
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SATURDAY, November 6, 1993                   TAG: 9311110475
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A9   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

THE DIARIES OF ROBERT PACKWOOD

THE SAD SAGA of U.S. Sen. Robert Packwood is only made sadder by his refusal to resign. Yet, despite strong evidence of a pattern of sexual harassment while in office, and now reports of possible criminal wrongdoing, the Oregon Republican insists he'll stay for the five remaining years of his term.

This week, the Senate voted 94-6 to give its Ethics Committee power to enforce a subpoena for full disclosure to the committee of Packwood's diaries. In light of Packwood's attitude, the Senate had no other honorable course.

A Packwood lawyer said Tuesday that the subpoena probably will be fought in court, "on the grounds it exceeds the Fourth Amendment rights of the committee." Actually, committees don't have constitutional "rights," individuals do - and in this instance, the subpoena doesn't seem to violate any of Packwood's.

Committees do have powers, including the Senate Ethics Committee's power to recommend discipline of senators, up to and including expulsion. It is a power not to be taken lightly or abused, of course - which is precisely why the committee, having learned that the diaries may contain incriminating information, is duty-bound to look at them.

Enforcement of the subpoena could mean the committee also will see potentially embarrassing (not just to Packwood) passages that are irrelevant to the investigation. But reasons for not letting Packwood himself decide which sections are relevant ought to be self-evident: There's too much chance of the written equivalent of the famous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes.

In any event, this is little different from a judge's examining sensitive material in privacy before deciding what's relevant and what need not be introduced as evidence in open court. In general, of course, Washington is a city of leaks - but on this score, lawmakers' ethics investigations of one of their own have tended to be an exception.

Given the stains attending the reputations of several of Packwood's colleagues, and of their institution, there's a certain unseemly quality to all this. But while his colleagues are themselves not without sin, they would have sinned further had they used their own shortcomings as an excuse not to pursue evidence of Packwood's misbehavior.

by CNB