ONE CHARGE TOO MANY

By KAREN TUMULTY

The signals being sent to Bob Packwood are subtle, as befits the Senate, but they have begun to carry a powerful message. At the G.O.P.'s weekly Senators-only lunches, some Republicans now avoid sitting near him. When Packwood's colleagues gather for votes on the Senate floor, they hardly ever include him in their convivial chatter. Rarer still is the consoling sidelong murmur he used to hear so frequently: "How's it going, Bob?" The message is evident to everyone, it seems, but the Senator himself, who believes collegial sympathy may be his salvation. "A number of them are praying for me," he says. "And I am convinced that the prayers of others work." But what of the damnation of others? While Republicans still cling to anonymity, their outrage is voluble. Says a fellow G.O.P. Senator: "We've had a gutful of Bob Packwood. It will be a disgrace if the Republican Conference doesn't remove him as chairman of the Finance Committee."

The Senate ethics investigation of alleged sexual misbehavior by the Senator from Oregon has gone on for 32 months, far longer than anyone expected. For much of that time, many Senators seemed willing to write off the accusations against Packwood as harmless ardor on his part or inept passes that were permissible under unstated standards by the Senate of a bygone era. Now suddenly the mood has changed. Though the Ethics Committee's recommendations are at least a month away, there is growing consensus that the penalty will be and must be harsh. The charge that tipped the balance was that of the 19th accuser, which came to light last week. The woman was only 17 years old and a former intern in his Washington office when the alleged incident occurred. Knowing her parents were away, Packwood showed up at her home on the pretext of delivering a letter of recommendation for her college application. As she has recalled, he then "laid a juicy kiss on my lips. I could feel the tongue coming."

That charge, detailed last week in the Salem Statesman Journal and the Portland Oregonian, is actually an old one, dating from 1983. The Washington Post printed her account of the episode in February 1993. However, the woman, now 29, did not take it to the Ethics Committee until July 19--partly because she wanted to protect her privacy and partly because she was skeptical about whether the panel would give it a fair hearing, explained her lawyer W. Neil Eggleston. Even then her complaint languished with the staff for weeks, until Aug. 3, the day after the Senate's 52-to-48 vote against holding public hearings on Packwood. Last week Ethics Committee chairman Mitch McConnell refused to elaborate on how the oversight occurred.

Now California Democrat Barbara Boxer has renewed her crusade to force those hearings. "The apparent abuse of public trust that seems to have taken place against many women is outrageous enough," she said last week. "The fact that it may include a child who was 15 when she started interning for Senator Packwood adds a whole new dimension to this matter." Boxer claims that at least two Senators have told her they are reconsidering their votes against her proposal for hearings. All Boxer needs is one more vote. She picked up an unlikely ally in conservative G.O.P. presidential contender Pat Buchanan, who said if the charges prove to be true, Packwood should resign or be ousted from the Senate.

On Friday, Packwood issued a statement saying he had reviewed the woman's deposition and took "strong exception to her version of the event." The Senator added, "It's not in my nature to lob personal attacks, and I'm doing my best to keep a lid on my powder." Meanwhile, he has continued to deny rumors that he will soon end the Senate's ordeal by resigning. "I have found my colleagues willing to wait until the Ethics Committee is done and we see the report. They're much less inclined than the press to judge until they know all the facts," Packwood said.

By way of a defense, Packwood had offered the Ethics Committee little more than an explanation that he suffered alcoholic blackouts. "In most cases, I cannot remember the person who is complaining, and I cannot remember the incident. I'd like to be of more help to the Ethics Committee, but I just have no memory," he says. "I think part of the reason--you can see it in the depositions of the women--is that I was drunk. That is not an excuse for conduct, but it probably may account for loss of memory." The Senator said he has not had a drink for three years. He criticizes the media for not investigating the accusers and notes that most of the incidents happened more than a dozen years ago. "If you are going to allege a pattern of conduct, what does 'pattern' mean?" he demanded. "How far back do you go in somebody's life--a quarter of a century?"

Packwood says he is consumed more by his Senate work than by the deliberations of the Ethics Committee. "What choice do I have?" As Finance chairman, he spends his days preparing for the pivotal role he will play in the forthcoming debates over Medicare and welfare reform. During his spare time in his Senate office, he leafs through a worn hardcover copy of the play A Man for All Seasons. His favorite part? Sir Thomas More cautioning his son-in-law to follow the law rather than his own moral certitude. The lesson, Packwood says, is "be wary of people who are convinced they are right." There are Senators who would say the same of Packwood.