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

DATE: FRIDAY, September 8, 1995                   TAG: 9509080069
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-8   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

THE PACKWOOD PROBLEM

OREGON Republican Bob Packwood should have left the U.S. Senate months ago. For that matter, he should have resisted the temptation to run for a fifth term back in 1992, when rumors began circulating about his habit of making unwanted sexual advances toward women - rumors that, while unconfirmed at the time, Packwood knew to be true.

So his resignation at this late date, announced Thursday evening, is hardly cause for congratulations. Still, the fact it is by voluntary resignation is better than if it had been by forced expulsion, the course recommended Wednesday by the Senate Ethics Committee. That, on the basis of the evidence so far, would have been too harsh and would have set an undemocratic precedent.

Oh, there's little doubt the committee had lots of goods on him. Packwood himself acknowledged - shortly after his '92 re-election - unacceptable behavior in forcing kisses on resistant women, including employees and lobbyists. This is called sexual harassment. He blames it on alcoholism. In addition, the Ethics Committee cited Packwood for altering diaries sought by the committee for its investigation, and for trying to get jobs for his now-estranged wife from people with interests in pending legislation.

Nor is there much doubt about the Senate's power to expel him. The Constitution authorizes houses of Congress to "punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

The problem is that Packwood has not been, and may never be, found guilty of criminal activity, which can be done only in a court of law and not a Senate committee. And that the notion of the Senate's expelling a colleague for sexual misconduct reeks of hypocrisy. And that the politics of it - Democrats pushing the case against Packwood to embarrass Republicans, Republicans getting angry at Packwood for changing his mind and asking for public hearings on the allegations - smells no sweeter.

More to the point, Packwood held elective office. He represented Oregon, not the Senate, and was in office on the strength of the Oregon electorate's expressed will. Were he a judge or other appointed federal official, his ouster via impeachment might be readily justified. It's a close call - Packwood's behavior was despicable - but the Senate should override popular elections only in the most egregious cases.

Packwood's reaction almost until the hour of his resignation suggested a man with a severe case of denial. He was a walking advertisement against career politicians: Only someone out of touch with ordinary reality would find clinging to political office worth the humiliation that so rightfully rained down on him.

Well, at last, he has resigned. In doing so, Packwood at least has averted the possibility that the Senate would use its authority to override that of the people of Oregon. Too bad it took him so long to do it.

by CNB