S. Rept. 104-137 - 104th Congress (1995-1996)
September 08, 1995, As Reported by the Ethics Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




Senate Report 104-137 - RESOLUTION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION




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

    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.

                            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.