franklin apologized and
told Ms. Foster-Filppi not to worry, that she could not imagine
what had gotten into Senator Packwood; she said that it would
never happen again, and that she would talk to the Senator.
Several days later, Senator Packwood called Ms. Foster-Filppi
at her home; she judged from the stern and forceful tone of his
voice that he was upset. He told her that he knew she was upset
with him, and that she had talked with Ms. Franklin about
something he had done. He told her that she should never talk
to someone else if she had a problem with his behavior, but
that she should talk with him and he would handle it. He told
her that there was no reason to talk to anybody else about his
behavior.
After this incident and the telephone call, Ms. Foster-
Filppi felt that she could no longer trust Senator Packwood.
She did not want to put herself in a position where she would
be physically close to him, and she questioned whether she
could even continue to support him for re-election. In October
or November of 1985, she told Elaine Franklin that she was too
busy to manage the campaign in Lane County. Ms. Franklin was
very upset, and told her that they had been counting on her.

2. Corroborating witnesses

Ms. Foster-Filppi testified that other than Ms. Franklin,
she did not tell anyone about the incidents with Senator
Packwood. Ms. Franklin confirmed that the campaign worker, who
was being considered to be co-chair of the Lane County
campaign, had told her, in 1985, that the Senator had hugged
her and kissed her, and that Ms. Foster-Filppi was
``surprised'' by his actions; she passed this information on to
the Senator.

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood met Ms. Foster-Filppi in 1981, when
Eugenia Hutton, another campaign worker, had her arrange a
coffee for the Senator at her house. From that time until 1986,
she and Ms. Hutton were his two principal contacts in Lane
County, and Ms. Foster-Filppi ended up taking over from Ms.
Hutton.
Senator Packwood claimed that he had checked his travel
records, and that he was not in Bend at all in 1985, when Ms.
Foster-Filppi claimed the incident occurred at the River House.
He stated that it would be unusual to go over the mountains and
back, from Eugene to Bend, over so short a time in the winter.
He had no recollection of ever driving from Eugene to Bend with
Ms. Foster-Filppi in the motor coach, nor did he recall ever
being at the River House with Ms. Foster-Filppi. He did not
recall the incident that Ms. Foster-Filppi described, whether
it occurred at the River House or elsewhere.
Senator Packwood did not recall a specific dinner party
that he attended with Ms. Foster-Filppi in Eugene in 1985, but
he did recall that Ms. Foster-Filppi drove him and Elaine
Franklin back from a function in Eugene, presumably to their
motel. He stated that Ms. Foster-Filppi got out of the van to
say good night to them, and gave Ms. Franklin a hug. She then
put her arms out toward him, and he gave her a warm kiss on the
lips; he did not recall if it was a french kiss. He did not
recall kissing Ms. Foster-Filppi at any time before that.
Sometime later, perhaps the next time they were in Eugene,
Elaine Franklin told him that she had had drinks with Ms.
Foster-Filppi, who had told her that Senator Packwood had
kissed her. Ms. Franklin told the Senator that he should not be
so enthusiastic with volunteers. Senator Packwood thought that
he had called Ms. Foster-Filppi and said something to the
effect of, ``for gosh sakes, Judy, if you've got any problems,
call me directly.'' He claimed that she continued to work
actively in his 1986 campaign, and through the election. They
had considered her in 1985 for the county chair position, but
she declined. Senator Packwood stated that at this point, the
county chair position was being phased out anyway.
Senator Packwood was questioned about an entry in his diary
for August 5, 1993: ^{82

\82\ According to Senator Packwood, he deleted this entry from his
diary tape, either before he left for recess in August 1993, or if the
tape was still in his machine when he left for recess, when he got back
in September.

* * * if they're not going to take hearsay, then
they've got to take only complaining witnesses. And if
they don't have Judy Foster, and whatever that woman's
name is, the intern--I mean, ex-intern, she wasn't an
intern--as complaining witnesses, then I think there is
nothing in this decade of any consequence to be afraid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of.

Senator Packwood testified that they had figured out that
Ms. Foster-Filppi was making a claim, based on the descriptions
in the media accounts. He testified that ``they'' in the entry
referred to the Ethics Committee, and that they believed that
if the Committee were to judge conduct that occurred a long
time ago differently than conduct that occurred in the last ten
years, the only allegation they knew of other than one other
staffer's (C-1) was the claim that Senator Packwood tried to
kiss Ms. Foster-Filppi. Senator Packwood would not say whether
he thought it would be more damaging if incidents occurred in
the past decade, as opposed to earlier.
In his appearance before the Committee, Senator Packwood
stated that he had searched his records, and that he had
concluded that the incident described by Ms. Foster-Filppi as
occurring after a dinner party in Eugene had actually happened
in 1981, and not in 1985, as she alleges. He claimed that in
reviewing her description of the dinner party, he had deduced
where it had taken place, and had talked to the persons he
concluded gave the dinner party, who confirmed that the dinner
party took place in 1981. Senator Packwood offered this
conclusion to bolster his claim that all of the incidents, save
the incident alleged to have occurred in 1990, had happened
more than ten years earlier.
However, Ms. Foster-Filppi specifically recalls that this
incident occurred when she had known Senator Packwood for about
four years, and close to the 1986 election, and that when she
declined the position of County Chair, Senator Packwood's
staffer was upset because they had counted on her. The timing
is corroborated by the testimony of Elaine Franklin, who
recalls that Ms. Foster-Filppi told her of the incident in
1985, at a time when they were considering her to be a co-
County chair.
Senator Packwood also claimed that Ms. Foster-Filppi had
maintained friendly relations with him, and that she had
returned a postcard indicating that she would be happy to allow
her name to be used on a list of persons who supported him for
reelection in 1992. Senator Packwood has not provided the
Committee with this postcard.

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that the incidents as alleged
by Ms. Foster-Filppi in fact occurred. The first incident
described by Ms. Foster-Filppi, which occurred during a
function in Bend, Oregon, has not been contested by Senator
Packwood, except to offer that his travel and other records did
not reflect that he went from Eugene to Bend and back in 1985.
Otherwise, he has testified that he does not recall the
incident.
Although his recollection of the details differs from that
of Ms. Foster-Filppi, Senator Packwood has admitted that he
kissed her after she drove him and Ms. Franklin to their hotel
after a dinner party in Eugene. He does not deny, but simply
does not recall, certain details of the incident, such as
whether he gave Ms. Foster-Filppi a french kiss. Ms. Foster-
Filppi's claim is corroborated, at least to the extent that
Senator Packwood kissed her, and with respect to the timing of
the incident, by the testimony of Elaine Franklin, to whom Ms.
Foster-Filppi complained after the incident.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct
in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that reflects an
abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of conduct that
constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.

C. Mary Heffernan

1. Testimony of Mary Heffernan

In 1981 and 1982, Mary Heffernan was employed by the
National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). As part of her
job, she communicated with Senator Packwood, who was a powerful
NARAL ally, on issues affecting reproductive choice. In
connection with her job, she spoke with Senator Packwood six to
twelve times a year, mostly by telephone. Senator Packwood
frequently wrote Ms. Heffernan notes that were supportive and
encouraging, and also sometimes very flattering, telling her
what a good job she was doing for the abortion rights movement.
He also wrote to her parents praising her work and abilities.
Because of the warm and personal nature of the notes, Ms.
Heffernan felt that Senator Packwood was singling her out for
special attention, possibly grooming her to work for him in the
future.
During that time period, Ms. Heffernan set up an
appointment with Senator Packwood's staff to meet him at his
office in Washington, D.C. to discuss issues relating to
abortion legislation. When she arrived at the office, Ms.
Heffernan was escorted into Senator Packwood's private office;
the Senator sat behind his desk, and she sat in front of the
desk. The door to the outer office was closed. They talked for
about thirty minutes about abortion legislation issues. Toward
the end of the meeting, when Ms. Heffernan got up from her
chair and started to move away, Senator Packwood came around
his desk, put his hands on her upper arms and squeezed them,
and leaned over and gave her a sensual, sexual kiss on the
mouth. She stepped back, got her coat, opened the door, and
quickly left the room.
After this incident, Ms. Heffernan was careful to avoid
being alone with the Senator. She did not complain to anyone
about the incident, out of concern that that might adversely
affect the abortion rights cause for which she was working so
hard. Her contacts with Senator Packwood were less frequent,
and the correspondence from Senator Packwood slowed.
Ms. Heffernan left NARAL in March of 1983. Two or three
times after that, she heard from Senator Packwood, who called
her to ask what she was doing. Although nothing specific was
ever said, her impression was that Senator Packwood might be
considering asking her to come work on his staff.

2. Corroborating witnesses

Ms. Heffernan testified that she told no one about this
incident. Her former husband contacted the Committee, and
stated that while he did not think that she would lie about the
actual incident that occurred, he would not believe her if she
claimed that the incident had a negative effect on her. He
indicated that in the fall of 1983, when she was living with
him, Senator Packwood had called her; after the call, she told
him that she thought the Senator was interested in hiring her.
Although she did not tell him so, her ex-husband had the
impression that she might be interested in taking the job. He
indicated that he and Ms. Heffernan had had an unpleasant
divorce.

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood recalled meeting Ms. Heffernan in 1977,
when she visited his office with a friend. She was very active
in his 1980 campaign, and he continued to see her in 1981 and
1982 when she was active in NARAL. In February 1984, he talked
with her on the phone about working for him. About a month
later, he and Elaine Franklin took Ms. Heffernan to lunch in
the Senate dining room, and Ms. Heffernan asked if there would
be a spot for her in the 1986 campaign.^{83 Later, she also
asked one of his friends the same thing; he talked with Senator
Packwood about it. Senator Packwood did not offer Ms. Heffernan
a job, because she wanted a job as a volunteer coordinator, and
he did not think that was the job for her: she was a good
worker, but not very good at producing volunteers.
\83\ Senator Packwood's diary for August 21, 1993, indicates that
in his review of previous diary entries, Senator Packwood found an
entry reflecting that Ms. Heffernan wanted a job with him, that he had
a telephone conversation with her in 1984, and that she had had lunch
with him and Elaine Franklin to discuss the possibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood did not recall the incident described by
Ms. Heffernan, or that he ever kissed her at any time.
In his appearance before the Committee, Senator Packwood
emphasized that Ms. Heffernan had maintained a warm, close
relationship with him after the incident, that she had sought a
job with him, and that she had in fact kissed him on a
subsequent occasion.^{84
\84\ The Committee received information from a woman who said that
she saw Ms. Heffernan throw her arms around the Senator and kiss him on
the mouth at a social function celebrating a legislative victory in
September 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that the incident as alleged by
Ms. Heffernan in fact occurred. Although there are no
corroborating witnesses, Senator Packwood has offered no
evidence to refute Ms. Heffernan's testimony about the
incident; he has testified only that he does not recall the
incident. Senator Packwood has proferred evidence that Ms.
Heffernan maintained a warm and close relationship with him
after the incident, and even sought a job with him, presumably
either to show that the incident did not occur, or that if it
did, Ms. Heffernan could not have been offended. However, even
if true, the fact that Ms. Heffernan maintained a close
relationship with the Senator, and sought a job with him, does
not prove that the incident did not happen. It could indicate
that Ms. Heffernan did not take offense at the incident, or it
could indicate that she recognized the need to maintain a good
relationship with a powerful person who was very important to
her career.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct
in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that reflects an
abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of conduct that
constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.

D. Paige Wagers

1. Testimony by Paige Wagers

Paige Wagers worked for Senator Packwood as a mail clerk
from the summer of 1975 until the summer of 1976. Sometime in
late 1975, she was sitting at her desk in the mail room when
her intercom buzzed. When she picked up her phone, Senator
Packwood asked her to come to his office. She was nervous,
because she had never been called into the Senator's office
before. Up to that point, she had seen Senator Packwood at
staff meetings, or in passing in the hall; it was not customary
for her to have contact with him. She walked towards the
Senator's office, and noticed that there was no one in the
reception area outside the Senator's office, where the
secretary and appointment secretary usually sat. Senator
Packwood was standing just inside the door of his office,
waiting for her. He told her to come in, and she went into his
office.
Senator Packwood immediately closed the door, and without
saying anything to Ms. Wagers, grabbed her and pinned her with
her back up against a wall or a small desk. He held her hair
with one hand, bending her head backwards. His other hand
stroked her hair and arm and chest. He pressed his face against
hers so hard that she could not move him away, and kissed her,
sticking his tongue in her mouth. Ms. Wagers tried to get her
hands up to push Senator Packwood away, and to keep his hand
away from her breasts. Senator Packwood's body was pressed so
closely against Ms. Wagers' that she could not move. When the
kiss was over, Ms. Wagers turned her head and started talking;
Senator Packwood tried to kiss her again, but she kept turning
her head from side to side. She told Senator Packwood that she
wanted their relationship to be professional, that she liked
him very much, and liked her job very much, but she did not
think this was the right thing to do. She told him that she
respected him, that he was married, and that it was not proper
for them to be in his office alone, or for him to be kissing
her. She told Senator Packwood that she did not want this kind
of a relationship with him, that it was not right for her, that
she respected him and really wanted to keep on working there.
Senator Packwood told her that he liked her hair, he thought
she was young and beautiful and innocent and wholesome, and he
liked her wholesomeness and everything about her. He told her
that he just wanted to touch her, and repeated many times that
she was so wholesome. He continued trying to kiss her, with one
hand holding her head back by her hair, and the other hand
touching her arm and chest. Finally he let her go; she told him
she had to go back to work, and left his office.
Ms. Wagers returned to her desk, shaking and crying. She
told friends about the incident, and was advised to say
nothing. This was her first job, and she had been advised that
she should stay in a job for at least a year before moving on
to another one. She waited until the summer of 1976, and left
Senator Packwood's office.
Ms. Wagers continued to see Senator Packwood occasionally,
when she attended staff reunions, or functions with Tim Lee, a
Packwood staff member whom she dated for a time after she left
Senator Packwood's office.
In the spring of 1981, Ms. Wagers was working as a special
assistant for legislative affairs at the Department of Labor.
One day, as she got off the elevator on her way down to the
basement of the Capitol, she ran into Senator Packwood, who was
coming up the escalator from the trolley that runs from the
Senate office buildings. There were many people around, and she
and Senator Packwood ended up by chance right next to each
other, between the escalators from the trolley and the
elevator. Senator Packwood said hello to her, very politely
touched her lightly on both arms and asked how she was, and
said that it was nice to see her. He engaged her in
conversation.
Although her initial reaction was to experience a jolt of
fear, Senator Packwood's conversation made her feel comfortable
and secure that nothing would happen. Indeed, nothing had
occurred on the few occasions she had seen him since the
previous incident which led her to think anything would happen
again. She also thought that she had made it very clear to
Senator Packwood how she felt, that he was not supposed to
touch her or try to kiss her. By his conversation during this
chance meeting, Senator Packwood made her feel that he was
interested in her as a person--he asked her about her job, told
her that he was proud of her for getting her job, and that if
he or his office could help her, she should let him know. As
they talked, and she told Senator Packwood about her job, he
told her that he had to walk down to his office for a minute;
he asked her to come with him and tell him what she was working
on. Senator Packwood ushered her down a hallway in the Capitol
basement that ran from the Senate side to the House side,
toward the barber shop.
As they walked, she talked about her job. She felt very
good about herself, that she finally had a job with
responsibility, and knew a Senator who was willing to help her
if she needed help. She felt that Senator Packwood was taking
her seriously, as a business person with legitimate business to
conduct. Senator Packwood then opened a door, ushered her into
a room, and immediately closed the door. The room was a small
cubbyhole with a desk, a couch, and some books, and possibly a
chair. Without warning, Senator Packwood grabbed her by putting
both hands in her hair, and he pressed his body and face
against her, pushing her up against the desk. He ran his hands
through her hair, and kissed her, sticking his tongue in her
mouth. Ms. Wagers struggled to pull back, and to push him away
with her hands. Again, she started talking, saying that she
thought she had made it clear that she did not appreciate this
type of attention, that she would like to think that he would
help her if she needed help in her job, that she liked and
respected him very much, but she did not want this kind of
relationship. She told him that she thought he understood that,
that she knew he was married, and she was now married, and this
was not what she wanted. Senator Packwood again told her that
he loved her wholesomeness and her hair, that he thought she
was young and innocent, that he liked her very much, and was
very attracted to her. He told her that he could really help
her with her job, he liked her so much, and he did not want her
to go. He continued to try to kiss her, but she kept turning
her head and pushing him away. She was anxious to make it clear
that she did not want to do anything, but at the same time, she
did not want to offend Senator Packwood. When Senator Packwood
reached toward a pillow on the couch behind her, she was able
to get away; she stepped around him and left the office.
This second incident had a devastating effect on her. As
she had walked down the Capitol hallway with Senator Packwood,
she had felt very good, as if she had finally made something of
herself, and shed the blond stereotype. She had gotten a
serious job, her first job with responsibility. She was pleased
that she had a formal relationship with a Senator, that if she
needed help, he would help her, and that she could be taken
seriously. When Senator Packwood grabbed her, all of her
confidence in herself died. She felt betrayed. She felt that
she had not done anything to encourage Senator Packwood, and
yet he still touched her without her consent. She did not feel
that she would be able to work effectively after that with
members of Congress, or that she could be anywhere where she
would see Senator Packwood. She eventually resigned from the
Department of Labor. She believes that this second assault was
a contributing factor to her decision to resign, that part of
the reason she stopped working was because she was afraid to be
around men, and she was specifically afraid of Senator
Packwood. Since then, she has not had any kind of business
career; she has done menial work for a few months for an agency
that was going out of business, and she has taught dance, which
is what she does now.
She believes that she has been hurt in every possible way
by the incidents with Senator Packwood--that emotionally,
financially, and intellectually she has remained frozen in
time. She is now divorced, and needs to go back to work, but
since she has not worked since the early 1980's, she does not
have the background or credentials she needs to get a good job.
Her only experience has been on Capitol Hill, and she cannot
get a job there now because of her fear, her lack of working
experience, and the media coverage of the incidents.

2. Corroborating witnesses

The staff has interviewed two persons who recall that Ms.
Wagers told them, in the 1970's, that Senator Packwood called
her into his office, where he grabbed her and kissed her, and
stuck his tongue in her mouth. One of these witnesses was a co-
worker with Ms. Wagers, in whom she confided almost immediately
after the incident. He stated that Ms. Wagers asked him to take
a walk, and she related the incident. She was shocked,
disgusted, and very upset.
Four other former coworkers recalled that Ms. Wagers had
told them about the incident in varying degrees of vague
detail: one recalls that Ms. Wagers said she had had a
``contact'' with Senator Packwood, which the witness had the
impression was a kiss; one recalls that Ms. Wagers said Senator
Packwood had made an unwanted advance; one recalls that Ms.
Wagers said that Senator Packwood had ``hit on her'', which he
interpreted as a verbal come-on; one recalls that Ms. Wagers
vaguely indicated that ``something happened'' with Senator
Packwood. One additional former coworker recalled hearing from
others that Senator Packwood had made a pass at Ms. Wagers,
although she had not heard about any aspect of forcefulness.
An additional witness, who worked with Ms. Wagers at the
Council on Wage and Price Stability, has a vivid recollection
of attending a ``welcome home'' ceremony for the Iran hostages
on the South Lawn of the White House.^{85 The whole Council
had been invited, and he walked over to the ceremony with Ms.
Wagers. When they arrived, he saw Senator Packwood, and pointed
him out to Ms. Wagers. According to him, Ms. Wagers had a
visible, physical, negative reaction; he believes that she
recoiled, and changed the direction that she was walking. She
indicated to him that she did not want Senator Packwood to see
her. When he inquired what had happened, she told him that she
used to work for Senator Packwood, and that he had attacked
her. He does not recall that Ms. Wagers gave him any more
specific details of the incident. A year or so later, Ms.
Wagers told this same witness that she had run into Senator
Packwood in the Capitol, and that he had pushed her into a room
in the ``catacombs'' where he pushed her on a couch and tried
to have his way with her.
\85\ This would have occurred in January 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The staff has also interviewed another friend of Ms.
Wagers, whom she met in 1988 or 1989. During the course of
talking about their job histories and career experiences, she
told him that she had worked for Senator Packwood and that he
had called her into her office and tried to kiss her on the
neck; she tried to resist, and made it clear that she was not
interested. Ms. Wagers also told him that a few years later,
she ran into Senator Packwood in the basement of the Capitol
building; that they engaged in conversation, and Ms. Wagers was
pleased that he took an interest in her. He then led her into
an unmarked office, closed the door, tried to push her against
furniture or a wall, and tried to fondle her. Ms. Wagers told
him that she had been extremely upset by the incident.
The staff also took the deposition of another former
staffer, a friend of Ms. Wagers, who testified that in 1975 or
1976, Ms. Wagers told him that Senator Packwood had called her
into his office late in the work day, and had embraced and
kissed her. She seemed upset and distressed about the incident.
Later, in 1980 or 1981, Ms. Wagers, who was working for the
Labor Department at the time, told him that she had seen
Senator Packwood on the Hill, and that they had been walking
down a hallway when he ushered her into a room off the hall
^{86, and embraced her and kissed her. She appeared upset
and distressed about this incident.
\86\ He recalled that she told him the room contained a couch and
perhaps a mini-bar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Tim Lee, a former staffer, testified that she
told him when they were dating that Senator Packwood had kissed
her. Another former staffer testified that she had also told
him, when he worked for Senator Packwood, that Senator Packwood
had called her into his office and kissed her, and that she had
left in tears.

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood recalled that Ms. Wagers worked in his
office in the mid-1970's. He remembered her as young, blond,
and personable; he did not recall her duties in the office. He
did not recall ever being alone with her when she worked for
him. He did not recall the first incident as described by Ms.
Wagers, nor did he recall ever kissing her while she worked for
him.
Senator Packwood did not recall the incident that Ms.
Wagers claims occurred in 1981 in the basement of the Capitol.
He stated that he did have a Capitol office, that he did not
recall where it was, but it was not in the basement. He
recalled that she came back to an office party after she left
his office, with Mr. Lee, a staffer whom she was dating at the
time. He recalled that she was friends with people in the
office, and that she dated another staffer when she worked in
the office.
Senator Packwood testified that Mimi Dawson, his former
administrative assistant, told him that Ms. Wagers had come to
her and told her that she thought Senator Packwood wanted to
have an affair with her, and that she was considering whether
she should do so. In fact, Ms. Dawson testified that Ms. Wagers
had approached her and told her that she thought the Senator
wanted to have an affair with her, and that she got the
impression that Ms. Wagers was asking her whether she thought
she should have the affair. She testified:

A: I got the impression she was asking me whether I
thought she should have the affair or not.
Q: And what was there that gave you that impression?
A: Just I didn't get a sense that she was complaining
about, but trying to work through something, what
should she do. I kind of had the feeling that it was
more like this big, important person wants to have an
affair with her. Will I offend him if I don't have this
affair with him, or do I want to have this affair with
him. I don't think she knew. And I got the impression
she was asking me for my counsel.^{87
\87\ Ms. Dawson also testified that, aside from that conversation,
Ms. Wagers never said or did anything that suggested to her that she
was interested in having an affair with the Senator.

Senator Packwood's diary for December 14, 1992, contains
the following entry, recounting his conversation with Ms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawson:

Then there was the Paige Wagers incident. It happened
in '76. Mimi was press secretary.^{88 Alan was AA.
Paige, and Mimi sort of remembers this pretty
specifically, Paige came to Mimi and said something
like ``I think the Senator wants to have an affair with
me and what do you think I should do about it.'' Mimi
got the very definite impression that Paige wanted to
have the affair with me. Mimi says she remembers
telling Paige, ``Well, you're both consenting adults.
Do what you want but I would suggest you go off and get
married.''
\88\ The press secretary and the administrative assistant are the
same person.

Senator Packwood did not recall that Ms. Wagers ever said
or did anything to suggest to him that she was interested in
any type of romantic or sexual relationship with him.

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that the incidents as alleged
by Ms. Wagers in fact occurred. Her account of both incidents
has been corroborated by numerous witnesses who recall that she
told them about one or both incidents, in varying amounts of
detail, shortly after they occurred. Senator Packwood has not
denied the incidents, but has stated that he simply does not
have any recollection of them.
Senator Packwood has attempted to suggest that Ms. Wagers,
after the first incident, was entertaining the possibility of
an affair with him, based upon her conversation with Ms.
Dawson, possibly indicating that his advances, if they
occurred, were not unwelcome. Counsel, however, views this
conversation as an attempt by a very junior staff member to
discreetly and circumspectly seek the advice of a woman
supervisor. Senator Packwood himself has testified that Ms.
Wagers never said or did anything that led him to conclude that
she was interested in a sexual relationship with him.
Moreover, the tone of Ms. Wagers's comments when she
related these incidents to others clearly indicated that she
was upset by them, not that she was considering whether to have
an affair with the Senator.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct
in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that reflects an
abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of conduct that
constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.

E. Eugenia Hutton

1. Testimony of Eugenia Hutton

In November of 1979, Eugenia Hutton responded to a fund-
raising letter written by Gloria Steinem by contributing money
to Senator Packwood's campaign. A few weeks later, Brad Stocks,
a Packwood staff member contacted her and asked if she would be
willing to be involved in the campaign, clipping newspapers or
something of that nature. Ms. Hutton indicated that she would
be interested, and Mr. Stocks met with her for coffee when he
came to Eugene. Later, Mr. Stocks called her and asked if she
would be interested in being the chairperson for Lane County.
Ms. Hutton responded that she had no experience in that sort of
thing, but Mr. Stocks indicated that they could teach her what
she needed to know. She told Mr. Stocks that she was interested
in the opportunity. Senator Packwood then called her on the
telephone to congratulate her for being on his campaign, to
tell her that he knew she could handle the job and would do a
great job, and that they could teach her everything she needed
to know.
Subsequently, Ms. Hutton hosted coffees and volunteer
functions at her house, which were attended by Senator Packwood
as well as his wife, Georgie. As the campaign intensified, Ms.
Hutton travelled to volunteer functions and appearances with
the Senator.
In about March, 1980, Ms. Hutton went to the restaurant at
the Red Lion Inn on Coburg Road in Eugene, Oregon, to meet with
Senator Packwood and Mimi Dawson, his chief of staff. Senator
Packwood was going to Coos Bay the next day, and wanted to
prepare for that, and he also wanted Ms. Hutton to meet his
chief of staff. Ms. Hutton arrived at the restaurant in the
early evening, about 5:30 or 6:00, and sat in a booth with
Senator Packwood and two staff members, Mr. Stocks and Bob
Witeck. Ms. Dawson arrived and sat down at the booth, where she
was introduced to Ms. Hutton. They chatted for a while, and Ms.
Dawson left.
After a while, Senator Packwood asked the other staff
members at the table to leave. There was teasing from the staff
members, who told Senator Packwood that they were going to stay
and hang around with him. Ms. Hutton had the impression that
the staff members were staying at the table on purpose. Senator
Packwood became more firm in his suggestions that the staff
members leave. Finally, Senator Packwood made it clear that he
wanted himself and Ms. Hutton to be left alone, and everyone
left. Ms. Hutton recalls that the Senator may have been
drinking, although she does not recall that he had any
difficulty in walking. She does not remember if she had
anything to drink, although she could have.
As they sat in the booth, the Senator asked her questions
about herself. Ms. Hutton, assuming that Senator Packwood
wanted to get to know her, as his Lane County chairperson,
talked about herself, and showed him photographs of her
children and cats; when she showed him the pictures, he moved
closer to her in the booth, shoulder to shoulder. Ms. Hutton
felt a little uncomfortable, but assumed that he had moved over
to look at the pictures. She felt special, because she thought
that the Senator was truly interested in getting to know her,
as his Lane County chairperson, without everyone else around.
After about twenty minutes to half an hour, it was time to
leave, and Senator Packwood offered to walk Ms. Hutton to her
car. When they got to her car, Ms. Hutton unlocked it. Senator
Packwood pulled her toward him, put his arms around her back
and kissed her, putting his tongue in her mouth. Ms. Hutton
pushed away from him, and acted as if she were trying to
protect him: she told him that it was too dangerous to do that
in public, that the press could be anywhere. She told him to
get in her car, and she would drive him to his room, which was
at the Red Lion Inn. Senator Packwood got in the car.
As Ms. Hutton drove the Senator to his room, which was
across the parking lot and around the corner, he asked her to
come to his room with him. She remembers that he said things to
the effect of, ``Come into the room with me; do you have to go
home so soon; couldn't you come on in; couldn't you just sit
and be with me for a while; it won't hurt anything.'' She told
Senator Packwood that it would look very bad if someone were to
see them, that they had a busy day ahead, and that he had been
drinking. Senator Packwood tried a few more times to convince
her to come in. He told her that it was okay, it would be fine.
She told him that she thought he was a wonderful man, but that
it was wrong for her to come into his room. Finally, he nodded,
said okay, and got out of her car, and she drove away.
Ms. Hutton started to cry as she reached the street. She
felt humiliated, confused, and angry. She was angry at Senator
Packwood for being offensive and inappropriate, and angry at
herself for trying to save his feelings at the expense of her
own.
Ms. Hutton saw Senator Packwood the next day, when she went
to the campaign trailer in the parking lot. Although no words
were spoken about the night before, she and the Senator
exchanged a long look when she walked in.
Ms. Hutton continued to work as the Lane County campaign
chairperson, and Senator Packwood was friendly and respectful
towards her; the incident was never mentioned. Ms. Hutton
describes their relationship as being a little more
businesslike after that incident.
Ms. Hutton continued to work for Senator Packwood's
campaign through November of 1980. In 1981, Ms. Hutton asked
Senator Packwood to write a letter of recommendation for her,
which he did. When Ms. Hutton was starting a business that did
artwork on T-shirts, she sent Senator Packwood a T-shirt, and
he wrote her a thank you note.

2. Corroborating witnesses

The staff interviewed Ms. Hutton's sister and a close
personal friend who related that Ms. Hutton told them about the
incident in 1980 and 1989, respectively.

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood recalled that Ms. Hutton was his Lane
County Campaign Chair in 1980, and one of his two principal
campaign workers for the next six years. She had made a
contribution to his campaign in response to a direct mail
piece, and someone on his staff interviewed her to see if she
would be interested in working on his campaign. She attended a
campaign volunteer kickoff, a two-day seminar, in January, 1980
in Portland, where Senator Packwood first met her.
Senator Packwood also recalled a meeting that took place at
the Roadway hotel in Eugene, Oregon in March, 1980.^{89 Ms.
Hutton, a staffer, his administrative assistant, possibly
another staffer, and himself, had drinks and dinner. He did not
recall what the group discussed during the several hours they
were there, or that Ms. Hutton showed him any photographs. He
did not recall how the group broke up. He did recall that
afterwards, he walked Ms. Hutton to her car and kissed her. He
did not recall what time that was, whether he was drunk at the
time, how it was that he came to walk her to her car, or what
everyone else did when he left.
\89\ Both this evening, and the events of a following day, appear
to be recounted in Senator Packwood's diary, in entries for February 11
and February 13, 1980. They do not include Senator Packwood walking Ms.
Hutton to her car. Senator Packwood stated that these entries were
reasonably accurate, as far as they concerned Ms. Hutton, but he could
not swear to the accuracy of everything in the entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He did recall that when they got to Ms. Hutton's car, she
got her keys out, turned around, and he kissed her goodnight.
He did not recall if it was a french kiss, or whether he put
his arms around her. Although he did not recall what Ms. Hutton
did, he stated that she was ``not unreceptive,'' meaning that
she did not push him away and tell him to quit; she did not
kiss him back. He recalled that she got in her car and left,
and he walked back to his room.
Senator Packwood stated that the next day was very full.
Ms. Hutton was very excited and enthusiastic, and had the crew
to lunch at her house. About 4:00 or 5:00 that afternoon, when
it was time to go on to the next town, they dropped Ms. Hutton
off in a parking lot, or somewhere where she had her car. As
Ms. Hutton got out of the van, and they all said goodbye, she
kissed the Senator on the lips as he stood in the van by the
door. It was not a french kiss, or a passionate kiss, or the
kind of a kiss you would have if you were dating someone, but
not a peck on the cheek kiss either.^{90
\90\ Senator Packwood stated that he had talked to two staffers who
were in the van at the time, and that one of them, Terry Kay,
remembered Ms. Hutton kissing him, while the other did not. Mr. Kay
confirmed that he had seen Ms. Hutton kiss the Senator on this
occasion. Senator Packwood's diary reflects that on the afternoon that
Ms. Hutton was dropped off, she ``gave each of us a kiss.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Hutton was very active in Senator Packwood's 1980
campaign. He related a specific instance where Ms. Hutton met
the traveling crew one evening in Eugene, and they had wine and
pizza, and played charades until about 11:00 p.m. He recalled
that in 1983 or 1984, Ms. Hutton sent him a T-shirt from her
new business; she wanted Elaine Franklin to loan or invest some
money in the business. They kept up a close relationship for
six years, and she was active in his 1986 campaign. Senator
Packwood could not recall any other instances where he kissed
Ms. Hutton, or she kissed him; he could not recall anything Ms.
Hutton ever said or did to lead him to believe that she was
interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with
him.^{91
\91\ Senator Packwood's attorneys have provided statements from two
men who knew Ms. Hutton in the late 1970's and early 1980's. One of
these men, John Morrison, who told Staff Counsel that he himself was
interested in Ms. Hutton, said he had observed in social situations
that Ms. Hutton was ``coming on'' to the Senator. The other man, Dr.
Pat Golden, claimed that Ms. Hutton gave him the impression that she
was a good friend of Senator Packwood, that she was close to him and
enjoyed campaigning for him, and that she was fond of him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood was asked about his statements to the
media in January, 1992, where he reportedly acknowledged that
he had french kissed Ms. Hutton, and propositioned her or asked
her to go to bed. He stated that he had not said that, that he
had only said that he would not challenge her word. He stated
that he wanted the press to accept her claims as true for the
sake of argument, but to also consider Ms. Hutton's conduct
toward him after the alleged incident.
Senator Packwood was asked about his reported comments to
the Albany Rotary Club, that Ms. Hutton had kissed him many
times after the alleged incident. He stated that he only
recalled Ms. Hutton kissing him one time, and that he may have
overstated this to the Rotary Club.

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that the incident as alleged by
Ms. Hutton in fact occurred. Ms. Hutton's account has been
corroborated by two persons to whom she related the incident,
albeit several years later. Senator Packwood has also admitted
the incident, although his recollection of some details differs
from that of Ms. Hutton, and he cannot recall some details, for
example, whether he gave her a french kiss.
Senator Packwood has emphasized to the Committee that Ms.
Hutton continued to work for his campaign, and kept up a warm
and close relationship with him for many years after the
incident. He also claimed that after the incident, as Ms.
Hutton prepared to part company with the group, she gave him a
kiss. His diary entry for that day also reflects that she
hugged and kissed each of the group. As Senator Packwood
appears to admit that the incident took place, it appears that
he intends to suggest by this information that Ms. Hutton could
not have been offended by his behavior. Again, the fact that
Ms. Hutton continued to work on Senator Packwood's campaigns,
and that she kept up a relationship with him, a fact confirmed
by Ms. Hutton herself, does not necessarily indicate that Ms.
Hutton was not offended by Senator Packwood's conduct. It just
as easily may reflect Ms. Hutton's inability to do anything
about the incident, and her recognition of Senator Packwood's
position as a United States Senator.
Senator Packwood has also profferred a statement from one
John Morrison, indicating that Ms. Hutton acted in such a
fashion as to suggest that she was interested in a sexual
relationship with the Senator. However, Senator Packwood
himself has testified that Ms. Hutton never did or said
anything to suggest that she was interested in a sexual
relationship with him. Moreover, such information, even if
true, does not establish that the incident did not occur,
although it would tend to indicate that she was not offended by
his earlier conduct.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct
in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that reflects an
abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of conduct that
constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.

F. Gillian Butler

1. Testimony of Gillian Butler

In January, 1979, Gillian Butler began working as a desk
clerk at the Red Lion Inn at 310 Southwest Lincoln Street,
Portland, Oregon. She worked there, either full-time or part-
time, until May of 1983. During those years, Senator Packwood
stayed at the Red Lion Inn for several days every few months,
with more frequent visits in 1980 during his re-election
campaign.
In early 1980, Ms. Butler wrote letters to various Congress
persons to protest the reinstatement of the registration for
the draft. She received a response from Senator Packwood's
office, addressed to ``Mr. Butler.'' Not long afterwards, on a
Saturday in February, Ms. Butler was working at the front desk
when she noticed that Senator Packwood was checking out. She
commented to him to the effect that the next time his office
sent her a letter, it should not be addressed to Mr. Butler.
When Senator Packwood asked what she meant, she explained about
the response to her letter. They discussed the draft for about
ten minutes, and Senator Packwood left for the airport. Senator
Packwood called her from the airport and told her to write
another letter, and he gave her the name of a person to whom
the letter should be addressed so that it would get to him
personally. He told her that they would talk about it the next
time he visited Portland.
Ms. Butler wrote a second letter to Senator Packwood
regarding her concerns about the draft, and left a copy for him
at the Red Lion Inn in case he came to Portland before he got
the letter in the mail in Washington. She put her home
telephone number in the letter.
About the end of February, 1980, Senator Packwood called
Ms. Butler at home about 7:30 a.m. He told her that he was
flying into Portland that night, and he asked her to meet him
at 10:00 that evening at the Red Lion Inn, so that they could
go to a bar called the Prima Donna across the street, to talk
about her letter. Ms. Butler agreed, although she felt a bit
uncomfortable about going to a bar with the Senator that late
at night. She arranged for her boyfriend to show up at the bar
about 11:00 so that she would have a ride home.
That evening, Ms. Butler met Senator Packwood as planned,
and they went to the Prima Donna. Ms. Butler and Senator
Packwood sat and talked about some of the issues set out in her
letter, mostly about international affairs and international
aggression. She recalls that the Senator asked her to dance,
and although she thinks that she refused, she may have danced
briefly with him. About 11:00, Ms. Butler's boyfriend showed
up, and the three of them talked for another 45 minutes. Ms.
Butler's boyfriend and Senator Packwood got into a heated
political discussion about international aggression. Senator
Packwood then got up and left.
Sometime later in 1980, Senator Packwood came in one day,
she believes on a Sunday, when Ms. Butler was working at the
Red Lion Inn. The Senator asked Ms. Butler to join him in the
hotel lounge after she got off work. She told him that she had
plans to meet her boyfriend, but the Senator told her that her
boyfriend was also invited. When Ms. Butler got off work at
11:00, she and her boyfriend went to the lounge, where they saw
Senator Packwood sitting at a table with a woman; both of them
appeared to be drunk. Ms. Butler and her boyfriend stood by the
table and talked to the couple for about five minutes, and then
left.
Later in 1980 or early in 1981, Ms. Butler was working at
the Red Lion Inn one morning when Senator Packwood came to the
front desk. She was leaning over some paperwork, checking
Senator Packwood out of the hotel. She looked up, and Senator
Packwood suddenly leaned across the desk and kissed her on the
mouth. She was surprised, uncomfortable, and embarrassed, and
backed away.
Later in 1980 or early in 1981, Senator Packwood came to
the front desk one morning at the Red Lion Inn when Ms. Butler
was working. He was leaving and wanted his luggage, which was
stored in the closet behind the desk. Ms. Butler told him that
she would get his luggage, and turned around and went to the
closet. Senator Packwood walked around the desk and into the
closet behind her. When she turned around, he leaned over and
kissed her, got his luggage, and left.
After these incidents, Ms. Butler was careful not to be
alone behind the desk when the Senator was there; she made sure
that there was another clerk behind the desk when she knew the
Senator was coming down.

2. Corroborating witnesses

The staff interviewed four persons--Ms. Butler's parents,
her sister, and her boyfriend at the time--who confirm that Ms.
Butler told them about the incidents, in varying degrees of
detail, shortly after they occurred. Her boyfriend at the time
recalls accompanying Ms. Butler to the hotel bar to meet
Senator Packwood, where they found him in a booth, intoxicated,
with a woman. They stayed for a few minutes to talk, and left.
Another friend of Ms. Butler's, who ran as a Socialist
Workers Party write-in candidate against Senator Packwood in
1980, stated that, shortly after the incidents happened, Ms.
Butler told him about two occasions when Senator Packwood
kissed her while she was working at the Red Lion Inn. She also
told him that Senator Packwood had asked her out for drinks
several times. On one occasion, Ms. Butler called him to tell
him that she was going to meet Senator Packwood at a bar, and
that unbeknownst to Senator Packwood, she was bringing her
boyfriend along; he learned from Ms. Butler later that they had
talked about military spending and policy.

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood recalled Ms. Butler as a desk clerk at the
Red Lion Inn, where he stayed in Portland. They chatted when he
checked in and out; she was anti-war, anti-draft, and anti-
military. He recalled discussing a letter with her, in which
she said that he should feel free to call her at home, which he
did. He suggested that Ms. Butler meet with him to talk about
the letter. He recalled that he met with her only once, at the
bar in the motel. The Senator was with someone, and Ms. Butler
came with her boyfriend. They chatted awhile; he believed that
Ms. Butler and her boyfriend remained standing.
Senator Packwood did not recall any other meetings or
contacts with Ms. Butler. He stated that it would have been
difficult for him to lean over the counter and kiss her,
because the counter is about four feet high and three feet
wide.

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that the incidents as alleged
by Ms. Butler in fact occurred. Senator Packwood recalled Ms.
Butler, but he did not recall the incidents themselves. Senator
Packwood has offered no evidence, other than his claim that it
would be difficult to lean over the counter as described by Ms.
Butler, to refute these allegations, nor has the Committee
uncovered any such evidence. The claims are corroborated by the
persons to whom Ms. Butler spoke at the time of or shortly
after the incidents, and who, in the case of her then-
boyfriend, participated in some of the events leading up to the
incidents.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct
in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that reflects an
abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of conduct that
constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.

G. Packwood Staff Member ^{92

\92\ This staff member is designated ``C-7'' in the Committee's
Exhibits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Testimony of staff member

This individual worked on Senator Packwood's personal staff
from September of 1978 through August of 1979, when she
returned to school. She then worked for the Senate Commerce
Committee, where Senator Packwood was the ranking minority
member, from June, 1980 through August, 1980.
One day in May of 1979, when the staffer was in Senator
Packwood's office with a number of other staffers, he leaned
over and told her in effect that he would like to see her
playing softball in the dress she was wearing, bending over, or
moving in certain positions, so that he could see her figure.
He made comments about how the dress fit her, and how she would
look playing softball or pitching if she were wearing the
dress, and said that he would like to be there to watch her
move.
Sometime later, when the staffer was on the Committee
staff, one evening six or seven of the staff, and Senator
Packwood, went to a restaurant for pizza and beer. While they
all sat around a table, Senator Packwood put his arm around the
staffer, drew her very close, and told her he knew that he
could persuade her to be a Republican. He kept his arm around
her most of the evening.
These instances with the Senator made the staffer very
uncomfortable about being in a position where something similar
might happen again. She wanted to avoid Senator Packwood, but
at the same time, she wanted to have her work recognized by
him.
One evening in the early summer of 1980, the staffer was
working in the Senator's office, and she realized she would be
the last staff member working in the office.^{93 She was
apprehensive about what might happen, given the other instances
that had occurred, and she wanted an excuse to leave the
office. About 7:00 or 7:30, she called a friend and asked him
to drive over and come upstairs to the offices to get her.
After making the phone call, the staffer walked back into the
Senator's office. He came around his desk, and either rubbed
her back or put his arm around her. He then grabbed her
shoulders, and tried to push her down on the couch. He kissed
her on the lips. She tried to get up, and he pushed her down
again; this happened three times, maybe more. She tried to push
him away, and told him to leave her alone, not to touch her,
and that she had a friend coming to pick her up.
\93\ The staff member does not recall why she was working in
Senator Packwood's office at the time. She may have been going over
Committee work with the Senator, or talking about the recent eruption
at Mount St. Helen's. She stated that it was not too uncommon for
Committee staffers to be working in Senator Packwood's personal office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the staffer struggled with Senator Packwood, her friend
arrived at the office and began calling her name. The staffer
was able to get away from the Senator, and locate her friend,
whom she introduced to the Senator as her boyfriend.^{94 The
staffer and her friend then left the office. The staffer was
upset and crying, and spent some time walking around the
Capitol with her friend, whom she told what had happened before
he took her home.
\94\ The staff member had the idea that she might be safe from
Senator Packwood if he thought she had a boyfriend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After that, the staffer avoided the Senator ``like the
plague.'' She left the office at the end of August.

2. Corroborating witnesses

In his deposition, the friend whom the staffer called the
evening of the incident in Senator Packwood's office confirms
that she called him to pick her up from work one evening, that
she was upset and crying, and that she told him that Senator
Packwood had been making advances or passes at her, and that it
was not the first time it had happened.^{95
\95\ There appears to be some confusion about the time period of
the incident: the staff member remembers that it happened in the early
summer of 1980; her friend seems to recall that it happened during the
college Christmas break in late 1980 or early 1981. Nevertheless, her
friend clearly recalls the incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood did not recall the staffer, or the
incidents that she alleges occurred.

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that the incident as alleged by
the staff member in fact occurred. Senator Packwood has
testified that he does not recall the incident. The staff
member's allegations have been corroborated by the friend whom
she called to pick her up on the evening that the incident
occurred. Senator Packwood has offered no evidence, nor has the
Committee found any, that would tend to refute the allegation
by the staff member.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct
in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that reflects an
abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of conduct that
constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.

H. Senate Staff Member ^{96

\96\ This person is designated ``C-8'' in the Committee Exhibits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Testimony of staff member

In 1979, this individual worked for another Senator, in an
office on the first floor of the Dirksen Building, Room 1200.
The office was only one room, in which six to seven persons
worked. A corner of the room, in the front to the right of the
door, was partitioned by a cubicle; the staff member sat at a
desk in this cubicle. The office was located around the corner
from the Senate elevators, and at the corner of the building,
near an outside entrance. It was an interior office with no
windows, and the door was customarily kept open. Senators often
passed by on their way to the subway or across the street to
vote.
Senator Packwood passed by frequently, and at some point
got in the habit of stopping in the office to chat with the
staff member. She was friendly to Senator Packwood when he
dropped in; their conversation was superficial, in the nature
of ``Hello, how are you, are you having a good day,'' etc. The
staff member cannot remember Senator Packwood talking with
anyone else in the office other than her when he came in.
It was not uncommon for the staff member to be in her
office alone after the rest of the staff had gone home for the
evening. She was often at the office until 6:00 or 7:00 p.m.,
alone, catching up on the mail. One evening, as best as she can
recall, in 1979, possibly in the spring, the staff member was
working late, alone in the office. She was sitting at her desk
proofing mail, with mail in her lap and her feet up on the feet
of the swivel chair, leaning back comfortably. Senator Packwood
came in the office, and stood three or four feet away,
chatting. All of a sudden, he lunged down, kissed her on the
lips, and turned around and left without saying a word. She
stated that the kiss was not a french kiss, but it was a full
kiss on the mouth. It was not like a kiss from a grandfather,
nor was it a romantic kiss. The staff member described the kiss
as unwanted, and stated that she felt violated by Senator
Packwood approaching her in that manner.
The staff member did not notice any odor of alcohol about
Senator Packwood. She does not have a specific recollection of
Senator Packwood placing his hands on her shoulders or on the
chair, but she states that he would have had to brace his arms
either on her shoulders or on the chair in order to be able to
push himself away from her.
After that, the staff member started closing the office
door. Senator Packwood did not stop by the office anymore, nor
did he speak to her.

2. Corroborating witnesses

Two witnesses, the staff member's boyfriend and a friend
from the Senate, both recalled that, sometime after the
allegations became public, the staff member told them that
Senator Packwood had come into her office and kissed her.

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood could not recall the staff member, or the
incident that she alleges occurred.

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that the incident as alleged by
the staff member in fact occurred. Senator Packwood did not
recall the incident; he has not offered, nor has the Committee
uncovered, any evidence tending to refute the staff member's
allegation.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct
in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that reflects an
abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of conduct that
constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.

I. Kerry Whitney

1. Testimony of Kerry Whitney

Ms. Whitney worked for the Senate in Washington, D.C. from
approximately September, 1976 through October, 1978, as a part
time elevator operator on the Senate side of the Capitol,
running the elevators from 8:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m., unless
there were scheduled sessions that started earlier, in which
case she started work earlier. The rest of the day, she worked
in a Senator's office. Her job as an elevator operator involved
standing by her assigned elevator and transporting passengers
to their requested floor. For the first nine months, she was
assigned to operate one of the elevators available for use by
the public; the last two of those months she was assigned to
the public elevator that also served as the alternate Senators'
only elevator. She was then assigned to the Senators' only
elevator, which she operated for eight months, and then to the
Senators' only elevator which went to the Senate dining room.
She remained there until she left her job.
Ms. Whitney first came to know Senator Packwood when she
was assigned to operate the alternate Senators' elevator in
approximately April 1977. He was always friendly and attentive,
and expressed an interest in her as a person, asking her
questions about herself, and remembering her name. Ms. Whitney
was flattered by this attention from a U.S. Senator. For about
the first few months after she met Senator Packwood, her
interaction with him was limited to friendly conversation on
the elevator.
Sometime during June or July, 1977, after she had been
assigned to operate the Senators' only elevator in the main
corridor, Senator Packwood entered the elevator, and greeted
her by name. As soon as the doors closed, he suddenly cocked
his head to the side, and said ``kiss.'' He grabbed her by the
shoulders, pushed her back to the side wall of the elevator,
and started kissing her on the lips. He stopped as the elevator
came to a halt. After that, Senator Packwood grabbed and kissed
her most of the times when he was alone with her on the
elevator. Frequently he would precede the kiss by cocking his
head and saying ``kiss'' before he grabbed her.
Some time in late July, 1977, Senator Packwood asked Ms.
Whitney where she lived, and for her telephone number, saying
he might like to come over some evening. She gave him the
information, thinking that if she had the opportunity to talk
with him, she could get him to stop the kissing and have just a
friendly relationship. One evening in early August, 1977,
Senator Packwood called Ms. Whitney at home about 9:30 p.m. and
asked if he could come over. Ms. Whitney was surprised, but
also flattered. Because her roommate and a Russian friend of
hers were also home, she said yes. Senator Packwood arrived a
short time later, knocked on the door, and she let him into the
vestibule. He appeared to her nervous, and she smelled alcohol
on his breath. Senator Packwood heard voices from the living
room, asked who it was, and backed away from the entrance into
the living room. When Ms. Whitney told him it was her roommate
and a Russian student, he said ``a Russian'' and jumped behind
the door to the living room. He then walked into the living
room and introduced himself.
Senator Packwood asked Ms. Whitney what she had to drink.
She went to the kitchen; he followed her. She gave the Senator
a beer. He put his beer on the counter, put his arms around her
and began kissing her. She put her hands on his chest, pushed
him away, and said, wait a minute, what do you want from me? He
stated that he wanted two things from her: to make love to her;
and to hear what she heard in her job, as she heard a lot of
things. Ms. Whitney was stunned, and asked him if he weren't
married. He responded that he was, and he loved his wife very
much. Ms. Whitney told him that she was not interested in
having sex with him.
Senator Packwood then suggested that they sit down
somewhere. They went to the back yard, and sat around a table
for about thirty minutes while Senator Packwood drank his beer.
Ms. Whitney does not recall much of the conversation, other
than the Senator saying that they had a special relationship
that they would have forever, and they were obviously attracted
to each other. He indicated that he had a campaign coming up,
giving Ms. Whitney the impression that he was dangling the
opportunity to work in his campaign in front of her.
It began to rain, so they went back into the house. Ms.
Whitney's roommate and her friend had left. Ms. Whitney and
Senator Packwood went into the living room and sat on the
couch, where the Senator again began trying to kiss her, and
repeatedly asked to spend the night. Ms. Whitney kept pushing
him away, and declining his invitation to have sex, saying that
they should just talk. She finally got up from the couch, and
told him he had to leave. He continued to beg her to let him
spend the night, saying that he had nowhere to go. She
suggested that he go home; he told her it was too far away. She
then told him to go to his secretary's house, as she understood
he sometimes stayed there. He rejected that suggestion. She
finally told him he would have to sleep in his office.
Eventually, she was able to lead him out the door by his arm.
About five minutes later, she heard a loud banging on the
door, which lasted about three minutes. She did not answer the
door, as she believed it was the Senator. About ten minutes
later, the phone rang. It was Senator Packwood, who asked why
she had not answered the door; she told him she was getting
ready for bed. He again begged her to please let him spend the
night, and she again refused. She saw him again the next
morning at 7:00 a.m. by the elevators, and he told her he had
slept on the couch in his office.
After the incident at her house, Senator Packwood continued
to grab and kiss her when they were alone in the elevator.
Sometime in late August or early September, 1977, after a
kissing episode, she told Senator Packwood that his touching
was getting in the way, and asked if they could go somewhere
public and talk about it. He told her that he could not do that
because he was married.
In early September, 1977, Senator Packwood called her house
again. Ms. Whitney was not home and her roommate answered the
phone. Senator Packwood told her roommate that it was too bad
Ms. Whitney was not home, that he wanted her to get a hamburger
with him. He then asked the roommate if she wanted to go; she
declined.
After the second phone call, the grabbing and kissing
episodes on the elevator became less frequent, and eventually
ceased in late fall. In February, 1978, Ms. Whitney was
reassigned to the Senators' only back elevator which leads to
the Senate dining room, and she did not see Senator Packwood
very much after that. She does not have any recollection of
Senator Packwood grabbing and kissing her during the time she
ran the dining room elevator.

2. Corroborating witnesses

The staff has interviewed four witnesses who corroborate
portions of Ms. Whitney's allegations. Her roommate at the
time, who is married to Ms. Whitney's brother, confirms that
Ms. Whitney told her that Senator Packwood had kissed her
numerous times in the elevator. She also recalls the evening
that Senator Packwood came over to their apartment; she recalls
that she had a Russian student visiting, and that after Senator
Packwood greeted them, he and Ms. Whitney went into the
kitchen. She recalls, however, that she and the Russian student
were still in the living room when Senator Packwood left about
an hour later. She also recalls that some time later, Senator
Packwood called one evening for Ms. Whitney, and when he
learned that she was not at home, he invited her out for
dinner; she declined.
A staffer who worked with Ms. Whitney in the Senator's
office at the time also recalls that Ms. Whitney told her that
Senator Packwood had made passes at her a number of times when
he was alone on the elevator with her, and that he had come
over to her house.
Ms. Whitney's brother also recalled that while she worked
in the Senate, Ms. Whitney told him that Senator Packwood had
tried to kiss her on the elevator more than once, and that he
had showed up at her apartment and wanted her to go out.
A roommate of Ms. Whitney's in 1978, after she left the
Senate, recalled that Ms. Whitney told her that Senator
Packwood had pinned her and kissed her in the elevator, and
that he had come to her house and asked her for a date; he
jumped on her, and later pounded on her door and called her on
the telephone.

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood did not recall Ms. Whitney or the
incidents she alleges occurred. He did not recall ever kissing
or propositioning any Senate elevator operator.

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that the incidents as alleged
by Ms. Whitney in fact occurred. Ms. Whitney's allegations have
been corroborated by the persons to whom she described the
incidents after they occurred, including her roommate at the
time, who personally observed Senator Packwood when he came to
their apartment, and who talked to him when he called to ask
Ms. Whitney to dinner. Senator Packwood has not denied the
incidents, except to state that he does not recall ever kissing
a Senate elevator operator; he has no recollection of the
incidents described by Ms. Whitney. Senator Packwood has
offered no evidence, nor has the Committee uncovered any, that
tends to refute the allegations of Ms. Whitney.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct
in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that reflects an
abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of conduct that
constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.

J. Jean Mc Mahon

1. Testimony of Jean McMahon

In 1976 or 1977, Jean McMahon heard that Senator Packwood's
staff office in Portland was looking for additional staff
members. She was interested in moving to Portland, so she
called Senator Packwood's office to see if she could get an
appointment to talk about a job. Within several days, Senator
Packwood called her, and told her that he would like to meet
her and possibly get some writing samples from her. She
understood from the conversation that Senator Packwood was
looking for a speech writer. They made an appointment for an
interview at a motel in Salem. Ms. McMahon thought it odd that
the appointment was at a motel, but assumed that the motel was
a convenient place for a traveling U.S. senator.
Ms. McMahon met Senator Packwood at the motel as arranged,
and spoke with him for about an hour. She was attempting to get
acquainted with the Senator, and to get information from which
she could prepare a draft of a speech for him, so that he could
see what her writing style was like.
Over the next few weeks, Ms. McMahon prepared a draft of a
speech, and talked to Senator Packwood by telephone several
times about different points in the speech. Eventually, they
agreed to meet again at the Dorchester Conference, a well-known
event among Republicans in Oregon. Ms. McMahon took her drafts,
and drove from Salem to the coast, where the Dorchester
Conference was taking place. Senator Packwood had given her the
address of a motel, with a room number. Ms. McMahon knocked on
the door of the room, and Senator Packwood answered; he was the
only person in the room. She and the Senator sat at an oval
table in a sitting room area. Ms. McMahon had her draft speech
with her, and she brought it out, gave the Senator a copy of
it, and began talking about it. Within about five minutes, it
became obvious to her that the Senator was not at all
interested in her speech. The Senator got up quickly from the
table, and moved around toward her. She became alarmed, got up,
and started to go around the edge of the table, in order to put
distance between herself and the Senator. Senator Packwood
started moving faster, grabbed her by the shoulders, and pulled
her up to him and kissed her. She pulled away, and quickly left
the room.
It took a few days for Ms. McMahon to realize that Senator
Packwood was not at all serious about hiring her as a speech
writer. She called his office in Portland, to tell them that
she had a draft speech for the Senator, thinking that someone
on the staff was waiting for it. She told someone at the office
that she had the draft speech ready for the Senator, and she
needed to know what to do with it. The reaction from the staff
at the Portland office was that they had never heard of any
speech, and they did not care what happened to the draft she
had prepared. Ms. McMahon never spoke to Senator Packwood
again.

2. Corroborating witnesses

The staff deposed six witnesses who learned about this
incident, in varying detail, from Ms. McMahon in the late
1970's. Her husband (they were dating at the time) recalled
receiving a phone call from Ms. McMahon after the incident; he
knew she had gone to deliver a speech to Senator Packwood. Ms.
McMahon told him that Senator Packwood had come on to her, and
she had to leave. Four close friends of Ms. McMahon's also
confirmed that she told them about the incident, and the fact
that she had been led to believe that there was a job opening
for a speechwriter. Ms. McMahon's friends indicated that she
seemed to be excited about the prospect of the job, and had
taken work for Senator Packwood to review. However, Senator
Packwood appeared to have no interest in her work, and used the
opportunity to make an unwanted physical advance upon her.
Three of these witnesses recalled that Ms. McMahon told them
that Senator Packwood chased her around a table, or around the
room, in his hotel room.

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood did not recall Ms. McMahon, or the
incident that she described. He stated that it would be unusual
for him to consider a person for a job as a speech writer, as
he has never used one. He writes his own speeches, except for
formal floor speeches on subjects with which he is not
familiar, which he has written for him by staff members.
There is an entry in Senator Packwood's diary for February
16, 1977, indicating that he met with Ms. McMahon, and that
they might want to use her as a writer.^{97 After his first
deposition, Senator Packwood provided the Committee with a
draft of a speech that Ms. McMahon had worked on for the
Senator. He testified at his second deposition that he still
had no recollection of Ms. McMahon, but the speech appeared to
be one that he gave her to edit, probably to see if she would
be able to write for him. He stated that looking at the speech,
and the edits, Ms. McMahon probably talked to him about the
speech, but he had no recollection of that.
\97\ Senator Packwood's calendar for 1977 indicates that he met
with Ms. McMahon at 6:15 on February 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood testified that according to news
statements, Ms. McMahon had stated that she phoned his office
after the incident to see if she had gotten the job.

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that the incident as alleged by
Ms. McMahon in fact occurred. Ms. McMahon's account is
corroborated by the persons to whom she described the incident
shortly after it occurred. Several details of her testimony are
corroborated by Senator Packwood's own records--her first
meeting with him is reflected in both his diary and his
calendar of events, and the fact that he was considering her
for a position involving speechwriting is confirmed by the
speech she critiqued for him.
Senator Packwood has not denied the incident; he has
testified that he has no recollection of it. He did emphasize
in his deposition that Ms. McMahon was still interested in
working for him, as she had apparently called his office after
the incident to inquire about the job, as if to suggest either
that the incident did not occur, or that she could not have
been offended by it if she still wanted to work for him. The
fact that Ms. McMahon may have called to inquire about the job
after the incident, even if true, does not cast any doubt on
Ms. McMahon's allegation. If true, it may just as easily
indicate that she was willing to overlook the incident because
she needed a job.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct
in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that reflects an
abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of conduct that
constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.

K. Packwood Staff Member ^{98

\98\ This staff member is designated ``C-12'' in the Committee's
Exhibits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Staff member's testimony

This individual worked for Senator Packwood from March,
1972 through April, 1975 in Washington, D.C., as a staff
assistant. One evening, when the staff member was at a bar with
her husband and a friend, a staffer for another Senator staff
apparently overheard the staff member talking about Senator
Packwood, saying that he drank too much, and had to have
somebody drive him because of his drinking. The next day,
Senator Packwood called her into his office and confronted her
with this information. The staff member, worried about losing
her job, denied that she had been talking about Senator
Packwood, and claimed that she had been talking instead about
her former boss. Senator Packwood told her that he did not
think that she would say anything about him, got up from behind
his desk, and came around and kissed her on the cheek. The
staff member described the kiss as inappropriate, but without
sexual overtones. She was relieved that she had not lost her
job.
Sometime after this incident, during the spring of 1975,
the staff member began riding to work with her husband, whose
job required him to be in his office early. Consequently, the
staff member would arrive at the office at about 7:00 or 7:30
a.m.; she usually was the first one in to work. At some point,
Senator Packwood started coming in to the office early as well,
and he and the staff member would chat in the mornings in the
office she shared with another staff member. One morning in
April, 1975, as the staff member stood in her office, engaging
in small talk with Senator Packwood, he grabbed her firmly with
both arms around her shoulders, held her tightly, pressing his
body into hers, and kissed her on the mouth. She describes the
kiss as that of somebody who wanted to be involved or
passionate. She pushed him away, and told him to get off of
her, that she was a happily married woman. Senator Packwood
appeared bewildered, told her that he was sorry, and left the
room.
The staff member quit her job, because she felt that after
the incident involving the kiss in her office, every time she
was around the Senator, he was looking at her, and it made her
uncomfortable.

2. Corroborating witnesses

The staff has interviewed one witness, the staff member's
aunt, who worked on the Hill at the time, who confirmed that
the staff member told her that she had to leave Senator
Packwood's employment, because she was afraid to be alone in
the office with him. The staff member told this witness that
Senator Packwood had kissed her.
The staff member's husband recalled that she told him,
eighteen or nineteen years ago, while she worked for Senator
Packwood, that someone had overheard a conversation among
himself, his wife, and a friend about Senator Packwood's
womanizing which they had reported to Senator Packwood. Senator
Packwood questioned the staff member about it, and she denied
having said anything. Senator Packwood seemed satisfied, and
gave her a ``wet'' kiss on the lips. Sometime later, Senator
Packwood and the staff member were in the office early, and he
grabbed her and kissed her. At the time, her husband was an
officer with the Metropolitan Police Department. He was upset
when his wife told him about these incidents, but he was
worried that it could cause trouble for him or his wife if he
mentioned anything about the incidents. Had it been anyone but
a Senator, he would have confronted the person about the
incidents.

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood did not recall the staff member or the
incident that she alleges occurred.

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that the incident as alleged by
the staff member in fact occurred. Two witnesses have confirmed
that the staff member told them about the incident shortly
after it occurred. Senator Packwood has not denied the
incident; he has testified that he did not recall it. Senator
Packwood has not offered, nor has the Committee uncovered, any
evidence tending to refute the staff member's allegations.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct
in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that reflects an
abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of conduct that
constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.

L. Packwood Staff Member ^{99

\99\ This staff member is designated ``C-13'' in the Committee's
Exhibits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Testimony of staff member

This individual worked for Senator Packwood in the early
1970's as a caseworker in his Senate office in Portland.
Sometime in the early 1970's, she was at work alone in one of
the office rooms late one night. She testified that she had
been drinking, and it was possible that she had gone out after
work with some of the other staff and come back to the office.
She was just finishing a telephone call when Senator Packwood
came in, and chased her around the desk several times. She does
not remember Senator Packwood saying anything to her, and she
does not think that he actually touched her. She thinks that
she was already standing when Senator Packwood came into the
room, but she cannot remember what he did that made her
suspicious and made her try to get away from him; she believes
that he must have said something to her, although she does not
remember that. At the time, she thought that all he was going
to do was to kiss her. She remembers that he chased her, and
that she went around the desk several times. She was so upset
that she left the office without her purse and coat. The staff
member continued to work in Senator Packwood's office for a
short time after that incident.

2. Corroborating witnesses

The staff member provided the names of two persons whom she
told about the incident. The staff was not able to contact
either person.

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood did not recall either the staff member, or
the incident that she alleges occurred.

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that the incident as alleged by
the staff member in fact occurred. Although no witnesses were
found who could corroborate the staff member's account, Senator
Packwood did not deny the incident, nor did he offer any
evidence that would tend to refute her allegation.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct
in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that reflects an
abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of conduct that
constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.

M. Gail Byler

1. Testimony of Gail Byler

In 1970, Gail Byler worked as the dining room hostess at
the Ramada Inn, which had opened in February, 1970 at 4th and
Lincoln in Portland, Oregon. It is now a Red Lion Inn. One
evening in March, April, or May of 1970, she was sitting at the
hostess desk working on paperwork after the dining room had
closed for the evening. The dining room was dark except for a
light that was on over the area where she was working. The
dining room itself was open to the lobby area, and was
separated from the lounge by a screen.
Ms. Byler got up from her station to get a glass of ice
water from the waitress station, which was in a hallway off the
dining room, fairly close to the entrance to the dining room
from the lobby. She had her back to the dining room. All of a
sudden, she felt a hand go from her ankle, up the inside of her
leg, to her crotch. She turned around quickly, and saw Senator
Packwood behind her, leaning against a doorway. She stepped
back, and told him to stay away from her, and not to touch her.
He said, ``Do you know who I am?'' Ms. Byler told him that she
knew who he was, she didn't care, and for him to stay away from
her. He told her that she had not heard the end of it, and
walked out of the dining room.

2. Corroborating witnesses

Ms. Byler's minister provided an affidavit to the
Committee. Ms. Byler has been a parishioner and a friend of his
for a number of years.
The minister stated that shortly before the death of Ms.
Byler's husband about three years ago, he was at their home,
and he and her husband were teasing Ms. Byler about all of the
men who would be chasing after her when her husband died. Ms.
Byler told them, in effect, that she had been pursued by
loftier men than the two of them. She then told them that years
earlier, when she was working as the dining room manager at the
Ramada Inn, she had been going over the waitress slips in the
dining room after it had closed down. She stepped into a
waitress station for a glass of water, and Senator Packwood
came up behind her, and ran his hands from her legs to her
waist. He appeared to her to have been drinking. She told him
in no uncertain terms to get away from her, and to leave her
alone.
After stories appeared in the newspapers about allegations
of misconduct by Senator Packwood, the minister reminded Ms.
Byler of their conversation several years earlier. Ms. Byler
was reluctant to go forward or make any kind of statement about
what had happened to her. Although the minister felt that
Senator Packwood had done good things as a Senator, he also
felt that it was important for this information to become
public. He encouraged Ms. Byler to go forward, and to make a
statement about the incident.

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood did not recall Ms. Byler, or the incident
that she alleges occurred.

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that this incident as alleged
by Ms. Byler in fact occurred. Senator Packwood does not recall
this incident. No evidence has been offered by Senator Packwood
or obtained by the Committee to refute Ms. Byler's claim, and
it is corroborated by her minister, to whom she recounted the
incident after it occurred.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct
in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that reflects an
abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of conduct that
constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.

N. Packwood Staff Member ^{100

\100\ This staff member is designated ``C-15'' in the Committee
Exhibits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Testimony of staff member

This individual worked for Senator Packwood for about six
months from April to October, 1970. She worked at a desk in the
front office. One afternoon, after 5:00, she was sitting at her
desk when Senator Packwood walked over, grabbed her by the
shoulders, and kissed her on the mouth. It was not a french
kiss, but it was a sexual kiss, the type that a boyfriend would
give to a girlfriend. She believes that she pushed Senator
Packwood away, and tried to make a joke out of it. He walked
away, and the incident did not happen again.

2. Corroborating witnesses

The staff member could not recall telling anyone about this
incident.

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood could not recall either the staff member,
or the incident that she alleges occurred.

4. Findings

O. Sharon Grant

1. Testimony of Sharon Grant

In early 1969, sometime in the spring, Sharon Grant met
Senator Packwood at a reception on Capitol Hill, and she talked
with him about the possibility of working for his office or one
of his committees. Senator Packwood told her to come by and see
him to discuss this possibility further.
Within a week or two, Ms. Grant called someone in Senator
Packwood's office to set up an appointment to talk to him. She
went to Senator Packwood's office toward the end of a working
day, and met with the Senator in his office for about 45
minutes. Ms. Grant talked with the Senator about herself, her
work experience and interests, and job possibilities. Senator
Packwood indicated to her that she should consider filling out
an application with his staff people. Toward the end of the
meeting, Senator Packwood suggested to Ms. Grant that they go
and have a drink, and asked her, how about spending the evening
with me? Ms. Grant picked up a tone of voice, or a loaded
quality to the Senator's comments, that caused her to interpret
his request as a proposition for her to spend the night with
him. She told him that she did not think that was appropriate,
that it was time for her to go, and she left. She did not
pursue a job possibility any further.

2. Corroborating witnesses

There were no witnesses located who could corroborate Ms.
Grant's testimony.

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood could not recall Ms. Grant, or the
incident that she alleges occurred.

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that the incident as alleged by
Ms. Grant in fact occurred. Although no witnesses were found
who could corroborate Ms. Grant's account, Senator Packwood did
not deny the incident, nor did he offer any evidence that would
tend to refute her allegation.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct
in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that reflects an
abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of conduct that
constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.

P. Gayle Rothrock

1. Testimony of Gayle Rothrock

Gayle Rothrock worked for another Senator from December,
1968 until September of 1970. During that time, she became
acquainted with Senator Packwood by virtue of her visits to his
office on business, or to say hello to acquaintances who worked
there.
In early spring of 1969, probably early April, Ms. Rothrock
was visiting friends in Senator Packwood's office. Mrs.
Packwood was there, and Ms. Rothrock heard her say that she
needed a babysitter for one of the next few evenings for their
two preschool children. Ms. Rothrock volunteered to babysit,
and on the evening in question, the Packwoods picked her up
after work and took her to their home. She took care of the
children for the evening while the Packwoods attended an event.
When the Senator and his wife returned about 11:00 p.m., they
paid her for babysitting, and Mrs. Packwood told her that the
Senator would run her home.
As Ms. Rothrock was reaching for her coat from an area
close to the front door, Senator Packwood grabbed her shoulders
and back with both of his hands, rubbed and massaged her
shoulders and back, and gave her a sloppy, forceful, wet and
insistent kiss on the mouth. Ms. Rothrock pushed him away with
her hands, retrieved her coat, and started talking about
Northwest issues, what a nice family he had and how attractive
the children were, how she hoped that his days in Washington
were going to be good ones, and that he was off to a good
start.
Although Ms. Rothrock detected a slight odor of alcohol
about Senator Packwood, and the Packwoods had told her they had
been to a party where there were drinks and hors d'oeuvres,
neither of the Packwoods displayed signs of drunkenness.
Ms. Rothrock sat in the front seat during the ride to her
apartment. As he started the car engine, and before he pulled
away from the curb, Senator Packwood reached over and put his
right arm around Ms. Rothrock's shoulders. He then touched her
left leg just above the knee. Ms. Rothrock pushed back against
the right side of the car, and continued to talk about issues
and family. The Senator drove her to her apartment, where he
dropped her off.
After this incident, Ms. Rothrock did not babysit again for
the Packwoods, and she took care not to place herself in a
position where she would be alone with Senator Packwood.

2. Corroborating witnesses

The staff has obtained affidavits from two witnesses, Ms.
Rothrock's mother, and her roommate at the time, who stated
that Ms. Rothrock told them that Senator Packwood had kissed
her, or made an advance, while she was babysitting for the
Senator's children. Ms. Rothrock's mother recalls that her
daughter told her that she had babysat for the Packwoods, and
that he had given her a kiss on the porch; she was upset by the
incident. Her roommate recalls that she told her either that
evening or the next day that the Senator had made passes
involving inappropriate touching or kissing, either at his
house, or in the car on the way home. Another witness recalled
that in the spring or summer of 1992, but before the
allegations became public, Ms. Rothrock told her that Senator
Packwood had grabbed her and made an advance to her after she
babysat for him. Georgie Packwood recalled that Ms. Rothrock
babysat for them at least once, but that at the time, they had
only one child. She could not recall any details, but believed
that at the time that Ms. Rothrock babysat for them, the
Senator's eyesight was still good enough that he would drive
their babysitters home.

3. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood remembered Ms. Rothrock as a friend of
persons in his office; she was in his office frequently to
visit. He vaguely recalled that she might have applied for a
job in his office.
Senator Packwood recalled that Ms. Rothrock babysat at
least once for him and his wife, although because she made
reference to babysitting for two children, it would have had to
happen after 1971, when they adopted their second child. He
could not recall if she babysat for them more than once. With
respect to the one instance that he recalled, the Senator did
not remember the event that he and his wife attended, how Ms.
Rothrock got to their house, or when he and his wife returned
home. He did recall that while his wife waited in the car to
take Ms. Rothrock home, he went inside the house. Ms. Rothrock
had her shoes off, and she could not find them. He helped her
look for them; he did not remember where they found them. He
stated that he then put his arms around Ms. Rothrock and gave
her a kiss, and she put her arms around his neck and kissed him
very ``fulsomely.'' He did not recall where in his house that
this took place. He described the kiss as romantic, although he
could not recall if it was a french kiss; he said that she
responded in kind--she put her arms around him, held her lips
to his, and made no effort to get away. He did not recall if
they had any conversation. Nor did he recall if this was the
first time he had kissed Ms. Rothrock in this fashion. He could
not recall that Ms. Rothrock had ever given him any indication
that she would be interested in this sort of a kiss, or what
prompted him to kiss her that evening, nor did he recall
speaking to her afterwards about the kiss. Senator Packwood saw
Ms. Rothrock at a wedding in 1982. In the mid-1970's, they also
arranged to have dinner together in Seattle or Tacoma as he
passed through on his way to Portland, but they had to cancel.

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that the incident as alleged
by Ms. Rothrock in fact occurred. Although her recollection of
the number of children she babysat may be inaccurate, her
account is corroborated by three witnesses to whom she related
the incident, two of whom she told shortly after it occurred.
Senator Packwood testified that he recalled kissing Ms.
Rothrock after she babysat for him and his wife, although he
portrays Ms. Rothrock as a willing participant; he also
testified that he did not drive her home. However, both Ms.
Rothrock's mother and her roommate at the time recall her
distress at the incident, and her description of the advances
as unwanted. Senate Ethics Counsel finds this corroborating
evidence persuasive, and finds that the incident occurred as
described by Ms. Rothrock.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's
conduct in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that
reflects an abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of
conduct that constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the
Senate.

Q. Julie Williamson

1. Testimony of Julie Williamson

In late 1967 or early 1968, Julie Williamson worked as
Senator Packwood's Clatsop County campaign chairperson. In
September, 1968, after her husband was transferred to Portland,
she began working on Senator Packwood's general election
campaign, running a phone bank. In January, 1969, she was hired
as a member of his Senate staff. About six or eight weeks after
she started, she was asked to staff a dinner the Senator was
hosting for the Portland press corps at a local restaurant
called Burt Lee's. Not knowing that staff spouses were
generally not invited to such events, she invited her husband
to attend. When her husband arrived at the dinner, Senator
Packwood appeared displeased, and seated him at the far end of
the table. He seated Ms. Williamson next to him at the head of
the table, and two or three times during dinner he reached over
and patted her on the leg. After dinner, Ms. Williamson, her
husband, and Senator Packwood sat in a booth in the bar and
talked. When Ms. Williamson's husband got up to go to the
bathroom, Senator Packwood fell over Ms. Williamson, and gave
her a big kiss on the side of the face. She pushed him off.
On a Thursday afternoon about 2:00 p.m. later that spring
in 1969, shortly before the annual Dorchester conference, an
annual Oregon Republican event founded by the Senator, Ms.
Williamson was working alone in the office. As she talked on
the phone in the front office, Senator Packwood came in, walked
around the desk and behind Ms. Williamson, and kissed her on
the back of the neck. She finished her call, turned to him, and
told him never to do that again. She walked into the back
office, and Senator Packwood followed her. Ms. Williamson
became worried, and tried to get around the Senator to get out
of the office; he tried to grab her, and she moved around the
office to try to get away from him. Finally, he grabbed her;
when she tried to kick him in the shins, he stood on her feet.
He grabbed her ponytail with his left hand, pulled her head
back forcefully, and gave her a big wet kiss, with his tongue
in her mouth. She did not smell or taste any alcohol. With his
right hand, he reached up under her skirt and grabbed the edge
of her panty girdle and tried to pull it down. She struggled,
got away from him, and ran into the front office. He stalked
out past her, paused at the threshold to the hallway, and told
her, ``If not today, someday,'' and left.
Ms. Williamson called a friend, Ann Elias, and asked if
she could come over to her apartment, because something
terrible had just happened. At the time, Ms. Elias was the
office manager for Senator Packwood's 1968 campaign committee,
and her husband was the campaign manager. Ms. Williamson locked
up the office and went to Ms. Elias's apartment; they talked
for some time, with Ms. Williamson telling Ms. Elias what had
happened, and Ms. Williamson then went home.
The next weekend, Ms. Williamson and her husband attended
the Dorchester conference. Ms. Williamson spoke to Senator
Packwood only once, as she sat in a bar next to his wife,
Georgie. He slid up on the bar stool next to Ms. Williamson,
and whispered in her ear, ``Don't tell your husband, and don't
quit your job,'' and then walked off.
The following Monday, Ms. Williamson told Roy Sampsel,
Senator Packwood's driver about what had happened. Mr. Sampsel
told her, in effect, ``Don't take it personally, the Senator's
just like that.'' She also told Senator Packwood's
administrative assistant about the incident.^{101
\101\ In a letter to Senator Packwood dated November 19, 1992,
which Senator Packwood forwarded to the Post, the administrative
assistant states that he does not recall the staff member telling him
about the incident; he also confirmed this in an interview with the
staff. A diary entry and a memo provided to the Committee by Senator
Packwood indicate that this individual did tell Senator Packwood that
he had heard from others that Senator Packwood had tried to ``screw''
the staff member. Senator Packwood testified that the individual had
used that term not in a sexual sense, but in the sense that he had made
a pass at her.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About two weeks later, Ms. Williamson picked the Senator
up at the Multnomah Athletic Club, to drive him to the Civic
Auditorium for an appearance. When Senator Packwood got in the
car, she angrily confronted him about the incident, and asked
him what it was that he had thought was going to happen the
other day. She asked, in effect, whether he thought they were
just going to have at it on the office floor. He responded, ``I
suppose you're one of the ones who want a motel.'' Senator
Packwood appeared to be angry that Ms. Williamson had
confronted him. He got out of the car at the Auditorium,
delivered a speech for the Girl Scout cookie drive, and got
back in the car. She drove him back to the Multnomah Athletic
Club, and he got out, slammed the front door, retrieved his
package of Girl Scout cookies from the back seat, and left.
That was the last time she spoke with the Senator. She quit her
job shortly thereafter, although she did not have another job
at the time. With her typing and secretarial skills, she was
able to get a job fairly quickly with a Portland law firm,
although she had to take a cut in pay.

2. Corroborating witnesses

The staff interviewed eight witnesses who recall that Ms.
Williamson told them in the late 1960's or early 1970's about
an incident that had occurred involving Senator Packwood. Their
recollections of their conversations with Ms. Williamson vary
as to the details they recall; five, including her husband at
the time, recall that Ms. Williamson told him or her that
Senator Packwood had ``attacked'' her, or tried to take her
clothes off; four of these witnesses recall that Ms. Williamson
was very upset by the incident. A sixth witness recalls that
Ms. Williamson told him that she had left Senator Packwood's
office because of an incident involving sexual harassment,
^{102 and the other two witnesses recall that Ms. Williamson
told them that Senator Packwood had made a ``pass'' at her.
^{103
\102\ This witness's spouse recalls that when asked why she left
Senator Packwood's office, Ms. Williamson made vague comments
indicating that ``something'' had happened.
\103\ One witness did not believe Ms. Willliamson when she told her
about the ``pass.'' The other witness recalled that Ms. Williamson told
her that Senator Packwood had made a ``pass'' at her, and had chased
her, but she did not recall the incident as being as serious as Ms.
Williamson now alleges, and she did not think that Ms. Williamson
seemed agitated or upset at the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A ninth witness recalls that Ms. Williamson told him in
1992, shortly before the allegations became public, that
Senator Packwood had grabbed her and kissed her, and tried to
pull her girdle off.
The staff also deposed Ann Elias, the friend to whom Ms.
Williamson spoke immediately after the incident. Ms. Elias is a
long-time friend of Senator Packwood's. Shortly before the
Washington Post story was published, Ms. Elias wrote a
statement at Senator Packwood's request, in which she opined
that Ms. Williamson was interested in a ``romantic''
relationship with Senator Packwood. At her deposition, Ms.
Elias testified that Ms. Williamson had come to her apartment
one afternoon in early 1969, and told her that Senator Packwood
had kissed her. She testified that Ms. Williamson had not told
her anything about Senator Packwood standing on her toes,
pulling at her clothes, or pulling her ponytail. ^{104 She
testified that Ms. Williamson was ``titillated'' by the
incident, although she could not point to anything to support
that opinion. She testified that Ms. Williamson discussed with
her the possibility of a relationship with the Senator, and
wondered if she should tell her husband about the incident.
\104\ Ms. Elias claimed that Ms. Williamson did not wear her hair
in a ponytail at the time, and that her hair was not even long enough
to tie back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Ms. Elias, Ms. Williamson has been telling
this story on the ``cocktail circuit'' for years; she suggested
that the story has gotten better with each telling. ^{105
\105\ Although Ms. Elias, Elaine Franklin, and Senator Packwood
himself all testified that Ms. Williamson had been telling her story on
the ``cocktail circuit,'' the staff was unable to find anyone, other
than Ms. Elias, who claimed to have actually heard Ms. Williamson
telling her ``story'' in social settings over the years, or who could
verify that it had ``grown'' with the retelling. In addition, Senator
Packwood's diary entries indicate that Ms. Elias was uncomfortable with
the statement she prepared for Senator Packwood, specifically that she
was torn between her loyalty to Senator Packwood and her desire to tell
the truth. The entries indicate that she was ``buoyed up'' by Jack
Faust, a friend of Senator Packwood's, who convinced her that Ms.
Williamson had been telling her story on the ``cocktail circuit'' over
the years, and that it had grown as it was retold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Senator Packwood's response

Senator Packwood recalled that he first met Ms. Williamson
in late 1959 or 1960 when he worked as an attorney in private
practice; Ms. Williamson was a legal secretary at a different
firm in the same building. She worked as a volunteer on his
campaign in 1962. During his 1968 campaign, she acted as his
Clatsop County campaign chair. After her husband was
transferred back to Portland, she worked in his campaign
headquarters until the fall of 1968, when he hired her onto his
Senate staff. He did not recall her position or duties, the
size of his staff, or the size or layout of his office at the
time. He did recall that part of Ms. Williamson's duties would
have been to answer phones, type, and act as a receptionist,
although he did not recall where she sat in the office.
Senator Packwood described Ms. Williamson as having short,
close blond hair. He recalled that she was a very good county
chair, and a good headquarters worker, but he did not recall
what type of employee she was while she was on his Senate
staff.
Senator Packwood did not recall the dinner at Burt Lee's
that Ms. Williamson referred to, or any other dinner that she
staffed for him, or that she and her husband attended. He did
not recall anything about this incident described by Ms.
Williamson.^{106
\106\ Senator Packwood's diary indicates that on February 10, 1969,
he hosted a dinner at Burt Lee's for the media.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood had no recollection of the incident
described by Ms. Williamson as taking place shortly before the
Dorchester conference in 1969, in which Ms. Williamson claims
that Senator Packwood grabbed her, pulled her ponytail, kissed
her, and tried to take off her girdle. Senator Packwood stated
that Ms. Williamson had very short hair at the time, and that
she did not have a pony tail. He provided photographs of Ms.
Williamson taken at his campaign headquarters in the fall of
1968, before the election.^{107
\107\ These pictures show Ms. Williamson from the front, with
short, wispy hair. One witness has stated that at the time of the
incident in the spring of 1969, or shortly thereafter, Ms. Williamson
did indeed wear her hair in a ponytail. She describes her as having
fine hair that she was trying to grow long, which she pulled back in a
short ponytail. Another witness stated that as of late 1968 and early
1969, Ms. Williamson had short stringy hair that she pulled back from
her face with bobbypins; as it grew longer, she pulled it back in a
ponytail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood recalled nothing about the incident
described by Ms. Williamson as taking place at the Dorchester
conference.
Senator Packwood did recall that on a weekend day, Ms.
Williamson had driven him to a Girl Scout function, possibly
the cookie drive kickoff. He did not recall why she was driving
him that day, but he believed that she was driving her car. He
recalled that the two of them talked about the possibility of
having an affair, and that Ms. Williamson asked where they
would do that. He told her they could do it in the office, and
she responded that she could not possibly do that. He jokingly
responded that he supposed they could use a motel. Senator
Packwood could not recall if this was the first time they had
discussed the possibility of having an affair, nor could he
recall who brought up the subject. He did not recall ever
discussing this subject with Ms. Williamson again. He could not
recall any physical contact between the two of them before this
conversation. He did not recall what they were doing at the
time the conversation took place, if anyone else was in the car
at the time, whether the conversation took place as they drove
to the Girl Scout event or afterwards, or where Ms. Williamson
took him after the Girl Scout event.^{108
\108\ Senator Packwood's diaries have an entry dated Saturday,
April 5, 1969, which reflects that he attended a Girl Scout event. It
does not reflect that Ms. Williamson drove him, or any conversation
about an affair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood recalled that Ms. Williamson left his
employ in late spring of 1969. He did not recall why she quit,
or whether she had another job at the time.
Senator Packwood stated that he had heard from others in
the past, he did not know when or from whom, that Ms.
Williamson had made a passing comment to the effect that he had
made a pass at her. It was possible that Ann Elias had told him
about the incident sometime before he talked to her about it in
May, 1992.
Senator Packwood testified that he had called his former
driver, Roy Sampsel, because he had read a story in the paper
wherein Ms. Williamson claimed to have told her coworkers about
the incident in his office. He stated that Mr. Sampsel told him
that Ms. Williamson used to talk to him about her terribly
unhappy marriage, and specifically that she wanted to have an
affair with Senator Packwood. She asked Mr. Sampsel if she
should do so. Several weeks before the Dorchester conference,
she told Mr. Sampsel that Senator Packwood had hugged her, and
asked Mr. Sampsel if she should go to the conference. Mr.
Sampsel told the Senator that Ms. Williamson was in a
``dither.'' He told the Senator that he advised Ms. Williamson
against having an affair with the Senator.
Mr. Sampsel was contacted by the staff shortly after
Senator Packwood gave this testimony. He provided a sworn
affidavit stating that in 1969, shortly before the Dorchester
conference, Ms. Williamson told him that Senator Packwood had
hugged her and made a pass at her in the office. Mr. Sampsel
believed that Ms. Williamson told him about this the same day
it happened, or the next day. They talked about this incident
more than once. Mr. Sampsel told Ms. Williamson that the
situation could not be allowed to get out of hand, because of
the political implications for Senator Packwood. He did not
tell Senator Packwood what Ms. Williamson had said. He
described Senator Packwood as a flirter, and stated that he had
had general conversations with him about his tendency to be
overly flirtatious.
Mr. Sampsel stated that Ms. Williamson liked Senator
Packwood a lot. At the time, she was not getting along with her
husband. But she never told him that she wanted to have an
affair with Senator Packwood, nor did he ever tell Senator
Packwood that Ms. Williamson wanted to have an affair with him.
Senator Packwood never indicated that he was interested in
having an affair with Ms. Williamson. Although Ms. Williamson
was outgoing, perky, and a flirt herself, he saw no indication
that she was interested in a sexual relationship with the
Senator.
Mr. Sampsel stated that about three months before he was
contacted by Committee staff, Senator Packwood called him, and
said that he was under a little heat, and needed to see what
Mr. Sampsel knew. He asked if Mr. Sampsel recalled Ms.
Williamson telling him about the version of the incident that
appeared in the paper. Mr. Sampsel told the Senator that he did
not recall Ms. Williamson describing the incident as
graphically or in as much detail as the version that appeared
in the newspaper.
In his appearance before the Committee, Senator Packwood
stated that he did not recall the incident, but that he denied
that it happened as described by Ms. Williamson. He based this
denial on the fact that several persons claim that Ms.
Williamson told them of the incident at the time, but she did
not tell them about details such as him standing on her toes,
pulling her hair, or attempting to pull down her undergarments.

4. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that the incident as alleged by
Ms. Williamson in fact occurred. Although it occurred many
years ago, Ms. Williamson has a vivid recollection of the
incident. Additionally, several witnesses clearly recall that
Ms. Williamson told them about the incident, including her
distress at the incident, in some detail, shortly after it
happened.
Senator Packwood has testified that he does not recall the
incident described by Ms. Williamson. At the same time,
however, he has denied that the incident occurred as she now
describes it. His basis for this denial is his conclusion that
Ms. Williamson has embellished upon the incident, because
several persons have stated that she told them of the incident
at the time, but that she did not provide the details that she
has now given to the Committee. Leaving aside the fact that
Senator Packwood seems to be conceding that something happened,
the fact that Ms. Williamson did not share all of the details
of the incident with some of these witnesses does not mean that
they did not occur. In addition, there are several indications
in Senator Packwood's diary, and from testimony from one of
Senator Packwood's closest friends, that one of these witnesses
may have lied about her recollection of conversations with the
staff member about the incident.
Senator Packwood has also suggested that even if he did
make advances to Ms. Williamson, they were welcomed, because
she wanted to have an affair with him. He testified that they
talked after the incident about having an affair (although he
could not recall the details of the conversation), and that she
told his driver that she wanted to have an affair with the
Senator. Senator Packwood's driver has specifically denied that
Ms. Williamson ever told him that she wanted to have an affair
with the Senator. Senator Packwood's recollection of the
conversation with Ms. Williamson after the incident is not
inconsistent with Ms. Williamson's recollection, and is not
persuasive evidence that the incident as alleged by Ms.
Williamson was welcomed.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct
in this instance fits a pattern of conduct that reflects an
abuse of his position of authority, a pattern of conduct that
constitutes improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.

R. Additional Findings

Senator Packwood has testified that until he entered a
treatment program in late 1992, he had significant problems
with alcohol: he drank often and heavily, and he suffered
blackouts. He considers himself to be an alcoholic. Senator
Packwood has offered this testimony not as an excuse for his
actions, but perhaps as an explanation.
Counsel notes that several of the incidents occurred in the
morning, and that Senator Packwood testified he did not drink
in the morning. Several occurred in the afternoon during office
hours. In only a few instances was there any indication that
Senator Packwood could have been intoxicated at the time of the
incident. Senate Ethics Counsel finds that in each of the
incidents alleged, regardless of his state of sobriety at the
time of any given incident, Senator Packwood is responsible for
his actions.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that these incidents, taken
collectively, reflect a pattern of abuse by Senator Packwood of
his position of power over women who were in a subordinate
position, either as his employees, as Senate employees,
prospective employees, campaign workers, or persons whose
livelihood prevented them from effectively protesting or
seeking redress for his actions. These women were not on an
equal footing with Senator Packwood, and he took advantage of
that disparity to visit upon them uninvited and unwelcome
sexual advances, some of which constituted serious assaultive
behavior, but all of which constituted an abuse of his position
of power and authority as a United States Senator.
Senate Ethics Counsel does not accept the notion that this
type of conduct at one time was not viewed as improper, and
that Senator Packwood is being punished for actions that were
acceptable at the time. It has never been acceptable conduct to
force unwanted physical attentions on another. Moreover,
Senator Packwood's conduct is exacerbated by the fact that the
incidents occurred with persons who were effectively powerless
to protest in the face of his position as a United States
Senator.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's
conduct, spanning a period of more than twenty years,
constitutes a pattern of abuse of his position of power and
authority, and is improper conduct reflecting upon the United
States Senate.
During his appearance before the Committee in June 1995,
Senator Packwood was asked to assess whether his conduct would
reflect upon the Senate, if the alleged conduct actually
happened, in only those cases which he had testified he did not
recall.

Q: (by Senator Dorgan) * * * I guess my question was:
If it happened, is it, in your judgment, behavior that
brings discredit upon the Senate?
A: If it happened--and of course this is always--if
it happened and it became public, it brings discredit
on the Senate. If it happened and it doesn't become
public, does that not bring discredit on the Senate? It
doesn't make the incident any better or worse, but is
the discredit the publicity of it?

Senate Ethics Counsel rejects any suggestion that such
conduct may not reflect discredit upon the Senate, if it
remains undiscovered or unpublicized. It is the behavior which
is discrediting, and it is no less so if only its victims know
of it.
Senate Ethics Counsel notes that there are no time
limitations on the Senate's authority to discipline Members.
Some of the incidents occurred twenty-five years ago. But these
incidents cannot be considered in isolation. Counsel finds that
all of the incidents, taken collectively, constitute a pattern
of abuse by Senator Packwood, and improper conduct. Counsel
notes that the age of any particular incident is appropriately
considered, not in a determination of whether the incident was
part of a pattern, but in a determination of the appropriate
sanction to be imposed upon Senator Packwood with respect to
the pattern of improper conduct.

V. Evidence Regarding the Allegations of Altering Evidence

A. Summary and Overview of the Evidence

Senator Packwood's diaries comprise over 8,000 pages of
single-spaced entries for virtually every day since 1969,
including weekends and vacations. They set out minute details
of his life since 1969, from security briefings by the White
House, to meetings with constituents, lobbyists and other
senators, to detailed descriptions of meals and social
occasions.
Senator Packwood dictated his diaries, first on dictation
belts, and later on audiotapes, which were transcribed by Cathy
Cormack, who was his personal secretary from 1969 to 1981, when
she went to work for the Republican Senatorial Campaign
Committee. While Ms. Cormack worked for the Republican
Senatorial Campaign Committee, she continued to type the
diaries, and received a modest reimbursement from Senate funds.
When she left the Committee in 1983, she continued to type
Senator Packwood's diaries, for which services she was paid by
Senator Packwood's campaign committee.
Note. (For a detailed explanation of events leading up to
the Committee's review of the Senator's diaries, see discussion
in the Procedural Background section.)

1. Results of comparison of tape to transcript

In view of Ms. Cormack's testimony in December, 1993 about
changes made by Senator Packwood to tapes which she was
transcribing, it was necessary to compare the transcripts which
she typed from tapes altered by Senator Packwood with
transcripts prepared from the original unchanged tapes to
determine if there were any differences. The staff compared the
transcripts prepared from the original unchanged audiotapes to
the ``Cormack'' transcripts for 1989 through 1993, in order to
determine if there were entries on the audiotape that had been
left out of the Cormack transcripts, if there were entries on
the audiotape that had been changed in the Cormack transcripts,
or if there were passages on the Cormack transcripts that that
were not on the audiotape.
As the staff compared the transcripts prepared from the
original unchanged audiotapes to the Cormack transcripts for
1992 and 1993, it discovered numerous differences between them.
These differences fell into three broad categories: ^{109
\109\ Not included in these three categories are differences that
are minor, and appear to be the result of transcriber error or editing,
such as cleaning up grammar and taking out repetitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Large portions of the audiotape that were
completely missing from the Cormack transcripts;
b. Numerous instances, especially in the last half of
1993, where entries from the audiotape appeared on the
Cormack transcripts, but were heavily reworded;
c. Many instances where entries related to the
Committee's inquiry or arguably incriminating or
embarassing entries on the audiotapes were missing from
the Cormack transcripts, and different entries were
substituted in their place.
The staff found no differences, other than minor
differences that could be laid to transcriber error, between
the audiotapes for 1989, 1990, and 1991, and the corresponding
Cormack transcripts.

2. The focus on certain changed entries

Differences in these first two categories could arguably be
attributed to the transcriber, particularly since Ms. Cormack
had testified that she had been under intense time pressure to
transcribe the audiotapes for 1992 and 1993, and that she had
condensed many entries. Senate Ethics Counsel focused on the
third category, and isolated entries related to the Committee's
inquiry or where potentially incriminating or embarassing
portions of the audiotapes were missing from the Cormack
transcripts, and neutral or arguably exculpatory entries were
substituted in the Cormack transcripts.
The entries in this third category fall into several
groups:
a. Entries dealing with the Committee's inquiry into
alleged sexual misconduct and witness intimidation;
b. Entries indicating Senator Packwood's knowledge
of, and possible involvement with, independent
expenditures made on his behalf during his 1992
campaign;
c. Entries discussing Senator Packwood's possible use
of office staff or facilities for campaign purposes;
d. Entries dealing with the Oregon Citizens Alliance
(OCA), which had accused Senator Packwood of making a
``deal'' during the 1992 senatorial campaign, that the
OCA would not run a candidate against him in return for
promises by him;
e. Entries referring to contributions to Senator
Packwood's legal defense fund.
Once these entries were isolated, the staff questioned both
Cathy Cormack and Senator Packwood to determine who was
responsible for making the changes.

3. Brief summary of Senator Packwood's response

For the most part, Senator Packwood took responsibility for
the deletions from the audiotape where there were corresponding
substitutions in the Cormack transcripts. He testified that he
began making changes to his untranscribed diary tapes in
January 1993, and through the spring of 1993, after his
attorneys requested that he provide them with excerpts from his
1992 diaries that might deal with the issue of witness
intimidation.^{110 He stated that he was fearful that his
diaries would be leaked to the press from his attorneys'
offices, and he knew that there were entries in the diaries
that he did not want to appear in public. As the Senator
listened to the audiotapes to find the portions relating to
possible witness intimidation to provide to his lawyers, he
believes that he made notes about the location of passages he
might later want to delete. After a January 1993 trip to Oregon
and the intense media attention that was focused on him, his
fear of leaks intensified.
\110\ James Fitzpatrick, one of Senator Packwood's attorneys at
Arnold & Porter, testified that he could not recall making any request
for copies of Senator Packwood's diary pages, per se. Rather, Senator
Packwood was requested to and did provide his lawyers with a broad
range of information to assist them in representing him, including his
recollection, memoranda, clippings, and summaries of or excerpts from
his diaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the spring of 1993, while he reviewed his diary
tapes for 1992 looking for the excerpts requested by his
attorneys, and for other entries that might be helpful to his
attorneys, Senator Packwood also deleted certain potentially
embarassing passages from the audiotapes, and in many cases,
substituted different passages, more from a compulsion to fill
up the space on the tape than anything else.
Senator Packwood was not concerned about leaks from his
1993 diary audiotapes at this time, as his attorneys had not
requested them. Thus, during the spring of 1993, as he reviewed
his diaries for previous years (including his 1992 audiotapes)
for information that would be helpful to his attorneys, and at
the same time made changes to his 1992 audiotapes to delete
embarassing references, Senator Packwood continued to dictate
contemporaneous entries with no effort to monitor his dictation
to exclude embarrassing or damaging entries.
Sometime later that summer, in late July or early August,
1993, Senator Packwood's attorneys asked that he get the rest
of his audiotapes transcribed.^{111 Fearing that the 1993
diaries would now be leaked to the press through his attorneys'
offices, Senator Packwood went through these tapes and again
deleted entries that might prove embarassing to himself or
others if they got to the press. In many cases, he also
substituted different entries on the tape, again, more out of a
compulsion to fill the space on the tape than for any other
reason.^{112
\111\ Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that he could not specifically
recall asking Senator Packwood to get the rest of his diaries
transcribed. Steven Sacks, another attorney at Arnold & Porter, after
consulting with Senator Packwood's current attorneys, represented that
no one who worked on Senator Packwood's matter at Arnold & Porter could
recall when this request was made, but that July or August 1993 sounded
``about right.''
\112\ In one instance, Senator Packwood deleted an entry that would
be very embarassing to him and one of his staff members if it became
public, but substituted in its place an entry that also would have been
very embarassing to a different staff member if it became public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After dropping off all of the outstanding audiotapes to his
transcriber, Cathy Cormack, in early August 1993, Senator
Packwood took all of his previously transcribed diaries, from
1991 going back to 1969, home with him during the August 1993
recess, where he reviewed them for information that might be
helpful to his attorneys. However, despite the fact that he was
fearful that the press would obtain all of his diaries, he made
no changes to any of these transcripts to delete entries that
would prove embarassing to himself or others if obtained by the
press. Senator Packwood testified that he felt no need to
excise embarassing entries from his 1969-1991 diaries, because
he was selecting pages from these years to give to his
attorneys.
After he returned from the recess, Senator Packwood asked
Ms. Cormack to give him the audiotapes back, as he had
neglected to make a copy for himself of the changed 1993
audiotapes that he had given to her before the recess.^{113
Ms. Cormack recalled that Senator Packwood told her he wanted
the audiotapes back because of the possibility that there might
be a subpoena; Senator Packwood did not recall that
conversation, although he thought it was possible he might have
mentioned the word ``subpoena'' to her in a different
conversation. Both now recall that event taking place sometime
in September 1993. Senator Packwood returned the tapes to Ms.
Cormack within about a week.
\113\ Senator Packwood testified that when he changed the 1992 and
1993 tapes, he made a duplicate of the original tape, and made the
changes on the duplicate. He then made a copy of this changed tape,
which he gave to Ms. Cormack to type. When she completed typing the
tape, she destroyed hers, and he destroyed his.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, during this time when he was changing prior tapes to
remove embarassing entries, Senator Packwood continued to
dictate contemporaneous entries with no effort to monitor the
content of those entries. He made changes to one of those
tapes, covering August and possibly part of September 1993, as
soon as he was finished dictating it, and before he gave it to
Ms. Cormack to type.
Senator Packwood delivered all of his diaries that had been
transcribed to date to his attorneys on October 7, 1993,
shortly after his first deposition was interrupted so that the
Committee could review the diaries.^{114 Ms. Cormack
continued to work on the untranscribed audiotapes for 1992 and
1993, and Senator Packwood provided his attorneys with
transcripts as they were finished.^{115 Because she was in a
rush to complete the diaries, Ms. Cormack skipped over, with
Senator Packwood's approval, passages that she deemed to be
unimportant, dealing with things such as squash games with
fellow Senators, food, stereo equipment, music, and movies.
\114\ These diaries cover 1969 through January of 1992.
\115\ Senator Packwood did not inform his attorneys that the
transcripts he was delivering to them for 1992 and 1993 had been typed
by Ms. Cormack from the altered tape, and not from the original,
contemporaneous tape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood made some changes to his diary tape
covering August 1993. He testified that he made no changes to
September entries, but he did change some October entries after
Ms. Cormack had typed them, marking up the pages and giving Ms.
Cormack instructions on what changes he wanted made. Although
some of these changes were made after his deposition was
interrupted, he testified that he felt free to edit entries
which were made after the deposition was interrupted. With
respect to any entries he changed after he received the
Committee's subpoena, he testified that he did not feel that
the subpoena prevented him from editing his diaries as they
were typed and he saw them for the first time. Senator Packwood
also testified that it was possible he may have made changes to
transcript pages for dates prior to his deposition, after his
deposition was interrupted and after he received the
Committee's subpoena. Senator Packwood also testified that as
Ms. Cormack completed the transcription of tapes after his
October 1993 deposition was interrupted, and after he received
the Committee's subpoena, he continued to destroy the
corresponding tapes.^{116
\116\ A letter from Senator Packwood's attorneys to the Committee,
dated October 20, 1993, indicates that approximately half of 1992 was
typed after that date. This is consistent with Ms. Cormack's testimony
in which she indicated that during mid to late October, she was really
pushing to get the diaries transcribed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood's attorneys were not aware that he kept
original, backup tapes for his diaries.^{117 They learned of
the existence of these tapes on the evening of November 21,
1993, and the tapes were delivered to them by Senator Packwood
on November 22. That same day, Arnold & Porter terminated their
representation of Senator Packwood.
\117\ For the years 1989, 1990, and 1991, these backup tapes would
correspond with the written transcript. For 1992 and 1993, however,
they would not, because they were typed from a duplicate of the
original, on which Senator Packwood had made the changes. This
duplicate was destroyed after it was transcribed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Testimony and Evidence

1. Testimony by Cathy Cormack

Ms. Cormack's deposition was taken a total of three times.
It was taken in November 1993 to determine how she was paid for
her transcription of the diaries. After she provided an
affidavit to the Committee on December 10, 1993 (after having
reviewed her deposition), indicating that some of the tapes she
typed had been changed, her deposition was taken again in
December 1993. Once the staff had had the chance to compare the
transcripts she typed for Senator Packwood with the original
unchanged tapes, her deposition was taken again in December
1994.
a. Historical transcription of the diaries
Ms. Cormack testified that she had transcribed the diaries
while she was a member of Senator Packwood's personal Senate
office staff, from 1969 to 1981. She was not paid any
additional compensation, over and above her Senate salary, for
transcribing the diaries. She then moved to the Republican
Senatorial Campaign Committee, where she was paid a small sum
from the Senate Disbursing Office to transcribe Senator
Packwood's diaries. Shortly after she left the Campaign
Committee, she began to be paid to transcribe the diaries from
Senator Packwood's campaign fund. She has never been paid for
transcribing the diaries from the personal funds of Senator
Packwood. Senator Packwood also provided her with an IBM
Selectric typewriter, which she used to type the diaries, and
dictation equipment.
Ms. Cormack testified that over the last 23 years or so,
Senator Packwood has dictated his diaries on audiotapes, which
he periodically provided to her, either delivering them to her,
or having her pick them up from his office. For a short time,
she lived with her husband in California and later Japan, and
received tapes from Senator Packwood by mail. Once she returned
the typed transcripts to Senator Packwood, she would erase the
audiotape, and either return it to Senator Packwood, or throw
it away. A single tape, both sides, covered, on the average,
about three weeks to one month of entries, and took about eight
to ten hours to type. Ms. Cormack usually received six to eight
tapes at a time from Senator Packwood and typically was about a
year or so behind in her transcription. Except for the time
period when she lived in California and Japan, when she knew
that she received copies of the tapes, Ms. Cormack assumed that
she was working from the original diary tapes. As she completed
typing a tape, she would erase it and throw it away. Sometime
after her first deposition in December 1993, she had occasion
to see Senator Packwood, and he commented to her that he had
the original diary tapes, and she had received copies to
transcribe.
b. Early 1993 request to transcribe excerpts
Ms. Cormack testified that in January 1993, Senator
Packwood asked her to transcribe diary entries surrounding the
1992 general election out of sequence, as he had been asked for
these entries by his attorneys. At that point, she was about a
year and half behind in her transcription, and although she may
have been working on the backlog for earlier in 1992, she had
not yet reached the time period surrounding the 1992 election.
She had some tapes from early 1992 in her possession, but she
did not know specifically which ones; in any event, she did not
have the tape or tapes that covered the general election in the
fall. She believed that at this time, she had a backlog of 1991
and 1992 tapes going up to, but not including, the period
around the general election of 1992. Senator Packwood provided
her with the tape or tapes for this time period, along with a
separate tape that contained instructions on which entries she
should type. She typed the entries as instructed within a few
days, and provided them to Senator Packwood. Because these
entries were being typed out of sequence, she did not number
the pages.^{118 Because she knew she would have to come back
eventually and type the entire tape, she did not erase it, but
she did not recall if she kept the tape or gave it back to
Senator Packwood. Ms. Cormack then resumed her normal
transcription of the diaries.
\118\ Indeed, the Cormack transcripts received by the Committee are
not numbered after January 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. August 1993 delivery of tapes
Ms. Cormack may have done a small amount of transcribing
between January 1993, when she finished the 1992 election
entries out of sequence, and August of 1993, for tapes for late
1991 and early 1992. In August 1993, about the time of the
August recess, she received six to eight tapes for
transcription from Senator Packwood, covering the first half of
1993, up to the August recess. She also had a backlog of tapes
going back to the first part of 1992, which she had not yet
transcribed. Altogether, including the tapes that Senator
Packwood brought to her in August, she had about 20 tapes to be
transcribed.
d. Request to bring transcription up to date
Ms. Cormack did not begin working on the backlog right
away, as she left for vacation in August. She did some work on
the tapes when she returned from vacation. Sometime in early
September, around Labor Day, or possibly later in September or
October, Senator Packwood asked her to get caught up to date in
typing the transcripts. Ms. Cormack described this as the
``crunch time,'' when she was working hard to get the diaries
up to date.
In the past, Ms. Cormack had typed the transcripts
virtually verbatim, correcting a name if she knew it was
incorrect, cleaning up grammar, leaving out repetitions, but
never intentionally deleting, paraphrasing, or adding material
as she typed. In contrast, during this ``crunch time,'' Ms.
Cormack asked Senator Packwood if she could ``boil down''
passages having to do with things such as stereo equipment,
squash games, and meals; Senator Packwood assented. However,
she never added information to the transcript that was not on
the tape (with one exception relating to Senator Packwood's
purchase of a condominium where she acted as his real estate
agent).
During this time period, that is, early September 1993,
Senator Packwood telephoned her and asked her to type three or
four months in 1992 out of sequence. She did so, and got the
transcripts to him right away, as she assumed that he was
meeting with his attorneys. She then returned to typing the
backlog of tapes.
e. Senator Packwood asks for the return of the tapes
Sometime in early September, but before mid-October,
Senator Packwood called her, and asked her to give all of the
tapes back.^{119 He said something to her about ``the
possibility of a subpoena,'' and that ``he didn't want me to
have anything in my possession if that were to occur.'' She
believed that he was trying to protect her. Within the week,
however, Senator Packwood returned the tapes to her for
transcription, bringing them back in two batches.
\119\ In her second deposition, taken in December 1993, Ms. Cormack
could not place the time of this conversation any more precisely than
sometime between early September and mid to late October, although she
was asked several times, and in several different ways, to do so. When
her deposition was taken again a year later, in December 1994, Ms.
Cormack recalled that this conversation took place in early September.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Discovery of changes to tapes
Because Senator Packwood had requested that she bring the
transcription up to date, Ms. Cormack spent the next several
weeks working feverishly to transcribe all of the tapes. In
transcribing those tapes, Ms. Cormack sensed that there may
have been some alterations: there were differences in the sound
on the tape, differences in background noises, differences in
volume, breaks in the dialogue. She could not recall how many
tapes sounded ``irregular,'' but she recalled that it was more
than one. At one point, Ms. Cormack asked Senator Packwood if
he was making changes in the tapes, and he confirmed that he
was, either verbally or by his body language.
In addition, Ms. Cormack testified that during mid to late
October, when she was really ``crunching'' to catch up on the
backlog of tapes, Senator Packwood occasionally asked her to
make changes in the text of diary entries she had recently
typed. More specifically, Ms. Cormack testified as follows:

Q: You mentioned that he would ask you to make
changes in text. Were these changes made after you had
typed the transcript?
A: In some cases.
Q: Tell us how that happened.
A: Some times he would mark up a piece of paper and I
would redo it. And on a few occasions, he would
dictate, on a separate tape, a few changes, and give me
the pages.
Q: What time period did this occur in, that he was
asking you to make----
A: All within the same--I'm sorry, go ahead.
Q: What time period did that occur in where Senator
Packwood was asking you to make changes in the text?
A: This would be mostly, as best I can recall, within
the fifteen--mid-to-late October period, when I was
crunching to get this done.
Q: Of 1993?
A: Yes.

Ms. Cormack does not recall Senator Packwood asking her to
do this often, but it happened more than once. She recalled
that the changes mostly covered the backlogged months, that is,
a good part of 1992 and 1993. Ms. Cormack testified that
historically, there were less than five occasions when Senator
Packwood had asked her to make changes on diary pages that had
already been typed.
Ms. Cormack did not recall the precise dates that were
affected by Senator Packwood's alterations, but she did know
that the general time period would have included a large
portion of 1992, and a large portion of 1993, as those were the
tapes that she had backlogged at the time. She could not
remember if any of the changes to the typed pages were for
years earlier than 1992.
g. Completion of the tapes
Ms. Cormack finished transcribing a good portion of the
backlogged tapes by mid to late October 1993. Once every other
day during this September-October 1993 time period, or as she
completed a fair amount of transcript, Ms. Cormack would
deliver it to Senator Packwood. In addition to her backlog of
tapes, and the six or eight tapes that Senator Packwood gave
her around the time of the August recess, she also received one
or two tapes during the ``crunch time'' covering August,
September, October, and early November 1993, which she
completed transcribing in early November.^{120 Ms. Cormack
recalled that all told, she completed the backlog in a time
frame of about six weeks.
\120\ Ms. Cormack did not complete her transcription until at least
November 9, 1993, which was the last date she transcribed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
h. Comparison of tape to transcript
For those entries where material had been added to the
Cormack transcript that did not appear on the audiotape, Ms.
Cormack was asked to compare the transcript that the Committee
had prepared from the audiotape to the corresponding Cormack
transcript. In general, she testified that although in a few of
these instances, she may have skipped over some of the material
that was on the tape, in no instance did she add any of the
information that was on the Cormack transcript, but not on the
corresponding audiotape (with the one exception about the
Senator's condominium that was mentioned earlier).

2. Testimony by Senator Packwood

a. Mechanics of diary keeping
Senator Packwood testified that he began keeping his
diaries in 1969, first dictating entries on dictabelts or
disks, and later switching to audiotapes. Cathy Cormack, who
had been his legislative and legal secretary in Oregon, and his
secretary in the Senate, and was his longstanding friend and
confidant, transcribed his diaries for him from the beginning,
up until the fall of 1993.^{121 This task was not part of
her official duties, and she was not paid anything over her
Senate salary for typing his diaries while she was on his
Senate staff. When she left his staff and went to work for the
National Republican Senatorial Committee, she continued to
transcribe the diaries, and she remained on the Senate payroll,
not for transcribing the diaries, but because she still did
some official Senate work for Senator Packwood.^{122 After
Ms. Cormack left the Campaign Committee, she continued to
transcribe the diaries, and she was paid from Senator
Packwood's campaign funds. No one but Ms. Cormack transcribed
the diaries, and she is the only person, other than the
Senator, who ever saw the diaries up until the Committee's
inquiry.
\121\ The diaries themselves strongly suggest that Senator Packwood
and Ms. Cormack had a very close personal relationship.
\122\ Senator Packwood testified that Ms. Cormack did ``modest''
work for him, although he could not recall what it was. In contrast,
Ms. Cormack testified that after she left Senator Packwood's staff, she
performed no work for him other than transcribing his diaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood testified that he used tapes that were
sixty minutes on each side, and on average, one tape would hold
about a half month's worth of diary entries. He typically made
a duplicate of the tape for Ms. Cormack, which she erased when
she was finished typing.^{123 Ms. Cormack was traditionally
about a year and a half behind in her transcription.
Periodically, either she picked up tapes from him, or he
dropped them off to her. Ms. Cormack would not necessarily run
out of tapes, but if she were down to, say, her last two tapes,
she would ask him for more tapes. Upon receiving the typed
transcripts from Ms. Cormack, Senator Packwood organized them
in binders, and kept them in his safe. He and Cathy Cormack are
the only persons who have the combination to this safe. He
seldom reviewed the typed transcripts or made changes to them;
occasionally, maybe ten or twenty times over the course of over
twenty years, he edited them.^{124
\123\ Senator Packwood testified that he sometimes made another
duplicate, if for some reason he thought the original tape might be of
poor quality.
\124\ Ms. Cormack testified that historically, Senator Packwood
asked her to make changes in the typed transcript no more than five
times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Accuracy and reliability of the diaries
Senator Packwood was questioned at length at his January
1995 deposition about the accuracy and reliability of the
entries in his diaries. Senator Packwood stated that he did not
always dictate his diaries daily, and he often went two or
three days before dictating entries. He stated that he usually
dictated entries the next morning, but very seldom on the same
day, using his daily calendar of events as a reference
guide.^{125

\125\ This was a calendar in which Senator Packwood recorded his
activities for the day after the fact, as opposed to a calendar which
listed his appointments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: And from that schedule, and your memory, you would
dictate the diary entries?
A: Yeah, memory, I suppose real or imagined.

Senator Packwood stated that one purpose of keeping the
diary was as therapy--that while some people talked to
psychologists, he talked to his diary. He described it as a
potpourri of everything, with perhaps no single purpose. He
stated that there was no overwhelming reason he kept his diary,
and that perhaps it was just the result of compulsion.
Senator Packwood stated that it was sometimes his intent to
create an accurate record of events, and sometimes he simply
gave voice to thoughts that he would put in narrative form,
even though a conversation may not have happened in that
fashion. During his 1995 deposition, Senator Packwood stated
that he would attribute statements to someone if he thought
that was what the person felt, even if that person had not said
it at the time. He might record a detailed conversation that
never took place.

Q: Was it your intention to create an accurate record
of events?
A: Well, sometimes yes. Sometimes I say I would give
voice to conversations or thoughts and I would put them
in narrative form, even though they may not have
happened in that fashion.
Q: Let me ask the question this way: Was it your
intent in recording diary material to create a
nonfictional account?
A: No, not necessarily. I don't mean to say I was
writing a novel with it, and I don't mean to say I was
lying to it, but to the extent--have you ever seen this
situation? In fact, I've seen memos to this effect. You
have a meeting with somebody, some lobbyist comes in.
And then the memo later--you get a memo later that's
given to you of the lobbyist's report of the meeting.
And it doesn't comport with what you remember at all.
And you may say to your staff, God, did I say that? And
they'll say well, no, or maybe, Senator, unfortunately
you did, and the lobbyist thought totally different
than you remembered it. So I may put things in there
that others would totally remember as different.
Q: But the point that I'm trying to get to is you
would, would you not, attempt to honestly record what
you saw and heard and your impressions of what took
place at a meeting? You weren't trying to record
something that didn't happen, were you?
A: No--I don't mean no as the answer. As I said, I
would put things into narrative form, conversations,
between Jones and Smith or Packwood and Green that I
would picture I would have thought or they might have
thought that might not have been said.

Senator Packwood was asked about his intent in making
entries in his diary:

Q: But it was your intent, was it not, to capture the
essence of what happened and to express that
accurately?
A: Again, I don't think I can answer the question any
better than I have.
Q: I'm not sure that the question has been answered
here quite yet. And that is a very simple question.
Were you, in dictating the diary entries, making an
effort, or was it your intent to record events or your
impression of events accurately, truthfully and
honestly?
A: Well, again, I'll try to answer it once more. I
could put into it conversations, because I dictate in a
conversational narrative form that may not have taken
place.
Q: But were you trying accurately and truthfully to
capture the substance of what took place?
A: I'm saying the conversation may not have taken
place.
Q: But as you dictated the conversation, which didn't
take place, were you--was it your intent to have that
conversation reflect the substance of what happened?
[Witness conferred with counsel.]
Mr. Muse: Ask that question again, because you
combine a whole lot with those questions.
Q: Was it your intention in dictating entries to the
diary and relating an event or a meeting to capture and
express accurately the substance of what took place at
that meeting or event?
A: Well, it would depend on my mood, the day, the
thoughts, the pressure. But I'll say once more, I might
relate a conversation that did not take place on a
subject that did not take place.

Although he indicated that his diary was generally an
accurate record of time and place and events, Senator Packwood
reiterated numerous times that the substance of the entries in
his diaries may not be accurate, and that conversations
reflected therein may or may not have occurred, or if they did,
they may or may not have been recounted accurately. Nor could
he provide the Committee with any way to determine which
entries were accurate and which were not.
Senator Packwood was referred to an entry from his diary
for July 21, 1989, which reads as follows:

Had an interview with somebody doing a book on Tom
McCall. I did both of these at 's request. This
guy is well documented in his facts and the one
embarassing thing he had was that allegation that I met
with Tom at his beach place in 1972 to try to talk Tom
into running against . I don't know what my diary
may show on this. I don't recall. I denied that the
conversation had ever taken place and now in my life I
don't recall if it took place or not. My diary would be
a better testimony to that, dictated at the time.

Senator Packwood was questioned as follows:

Q: You appeared to recognize as early as 1989 that
your diary was a reliable reference or resource
document, did you not, Senator?
A: Mr. Baird, sometimes it's accurate. Sometimes it's
inaccurate. Sometimes it's fact. Sometimes it's
fiction. It is not a reliable document. I didn't
prepare it for anybody to rely upon it. I never
reviewed it. I never edited it. I never saw it again.
It is no--I didn't draft it. It's not like doing a
letter or a memo. It cannot be regarded as accurate.
Q: How does one tell which parts of it are accurate
and which parts are not?
A: I have no idea how you tell. I have no idea how a
historian tells. As a matter of fact, I think this
particular meeting with Tom McCall is recounted in his
book, too. Whether he sees it the same way I saw it or
not, I don't know.
Q: Why would you have thought it was a reliable
source to look to here to find out whether or not you
had had a conversation?
A: I've already indicated that if somebody else has a
different view of something that appears in here, I'd
be inclined to defer to how they heard it rather than I
heard it. Am I going to say this diary is always
accurate? It clearly is not always accurate. Am I going
to say it's always inaccurate? It is clearly not always
inaccurate. It clearly was not always inaccurate. If I
were to look up something and find it would I say boy,
that's it, that must be exactly it, no. Nor could
anybody say that about anything they put in a diary
that they've never seen before, never cleaned up, never
edited.
Q: But you think it is better evidence of whether or
not something happened than your current recollection,
do you not?
A: I'm not even going to say that.
Q: Isn't that what you said in July 1989?
A: Mr. Baird, I am not going to say that this diary
is exactly accurate or can be an accurate recollection.
We can read Tom McCall's book as to what he said about
it.
Q: You wouldn't say today what you said in 1989, that
it might be a better testimony as to what happened than
your current memory?
A: All I'm going to say is that--this statement was
never intended to be relied upon by anybody for
anything, and I'm not going to say--I'm not going to
have you say and attempt to put in this record that
everything in this diary is accurate.
Q: That's not what I'm attempting to say. I'm asking
you the question: Would you say today what you said at
the time of this diary entry, and that is that the
diary is better testimony than your present
recollection?
A: Not necessarily.

Finally, Senator Packwood testified in January 1995 that it
was not necessarily his intent to create a nonfictional
account, but he was not lying to his diary. He stated that he
may have put things in that others would recall as totally
different.
In contrast, Senator Packwood testified at his earlier
deposition in October 1993 that he would frequently refer back
to his diary as a ``resource document,'' that he would use it
as a ``memory tool,'' that he had a ``strong sense of
history,'' and that he might use it to write a book. When he
was asked about this earlier testimony at his deposition in
January 1995, Senator Packwood testified that he did not find
his diary nearly as accurate a reference tool as staff memos.
He stated that in the past, he would look back at it from time
to time, but that he finally quit, because it did not give him
the answer to his questions. He stated that the diaries were
not a reliable reference tool, and to call them a resource
tool, as he had in his previous deposition, would be
overstated. He stated that information was missing from the
diary, and that there were inaccurate entries, including just
about any conversation that was recounted. Senator Packwood
stated that on occasion, he would put things in his diary that
just did not happen.
Senator Packwood confirmed that he has left his diaries in
trust to the Oregon Historical Society, although he could not
recall the purpose of the trust. He stated that the diary has
some historical value, although the Historical Society will not
be able to determine which parts of it have value, and which do
not.
Senator Packwood appeared to have used his diaries to
refresh his recollection about matters to which he testified
during his deposition.^{126 For example, his testimony at
his first deposition in 1993 about the incident with Ms. Hutton
in 1980, and about a subsequent occasion when Ms. Hutton joined
the road crew in Oregon for pizza and charades, both of which
occurred in 1980, very closely tracks diary entries for these
occasions.^{127 Senator Packwood also testified at his first
deposition in 1993 about a conversation with Ms. Williamson in
1969 when she drove him to a Girl Scout function; the Girl
Scout function itself is reflected in his diary.^{128
Senator Packwood testified at his first (1993) and second
(1995) depositions about the details of the evening of the
alleged incident with Complainant 1 in 1990, in which
Complainant 1 claims that Senator Packwood kissed her when they
returned to his office after an informal staff party at the
Irish Times. Senator Packwood stated that he ``pieced
together'' the details of that evening by talking to others who
were present at the Irish Times, as he had had too much to
drink to remember anything about the evening. Yet the diary
entry for this evening sets out in some detail the events that
took place at the Irish Times and the substance of his
conversations with Complainant 1, details that would be known
only to Complainant 1 and Senator Packwood. Senator Packwood
would not say how he obtained the information that appeared in
that entry, whether it was accurate, or whether he intended it
to be accurate at the time he recorded it.
\126\ Senator Packwood confirmed, as do his diary entries, that he
reviewed his diaries before his 1993 deposition.
\127\ Senator Packwood testified that he had an independent
recollection of these occasions.
\128\ Senator Packwood testified that he had an independent
recollection of this 1969 event and conversation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his earlier 1993 deposition, Senator Packwood recounted
an evening in October 1991 when Complainant 1 was in his
office, and the two of them were drinking wine. He described
how he got up from his desk, and Complainant 1 gave him a big
hug, a kiss on the lips, and told him ``You are wonderful,'' to
which he responded ``Warts and all.'' This incident, and the
conversation, are recounted in his diary word for word as he
testified before the Committee at his 1993 deposition. When
asked at his second (1995) deposition if this entry was an
accurate recounting of what happened that evening, Senator
Packwood testified that he could not say if it was accurate,
and that he could not guarantee if the conversation occurred as
set out in the diary. When it was pointed out to him that his
testimony at his previous deposition matched exactly the
conversation as set out in the diary entry, he stated that he
could not guarantee that his previous testimony before the
Committee was accurate. ^{129 Finally, he stated that his
testimony during his earlier deposition was accurate, and
conceded that the diary entry itself was also accurate.
\129\ Senator Packwood also recounted this incident, and the
conversation, word for word, in early November 1993 during debate on
the Senate floor over the subpoena for his diaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a general matter, Senator Packwood emphasized that the
diaries are different in kind from things such as memos and
letters, which may go through many revisions to achieve
accuracy. His diaries, in contrast, were dictated, sometimes
``on the fly,'' and transcribed and thereafter almost never
reviewed, and were not intended to be relied upon for any
specific purpose.
c. Alteration of diary tapes

(1) Review of diaries in late 1992, early 1993

Senator Packwood testified that in December 1992 or early
January 1993, his attorneys asked him to review his diaries for
relevant passages having to do with the issue of intimidation
of witnesses. He testified that as of early January 1993, he
had all of the 1992 diary tapes in his possession, as Ms.
Cormack had not caught up to that point in her
transcription.^{130 Senator Packwood listened to tapes
covering from March to early June, and after Labor Day in 1992,
and identified a period from October 20 to November 10 for Ms.
Cormack to transcribe out of sequence. He recalled that he
directed Ms. Cormack to type certain entries from this time
period, although he did not recall exactly how he did so--that
is, whether his instructions to her were written or on a
separate tape, or were incorporated on the tape itself.
\130\ Ms. Cormack testified that at the time Senator Packwood asked
her to type entries out of sequence, she had ``some'' tapes for 1992,
possibly tapes going up to, but not covering the period surrounding the
general election. Ms. Cormack also testified that when she typed the
entries out of sequence for Senator Packwood in early January 1993, she
did not number the pages. The Cormack transcripts are numbered up
through the end of January 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Fear of leaks to the press

At the same time, as he listened in December 1992 to the
audiotapes of the 1992 diary entries, Senator Packwood found
entries that he did not want to get out of his hands. He
started to become apprehensive at the prospect of turning any
portions of his diaries over to his attorneys. While it was no
secret that he kept diaries, and indeed news accounts had
previously referred to his diaries, no one but he and Ms.
Cormack had ever actually seen them. He feared that once they
went to his attorneys and were out of his hands, they would
almost certainly be leaked to the press. This fear was
heightened when he returned to Oregon in January 1993, and he
was met with protesters everywhere he went, at times fearing
for his personal safety or the safety of his supporters. He
believed that if the press obtained even a few paragraphs of
his diary, they would be embarassing and harmful both to
himself and to others who were mentioned in the diaries. Thus,
in early 1993 as he searched for entries in 1992 to provide to
his attorneys, he started making changes to the untranscribed
tapes for 1992.

(3) Changes made to the 1992 tapes

Senator Packwood testified that starting in January 1993,
he began to change his untranscribed 1992 tapes, to delete
entries that could potentially be embarassing if obtained by
the press. These entries included references to the Oregon
Citizens Alliance (OCA), conversations with Committee Members
about the Committee inquiry that he thought would suggest a
``Republican conspiracy'' to the press, ^{131 comments about
his chief of staff, comments about women whose names had not
been reported by the press in connection with the allegations
of sexual misconduct, and anything that might have caused
personal harm or adverse publicity to others. He also changed
embarassing references to others, including some very
descriptive sexual references. According to Senator Packwood,
he changed anything that could get to the press and embarass
his friends or other persons. He testified that this was a
``catch as catch can'' effort and he did not get everything.
^{132
\131\ About fifteen (15) entries concerning communications with
Committee Members, mostly Senator McConnell, appeared to have been
changed, some by deletion, others by deletion and substitution of new
language.
\132\ In fact, a review of the transcripts prepared from the 1992
and 1993 tapes shows that many entries which would have been highly
embarassing were not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At his January 1995 deposition, Senator Packwood was asked
about approximately forty (40) altered diary entries, most of
which involved the deletion of information from the original
tape and the substitution of new information.
Senator Packwood testified that he sometimes simply deleted
entries, and sometimes deleted entries and substituted entries
in their place. He stated that he had no particular reason for
sometimes substituting entries in the place of entries he
deleted other than his compulsion to fill up the space. These
substitutions might be on the same subject matter as the
deleted material, or they might be totally different. When
shown one such entry where material was substituted, the
Senator testified as follows:

Q: Why, Senator, did you feel that all these spaces
on the tape that you were creating by eliminating
passages had to be filled?
A: I can't answer that.
Mr. Muse: You said ``all.'' It wasn't all.
A: There's great gaps that are missing.
Q: Why did you feel that some of them had to be
filled?
A: I don't know. Maybe it's just compulsive
dictation. I have no answer to that.

Senator Packwood testified that his sole motivation in
making these changes was to prevent the leak of potentially
embarassing or politically damaging information to the press by
way of his attorneys' office. ^{133
\133\ There is no evidence to suggest that any diary material was
ever leaked by Senator Packwood's attorneys or their office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood first stated that he finished making the
changes to the 1992 tapes by the end of February 1993. ^{134
Although he stated that he could have changed his 1993 tapes
during this same time, he testified that he did not know if it
was going to be necessary, as his attorneys had not asked him
to provide any transcripts for 1993. Indeed, after he provided
his attorneys with the transcribed excerpts for October and
November 1992, they did not ask him for any more transcripts,
per se. ^{135
\134\ Later in his deposition, Senator Packwood stated that he
finished making the changes to the 1992 tapes by the end of February or
March, or in early April, 1993.
\135\ Although Senator Packwood forwarded excerpts that he selected
from his diaries to his attorneys through the spring of 1993, his
attorneys did not ask him to turn over any portion of his diaries in
toto until after the Committee specifically requested them in October
1993. The exception to this was the diaries for the October-November
1992 period which the Senator provided to his lawyers sometime in
Janaury 1993. The Senator testified that after he provided these
diaries, his attorneys told him to stop transcribing his 1992-93 tapes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time that he was revising his diary tapes, up
through May of 1993, Senator Packwood continued to pinpoint
relevant portions of his diaries for his attorneys, some of
them referring to the women who had made allegations against
him. If these entries were in portions that had already been
transcribed (i.e., 1969-1991) he would provide a copy of the
entry to his attorneys. If the entries had not yet been
transcribed, he would send a memo to his attorneys, describing
the nature of the entry. Senator Packwood testified that he
sent these excerpts in the form of memoranda, which might quote
from a diary entry, or might refer to or summarize a diary
entry. ^{136
\136\ These memoranda were withheld from the Committee on the
grounds of attorney-client and work-product privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the same time that he was revising his diary tapes
for 1992 to delete potentially embarassing or damaging
information, Senator Packwood continued to dictate
contemporaneous daily diary entries. Despite the fact that he
was simultaneously deleting potentially embarassing or
politically damaging entries from his 1992 tapes, Senator
Packwood continued to dictate entries of the same character,
entries he would then delete only months later. At his 1995
deposition, Senator Packwood testified that he did so out of
compulsion, and that he could not change his long-standing
style of dictation.

After you've dictated for twenty five years, you
don't consciously think of that as you dictate. You
don't say oh, better not do this, better not do this.
It becomes sort of a stream of consciousness thinking.

During his June 1995 appearance before the Committee, the
Senator added that since his attorneys had not requested any
1993 entries so he did not feel those entries would ever be
requested by them.

(4) Changes to the 1993 tapes

Senator Packwood assumed that he gave Ms. Cormack a fair
amount of tapes to transcribe during the spring and summer of
1993, and thinks that she gave him more typed transcript during
that same time period. Sometime in mid-summer, or early August
of 1993, his attorneys told him that they wanted all of the
1992-1993 diaries transcribed. Realizing then that the
transcripts made from the 1993 tapes could be going to his
attorneys, Senator Packwood made changes to them along the same
lines as he had changed his 1992 tapes.^{137 Senator
Packwood made these changes shortly before he left for the
August recess in 1993. He then gave all of the tapes he had,
including 1993 up-to-date, to Ms. Cormack to type.^{138 He
asked her if she could hurry up and get these tapes
transcribed.
\137\ Senator Packwood also testified that he deleted entries in
which he recorded unflattering comments about his attorneys, a friend,
and his marriage counselor.
\138\ Senator Packwood thought that Ms. Cormack had the 1992 tapes
by this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, at the same time, Senator Packwood continued to
dictate contemporaneous diary entries of the same character
that he was deleting from his previous tapes, out of compulsion
and in keeping with his long-standing style of dictation,
entries that he would go back and delete only weeks later. At
his June 1995 appearance before the Committee, Senator Packwood
testified as follows:

By Senator McConnell:
Q: So some time in the first quarter then of 1993,
you were doing some deletions for what you viewed to be
embarassing material?
A: Yes. I think I'd probably finished listening to
the '92 tapes by late April, mid-April, early May,
something like that.
Q: And then contemporaneously, you were continuing
your practice of dictating?
A: Yes.
Q: And the continued practice of the dictating also
included some embarassing material, did it not?
A: Yes.
Q: So you were dictating embarassing material
contemporaneously while you were also deleting
embarassing material retroactively?
A: Yes. So long as you understand my dictation
habits. I'd been dictating this for 25 years and it's a
stream of consciousness, pour everything into it, pour
my heart into it, and I was not consciously, when I was
dictating, think now should this be in there, should
this be out. That thought wasn't in my mind. It's only
in listening to it, and I was finding things, did I
find things that I wanted to take out. Bear in mind, I
was kind of hoping, by the time I'd gotten a few months
into '93, that they weren't going to ask for anything
more, they'd gotten what they wanted, and I was sending
them along these memos from '69, '80, or wherever I'd
find some reference to a complainant, a copy of the
diary page that related to that complainant. And they
weren't asking for anything more what I'd call en
masse, so when I finished the '92, I kind of crossed my
fingers and hoped they wouldn't ask for anything more,
wouldn't ask for all of '92 or '93.

Senator Packwood testified that in order to make the
changes to his diary tapes for 1992 and 1993, he made a
duplicate copy of the tape, and then made the changes to the
duplicate. He then copied the duplicate, giving one copy of the
changed tape to Ms. Cormack, and keeping one for himself. When
Ms. Cormack finished typing any given tape, he destroyed his
corresponding copy. He retained the original, unchanged tape.

(5) Senator Packwood returns to Oregon over recess

After giving Ms. Cormack his up-to-date diary tapes to
transcribe shortly after the start of the August recess,
Senator Packwood then returned to Oregon for the recess, taking
with him all of his transcribed diaries from 1969 through 1991.
Senator Packwood testified at his deposition that he was
concerned that the press would obtain his diaries, and he took
all of his diary transcripts with him to Oregon. A review of
the transcripts prior to February 1992 (as far back as 1989)
shows that although there are many entries that would seem to
be embarassing or potentially damaging if leaked to the press,
and which fall within the same categories as the changes that
Senator Packwood made to the 1992 and 1993 tapes, no changes
were made to these (1989-1991) transcripts.
In his appearance before the Committee, Senator Packwood
testified that he felt no need to delete embarassing
information from his previously transcribed diaries (pre-1992)
because he was providing to his attorneys only selected
excerpts from these pre-1992 transcripts, and there was no fear
that other pre-1992 transcripts would be requested by his
attorneys.
Although Senator Packwood testified that his goal was to
remove entries that would be embarassing to himself or others,
in substituting one entry in place of an embarassing entry he
had deleted, Senator Packwood discussed details of the sex life
of one of his long-time staffers. When he was asked why he
added an entry that was of the same character as those he was
deleting, and how he thought the press might have reacted to
that information, Senator Packwood stated that he should not
have done it, the entry was factually incorrect, and that in
any event it was obviously in jest.^{139 In fact, an entry
in Senator Packwood's diary dated June 11, 1992 describes an
occasion when he had dinner with this long-time staffer, and
she related to him the information that appears in this later,
substituted entry.
\139\ At his appearance before the Committee, Senator Packwood
repeated that he had made up this entry about his long-time staffer,
and that she had never told him about her private life as reflected in
the substituted entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6) Senator Packwood asks Ms. Cormack to return the 1992 and 1993 tapes

Very shortly after the end of the 1993 August recess,
within a day or two of when he came back to town, Senator
Packwood asked Ms. Cormack to give him back the untranscribed
tapes. He testified that he only wanted the 1993 tapes, but Ms.
Cormack gave him all of the tapes, including the 1992 tapes, in
a bag. Senator Packwood stated that in his rush to make the
changes to the 1993 tapes, he had not made a copy of the
changed tapes for himself, and he wanted the 1993 tapes back so
he could make a copy in case something happened to Ms.
Cormack's copy before she had a chance to transcribe it. He
copied the 1993 tapes, and returned all of the tapes to Ms.
Cormack within days, in two separate batches.
Senator Packwood testified that he did not use the word
``subpoena'' during whatever conversation he had with Ms.
Cormack about returning the tapes. He stated that it was
possible that he may have used that word during other
conversations with her, although he had no reason to use that
word, because he was not thinking of the possibility of a
subpoena for his diaries.
During August and September, Senator Packwood continued to
dictate his diaries, making at least one entry in August that
he deleted after the tape was transcribed.
At the time he asked Ms. Cormack to return the tapes,
Senator Packwood was somewhat perturbed that Ms. Cormack had
done so little on transcribing the diaries. He again asked her
to hurry up, and she typed transcripts during September and
October 1993, giving him back pages she had transcribed from
the tapes every few days during that time. Senator Packwood
delivered these diary pages to his attorneys as Ms. Cormack
finished them. ^{140 As to the status of her efforts at this
time, Senator Packwood testified as follows at his January 1995
deposition:
\140\ According to Senator Packwood's attorneys, they received the
first set of transcripts from Senator Packwood on October 7, 1993.
These transcripts, which were numbered, covered 1969 through January
1992.

Q: Over what period of time did she complete her
typing of the '92 and '93 tapes?
A: September and October.
Q: Both months, both full months?
A: Yeah. You know, she's got a full-time job, so she
can't type all day long. There are a lot of tapes, but
she finally got at it * * *

Senator Packwood was aware that as she typed the diaries
during September and October 1993, Ms. Cormack left out a lot
of material. She had told him that in order to finish quickly,
she needed to consolidate entries, and leave certain things
out--for example, entries dealing with his stereo equipment,
and his squash games with another Senator. Senator Packwood
indicated to her that she could do so, and he left it to her
judgment as to what should be left out of the transcript.
Senator Packwood testified that in response to requests
from his attorneys, during the fall of 1993, as Ms. Cormack
sought to get the transcripts up to date, he asked her to type
certain entries out of sequence.
Senator Packwood testified that as Ms. Cormack finished
typing portions of the diary, he erased the corresponding tape
in his possession, which was a duplicate of the changed tape
used by Ms. Cormack. Ms. Cormack also erased her copy of the
changed tape. Senator Packwood kept the original tape, even
though it did not correspond to the diary transcript, because
he had historically kept the ``original.''
Some time during the fall of 1993, Ms. Cormack asked
Senator Packwood, in an offhand sort of way, if he had made
changes to the diary tapes. He confirmed to her, either with
words or a smile, that he had done so.

(7) Changes to October and early November 1993 tapes

Senator Packwood testified that he made no changes to his
diary tapes for September, October, or November 1993.^{141
However, Senator Packwood testified that during late October
and possibly early November, as the pages of the diary covering
late October and early November were typed by Ms. Cormack, he
would make changes to them and have Ms. Cormack retype the
pages. He believes, but cannot be sure, that all of these types
of changes were made only to entries for October 1993.^{142
Senator Packwood stated that he may have given Ms. Cormack
instructions on how to retype these pages on a separate tape,
with the entries underlined in yellow on the pages; he did not
recall actually redictating the tapes. Senator Packwood
continued to make changes to diary entries dictated after his
receipt of the Committee's subpoena, as he did not feel that
the subpoena affected his right to edit his post-subpoena
diaries as they rolled off the press.
\141\ It appears that the tapes that Senator Packwood gave Ms.
Cormack in early August prior to departure on recess would have brought
him up to August 5, since there is a tape which ends August 5, 1993 and
a new tape which begins on August 5, 1993 and extends well into the
August recess. The tape that covers the August time period after August
5, which was not included in the group given to Ms. Cormack because it
was still in use by Senator Packwood, had several entries that were
changed. Senator Packwood testified that he made these changes when he
was finished with that tape, after he came back from recess.
\142\ There are only two entries in September, October, and
November 1993 where a passage appearing on the tape does not appear on
the Cormack transcript, and a different passage is substituted. These
entries appear on October 9 and 10, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood also continued to erase his copy of the
changed diary tape, even after receipt of the Committee's
subpoena. In this regard, he testified at his 1995 deposition
as follows:

Q: So the tapes--when she transcribed during October
after delivery of the subpoena, any tapes that she
transcribed during that period, you would have erased
the duplicate of them?
A: Yes, I think so. I'm quite sure I probably did. To
the extent the transcript is different than the tape,
you can tell the original tape from the transcript. The
transcript would be the changed one that she typed from
which she erased and I erased and the original would be
whatever is in the transcript you have now is [sic].

The Senator went on to testify as follows:

Q: Now, as she was completing tapes after your
deposition and your awareness that the Committee was
reviewing them, after she was completing those, and
bringing the transcripts to you, were you then
continuing to destroy your copy of the tape which she
had transcribed?
A: Yes.
Q: And you presume she was destroying her copy also?
A: That's what she had done for 15 years. I didn't
think about it. It's just what she had been doing over
the years. The thought didn't enter my mind, let's put
it that way.
* * *
Q: And just so I'm clear on this, there was never any
instruction, either after the deposition when you
understood that the Committee staff was going to be
reviewing transcripts being prepared by Cathy Cormack
or even later after there had been a subpoena, there
was never any instruction from you to Cathy Cormack to
say Cathy, don't destroy the tapes as you make the
transcripts?
A: I don't recall discussing with her at all.
Q: And, in fact, as you have said, you yourself
destroyed those tapes during that time period as she
returned the transcripts to you?
Mr. Muse: I think he followed the same practice with
them. And also, there are some copies that are still
with Judge Starr that are to be delivered to you that
cover this category.
Q: Other than the copies that are with Judge Starr
[Note: which turned out to be duplicate unchanged
originals], all the other tapes that matched the
changed tapes which you had given Cathy Cormack, you
destroyed those?
A: That's correct.

As Senator McConnell pointed out at Senator Packwood's June
1995 appearance before the Committee, the destruction of the
altered tape by Senator Packwood makes it difficult to
determine which changes were made by whom:

By Senator McConnell:
Q: You noted that Ms. Cormack made 99 percent of the
changes to the diary material in the '92-'93 period?
A: Yes, I think 99 percent would be it, I might be
off a percent but I think that would be a fair--by
changes, I mean including deletions. * * *
Q: I guess my question is, without a copy of the
altered diary tapes, how can we tell who is responsible
for which deletions or alterations? In other words, how
do we--these particular altered tapes, we don't have,
is that correct?
A: That's correct.

At his January 1995 deposition, Senator Packwood testified
as follows:
Q: And at the time now, once you had received the
subpoena and Arnold & Porter had, Cathy Cormack was
still processing some of these tapes, was she not?
Mr. Muse: Typing transcripts.
By Mr. Baird:
Q: Yes typing transcripts from tapes which you had
previously given her.
A: Yes, * * * certainly she was typing what had come
out in October and November. She was typing things
after the subpoena. I don't know at what stage she
finished the backlog.
Q: But she continued typing throughout the rest of
October and on into November?
A: Into early November, yeah.
Q: Once you got the subpoena, did you go to Cathy
Cormack and suggest any changes in her handling of the
tapes which she had had?
A: No, I didn't.
Q: Because I think you have told us earlier that it's
possible that during this time, she was still typing on
1992 or 1993 tapes, that that's possible?
A: She could have been because I remember there was a
portion of '92 tapes. I think it's early on, February
and March where I never found anything, and it wasn't
of consequence to them. We'd get to it, but it wasn't
as important to the lawyers I guess as some other
period. She could have been into the first three or
four months of '93 and not have done the first three or
four months of '92 or something like that.
* * *
Q: But in any event, your process, that is Cathy
Cormack typing the tape, sending the transcript to you
and your then destroying the tape that related to that
transcript----
A: My copy of that tape.
Q: [Continuing]. Copy of that tape did not change
after you received the Committee's subpoena; is that
correct?
A: To the best of my knowledge, it did not because I
would not have destroyed the tape until I got the
transcript from Cathy in case something went wrong with
her tape.
Q: So if, in fact, Cathy Cormack transcribed tapes
covering the period of 1992 and returned that
transcript to you after October 21 of '93, you would
have destroyed the corresponding tape?
A: I think so. The reason I say I think so, there was
some extra tapes left over that I may not have gotten--
I think they're September, October and November and
they appear to be around. And whether I just didn't get
to it or not, by this time we're into a totally
different issue of the law and whether you have a legal
right to the diaries and that whole battle had started,
but it was my normal practice, I think to get rid of
them.

Senator Packwood testified that sometime shortly after his
deposition was interrupted in early October 1993, he delivered
the entire typed transcript to his attorneys. Thereafter, as
Ms. Cormack finished typing entries, he provided them to his
attorneys. He did not, however, tell his attorneys that these
transcripts had been typed from altered tapes. At his June 1995
appearance before the Committee he testified as follows on this
point:

By Senator Bryan:
Q. Did you at any time provide any diary information
to your attorneys that had been changed--and I'm
defining ``change'' as either a deletion, a
substitution, or addition--without telling them that,
look, I did change this from the original.
A. Yes. I'm sure that must have happened because they
were getting these jumping-about portions of 92 and 93,
many of which, or some of which had changes on them.

The testimony goes on to clarify that his attorneys were
not told about any changes until after the Department of
Justice subpoena of November 19, 1993.
In his appearance before the Committee, Senator Packwood
testified that if the Committee had gotten up to 1992 in its
review of his diaries, he would not have let the Committee
review the altered transcripts, and he would have notified his
attorneys that he had changed the tapes. However, even as the
Committee staff was reviewing his already transcribed diaries
during the second week of October, Ms. Cormack was typing the
1992 and 1993 transcripts from the altered tapes, as evidenced
by the testimony below from the Senator's January 1995
deposition.

Q: Sometime that week after your deposition, you
would have understood, though, that we were, in fact,
after your attorneys had masked certain materials, that
the Ethics Committee staff was reviewing your diaries
beginning in 1969 and working our way back to the
present, meanwhile Cathy Cormack is continuing to
produce transcript for you; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you understand that the Ethics Committee staff
would also be reviewing the transcripts which Cathy
Cormack was then preparing once those had been masked
by your attorneys?
A: Assuming you had gotten to those, yes.
* * *
Q: In any event, you did not consider, I take it,
once you knew that the Committee would be reviewing the
transcript which was being produced by Cathy Cormack,
you did not consider having her transcribe from the
original as opposed to the changed?
A: No.
* * *
Q: When she was in this period after your deposition,
she was typing from changed tapes?
A: Yes.
On October 20, 1993, Senator Packwood's attorneys informed
the Committee that about half of the 1992 tapes had been typed,
and would be available for review shortly, and that the rest of
the tapes for 1992 were in the process of being typed and
reviewed. Thus, it appears that at least some of the changed
tapes covering 1992 and 1993 were typed after the Senator
received the Committee's subpoena on October 21, 1993 and that
those tapes were destroyed after that date.

(8) Senator Packwood reviews transcripts for passages reflecting
criminal conduct

Shortly after the floor debate over the subpoena for his
diaries, when Senator Packwood became aware that the Committee
was earmarking passages in his diaries dealing with potentially
criminal conduct, ^{143 he retrieved his diary transcripts
from his attorneys, ^{144 to look for any entries that might
possibly relate to criminal conduct that would be within the
Committee's jurisdiction. He returned the diaries to his
attorneys within about a week.
\143\ On the evening of November 1, 1993, after the first day of
floor debate, the Senator, his attorneys, the Chairman and Vice
Chairman, and staff counsel met to discuss a proposal by Senator
Packwood for production of his diaries. Senator Packwood testified that
this meeting was the first time he became aware of the nature of the
potential criminal activity that the Committee was interested in. This
precise information had been provided to Senator Packwood's attorneys
by staff on October 18, 1993.
\144\ Senator Packwood's diary indicates that he retrieved his
diaries from his attorneys on October 31, 1993, which he confirmed at
his deposition. He stated that at that time he took the volumes for
1989, 1990, and 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood testified that his attorneys were not
aware that he kept backup tapes for his diaries. In his
appearance before the Committee, Senator Packwood testified
that he told his attorneys about the backup tapes only after he
received a subpoena from the Department of Justice on November
19, 1993. He stated that because the Department of Justice
subpoena could concern criminal matters, he thought the
Department of Justice would want the original tapes. ^{145
\145\ The Committee's subpoena, which Senator Packwood received
almost a month earlier, specifically asked for all diaries, both tapes
and transcripts for the period from November 1, 1989 to October 20,
1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(9) Why Senator Packwood felt free to change his diaries

Senator Packwood testified at his January 1995 deposition
that he provided his attorneys with relevant excerpts from his
diaries, but that they never turned any of them over to the
Committee in response to the document requests. Senator
Packwood therefore concluded that the Committee did not have
any right to them. He also testified that even after he
received the Committee's subpoena, he never imagined that he
could not go back and edit his diaries as they were being
transcribed by Ms. Cormack. In this regard, Senator Packwood
testified as follows:

Q: We had talked just briefly about editing you might
have done to transcripts which you are getting back
during this period, and I think your lawyer, Mr. Stein,
suggested that perhaps we should parse the time periods
from before your deposition and after your deposition
in terms of editing, and I want to focus on that just
for a moment. You had said * * * that with respect to
diary entries after the deposition, after you were
aware that the Committee was reviewing the tape [sic],
the transcripts being prepared by Cathy Cormack, I
believe you had testified, had you not, that you still
felt free to edit entries which were made after the
deposition?
A: Yes. It never occurred to me that something that I
dictate is forever frozen in time, and I can never edit
it or make a change in it.
Q: How about for entries which occurred before the
date of the deposition--
Mr. Muse: What's the question?
Mr. Baird: I haven't asked it yet.
Q: For the time period of tapes which predated your
deposition, when those were processed by Ms. Cormack
and returned to you after the deposition, did you feel
free to edit those transcripts?
Mr. Muse: Victor, you're asking him did he feel free,
did he have consciousness of doing one thing or another
or not doing one thing or another? The problem I have
is you're asking him what was his mental state about
those.
Mr. Baird: Yes.
A: I didn't have a mental state one way or the other.
They didn't come back, and I didn't consciously think
to myself I can't change these or I can change these.
It all kind of fluxes together so there was no thought.
Q: But I believe you told us it is possible you may
have edited--
A: Yes, I may have.
Q: [Continuing]. Some of those after you knew that
the transcripts were going to be reviewed by the Ethics
Committee staff?
A: I may have. Could I have? Yes. I'm sitting there
with diary entries on my desk and my desk piled up and
these transcripts are coming back from Cath and am I
looking through them. Could I have looked at some,
taken it back to her? I could have. I don't know if I
did, but I could have.
Q: And let's go up to the point of the subpoena. Does
the situation change any once you have the subpoena, or
was that still--did the process remain the same, that
is you could have changed the transcript that she had
given you--had she given you any transcript, say, from
1992 that she had done after the subpoena had been
served, that you might possibly have changed that and
given it back to her to make further changes?
A: Again, I have no recollection. I could have, but
I'm just trying--this is such a confusing period for me
in addition to buying my townhouse at the same time or
moving in. Yes, I could have.

At other times during his January 1995 deposition, Senator
Packwood testified that while it was possible that he changed
transcripts for entries which predated his October 1993
deposition after the deposition and after receiving the
Committee's subpoena, he did not think that this had occurred.
Senator Packwood went on to testify at his January 1995
deposition that he did not intend to prevent the Committee from
reviewing any information in either the original tapes or the
previously transcribed transcripts. He reiterated that he was
concerned about leaks to the press. He also testified that the
Committee eventually received the original audiotapes. ^{146
\146\ Of course, the Committee did not have access to the original
audiotapes until after the matter was litigated to the Supreme Court
and Senator Packwood was ordered to produce them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his appearance before the Committee in June 1995,
Senator Packwood testified, in response to questioning, that he
relied on the advice of his attorneys in making changes to his
diaries: because his attorneys had determined that the
Committee was not entitled to his diaries, he felt free to do
with them whatever he wished. However, Senator Packwood could
not articulate precisely what his attorneys had told him on
this issue. He repeatedly stated that he and his attorneys
discussed and argued over what he was required to turn over to
the Committee, but that there was little discussion about what
he was not required to turn over. He did state, however, that
the earliest that such discussions occurred--that is, about
whether the Committee was entitled to his diaries--was after
the Committee's document request of March 29, 1993, at least a
full two months after he had been making changes to his
diaries.
Also in his appearance before the Committee, Senator
Packwood testified that at some stage he had gotten a letter
from the Committee saying that the subpoena would only run to
July 18, 1993, and to the extent he made any changes after he
received that letter, he would have assumed that he could make
any changes that he wanted to entries dated after that date. In
fact, the Committee did send Senator Packwood a letter,
informing him that although the subpoena called for all diaries
up to the date of the subpoena (October 20, 1993), if he wanted
to voluntarily produce his diaries pursuant to a procedure
similar to the original agreement, the cutoff date of the
subpoena would be pushed back to July 18, 1993. However, this
letter was not delivered until November 9, 1993, and so could
not have been a factor in any changes made before that. And,
according to the Senator, the only things he would have changed
at that time would have been diary entries made after October
20, 1993.

3. Testimony of James Fitzpatrick

In order to confirm information provided by Senator
Packwood at his deposition about requests that his attorneys
had made for his diaries, and Senator Packwood's transmittal of
diaries to his attorneys, the staff took the deposition of
James Fitzpatrick of Arnold & Porter. Arnold & Porter
represented Senator Packwood from late 1992 up until shortly
before the hearing before Judge Jackson in December 1993; they
terminated their representation on November 22, 1993. Also
present at the deposition were Jacob Stein and Robert Muse,
Senator Packwood's current attorneys, who were in attendance
solely to raise objections, if necessary, to questions that
implicated the attorney-client privilege. Mr. Fitzpatrick was
represented by Stephen Sacks, an attorney at Arnold & Porter.
Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that Arnold & Porter began
providing legal representation to Senator Packwood in the late
fall of 1992, after the general election. This representation
continued to November 22, 1993.
a. Requests for information from Senator Packwood
Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that from the beginning, they
were asking Senator Packwood to provide information and facts
that might help them to prepare his defense. He does not
specifically recall asking Senator Packwood to provide diary
entries relating to allegations then under consideration,
either sexual misconduct or intimidation of witnesses. Rather,
they made requests for information from a broad variety of
sources, and they received information from Senator Packwood
from a broad variety of sources, including diary material,
clippings, memoranda, and recollections.
The attorneys at Arnold & Porter were aware that Senator
Packwood kept diaries. Along the way, they received material
from him that either referred to or summarized the diaries, and
in some instances contained specific excerpts from the diaries.
Mr. Fitzpatrick did not know the precise date when they first
received any memoranda containing excerpts or entries from the
diaries, although it would have been sometime in 1993. Although
he did not have an independent recollection of the particular
date that any document was received from Senator Packwood, he
stated that the privilege log provided to the Committee on
August 3, 1993, would reflect any documents that they received
from Senator Packwood, but which were withheld from the
Committee on the grounds of privilege. ^{147
\147\ This privilege log identified memoranda, but it did not
indicate in any way that the memoranda included diary excerpts or
pages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Fitzpatrick did not recall any specific conversation
directing the Senator to review his diaries to look for entries
that might relate to the intimidation issue. As they tried to
master the facts, they did ask the Senator for any information
that might be relevant to the charges, instructing him broadly
to provide information that would be helpful. There may have
been a conversation dealing with diaries.
Among the materials that they received from Senator
Packwood during the course of 1993, there were some references
to the October to November 1992 time period, although he did
not know when the particular memo discussing this time period
was provided to them.
After some discussion among Senator Packwood's former and
current attorneys, it was represented by Mr. Sacks that the
first memorandum that was provided to Arnold & Porter,
attaching diary entries or excerpts, was dated January 7, 1993,
and that the entries covered the period of October to November
1992.
Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that some of the diary entries
excerpted or discussed in the memoranda provided to them by
Senator Packwood might have included the names of women who
were making allegations of sexual misconduct against Senator
Packwood, although he recalled that there was no reference in
the diaries to any incident that had been alleged.
b. Failure to provide relevant diary entries to the
committee
Mr. Fitzpatrick was asked whether Arnold & Porter had
provided any diary entries to the Committee in responding to
the Committee's two document requests on behalf of Senator
Packwood. He stated that they responded in good faith to the
requests, supplying material that was responsive to the
requests, and that any material that was called for that they
did not produce was identified on the privilege log. ^{148
At different times in his deposition, he stated that the diary
entries that contained references to women who had made claims
of sexual misconduct were both outside the scope of the
Committee's request, and within the scope of the Committee's
request, but subject to a privilege. He testified that to the
extent that the material might have been responsive to the
request, but protected by a privilege, it was noted on the
privilege log. He would not concede that the fact that the
privilege log sets out memoranda that incorporated diary
entries means that Arnold & Porter made a judgment that the
diary entries were within the scope of the Committee's request.
\148\ It is very clear, however, that the privilege log contains
absolutely no reference to or mention of diaries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that not all of the 112 items
identified on the privilege log related to diary excerpts, but
they were a wide range of memoranda, some having nothing to do
with the diaries.
c. Receipt of diary transcripts from Senator Packwood
On October 7, 1993, Arnold & Porter received from Senator
Packwood a series of volumes in black notebooks, purporting to
be the diaries from 1969 through part of 1992. They were kept
locked in Arnold & Porter's offices. They reviewed the diaries,
masked them for review by Committee staff, and provided them
for review in the presence of an Arnold & Porter representative
until the reviewing agreement broke down.
Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that Arnold & Porter continued to
receive additional transcripts after October 7, 1993. Mr.
Fitzpatrick believes that they then asked Senator Packwood to
bring his diaries up to date for the Committee's review. After
a discussion between Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Sacks, Mr. Muse, and
Mr. Stein, Mr. Sacks represented that Arnold & Porter requested
that Senator Packwood transcribe his diaries some time in July
or August of 1993, as best as they could ascertain. However,
Mr. Fitzpatrick himself could not recall asking Senator
Packwood to have the remainder of his diaries transcribed at
that time. Mr. Sacks represented that that was the recollection
of one of the attorneys in the group who was in communication
with the Senator's office: Dan Rezneck, Mike Korens, Leigh
McAfee, and possibly others. He had no idea who specifically
made such a request on any given date, but it ``sounds right''
to all of them that the request to have the 1992 and 1993
diaries transcribed was made in the July-August time period.
^{149
\149\ Senator Packwood had previously testified at his deposition
that his attorneys asked him in late July or early August to have the
rest of his diaries, i.e., the entries for 1992 and 1993, transcribed,
and that it was this request that caused him to go back and change his
1993 diary tapes, out of fear that the transcribed diaries would be
leaked from his attorneys' office if they should ever be provided to
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later in his deposition, Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that
they received transcribed diary pages in addition to the
material in the binders that they received on October 7,
including entries from 1992, but he does not recall when they
received those pages, or even whether they were received before
or after Senator Packwood's deposition, or before or after the
delivery of the binders on October 7. He does know that some
time during the period after October 7, they received
additional pages dealing with 1992 and 1993, although he could
not give a precise date. But he could not recall if they got
this material before or after they received the binders.
Mr. Sacks stated that the first diary information Arnold &
Porter received was on October 7, which covered 1969 through
part of 1992. Thereafter, additional information from the
diaries was provided for the remainder of 1992 and portions of
1993.
Mr. Fitzpatrick recalled that all of the diary pages they
received on October 7 were numbered, but he did not recall
whether the pages received after that date were. ^{150
\150\ This indicates that Arnold & Porter received on this date the
transcribed diaries up through the end of January 1992, as that is when
the pages cease to be numbered. It also indicates that entries after
January 1992 (other than the entries for November and December 1992
previously provided to them in January 1993) were not completed until
after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 31, 1993, Senator Packwood took back the volumes
for 1989 and 1990. On November 5, he returned these volumes,
and took the volumes from 1991. On November 6, he returned the
1991 volumes, and took the 1992 volumes, which he returned on
November 9.
d. Receipt of diary tapes from Senator Packwood
Arnold & Porter received the original tapes of the
previously transcribed diaries on November 22, 1993. These
tapes covered a time period starting in 1969, and going
forward, although Mr. Fitzpatrick does not recall the end date
of the tapes. It had been their understanding that the tapes of
the transcribed diaries were destroyed; they first learned that
such tapes existed on the evening of November 21. They received
the tapes the next day, November 22, 1993, and terminated their
representation of Senator Packwood.

4. Specific entries from the diary

For the most part, with some exceptions, the focus has been
on those entries in the diaries where material that was on the
audiotape did not appear on the Cormack transcript, and
different entries were substituted in their place. This is the
case for several reasons. First, there were a great number of
entries on the audiotape that did not appear in the Cormack
transcript that dealt with subjects which were not related to
the Committee's inquiry, or did not involve conduct that would
be subject to the Committee's jurisdiction. ^{151
\151\ Examples include lengthy discourses on food, music, movies,
and Senator Packwood's relationships with and observations about
various women.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, it was just as likely that these entries had
been left out by Cathy Cormack as she hurried to finish
transcribing the diaries. Indeed, she testified that she did
leave out a large number of entries that she considered
unimportant.
Most importantly, with respect to those entries where
material was added to the Cormack transcript in the place of
material that had been on the audiotape, those changes had been
made not by the transcriber, Ms. Cormack, but by Senator
Packwood. There is a limited number of such entries, and many
of them deal with information on the audiotape that relates to
the Committee's inquiry, or that could possibly implicate
Senator Packwood in misconduct within the Committee's
jurisdiction.
Diary entries in the following categories are set out
below, with the original audiotape version on the left, and the
corresponding version from the transcript typed by Ms. Cormack
from tapes altered by Senator Packwood on the right. The
portions that are on the audiotape but were left out of the
Cormack transcript are underlined and in italics, while the
portions that are not on the audiotape, but were added to the
transcript, are underlined and in bold letters.

Entries dealing with the Committee's inquiry into
allegations of sexual misconduct and intimidation;
Entries dealing with campaign activity and use of
Senator Packwood's Senate office for campaign purposes.

Following these entries is also a summary of other entries
that were changed by Senator Packwood, referring to his
negotiations with the Oregon Citizens Alliance during his 1992
campaign; contacts with Committee members by Senator Packwood
in regard to the inquiry; and entries relating to Senator
Packwood's acceptance or solicitation of contributions by
lobbyists to his legal defense fund.
a. Entries dealing with the committee's inquiry into
allegations of sexual misconduct and intimidation

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 5, 1993:
Elaine called, had a sad message. Elaine called with a sad message.
Channel 2 has said that five more Channel 2 has said that five more
women are willing to come forward women are willing to come forward
to say they've been sexually to say they have been sexually
abused by me or sexually harassed abused by me or harassed or
or something, including one in the something, including one in the
early '90s. I said to Elaine, early '80s. These are five women.
can't be employees if they are-- I said, ``It can't be employees.''
these are five Oregon women. She She said, ``One could be
said one of them could be [Complainant 1].'' I said, ``Well,
[Complainant 1]. I said well, I yes, but she's a habitual liar. We
hope so, but we're going to take know that. We can prove that. That
her hard. She said you and I know will surely blow down her
it cannot be employees in the testimony.'' I said, ``You and I
Oregon office in the '80s. It know it cannot be employees in the
could be [former staff member] office in the '80s.
from the '70s. I didn't say this
to her, but it could.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

At his deposition, Senator Packwood testified that
Complainant 1 was a chronic troublemaker, who lied and
fantasized, and could not be trusted, although he could not
identify anyone on his staff who had made complaints about her,
nor could he produce any records reflecting such complaints.
Nor do his diaries reflect any such problems with Complainant
1, even though the Senator routinely and often harshly
critiqued the performance of members of his staff.
The former staff member referred to in the audiotape, whose
name does not appear in the Cormack transcript, appears to be
someone the Senator thought could be a potential complainant.
However, the Senator testified that it never would have
occurred to him that this person could be a complainant.
The information substituted in the Cormack transcript
serves to document the Senator's claims that Complainant 1 was
a ``habitual liar.'' It also leaves out any mention of a former
staff member who it appears that Senator Packwood thought might
be a potential complainant.
Senator Packwood guessed that he had deleted the
information about the former staff member, because her name had
never appeared in the press and he did not want to give the
press another lead to chase down. He testified that this change
had nothing to do with the Committee. While he was changing
that, he thought that he would put in the truth about
Complainant 1.
At his appearance before the Committee in June 1995,
SenatorPackwood was questioned about this alteration by Senator
Bryan as follows:

By Senator Bryan:
Q: But, Senator, my point is you knew that in
February of 1993. I mean, by your own statement you
knew by February 5th of 1993, that at least in your
opinion she was, you know, not to be trusted and was a
liar, but you didn't say that in the dictated portion
of the audiotape. Sometime between February 5th 1993,
and the later part of 1993--and you may be able to tell
us when--you went back and changed that.
A: I am confused now.
Q: Well, February 5th 1993, you dicated the statement
about her. Then, the Cormack transcript----
* * *
A: Okay. Cathy's is the one that said, ``Well, yes,
but she's an habitual liar. We know that.'' Is that----
Q: Yes. And that is the alteration. My point being,
that doesn't seem to have anything to do with
embarassment or protecting somebody from any sense of
awkwardness. And the fact that it was made, Senator,
just a few months after the original entry was
dictated, at least raises a question as to what the
motive was. You knew in February of 1993 that this was
not a good and trusted employee. You have indicated
that you found that out. And one would think that you
would characterize that in your February 5th 1993
original audiotape. When you go back to make the
change, you put this negative characterization in--
which may be accurate; we don't know--but I mean that
is a change that doesn't seem to fit in with the
general rubric of embarassment, or trying to avoid hurt
or harm to someone.
A: Well, first, as I indicated, when I took that one,
one of my reasons was [Complainant 1] name being
mentioned there who had never been in the press, and
who for other reasons she would not want her name out.
And at the time, I am simply dictating that, and--you
give a preciseness to this that is not precise. I think
you almost think that--again, I am not looking at
something. I am listening to something--that with
strict attention you hear every bit and you think to
yourself every change you're going to make. Whether I
not put in in the original transcript she's a liar, I
didn't. I knew she was at the time. I'm not sure the
fact that I failed to put it in is indicative of
anything.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 12, 1993:
This was the bad day. First, we This was the bad day. First, we
discovered that Gina is going to discovered that Gina is going to
have a press conference in Eugene. have a press conference in Eugene.
This is Gina Hutton, my 1980 This is Gina Hutton, my 1980
campaign chair, who appeared in a campaign chair, who appeared in a
story this week that I tried to story this week and said I tried
kiss her. Then Lindy Paull called to kiss her. Then Lindy Paull
and said she wants to put out a called and said she wants to put
statement to the Oregonian--that a out a statement to the Oregonian
statement she submitted said that the statement she submitted
nothing about women's past sexual said nothing about anyone's past
history, and she was quite adamant sexual history and she was quite
she doesn't want to be associated adamant. She doesn't want to be
with that kind of attack, as she associated with that kind of
regards. She was pissed. She was attack, as she regards it. She was
so pissed, I think she may resign, pissed, so pissed she may resign.
and of course, she's a hot She's a hot property. She'll do
property and she'll do well. Then well. Lindy really is deceptive.
I called Tim Lee, just to remind She is sweet on appearance. She is
him not to talk to the press, and tough of mind but God, is she
he said well, had called again, brilliant with tax law. She can
and always shuts off the calls and stand toe to toe with anybody on
says he doesn't want to talk to the Joint Committee, she can
any paper that's got a vendetta buffalo any of the minority staff,
against Senator Packwood, and says she is popular with the women, she
it's not a vendetta against is popular with the tax lawyers.
Senator Packwood. It's against She'll have no difficulty getting
Elaine. a very good job.
* * * * *..........................
Now we've got further problems.
Lindy Paull--with the story the
Oregonian is going to do listing
the people who gave names of The
Washington Post, Lindy Paull's
name, of course, is going to be
mentioned. She gave a perfectly
harmless statement about the lack
of Complainant 1's
professionalism, but she wants to
call the Oregonian and make it
very specific, have them make it
very specific that her statement
did not relate in any way to
sexual misconduct or past history.
Then Josie wants to call the
Oregonian to find out what their
story is going to be about. Elaine
and Julie called her back from the
road and she was very curt, very
short when Elaine says to what end
do you want to find out? She said
I don't have to tell you. Elaine
called and says let's face it,
some of those that play in the big
leagues - don't play in the big
leagues are going to bail out. You
might as well assume that the
nonpoliticals will bail out. And I
says yeah, but--I said later to
Elaine, Josie is a political. says
you don't know who may bail out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee's original inquiry included allegations that
Senator Packwood had attempted to intimidate potential
witnesses, and that he had used staff members in an attempt to
do so. These allegations were ultimately found by the Ethics
Committee not to be supported by substantial credible evidence,
but at the time the diary changes were made it was a matter
under inquiry by the Ethics Committee. Ms. Paull, who worked
for Senator Packwood on the Finance Committee, provided Senator
Packwood with a statement about Complainant 1, which he
forwarded to the Washington Post. This entry indicates that Ms.
Paull, along with other staffers, may have had concerns about
the use of their statements by the Post. It also indicates that
Senator Packwood did not want Tim Lee, who had provided a
statement about another complainant, to talk to the press about
it.
The material that was added to the Cormack transcript is
entirely different, deleting any indication that Lindy Paull
was uncomfortable with her statement, and painting a flattering
picture of Ms. Paull, who gave the statement about the
Complainant 1, whose allegation involved a 1990 incident that
occurred after the staff party at the Irish Times.
Senator Packwood testified that he did not recall making
the changes to the first entry on this date, but looking at it,
he was sure that he must have done it. He stated that he wanted
to take out the reference to him telling Tim Lee not to talk to
the press. He added the flattering material about Lindy Paull
out of compulsion, because he had a space left on the tape. He
stated that sometimes he filled in these spaces, and sometimes
he did not. He could not say whether he or Ms. Cormack was
responsible for leaving out the second entry on this date.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 20, 1993:
My normal morning errands, then Into the office, after my normal
into the office about 9:00 for a morning errands, where I worked
few hours, worked, played a couple for a few hours. Some thank-you
hands of cards. I really didn't do letters to some people who've
a lot of work. Did some thank you given to the legal defense fund.
letters to people that are giving We're not doing as well as I'd
money to the trust--legal trust hoped and I doubt we'll be able to
fund. raise anywhere near the amount of
Looked through the diary to see money I need until after this
when the famous night with matter is resolved. Gosh, I hope
[Staffer 1] was. I don't know why it can be resolved soon. Who
I have a feeling that she might knows.
say something--I don't know why.
It's probably good she's leaving.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The deleted entry indicates that Senator Packwood was
worried that Staffer 1 (who left his office shortly after this
entry) could possibly ``say something,'' in other words, that
she might become a complainant against him.
Senator Packwood testified that he guessed he deleted the
references to Staffer 1 from the audiotape, as there was no
point in involving her in anything. He stated that there were a
number of times where he caught her name throughout the
diaries, and he took it out. He was trying to protect her from
hounding by the press. He did not think that Ms. Cormack would
have left out this entry.^{152
\152\ In fact, Ms. Cormack testified that she could conceive of no
circumstances under which she would have typed the entry as it appears
in the transcript, had she heard the entry on the audiotape.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack Transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 29, 1993:
Got home about 6:30. Cooked some Got home, had some soup, got a
soup. Got a phone call from Jill phone call from Jill that we were
that we were still in session, still in session and could have a
could have a vote, but I doubted vote but it was doubtful. Then I
it. And I got the phone call, the got the phone call with the bomb
bomb from Elaine. She had just from Elaine. She had just
received, because they didn't know received, because they didn't know
who to deliver it to in the who else to deliver it to in the
office, a motion to produce office, a motion to produce
documents, voluminous documents, documents, memos, correspondence,
memos, correspondence, phone personal papers, phone calls--I
calls, personal papers. I wonder wonder if that includes diaries. I
if that includes diaries. was scared to death. I told Elaine
Everything. I was scared to death. I thought as far as the diaries
At this stage, there was a vote were concerned they would probably
call, so I came back to the be more helpful than hurtful as
office. And I see Dan Resnick far as the incidents with the
[Senator Packwood's attorney] had women were concerned. I didn't
called. So I called him. Elaine know because I hadn't reread them
had already talked with him. He but my hunch is that it they would
said, well, let's not panic yet. show I'd spent a lot of time with
Let me review this document Gena Hutton and time with others
they've sent us. But I said, my after the alleged incidents. I
God, some of the early memos also told her I would take care of
before you were retained will be everything, that I would protect
very--some of them would be very her, we would represent her, we
incriminating. Stayed for a couple were entitled to, we'd raise the
hours and went through the entire money, and that I was very
series of books that I had, as concerned for her well-being. She
best I could, the binders. There was most comforted. This was one
is some damaging stuff. Actually, of those situations where I had to
least of all damaging is probably be the strong person and she had
the diaries, because in it there to rely on me.
would be nothing about being a Went to bed.
rejected suitor only my successful
exploits.
Dictated through midnight, March
29.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This entry was made on the date that Senator Packwood
received the Committee's first request for documents. It
indicates that Senator Packwood was concerned that he had
incriminating documents that could be subject to the
Committee's request, and his fear that his diaries might be
included in the request.
Senator Packwood testified that he thought that he deleted
the information from the audiotape, and substituted the
information that appears on the Cormack transcript. He took the
information out of the audiotape because he did not want the
press to see an entry indicating that he told his attorney that
some of his memos would be very incriminating. He added the
information that appears in the Cormack transcript just to fill
a gap.
In his appearance before the Committee, Senator Packwood
stated that at the time he changed this passage, in the summer
of 1993, the Committee already had his memos, implying that
there would be no reason for him to want to hide this entry
from the Committee. However, Senator Packwood withheld 112
documents, many of them memoranda, from the Committee on the
grounds of attorney-client privilege. The privilege log
indicates that six of the memoranda were dated before the time
when Senator Packwood's attorneys were retained. Thus, it is
impossible to determine whether in fact the Committee received
the memos referred to in this entry. Moreover, regardless of
whether the Ethics Committee had the memos when Senator
Packwood changed the tape, this entry evidences Senator
Packwood's state of mind when he received the Committee's
document request on March 29, 1993. Senator Packwood's state of
mind was discussed at length at his June 1995 appearance before
the Committee:

By Senator Dorgan:
Q: This is in March in 1993, and you were provided
with a motion by the Committee to produce documents,
and so on. At that point you say: I wonder if that
includes diaries? Everything? I was scared to death.
And then you said: 'But, I said, my God, some of the
early memos before you were retained will be very--some
of them are very incriminating,' and so on. Then you
look at the transcript from Cormack, and when you look
at this sort of thing you wonder to yourself, gee,
isn't this a circumstance where somebody just, first of
all, was alerted that they have information that
probably is the subject of the motion and probably
should be produced at some point, or there may be a
question whether it should be produced, and then you go
in and you make some alterations that would lead those
who eventually got the transcript to a conclusion
substantially different. So I'm just wondering. You
know, when you look at this, if you put one face on it
it looks like just flat-out alteration of diaries in
order to prevent the Committee from seeing what it
wanted to see. And you've described it in another way,
but with respect to this particular instance it looks
like in March of 1993 you at least were alerted,
yourself, to the possibility that these diaries might
have to go to the Committee.
A: Yes. Although, if I read this correctly, the
reference to ``diaries'' is not taken out in either
one, is it?
Q: No, no. My point isn't that you took out the
reference to diaries.
A: Oh, I see.
Q: I make two points with this. One is, in March of
1993 you at that point were alarmed in your own mind
that you might have to produce diaries, but you
wondered whether you had to produce diaries to the
Committee that early on. The point is, later you were
altering a lot of transcripts, including this one,
apparently, on the tape, and you did alter this one in
a manner that took out the reference to some
incriminating--some memos that could be incriminating
and so on. So that material that you altered here would
obviously be altered if one would look at it that way,
and it would obviously be altered to take information
out which would be harmful to yourself.
A: Well, * * * I should say I knew exactly what I was
talking about here--but in talking to Resnick, they
have--in fact, they gave you the memos, as a matter of
fact. These are some of the ones I argued with them
about that I didn't want to go to you, and they gave
them to you. But . . . If I was changing this to fool
the Committee, you already had the documents that I
didn't want to go to you. But would you want out in the
press a statement, God there's incriminating
documents--I mean, I don't use the word
``incriminating'' in the sense of criminal, but I can
picture a press saying criminal or Packwood has
criminal documents. So indeed I changed this,
obviously, sometime-- this is March of '93--sometime in
July of '93, but it's the kind of thing I wouldn't want
out.
But if the argument is that I was changing these in
October, apparently, or after the subpoena, to fool the
Committee you already had the documents. If I was
changing it to fool the Committee, you asked me
yesterday about [person], if I was changing it in
October, you'd already deposed me about her. I wouldn't
have been taking it out to keep it from you, you had it
* * * you cannot sense * * * fear of the press and what
they were doing to me * * * But do you understand what
I mean? That if I took this out when I think someone
would say I was taking it out, it was an irrelevancy *
* *.
By Senator McConnell:
Q: But wasn't the other question, wholly aside from
the issue of alteration, was not the other question
whether the dictation indicated that at the time it
crossed your mind that the diaries might be something
the Committee--
A: Well, and it may have been at this stage that they
said, no. I'm not quite sure * * *.
By Senator Bryan:
Q: * * * as I understand what [Senator Dorgan's]
point is is that you were somewhat concerned or alarmed
in March that you might have to turn over the diaries,
and so the question at least in our mind is: If that is
so, why would you not then have informed your attorney
that indeed there was an original audiotape? At least
it gives rise to express some concern as to any changes
made thereafter, that you had at least in your thought,
I might have to produce these diaries * * *.
A: Counsel just called to my attention that March
29th was the date of the document request. Maybe this
was when the lawyer said, well, we don't have to turn
the diaries over. I don't know. I can't remember * * *.
Q: I think the point that Senator Dorgan, * * * is
it's not a question of what you may have legally been
required to turn over, it was what was your state of
mind. And if this entry is accurate, it would suggest
that your state of mind was one of considerale concern
that the diary materials contained incriminating
information. And then, apparently * * * the changed
part changes the thrust of the meaning entirely * * *.
A: Well, again, and I'm saying if you're suggesting
that I changed this--well, as a matter of fact, when I
changed this the Committee had the documents. If this
is 1993, this change was made in late July or the first
of August and you already had the documents. I don't
take out any reference to the diaries. I take out
references to the incriminating documents, and you had
them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack Transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 28, 1993:
And I said of course I'd help him I said of course I would try to
[former staffer]. Then he asked if help him. He also said he would be
he could talk to me personally for happy to be a character witness
a moment. I excused staff, and he for me if I wished--that he
simply said Lee McAfee [attorney perhaps was on the road 120 days
for Senator Packwood] had called with me and never saw any of the
him and he said he was happy not untoward conduct or aggressiveness
only to talk to Leo [sic], that's being alleged. I thought
although he didn't have much to that was very sweet of him.
say other than [former staffer/
complainant] claim, shit [sic],
she threw him out of her
apartment, which is absolutely
untrue. He says that she made
moves on him and he said he'd love
to be a character witness for me,
that he perhaps is on the road 120
days with me and never saw any of
the untoward conduct, any of the
force, any of the aggressiveness
that's alleged. I thought it was
very sweet of him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The former staffer referred to in this entry provided
Senator Packwood with a very derogatory statement about another
former staffer/complainant, claiming that on a certain
occasion, she acted sexually aggressively toward the former
staffer, which Senator Packwood forwarded to the Washington
Post. The deleted passage indicates that the former staffer/
complainant may have had a different version of the incident
with the former staffer.^{153
\153\ The deleted entry corroborates information from another
witness, who told the staff that the former staffer/complainant told
him one day at work that the former staffer had gotten drunk at her
apartment and spent the night on her couch, and that she was telling
the witness about this, because she was worried that the former staffer
might tell others that he had spent the night with her.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood testified that the portion of the
audiotape that was left out of the Cormack transcript was the
kind of deletion that he would have made, although there were
parts of it that he would rather have left in, as far as they
concerned the former staffer/complainant. But if this entry
were to come out, that the former staffer had offered to say
something about the former staffer/complainant, the press would
be all over the former staffer. He agreed that he had already
given the Washington Post a statement by the former staffer
about the former staffer/complainant, but he did not believe
that his name had appeared in public at the time of this diary
entry.
Senator Packwood stated that he would have made these
changes in late July or early August 1993, very close to the
recess time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 29, 1993:
Fundraiser was fine. On the way The fundraiser was fine and on the
home, I discovered something that way home we again kidded about S-
was disturbing, however. S-1 had 2's relationship with that fellow
told S-2 about our evening in the she'd been sleeping with or
office, only she told S-2, the way nooning with, I guess, three times
she told it to me, and she's a week for seven years. And S-2
straight out lying. She says we goes, ``Oh for heaven's sake. I
were drinking. She admitted she shouldn't have ever told you
was drunk, and that I came out of that.'' And she acted put out much
the bathroom nude. And then I like the way would act, with
didn't ask S-2, did she say we had a slight difference in emphasis.
a sexual relationship where I
forced myself on her or what? I
should have thought to pursue it.
I did not tell S-2 the specifics
of what I remember from my diary
because I didn't want S-2 to know
it was in the diary, but goddamn,
S-1 used the same expression, a
statistic--she felt like a stat--a
statistic. And then S-2 said that
S-3 used the word statistic. I'll
bet anything S-1 has told this to
S-3.
Now, interestingly, she told S-2
just a few days before she left
here, this is about the same time
she told me, in exactly the same
story as if she's trying to build
a case, and she tells everybody
three years--well, it is three
years after the event. Came here
in '89--I think she came in '89,
and she's not telling them about
the time she came into my office
and another time when she
practically put it to me. She's
not telling them about the time
she took me home from the
Crawfords after swimming, lay on
my bed, took off her blouse, took
off her bra and asked me to rub
some aloe on her very badly burned
skin from the sunburn at
Crawfords. I won't describe in
full detail here what happened
while we were doing that, but it
was a lot more than rubbing aloe
on her bare back.
* * * * *..........................
I had also forgot to say I called And I thought to myself--would I
Lee McAfee after S-2 dropped me have to courage to do that. I'm
off and told her what S-2 had told trying to think of what would be
me, and Lee said this is very the federal equivalent in Oregon
important because S-1 had never and there is none because we don't
told Lee about the consensual have a big federal presence. But
situation. She had alleged some let's say they were going to move
other groping or grasping when I a thousand people from the Corps
was drunk and admits that I was of Engineers headquarters or five
drunk, is what she said to me. She hundred people from the Forest
wasn't really mad about it even. Service regional headquarters.
But she's never said anything There may be that many. Would I
about our consensual relations. have the courage that did? I don't
Lee says it's quite helpful. S-2 know.
also said that S-1 confronted her
and then said well, there must be--
I think this is what she said--
now, I may get it confused--I
think S-1 said to S-2 well, of
course, you've had a relationship
with the senator. S-2 said she has
looked at her and said no. Now, I
may have had that confused with
what S-2 said as follows: S-1
apparently said to S-3 and S-3
said to S-2 that S-1 on one
occasion said to S-3, you know,
the senator and S-2 must be having
a relationship, and S-3 said no, I
don't think so. Well, I don't know
what to make of all this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The deleted passages discuss Senator Packwood's concerns
that the staffer, S-1, who is also referred to in the March 20,
1993 entry above, might ``build a case.'' These entries, as
well as an entry for November 29, 1989, indicate that Senator
Packwood had a consensual sexual relationship with this staff
member while she worked for him.^{154 It also suggests that
there could have been non-consensual aspects to Senator
Packwood's relationship with that staffer, which created his
concern that this staffer might talk to the Committee.^{155
\154\ The diary entry for November 29, 1989 contains a graphic
description of Senator Packwood and the staffer making love in his
Senate office.
\155\ The staffer was interviewed by the staff, but would not
answer questions about whether she was ever the subject of any unwanted
sexual advances by Senator Packwood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood testified that he thought he was
responsible for the deletions in the first entry for this date,
and the corresponding substitutions to the Cormack transcript.
He was asked by Counsel why he made the changes, and he
testified that he took this passage out of the audiotape
because he did not want the press to have it. However, despite
his testimony that he was worried that the press would obtain
his diaries, and he was reviewing them during the first half of
1993 and over the August 1993 recess, Senator Packwood did not
delete the November 29, 1989 entry, which recounts the ``famous
night'' and is at least as explosive as the deleted June 29,
1993 entry.
Senator Packwood was asked why he had substituted
embarassing details in the Cormack transcript about another
staffer's (S-2's) personal life. He stated that it was ``kind
of facetious,'' and not entirely true. He stated that he should
not have put this entry in, because there was no point in his
talking to the press--which is what he would be doing if his
diaries came out--about that kind of a conversation.

Q. How do you think the press might have reacted to
that kind of information about [S-2]?
A. I think, as you'd read it, there's almost a lilt,
a kidding to it, and it is kidding. And I meant it as
that way when I put it in. This three times a week for
seven years, I mean, you ever talk about things not
being true? She never told me that she had been going
with some guy making love to him three times--what did
I say--three times a week for seven years.
Q. It would appear that the kind of information you
have added here about [S-2] is of a similar kind to the
information about others which you might have deleted.
A. It was just dumb on my part. I shouldn't have put
it in. I meant it in a kidding fashion. I did not mean
it here in a--I think you can tell from the way it's
phrased. I didn't mean it in a serious sense, but I
still shouldn't have put it in.

Although Senator Packwood testified at his deposition and
later in his appearance before the Ethics Committee that S-2
never told him ``that she had been going with some guy making
love to him three times * * * a week for seven years,'' there
is in fact a lengthy entry in Senator Packwood's diary for June
11, 1992, in which he recounts an evening when he and S-2 went
out for dinner, and after S-2 had quite a bit to drink, she
told him about a man she had been seeing for seven years, and
making love with two or three times a week, unbeknownst to
Senator Packwood and the others in his office. Senator Packwood
then kidded S-2 that he and S-2 had made love six or seven
times, because he felt sorry for her, and out of a sense of
Christian duty, and it turned out that she had been ``banging''
another man three times a week for seven years.
With respect to the second set of entries for this date,
Senator Packwood stated that in general, although 99 percent of
the ``bulk'' changes were done by Ms. Cormack, in this
particular case, he thought that he was responsible for the
deletion of the entry that appears on the audiotape, because it
involved S-1, who had been one of his favorite employees. He
thought that he probably substituted the material that appears
on the Cormack transcript, out of a compulsion to fill in a big
blank spot on the tape.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack Transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 26, 1993
Talked with . God, was she Talked with and she was
pissy. She's mad about having to really pissy. She's made [sic]
go through 300 pages of phone about having to go through 300
calls on the campaign credit card pages of phone calls on the
to see who was called, and this is campaign credit card to see who
in response to the request to a was called. This is in response to
demand for all of the phone calls the request from the Ethics
that might have been made to any Committee. She's not pissed at me.
of the women involved or to Just pissed generally. And she
attempt to intimidate any of the really has nothing to add. I think
women. God, I've not seen her so I've said this before. She knows
pissed, not at me, just pissed almost nothing about any of the
generally. And she made the incidents. I made the alleged
statement, I don't know why we're phone calls trying to get
giving them everything. My information about the women. I
lawyer's not going to be as easy don't recall that made any.
as yours. Senator, you just be She really has nothing to fear.
assured that I'm going to cover--
I'm going to protect my interest
in this. I said, that's fine. God,
as much as I love her, now that I
know I'm not going to be expelled
or lose my seniority, I'd just as
soon get this over with. She
really has nothing she can say. In
this particular case, she sure
could, on politics in the office,
but she was up to her neck in that
also. But in this, there's nothing
she can say, and if she were to
try to rat on me, it would
probably end our relationship. And
if she did try to rat, it would
end our relationship, and perhaps
that would be just as well. This
is exacting a tremendous toll.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The deleted passage suggests that the person referred to
did not know a lot about the allegations of sexual misconduct,
but that if pressed, she would protect herself (i.e., give up
whatever information she did have) rather than protect the
Senator. It also indicates that she knew a lot about ``politics
in the office,'' that she herself was ``up to her neck,'' or
heavily involved in using Senator Packwood's office for
political purposes, and that Senator Packwood had some concern
that she would try to ``rat'' on him. Instead, a passage has
been substituted indicating that she knew nothing that could
implicate Senator Packwood in either the issue of sexual
misconduct, or the issue of witness intimidation.
Senator Packwood testified that the information that was
added to the Cormack transcript would have been done by him,
and not by Ms. Cormack. He stated that the person referred to
in fact knew next to nothing, but he did not want the press to
see the part indicating that if she were to ``rat,'' it would
be the end of their relationship, and to speculate about what
it was that she knew. He testified that he substituted in its
place a statement that was accurate.
Senator Packwood was asked what he meant when he said in
the audiotape that the person referred to was up to her neck in
politics in the office. He stated that he assumed that it
referred to research that his office did for his 1992 campaign,
and that he might have had one or two people who were doing a
fair amount of research. He did not recall who those people
were.
Senator Packwood guessed that he changed this entry for
July 26, 1993 in early August of 1993, before he left for
recess.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack Transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 5, 1993:
* * * if they're not going to take There is no woman and never will be
hearsay, then they've got to take any woman for me like . We
only complaining witnesses. And if argue, we bitch but the sheer wit,
they don't have Judy Foster, and love, humor, bonding I've never
whatever that woman's name is, the had with any man or woman like I
intern--I mean, ex-intern, she do with her. All I really want, if
wasn't an intern--as complaining I can, is to spend the rest of my
witnesses, then I think there is life taking care of her and loving
nothing in this decade of any her very much.
consequence to be afraid of.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The deleted passage indicates that Senator Packwood was
aware that there were two women who were possible complaining
witnesses, whose complaints would have occurred in the last ten
years. At this point, the Committee had not notified Senator
Packwood that Ms. Foster-Filppi was a complainant, nor had her
name appeared in the press. This entry indicates that Senator
Packwood may have been concerned that the Committee would
uncover allegations by Ms. Foster-Filppi and the ``ex-intern,''
and that if the Committee did not find them the only conduct he
would have to worry about would be conduct occurring more than
ten years ago. The substituted passage in the Cormack
transcript discusses an entirely different subject--it sets out
his reassurance of support to the woman referred to in the
entry.
Senator Packwood testified that he assumed that he
substituted the information that appears on the Cormack
transcript, but not on the audiotape. He stated that he took
out the entry about Ms. Foster-Filppi because the press did not
have her name, and obviously, he just filled in the blank space
on the tape.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack Transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 7, 1993:
Met Cath at Sutton Place to take a Met Cathy at Sutton Place to look
look at a unit that had become at a place that had become
available. It's an end unit. available. It's an end unit. It's
They're asking 230,000. The end clean, ready to go, has the large
unit, unfortunately, has an extra patio with some sun on it, and I
window upstairs in what I will use think I'm going to make an offer.
as the study, which cuts down my I really am kind of looking
space a bit, but it's clean, it's forward to settling in for these
ready to go. I can use it the way last five years and working hard
it is. It has the large patio, and in the Senate and voting for
it has the large patio with some what's good for America and
sun on it, so I'm prepared to make leaving a legacy that everyone can
an offer. be proud of if I can get this
ethics matter behind me.
I then asked Cath if I were to
pay her a little extra, would she
be willing to take a week off and
she and I would simply go through
the diary? She said yes. In a
week, with Cathy typing, I think
she could bring everything up to
date, and I could be going through
it, the diary. It will actually be
helpful.
Came to the office. Dictated
through Saturday, August 7 at
10:30.
* * * * * * * * * *
Well, the only main difficulty we Well, the only main difficulty we
will have is I think the diary's will have is I think the diary is
going to be very helpful, is any going to be helpful. The only
diary entries related to the slight downside will be a mixed
gathering of the information about bag on intimidation. We never
the women and did Ann Elias lie. intended to intimidate anyone. We
Did I attempt to unjustifiably never intended to make any
gather information, et cetera. information public. They'd already
talked to the Post. How could we
intimidate them?
Dictated through 6:45, Saturday, Dictated through 6:45, Saturday,
August 7, just prior to -- August 7, just before getting
arrived about on time. together with . arrived on
time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first deleted passage indicates that in early August
1993, shortly after receiving the Committee's second request
for documents (July 16, 1993), Senator Packwood was reviewing
his diary, and he concluded it would be helpful in his defense.
In its place, a self-serving passage has been added reflecting
that Senator Packwood wants to work hard for what is good for
America.
Senator Packwood testified that it appeared that he had
deleted the highlighted information in the first passage from
the audiotape, and substituted the information that appears on
the Cormack transcript. He stated that Ms. Cormack had told him
that she could bring the diaries up to date, but she did not
have any of it done when he got back from recess around Labor
Day 1993. He took these entries out so that she would not see
them and think that he was mad at her.
Senator Packwood recalled asking Ms. Cormack on this date
if she could hurry up with the transcribing. It was probably at
this time that he gave her six to eight additional tapes,
covering 1993 up to date, and including a tape that ended
immediately before the recess. He could not remember if he gave
her these tapes on Saturday August 7, or on Sunday; he had
worked all night on them. According to the dates on the tapes
themselves, the Senator would have given her a tape covering up
through August 5, 1993 before leaving on August recess.
The second deleted passage suggests that there are diary
entries relevant to the allegations of witness intimidation,
which was a subject of the Committee's inquiry, and also
suggests that there may have been some concern that Ann Elias,
who provided a statement about Julie Williamson which Senator
Packwood forwarded to the Washington Post, and who had by this
time testified before the Committee, had lied. Ms. Elias stated
in her deposition that Ms. Williamson came to her house after
Senator Packwood kissed her in his office, and that she
concluded that Ms. Williamson was interested in having an
affair with the Senator. She also told the Committee that Ms.
Williamson did not tell her the details about the Senator
pulling her hair and grabbing her girdle. Her statement that
went to the Washington Post claimed that Ms. Williamson was
interested in having an affair with Senator Packwood, but did
not include the fact that Ms. Williamson had told her about the
incident almost immediately after it happened.
There are in fact other diary entries that suggest that Ms.
Elias had misgivings about her statement--that she felt torn
between her loyalty to the Senator and her desire to tell the
truth--and that she was ``buoyed up'' by Jack Faust, a friend
of the Senator's, who convinced her that Ms. Williamson had
been telling her story on the ``cocktail circuit'' for years,
and that it had changed over the years with the retelling.
Senator Packwood testified that this was the kind of
deletion and addition he would have made as he was changing his
diary tapes, although he did not find much difference between
the two entries. He was not sure that he deleted the reference
to Ms. Elias, and he stated that Ms. Cormack may have taken out
her name, as they were old friends, but he thought that he had
made the other changes. He added the information that appears
in the Cormack transcript because it was accurate information,
and he thought that he would put it in.
Senator Packwood was asked if he had some concern in August
of 1993 about whether Ann Elias had lied. He stated that
somebody in the press had claimed that Ms. Elias had lied, but
in fact, she had not. He did not know what he meant by this
entry, but he knew that when he made the original entry on the
audiotape, he did not in fact think that some of his diary
entries might raise an issue as to whether Ms. Elias had lied.
This entry is for Saturday, August 7, 1993, the same day
that recess began. Senator Packwood stated that it appeared
from his diary that he went to Oregon on the following Monday.
He did not know when he dictated this entry, but stated that it
would have been after 1:30 p.m. on the Saturday before he left,
which is the time of this entry. Senator Packwood was unsure
about when he changed this entry, but he testified that he did
not make changes to the tape that was in his machine when he
left for recess until he returned in September. Given the fact
that the tape that covers this entry begins on August 6, 1993,
it appears that this entry was changed in September.
At his June 1995 appearance before the Committee, Senator
Packwood was again asked about this entry:

By Senator Smith:
Q: * * * Now instead of simply deleting that (``did
Ann Elias lie and did I attempt to unjustifiably gather
information * * * '') but again, that would be, it
appears to me, would be something, if it is
intimidation, it would be something that the Committee
would have an interest in. But you didn't simply delete
it. You changed it. You added considerably to it by
making the point that we never intended to intimidate
anyone. You went far beyond the entry with the second
entry. My point is, let me just make the point and then
ask you to respond: The passage that you deleted
suggests that there might be diary entries related to
the gathering of information about the women * * * And
it suggests further that there may have been concern
that Elias had perhaps not been truthful. * * * And
then in the entry that you put in the Cormack
transcript where the entry goes beyond that to an
absolute ``We never intended to intimidate anyone.''
Whereas in one there is an implication and in the
second one you go beyond that. You kill that completely
by saying you never intended to intimidate anyone.
A: Well, you bet. We didn't intend to intimidate
anybody. * * * We were given 24 hours by the Washington
Post to gather information. * * * It was not to be part
of the story but to judge the evaluation of the people
that had complained. * * * So, no, we didn't intend to
intimidate, and that's why I put it in this way. If the
press ever got this, I want them to see that * * *.
Q: * * * My question is, though: Why use the diary--
which the diary should be basically an anecdotal record
of what transpired under a given period of time--why
use a diary entry to make that point? I mean, you could
have deleted it. If you had deleted the passage, there
wouldn't have been any reference to it, and you could
have made a statement to the press, couldn't you, that
said I never intended to intimidate anyone? But you put
it in the diary in retrospect rather than----
A: Well we had said to the press on a number of
occasions that we did not intend to intimidate. This
wasn't a new statement. But you try to give this a
preciseness that simply, in retrospect, cannot be given
to it * * *.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 9, 1993:
Stopped at Cathy's and gave her the Again, I went over to the
tapes to transcribe. I said Cathy, condominium. I am just excited
do you think you can do seven about seeing the progress and
tapes by Tuesday night? She said getting into it. I'm just looking
she didn't think so. She said when forward to having a place of my
you're dictating, different own and playing with it and making
machines, in airports, noise in it the way I want it. It's Roy
the background and sometimes you Prosterman and land reform. If you
speak low because you don't want own it you want to take care of
people to hear, she said I know it.
your voice as well as anybody, and
I know your inflection. I could
probably transcribe this faster
than anybody else can ever
transcribe it. But she said an
hour's dictation doesn't just take
just an hour's typing. You've got
to go back and listen. She said
I'll be lucky to do four tapes by
Tuesday night.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The deleted passage indicates that a few days after his
deposition was interrupted and the Committee specifically
requested to see his diaries on October 6, 1993, Senator
Packwood delivered to Ms. Cormack the tapes, and asked her to
finish seven of them by the following Tuesday. This passage
tends to indicate that Senator Packwood retrieved his diary
tapes from Ms. Cormack shortly after his deposition was
interrupted and the Committee specifically asked to review his
diaries, and that he returned them a few days later, on October
9.
Senator Packwood testified that he would not have seen this
entry until later in October 1993, when it came out of Ms.
Cormack's typewriter. He thinks that he would have taken the
typed page back to Ms. Cormack and had her substitute the new
language, or he could have dictated instructions to her on a
tape, with yellow underlining on the typed page.
Senator Packwood stated that he would have wanted to take
out the information that appeared in the audiotape because it
was wrong. He did not take her seven tapes on this date; he
only had a couple of tapes left, and one of them may have been
a half-tape. He asked Ms. Cormack to do seven tapes by Tuesday
night, but he did not want the diary to give the impression
that he had taken seven tapes to her on this date.
Senator Packwood also guessed that the diary issue had
exploded in the press by this time. Senator Packwood did not
want the press to know that there were diary tapes because
nobody, not even Ms. Cormack or his attorneys, knew that there
were tapes. Senator Packwood later said that neither his
attorneys nor Ms. Cormack knew he kept backup tapes, although
obviously they knew that his diary was transcribed from tapes.
He simply did not want the press to know about tapes, period.
Senator Packwood testified that this entry would have been
transcribed by Ms. Cormack later in October, and he felt that
he had the right to take something out that was wrong, when it
was the first time he had seen the typed transcript. He did not
believe that he was ``forever stopped'' from changing anything
he ever dictated again after the deposition, and if he was
seeing it for the first time, he was free to change it.
Senator Packwood could recall no particular reason that he
added the information that appears in the Cormack transcript,
but he stated that it was accurate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10, 1993:
Talked to Cath about 8:30. She'd Kind of a leisurely day. I got up,
left a message. She said it had read the Post thoroughly. Again,
taken her about 11 hours to do a even though they attack me I find
tape and a half. She isn't even to the paper a good paper and one of
the election yet. She says she the better papers in the country.
got--she can finish seven--seven Then I just went out for a walk,
tapes by Tuesday night. I told her walked around the Cathedral, went
do those first three tapes as soon over to the condo--I'm so anxious
as she can and finish up the other to move in. If there was ever a
four as best she can. day I just frittered away, this
was it. Enjoyed it but frittered
it away.
Dictated through Sunday morning
at 10:00, at 9:20 a.m.
I really didn't do much all day.
I went out to Radio Shack, bought
some things, went over and kind of
looked at the apartment. I'm
getting anxious to move in. If
there was ever a day I just
frittered away, and frittered it
away enjoyably, it was today. I--
paragraph.
I stopped over at the just Had some soup and went to bed.
to chat. They invited me to stay
for dinner, but I really didn't
want to because I was going to go
to bed early. did give me
four different frozen soups she
had made, a corn chowder, a turkey
with rice, a black bean and
something else. So I took them
home. Thawed out the corn chowder,
had it, and was in bed by 7:30.
Dictated through Sunday night,
October 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The deleted passage indicates that Senator Packwood was
pressing Ms. Cormack to finish seven of the diary tapes,
perhaps the tapes he had delivered to her the day before. It
also indicates that as of this date, Ms. Cormack had only typed
part of the 1992 tapes. This is consistent with the October 20,
1993 letter from Senator Packwood's attorneys to the Committee,
stating that Ms. Cormack had only finished typing about half of
the 1992 tapes by that point. The substituted passage is
completely innocuous, and contains no reference to the diaries.
Senator Packwood testified that he did not specifically
recall deleting this entry, but he could have, because it gives
the impression he gave Ms. Cormack seven tapes the day before,
which is incorrect. He stated that he took her one or two
tapes, the one that was in his machine when he gave her tapes
in August, and maybe one-half of another tape.
b. Entries dealing with campaign activity and campaign
purposes

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 31, 1992:
The most important thing that But the most important thing that
happened was a phone call from FS- happened during the day was that
1. W-1, that Oregonian reporter, FS-1 called. She said a reporter
was calling her, following up on named W-1 of the Oregonian had
some alleged violations of ethics called her and he was on the trail
in letters that we sent out in of a story about alleged
1984 and 1985. He had heard from violations of law or ethics or
sources that FS-1 had quit because something--some letters that had
she refused to type a letter in been sent out on official Senate
the office on Senate equipment stationery or on Senate time or
that was a fund-raising letter, so something like that--and FS-1
she quit over it. She blames quit. And FS-1 said she blames
Elaine totally for it. She doesn't Elaine. FS-1 said, ``You know I
blame me at all. She said we had don't like Elaine very well.'' She
done a mailing earlier in my said the New England letters we
travels to New England, but she sent out were okay because we had
said those mailings of course were been invited to speak. W-1 then
all right. They were in response wanted to know how many letters or
to invitations that I had to how many man hours. She said, she
speak, and we were simply putting wasn't sure. W-1 asked if we'd
other functions together around gotten a ruling from the Ethics
them. Well, it's a good thing FS-1 Committee. FS-1 said she didn't
doesn't know everything. know. W-1 then asked if FS-2
didn't quit about the same time.
FS-1 said no. He'd been there
seven or eight months and quit
after FS-1 did. FS-2 then called
FS-1 and FS-1 assumed FS-2 had
told W-1 all of the information he
had. W-1 said no, that his source
is not a member of the staff. That
he has called , he has called
and he may try . FS-1 said
Elaine might honestly think
(inaudible) fired FS-1 for another
reason because Elaine and FS-1
weren't getting along at all at
this time. But FS-1 said, ``
knew because when I was visiting
in 1985 she had told about
it and FS-1 knows that knows
but FS-1 didn't tell so FS-1
presumes did. W-1 asked if
she knew and she doesn't. FS-
1 told W-1 she was mad at the
Oregonian for doing the story and
she did not want her name used
under any circumstances. FS-1 then
told me she had utterly no respect
for Elaine and she said,
``Senator, I don't want to do
anything to harm you but I don't
like Elaine.''
W-1 wanted to know how many pieces
were done, how many man-hours did
it take. It was not franked mail,
not Senate stationery. He asked
her, ``Did you get a ruling from
the Ethics Committee?'' She said,
``No, Ethics might have said it
was okay.'' He then said, ``Well,
FS-2 apparently quit over the same
thing, and, he says, ``you and FS-
2 quit at about the same time.''
FS-1 says, ``No, we quit seven or
eight months apart.'' He asked if
FS-1 then went over to the
campaign. She left in the summer
of '84. She said no, she didn't go
back to work until she went to
work for in '85.
Then FS-2 called FS-1. FS-1 assumed
that FS-2 had told him all this,
and FS-2 says no, he hadn't told
him, that he had all the details
when he called FS-2 three weeks
ago. W-1 says the source was not a
member of staff, and he has called
, , and he may try . FS-
1 said that no one would have
known except Elaine and FS-1,
because they worked on this in
private in my office. She said,
however, would know, because
and FS-1 talked when I was
visiting in 1985, and FS-1
and sat in the outer office
and she told her the story. This
is eight years ago, so why did she
quit? knows, but FS-1 didn't
tell her, so she presumes did.
W-1 asked if FS-1 knew . FS-1
said only in the sense that she
had heard of her, in the way she
has heard of Jack Faust or Dave
Barrows or , as she calls
. FS-1 said she was quite critical
of the Oregonian for even thinking
of doing a story like this. She
said FS-2 was not going to allow
his name to be used or name
to be used. FS-1 asked for the
same privilege but W-1 refused. FS-
1 said, ``Elaine does things the
Senator doesn't know about, and
the Senator should not be blamed
for things he didn't know about.''
FS-1 again said that New England
was okay. It was not a fund-raiser.
He asked her who the mailings
were being done for. FS-1 said she
couldn't remember, although he has
called her two or three times and
she does remember now it was ,
but she hasn't told him that. Used
his letterhead. There was no
enclosure that went with it. W-1
asked about and some letter
that included a coin. Well, of
course that was the shekel letter,
and that was sent out by our
direct mail house.
FS-2 left six months or so after
FS-1 left, allegedly for the same
reason, a different letter. He
said it was an Israeli or a Jewish
letter. FS-1 said, I don't have a
lot of respect, in fact, I don't
have any respect for Elaine, but
if you're going after Elaine, you
should separate her from Bob
Packwood,'' she said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

These entries discuss charges that appeared in the press in
late 1992, to the effect that two staffers had quit Senator
Packwood's office after being forced to do campaign work on
Senate time. On March 25, 1993, the Committee asked Senator
Packwood to respond to these published allegations. The
sentences added to the Cormack transcript, to the effect that
one of the staffers making these charges did not like Elaine
Franklin, Senator Packwood's chief of staff, could be viewed as
an attempt to ascribe a motive to the complaint being made by
this staffer--the desire to ``get'' the chief of staff.
The deleted passages also indicate that there may in fact
have been a campaign related mailing that was done from Senator
Packwood's Senate office.
Senator Packwood's response appears after the next diary
excerpt.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 1, 1993:
FS-1 says, ``My quotes are positive FS-1 says, ``My quotes are positive
to you, and if you let me use to you and if you let me use them
them, it would put you in a good it would put you in a good light.
light.'' I said, ``FS-1, we're I said, ``FS-1, I'd rather not be
better off to have no quotes in any light --good or bad. I'm
attributed to anybody. That's the tired of being in the light.''
only safe way to do anything.'' Well, W-1 called her back and said
Well, W-1 called her back, said he he had talked to his editor and
had talked to his editor and it's said it's okay to use her name
okay to use FS-1's name because because her name had come from a
the name had come from third party third party source, but he would
sources, but he would be willing be willing to say that she refused
to say that she refused any any comment. She wanted to know
comment. She wanted to know what what to do. I said, ``FS-1, you
to do, and I said, ``When he calls said you wanted to help me but you
back, tell him you don't want your don't mind getting Elaine. Please
name used under any realize that anything you say to
circumstances.'' I said, ``FS-1, 'get Elaine' hurts me,
this is not going to help you. You professionally and personally.''
will be regarded as a danger to
employ.'' She says, ``I know.'' I
said, ``What you should have said
from the start is, I don't want to
talk with you about this, and hung
up.''.
* * * * *
W-1 thinks that Elaine has stepped
over the ethical and legal line
many times, but he's having a hard
time getting sources. He asked
about Elaine's travel expenses. FS-
1 said, ``They're all legitimate.
I used to do her travel
expenses.'' He asked about what
hotel did we stay at at
Dorchester. He wanted to know what
hotel we stayed at at Bandon. He
said, ``In reviewing the
reimbursements, it seems the
Senator spends a lot of time in
Coos Bay.'' At least that's the
way FS-1 interpreted it. FS-1
thought he meant a trip. I said,
``Did he mean when you were there
or does he mean currently?'' FS-1
says, ``Well, I'm not sure.'' Of
course, what he could be thinking
is, Elaine spends a lot of time in
Coos Bay. FS-1 said she didn't get
along with , and she told W-1
to call , in the hope that
might say FS-1 is wacko. She did
get along with .
* * * * *
7:30, Elaine called. I filled her I called Elaine and filled her in
in on the entire situation for on all of this. She called me back
about 10 minutes. She called me ten minutes later. In the interim
back 10 minutes later. In the W-1 had called Julia wanting a
interim W-1, W-1, had called Julia statement and Julia had called
wanting a statement, and Julia had Elaine to find out what to say.
called Elaine to find out what to Elaine wants me to find out if FS-
say. Elaine wants me to find out 1 confirmed that was the reason
if FS-1 confirmed that was the she quit. I called FS-1 and she
reason that she quit. I called FS- said, ``yes.''
1 and she said yes, she confirmed Got back to Elaine and told her
that was the reason. that FS-1 claimed that she had
quit because of the demand she do
the letters. Elaine said, ``Didn't
she do political letters in
1980?'' I said, ``I assume so
because she was my personal
secretary all during that
campaign.'' Elaine said, ``Did she
ever complain about doing
political letters?'' I said,
``No.''
Dictated through Friday, January 1,
at 8:15 p.m.
Dictated through 10 minutes to 8
o'clock, Friday night, January
1st, after talking with FS-1,
confirming the reason she quit,
but before I got back to Elaine.
Eight o'clock, I got back to
Elaine, told her that FS-1
confirmed that she had quit
because of the demand that she do
the letters. I said, ``You've got
two choices, Elaine. You can
stonewall this and say these
letters--this never happened, or
you can say FS-1 was fired because
she wouldn't do other work, or
however you want to handle it.''.
Dictated through 8:15, Friday,
January 1st, after telling Elaine
that FS-1 had confirmed that she
had quit because she was ordered
to do the political letter, but
before Elaine had called W-1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The passages substituted on the Cormack transcript again
portray the former staffer's motive in making the charges as a
desire to ``get'' Elaine Franklin, Senator Packwood's chief of
staff. The substituted passages reinforce this theme, by
suggesting that the former staffer had done political letters
before without complaining.
The deleted passages also indicate that there may be some
validity to the former staffer's claims, and that Senator
Packwood advised Ms. Franklin either to ``stonewall'' the
claims, or to state that the former staffer was fired for other
reasons.
Senator Packwood testified that he made the original
entries to his diary audiotape at the same time that he was
reviewing his diary tapes to find entries for his attorneys
regarding the intimidation issue, during the end of December
1992 and early January 1993. While he was reviewing his tapes
for his attorneys, the former staffer called him, and told him
that the Oregonian had called her about the story. He had
several conversations with her about it, and also with Ms.
Franklin.
The Senator testified that at the time, he was being beaten
by the press, and he was very concerned that this would result
in another story. Senator Packwood provided several versions of
how and when he changed these entries. He first testified that
when he gave Ms. Cormack the tapes to use in transcribing
excerpts from the fall of 1992 for his attorneys, he may have
also asked her to transcribe these entries, during the
Christmas recess.
Senator Packwood then testified that he thought he
transcribed these entries himself during the Christmas recess,
using his secretary's transcribing machine, because he wanted
to see them in print. He then stated that he could not remember
whether he transcribed the entries, or whether he asked Ms.
Cormack to do so.
Senator Packwood further testified that he was not sure if
he made the changes to these entries on the tape around the
time of the Christmas break in 1992. He could not remember if
he gave Ms. Cormack these entries to type, indicating which
parts of the tape she was to type, or whether he ran these two
days onto a separate tape and gave it to Ms. Cormack to
transcribe, or whether he simply redictated the whole thing.
Although he had earlier testified that he made the changes to
these entries before he went back to Oregon and had the
terrible experience with the press in January 1993, he later
stated that he was not sure of that, and he probably would not
have made the changes until he finished the tape that was in
his machine. He then stated that he listened to this tape
sometime when he was finished listening to the 1992 tapes, but
that he did not wait until he was finished changing the 1992
tapes to change this one.
Senator Packwood then said again that at the same time he
gave Ms. Cormack the tapes containing the fall 1992 excerpts,
even before he was done dictating on this particular tape, he
either gave her this entry to transcribe, or he looked at and
redictated it, although he did not necessarily remember
redictating it right then.
Senator Packwood testified that he made the bulk of the
changes to these entries. They were unusual, because he wanted
to see them in ``whole cloth'' first as to what the former
staffer had said, and what Ms. Franklin had said about the
story.
Senator Packwood testified that Ms. Cormack could have left
portions of these entries out when she was transcribing, and
that he did not want to say that he did it all.\156\
\156\ Ms. Cormack testified that she would not have typed the first
and third passages as they appear on the transcript, had she heard what
was on the audiotape. Although it was possible that she skipped over
the second passage, this entry did not fall into any of the categories
that she was ``boiling down'' for the sake of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood also testified that these conversations
with his former staffer, and the fact that the press was
involved, caused him to start changing his 1992 diary tapes.
Senator Packwood testified that he did not know why he
deleted the information from the audiotape, or why he
substituted the entries to the Cormack transcript. There was no
logic to the things that were left in and the things that were
taken out. He stated that his mental state of mind in that
period was just not rational, and he could not give a rational
answer as to why he put things in and left things out.
Senator Packwood was asked why he added the three entries
indicating that the former staffer did not like Ms. Franklin.
He stated that the former staffer in fact hated Ms. Franklin
and had told him this in telephone conversations around the
time of the changes.
Senator Packwood could not recall advising Ms. Franklin
either to stonewall this issue, or to say that the former
staffer was fired for other reasons, as indicated in the entry
on the audiotape. He was questioned as follows:

Q: Do you have any reason to believe this diary entry
didn't reflect what you said to [chief of staff]?
A: I'm not going to get into this discussion about
accuracy. I don't know. You're asking me when you
dictate on the fly, when you dictate when you're tired,
do you accurately reflect things? You may or may not.
You may totally miss the accuracy, I don't know.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 4, 1993:
Went to dinner with Elaine at Mrs. Went to dinner with Elaine at Mrs.
Simpson's. She was very down but Simpson's. She was so down she was
she was able to laugh. She is so unable to laugh. She is so
incensed about the FS-2 and FS-1 incensed about the FS-2 and FS-1
charges that she lost her focus. charges that she's lost her focus.
Of course, these relate to her, Of course these relate to her and
and she wants to clear her name. she wants to clear her name. She
She says, you're going to be all says, ``You're going to be all
right, but I'm not employable. I right but I'm not employable.'' I
said, you're employable with me. said, ``You're employable with
She goes, ``Oh, God.'' I can see me.'' She goes, ``Oh God.'' I can
where the Oregonian is going next. see where the Oregonian is going
They're going to try to prove we next. They're going to try to
did all kinds of politics in the prove we did all kinds of politics
office. I had talked with Lynn, in the office. I talked with Lynn
and she said, we didn't do any and she said we were very careful
political fundraising in the about not sending out any
office. We did some thank-you fundraising letters from the
letters, and they fell into two office. Anything she did she did
categories. One, we thank on her time. She said she did some
everybody who perhaps came to one minor thank-yous if somebody
of the PAC fundraisers, and then actually sent money to the office
we do an occasional letter if and she may have thanked people
somebody sent money directly to who came to special events but she
the office, but that what we did did them on her time. She said we
an immense amount of, was memos to were especially careful because
the staff on research in the we'd been warned by the Ethics
office about voting record and Committee and [Former Ethics
issues I needed in my debates Committee Staff Director] to avoid
forum and what not. No question office involvement.
about that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The deleted passages, entered in his diary at the time that
the Oregonian was looking into charges that former staffers
left his office after being forced to do campaign work on
Senate time, indicate that Senator Packwood in fact did an
``immense amount'' of political work in his Senate office, in
the form of memos and research about his opponent's voting
record, and issues for debate. The substituted passages instead
disclaim any involvement by anyone in his Senate office in
political work, and portray his staff as being very careful to
avoid such activity.
Senator Packwood testified that he thought he was
responsible for the changes from the audiotape to the Cormack
transcript; he could not imagine Ms. Cormack adding the
material that appears in the Cormack transcript.\157\ He stated
that he would have made these changes in January, February,
March, or April 1993, before he finished making changes to the
1992 tapes.
\157\ Nor could Ms. Cormack, who did not even know who the former
Ethics Committee Staff Director was.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood stated that he probably would have added
the language to the Cormack transcript to emphasize, if it got
out in the press, that they were not heavily involved in
politics in the office. And in fact, the former Ethics
Committee Staff Director had come to his office to advise him.
He would have deleted the corresponding entry in the audiotape
because he would not want the press to see it.
He stated that he did not know, as it says in his diary, if
they did an ``immense'' amount of research in the office about
his opponent's voting record. They did some research, but
``immense'' may be an overstatement. The Senator testified as
follows:

Q: Why would that be of concern to you?
A: Probably because we were doing politics in the
office.
Q: Did you understand that that was permitted or not
permitted?
A: I knew that we were not supposed to use the
office--we used to think of it as fundraising, not so
much research, and that we tried to keep pretty clear
of the office except for the occasional letters that
you see [staffer] did. But most of it of our mail, most
of our fundraising was outside the office, but the
memos and research we probably did.
Q: Senator, I think you just indicated that you did
do a good bit, maybe immense isn't the right word but
you did a good bit of politics in the office.
A: Well, I think ``research'' is the correct term.
Q: Political research?
A: No. More voting research.
Q: Why would you need [opponent's] voting record and
issues for any purpose other than in connection with
your campaign?
A: Well, I said that.
Q: So it was in connection with your campaign that
that information that research was being done?
A: We were hoping that he wasn't going to be our
opponent but if he was, that was the purpose of.

Senator Packwood could not recall who in his office was
doing the voting research, but he stated that his personal
secretary would have typed any memos he did for his opponent
research books.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack Transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 6, 1992:
I introduced [Senator X], who was I introduced [Senator X] who was
the speaker that night, and he was the speaker that night and he was
excellent. No notes. Good humor. excellent. No notes. Good humor.
He says, you know, the Republicans He finished and and I and
have got a nutrition program. It's Elaine and [Senator X]--and the
help you get a job and have money guy traveling with [Senator X] met
in your pocket so you can go to for just ten or fifteen minutes.
the grocery store and buy food. There was the usual argument--I
That is our nutrition program. He suppose a more polite word for it
finished, and I and Elaine and would be discussion--of how much
[Senator X]--and the guy money the National Committee or
travelling with [Senator X], met Senatorial Committee or any
for just 10 or 15 minutes. committee was going to give the
[Senator X] again promised state party. I remember those
$100,000 for Party-building arguments all my life. When I was
activities. And what was said in county chairman it was how much
that room would be enough to was the state going to give the
convict us all of something. He county. The lesser unit always
says, now, of course you know wants the greater unit to give
there can't be any legal them money of some kind. Well,
connection between this money and anyway, the discussion ended in a
Senator Packwood, but we know that draw. [Senator X] left and Elaine
it will be used for his benefit. and I headed back to the motel.
said, oh, yes. God, there's
Elaine and I sitting there. I
think that's a felony, I'm not
sure. This is an area of the law I
don't want to know. [Senator X]
left. Elaine and I headed back to
the motel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The deleted passage indicates that another Senator, with
Senator Packwood's knowledge, had agreed to direct $100,000
from a Republican Party Committee to be used to benefit Senator
Packwood's campaign, and had discussed this with Senator
Packwood in a meeting with Elaine Franklin and another person.
This entry raises questions about the possible violation of
campaign finance laws. Substituted in its place is an innocuous
passage discussing campaign funding.
Senator Packwood testified that he deleted the information
from the audiotape, and substituted the information that
appears on the Cormack transcript. He stated that the entry on
the audiotape was an instance where he did not want to embarass
a fellow Senator, and in fact the entry was wrong:

This is no crime. Party building activities are
perfectly legal and the Senatorial committee gives
money to the party if the party puts up money for the
Senate candidate. It cannot just be a passthrough where
they give them 100 and they pass it on.

When he realized that the entry was wrong, Senator Packwood
decided that it was not something he would want out in the
press. He testified that he substituted the material that
appears on the Cormack transcript just to fill up the tape.
Senator Packwood testified that the part of the diary entry
reading ``But he says now of course there can't be any legal
connection between this money and Senator Packwood'' is an
example of a conversation that never occurred, because the
other Senator would not have said that. Those were his [Senator
Packwood's] words attributed to the other Senator, and they did
not even reflect the essence of something that the other
Senator said to him.
Senator Packwood testified that the meeting reflected in
this entry actually took place. But beyond that, he stated that
the entry was simply wrong. He testified that the conversation
in fact reflected nothing that was illegal, that the entry was
in jest, and that nobody in Senator X's position would take
that kind of a risk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack Transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 20, 1992:
Elaine has been talking to me
privately about independent
expenditures. Apparently the
Automobile Dealers are willing to
do some spending against AuCoin.
Of course we can't know anything
about it. going to do it.
We've got to destroy any evidence
we've ever had of so that we
have no connection with any
independent expenditure. Elaine
says that Tim Lee is also willing
to do an independent expenditure,
but I don't know how we've ever
given the impression we have of no
connection to him.
* * * * *
We decided to not play up Hispanics We talked about independent
very much. We have a--not expenditures. I said I didn't want
Hispanics, but coalitions to know about that and none of us
generally, ethnic coalitions. We were to know about that. We want
have . is Chairman of our independent expenditures to be
Hispanic Coalition. We need truly independent. Those who are
probably a black chair and several going to support us will support
Asians, and that's about it. But us. Those who won't won't. Let's
don't have the group do very much. let the chips fall where they may.
Just have the names.
We talked about The Oregon Citizen
Alliance. They have now reserved
an auditorium in June in Salem to
put an independent on the ballot,
but I am confident with I can
beat and the OCA. Nevertheless,
they've reserved an auditorium in
Salem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The deleted entries suggest that Senator Packwood knew
about possible ``independent expenditures'' by the Automobile
Dealers and possibly Tim Lee, a former staffer, on his behalf,
and that he intended to destroy any evidence of a link to the
individual who would make the expenditures for the Auto
Dealers. This entry raises possible questions about campaign
finance improprieties.
The substituted entry is a self-serving passage portraying
Senator Packwood as having no knowledge of any independent
expenditures made on his behalf, and being above any
involvement with or knowledge of any such expenditures.
Senator Packwood testified that he suspected that Ms.
Cormack left out the first entry on this date, although he was
not sure.^{158 He thought that he would have taken out the
paragraph about the coalition. He was sure that he deleted the
paragraph about the OCA, as the OCA had been a major problem
for him in his campaign. He stated that he had been terribly
afraid that the OCA was going to put a candidate on the ballot
against him in the 1992 election. The OCA also had a measure on
the ballot on anti-gay rights that was the hottest issue he had
ever seen on the Oregon ballot, and which was heavily
editorialized by the Oregonian. He was not on their side on
this issue, or the abortion issue or the compulsory school
prayer issue, and the OCA was going to try to take a shot at
him. His campaign did everything they could do to prevent this.
\158\ Ms. Cormack testified that the first passage was not the type
of entry that she would have left out of the transcript as she was
typing, although it was possible that she could have missed it as she
typed the transcript. She did not believe she would intentionally have
left it out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood's opponent in the 1992 election accused
him of making deals with the OCA, and the press questioned him
repeatedly about this. He did not want to have anything in his
diaries about the OCA. Senator Packwood agreed that there was
not anything in this particular entry that would offend the
OCA, but he stated that he had attempted to take out anything
he could find about the OCA.
Senator Packwood was asked why he was concerned about the
entries referring to the OCA when at the time that he took them
out, in the spring of 1993, the election was over. He stated
that at the time, he was beset by the press, which was looking
for everything they could find about him from the time the
story came out in the Washington Post about the allegations of
sexual misconduct. He did not want the press reliving the
election. The press was excoriating him, and he did not want to
give them this information.
Senator Packwood stated that there was no particular reason
that he substituted the information in the Cormack transcript
about independent expenditures, other than that they may have
been talking about it at the time. The subject was on his mind
the same day that he was changing his tapes, and he wanted to
fill the space on the tape.^{159
\159\ Senator Packwood stated that he added this information to the
tape sometime between January and April of 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood testified that the industry group in
general did not do any independent expenditures against his
opponent. This particular group did not do anything for or
against Senator Packwood, or for or against his opponent. He
did not recall this conversation with Elaine Franklin about
independent expenditures, or any conversation about the
individual who was to make the expenditures and the industry
group, or about Tim Lee and independent expenditures.
Senator Packwood was asked what he meant by the reference
to destroying evidence connecting them to the individual who
was to make the expenditures, or to independent expenditures.
He stated that if one were going to have coordinated
independent expenditures, which is wrong, one would not want
any evidence of association with anyone connected to the group
that was doing independent expenditures. But they did not do
any coordination of independent expenditures. They never had
any evidence about the individual named and any potential
independent expenditures, nor did they destroy any evidence
related to this individual.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiotape Cormack transcript
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 6, 1992:
Came back to the office and met Came back to the office and met
with from the National Rifle with of the NRA. I kind of like
Association at three o'clock. He the guy but he is a bit of a
showed me the piece the National braggart about how many races he
Rifle Association is going to send sees the NRA winning and how solid
outP hitting . God, is it is going to be the NRA's control
tough! It starts right out: vote in the House. He didn't talk so
to toss out and vote for much about the Senate. He may be
Senator Bob Packwood. Toss out of right by my intuition tells me the
Congress someone who believes he tide is turning against the NRA.
made a mistake when he supported With more and more crime I think
your Second Amendment Right. Vote you're going to see a situation
to toss out . where people will think gun
Then they quote when said registration is the answer. It
Congressmen who were supported by isn't going to solve these
the NRA were patsies. Or, if you problems. And I'm not sure what
had an endorsement by the NRA you will but I don't think we want to
were in an ideological try to take guns away from people.
straitjacket. I think the second amendment
Then, the article in The Washington defends that right. I'm happy to
Post: Confessions of a Former NRA hear out and I'm happy to hear
Supporter. of his plans for the House races
I cannot tell you how tough it is. and I assume they will support me
They are going to send it to although they haven't said that
90,000 members. And, he said if he for sure.
has enough money he's going to
send it out to 100,000 Oregon gun
owners, or something like that.
Now the question is: Are they
going to do a second mailing just
before the postcard about ``get
out and vote.''.
God, things are going in the right
direction today. It's a month to
go and there are going to be ups
and downs, but we're up today.
Dictated through Tuesday, October
6th at four o'clock. And here,
Cathy, I'm going to end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, the deleted passages indicate that Senator Packwood
was meeting with the NRA and reviewing their efforts against
his opponent. In the substituted passage, Senator Packwood
distances himself from the NRA and their goals, and does not
mention that he was counting on the NRA's support.
Senator Packwood testified that he was probably responsible
for deleting the information from the audiotape and
substituting the information that appears in the Cormack
transcript, because he did not want the press to know about his
negotiations with the NRA, and that he was talking with the NRA
about the mailing they were going to send to their members. The
entry that was substituted, which he says is accurate, was put
in to fill the space, although it obviously would not fill the
whole blank space left by the deletion.
Senator Packwood assumed that the meeting with the
individual from the NRA actually took place, although he did
not recall it. He could think of no reason why he would have
recorded such a detailed summary of the meeting if it actually
had not taken place.

c. Entries referring to Senator Packwood's negotiations with the Oregon
Citizens Alliance during his 1992 campaign

Senator Packwood testified that he deleted every reference
to the Oregon Citizens Alliance which he could find, because
this would be an explosive subject in Oregon. At least five
such entries were deleted.
During his 1992 campaign, Senator Packwood was accused by
the media of making a deal with the Oregon Citizens Alliance
(OCA), a conservative group, that they would not run a
candidate against him in return for certain promises. Senator
Packwood consistently denied these accusations. Senator
Packwood's diary tapes for 1992 and 1993 contain a number of
entries discussing what could be characterized as negotiations
with the OCA by others on Senator Packwood's behalf. These
entries do not appear on the Cormack transcript, and in some
cases, entries have been added that deny any deal was ever made
with the OCA.
Senator Packwood testified that there never was a ``deal''
with the OCA, and that he added information to the Cormack
transcript to emphasize that for the benefit of the press.

d. Entries referring to contacts with Committee members by Senator
Packwood during the Committee's inquiry

There are a number of entries on the 1992 audiotapes, which
do not appear on the Cormack transcript, referring to
conversations by Senator Packwood with members of the Committee
concerning the Committee's inquiry.
Senator Packwood testified that he deleted these entries
from his diary tapes because he was afraid that if the press
obtained them, they would suggest a ``Republican conspiracy''
in connection with the Committee's inquiry.

e. Entries about Senator Packwood accepting contributions to his legal
defense fund from lobbyists

There are several entries in the 1993 diary tapes related
to Senator Packwood's acceptance or solicitation of
contributions to his legal defense fund from lobbyists visiting
his Senate office. At least one of these entries gives the
impression that a group contributed to his legal defense fund
in order to get or stay in his good graces.
Senator Packwood stated that he attempted to remove any
references to contributions to his legal defense fund by
lobbyists, because the press would attempt to make corrupt,
illegal, and immoral inferences from them about the way
politics work. He stated that it is perfectly legal, ethical,
and moral for a group, even one that has opposed you in the
past, to come in and make a contribution.
Senator Packwood denied any improper linkage between his
acceptance of contributions to his legal defense fund and the
conduct of his official Senate duties.

5. Findings

a. Reliability of the diaries
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that from 1969 through 1993,
Senator Packwood kept detailed daily diaries. More
specifically, for the diaries covering the period from January
1, 1989 through November 21, 1993, Senator Packwood recorded,
often in minute detail, events in his professional and personal
life, as well as his thoughts and feelings on a wide range of
subjects, covering both his professional and personal life.
Counsel finds that despite Senator Packwood's protestations
about the unreliability of his diaries, these diaries were in
fact an attempt by Senator Packwood to accurately record, from
his perspective, events which he witnessed or in which he
participated, and his thoughts and feelings about a variety of
subjects.
While, as Senator Packwood points out, his recollection or
assessment of events at the time may in some instances turn out
to be inaccurate, or differ from the recollection of others,
that does not mean that Senator Packwood did not set out to
record events and perceptions as accurately as he could.
Counsel finds that while Senator Packwood's diaries may not
always be complete or accurate in every respect as a historical
account of events, they are certainly accurate as a
contemporaneous reflection of his perception of events, and his
thoughts and feelings about a broad array of subjects.
Counsel notes that Senator Packwood made arrangements to
leave his diaries to a historical trust. This fact, together
with the sheer comprehensive nature of the diary entries, which
record everything from Presidential briefings to the most
mundane details of Senator Packwood's personal habits, is
powerful evidence that Senator Packwood himself intended his
diaries to be an accurate contemporaneous reflection of his
perception of events, professional and personal, and his
contemporaneous thoughts and feelings on many subjects.
Senate Ethics Counsel concludes that this contemporaneous
record created by Senator Packwood is in fact reliable evidence
of the events that it memorializes, as perceived by Senator
Packwood at the time he recorded them, and of his
contemporaneous thoughts and feelings.
b. Alteration of the diaries
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that as of December 1, 1992,
Senator Packwood was on notice that he was the subject of the
Committee's inquiry into allegations of misconduct. After that
time, Senator Packwood had an obligation of trust to the
Senate, irrespective of any legal obligation which might
attach, not to alter or destroy any documents or evidence in
his possession or control that could be relevant to the subject
of the Committee's inquiry.
There is no dispute that substantial portions of the
entries for Senator Packwood's 1992 and 1993 diaries did not
make it from the original contemporaneous audiotape onto the
transcripts typed by Cathy Cormack. Although a large number of
these entries appear to have been skipped over, paraphrased, or
otherwise changed by Ms. Cormack in her rush to complete the
diaries in the late summer and early fall of 1993, Senator
Packwood himself testified that he deleted from his audiotapes
most of the entries where corresponding entries were
substituted on the typed transcript. ^{160 Many of the
entries falling into this category dealt with matters that were
directly related to the Committee's inquiry or that raised
questions about possible misconduct falling under the
Committee's jurisdiction. Senate Ethics Counsel finds that
Senator Packwood intentionally altered many of the diary
passages that related to the Committee's inquiry or raised
questions about possible misconduct within the Committee's
jurisdiction, and that he did so after he was on notice that he
was the subject of the Committee's inquiry.
\160\ Of course, if the Committee had the altered tapes from which
Ms. Cormack transcribed the 1992 and 1993 diaries, it would be better
able to pinpoint which entries Ms. Cormack skipped over, as they would
still be on the tape, and which entries Senator Packwood deleted, as
they would be missing from the tape, and which entries were altered
after the transcripts had been typed. Despite his knowledge as of
October 6, 1993 that the Committee wanted to see his diaries, and his
receipt of a subpoena on October 21, 1993 for all of his diary tapes
and transcripts, Senator Packwood never instructed Ms. Cormack not to
continue her usual practice of erasing her copy after she finished
typing it. Senator Packwood testified that he also erased his copy of
the changed tape, keeping instead the original, unchanged diary tape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Senator Packwood's motivation for making changes to his diary

Senator Packwood has testified that he took out entries
from his 1992 and 1993 diary tapes because he feared that once
they went to his attorneys, they would be leaked to the press.
He testified that he did not act out of a desire to keep the
deleted entries from the Committee, but that his sole
motivation was to prevent entries that could be embarassing to
himself or others from getting to the press through his
attorneys. Several factors should be considered in evaluating
this testimony.
First, if Senator Packwood were truly concerned about
embarassing entries in his diaries leaking to the press, he
could simply have deleted those entries. There was no need to
substitute passages in their place, passages that were often
self-serving or exculpatory. Indeed, in one instance, while he
deleted a passage that would be highly embarassing to himself
and others if it became public, he substituted in its place an
entry that would have been equally embarassing to another staff
member if it had become public. He offered no explanation for
his substitution of entries, other than that it was the result
of his compulsive habit of dictating.
The nature of the entries that Senator Packwood took out of
his diary is also a strong indication that his motivation may
not have been simply to keep entries from leaking to the press.
A good number of these entries relate specifically to the
subject of the Committee's inquiry--either the women involved,
the issue of intimidation, or the progress of the Committee's
inquiry. Indeed, Senator Packwood changed entries which related
to the subject of intimidation of witnesses well after his own
attorneys had instructed him to collect and forward entries
related to the intimidation issue. Many of the remaining
entries that were changed raise questions about other possible
misconduct by Senator Packwood that would be subject to the
Committee's jurisdiction. The nature of the entries deleted
points to the conclusion that Senator Packwood set out to
delete not only those possibly incriminating entries relating
to the Committee's inquiry, but any entries that might trigger
further inquiry by the Committee into other areas of possible
misconduct.^{161
\161\ While the deleted entries about the Oregon Citizens Alliance,
which raise questions about his campaign tactics, do not appear to
implicate Senator Packwood in any official misconduct, it is not clear
whether this was not a matter of concern to Senator Packwood at the
time he made the changes to these entries, given the fact that he was
also changing other entries related to the campaign, dealing with
possible coordinated expenditures. Three other deleted entries related
to dinner with his attorneys and meetings with a friend who was a judge
do not appear to relate to any potential official misconduct. The fact
that not all of the deleted entries related to the Ethics Committee's
inquiry or possible misconduct, however, does not preclude the
reasonable conclusion, supported by the clear weight of the evidence,
that many or most of the deletions that Senator Packwood admitted he
made appear to have been made with the Ethics Committee in mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, Senator Packwood made no changes to his already-
transcribed pre-1992 diaries, as he did to his untranscribed
1992-1993 tapes. This contrast in treatment between the pre-
1992 diaries and the 1992-93 tapes is underscored by the fact
that Senator Packwood deleted several passages in his 1993
diary tapes referring to his consensual relationship with a
staffer, (S-1), and his concern that she might be trying to
``build a case'' against him. Yet he did not delete an entry in
November 1989 which describes in explicit detail how he and the
staffer had sex on his office floor, although the deleted
entries make it clear that he knew when this incident took
place.
Additionally, Senator Packwood stated that he was concerned
that his diaries would be leaked once he turned them over to
his attorneys. Yet the evidence indicates that with the
exception of the October-November excerpts from 1992 dealing
with the intimidation issue, his attorneys never asked him to
turn over any significant portion of his diaries to them in
toto, although he did provide them with selected entries from
his diary during the course of 1993.^{162 Indeed, his
attorneys did not receive any of the diary, other than the
selected excerpts that Senator Packwood provided to them, until
after his deposition was interrupted in October 1993 when the
Committee requested the diaries. At that time, they first
received the diary transcript covering the years 1969 through
1991, followed by 1992-1993 transcripts as Ms. Cormack typed
them.
\162\ Once the Committee asked to review his diaries in October
1993, Senator Packwood gave his attorneys copies of the transcripts for
1992 and 1993 prepared from the altered tapes as Ms. Cormack typed it,
to be reviewed by his attorneys and provided to the Committee. He did
not, however, tell his attorneys that these transcripts had been typed
from altered tapes. As late as October 20, 1993, Senator Packwood's
attorneys wrote the Committee advising it that some of the transcript
for 1992 would be forthcoming for the Committee's review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood has emphasized to the Committee that he
did not destroy the original audiotapes, and that if the
Committee had gotten up to 1992 and 1993 in its original review
of the diaries, he would have informed the Committee of the
changes. He overlooks the fact that at the same time that
Committee Counsel was reviewing the earlier years of the diary
in October 1993, he was permitting Ms. Cormack to type
transcripts for 1992 and 1993 from the altered audiotape, and
was turning over to his attorneys transcripts prepared from
these altered tapes. At that time, Senator Packwood knew that
the Committee wanted to review his diaries through 1993. And
even after he received the Committee's subpoena asking for
diaries and tapes, he continued to have Ms. Cormack type from
the altered audiotapes, which transcripts he provided to his
attorneys.
Had he intended for the Committee to review a transcript
prepared from the original, unchanged diary tapes, he would not
have had Ms. Cormack typing from the altered audiotapes. It is
also significant that Senator Packwood did not tell his own
attorneys that the transcripts Ms. Cormack was typing, and that
he was providing to them during this period after October 6,
1993, had been altered. Indeed, even as late as October 20,
1993, Senator Packwood remained silent as his attorneys
informed the Committee that some of the transcripts for 1992,
which unbeknownst to them had been typed from the altered
tapes, would soon be available for review by the
Committee.^{163
\163\ Moreover, if Senator Packwood made changes to his diaries for
benign purposes, why did he not simply listen to the tapes and identify
those changes for the Committee after he lost in Court, instead of
leaving to the Committee the task of transcribing his tapes and
comparing them to the Cormack transcript? He was specifically invited
to do so by Senate Legal Counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood has also emphasized that the Committee
received the original audiotapes, and thus was not misled. It
is true that, after a lengthy court battle, the Committee
received the original audiotapes. The issue, however, is not
whether the Committee eventually received evidence to which it
was lawfully entitled,^{164 but whether Senator Packwood
intentionally created a second version of that evidence after
he knew or should have known the Committee wanted it, and
whether as part of that process he destroyed evidence. Any
improper conduct occurred when Senator Packwood made the
changes to his diaries or destroyed evidence as part of that
process, regardless of whether the Committee eventually
received the authentic version, or regardless of whether the
Committee avoided the possibility of being actually misled,
because it successfully obtained the originals.
\164\ Of course, all such evidence was not received by the
Committee, because the altered tapes were destroyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. The timing of the changes

For the purpose of determining whether Senator Packwood
engaged in improper conduct, it is not necessary to make a
specific finding regarding the timing of his changes to the
diary. The timing of the changes, however, may reflect Senator
Packwood's state of mind in making the changes.
The Committee's inquiry into allegations of sexual
misconduct began December 1, 1992. On February 4, 1993 the
inquiry was expanded to include possible witness intimidation.
Thereafter, on March 29, and July 16, 1993 the Committee sent
document requests to Senator Packwood requesting information
and documents concerning these allegations. The information
sought by these requests included information such as that
contained in some of the diary entries altered by the Senator.
Senator Packwood has testified that he began changing his 1992
audiotapes beginning in January 1993 and continuing through
April 1993, and that later, in late July or early August 1993,
he began changing his 1993 audiotapes. Thus, even if one
accepts his testimony as to the timing of the changes, Senator
Packwood was intentionally altering materials related to the
Committee's inquiry after he knew or should have known that the
Committee had sought or would likely seek these materials.
Thereafter, on October 6, 1993 at the interruption of his
deposition the Committee requested specific periods in their
entirety from his diary dating from 1969, specifically
including the period from August 1989 thru October 6, 1993.
Senator Packwood has testified that he made most of the
changes, with a few exceptions, in the first seven months of
1993, well before his deposition was interrupted in October
1993 and the Committee specifically requested his diaries.
Senator Packwood's testimony in this regard must, however, be
evaluated in the context of other evidence.
If the diary changes were made after the interruption of
Senator Packwood's deposition on October 6, 1993, this could
account for the fact that Senator Packwood only made changes on
the untranscribed tapes for the years 1992 and 1993: once the
Committee asked for the diaries, and Senator Packwood turned
over the already typed transcripts through 1991 to his
attorneys, he could not make any changes to those entries. But
he still had the audiotapes for 1992 and 1993, most of which
had not yet been transcribed.
Senator Packwood testified that he felt compelled to fill
up the space left on an audiotape after deleting passages.
However, an alternative explanation for the substitution of
entries in the place of deleted entries could be that these
changes were, in fact, made to the transcript after it was
typed by Ms. Cormack. It does make sense that one would want to
fill up a blank space after deleting entries from a typed
transcript, in order to hide the fact that entries had been
taken out. While some of the changes were made on the tapes
themselves, since Ms. Cormack noticed the Senator's tape
changes as she typed, she testified that in the two week period
from mid-to-late October 1993, on more than one occasion,
Senator Packwood brought back to her pages she had already
transcribed that he had subsequently changed, and asked her to
make those changes. She could not remember what time period
these changes covered. While the Senator says he does not
believe he changed any pre-deposition entries during this
period, he testified that it is possible that he did change
entries from either 1992 or pre-October 1993 as they came off
Ms. Cormack's typewriter, after his deposition was interrupted
on October 6, 1993 and after he received the Committee's
subpoena on October 21, 1993.
Consistent with the evidence, one could reasonably
conclude as follows: that after the Committee asked for his
diaries on October 6, 1993, Senator Packwood went to Ms.
Cormack and retrieved the untyped tapes for 1992 and 1993, and
mentioned the possibility of a subpoena as he did so; ^{165
that he deleted or changed some information from the
audiotapes,^{166 and returned them to Ms. Cormack a few days
later; ^{167 that as he received the typed transcripts from
her, and discovered that there was additional material that he
needed to take out, he instructed Ms. Cormack to do so, filling
up the blank spaces, or evening out the pages with benign or
exculpatory information to disguise the deletions.
\165\ At her third deposition, over a year after the events in
question, Ms. Cormack recalled that Senator Packwood picked up
audiotapes from her in September 1993, not October. This is consistent
with Senator Packwood's testimony. However, Senator Packwood's diary
for October 9, 1993, indicates that he dropped off the tapes to Ms.
Cormack on that date, and asked her to type seven of them right away,
and another diary entry for October 10, 1993 also discusses her rushing
to type the tapes. Both of these October entries were subsequently
changed by Senator Packwood, and there are no similar entries in
September. Correspondence from Senator Packwood's attorney, dated
October 20, 1993, indicates that as of that date, Ms. Cormack had only
typed about half of the diaries for 1992. This is consistent with Ms.
Cormack's testimony, describing the two week period of mid-to-late
October as part of the ``crunch time,'' when she was pushing hard to
complete the tapes.
\166\ The Senator has testified that during December 1992 and 1993
as he was listening to the 1992-93 untranscribed tapes he believes he
may have made notes of the location of embarrassing passages which he
would not want to get into the hands of the press. If he had this
information at hand, the Senator could quickly locate and delete or
change the passages.
\167\ Senator Packwood destroyed his copy of the changed
audiotapes, and never instructed Ms. Cormack not to destroy hers, even
after receiving the Committee's subpoena. Thus, it is impossible to
make a full accounting of exactly which entries were deleted from the
tape by Senator Packwood, which entries Ms. Cormack listened to but
simply did not type, and which entries Senator Packwood added by making
changes to transcript rather than tape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If one concludes that Senator Packwood made the changes
during this time period, it is equally clear that Senator
Packwood was intentionally altering materials related to the
Committee's inquiry when he knew or should have known that the
Committee had sought or would likely seek these materials.
Counsel also notes that in his appearance before the
Committee, Senator Packwood stated that he finally told his
attorneys about the existence of the original backup
audiotapes, and the fact that he had made changes to the 1992
and 1993 tapes, after he received the subpoena from the
Department of Justice on November 19, 1993, because he thought
the Department of Justice might need them.^{168 However, the
Committee's subpoena, which the Senator received almost a month
earlier, specifically asked for diary transcripts and tapes for
the years 1989 through 1993. Only days before he received the
Department of Justice subpoena, when he was discussing with the
Committee the possibility that he could resign and thereby
avoid the Committee's subpoena, Senator Packwood told Senator
McConnell, then the Committee's Vice Chairman, that he wanted a
``window of opportunity'' in which to destroy his
diaries.^{169 Such a window would have been created if the
Committee's subpoena expired before the Department of Justice
subpoena was served. However, the Department of Justice
subpoena was served before he could resign. It is reasonable to
conclude from this sequence of events that Senator Packwood was
willing to resign if it meant that he could destroy his
diaries, and that he only told his attorneys about the
existence of original backup tapes, and that he had altered the
tapes for 1992 and 1993, when the destruction of his diaries
was no longer an option.
\168\ The Committee's subpoena of October 20, 1993 specifically
asked for all tapes as well as transcripts. The Senator explained that
the DOJ subpoena jogged him to action where the Committee subpoena had
not because it involved a possible criminal issue and he did not know
what that entailed. It is unclear why the Ethics Committee subpoena,
approved by a 94-to-6 vote of his Senate colleagues, did not carry the
same force with Senator Packwood.
\169\ Senator McConnell immediately informed Senator Bryan (then
Committee chairman) and Committee Counsel of this conversation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Destruction of evidence

Senator Packwood testified that he made changes to a
duplicate copy of his diary tapes, and that he then made a copy
of this changed duplicate to give to Ms. Cormack to
type.^{170 As she finished typing, she destroyed her copy,
and he destroyed his, keeping instead the original, unaltered
diary tape, which did not correspond to the typed transcript.
If the Committee had access to the altered diary tapes, it
would better be able to establish what deletions were made to
the tapes by Senator Packwood, as these would not be on the
tapes, as opposed to what entries were simply not typed by Ms.
Cormack and, importantly, what changes were made by Senator
Packwood to the transcript after it was typed.^{171 Even
accepting Senator Packwood's testimony about the timing of the
changes to his diaries, he continued to allow Ms. Cormack to
destroy her copy of the altered tapes, and he continued to
destroy his, after the Committee asked to review his diaries,
and after he received the Committee's subpoena, which
specifically asked for all audiotapes as well as transcripts.
All of the altered tapes must have been destroyed, since none
were produced to the Court in response to the Committee's
subpoena. Likewise, since no transcript pages marked by Senator
Packwood for changes by Ms. Cormack were provided to the Court,
these must also have been destroyed by Senator Packwood and/or
Ms. Cormack.
\170\ Ms. Cormack did not complete her transcription of the altered
tapes until at least November 9, 1993.
\171\ This is significant because Ms. Cormack has testified that
during the two week period in mid to late October 1993, when she was
pushing to complete the diaries, on a few occasions Senator Packwood
brought her diary pages she had already typed, with instructions on
changes to be made to them. If the Committee had the altered tapes,
this would help establish whether certain entries were changed after
the Committee had asked to review his diaries on October 6, 1993,
during this mid to late October period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear from the October 20, 1993 letter from Senator
Packwood's attorneys to the Committee, stating that only half
of the 1992 tapes had been typed and were ready for review by
Committee counsel, and from Cathy Cormack's testimony that the
two-week period of mid to late October was part of the ``crunch
time'' for typing the transcripts, that a significant number of
altered tapes were transcribed, and the tapes destroyed, after
the Committee specifically asked for the diaries, and after the
Committee more specifically subpoenaed all diary tapes as well
as diary transcripts. Thus, Senator Packwood created an altered
version of his diaries wherein a significant number of the
alterations related specifically to the Committee's inquiry or
to matters within the Committee's jurisdiction, and then
destroyed the evidence (the altered tapes) which was critical
to a determination as to the purpose of the changes, which
purpose the Senator has testified had no relationship to the
Committee's inquiry.

f. Reliance on the advice of counsel

Senator Packwood has repeatedly stated that he felt free
to alter his diaries during 1993 because his attorneys made the
determination that the Committee was not entitled to them, and
that, in making those changes, he relied upon the fact that his
attorneys were not providing the Committee with any diary
excerpts in response to the Committee's requests. Senator
Packwood testified that his attorneys made the decision to
withhold his diaries from the Committee in response to its
document requests. Despite repeated questioning, he could not
elaborate on precisely what his attorneys told him on this
subject. Nevertheless, this claim, that his attorneys made the
decision about what to provide to the Committee, is
corroborated by Mr. Fitzpatrick of Arnold & Porter.
Senator Packwood, however, was not charged by the
Committee with a failure to turn over his diaries to the
Committee in response to its requests. The Committee charged
Senator Packwood with intentionally altering his diaries after
he knew or should have known that the Committee had sought or
would likely seek them. Senator Packwood was certainly entitled
to rely upon his attorneys' decision to withhold his diaries on
the grounds of privilege, even if his attorneys' judgment was
later proven to be incorrect. But Senator Packwood's attorneys
did not advise him that it was permissible to alter his
diaries, privileged or not. Indeed, his attorneys did not even
know that he was altering his diaries until November 21, 1993,
the day before they resigned. Senator Packwood cannot shift
responsibility for the alteration of his diaries to his
attorneys.
Moreover, Counsel notes that Senator Packwood began
changing his diaries in January 1993, at least two months
before he received the Committee's document request on March
29, 1993. Senator Packwood told the Committee that his
attorneys made the decision not to turn over his diaries to the
Committee sometime after the Committee's March 29, 1993
document request. Even accepting Senator Packwood's assertion
that he felt free to change his diaries because of his
counsel's decision not to turn them over to the Committee,
there was no such advice to rely upon when he was changing the
1992 tapes during January, February, and most of March, 1993.
It should not be overlooked that Senator Packwood is
himself a lawyer. He knew as early as December 1992, when his
attorneys asked him for excerpts from his diaries touching on
the intimidation issue, and as he provided them with other
excerpts from the diary throughout early 1993, that his
attorneys considered his diaries important to his defense to
the extent they contained material relevant to the Committee's
inquiry. It is certainly reasonable to expect that Senator
Packwood could anticipate that the Committee might also want
access to his diaries at some point. Indeed, an entry in
Senator Packwood's original diary audiotape (which does not
appear in the Cormack transcript, dated March 29, 1993 because
the Senator deleted it), the same day that Senator Packwood
received the Committee's document request, makes it clear that
Senator Packwood was concerned that the Committee might get
access to his diaries. Those diaries contained information that
was directly relevant to the Committee's inquiry. Regardless of
his attorneys' determination about what he could withhold from
the Committee, Senator Packwood knew the importance of
preserving the integrity of anything that might at some point
become evidence in an ongoing inquiry, and the consequences of
altering any such potential evidence.

g. Conclusions

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood
intentionally changed entries in his diaries that related to
the subject of the Committee's inquiry, or to areas of possible
misconduct that were subject to the Committee's jurisdiction,
at a time when he was the subject of an inquiry into misconduct
by the Committee, and when he knew or should have known that
the Committee would likely seek or had sought those diaries as
evidence in its inquiry.
It is not necessary to Counsel's finding of improper
conduct to also find that Senator Packwood acted for the
specific purpose of obstructing the Committee's inquiry. Such a
determination is better left to other authorities, and Counsel
defers to their eventual judgment on this matter. Counsel does
find, however, that Senator Packwood purposefully selected and
changed entries in his diary tapes for 1992 and 1993 that he
knew were relevant to the Committee's inquiry, and that could
be incriminating to him, along with other entries that could
result in Committee inquiry into other activity.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's
actions were contemptuous of and subverted the Senate's
Constitutional self-disciplinary process. By delegation of
authority from the Senate, the Committee is specifically
empowered to obtain evidence from Members and others who are
the subject of Committee inquiry, and it is entitled to rely on
the integrity of such evidence. Indeed, the entire process is
compromised and rendered wholly without value if persons
subject to the Committee's inquiry, or witnesses in an inquiry,
are allowed to jeopardize the integrity of evidence coming
before the Committee.
Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's
actions constitute an abuse of his position as a United States
Senator, are a violation of his duty of trust to the Senate,
and constitute improper conduct reflecting discredit upon the
United States Senate.
Counsel suggests that the matter of diary alteration is
appropriate for referral to the Department of Justice for its
attention pursuant to Committee Rule 8(a).

VI. Evidence Regarding the Allegations of Soliciting Employment for
Senator Packwood's Spouse

The evidence relating to the issue of whether Senator
Packwood may have inappropriately linked personal financial
gain to his official position by soliciting or otherwise
encouraging offers of financial assistance from persons having
a particular interest in legislation or issues that he could
influence is set forth below.^{172
\172\ This information was referred to the Department of Justice
pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Committee's Rules of Procedure on or about
November 22, 1993. On June 28, 1995, the Department of Justice informed
the Committee that it had declined criminal prosecution of the
allegations related to job opportunities for the Senator's wife.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Steve Saunders

1. Background

Steve Saunders worked for Senator Packwood from 1977 until
1981. From 1977 until January, 1979, he was the Director of
Communications for the National Republican Senatorial
Committee, which Senator Packwood chaired. From 1979 until
1981, he was the Staff Director of the Senate Republican
Conference, which Senator Packwood also chaired. In May, 1982,
he established his own consulting firm. He is currently the
sole proprietor of an international trade consulting firm; a
sculpture export business, which markets the work of American
sculptors in the U.S. and overseas; and a retail art gallery.
He has been close friends with both Senator and Mrs. Packwood
for roughly sixteen years. He is a registered foreign agent for
the Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (``Mitsubishi'').

2. The November 1989 diary entries

The most significant diary entries relating to Mr. Saunders
are dated November 3 and November 6, 1989, respectively. The
November 3 entry provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Saunders arrived and he and I went over to the
Tortilla Coast or whatever that place is for beers. I
drank two quickly and I said, ``Steve, I need to talk
about the purpose of the meeting.'' Steve said, ``I
think I know. You and Georgie are splitting.'' I said,
``Well, I think we're going to separate and I kind of
want to know if you could be of some help.'' He said,
``In what fashion.'' I said, ``I don't know how much
your firm makes.'' He says, ``We're doing $600 to $700
thousand a year now.'' I said I wonder if you can put
Georgie on a retainer.'' He says ``How much?'' I said,
``$7,500 a year.'' He says, ``$7,500 a year ???'' I
said, ``Yeah.'' He said, ``Consider it done.'' When I
said `yeah' I think he thought I was going to say a
month. He said, ``I'd be happy to do it.'' * * * But in
any event, I've now got her $20,000. $7,500 from Ron,
$7,500 from Steve, $5,000 from.^{173
\173\ The fact of this meeting is supported by a letter dated
November 6, 1989, in which Senator Packwood thanked Mr. Saunders for
meeting with him. Mr. Saunders testified that he never received this
letter.

Three days later, on Monday, November 6, 1989, Senator
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Packwood recorded the following in his diary:

At a request of Steve Saunders I stopped in at the
Finance Committee to read two questions which I wanted
asked of a man named Spero, the President of Fusion
something or other. This guy's been carrying on a
vendetta with the Japanese about patents for years,
first in the Commerce Committee with Jay Rockefeller
pushing it there and then in the Finance Committee with
Jay pushing it again. It's funny. Fusion is in
Maryland. I don't know what the connection is with West
Virginia. Steve Saunders thinks that Jay is just
genuinely concerned but he keeps pushing and pushing
this issue so I said of course I'd go and ask the
questions.^{174
\174\ This entry is supported by Senator Packwood's handwritten
calendar of events, which reads ``Finance for Saunders'' on November 6,
1989 at 2:00 p.m.

A transcript of the November 6, 1989 Finance Committee
hearing indicates that Senator Packwood briefly attended the
hearing, read two questions he wanted asked of Mr. Spero into
the record, and then left.^{175 Documents produced by Mr.
Saunders indicate that questions virtually identical to the
ones asked by Senator Packwood at the hearing were submitted to
a Finance Committee staffer by Mr. Saunders on November 6,
1989.^{176 In other documents submitted by Mr. Saunders, he
advised his client Mitsubishi that Senator Packwood was not
originally scheduled to attend the hearing and rearranged his
schedule at the last minute because Mr. Saunders asked him to
appear.^{177
\175\ The two questions read into the record by Senator Packwood
for Mr. Spero, which explore the differences between the U.S. and
Japanese patent systems, appear on page 3 of the hearing transcript.
\176\ Senator Packwood testified that while the questions could
have been submitted by Mr. Saunders, he did not know that was the case
at the time. He further testified that he does not recall having any
discussion with Mr. Saunders at any time about the questions he had
submitted for his consideration.
\177\ Senator Packwood testified that he has no recollection of
changing his schedule to attend the hearing. Mr. Saunders testified
that he persuaded the Senator to make at least a brief personal
appearance at the hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Senator Packwood's testimony

At his deposition, Senator Packwood testified that on
November 3, he had been drinking in the office before Mr.
Saunders arrived. He stated that he drank a lot very quickly
and was quite drunk, but he does remember going with Mr.
Saunders to Tortilla Coast. He stated that he thinks they
discussed Mr. Saunders hiring Mrs. Packwood, but he emphasized
that this was a drunken evening for him.
Senator Packwood testified that he does not recall any of
the specific conversation recorded in the November 3, 1989
diary entry. He stated that he thinks the meeting was held at
his behest. The Senator stated that when Mr. Saunders and he
and Mrs. Packwood had been in Asia the year before, he had
discussed his marital situation with Mr. Saunders and he had
offered to help. Referring to the November 3 entry, Senator
Packwood stated that ``whether I said exactly this or not, I
think I asked him if he was prepared to sort of follow up on
what he had said.'' Senator Packwood testified that he cannot
recall whether they specifically discussed Mr. Saunders
employing Mrs. Packwood prior to the November 3 meeting.
Rather, he only recalls the offer to help, as the colloquy
below demonstrates:

Q: Just to clarify, Senator, in terms of your
discussions with Mr. Saunders, I believe you had said
that you had had a conversation with Mr. Saunders prior
to this time [Nov. 3] in which there was some
discussion about employing Mrs. Packwood; is that
correct?
A: That, I can't remember. Because I remember the
gallery part. And whether it was before this or not--
what I remember, Steve was a good friend. He knew about
my marital troubles and had offered to help. Whether or
not at that stage he says I'm opening an art gallery, I
can't remember. But it was the offer to help that I
recall.
Q: And when you say here I wonder if you can put
Georgie on a retainer, as I understand your testimony,
you simply can't recall whether you said that or not?
A: I don't recall any of the specific conversation.
Q: But given the context of what you described, I
presume that it's possible that was said?
A: Well, what I remember is talking to him about a
job. Beyond that, I can't remember.

Senator Packwood testified that he has no memory of any
discussion at the November 3 meeting of the upcoming hearing on
patents before the Finance Committee. Nor does he recall
whether Mr. Saunders offered him any written materials in
connection with the hearing on patents. He does not recall any
discussion of Mitsubishi on November 3, although he was aware
of Mr. Saunder's representation of Mitsubishi. The Senator
testified that the Mitsubishi/Fusion issue was one that he had
been working on for about 18 months as of November, 1989. He
stated that he believed Fusion was inappropriately using
Congressional hearings as a forum for complaining because they
were unsuccessful in their commercial dispute with Mitsubishi.
Turning to the November 6, 1989 entry, Senator Packwood
testified that he does not remember Mr. Saunders calling him to
request that he attend the hearing. He testified that, ``He
[Saunders] may have called and said would you mind asking him
[Spero] personally.'' When questioned further about the entry
and why he attended the hearing, Senator Packwood responded as
follows:

Q: Is that what you think you meant by ``at a request
of Steve Saunders?''
A: Well, I don't remember the phone call. I don't
remember the questions, other than apparently they were
questions I was going to submit, I would judge, the way
this reads. And whether he called and said would you
mind asking him personally or not, I don't know. This
is a common thing that all of us do. If someone calls
us up--apparently these are questions my staff did, but
quite frequently you'll get questions from lobbyists
that send you in questions and say will you go in and
ask this.
Q: Would it be fair to say that Mr. Saunders is the
one that brought the dispute between Mitsubishi and
Fusion to your attention?
A: He may have been the one that initially brought it
to my attention 18 months or so ago.
Q: Do you recall specifically whether it was him or
someone with his organization?
A: No, I don't recall.
Q: And again, to the language at the very first
sentence where you say ``at a request of Steve
Saunders,'' I believe you touched on this, but let me
be sure I understand. Do you recall any type of written
or telephonic communication from Mr. Saunders where he
actually made the request for you to attend this
committee hearing and ask these questions?
A: No, I don't * * *.

With respect to his handwritten calendar of events, which
contains an entry that reads ``Finance for Saunders,'' Senator
Packwood denied that there was a connection between attending
the hearing and Mr. Saunders:

Q: That would suggest that in your mind, there was a
connection between attending that hearing and Steve
Saunders; is that correct?
A: No. I think it is more likely that if he'd
[Saunders] called me up and ask me to go ask the
questions as opposed to my just handing them in and
asking whoever was chairing the hearing that day, that
I went up and asked the questions. Not that I was
attending the meeting for him. This was an issue I'd
been following for this long period of time. And I knew
this guy Spero was going to be there, but I apparently
had not intended to go to the meeting, but just turn
the questions in and maybe Steve said please go ask
them personally so I put this entry in.
Q: Do you believe you would have personally attended
the hearing but for Mr. Saunders request?
A: That I can't remember now.
Q: So as I understand it, there wasn't a question as
to whether you were going to have these questions
asked, but rather a question if you would personally
attend and ask the questions; is that correct, as
opposed to submitting them in writing?
A: Yes, although ``personally attend'' doesn't
necessarily mean stay at the meeting * * *.

Senator Packwood testified that he does not recall any
discussion with Mr. Saunders about any type of connection or
relationship between Mr. Saunder's hiring Mrs. Packwood and the
questions that he wanted asked at the November 6 hearing. Nor
was there any type of implicit understanding that there was a
connection or relationship between his discussions with Mr.
Saunders about hiring Mrs. Packwood and the questions he wanted
asked at the November 6 hearing. In this regard, Senator
Packwood testified as follows:

Q: * * * do you believe that there was a connection
between your discussions with Mr. Saunders about
employment opportunities for Mrs. Packwood and his
request of you to ask certain questions at this
hearing?
A: Absolutely not. Steve was a close friend, had been
for a decade and a quarter. I'd travelled with him. I'd
worked on this issue with him for 18 months, and I
would have done this if I would have never met with him
on Friday night.

4. Brief history of Senator Packwood's involvement in the Japanese
patent issue

In a letter dated November 16, 1993 to Mr. Brooks Jackson
of CNN, Senator Packwood provided a history of his involvement
in the Japanese patent issue. He explained that his interest in
this issue began around June of 1988 when he was preparing for
a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee
on Foreign Commerce and Tourism. In preparation of this
hearing, he stated that his staff had described the dispute
between Fusion Systems and Mitsubishi and Mitsubishi's hope
that the hearing would focus on larger policy issues. During
the course of this hearing, Senator Packwood asked U.S.
government officials how the U.S. patent system stacked up
against the systems of other countries. He also requested an
additional hearing to hear from U.S. companies who had some
success working with the Japanese patent system.
In his November 16 letter, Senator Packwood goes on to
state that on January 27, 1989, during the confirmation
hearings on the nomination of Carla Hills to U.S. Trade
Representative before the Senate Finance Committee, he asked
Ms. Hills to speak with experts in the patent area before
making any decisions on issues involving the Japanese patent
office. Then, on February 28, 1989, the Commerce Committee's
Subcommittee on Foreign Commerce and Tourism held its second
hearing on the Japanese patent system. At this hearing, he
again asked U.S. government officials whether the U.S. patent
system or the Japanese patent system was more in line with the
rest of the industrialized world.^{178
\178\ Senator Packwood's diary entry of February 28, 1989 confirms
his attendance at this subcommittee hearing. At the end of the passage,
Senator Packwood records, ``I think we have laid to rest the Fusion
problem.'' In explaining what he meant by ``laying to rest the Fusion
problem,'' Senator Packwood testified that,'' * * * I wasn't going to
let him [Spero] use the hearing process to try to get us to force the
Japanese to give him something that he didn't deserve. I had hoped I
guess on this day that we had finally killed it.'' In a background memo
for this hearing dated February 27, 1989, one of the Senator's staffers
notes that Senator Packwood was ``brought into this issue by Steve
Saunders, on behalf of Mitsubishi.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood concludes his letter by asserting that he
has had a longstanding interest in intellectual property
issues. He states that during the 1988-89 hearings, he kept
hearing how the Japanese system was unfair and discriminatory.
However, he discovered that the Japanese patent system was more
in step with the rest of the industrialized world than the U.S.
system. He states that his efforts were an attempt to ensure
balance in the review of the patent issue.

5. Mr. Saunders' testimony

Mr. Saunders recalls that in the 1980's, his firm was
retained by Mitsubishi to advise it on various trade issues. In
1987 or 1988, his company began working with Mitsubishi's
Washington lawyers, lobbyists and public relations advisors
regarding a dispute between Mitsubishi and a Maryland company
called Fusion. According to Mr. Saunders, Mitsubishi had been
attempting to negotiate a settlement of a dispute with Fusion
over patents in Japan for several years. The head of Fusion, a
Mr. Spero, decided that he wanted to try to apply additional
pressure on Mitsubishi to reach a favorable settlement. Spero
engaged the interest of the office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, which ultimately resulted in the Deputy
U.S.T.R. telling Mitsubishi executives that they should settle
their dispute with Fusion on terms favorable to Fusion because
the issue had become political in the United States. Mr.
Saunders claims that he advised Mitsubishi that in the case of
a home-grown American entrepreneur fighting a Goliath Japanese
company, the best Mitsubishi could hope to accomplish was
keeping the record straight. It was decided that the best way
to deal with the publicity generated by Mr. Spero's efforts was
to present the facts about the functions of the Japanese patent
system and the Mitsubishi/Fusion dispute to members and staff
of the Senate Commerce and Finance Committees.
Mr. Saunders recalls that during 1988, various persons
associated with the firms retained by Mitsubishi met several
times with Senator Packwood and members of his staff. Mr.
Saunders sat in on at least two of these meetings during 1988
and 1989, which were arranged by Mitsubishi's lobbying firm,
Thompson & Co. Mr. Saunders got involved because it became
apparent that they needed to contact Senator Packwood, who was
a senior member of the Commerce Committee and a leading free
trader. He stated that his firm became involved because there
had been a history of poor relations between the Senator and
Bob Thompson of Thompson & Co. Mr. Saunders stated that Senator
Packwood became very interested in the differences between the
U.S. patent system and the patent systems used by other
countries, including Japan. The Senator was not interested in
the details of the dispute between Mitsubishi and Fusion.
On November 3, 1989, Mr. Saunders stated that he and
Senator Packwood had dinner at a Mexican restaurant on Capitol
Hill. He testified that he believes Senator Packwood was
impaired by the alcohol he consumed at this dinner, although he
described the Senator as a ``functional alcoholic.'' Mr.
Saunders claims that they did not discuss business matters
whatsoever, including the upcoming November 6 hearing. There
was no discussion of Mitsubishi or Fusion or the patent issue.
Rather, he maintains they only discussed their families and
personal lives. He testified that the Senator asked him what he
was doing in his business and Mr. Saunders told him about his
plans to start a sculpture exporting business and an art
gallery. He testified that the Senator asked him how much his
business was making and Mr. Saunders told him ``$600,000 to
$700,000 a year.''
Senator Packwood then told him that he and his wife were
going to divorce. He testified that the Senator told him that
he wanted to ``simplify his life'' and that he was ``tired of
carrying all these people (i.e., his wife and children).''
Although there had been some discussion of divorce in Asia the
year before, Mr. Saunders stated that there was no discussion
of employment for the Senator's wife at that time. The Senator
also told Mr. Saunders that he had not yet told his wife about
his plans to divorce and asked him not to say anything to her.
Mr. Saunders asked what Mrs. Packwood would do and the Senator
responded that he did not know. Mr. Saunders recalls that
Senator Packwood then stated that he was a little worried about
Mrs. Packwood's future sources of income. He told Senator
Packwood that he did not think he had any reason to worry
because Mrs. Packwood had been operating a successful antique
business for several years and was talented in the buying and
selling of antiques.
Mr. Saunders recalls that he told Senator Packwood that he
had been thinking about calling Mrs. Packwood to help him with
his new venture of marketing American sculpture in Japan. At
that time, Mr. Saunders was in the process of setting up his
sculpture exporting business and was in the beginning stages of
setting up his gallery. It had occurred to him that Mrs.
Packwood would be valuable to him because he believed that Mrs
Packwood's skill in the antique business was easily
transferable to the contemporary art business. He testified
that he initiated the idea of Mrs. Packwood working for him and
that the Senator did not suggest such an arrangement. Mr.
Saunders stated that he did not think the Senator was trying to
solicit an offer of employment for his wife during this dinner.
Mr. Saunders testified that he specifically asked whether
the Senator had any ethical problem with the idea because he
was a registered foreign agent, and the Senator said no. The
Senator asked him to keep him informed of the status of his
discussions with Mrs. Packwood.
Mr. Saunders recalls that Senator Packwood asked how much
money his wife could earn working for him. He advised the
Senator that this would depend on how much time she wanted to
work and what type of wage or commission arrangement she wanted
to negotiate. Senator Packwood asked if she could make at least
$7,500 a year. Mr. Saunders said that he thought she could
easily make $7,500 a year, although it struck him as somewhat
of an odd figure. Mr. Saunders does not recall ever discussing
putting Mrs. Packwood on a retainer.
On the morning of the November 6, 1989 hearing, Mr.
Saunders testified that he heard that Senator Packwood would
not be able to attend due to scheduling conflicts. He called
Senator Packwood and urged him to at least stop in at the
hearing and read the questions that he had submitted into the
record. Senator Packwood said he was unsure whether he could
and asked whether he had received the questions. Mr. Saunders
testified that he had submitted proposed questions for the
Senator to ask at the hearing to a staffer named Rolf Lundberg.
He does not recall having any discussions with the Senator
about the Fusion issue after the November 6 hearing. Mr.
Saunders testified that he never had any discussion with the
Senator about attending the hearing or asking questions at the
hearing in connection with the employment proposal for Mrs.
Packwood.
Mr. Saunders recalls that he called Mrs. Packwood soon
after his dinner with Senator Packwood to discuss his proposal.
Over the next several months, Mr. Saunders spoke with Mrs.
Packwood several times about the possibility of her helping him
with the entity that would become his sculpture business and
eventually, with his art gallery. Some time in March or April
of 1990, they got together to discuss his proposal in detail.
In June, 1990, Mr. Saunders arranged for Mrs. Packwood to
attend several sessions of the International Sculpture
Conference in Washington, D.C. to see whether she would feel
comfortable with the contemporary art business. Mr. Saunders
recalls that after attending the conference, Mrs. Packwood told
him she was not comfortable with contemporary sculpture and
felt it was too far removed from her field. She indicated that
she would be willing, however, to arrange antique buying trips
and gallery visits for visiting clients of his consulting firm
and their wives if there were any opportunities for that kind
of work.
By June of 1990, Mr. Saunders had heard from Mrs. Packwood
that other friends had spontaneously offered her jobs. She was
persuaded that most of the people making her offers were asked
to do so by the Senator in order to reduce the potential demand
for alimony. It was at this time that she indicated that she
thought Mr. Saunders was being used by the Senator. In one of
his last conversations with the Senator about this subject, Mr.
Saunders testified that the Senator became extremely interested
in how much money his wife could earn. The Senator then stated
that the alimony settlement could bankrupt him. He also asked
Mr. Saunders for a statement describing his job offer to be
used at the divorce trial, but Mr. Saunders refused. Mr.
Saunders stated that although he did not feel coerced by the
Senator, he did feel manipulated.
Mr. Saunders testified that although his first conversation
with Senator Packwood about Mrs. Packwood's possible role in
helping him develop his art businesses and his telephone call
to the Senator to request that he attend the hearing on the
Japanese patent system occurred three days apart, there was no
connection in his mind between the job offer and his work for
Mitsubishi. He stated that Mrs. Packwood had been extremely
close to his family at critical times in his family's life. He
stated there was never an express or implied quid pro quo. He
explained that the Packwoods were two friends going through an
agonizing situation and he was trying to act as a friend. He
explained that the Senator was a friend and that Mrs. Packwood
was an even closer friend.

6. Other diary entries referring to Mr. Saunders and job offers for
Mrs. Packwood and related testimony

a. 10/18/89
In addition to the two diary entries discussed above, there
are other diary entries spanning the time frame from October
1989 through June of 1990 in which Senator Packwood makes
various references to Mr. Saunders extending employment
opportunities to Mrs. Packwood. On October 18, 1989, he
recorded the following entry in his diary:

* * * I did have time to come back to the office, talk
to Tim Lee and he says he'll be happy to put up $10,000
a year for Georgie. That's three out of three and I
haven't even hit up or Steve Saunders. I've got
to handle this carefully. I don't want in any way there
to be any quid pro quo. There shall not be any quid pro
quo. I'm not going to do anything for these guys that I
would not do for them anyway. My hunch is I'll get
something out of Saunders and out of . I think
I'll ask them for $5000 apiece and hold it in reserve
and indicate to Georgie that if she'll say she can make
$20,000 I'll make sure she gets another
$20,000.^{179 Then I'll come up with more and that
will give me enough of an asset base to be able to buy
a small two bedroom townhouse.
\179\ Senator Packwood testified that he is not sure what he meant
by ``hold it in reserve.'' He explained that he hoped Mrs. Packwood
could make $20,000 in her own antique business. The other $20,000
refers to the collective amount from the various opportunities being
offered by his friends. He further explained that ``asset base'' refers
to the proceeds from the sale of their house. He acknowledged that to
the extent Mrs. Packwood was able to earn more money, his
responsibility in terms of alimony would be less.

When asked to explain what he meant by the words ``hit
up,'' Senator Packwood testified that his ``use of the phrase
`hit up' is to call somebody.'' ^{180 He went on to testify:
\180\ In an entry on the Cormack transcript dated November 21,
1989, and received by the Committee from Judge Starr after Senator
Packwood's deposition, Senator Packwood recorded:

It's time now to accept the offers that I've solicited from
Crawford and Steve and .That will give her $20,000 right
now. Then I'll talk to Cliff Alexander perhaps
I wouldn't mind getting her to about $30,000 here without
initially calling on Tim Lee and Bill Furman in Portland.

Q: Were you calling these people for a particular
purpose?
A: I would have been calling them to see if they
would provide some help for me with Georgie.
Q: When you say ``help,'' do you mean income?
A: Yes. That wouldn't be quite the same with, but go
ahead.
Q: What did you mean when you said----
A: Hold on a second. All of these people, as you're
well aware that I called were old friends. They had all
in one form or another, discovered the possibility of
separation, had indicated they wanted to help. And I
don't want in any way for you to think the term ``hit
up'' as in other than I'm going to call and see if they
can be of help, following up on their suggestion that
if anything was going to happen they would be of help.
Q: But the purpose of calling them was to talk about
income or job opportunities or business opportunities
for Mrs. Packwood?
A: Yes, to discuss that.

Senator Packwood also testified at length with respect to
the quid pro quo reference in his diary:

Q: Were you at all concerned, Senator, about the
propriety of having discussions with or making requests
of persons who might have an interest in legislation,
having discussions about job opportunities or business
opportunities for Mrs. Packwood?
A: These were old friends. I've been in politics a
quarter of a century and would there be, I suppose, a
thousand lobbyists you could go to and make this kind
of a request? I assume there would be. I didn't go to
them. I went to people that I had known, that were
friends of mine, in some cases drinking buddies of
mine, in all cases, all long standing friends.
I did not go to them because they were lobbyists and
I did not ever do anything for them nor would I do
anything for them that I would not have otherwise have
done but for Georgie and I being separated, married or
otherwise. And I saw nothing wrong with going to people
that had been long-standing friends, personal friends
and asking for help.
And especially when I made it very clear, and you've
probably seen it somewhere before when I said there's
to be no quid pro quo, not only here but in the memo to
the marriage counselor, where there was to be no quid
pro quo and she was to keep track of her hours and
records. And if she could not perform value received,
then she would not be paid. I did everything I could to
make sure this was legal and ethical .
Q: * * * Were you concerned about a potential quid
pro quo?
A: No, I was not concerned about a potential quid pro
quo at all. I don't do business that way. I don't trade
my votes for money and I was not going to do any quid
pro quo.
Q: Why did you--do you know why you recorded these
thoughts? They appear to reflect a concern about a quid
pro quo.
A: You will find those thoughts all through my diary
* * * It's nothing unique here. That is the way I think
* * * *
Q: I appreciate that. My question, Senator, is in the
context of talking about and having conversations with
these persons about providing income to Mrs. Packwood,
in that same passage or at the end of that passage, you
make reference to you do not want there to be any quid
pro quo, not wanting to do anything for these guys that
you wouldn't do for them anyway. And I guess my
question is: Why--do you know why you put those
thoughts, why you recorded those thoughts----
A: As I said, you'll see this kind of entry all
through my diary dealing with different people.
Conversations, I've often said, are not necessarily
accurate. Thoughts may be more accurate * * * I put
this in here because these are my thoughts * * * I
don't do business that way * * * So I put it in because
that's the way--I can't remember on this particular one
why I put it in. That's just the way I think * * * .
Q: * * * In general, why would you have expressed
those thoughts in connection with discussions relating
to persons about job opportunities for Mrs. Packwood?
A: Why would I express it that way? Any place else in
the diary, where somebody's coming in and I say by God,
that's not the way I do business. Because those are my
thoughts. I don't do business that way, and this diary
is full of thoughts.
Q: Is there a reason specifically that those
thoughts, that is thoughts about quid pro quos, would
have been included in discussions about business
opportunities for Mrs. Packwood?
A: Only in the sense I was going to make sure there
would be no quid pro quo. And I did not want to do
anything that would be a quid pro quo.
b. 12/16/89 through 1/18/90
On December 16, 1989, Senator Packwood again referred to
Mr. Saunders in his diary, expressing a desire for him to call
Mrs. Packwood and ``indicate the money he [was] willing to
spend on her.'' ^{181 Senator Packwood testified that he was
hoping to eventually obtain approximately $20,000 for Mrs.
Packwood with respect to the offers of employment. On January
7, 1990, Senator Packwood noted in general that ``it is
imperative that she be willing to accept some business. If she
says she won't I'll still have to try to get her some and see
what happens.'' On January 18, 1990, Senator Packwood again
referred to Mr. Saunders:

\181\ Senator Packwood testified that he meant what Mr. Saunders
would be willing to employ her for if she was willing to provide
services of value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hit up. He says `yes.' a close friend but not
as close as Cliff. The same with Saunders, same with
Ron. They just say bang, bang, bang--yes. But not
Cliff. That means next week I've got to turn to
Saunders and then to Crawford.

Here, Senator Packwood testified that when he recorded
``hit up,'' he meant asking him if he could talk Georgie into a
job.
c. 1/24/90
On January 24, 1990, Senator Packwood recorded three
entries involving job offers to his wife. In the first of these
entries, after mentioning that he wanted Mr. Saunders (as well
as others) to call Mrs. Packwood about the job offer, he
recorded the following:

I'll get Saunders to do the same. Then I can't decide
whether it is or Tim Lee, or Crawford. I don't think
I'll go beyond that right now. I want her to have at
least $20,000 in offers. Boy, I'm scating [sic] on thin
ice here. I'm glad I put in writing to her * * * that
I'll help her get business but she must give service
for value and that this is and I used the word--this is
not to be a bribe for me or gift to you and if you
cannot perform the service, then your income or
retainer will have to be reduced or eliminated * * * .

When asked about this entry, Senator Packwood responded as
follows:

Q: * * * What did you mean by ``Boy, I'm skating on
thin ice here?''
A: You asked earlier, could anybody construe this to
be--I don't know if you said unethical or illegal or
something like that, and I answered you've seen what
the press will construe to be illegal or unethical.
It's perfectly allright [sic]. And I knew what I was
doing was perfectly allright, or I thought I knew what
I was doing was perfectly allright. And I checked it as
best I could ^{182 and I didn't want anybody to
construe it any differently than that. I didn't want
the press to do something if this got out * * *.
\182\ Senator Packwood testified that he discussed the arrangement
involving job offers to his wife with his friend Jack Faust, who is an
attorney. He also discussed it with Jack Quinn, who the Senator
described as a lawyer at Arnold & Porter and an expert in ethics rules.
In his appearance before the Committee, Senator Packwood again referred
to Mr. Quinn's advice and stated that Mr. Quinn had provided him a memo
on the subject. Mr. Quinn's correspondence and accompanying memo to the
Senator are dated June 25, 1990. Senator Packwood also initially
suggested that he might have discussed the subject with Mr. Wilson
Abney, formerly of the Senate Ethics Committee staff. He later
clarified that he did not have any discussion with Mr. Abney about the
job offers for Mrs. Packwood, although he did have discussions with him
about the filing requirements if he and his wife were living separately
but still married. This testimony is supported by an entry in his diary
dated January 24, 1990 and an exchange of correspondence dated January
25 and February 6, 1990, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What did you mean by the reference ``I'm skating
on thin ice here?''
A: That's where the press can take something that's
perfectly legal, legitimate, moral and ethical and try
to turn it into something wrong.

Also on January 24, 1990, Senator Packwood noted in his
diary that Mr. Saunders had contacted him regarding the job
offer to Mrs. Packwood:

I talked to Steve Saunders. I was returning his call.
He had talked to Georgie. She had returned his call. He
said he had a business proposition for her and the
first question was, ``Did Bob put you up to this?'' He
said, ``No.'' He was lying, but he said `no.' He said,
``I called him because it involves Epson. Epson-
America, of course has their major plant in Hillsboro
[Oregon] and I wanted to make sure there was no
conflict of interest. Bob said `no' and I said, `Do you
think Georgie would be interested?,' and he said,
`You'd better call her. I don't know * * *.''

With respect to this entry, Senator Packwood testified that
he does not recall this conversation. He stated that Mr.
Saunders knew that Mrs. Packwood would be angry if she knew he
was involved in the offer. The Senator testified as follows:

Q: Had you, in fact told him [Saunders] to do this?
A: I'd ask him to call * * * he at some stage said
Bob, what can I do to help and we talked about his help
and to that extent, after he'd asked first could I be
of help, but he wasn't going to say to her Bob told me
to do this or she would have been livid.
He also testified that he could not recall having any
discussions with Mr. Saunders about Mrs. Packwood's
qualifications for the job.
Mr. Saunders testified that in one of his early
conversations with Mrs. Packwood, she may have asked whether
her husband put him up to offering her a job. He testified that
the Senator's reference to him lying in the January 24, 1990
entry is inaccurate.
d. 4/13/90
On April 13, 1990, Senator Packwood recorded in his diary
another conversation with Mr. Saunders relating to the job
offer for Mrs. Packwood:

I got ahold of Steve Saunders and said it's time to
put the proposal in writing also and Saunders says,
``Well, let me tell you what the latest is. I talked
with Georgie yesterday * * * she is interested in
escorting these women around town on shopping tours--
the wives of visiting dignitaries--but she absolutely
does not want me to put anything in writing and for the
moment she is not interested in any kind of venture
with my * * * sculptor art exporting company or
something like that * * *''

Senator Packwood testified that he does not recall why he
wanted the proposal in writing. He stated that he does not know
whether the proposal was ever reduced to writing. He stated
that he has only a dim recollection of any discussion with Mr.
Saunders about Mrs. Packwood escorting the wives of visiting
dignitaries on shopping trips.
Mr. Saunders stated that he is unsure whether he came up
with the idea of escorting the wives or whether Mrs. Packwood
first came up with this idea. This proposal never
materialized.There was no further discussion about any type of
employment opportunity for her after June, 1990. He does not
recall the Senator ever telling him to put the proposal in
writing. He testified that he probably spoke with the Senator
every time he spoke with Mrs. Packwood to report on his
progress.
Senator Packwood testified that there was no discussion at
any time with Mr. Saunders about the job offer to Mrs. Packwood
in connection with him taking or refraining from taking any
action in his capacity as a Senator. Nor was there any type of
implied understanding that there was a relationship between the
job offer to Mrs. Packwood from Mr. Saunders and the Senator
taking any action in an official capacity.

7. Mrs. Packwood's testimony

Mrs. Packwood testified that soon after she first met Mr.
Saunders in roughly 1980, and even before she started her
antiques business, she had purchased Teddy Roosevelt
memorabilia for him. Some time between January and June, 1990,
Mrs. Packwood testified that Mr. Saunders telephoned and asked
whether she would be interested in helping a client find North
American Indian antiques. She testified that this was not
ongoing employment. She did not accept this proposal.\183\ She
stated that Mr. Saunders made a second proposal which involved
buying sculpture and art for commercial establishments in the
Orient. She testified that she believes it was proposed as
``being a little ongoing anyway.'' She testified that she was
not interested in this proposal and advised him accordingly.
\183\ Mr. Saunders testified that this trip was part of his effort
to interest Mrs. Packwood in the sculpture business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Packwood testified that Mr. Saunders made a third
proposal in this time frame which involved escorting the wives
of his Japanese clients to antique shows and shops. Mrs.
Packwood testified that she had no contact with Mr. Saunders
after he made this last proposal until after the divorce. Mr.
Saunders later suggested that Mrs. Packwood work at the art
gallery he was planning on opening if she were going to stay in
town. By that time however, she had decided to move back to
Oregon.
As to Mr. Saunders's knowledge of the other job offers,
Mrs. Packwood testified that she believed she ``* * * ought to
warn'' him that ``* * * there's a lot of stuff going on here
that you could get caught in a web of, about finding employment
for me that I'm not instigating.'' She testified that Mr.
Saunders wondered why the Senator was so interested in how much
she could earn. She stated that she believed that Senator
Packwood became coercive and manipulative and Mr. Saunders then
backed off.
Commenting in general, Mrs. Packwood testified that she did
not regard the proposals as job offers. She explained that she
was not job hunting and that she viewed them as some kind of
``coercive behavior.'' She went on to state, ``They [job
offers] frightened me, but Bob Packwood frightened me in his
behavior at that particular time anyway, so it was all part of
a huge package of manipulation of me.'' When asked whether she
believes the proposals would have been made to her but for her
husband's status as a Senator, she testified as follows:

The exception would be Mr. Saunders. [With regard to]
the other proposals. There was no reason to make them.
In all the years I've known Ron Crawford, Tim Lee and
, nothing ever arose in conversation or communication
of any kind between me and them to do with my working
outside my home, doing anything other than what I had
been doing for 25 years. And it's too much of a
coincidence that they all three came forward at
approximately the same period in my life with these
sudden, whatever you call them, offers.

8. Summary of Senator Packwood's response to the evidence

Senator Packwood asserts that Mr. Saunders is an old friend
who had offered to help when he learned that the Senator was
separating from his wife. The Senator claims that he was merely
following up on Mr. Saunders' offer of assistance when he
discussed jobs and income for Mrs. Packwood. He contends that
he turned to Mr. Saunders because they were longstanding
friends and not for reasons related to his official position.
With respect to the November 3, 1989 diary entry in which
he records that he asked Mr. Saunders to place his wife on a
$7,500 retainer, Senator Packwood says that he was quite drunk
on this date and has no recollection of any of the specific
conversation that appears in this diary entry, although he does
recall talking to Mr. Saunders about a job and asking him
whether he was prepared to follow up on his offer of help.
Senator Packwood maintains that he has no recollection of
discussing the November 6 Finance Committee hearing at the
November 3 meeting with Mr. Saunders.
Senator Packwood testified that the references in his diary
about quid pro quos simply reflect a desire on his part that
the job proposals be legally and ethically correct and that
there be no quid pro quos between the job offers and his
official actions. In this regard, he asserts that he checked
with a lawyer named Jack Quinn about the legality of the
offers.\184\ He also argues that he never attempted to conceal
the involvement of those persons extending job offers to his
wife because this information was publicly discussed at his
divorce trial. Additionally, he relies on correspondence that
he sent to his wife where he states, in part, that the job
offers should not be considered as either gifts to her or
bribes to him and that she must be prepared to provide value in
return for payment.
\184\ In his statement before the Committee, Senator Packwood again
referred to Mr. Quinn and stated that before he started talking with
persons about job offers, he spoke with Mr. Quinn about the subject and
that Mr. Quinn sent him information about gratuities, bribery and
gifts. Mr. Quinn's correspondence to the Senator is dated June 25,
1990, after the Senator had already coordinated the job offers for his
wife. Moreover, in his letter, Mr. Quinn states that he needs to do
more research and thinking on the subject. He then cautions, ``In the
facts at hand, we have to be concerned with the coincidence of your
influence over financial opportunities made available to Georgie and
the fact that there is an indirect benefit from them to you.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood stated that he has no recollection of Mr.
Saunders asking him to personally appear and ask questions at
the November 6 hearing. He also says he has no recollection of
whether he would have personally attended the hearing but for
Mr. Saunders's request that he do so. He states that his
involvement in the issue of the differences between the
American and Japanese patent systems dated back at least as
early as June of 1988.
Senator Packwood denies any connection between the
discussion of jobs and income for his wife with Mr. Saunders
and any of his official acts.

9. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood did in
fact solicit or otherwise encourage an offer of personal
financial assistance from Mr. Saunders, an individual
representing a client with a particularized interest in matters
that the Senator could influence.
Counsel finds that Senator Packwood and Mr. Saunders
engaged in discussions about job offers and income for the
Senator's wife at a time when Mr. Saunders was actively
representing a client with a specific and direct interest
before Senator Packwood's committees. Although both have
testified that Mr. Saunders first extended a general offer of
assistance and Senator Packwood then merely followed up, the
weight of the evidence indicates that Senator Packwood's role
in encouraging and coordinating job offers for his wife was
significant. In fact, Ethics Counsel finds that the Senator's
discussions with Mr. Saunders about job offers for his wife
comprised part of a deliberate and systematic plan by the
Senator to accumulate approximately $20,000 in job offers for
his spouse in order to reduce his alimony obligation.
Additionally, Counsel finds that Mrs. Packwood was not looking
for a job at the time Senator Packwood engaged Mr. Saunders in
discussion about providing a job offer to her.
Ethics Counsel finds that Mr. Saunders's general offer of
help was extended after the Senator expressed concern about his
wife's future sources of income once they were separated and
divorced. Moreover, Ethics Counsel finds that the Senator's
diary entries, recorded nearly contemporaneously with the
events as they occurred, suggest that the Senator played a more
active role than simply following up with Mr. Saunders, as
evidenced by the Senator's use of language such as ``hit up,''
place on ``retainer,'' and ``accept the offers that I've
solicited.'' Further, Counsel finds that the Senator and Mr.
Saunders discussed a specific dollar amount ($7,500) at their
November 3, 1989 meeting. Additionally, Counsel finds that
Senator Packwood requested Mr. Saunders to provide a statement
describing his job offer to be used at the divorce trial, but
Mr. Saunders refused.
Ethics Counsel finds that Mr. Saunders and Senator Packwood
did have a longstanding friendship rooted in the Mr. Saunders's
prior status as an employee. Notwithstanding this friendship,
Counsel finds that at the time they were discussing job offers
and income for Mrs. Packwood, Mr. Saunders was representing
Mitsubishi in connection with its patent dispute with Fusion.
Counsel notes that Senator Packwood's involvement in the issue
of differences between the patent systems of Japan and the
United States dated back at least eighteen months prior to the
November 6, 1989 Committee on Finance hearing and that he
publicly pursued this issue on at least three prior occasions.
Nonetheless, Counsel finds that Senator Packwood rearranged his
schedule at the last minute to personally attend the November
6, 1989 hearing at Mr. Saunders's request, within three days of
the meeting where a job offer for Mrs. Packwood was discussed.
Additionally, Counsel finds that the questions asked by Senator
Packwood at the hearing, directed to Fusion's president, were
virtually identical to the questions submitted by Mr. Saunders
on behalf of Mitsubishi.
Counsel finds that Mr. Saunders discussed employment with
Mrs. Packwood at various times between November 1989 and June
of 1990. Counsel further finds that Mrs. Packwood never
accepted his offer of employment.

B. Tim Lee

1. Background

Tim Lee worked for Senator Packwood for about a year in the
mid-1970's as an intern on his Washington staff. In the 1989-
1991 time frame, he owned a company called Superior
Transportation Systems (STS), a trucking brokerage concern. He
is currently the owner of a company called Logistics Resource
Management, Inc. His company owns rail cars, markets rail
transportation and provides transportation consulting services.
Regarding his fundraising role, Mr. Lee was the chairman of
the largest single event of the Senator's 1992 campaign, a
breakfast with then-President Bush in 1991. He stated this
function raised between $350,000 and $400,000 after expenses.
Mr. Lee also arranged a fundraising event in Seattle in January
or February 1991, which raised between $18,000 and $20,000.

2. Diary entries referring to Mr. Lee and job offers to Mrs. Packwood
and related testimony

a. 10/18/89
Senator Packwood's diary entries relating to discussions
with Mr. Lee about employment opportunities for Mrs. Packwood
span from roughly October 1989 through April of 1990. On
October 18, 1989, Senator Packwood recorded the following
entry:

I got back and decided to make some inquiries as to
whether I could get Georgie some income * * *. I then
called Tim Lee and said, ``Tim, could you somehow put
Georgie on retainer for $10,000?'' They thought they
could do that * * *. I did have time to come back to
the office, talk to Tim Lee and Tim says he'll be happy
to put up $10,000 a year for Georgie * * *.

Senator Packwood testified that he cannot remember what he
meant by the word ``retainer'' in the diary entry. He does not
recall discussing a specific dollar amount with Mr. Lee. He
testified that Mr. Lee was very familiar with his marital
situation and that he had been talking with Mr. Lee about a job
for Mrs. Packwood. Senator Packwood testified that his total
recollection of discussions with Mr. Lee about jobs for Mrs.
Packwood had ``* * * something to do with antiques and his
wife.'' Senator Packwood could not recall when they first
started talking about antiques because they ``* * * had talked
about it, obviously before, concerning his wife and things
Georgie was buying. I can recall taking things out on the plane
that she (Georgie) had bought and taking it out to him (Lee),
things of that nature. I don't know when we started talking
about antiques and when this occurred.''
Mr. Lee testified that he learned of the Packwood's
separation some time in February or March, 1990, although he
was aware that Senator Packwood had contemplated divorce at
least a year prior to the time of the actual separation. Mr.
Lee does not recall having discussions with Senator Packwood
prior to the time he learned of the separation about providing
any type of financial support for Mrs. Packwood.
Mr. Lee testified that he does not recall receiving a call
from Senator Packwood in which the Senator asked him to put
Mrs. Packwood on retainer for $10,000, nor does he recall ever
telling Senator Packwood that he would be happy to put up
$10,000 a year for Mrs. Packwood. He testified that the only
time that he spoke to Senator Packwood about compensation for
Mrs. Packwood was when Mr. Lee brought up the antiques
business. He does not recall whether this took place in October
1989 or March or April of 1990. He testified that the subject
of income for Mrs. Packwood arose when Senator Packwood began
complaining about the hardships of a potential divorce in terms
of educational expenses for the children and maintaining two
households. Mr. Lee responded by bringing up the idea of an
antiques business. Mr. Lee does not recall the Senator
requesting or encouraging him to make job offers to Mrs.
Packwood beyond initiating the conversations that the divorce
would be expensive.
To the best of his recollection, the first conversation he
had with the Senator about providing income to Mrs. Packwood
did not occur until after Mr. Lee's wife had returned from an
antique buying trip with Mrs. Packwood in October, 1989.\185\
From that time until the date of his April 14, 1990 letter
setting forth the proposal, Mr. Lee stated that he spoke with
Mrs. Packwood about the venture on two or three occasions.
During one of his conversations with Mrs. Packwood, she
referred to other job offers. She indicated that Mr. Lee's
offer was one that she would consider, implying that the others
were not. Mr. Lee kept Senator Packwood apprised of his
conversations with Mrs. Packwood. Mr. Lee testified that he
made no attempt to conceal the fact that he was talking to the
Senator about the venture from Mrs. Packwood.
\185\ Mr. Lee testified that prior to his wife's October 1989 trip
with Mrs. Packwood, there had been general off and on conversations for
years between him and his wife about ``* * * doing something in
antiques involving Georgie.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lee testified that although it was not explicit, he and
the Senator understood that the income generated from the
antiques venture for Mrs. Packwood would make it easier on both
of the Packwoods. He testified that he believed the job offer
was legitimate and potentially lucrative for him.
b. 3/27/90
On March 27, 1990, Senator Packwood recorded the following
entry in his diary relating to Mr. Lee:

* * * I frankly don't intend this supplement to Georgie
to last more than five years in any event. I'd also
talked with Tim Lee today to reverify his $10,000 and
$10,000 from Bill Furman for Georgie. She'll have
basically $30,000 to $40,000 in income for five years
so long as I remain in the Senate.

With respect to the reference about the supplement to his
wife lasting only five years, Senator Packwood testified as
follows:

A: Well, it's kind of like our budget process. I
don't think I was thinking more than five years down
the road and I thought if I could get her this money
for five years--I didn't mean for it necessarily to
end, I just wasn't thinking beyond five years.
Q: In the last sentence of that passage, you say,
``She'll have basically $30,000 to $40,000 in income
for five years so long as I remain in the Senate.'' Was
the supplement, as you refer to it here, conditioned
upon your remaining in the Senate?
A: No.
Q: Do you know why you would have used these words?
A: No, I don't.

Regarding the reference to Bill Furman, Senator Packwood
testified that at some stage, Mr. Lee approached Mr. Furman
about becoming a partner in the proposed antiques venture.
Senator Packwood testified that he does not recall when he
first spoke to Mr. Furman about the venture. He stated that he
never directly approached Mr. Furman about the proposal. When
asked what the reference to $10,000 in the diary entry meant,
Senator Packwood testified as follows:

A: I can't remember specifically what it refers to,
and I don't know when he pieced together bringing Bill
Furman in and how he was going to make this arrangement
on the antique business. I can't specifically say what
it refers to, no.
Q: Do you know in general?
A: No. I'm assuming antique and I'm assuming his
business. At this stage, Lynn [Lee's wife] had been
back with us--this is 1990, isn't it?
Q: Correct.
A: Lynn had stayed with us and I remember Georgie had
lined up a lot of antique shows * * *. And what I
remember specifically was Lynn had bought some things,
I think I recall this, and turned around and sold them
in Oregon rather handsomely, I think. And I'm thinking
this is the business they're talking about but I can't
remember if it's now. That's what I recall about the
business.
c. 4/12/90
On April 12, 1990, Senator Packwood again recorded an entry
involving Mr. Lee and the job offer to Mrs. Packwood:

* * * I called Tim Lee because he had left a message
which said he had made the contact. I got ahold of him
and he said he'd spent an hour and a half talking to
Georgie * * * Tim said he finally thought he made some
headway and that she might be willing to consider a
proposal that he had. I said, ``* * * how are you going
to make it legal?'' He said, ``Well, I'm going to
suggest I put money into a business jointly to be run
by Lynn (that's his wife) and Georgie. She would buy
antiques and ship them out west and Lynn would sell
them * * *'' Tim says he'll put the entire $20,000 a
year in himself--enough for Georgie to get $20,000 plus
something extra for Lynn--but what she'll take out is
what he would otherwise give her for an allowance so
it's simply a wash. And he said he'll work out a deal
with Bill Furman--some business arrangement with him--
and Bill will simply give Tim more money in some kind
of a business deal for what he would otherwise put into
the business for Georgie. God, I'm glad I don't know
this. I think it's legal allright. I would hate for it
to get out but I've got that ethics letter that says
what she earns while we're separated is not a violation
of ethics. Now, I've got Tim and $20,000 * * *.

When asked about his apparent concern over the legality of
the arrangement, Senator Packwood testified as follows:

A: I just wanted to make sure it's legal. Again, I'm
trying to make sure that everything that's going to
happen here is legal.
Q: Were you at all concerned or did you have any
information to suggest that it might not be legal?
A: No. I didn't have anything. You asked a lot
earlier but I can't remember the words you used, when
we were talking about the press. I was trying to bend
over backwards to make sure that the job offers Georgie
got were legitimate job offers for which she would
perform services for value. That's what I meant. I want
to make sure everything is legal.
Q: Senator, this says, again referring to the
sentence we were just talking about, ``I said * * * how
are you going to make it legal'' as a question, and I'm
wondering was it at all questionable to you?
A: Again, I don't recall this conversation. I noticed
down below I say--I think it's legal--I think it's
legal allright. I don't recall specifically this
conversation. I just recall wanting to make sure it was
all right or things were allright [sic]. It didn't
matter if it was Tim or or Steve. I wanted to make
sure they were allright * * *.
Q: * * * You say, ``God, I'm glad I don't know this.
I think it's legal allright.'' What were you referring
to there?
A: I haven't got the foggiest idea unless it makes
reference to this up above where Tim is saying well,
we'll do something with my business relations to Bill,
and then I say I guess that's legal. Again, I can't
remember any of this conversation. I don't even want to
know it. I just want to make sure what Georgie does,
she performs for value is okay * * *.
Q: * * * do you recall any reason you wouldn't have
wanted to know what their arrangement was? In other
words, this says ``God, I'm glad I don't know this.''
A: I didn't figure so long as what Georgie was going
to be doing was legal, ethical, moral and anything
else, I didn't think it made any difference how Tim
worked out his arrangement with Bill Furman * * *.
Q: * * * you record ``I would hate for it to get
out;'' what do you mean there?
A: I don't know what I mean there. All I know is I
apparently say I guess it's legal, allright. I don't
know what I mean. I just want--I don't want anything
that the press is going to take, that they're going to
try to slant in some way that portrays it as wrong * *
*.

Mr. Lee does not recall telling Senator Packwood that he
would put up the entire investment himself and that Mr. Furman
would participate by giving him extra business. Nor does he
recall discussing the legality of the arrangement with Senator
Packwood. Mr. Lee does not recall having any concerns about the
legality of the proposed venture. Mr. Lee recalls telling
Senator Packwood that he anticipated Mrs. Packwood would
receive a draw of $20,000. He intended for there to be enough
money so that both Mrs. Packwood and his wife would receive at
least $20,000 based on some sales projections he had
done.^{186
\186\ These projections were based on the profits his wife had made
on sales of items purchased in the east and conversations with his
wife's family, who own an antique business. Mr. Lee does not recall
discussing the details of his April 14 proposal with his wife.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. 4/15/90

Mr. Lee reduced his proposal to writing in a letter dated
April 14, 1990.^{187 Mr. Lee does not recall Senator
Packwood making any changes to the letter. In a diary entry
dated April 15, 1990, Senator Packwood recorded that he had met
with Mr. Lee and Mr. Lee showed him the letter that he was
sending to Mrs. Packwood detailing his proposal for an antiques
business. Senator Packwood noted that Mr. Lee was going to
offer Mrs. Packwood $20,000 to $25,000 a year plus 40% of the
net profits and that Bill Furman was going to put up half of
the money. Later the same day, Senator Packwood recorded an
entry in his diary setting forth the status of his efforts to
obtain job offers for his wife:
\187\ Senator Packwood testified that he cannot remember whether he
suggested that Mr. Lee reduce his proposal to Mrs. Packwood to writing.

Needless to say it gives me the final hook although
I'm still feeling guilty * * * but at least we have the
ducks lined up. at $5,000, Tim Lee and Bill Furman
at $20,000, Steve Saunders at whatever adds to the
total of $25,000 and I'll have Ron Crawford send her a
letter that says, ``Georgie, I'd be willing to talk
with you about employment,'' perhaps having put in the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
letter in the magnitude of $7500 a year.

Senator Packwood testified that as of April 15, 1990, he
thinks he had lined up each of the above individuals to provide
job offers to Mrs. Packwood.
Mr. Lee testified that either just before or just after he
drafted the letter to Mrs. Packwood, he asked Bill Furman if he
would consider investing in the venture. He later changed this
testimony and stated that he could have spoken to Mr. Furman
about participating as early as October or November, 1989. Mr.
Lee testified that Mr. Furman stated he would take a look at
the proposal and that he thought it sounded good.^{188 Mr.
Lee does not recall having any conversations with Mr. Furman
about sources of income for Mrs. Packwood other than the
specific discussion about the antiques venture. Mr. Lee
testified that he went to Mr. Furman because he was the only
individual with whom he had a personal relationship who might
be interested in the venture and who had the resources to
participate.^{189 Mr. Lee stated that he knew Mr. Furman had
been a contributor to the Senator's campaign and that the
Senator had been helpful in some of Mr. Furman's
efforts.^{190
\188\ Mr. Lee does not recall discussing the legitimacy of the
antiques business with Mr. Furman.
\189\ Mr. Furman would have been required to come up with either
$25,000 or $50,000 to capitalize his half of the venture.
\190\ Mr. Lee testified that he informed Senator Packwood of Mr.
Furman's involvement right before or right after the letter was sent.
He later testified that he could have told the Senator about Mr.
Furman's involvement earlier. Mr. Lee does not recall Mr. Furman or
Senator Packwood ever indicating that they did not want Mr. Furman's
name associated with the venture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Legislative matters of interest to Mr. Lee

By way of background, Senator Packwood testified that he is
a ``deregulatory hawk.'' He explained that he played a major
role in deregulating the trucking industry in 1980. He stated
that when he became Chairman of the Finance Committee in 1981,
he partially deregulated AT&T in the Senate and it died because
of an antitrust judgment before the House acted. He explained
that he deregulated freight forwarders, the merchant marine,
railroads, buses--``Anything I could deregulate, I would.'' He
explained that he arranged for Mr. Lee to testify in 1985
before a subcommittee of the Commerce Committee because he was
having oversight hearings on whether truck deregulation was
working and Mr. Lee was a ``classic example'' of the success of
deregulation.
At the time Mr. Lee extended an employment proposal to Mrs.
Packwood in April, 1990, he was the owner of a trucking
brokerage firm, STS, Inc. In June of 1990, the Supreme Court
issued its decision in a case called Maislin Industries, U.S.,
Inc., v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116 (1990)
(``Maislin''). This decision had specific implications for Mr.
Lee's business. Mr. Lee explained that Maislin upheld the
common carrier doctrine. During this period, a number of large
motor carriers were going out of business. Maislin allowed the
bankrupt carriers to go back to shippers and bill them for the
difference between what they agreed to charge on a contract
basis versus what the common carrier tariffs stated. Scott
Paper Company, one of Mr. Lee's largest clients, was sued by
the trustee of the bankrupt carrier STS had been using.
Although Mr. Lee's company agreed to hold Scott Paper harmless,
Scott was nonetheless concerned about its future
exposure.^{191
\191\ In a memo from Mr. Lee to the Senator dated November 14,
1991, Mr. Lee arranged for a meeting between representatives of Scott
Paper and Senator Packwood. In a diary entry dated November 15, 1991,
the Senator noted that there was discussion at this meeting about Scott
making a $3,000 contribution to him. Senator Packwood testified that he
does not recall any discussion of the Maislin decision or the
Negotiated Rates Equity Act or the job offer to Mrs. Packwood in
connection with this meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood testified that he does not know if he ever
had discussions with Mr. Lee about the Maislin decision and its
implications for Mr. Lee's business, although he stated that he
`` * * * did not like the Maislin decision. I wanted to get rid
of the Maislin decision.'' He stated that Mr. Lee may have
asked him to sponsor or cosponsor legislation to overturn or
modify the decision. Senator Packwood explained that `` * * *
lots of people * * * were asking us to cosponsor it. I think
all the shippers hated it. They were going to get stuck with
these bankrupt truck lines' bills, for things they never knew
they were responsible for.'' Senator Packwood testified that he
did not have any discussions with Mr. Lee about the job offer
for Mrs. Packwood in connection with or relation to him
sponsoring or cosponsoring legislation that would remedy the
impact of Maislin on Mr. Lee's business.
On July 30, 1990, the Commerce Committee, chaired by
Senator Exon, passed the Negotiated Rates Equity Act
(``NREA''), which would have had the effect of reversing the
Maislin decision. Senator Packwood testified that he does not
know whether he discussed this bill with Mr. Lee or not. He
further testified that there was no connection or relationship
between his vote, either in the Commerce Committee or on the
bill itself, and Mr. Lee's job offer to Mrs. Packwood. Senator
Packwood was one of ten co-sponsors of the bill. The bill
languished in 1990 due to House inaction and was reintroduced
in 1991. The bill passed the Senate in 1992, but died again
after the House failed to act. The bill was reintroduced in
1993 and passed.
Mr. Lee testified that he does not recall ever discussing
Scott Paper's concerns over Maislin with the Senator. In fact,
he does not recall ever speaking to the Senator about Maislin
or the NREA. To the extent he talked with the Senator about
legislation, Mr. Lee testified that their conversations were
limited to general comments along the lines of ``deregulation
would be good for my business.''

4. The status of Mr. Lee's offer in August 1990

In a letter dated August 1, 1990, Mr. Lee advised Senator
Packwood that Mrs. Packwood had informed him she was not
interested in his proposal at that time. Mr. Lee wrote back to
her and explained that his offer was `` * * * an open one and
one that you may pursue with me at a time of your chosing
[sic].'' ^{192 Senator Packwood testified that he does not
recall speaking with Mr. Lee about Mrs. Packwood's response to
the job offer. Nor does he recall whether he requested Mr. Lee
to again offer the job to her or hold the offer open. He
acknowledged that had Mrs. Packwood accepted this offer, it
would have had a positive financial effect for her and thus, a
positive impact for him, assuming the judge hearing the divorce
case would have considered it.
\192\ As of February 6, 1991, Mr. Lee continued to hold open his
offer of employment to Mrs. Packwood. Senator Packwood does not recall
any specific conversations with him about the job offer at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Packwood testified that he did not, at any time,
have any discussion with Mr. Lee about the job offer to Mrs.
Packwood in connection with him taking or refraining from
taking any action or position in his capacity as a Senator. Nor
was there any implicit agreement with Mr. Lee about the job
offer in connection with him taking any official action or
position.

5. Mrs. Packwood's testimony

Mrs. Packwood testified that she started her antiques
business in 1983 with a friend. She bought the partnership in
1984 and has continued on her own since that time. When living
in Washington, D.C., her activities related to the antiques
business consisted of the following: participating in antique
shows four to twelve times a year; managing a stall in an
antique mall on a fairly consistent basis; and filling special
orders for people who wanted unusual gifts.
Mrs. Packwood testified that her husband asked her to have
Businessman one's wife stay with them in the fall of 1989 so
that Mrs. Packwood could take her antiquing. She does not
recall discussing with Mr. Lee's wife the possibility of
opening some type of business together. She does not believe
she has spoken with Mr. Lee's wife since her visit in the fall
of 1989. She testified that it was clear to her that whatever
Mr. Lee was doing with respect to an antiques proposal was
separate from his wife.
Mrs. Packwood testified that she does not recall ever
speaking to Mr. Lee about her antique business prior to late
1989. Referring to Mr. Lee's reference in the April 14 letter
to her son's schooling, she stated that there must have been
some conversation about paying for her son's education; ``I
presume when I spoke to him [Mr. Lee] that I was terribly
worried about how to keep my son in school so he was offering
to help the Packwoods out.'' She does not recall any specific
discussions with Mr. Lee about her financial situation. She
testified that she told each person who contacted her on the
telephone to put their proposal in writing.
Mrs. Packwood testified that at the time she received Mr.
Lee's proposal, she did not know where she was going or what
she was doing, or how she could take on any kind of offer of
employment. She testified that she did not believe Mr. Lee's
proposal was necessarily an offer of employment because there
was no elaboration of how the proposal would take place. The
proposal did not seem like ``anything solid'' to her.
Mrs. Packwood testified that she suspected that her husband
was behind Mr. Lee's offer. In fact, she stated that Mr. Lee
may have indicated that Senator Packwood asked him to extend
the offer, but she does not recall anything more specific. She
testified that she was disturbed about the job offers because
she thought it was ``extremely cruel and unethical behavior''
to treat a spouse in this way. She stated that because Mr. Lee
later testified in the divorce proceedings as a witness for the
Senator, she believes that he did not offer the proposal for
her benefit. She last remembers speaking with Mr. Lee during
the divorce trial. There was no mention of the business at that
time. She does not believe she knows Mr. Furman.

6. Summary of Senator Packwood's response to the evidence

As in the case of Mr. Saunders, Senator Packwood testified
that Mr. Lee is a longstanding friend who offered to help when
he learned the Packwoods would be separating. Again, the
Senator says he was merely following up on the offer of
assistance. He asserts that he turned to Mr. Lee because of
their friendship and not for reasons related to his official
position.
Senator Packwood stated that his total recollection of
discussions with Mr. Lee about jobs for Mrs. Packwood had `` *
* * something to do with antiques and his wife.'' He does not
recall when they first started talking about the venture
because Mrs. Packwood had been purchasing antiques for Mr.
Lee's wife on an informal basis prior to their discussions
about the venture.
With respect to his diary entry dated October 18, 1989,
where he records that he asked Mr. Lee to place his wife on a
retainer, Senator Packwood says he cannot remember what he
meant by the word ``retainer.'' Nor does he recall discussing a
specific dollar amount with Mr. Lee. With respect to his diary
entry dated March 27, 1990, where he discusses his contacts
with various persons regarding jobs for his wife and records
that his wife will have $30,000 to $40,000 in income ``so long
as [he] remains in the Senate,'' Senator Packwood denies that
the income for his wife was conditioned upon his remaining in
the Senate. Senator Packwood maintains that his references to
the legality of the proposed venture are simply expressions of
his determination that the arrangement be legal and do not
reflect a concern or question about the legality of this
undertaking.
Senator Packwood said that he does not know whether he ever
spoke with Mr. Lee about the Supreme Court's decision in
Maislin and its impact on Mr. Lee's livelihood, although he
acknowledged that Mr. Lee may have asked him to sponsor or
cosponsor legislation to overturn or modify the decision.
Similarly, Senator Packwood maintains that he does not know
whether he discussed the NREA with Mr. Lee. Senator Packwood
denies that there was any connection between his discussion of
the antiques venture or income for his wife with Mr. Lee and
his official actions, including his position on the NREA.

7. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood did in
fact solicit or otherwise encourage an offer of personal
financial assistance from Mr. Lee, an individual who, although
not a lobbyist, had a particularized interest in matters that
the Senator could influence.
Counsel finds that Senator Packwood and Mr. Lee had
conversations about jobs or income for the Senator's wife
during a period when Mr. Lee had a specific and direct interest
in a matter before one of Senator Packwood's committees.
Although both have testified that Mr. Lee first extended an
offer of help and Senator Packwood then followed up, the weight
of the evidence again suggests that Senator Packwood's role in
encouraging and coordinating job offers for his wife was
significant. In fact, Ethics Counsel finds that Senator
Packwood's discussions with Mr. Lee about jobs and income for
his wife comprised part of a deliberate and systematic plan by
the Senator to accumulate approximately $20,000 in job offers
for his spouse in order to reduce his alimony obligation.
Additionally, Counsel finds that Mrs. Packwood was not
looking for a job at the time the Senator engaged Mr. Lee in
discussion about providing a job offer to her.
More specifically, Ethics Counsel finds that although Mrs.
Packwood previously had purchased antiques for Mr. Lee's wife
on an informal basis, the subject of income for Mrs. Packwood
arose only after the Senator began complaining to Mr. Lee about
the hardships of a potential divorce in terms of educational
expenses for the children and the cost of maintaining two
households. Moreover, Ethics Counsel finds that the Senator's
diary entries, recorded nearly contemporaneously with the
events as they occurred, suggest that the Senator played a more
active role than simply following up with Mr. Lee's offer, as
evidenced by the Senator's use of language such as place on
``retainer,'' trying to ``get Georgie some income,'' gaining
the ``final hook,'' and having the ``ducks lined up.'' Further,
Counsel finds that the reference in the Senator's diary that
his wife will have an income ``supplement'' so long as he
remains in the Senate suggests that he may have believed there
was a connection between his ability to encourage job offers
for his wife and his official position.
Ethics Counsel finds that Mr. Lee and Senator Packwood did
have a longstanding friendship dating back to the time that Mr.
Lee was one of the Senator's employees. Counsel also finds that
throughout his career, Senator Packwood has consistently
advocated deregulation of the trucking industry and his
position with respect to the NREA was consistent with his
deregulatory philosophy. Notwithstanding this friendship and
Senator Packwood's views on deregulation, Counsel finds that
during the time they were discussing the antiques venture for
Mrs. Packwood, Mr. Lee had a particularized interest in trying
to remedy the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in
Maislin, which had specific adverse implications for his
business. Counsel also finds that by virtue of his position on
the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Senator
Packwood was in a position to influence the outcome of this
issue.
Counsel notes that Mr. Lee outlined his proposal to Mrs.
Packwood in writing on April 14, 1990 and then advised her in
writing in August 1990 and again in February 1991 that his
offer remained open. Counsel also notes that the Maislin
decision was issued in June of 1990 and the NREA passed the
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in late July,
1990. Counsel also notes that Senator Packwood signed the bill
as one of several cosponsors in September of 1990. Ethics
Counsel further notes that Mr. Lee testified at the Packwood's
divorce trial on behalf of the Senator in January, 1991,
describing his job offer to Mrs. Packwood. Counsel finds that
Mrs. Packwood never accepted this offer of employment.

C. Bill Furman

1. Background

Bill Furman is the President of Greenbrier Companies of
Lake Oswego, Oregon. Greenbrier is in the railcar manufacturing
business through a subsidiary company called Gunderson, Inc. It
is also in the business of leasing railcars and intermodal
containers and trailers. Mr. Furman testified that he first met
Senator Packwood in the early 1980's through a mutual
acquaintance.
Mr. Furman has participated in two fundraising events for
Senator Packwood. The first was the event with then-President
George Bush organized by Mr. Lee in Oregon in 1991. Greenbrier
also cosponsored a fundraising event in San Francisco earlier
the same year (1991). More than $50,000 was raised at this
event.

2. Diary entries referring to Mr. Furman, job offers to Mrs. Packwood,
Greenbrier's legislative interests and related testimony

a. 11/8/89
It appears that the first mention of Mr. Furman in Senator
Packwood's diary in connection with a job offer to Mrs.
Packwood occurred on November 8, 1989 with the following entry:

He [Mr. Lee] said that [his wife], in staying with
Georgie, said that two days was enough. That Georgie
just leaned and leaned and leaned on her and talked
about divorce--talked about . That Georgie is
terribly worried about money * * * Tim and Bill Furman,
the President of Greenbrier (sp?), are prepared to do
anything for Georgie. Bill says, ``What do we need? $40
or $50 thousand year from me? Count on it * * *.''

Senator Packwood testified that he recalls almost nothing
by way of discussions with Mr. Furman about his involvement in
the proposal. He went on to state that he does not recall Mr.
Furman being involved in the venture this early in time. He
first recalls Mr. Furman being involved in the spring of 1990,
at the time of Mr. Lee's letter to Mrs. Packwood.
b. 11/9/89
The next diary entry relating to Mr. Furman being involved
in the job offer to Mrs. Packwood is dated November 9, 1989:

Mike Kelly and I got to the Bill Furman breakfast * *
* And it was nothing but to thank me for what I had
done on Trailer Train(?) ^{193 and the investment
tax credit--whatever it was I got for them in the tax
reform bill--and of course Furman has said he'll join
Tim Lee in helping keep Georgie solvent. * * * ^{194
\193\ Senator Packwood corresponded with the ICC regarding Trailer
Train on a number of occasions.
\194\ This breakfast meeting is referenced in a letter dated
November 13, 1989 from Mr. Furman to Senator Packwood in which Mr.
Furman states, in part, ``I hope you know you can count on me for the
future.''

When asked about this entry, Senator Packwood testified
that he does not remember this conversation. As to Mr. Furman's
motivation in offering to help his wife, Senator Packwood
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
responded as follows:

Q: * * * Was it your understanding that Mr. Furman's
involvement in the job proposal for Mrs. Packwood was
as an expression of gratitude or thanks for what you
had done for his company earlier on?
A: Well, again, it's funny. I don't have any
recollection of this conversation either. This is one
and the previous one, it just does not ring a bell to
me at all that it ever occurred. Maybe Bill Furman can
remember it better, or Tim if he was there. But no, I
did not assume it would have been gratitude. I would
like to think that when you succeed in helping an
Oregon company in keeping it going and a thousand jobs,
that you've succeeded in doing something that the state
appreciates but again, I don't recall this and I
certainly don't recall gratitude.
Q: In other words, in your mind, was there a
connection between Mr. Furman's appreciation for what
you had done for him and for his company, and his
participation in the job offer for Mrs. Packwood?
A: No. My experience with Mr. Furman, and some of
it's more recent, he is a pretty canny businessman and
what he gets into, he gets into it on the assumption
he's going to make money. I certainly didn't assume it
was pure gratitude for what I had done in keeping the
jobs in Oregon.

With respect to the Trailer Train issue mentioned in the
diary entry, Mr. Furman explained that Trailer Train (now known
as TTX Company) is owned by a large number of railroads and
operates a pool of freight cars in the United States. He
explained that at the time of the diary entry, Trailer Train
was applying to the ICC for an extension of its pooling
authority. This authority would include antitrust immunity for
purchasing and pooling, enabling the railroads to collectively
pool their purchasing power. Greenbrier and others in the
industry were concerned about the length of that authority and
the power that was being vested in Trailer Train and thus
supported a Department of Justice (``DOJ'') initiative to have
a formal hearing at the ICC to review the extension and
approval of authority.
Greenbrier approached members of the Oregon delegation,
including Senator Packwood, to support the DOJ initiative and
to urge them to write the ICC to request that they review this
matter. Senator Packwood, as well as other members of the
Oregon delegation, wrote letters supporting the request for
review. Mr. Furman testified that he met with Senator Packwood
on this issue at least once and the meeting probably took place
in 1987. The purpose of the meeting was to familiarize the
Senator with the issue and ask for his support. He also recalls
a breakfast with Senator Packwood where the subject was
discussed. Mr. Furman testified that the ultimate outcome of
the issue was difficult to ascertain and did not clearly
satisfy any of the interested parties. Trailer Train received
authority for pooling, but for a shorter term than they were
requesting and with some limitations.
c. 4/15/90
Senator Packwood again recorded a reference to Mr. Furman
in an April 15, 1990 diary entry which refers to a meeting
between Mr. Furman, Mr. Lee and Senator Packwood and a
discussion about the proposal for Mrs. Packwood:

* * * Bill Furman is going to put up half the money.
He and his partner own all of Greenbrier * * * Tim and
I and Bill went to dinner at Standfords, right across
from where their office is, and Bill told me about a
new rail car they're designing * * * Anyway, he said,
``Bob, there's no quid pro quo. You've done so much for
my company and done so much for this state and I just
want to do anything I can to make your continued
existence in politics possible.'' I said, ``Well, this
may be the difference in my being able to run for
reelection in 1992 and run for the Presidency in 1996.

Senator Packwood testified that he does not recall this
conversation with Mr. Furman. He explained, `` * * * At this
stage, is this an amalgam of my thinking, and this is a
conversation that did not occur or a conversation that occurred
totally differently and I put it in this fashion? I don't know.
I don't recall this conversation'' * * *.^{195
\195\ In a letter dated April 19, 1990, four days after this diary
entry, Senator Packwood wrote a brief note to Mr. Furman in which he
stated, ``Thanks so much for all of your help. I won't forget it.
Sunday night was delightful * * * '' Senator Packwood testified that he
does not know what he was referring to in this letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When shown the April 15, 1990 diary entry, Mr. Furman
stated that he recalls having a meeting on a weekend and going
to Stanfords, although he thought it was for lunch, not dinner.
He does not recall Mr. Lee showing the Senator a letter
referring to the antiques proposal, nor does he recall any
discussion of the proposal. As to the diary attributing to him
a comment about there being no quid pro quo, Mr. Furman
testified that it would not have been unusual for him to tell
the Senator that he supports him and that he thinks he has done
a good job for Oregon, but these types of comments would not
have been in connection with the antiques proposal for Mrs.
Packwood. He stressed that he does not ever recall talking
about financing a business for Mrs. Packwood with the Senator.
^{196 Later in his deposition, he testified that such a
conversation with the Senator did not take place. He does not
recall discussing a new type of railcar with the Senator, but
it would not have been unusual to describe what his company was
doing.
\196\ Nor does he recall ever discussing the antiques proposal with
Mr. Lee in Senator Packwood's presence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. 5/2/90
Senator Packwood again refers to Mr. Furman in a diary
entry dated May 2, 1990:

Met with Bill Furman, Jim Beale, and who works for
Greenbrier (sp?) in some capacity. Furman of course is
eternally appreciative to me. He says that but for what
I did for him in '86 with the transition rules he'd be
out of business. Now he's prosperous beyond imagination
and gives me the entire credit. He's going to put up
half the money Tim Lee's putting up for Georgie's
business * * *.

Senator Packwood testified that there was no connection in
his mind between Mr. Furman's appreciation or gratitude for
what the Senator had done with the transition rule in 1986 and
Mr. Furman's participation in the venture for Mrs. Packwood. He
does not recall discussing any substantive legislative matters
at this meeting.
With respect to the May 2, 1990 diary entry, Mr. Furman
testified that he recalls attending a breakfast with the
Senator around that date. He does not recall discussing the
antiques proposal at this meeting. He testified that they had
thanked Senator Packwood for his support on a number of issues
in the past, but the references to being ``eternally
appreciative'' and ``prosperity beyond imagination and giving
him the entire credit'' is `` * * * not at all anything that we
would have said or did say.'' He stated that he does not know
how Senator Packwood could have come away with the impression
that he was involved in financing the proposal, unless it came
from Mr. Lee. He stated that he never actually agreed with Mr.
Lee to finance a business involving Mrs. Packwood.
Regarding the transition rule mentioned in the diary entry,
Mr. Furman explained that in 1986, his company sought relief
from certain provisions of the Tax Reform Act. Greenbrier had
entered into several transactions that predated the act.
Certain provisions of the act would have applied retroactively
to these transactions and as a result, several large orders
would have been cancelled. Greenbrier was successful in
obtaining a transition rule which corrected the situation.
Greenbrier's lobbyist testified that the transition rule was
secured by approaching Senator Packwood and members of his
Finance Committee staff and submitting a proposed transition
rule. Mr. Furman testified that they were very pleased with the
transition rule because it ``* * * literally saved quite a lot
of the jobs * * * certainly several hundred people.'' Mr.
Furman did not meet with Senator Packwood on this issue, but he
did meet with one of his staffers after the transition rule was
obtained to express his appreciation.
e. 5/31/91
On May 31, 1991, Senator Packwood recorded an entry in his
diary describing a meeting with Mr. Furman and another
unidentified person in his office in which Mr. Furman was
asserting that long trucks should be kept off the highways.
Senator Packwood testified that he does not recall any
discussions with Mr. Furman about the long or ``giant'' truck
issue. Senator Packwood testified that he did not agree with
Mr. Furman's position on this issue.^{197
\197\ In a letter dated June 24, 1991, Senator Packwood thanked Mr.
Furman for keeping him up to date on Greenbrier's efforts in opposing
``giant trucks in Oregon.'' Senator Packwood testified that he and Mr.
Furman were on different sides of this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Furman testified that the long truck or LCV (Long
Combination Vehicle) issue was a major concern for Greenbrier.
Greenbrier was part of a national coalition of transportation
companies involved in rail transportation. As a member of this
coalition of railroad suppliers, Greenbrier's specific role was
to assist the railroad industry in stopping the proliferation
of LCV's on the highways. Greenbrier's lobbying firm met with
all members of the Oregon Congressional delegation, including
Senator Packwood, in this effort. There was eventually
legislation in 1992 that was known as the ``iced tea
legislation''--the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act--which
stopped the proliferation of LCV's. Mr. Furman met personally
with Senator Packwood on this issue at least once. Mr. Furman
testified that Senator Packwood was not particularly helpful.
Mr. Furman described him as ``relatively neutral, looking at
both the trucking arguments and the rail arguments.''
Senator Packwood testified that there was no discussion
with Mr. Furman at any time about the job offer to Mrs.
Packwood in connection with him taking or refraining from
taking any official action. Nor was there any implicit
understanding or agreement that Senator Packwood would take
some official action in connection with or relation to Mr.
Furman participating in the venture.

3. Mr. Furman's testimony regarding Mr. Lee

In describing his business relationship with Mr. Lee, Mr.
Furman explained that Mr. Lee's company STS was a railcar
customer of Greenbrier. Greenbrier also leased and financed
railcars for Mr. Lee personally. Greenbrier currently has about
fifty railcars loaned or leased to Mr. Lee. Mr. Furman
described Mr. Lee as an important customer.
Mr. Furman testified that Mr. Lee talked to him about
lending him some money in connection with a business that his
wife was considering in association with Mrs. Packwood. This
conversation took place subsequent to the Packwood's
separation. Mr. Furman does not recall speaking with Mr. Lee's
wife about the proposal. Mr. Furman testified that Mr. Lee told
him that his wife and Mrs. Packwood had worked together over
the years buying and selling antiques and would become involved
in the antiques business in some way. Mr. Furman testified that
he does not specifically recall the amount of money Mr. Lee
mentioned, but that $50,000 might be a good approximation of
the upper limit.
Mr. Furman testified that it was his impression that Mr.
Lee was talking about a loan as opposed to an investment. He
stated that Greenbrier had loaned Mr. Lee's company money on
several occasions. Prior to this time, however, Mr. Furman does
not recall ever making any loans to Mr. Lee that were unrelated
to the trucking business. Mr. Furman testified that he
responded to Mr. Lee's request by telling him that it was an
interesting proposition and that if Mr. Lee would prepare some
sort of memorandum, he would consider it. When asked whether
Mr. Lee indicated why Mrs. Packwood would be involved, Mr.
Furman stated that Mr. Lee explained that he and his wife were
good friends with the Packwoods and that they were concerned
about what Mrs. Packwood was going to do for a living. There
was no indication from his conversation with Mr. Lee that Mr.
Lee's concern about Mrs. Packwood had originated with Senator
Packwood.
Mr. Lee did not prepare a business plan or any type of
writing on the proposal for Mr. Furman. Mr. Furman only recalls
discussing this subject with Mr. Lee on one occasion. Mr.
Furman testified that as far as he was concerned, the proposal
just kind of died. When asked about Mr. Lee's April 14, 1990
letter to Mrs. Packwood, Mr. Furman testified that he had never
seen this letter before. He testified that he was not aware at
the time that Mr. Lee actually extended any type of proposal to
Mrs. Packwood. Mr. Furman testified that he did not know Mrs.
Packwood and never spoke with her about Mr. Lee's proposal.

4. Summary of Senator Packwood's response to the evidence

Senator Packwood testified that unlike the other persons
with whom he had discussions about jobs and income for his
wife, Mr. Furman is not a longstanding friend. The Senator
recalls almost nothing by way of discussions with Mr. Furman
about his involvement in the antiques proposal. In fact,
Senator Packwood says that Mr. Lee approached Mr. Furman about
participating in the venture without the Senator's knowledge.
Despite diary entries to the contrary, Senator Packwood does
not recall Mr. Furman being involved in the venture in
November, 1989. Rather, he does not recall Mr. Furman being
involved until the spring of 1990.
Moreover, despite several diary entries that appear to
indicate otherwise, Senator Packwood testified that there was
no connection between Mr. Furman's appreciation for what the
Senator had done for his company and his participation in
financing the venture. In fact, Senator Packwood denies any
connection between any of his official actions and Mr. Furman's
participation in partially financing the antiques venture for
his wife.

5. Findings

Although the level of direct contact was not as extensive
with Mr. Furman as it was for some of the others with whom he
had discussions about jobs and income for his wife, Ethics
Counsel finds that Senator Packwood did in fact encourage an
offer of personal financial assistance from Mr. Furman, an
individual with particularized interests in matters that the
Senator could influence and in fact, had influenced in the
past.
Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood and Mr. Furman
were not longstanding friends. Moreover, Counsel finds that
Senator Packwood did not initiate contact with Mr. Furman.
Rather, Counsel finds that Mr. Furman was recruited to
participate in financing the venture by Mr. Lee. Although
Counsel notes that Senator Packwood may not have been aware at
the outset that Mr. Lee was going to enlist the assistance of
Mr. Furman, Counsel finds that Senator Packwood was aware of
Mr. Furman's possible participation as early as November 1989
and that he acquiesced in this participation.
Despite his testimony to the contrary, Counsel finds that
the Senator's diary entries, recorded nearly contemporaneously
with the events as they occurred, suggest that there was at
least some connection between Mr. Furman's participation in
financing the venture and the Senator's official position.
Counsel finds that in discussing Mr. Furman's willingness to
assist in the antiques venture for his wife, the Senator
repeatedly refers to Mr. Furman's appreciation for official
actions taken by the Senator that benefitted his company. For
example, in his diary entry dated November 9, 1989, the Senator
records that he attended a breakfast sponsored by Mr. Furman
which `` * * * was nothing but to thank me for what I had done
on Trailer Train and the investment tax credit--whatever it was
I got for them in the tax reform bill--and of course Furman has
said he'll join Tim Lee in helping to keep Georgie solvent * *
*.'' In his diary entry dated April 15, 1990, the Senator
records a meeting among Mr. Lee and Mr. Furman and himself and
states in part that `` * * * Bill Furman is going to put up
half the money * * * '' and Mr. Furman said, ``Bob, there's
no quid pro quo. You've done so much for my company and done so
much for this state and I just want to do anything I can to
make your continued existence in politics possible * * *.''
And, in a diary entry dated May 2, 1990, the Senator records a
meeting with Mr. Furman and states in part, ``Furman of course
is eternally appreciative to me. He says that but for what I
did for him in '86 with the transition rules he'd be out of
business. Now he's prosperous beyond imagination and gives me
the entire credit. He's going to put up half the money Tim
Lee's putting up for Georgie's business * * *.''
Counsel finds that Mr. Furman had specific and direct
interests in a number of legislative matters at various times
that the Senator could influence by virtue of his positions on
the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Commerce, Science
and Transportation, including (but not limited to) the 1986
transition rule discussed above, the Trailer Train issue, and
the LCV issue.
Counsel notes that Mr. Furman denies speaking directly to
the Senator about the venture and further denies actually
agreeing to provide the financing. Counsel, however, is
persuaded to the contrary by the Senator's April 15, 1990 diary
entry recording a discussion between the two of them about the
matter, and also by a letter from the Senator to Mr. Furman
dated April 19, 1990 in which the Senator states in part,
``Thanks so much for your all of your help. I won't forget it.
Sunday night was delightful * * *.''
Counsel finds that Mr. Furman did not speak directly to
Mrs. Packwood about his participation. Counsel further finds
that Mrs. Packwood was not aware of Mr. Furman's involvement in
the venture.

D. Ron Crawford

1. Background

Ron Crawford first met Senator Packwood in 1968 during the
recount of his first election. Mr. Crawford described the
Senator as one of his best friends. Mr. Crawford's consulting
business is called F.P. Research Associates and he is a
registered lobbyist. There is also a fundraising component to
his business, but that is handled by his son.
In Senator Packwood's 1992 campaign, Mr. Crawford's firm
was involved in raising money from PAC's around the
country.^{198 Mr. Crawford has been active in fundraising in
every one of Senator Packwood's campaigns. In 1991-92, Senator
Packwood's reelection campaign paid Mr. Crawford's firm
approximately $60,000 for fundraising, consulting and event
management.
\198\ In a diary entry dated October 8, 1991, Senator Packwood
recorded the following: ``The advantage Ron brings to me in the
Washington PAC scene is that much of his income is dependent upon his
relationship with me.'' Senator Packwood testified that he does not
know how much Mr. Crawford earns or how much of his income is dependent
on him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Crawford is a registered lobbyist for the National
Cable Television Association and the American Bus Association
and has been so since the early 1980's. At the time of his
deposition, he had recently registered as a lobbyist for the
Sturm Ruger Company. He has a ten year business relationship
with this company. At the time of his deposition, he also
recently had become a lobbyist for the National Restaurant
Association. He has previously represented Shell Oil ^{199,
the American Iron and Steel Institute, General Motors, the
Pharmaceutical Manufacturer's Association ^{200, Caribbean
Marine, and Northrop as a registered lobbyist.^{201
\199\ On September 13, 1989, Senator Packwood recorded an entry in
his diary that Mr. Crawford was in to see him on behalf of Shell Oil.
He noted the following conversation: ``He [Crawford] said, ``I know how
much you hate the oil companies.'' I said, `` * * * I still hate
the oil companies but I'll do you a favor.'' Senator Packwood testified
that `` * * * whenever anybody comes in like this and if you're
going to do something anyway, you let them think it's a big favor.''
\200\ On July 11, 1990, Senator Packwood recorded in his diary that
two representatives of Abbott were in to see him and noted, ``But Ron
wanted me to meet with them because they want to retain Ron because, as
Ron says, ``People hear that you're tough to get to and they know I can
get to you.'' I said, ``Well, that's a happy relationship for all of
us.'' Senator Packwood testified that he is delighted to see Mr.
Crawford's clients because Mr. Crawford does not mislead him.
\201\ Mr. Crawford recalls two issues of interest to Northrop: (1)
the sale of F-20 aircraft to Jordan and (2) funding for the B-2 bomber.
In both cases, Senator Packwood voted against the positions advocated
by Northrop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Diary entries referring to Mr. Crawford and job offers for Mrs.
Packwood and related testimony:

a. 10/18/89
On October 18, 1989, in the context of discussing the
persons he was contacting or contemplating contacting about
income for his wife, Senator Packwood first recorded an entry
in his diary referring to Mr. Crawford and job offers for his
wife:

* * * Talked to Ron Crawford. He'll put up $7500 a
year for Georgie. That's three out of three and I
haven't even hit up or Steve Saunders * * *

When asked whether he asked Mr. Crawford to extend a job
offer to his wife, Senator Packwood testified that he believes
that Mr. Crawford first broached the subject rather than him
asking Mr. Crawford to extend the job offer. He testified that
he does not recall the circumstances as to how this subject
arose. He explained, ``This is one of those where you talk with
somebody three and four times a day and you have dinner with
them twice a month and you are so closely interlinked with
them, you can't conceivably recall who said what when.'' He
further stated that he does not know how they came upon the
figure of $7,500 a year.
Mr. Crawford testified that he had discussions with
Senator Packwood about the Senator's concerns about his
children and wife and the political implications of a
separation and divorce a few months before the Senator
separated from Mrs. Packwood in January of 1990. Mr. Crawford
testified that Senator Packwood may have expressed concern
about the financial impact of a divorce, but he cannot really
recall. He does recall talking about the expenses of a divorce
with the Senator.
Mr. Crawford testified that he does not recall Senator
Packwood ever asking him to provide his wife with income or
employment. Rather, he stated that he offered to help Mrs.
Packwood. He stated that he was concerned for both Senator and
Mrs. Packwood because of the divorce. He testified that at the
time, he was trying to enhance his master list of names of
contributors by collecting more information about them so that
he would potentially have names available around the country to
assist him in his lobbying efforts. He testified that he was
also trying to think of things that might be helpful to Mrs.
Packwood. He stated that he knew things were going to be tough
for the Packwoods financially and this proposal would be a way
that she could help him and he could help her.^{202
\202\ Mr. Crawford testified that this has been an ongoing project
since 1989 or 1990 and that he has hired college students on a part-
time basis to accumulate this information. He stated that he is still
accumulating this information with one part-time college student. He
testified that he does not believe he hired people to perform this job
prior to the time he made the proposal to Mrs. Packwood. He
subsequently amended his testimony to state that he believes he did
hire a college student to perform this job before extending the
proposal to Mrs. Packwood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Crawford testified that he is confident that he
discussed this proposed employment with Senator Packwood, but
he does not recall the circumstances. He thinks he made a
comment along the lines of: `` * * * well, I've got some stuff
that I'd love to have somebody like Georgie do.'' He does not
recall Senator Packwood ever mentioning a specific amount of
money he wanted Mrs. Packwood to earn. He testified that
Senator Packwood may have come to the $7500 a year figure
because Mr. Crawford must have told him that he thought Mrs.
Packwood could work on a part-time basis and that he could pay
her between $400 and $600 a month. However, they never got to a
point where they discussed dollars in concrete terms because
Mrs. Packwood never called him back to explore the job offer.
Mr. Crawford testified that he telephoned Mrs. Packwood on two
or three occasions but did not actually speak to her, leaving
messages on her answering machine. Mr. Crawford testified that
he must have told the Senator that he was unable to reach Mrs.
Packwood and that the Senator may have suggested that Mr.
Crawford write her a letter.
b. 1/18/90
Senator Packwood again referred to Mr. Crawford in a diary
entry dated January 18, 1990. In this entry, Senator Packwood
described the success he had had to date in obtaining offers of
employment for his wife:

`` * * * It's funny. I hit up. He says, ``yes.''
a close friend but not as close as Cliff. The same with
Saunders, same with Ron. They just say bang, bang,
bang--yes. But not Cliff. That means next week I've got
to turn to Saunders and then to Crawford.

Senator Packwood testified that the discussions about job
offers for his wife did not happen with military-like
precision. He stated, ``It was all merging and I was kind of
trying to come up with this total of $20,000 if I could.''
c. 3/27/90
On March 27, 1990, Senator Packwood again referenced Mr.
Crawford in his diary in connection with a job offer or income
to Mrs. Packwood:

* * * Finally Ron Crawford rescued me and we went off
to dinner at the Phoenix Park. In his usual optimistic
fashion he went over the [Senate] races he thought we
would win * * * I told him I thought he was unduly
optimistic but I thought we could pick up the Senate in
'92. Crawford goes, ``Shit.'' He says, ``I need the
money.'' I said, ``Well, if you're going to support
Georgie in the style to which I'd like her to become
accustomed * * * ''and he laughed. He says, ``Yeah,
I'll guarantee the $7500 for five years. And he said,
``If you're Chairman of the Finance Committee I can
probably double that.'' We both laughed. I don't intend
to do that. I frankly don't intend this supplement to
Georgie to last more than five years in any event. I'd
also talked to Tim Lee today to reverify his $10,000
and $10,000 from Bill Furman for Georgie. She'll have
basically $30,000 to $40,000 in income for five years
so long as I remain in the Senate.

Senator Packwood testified that Mr. Crawford's job offer
to Mrs. Packwood was in no way conditioned upon or contingent
upon him remaining in the Senate or serving as Chairman of the
Finance Committee. He explained the above entry as follows:

That remark is one between two guys that are drinking
and said in jest in this sense. You know what happens
when parties change control and all of a sudden all of
the lobbying groups that are Republican, clients come
in. When the Democrats are in control, the clients go
again. That is said in jest. I never had any intention
of that. He didn't have any intention of that and it
was purely a humorous remark between us. Again, I want
to give the same caveat to all of these conversations,
but I just want to say that we both laughed * * * Any
of these conversations that have quotation marks, and
especially if I'd been drinking, is suspect.

A page from Mr. Crawford's calendar indicates that he met
and had dinner with Senator Packwood on March 27, 1990. He does
not recall any discussion with Senator Packwood on March 27
about employment or income for Mrs. Packwood. He testified that
Senator Packwood did not ask him to send a letter to Mrs.
Packwood offering employment and specifying $7500 a year as
income. Nor does he recall Senator Packwood ever discussing the
$7500 as a figure he hoped Mr. Crawford would be able to
provide. He stated that he was only trying to help a family
that he and his wife loved dearly.
d. 4/15/90
Senator Packwood again made reference to Mr. Crawford in
connection with a job offer to his wife in a diary entry dated
April 15, 1990:

* * * but at least we have the ducks lined up. at
$5,000, Tim Lee and Bill Furman at $20,000, Steve
Saunders at whatever adds to the total of $25,000 and
I'll have Ron Crawford send her a letter that says
`Georgie, I'd be willing to talk with you about
employment,' perhaps having put in the letter in the
magnitude of $7500 a year.

Senator Packwood testified that he cannot recall whether it
was his suggestion or recommendation to Mr. Crawford to reduce
his job offer to Mrs. Packwood to writing. Nor does he recall
whether he suggested any language to go into such a writing. In
fact, he testified that he is not sure he ever saw the letter
until after it was sent.
e. 6/6/90
On June 6, 1990, Senator Packwood recorded in his diary
another contact with Mr. Crawford involving the job offer to
his wife:

Had a phone call with Ron Crawford and I told him to
re-call Georgie and make the offer * * *

Senator Packwood testified that he may have mentioned an
offer from Mr. Crawford to his wife and she indicated that she
preferred not to talk to him. The Senator testified that he
does not believe Mrs. Packwood and Mr. Crawford ever actually
communicated.
Mr. Crawford testified that he had never previously spoken
with Mrs. Packwood about working for him. Nor had she ever
expressed an interest in working with his firm. Mr. Crawford
testified that Senator Packwood did not ask him to go back
again and try to contact her when she did not respond. Mr.
Crawford does not recall any discussions with the Senator after
he advised him that he had not heard from Mrs. Packwood. He
testified that his offer of employment was to help Mrs.
Packwood. He did not have any discussions with Senator Packwood
about whether the job offer would help him as well.
The evidence indicates that Mr. Crawford did, in fact, send
a letter to Mrs. Packwood dated June 13, 1990. In this letter,
Mr. Crawford indicated that he wanted to `` * * * discuss what
I believe could be several business opportunities that you
might be interested in.'' Although his letter mentions
``several business opportunities,'' Mr. Crawford testified
there was only one. He never received a response from Mrs.
Packwood and he has not spoken to her since before the divorce.
When asked what his understanding was of the nature of the job
being offered by Mr. Crawford, Senator Packwood explained that
his wife had a great political background in that she had
managed his 1962 and 1964 legislative campaigns and travelled
around the state with him in 1968, 1974 and 1980. He testified
that he believes she would have been a great consultant or
campaign manager.

3. Legislative matters of interest to Mr. Crawford

a. Cable regulation
Regarding specific legislative matters of interest to Mr.
Crawford's clients, a Commerce Committee vote took place on
June 7, 1990 to re-regulate the cable industry, six days before
Mr. Crawford sent his written employment proposal to Mrs.
Packwood. Senator Packwood cast the lone dissenting vote on
this bill. In explaining this situation, Senator Packwood
testified as follows:

[It was] * * * an outrageous, foolish bill * * *. My
staffer wrote the bill, the Cable Deregulation Act of
1984. And over fierce opposition, we deregulated cable
prices and we said in exchange to cable what we want is
more channels and better programming. And we got it in
spades and then this damn bill came along to re-
regulate it. It was a step backward. I hope we undo it.
I'm going to try and undo it. And that is the
background of that vote.

He testified that he never had any discussions with Mr.
Crawford about the job offer to Mrs. Packwood in connection
with his position on this piece of legislation, which he
described as ``adamant.'' Mr. Crawford testified that he may or
may not have spoken to Senator Packwood about this bill, but he
stated that he seldom talked to Senator Packwood on cable
issues because for the most part, he knew where the Senator was
coming from.
On September 27, 1990, Senator Packwood noted in his diary
that Mr. Crawford was in to see him with a representative of
the cable industry. The Senator recorded that they wanted his
advice as to whether they should let a cable bill come up for
consideration or attempt to stop it. Senator Packwood noted
that he advised them to try and stop it. Senator Packwood
testified that he does not recall any discussion with Mr.
Crawford at this time about the status of the job offer. He
further testified that he did not need to be lobbied on this
matter because the cable industry's position was identical to
his. He explained that this was a re-regulatory bill and that
he and others wanted to filibuster it to the end of the session
if possible. He testified that he cannot recall whether they
held the bill or it came up, although he was successful in
eventually killing the bill.
b. The gun lobby
Later in the September 27, 1990 diary entry referenced
above, Senator Packwood recorded that Mr. Crawford stayed on to
discuss the National Rifle Association. He noted that, ``* * *
Ron is big, big with the National Rifle Association.'' Senator
Packwood testified that he meant that Mr. Crawford is active in
the NRA and ``owns a lot of guns.'' He stated that he does not
think Mr. Crawford represents the NRA. Mr. Crawford testified
that he does not do work for the NRA, although ``he talks to
them intermittently.''
Senator Packwood testified that Mr. Crawford brought the
issue of exempting custom gunsmiths from a firearms excise tax
on behalf of the NRA to his attention. Staff memos indicate
that Senator Packwood and his staff focused on this issue
between February and April, 1991. In April of 1991, Senator
Packwood introduced a bill exempting custom gunsmiths who make
less than 50 firearms per year from the firearms excise tax.
Senator Packwood testified that there was never any discussion
with Mr. Crawford about the job offer to Mrs. Packwood in
connection with his position on this particular piece of
legislation.
c. Miscellaneous
Mr. Crawford testified that in the 1989-90 time period, his
client the American Bus Association was concerned with the
three cent diesel fuel tax exemption. His only contact with
Senator Packwood or his staff on this issue would have been to
simply confirm that it was not a problem. His client the
American Iron and Steel Institute was interested in the issue
of voluntary restraints in 1989-90. Senator Packwood opposed
their position. Mr. Crawford does not recall meeting with
Senator Packwood on this issue, although he did meet with
staff.

4. Appointment of Mr. Crawford's wife to the ITC

In addition, Senator Packwood played a major role in
helping Mr. Crawford's wife, Carol Crawford, become appointed
to the International Trade Commission in 1991. Senator Packwood
testified that he was her primary supporter in her bid to
become a member of the ITC. When asked whether there was ever
any discussion with either Mr. Crawford or his wife about his
support for her for the ITC position in connection with Mr.
Crawford extending a job offer to Mrs. Packwood, Senator
Packwood testified, ``There never is any linkage at any time in
my dealings with Ron or Carol and a job for Georgie.''

5. Mrs. Packwood's testimony

Mrs. Packwood testified that she and Senator Packwood had
been friends with Mr. Crawford and his wife in the past,
although Senator Packwood saw them much more frequently than
she did. She testified that she did not return any of Mr.
Crawford's telephone calls and never had any discussion with
him about his proposal. She learned why Mr. Crawford was
calling from her husband. She stated that she would not have
been interested in business opportunities with him unless they
involved her ``already in place'' antique business. Mrs.
Packwood explained that she felt very uncomfortable with the
whole situation, particularly with Mr. Crawford and his wife,
because she believed they had been ``aiding and abetting'' the
break-up with her husband. As a result, she did not want to
have anything to do with Mr. Crawford, who she did not regard
as a friend.

6. Summary of Senator Packwood's response to the evidence

Senator Packwood asserts that Mr. Crawford is an old friend
who first broached the subject of extending a job offer to his
wife. The Senator maintains that he was merely following up on
Mr. Crawford's offer of assistance when he discussed jobs and
income for Mrs. Packwood. He states he does not recall the
circumstances as to how this subject arose. He testified he
turned to Mr. Crawford because of their longstanding friendship
and not for reasons related to his official position.
With respect to his October 18, 1989 diary entry where he
records that Mr. Crawford will ``put up'' $7500 a year for his
wife, Senator Packwood claims he does not know who said what
when with respect to the job offer for Mrs. Packwood. He
contends that he does not know how they arrived at the figure
of $7500 a year. With respect to his March 27, 1990 diary entry
where he records that his wife will have $30,000 to $40,000 in
income for five years from the offers he has secured ``so long
as I remain in the Senate,'' Senator Packwood claims that Mr.
Crawford's job offer was in no way conditioned upon or
contingent upon him remaining in the Senate or serving as
Chairman of the Committee on Finance.
Regarding his April 15, 1990 diary entry where he records
that he will have Mr. Crawford send his wife a letter about
employment, Senator Packwood maintains that he does not recall
whether he suggested that Mr. Crawford reduce his job offer to
writing. Other than Mr. Crawford's June 13, 1990 letter to Mrs.
Packwood in which he invites her to explore ``business
opportunities'' with him, Senator Packwood does not believe Mr.
Crawford and his wife actually spoke about Mr. Crawford's job
offer.
Senator Packwood notes that his lone dissenting vote on a
bill before the Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation to re-regulate the cable industry six days
before Mr. Crawford sent his written employment proposal to
Mrs. Packwood was entirely consistent with his deregulatory
philosophy and his earlier positions with respect to
deregulation of the cable industry. He asserts that he never
had any discussions with Mr. Crawford about the job offer to
Mrs. Packwood in connection with his position on matters
affecting the cable industry. Similarly, he states that he
never had any discussion with Mr. Crawford about the job offer
to Mrs. Packwood in connection with his bill to exempt custom
gunsmiths from a firearms excise tax in 1991, although he
acknowledges that Mr. Crawford brought this issue to his
attention. Additionally, although he acknowledges that he was
the primary supporter of Mr. Crawford's wife in her bid to
become a member of the ITC, Senator Packwood denies any linkage
between his support of her and the job offer to his wife.

7. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood did in
fact solicit or otherwise encourage an offer of personal
financial assistance from Mr. Crawford, an individual
representing clients with particularized interests in matters
that the Senator could influence.
Counsel finds that Senator Packwood and Mr. Crawford
conducted discussions about jobs and income for Mrs. Packwood
at a time when Mr. Crawford was representing clients with
specific and direct interests in matters that Senator Packwood
could influence by virtue of his positions on the Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation and the Committee on
Finance. Although both have testified that Mr. Crawford first
offered to help and Senator Packwood then followed up, the
weight of the evidence suggests that Senator Packwood's role in
encouraging and coordinating job offers for his wife was
significant. In fact, Ethics Counsel finds that Senator
Packwood's discussions with Mr. Crawford about job offers and
income for his wife comprised part of a deliberate and
systematic plan by the Senator to accumulate approximately
$20,000 in job offers for his spouse in an attempt to reduce
his alimony obligation. Additionally, Counsel finds that Mrs.
Packwood was not looking for a job at the time the Senator
engaged Mr. Crawford in discussion about providing a job offer
to her.
Ethics Counsel finds that Mr. Crawford's offer of
assistance was extended after the Senator expressed concern
about the costs associated with a divorce. Moreover, Counsel
finds that the Senator's diary entries, recorded nearly
contemporaneously with the events as they occurred, suggest
that the Senator played a more active role than simply
following up with Mr. Crawford, as evidenced by the Senator's
use of language such as ``hit up,'' ``accept the offers that
I've solicited,'' instructing Mr. Crawford to `` * * * re-call
Georgie and make the offer,'' and ``I'll have Ron Crawford send
her a letter * * * '' about employment.
Ethics Counsel finds that Mr. Crawford and Senator Packwood
did have a longstanding friendship dating back to 1969.
Notwithstanding this friendship, Counsel finds that at the time
they were discussing job offers and income for Mrs. Packwood,
Mr. Crawford was representing a number of entities, including
the National Cable Television Association, with particular
interests in matters that the Senator could influence. Counsel
notes that Senator Packwood has consistently supported
deregulation of the cable industry and that his vote in June of
1990 was entirely consistent with his deregulatory philosophy.
Moreover, despite their friendship, Counsel finds that
there is evidence to suggest that there was some connection
between Senator Packwood's official position and his
relationship with Mr. Crawford. For example, in a diary entry
dated October 8, 1991, Senator Packwood records, ``The
advantage Ron brings to me in the Washington PAC scene is that
much of his income is dependent upon his relationship with
me.'' In an entry dated July 11, 1990, he records `` * * * Ron
wanted me to meet with them because they want to retain Ron
because, as Ron says, ``People hear that you're tough to get to
and they know I can get to you.'' On March 27, 1990, while
discussing the job offers he had coordinated for his wife, the
Senator recorded that his wife would have an income
``supplement'' so long ``as I remain in the Senate.'' And, on
September 13, 1989, Senator Packwood recorded the following
conversation when Mr. Crawford was in to see him on behalf of a
client: ``He [Crawford] said, `I know how much you hate the oil
companies.' I said, `Ron, I still hate the oil companies but
I'll do you a favor.''
Counsel finds that Mr. Crawford extended his offer of
employment in writing to Mrs. Packwood in a letter dated June
13, 1990. Counsel further finds that Mrs. Packwood did not
accept this offer.

E. Clifford Alexander

1. Background

Clifford Alexander is the president of a corporate
consulting firm. He stated that his firm's work principally
involves work force inclusiveness or increasing opportunities
in the work force for minorities and women. His firm also
performs lobbying in a number of different areas. Another
aspect of the services provided by his firm is corporate social
responsibility. He first met the Packwoods twenty-five years
ago. They became close friends and he and his wife have
continued their relationship with Mrs. Packwood. The same is
not true with the Senator, coinciding with the time of the
Packwood's separation.

2. Diary entry referring to Mr. Alexander and job offers for Mrs.
Packwood and related testimony

a. 1/18/90
On January 18, 1990, Senator Packwood recorded the
following entry in his diary relating to Mr. Alexander and a
job for his wife:

A quick lunch with Cliff. It was a nice friendly
lunch. He said, ``Is there anything I can do?'' I hit
him up to give a job to Georgie, but he said, ``Gosh,
we've got that ICI client. It wouldn't look good.'' I
said, ``It doesn't matter if we're separated.'' Well,
Cliff said * * * and this was after he was bragging
about all the money he had, how much they're making,
how much he's setting aside, what kind of trust he has
for the kids and that he needs to work five more years
until he can retire comfortably on his investments and
income for the rest of his life, but not enough money
for Georgie. It's funny. I hit up. He says `yes.'
a close friend but not as close as Cliff. The same
with Saunders, same with Ron. They just say bang, bang
bang--yes. But not Cliff. That means next week I've got
to turn to Saunders and then to Crawford.

Senator Packwood testified that he recalls telling Mr.
Alexander and his wife that he had separated. He stated that he
recalls talking to Mr. Alexander about providing a job offer to
Mrs. Packwood. In this regard, the Senator testified that in
this particular case, `` * * * I approached him if he could be
of some help.'' When asked whether his conversation with Mr.
Alexander proceeded along the lines described in the diary
entry, Senator Packwood testified as follows:

A: I don't remember his reference to ICI. What I
remember, and I was kind of disappointed because he
had--Cliff is a wonderful guy and a buoyant guy, and
from time to time he would tell me how successful he
was doing * * * And he was making very good money, and
we were close friends and I remember I was disappointed
when he said he couldn't help. Do I remember this
specific conversation? No. Do I remember the ICI
reference? No. But I remember I was kind of hurt by it.
Q: But you do recall asking him to provide a job for
Mrs. Packwood; is that correct?
A: Yes. I guess I would have thought of all the
people I could go to that was close, close friends that
could have helped, it would have been Cliff.
Q: Do you recall what his response was?
A: Well, I don't recall him--I see ICI here. I don't
remember him mentioning that. I just remember the hurt
when he couldn't do it--wouldn't do it.
Q: But you don't recall a specific reason or
explanation that he offered as to why he couldn't do
it?
A: No.

3. Mr. Alexander's testimony

Mr. Alexander testified that he learned of the Packwood's
separation some time in 1990. Regarding the January 18, 1990
diary entry, Mr. Alexander testified that he does not recall
having lunch with the Senator. He does not recall Senator
Packwood asking him to provide a job to his wife, although he
said this could have happened. He stated that had there been a
need, Mrs. Packwood would have approached him directly. He
stated that he would not have mentioned the ICI client in the
way noted in the diary. Instead, he would have simply said no.
Mr. Alexander does not recall talking to the Senator about a
trust for his children and the fact that he needed to work five
more years until he could comfortably retire. In fact, he
testified that he does not have any trusts set up for his
children and he does not plan to retire. He does not recall any
discussion with Senator Packwood in which the Senator indicated
that it would help their financial situation if his wife were
able to find a job. He testified that he never helped find her
a job.
Mr. Alexander testified that he does not recall any other
occasion when Senator Packwood said anything about his wife
needing a job. He stated that Mrs. Packwood did mention that
she had been approached about employment, but he does not
recall any names she may have mentioned. He testified that
there may have been discussions with her about Senator
Packwood's role in persons approaching her about job
opportunities, but he does not recall any specifics.

4. Legislative matters of interest to Mr. Alexander

During the 1989 to 1991 time period, Mr. Alexander was
retained by the Investment Company Institute (``ICI''), the
national trade association for the mutual fund industry, to
advance ICI's position on several legislative matters. Some of
these matters included securing permanent repeal of the 2%
floor on miscellaneous itemized business deductions; securing
repeal of the 30/30 rule that applied to mutual funds; and
opposing the Securities Transfer Excise Tax (``STET''). Mr.
Alexander testified that he communicated with Senator Packwood
or his Finance Committee staff on a number of occasions during
the 1989-1991 time period in order to advocate ICI's position
on these issues.

5. Mrs. Packwood's testimony

Mrs. Packwood testified that she never had any indication
from Mr. Alexander that he had been asked by the Senator to try
and find her some type of employment.

6. Summary of Senator Packwood's response to the evidence

Senator Packwood's response to the evidence related to his
contact with Mr. Alexander is unique in that this is the only
case where Senator Packwood admits that he initiated the
request for help as opposed to following up on an offer of
assistance. Here, Senator Packwood acknowledges that he
approached Mr. Alexander to see if he might be able to help
with a job for his wife. Senator Packwood notes that Mr.
Alexander was an old and good friend.
With respect to his January 18, 1990 diary entry in which
he records that he had lunch with Mr. Alexander and ``hit him
up to give a job to Georgie,'' Senator Packwood recalls telling
Mr. Alexander that he had separated from his wife and he
recalls talking with him about providing a job offer for Mrs.
Packwood. He recalls asking Mr. Alexander to provide a job for
Mrs. Packwood and being disappointed and hurt when his close
friend refused to help. The Senator does not recall Mr.
Alexander making mention of the appearance problem that might
be created because of his representation of a client called
ICI.

7. Findings

Senate Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood did in
fact solicit or otherwise encourage an offer of personal
financial assistance from Mr. Alexander, an individual
representing a client with particularized interests in matters
that the Senator could influence.
Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's discussion with Mr.
Alexander about job offers for his wife comprised part of a
deliberate and systematic plan to accumulate approximately
$20,000 in job offers for his spouse in an attempt to reduce
his alimony obligation. Counsel also finds that Mrs. Packwood
was not looking for a job at the time Senator Packwood asked
Mr. Alexander to provide a job offer to her.
Counsel finds that Mr. Alexander and Senator Packwood did
have a longstanding friendship dating back to the time that the
Senator arrived in Washington, D.C. Notwithstanding this
friendship, Counsel finds that at the time Senator Packwood
requested Mr. Alexander to provide a job offer to his wife, Mr.
Alexander was representing ICI, a client who had specific and
direct interests in matters that the Senator could influence by
virtue of his position on the Committee on Finance. More
specifically, ICI had a particular interest in issues such as
the STET, the 30/30 rule, and final repeal of the 2% floor on
miscellaneous itemized deductions. Further, Counsel finds that
there is evidence in the Senator's January 18, 1990 diary entry
to suggest that Mr. Alexander raised the potential appearance
problem caused by his representation of ICI with the Senator
and that the Senator dismissed this concern.
Counsel finds that Mr. Alexander never extended an offer of
employment or income to Mrs. Packwood. Counsel further finds
that Mrs. Packwood was not aware that the Senator had requested
Mr. Alexander to provide her employment. Counsel notes that Mr.
Alexander does not recall the Senator asking him to provide a
job to his wife, although he admits the possibility of such a
request.

F. Further Findings Regarding Solicitation of Jobs

Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's efforts to obtain
employment for his estranged spouse in an attempt to reduce any
future alimony payments did not involve any quid pro quo and
that he did not agree to receive or accept any financial
benefit ``for or because of any official act.'' As is clear
from Senate precedent, however, conduct which does not rise to
such an egregious level may, nonetheless, be improper.
With respect to his contacts concerning possible employment
of his spouse with the five individuals discussed above, Senate
Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood engaged in a series
of interconnected activities which linked his personal
financial gain to his position as a United States Senator.
Counsel also finds that, notwithstanding the willingness of
friends to be of assistance, Senator Packwood's role in
encouraging and coordinating job offers for his wife was the
predominant force responsible for such offers in this case.
Counsel further finds that Senator Packwood conceived of,
undertook and executed a deliberate and systematic plan to
enhance his personal financial position in a manner which was
greatly reliant for its success upon his position as a United
States Senator and the legislative interests of those whom he
solicited or encouraged. In this regard, Counsel notes the
power inherent in the position of a United States Senator and
the natural desire of persons and groups with substantial
interests in legislation to have access to and ingratiate
themselves with those whose decisions can significantly affect
those interests.
Ethics Counsel finds that Senator Packwood's conduct in
these activities reflects an abuse of his United States Senate
office and constitutes improper conduct which has brought
discredit upon the Senate.

VII. Findings of Violations as Noticed and Specified in the Committee's
Resolution

As to the violations noticed in the Committee's Resolution
of May 16, 1995, Senate Ethics Counsel incorporates the
findings set forth in Sections IV, V, and VI, above, as
summarized below:
A. Senator Packwood abused his United States Senate office
by improper conduct which has brought discredit upon the United
States Senate, by engaging in a pattern of sexual misconduct
between 1969 and 1990.
B. Senator Packwood engaged in improper conduct which has
brought discredit upon the United States Senate, by
intentionally altering diary materials that he knew or should
have known the Committee had sought or would likely seek as
part of its investigation.
C. Senator Packwood abused his United States Senate office
and engaged in improper conduct which has brought discredit
upon the United States Senate, by inappropriately linking
personal financial gain to his official position, in that he
solicited or otherwise encouraged offers of financial
assistance from five persons who had a particular interest in
legislation or issues that he could influence.
Respectfully submitted,
Victor M. Baird,
Chief Counsel.
Linda S. Chapman,
David M. Feitel,
Staff Counsel.}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}