KOIN (CBS Portland) - Sen. Bob Packwood news conference - 1992-12-10

Channel: malgent

Transcript

Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)

[0:00] alternate roles

[0:02] doing tasks that were traditionally

[0:04] assigned to women.

[0:07] And seeing both their frustration and

[0:09] the waste of their talents, I move these

[0:11] women into positions of authority and

[0:14] responsibility.

[0:15] And from that time forward, all of my

[0:18] political activities have been, for lack

[0:20] of a better term, a genderneutral.

[0:24] Those who could perform best, regardless

[0:26] of gender, were given the greatest

[0:28] responsibilities.

[0:30] I have had talented men and women. As my

[0:34] chief of staff for the past 15 years, it

[0:37] has been women that have held that

[0:39] position.

[0:41] And great women and great men have

[0:43] passed through my organization. I think

[0:45] of Carol Crawford, one of my first hires

[0:47] in 1969 as a legislative assistant,

[0:50] subsequently the assistant attorney

[0:52] general of the United States and now

[0:53] commissioner of the International Trade

[0:55] Commission. Bill Defender,

[0:58] my chief of staff on both the Commerce

[0:59] and Finance Committee, subsequently

[1:00] deputy director of the Office of

[1:02] Management and Budget. Karen Phillips,

[1:06] who served on the staffs of both the

[1:07] Commerce and Finance Committee, now a

[1:08] commissioner on the Interstate Commerce

[1:10] Commission. Alan Holmer, my second

[1:13] administrative assistant, subsequently

[1:14] deputy United States Trade

[1:16] Representative.

[1:18] During all of these years in the Senate,

[1:20] we functioned as a team. We were men and

[1:25] women bound together by a common and

[1:28] demanding cause and a serious purpose.

[1:32] The work was hard, but if the term

[1:35] fraternal can be used in a genderneutral

[1:39] sense, we were a political fraternity.

[1:43] We argued together, sometimes vehemently

[1:46] over policy. We ate and drank together.

[1:49] We joked and laughed together. We sang

[1:51] together.

[1:53] But through it all ran equality and

[1:57] merit and performance

[2:00] regardless of gender.

[2:03] In light of my commitment to women's

[2:05] issues and my deep belief that the

[2:07] workplace must be genderneutral, the

[2:10] current charges about my behavior

[2:12] trouble me in a profound way.

[2:16] I recognize now that my personal conduct

[2:19] has been at variance with these beliefs.

[2:23] Not because my convictions are not

[2:25] genuine, but because my conduct was not

[2:29] faithful to those convictions.

[2:33] Although most of these incidents are a

[2:35] decade or two decades old, and no one's

[2:39] job or pay or status in the office was

[2:43] threatened, my conduct was still wrong.

[2:47] I just didn't get it. I do now.

[2:54] I said I'm here to take full

[2:55] responsibility for my conduct and I do

[2:58] so. The issue here is my conduct and my

[3:03] conduct alone.

[3:07] I will not debate the recent accounts of

[3:09] my actions toward my staff and those who

[3:11] worked with my office. The important

[3:13] point is that my actions were unwelcome

[3:16] and insensitive.

[3:18] These women were offended, appropriately

[3:20] so, and I'm truly sorry.

[3:24] So, once again, let me repeat my

[3:26] apologies to the women who were hurt by

[3:28] my conduct. It was not done with malice

[3:33] or evil intent.

[3:36] Now, let me make these asurances.

[3:41] I pledge to restructure drastically and

[3:43] totally my attitude and professional

[3:45] relationships. And if that requires

[3:47] professional counseling, I will seek it.

[3:50] I guarantee that nothing like this will

[3:52] ever happen again.

[3:55] I am prepared to cooperate fully with

[3:56] the Senate Ethics Committee to

[3:58] investigate and resolve this matter.

[4:01] I have been a strong force in the Senate

[4:03] for 24 years for Oregon and for our

[4:06] nation. Even my most severe critics will

[4:08] admit that. Whether it was saving Hell's

[4:11] Canyon or French Pete or whether it was

[4:15] those lonely and solitary hours in the

[4:17] late 70s and early 80s defending Row

[4:19] versus Wade and trying to prevent its

[4:20] reversal or its dismemberment, I led the

[4:23] fight.

[4:25] I plan to remain in the Senate and

[4:28] continue my work on behalf of the people

[4:30] of Oregon. And to that end, I would like

[4:32] to address these comments to all

[4:34] Oregonians.

[4:37] This is a critical

[4:39] and defining time in my life.

[4:42] I go forward without illusions,

[4:45] but with a new sense of purpose and

[4:48] determination.

[4:50] The bond of trust between us is

[4:52] stretched thin right now, but I am

[4:55] committed to repairing that bond.

[4:59] I ask for the chance to earn back your

[5:01] respect. I pledge to be worthy of your

[5:04] trust. Senator Senator just spend all my

[5:08] noses.

[5:09] >> Can you support Patty Murray's proposal

[5:11] for a sexual harassment policy in the

[5:13] Senate that would require everyone in

[5:15] undergo training about what sexual

[5:16] harassment?

[5:17] >> Uh yes, our our office is planning to do

[5:19] so. Uh I support it. Whether the other

[5:21] officers are going to do so or not,

[5:23] we're going to.

[5:23] >> Senator, in spite of your statement

[5:25] today, there are some who believe that

[5:26] your initial denial of these allegations

[5:29] amounted to a cover up which allowed you

[5:30] to get safely past the election. First,

[5:32] what is your response to that? And

[5:34] secondly, will you all considered

[5:36] stepping down and standing for a special

[5:37] election.

[5:39] >> Uh let me give you the circumstances

[5:40] when we first learned of the specifics

[5:42] of the charges.

[5:44] It was a Thursday afternoon, the

[5:46] Thursday before the election, uh late in

[5:48] the afternoon, 4 4:30 as I recall, and

[5:51] for the first time I met with the

[5:53] Washington Post reporters who had been

[5:54] doing the investigation on the story.

[5:58] Uh they came at a time when I had a

[6:00] debate the next day uh in Bend, 130 mi

[6:03] away. I was not prepared for it. And for

[6:04] the first time, they mentioned charges

[6:07] I'd never heard. They mentioned names I

[6:11] had never heard.

[6:13] And said, "You've got a day to respond."

[6:17] And I thought to myself, I could not

[6:19] have done those things. I did not do

[6:20] those things. I denied it to myself

[6:23] because I didn't believe it. And I

[6:24] denied it to my friends cuz I didn't

[6:26] believe it. And I denied it to the post.

[6:28] And that was the circumstance of the

[6:30] first time that I had ever heard those

[6:32] charges.

[6:34] >> What about stepping down?

[6:35] >> No, I have no uh

[6:38] very clear. No, wait. Yeah. No, I have

[6:42] no intention of of resigning at all.

[6:44] >> Senator, you made derogatory

[6:47] information.

[6:50] Was that your idea? who was it and how

[6:52] many

[6:53] >> I'm not uh going to get into the

[6:55] characterization of any of the women

[6:56] involved in these allegations to even

[6:58] respond to the question would start to

[6:59] characterize it and I'm not going to do

[7:00] that.

[7:03] >> I can't hear you.

[7:04] >> Did your trip to the clinic confirm your

[7:07] suspicions alcohol.

[7:09] >> You may have noticed in my statement I

[7:10] did not use alcohol as a defense. I

[7:12] don't think that's an exoneration for

[7:13] your conduct. My conduct here is the

[7:15] issue. Alcohol is not a defense. Uh, I

[7:18] will take continuing counseling on that

[7:20] problem, but I'm not going to use it as

[7:21] a defense at all in these actions.

[7:23] >> Senator, without the woman who made the

[7:25] charges, Senator, could you tell us

[7:27] whether or not you or your staff tried

[7:29] to investigate the veracity of their

[7:30] charges?

[7:32] >> Senator,

[7:35] excuse me, I can't hear you. You said

[7:37] you're taking responsibility for your

[7:39] conduct.

[7:49] Now, I'm not asking you to discuss any

[7:51] of these in particular. Nonetheless, you

[7:54] submitted 17

[7:58] interviews that was worse than the

[8:00] original conduct that they were doing

[8:01] here. Why did you do that? I'll say

[8:03] again, I am not going to discuss the

[8:05] issue at all as to how that I might

[8:08] characterize their conduct. I'm not

[8:10] going to get into it and I'm not going

[8:11] to I'm not going to respond at all to

[8:14] the issue that you're raising.

[8:16] >> Let's move on. responsibility for your

[8:18] own conduct.

[8:20] >> The issue of my conduct in these

[8:22] allegations and charges where and I've

[8:25] said my conduct and you can use whatever

[8:26] word you want, borish or stupid or

[8:28] inappropriate or wrong which I think is

[8:30] the best word is what is an issue here

[8:33] and I'm simply not going to discuss the

[8:35] issue of any characterization of the

[8:36] women involved.

[8:39] >> Yes, ma'am.

[8:40] >> You said you just didn't get it. I think

[8:42] a lot of women who have gone that far to

[8:44] understand in fact the allegations are

[8:47] kept telling you that they've been

[8:51] funny just

[8:53] >> all I can say when you look at my entire

[8:55] record uh on in the history of if you

[8:57] want to call them women's issues I'm

[8:59] inclined to to think they're American

[9:00] issues or call them women issues my

[9:03] views have not changed on any of those

[9:05] issues. Uh, I still support uh family

[9:08] leave and and the Freedom of Choice Act

[9:09] and the Equal Rights Amendment if it

[9:11] ever comes around again. It is frankly

[9:13] as if I had a blind spot and my conduct

[9:15] was simply at variance with all of the

[9:17] rest of my beliefs.

[9:20] >> That a week ago members of your staff

[9:23] were still soliciting

[9:26] from

[9:28] >> Well, if we want to spend the rest of

[9:30] the of the press conference on this

[9:32] subject, I guess we can. alation.

[9:34] >> I'm not uh I'm not going to respond to

[9:36] any questions about any efforts to

[9:38] characterize these women to even respond

[9:40] to the questions tries to characterize

[9:42] them.

[9:44] >> Senator, if you were so out of sync on

[9:46] on women's issues throughout your career

[9:48] here at the Senate, you now realize that

[9:51] uh what makes you think you are in sync

[9:53] on any other issues that comes before

[9:55] you as you deserve to continue to serve?

[9:57] >> Wait a minute. I don't quite follow your

[9:58] question. Well, you said earlier that

[10:00] you just didn't get it for on women's

[10:02] issues, questions of sexual harassment.

[10:05] You didn't get it there. Possibility

[10:07] there that you didn't get it on any

[10:08] other issue that comes from boarding

[10:10] that you vote on. What may think that uh

[10:13] you're now getting it across the board

[10:15] and should be able to continue to serve

[10:17] in the Senate.

[10:17] >> I think what I said when it uh when I

[10:20] came to women's issues as you categorize

[10:22] it, uh that my position has been very

[10:25] very consistent for a long period of

[10:27] time. Uh I introduced the first freedom

[10:29] of choice act in 1970 and and the one

[10:31] that we're now considering is

[10:33] practically a direct lineal descendant

[10:35] of it. In all of these years uh when I

[10:37] was in the legislature when I was

[10:38] running campaign organizations and here

[10:41] I was in sync with the women's issues.

[10:43] It was my conduct

[10:45] that was not in sync with my beliefs in

[10:47] this particular area. And not that I

[10:49] wasn't in sync with all the other things

[10:50] they understand, all the other all the

[10:52] other beliefs that are so critical to my

[10:55] to my to my core beliefs. My conduct was

[10:58] simply not in sync with that with those

[11:01] beliefs.

[11:02] >> Senator Pacquled

[11:05] specific allegations were true.

[11:07] >> I'm not going to get into the specifics

[11:09] of each and every charge. I'm simply

[11:11] going to say my conduct was wrong or

[11:13] pick whatever word you want. Senator

[11:19] >> I'm not going to call

[11:22] >> Pardon me.

[11:29] >> I'm My actions were wrong. Anytime you

[11:33] do anything that's offensive to

[11:35] somebody, men or women or boys or girls,

[11:37] or call them what you want, it is wrong.

[11:40] Period. Whether in or out of office, it

[11:42] is wrong. My conduct was wrong. And I I

[11:45] apologize for that. My conduct was

[11:47] simply wrong.

[11:48] >> Senator Senator,

[11:49] >> follow up on that. Your fellow senators

[11:51] are going to judge you. What do you

[11:53] think the appropriate punishment is?

[11:55] >> I think I think that's best left in

[11:56] their hands. I do not intend to resign.

[11:58] I think I can still carry out fully my

[12:00] duties for the state of Oregon and I

[12:02] plan to do so.

[12:11] >> What will determine whether you will see

[12:14] And finally, why did you not speak

[12:16] publicly to your constituents about this

[12:18] for 18 days?

[12:20] >> Let me take let me take it in reverse.

[12:22] Needless to say, the last 18 days have

[12:24] not been a vacation.

[12:26] Uh if anybody wants to walk in my shoes

[12:28] for the last 18 days, I'll be happy to

[12:30] change shoes no matter what their size.

[12:32] I needed time to reflect about my own

[12:35] conduct. Uh I needed to talk with a lot

[12:38] of old friends in Oregon that have been

[12:39] with me for 10, 20, 30, or in some cases

[12:41] 40 years.

[12:43] And I simply wanted to get my mind

[12:45] straight and my thoughts straight before

[12:48] I was prepared to speak.

[12:50] >> Oh, now what was the first part of your

[12:51] question?

[12:56] >> Well, we've already indicated as far as

[12:58] the office is concerned, we're going to

[13:00] go through it. Whether other officers

[13:02] are going to go through it or not, I am

[13:03] prepared to seek whatever professional

[13:04] counseling may be necessary.

[13:06] >> Is that what type of counsel?

[13:08] >> Well, I don't I'm obviously I'm not an

[13:11] expert in this area. I don't know what

[13:12] type of counseling that I'm going to

[13:14] find out, but I don't know what kind it

[13:15] is.

[13:15] >> Senator, aren't you asking people to

[13:17] trust you awfully quickly and awfully

[13:19] much in the short run over a long period

[13:22] of grievances? Frankly,

[13:24] >> I would like people to judge me on my

[13:27] whole record as to what I have done in

[13:30] this area. And if somebody's going to

[13:31] say, "We were with you. We were with

[13:33] you. We with you." But on this one, you

[13:35] aired

[13:37] and therefore everything that you've

[13:38] stood for and everything that you've

[13:40] done is to be forgotten and erased and

[13:43] that doesn't count. I would like to be

[13:45] judged on the basis that he stood with

[13:48] us and fought for us and in this area he

[13:50] made a mistake and I admit the mistake

[13:52] and I apologize for the mistake.

[13:54] >> Senator, you say that you acted

[13:55] improperly that you were wrong. Yet you

[13:57] won't characterize any of the individual

[13:59] cases. Are you saying you acted

[14:01] improperly in every one of these cases?

[14:03] which allegations are against you or

[14:04] just in some of them.

[14:05] >> Well, what I what I'm saying again, I am

[14:07] not here going to get into each and

[14:08] every specific allegation, nor do I know

[14:10] what allegations may fall from the sky

[14:12] subsequently to the Washington Post

[14:14] story.

[14:14] >> You feel like there are some in which

[14:15] you've been unfairly characterized.

[14:16] >> Oh, I'm I'm not going to again get into

[14:19] the specifics of the allegations. When

[14:21] the Washington Post initially

[14:23] interviewed me on it, there were some

[14:25] that I could not remember. There were

[14:26] people that I could not remember and I'm

[14:28] simply not going to get into the

[14:29] specifics of the allegations here.

[14:31] taking responsibility first.

[14:33] >> Pardon me.

[14:38] >> Yes, I'm

[14:40] >> well realize that the last 18 days I

[14:45] have spent uh for all practical purposes

[14:48] reflecting thinking internally. I am

[14:50] prepared to prepared to take whatever

[14:52] actions are necessary

[14:54] whatever those are. But I'm not I'm not

[14:57] an expert in this field and I don't know

[14:59] exactly what is necessary. But I I will

[15:02] find out. Pardon me.

[15:06] >> Well, I just listen I just got back to

[15:08] the office today. Uh this first time

[15:10] I've been in the office in in whatever

[15:12] however many days it's been. The office

[15:14] is going to be going through this. I

[15:16] will be going through this and perhaps

[15:17] the people that I we go through it with

[15:18] in the office will have some leads for

[15:20] me. All I'm saying is I'm going to

[15:21] pursue it. I just don't I don't know at

[15:24] the moment who I call, but I'm going to

[15:25] pursue it.

[15:27] >> Clarify something about your last

[15:29] written comment responding to the latest

[15:31] allegation. You said, "This whole thing

[15:33] has become ludicrous." What has become

[15:36] ludicrous?

[15:37] >> Oh, was it? No. No. Was this the last

[15:39] allegation about the 13-year-old? That

[15:40] was ludicrous. U

[15:43] this is where I This is Yes. And that

[15:44] one that one I do deny this where I say

[15:46] I can never if something falls from the

[15:48] sky. When I've said my conduct was

[15:50] wrong, I meant my conduct was wrong as

[15:52] to the charges that I knew about from

[15:54] the Washington Post story. But if

[15:56] somebody says something absolutely a

[15:59] thunderbolt that I've never heard of and

[16:00] it's never come up before and that I

[16:02] think is false is false and and that one

[16:04] I deny.

[16:06] >> No, let me let me let me let me take

[16:08] Helen.

[16:21] Pardon me.

[16:24] >> I just Ellen, I just didn't get it. Here

[16:28] I sit with an organization of men and

[16:30] women uh and advancement and promotion

[16:33] and pay based upon as genderneutral a

[16:36] basis as you can have. I've never looked

[16:38] at the at the organizations of the rest

[16:40] of the Senate offices, but I would be

[16:41] willing, I think, to put mine up against

[16:43] any office in terms of the advancement

[16:45] of women and the number of women in

[16:46] highly paid positions. I haven't looked

[16:48] at it again, but I'm I might be willing

[16:50] to bet that if we had to have some kind

[16:52] of an affirmative action basis, we would

[16:53] have to lower the salaries of women and

[16:55] raise the salaries of men.

[16:58] >> If you're taking responsibility, why

[16:59] don't you take responsibility for

[17:00] conducting?

[17:01] >> Go ahead.

[17:02] >> I can't I can't hear you. Is it true

[17:05] that

[17:07] you

[17:13] were there?

[17:15] >> Uh, well, no, the answer is no. I didn't

[17:17] have any any warnings from friends and

[17:19] and uh

[17:22] I wish I had, but I didn't. And so, the

[17:24] answer is no.

[17:26] >> Senator, when you say that you just did

[17:28] not get it, that your behavior was wrong

[17:31] at the time. We're not talking about an

[17:33] awful cat patch uh or a pinch. We're

[17:36] talking about physically restraining

[17:38] women to try to kiss them, chasing them

[17:40] around the office, uh trying to remove

[17:43] their clothing. I mean, these these are

[17:45] left with those are the specifics of the

[17:47] allegations.

[17:47] >> Well, and I and I've indicated that was

[17:49] wrong. I'm not going to get into the

[17:51] specifics of each allegation here, but

[17:53] my conduct was wrong.

[17:55] >> But how can you not know it was wrong at

[17:56] the time? Well, all I'm saying it was

[17:59] wrong. And it was at variance with very

[18:03] longstanding views that I had had about

[18:05] women in in the workplace and

[18:06] long-standing views that I had acted on

[18:09] long before other people had acted on.

[18:12] >> Senator,

[18:16] >> pardon me. Okay.

[18:18] >> Senator was involved in debate about

[18:20] sexual harassment Thomas Anita Hill. Did

[18:23] you take that opportunity to evaluate

[18:25] your own conduct? Were there discussions

[18:27] in your office about sexual harassment?

[18:30] >> There was not. I had made my decision on

[18:32] Clarence Thomas to vote against him

[18:34] before the Anita Hill hearings came up

[18:36] and I'd made them on on another basis.

[18:37] Uh and there was not. That may have been

[18:41] a mistake, but but there was not.

[18:42] >> But was there did you take the

[18:44] opportunity to evaluate your own

[18:45] conduct?

[18:46] >> No, I did not.

[18:48] >> Senator, were you

[18:49] >> Let me let me let me let me take some

[18:50] haven't got a chance to ask your

[18:52] question taking responsibility for your

[18:54] own actions. Whose idea was it to call

[18:57] around the country after the post in

[18:59] front of you? Whose idea was it to call

[19:01] around the country gathering the

[19:03] information about the weapon? From where

[19:05] were the calls made and did anyone else

[19:08] besides?

[19:09] >> Well, again on any question and if we

[19:11] want to spend the rest of the press

[19:13] conference on this, I guess we can

[19:14] relating to the characterization of the

[19:16] women or any No, no. or any or or any or

[19:20] anything or anything

[19:23] >> or anything involving it. Uh I am simply

[19:26] not going to get in to that subject.

[19:28] >> Why not?

[19:28] >> Why not?

[19:28] >> Why not?

[19:29] >> Because I'm

[19:31] you know I'll say for the how much time

[19:34] do we have left? 10 minutes. I am not

[19:35] going to get in to the subject of the

[19:37] characterization of the woman or any

[19:39] attempts to characterize the woman.

[19:40] >> Senator, will your office cooperate with

[19:42] the ethics committee if they ask you

[19:43] these questions? Will the people of

[19:44] Oregon get any answer on this particular

[19:46] question? We will uh we we've indicated

[19:48] we will cooperate fully with the ethics

[19:51] committee as to whatever they ask

[19:53] whether it's testimony fine what

[19:55] whatever it is they want we will

[19:56] specifically about you or your office

[19:58] conducting investigations the women who

[20:00] brought these charges you will fully

[20:02] comply with their questions and give

[20:03] them a complete answer as to what your

[20:05] office did what you did and where the

[20:06] calls came from.

[20:07] >> I'm going to fully cooperate with the

[20:08] ethics committee. Period.

[20:10] >> Senator say it to the ethics committee

[20:12] but you won't say it to your office. Oh,

[20:13] what I'm No, what I'm saying is I will

[20:16] fully cooperate with the e ethics

[20:17] committee and whatever they ask.

[20:19] >> Senator, you say that you acted

[20:20] improperly in this case. You admit that

[20:22] fully. Yet, I'm I'm very curious. You

[20:25] spend a few days off for some treatment.

[20:28] You come here and say, "I just didn't

[20:30] get it." Do you really expect that's

[20:31] going to be enough to solve this

[20:33] problem? Is it just going to go away

[20:34] now? Is that what you believe or hope?

[20:36] >> As far as as far as my conduct, it's

[20:39] going to go away. And if it exists in my

[20:41] office apart from me, it's going to go

[20:42] away.

[20:43] >> You think that does it? That that gets

[20:44] it for you?

[20:44] >> Well, all I'm saying is I'm asking I'm

[20:47] asking to be weighed on my entire

[20:49] record. And in this area, my conduct was

[20:52] at variance with my entire record. And

[20:54] it's not because I didn't believe in the

[20:56] things I was advocating. My conduct was

[20:58] at variance and I was wrong. And I admit

[21:01] I was wrong.

[21:01] >> And you think the voters will say I take

[21:03] your I'm sorry, I was wrong. And they'll

[21:06] accept that as enough?

[21:07] >> I don't know if they will. Uh, I speak

[21:09] it from the heart. I was wrong. I mean,

[21:11] I suppose I suppose I could come here

[21:13] and attempt to argue this. I haven't. I

[21:15] don't know how it will be accepted. If I

[21:17] could follow

[21:19] up, if I if I could follow up, the

[21:22] voters in Oregon aren't going to have a

[21:23] chance. You were just reelected for six

[21:25] years. They aren't going to have

[21:27] passion. Why not step down? Why not

[21:30] stand for a special election and let

[21:31] them determine whether they want to

[21:32] return you to the Senate?

[21:33] >> Because Tim, I ran on some very specific

[21:36] things I wanted to get done and they

[21:38] were major issues in the campaign. I

[21:40] wanted to get done some kind of final

[21:42] timber supply issue where we can get a

[21:44] balance between the environment and

[21:45] timber and some kind of certainty and

[21:47] get that issue behind us. I want to get

[21:48] the Oregon Medicaid waiver. 20 years

[21:50] ago, I introduced a health plan that is

[21:52] not very dissimilar from Governor

[21:54] Clinton's health plan. I want to get the

[21:56] Freedom of Choice Act passed. I want to

[21:57] get the North American Free Trade

[21:58] Agreement passed and I intend to stay

[22:00] here and do that and I am not going to

[22:02] resign under any circumstances.

[22:04] >> Senator, you say

[22:07] Oregon, but to achieve those

[22:08] accomplishments, how do you expect to

[22:09] work with some of the women who are

[22:11] elected to the House and Senate with

[22:13] whom you'll have to work who have seen

[22:15] your record and sitting in this uh news

[22:18] conference and heard about the

[22:19] allegations? Why should they work with

[22:21] you after all this? Well, I would hope

[22:23] that they would be willing to work with

[22:25] somebody who continues to support the

[22:27] same positions that I have supported in

[22:29] the same allies that I've had on these

[22:31] same issues for 5, 10, 15, 20 years.

[22:34] We've been in this in a common endeavor

[22:35] for a long, long period of time. Um, I

[22:39] would hope they would be willing to say,

[22:41] "We would like to have his help. We

[22:43] would like to have his vote. We would

[22:44] like to work with him." voters may get a

[22:46] chance to ask your voters might be hurt.

[22:48] >> Pardon me.

[22:48] >> You think your effectiveness?

[22:51] >> No, I I don't think so. I have

[22:53] discovered this. If you come back and

[22:56] admit you were wrong and I was wrong

[22:59] and you get back to your job and you

[23:01] know the issues of timber supply or

[23:02] healthcare, the North American Free

[23:04] Trade Agreement or the Freedom of Choice

[23:05] Act, well, when you're on the floor

[23:06] debating or when you're in committee and

[23:09] you know what you're doing and you know

[23:10] what you're talking about

[23:12] that you will be influential,

[23:16] >> you you got you got

[23:19] >> No, I'm going to step down if

[23:22] you

[23:23] >> I'm not going to resign under any

[23:25] circumstances.

[23:27] >> Go ahead.

[23:28] >> Pardon me.

[23:32] >> And I'm wondering what that's all about.

[23:43] >> No, no, I didn't mean it. I didn't mean

[23:45] it in that sense. Uh, anybody of my age

[23:47] came up say even in public schools, the

[23:49] grade school had a boy's gym and a

[23:51] girl's gym. It was just it was separate

[23:52] activities. And in all my growing up

[23:55] life, I never really questioned it. And

[23:57] it was only when I came to a position of

[23:59] running an organization where I was

[24:00] supposed to produce Republican victories

[24:02] and I had this talented pool of women in

[24:07] those days.

[24:09] Uh these were often women who were

[24:11] married to to men of means. And in those

[24:13] days, they didn't work in the

[24:14] marketplace. They did volunteer work.

[24:17] And in in this case, they did volunteer

[24:18] political work. These these were five

[24:19] beta cappas. These were sority

[24:21] presidents, mortar boards, editors of

[24:22] the yearbook, and they were being given

[24:25] menial tasks and that was simply an

[24:27] eyeopening experience to me to see the

[24:29] loss of the use of the talent. And that

[24:32] was the sea change for me. I uh I grew

[24:35] up in the in the same era that everybody

[24:37] else did, but I would like to think that

[24:39] that all of my activities and all of the

[24:41] ways that I run my office and all of the

[24:42] ways that I've run my campaigns from

[24:44] that time onward

[24:47] have been in conformance with the

[24:49] principles of gender equality. I admit

[24:52] my conduct

[24:54] was wrong. I don't think the way that I

[24:57] have run my offices and advanced people

[24:59] and judge people on merit and put people

[25:01] in positions of responsibility

[25:03] regardless of gender has been wrong.

[25:07] >> Yes, ma'am.

[25:09] >> Pardon me.

[25:22] >> Not that I recall.

[25:24] Yeah, I remember when the Washington

[25:26] Post interviewed me and they would ask

[25:28] of an incident 15 or 20 years ago and a

[25:30] name I couldn't recall. I couldn't

[25:32] recall. I'm not I don't think so, but I

[25:35] can't recall. I mean, that's the best

[25:36] way I can answer it.

[25:47] responsive.

[25:56] >> Oh, yes. And more than an apology, I

[25:58] would like to meet with them personally

[26:00] and apologize. If my conduct was wrong,

[26:03] as I say, inappropriate is is too soft a

[26:05] word. Uh inappropriate has a certain

[26:08] sense of timeliness, like, well, you you

[26:10] shouldn't have done it then. It was just

[26:11] plain wrong. and and and I owe them an

[26:15] apology at a minimum and I give them

[26:18] that. Way back there. Way back there,

[26:20] sir.

[26:20] >> Senator, you said you will not use

[26:22] alcohol.

[26:23] >> That's right.

[26:25] >> But yours might have interest in knowing

[26:27] whether you do in fact believe that you

[26:28] have an alcohol problem at this point,

[26:30] do you?

[26:31] >> I don't I don't think so, but I'm going

[26:33] to I'm going to continue talking to some

[26:35] people who who are going to give me

[26:37] counseling in this area. Uh, I don't

[26:39] think it has deterred my work in the

[26:40] past and I think you better ask my

[26:42] fellow senators on that, but I I'm going

[26:44] to seek counseling on that. In addition,

[26:46] you

[26:47] >> believe?

[26:49] >> Well, I I don't you know, it's hard to

[26:52] it's hard to ask a person who uses

[26:53] alcohol. I don't think so. But in any

[26:56] event, I'm going to seek counseling in

[26:58] that area also.

[26:59] >> Are you going to not use alcohol,

[27:00] Senator? Will you decline to use

[27:01] alcohol?

[27:02] >> No, I'm going I'm at at the moment I'm

[27:03] not using alcohol. I'm going to seek

[27:05] counseling and and and see further what

[27:07] the situation is.

[27:08] >> Senator, do you think these

[27:09] >> Since you won't get into the specific

[27:11] cases, can you tell us exactly what

[27:14] conduct you're apologizing for?

[27:16] >> I'm apologizing and I'm not even going

[27:19] to debate the conduct as alleged. That's

[27:21] what I'm apologizing for.

[27:22] >> What What actions did you take that

[27:24] you're apologizing?

[27:25] >> I'm discuss,

[27:27] >> as I said, I'm not I'm not going to get

[27:28] into the specific charges case by case

[27:30] by case by case here. And I'm asking you

[27:32] if you just describe the conduct

[27:34] apologizing.

[27:36] >> I am apologizing for the conduct that

[27:39] was that was alleged that I did and I

[27:42] and I say I am sorry.

[27:44] >> Yes, sir. Then I'll take you next.

[27:51] >> What did you think back then? I mean,

[27:53] did you think it was normal? Did you

[27:55] think the way things are? Tell us what

[27:59] you state in mind. No, I I can't tell

[28:01] you what my state of mind was. When the

[28:02] Washington Post first came, I couldn't

[28:04] even believe I engaged in this kind of

[28:05] conduct. I couldn't believe that I would

[28:07] treat women this way when I felt so

[28:10] strongly about equality and fairness.

[28:18] >> When uh when the post came, I could not

[28:21] recall many of the incidences. uh they

[28:24] just ju just and it was if as if you

[28:29] were in a circle and and uh the circle's

[28:31] divided into a a variety of pieces of

[28:34] pie all of which are different women's

[28:35] issues and there was just a blank and I

[28:37] it was at variance with everything else

[28:39] that I believed. I cannot explain it. I

[28:41] don't try to exonerate it and there is

[28:43] no excuse for it and it was wrong.

[28:46] >> Hold it hold it hold it. Last question

[28:48] please. Mike

[28:49] >> wait who?

[28:50] >> Mike Doner. Yeah, Mike.

[28:52] >> Some of your supporters have described

[28:53] this as a modern witch hunt. Do you feel

[28:56] you've been denied due process at all?

[29:01] >> Well, I understand. No, I don't. I

[29:04] understand the news media on this and

[29:05] understand the story. Uh, by and large,

[29:07] the Washington Post broke the story. I I

[29:09] think they have I think they they've

[29:11] played it very fairly and I think

[29:12] they've treated me fairly and I have no

[29:13] complaint.

[29:14] >> Thank you for Thank you very much.

[29:22] You've been watching Senator Bob

[29:23] Pacwood's first public appearance in

[29:25] late November when the allegations of

[29:27] sexual harassment involving him first

[29:29] were published in the Washington Post.

[29:31] If you're just joining us, you've

[29:33] probably already gathered that he will

[29:35] not resign. He says he will not resign

[29:37] under any circumstances. He pledged to,

[29:39] using his word, restructure his

[29:41] relationships with women. He guaranteed

[29:43] nothing like the alleged harassment will

[29:45] happen again. and he says he will seek

[29:47] appropriate counseling. He says his

[29:49] conduct was wrong and at variance with

[29:51] his beliefs. He apologized to women hurt

[29:53] by his conduct. And here's a little bit

[29:55] of what he had to say.

[29:57] Although most of these incidents are a

[29:59] decade or two decades old and no one's

[30:03] job or pay or status in the office was

[30:07] threatened. My conduct was still wrong.

[30:12] I just didn't get it. I do now. I pledge

[30:16] to restructure drastically and totally

[30:18] my attitude and professional

[30:20] relationships. And if that requires

[30:22] professional counseling, I will seek it.

[30:25] I guarantee that nothing like this will

[30:27] ever happen again.

[30:30] I am prepared to cooperate fully with

[30:31] the Senate Ethics Committee to

[30:33] investigate and resolve this matter.

[30:36] He later pledged to work to rebuild the

[30:38] bond between himself and his Oregon

[30:40] constituents. And a couple of those

[30:42] Oregon constituents join us now. Lily

[30:44] and Elmer Grossen are fans of the

[30:46] senator. They uh they have stuck with

[30:48] him through this controversy. Elmer,

[30:50] let's start with you. What did you think

[30:51] of what he had to say?

[30:53] >> Well, I I expected him to say what he

[30:56] said. I didn't expect him to do more

[30:59] than that. And u

[31:04] senator is

[31:06] uh I think can still perform and do his

[31:10] job well for Oregon.

[31:13] and uh to have uh

[31:17] these accusations

[31:19] carry on and for him to be uh for him to

[31:24] lose his Senate position

[31:27] uh I would say would be u

[31:30] injurious to all women seeking

[31:33] employment.

[31:35] Uh

[31:36] >> let excuse me let me ask you this. Do

[31:38] you see that happening now with after

[31:39] this uh this apology that he issued

[31:41] today? No see any sort of a

[31:43] >> no I think problem for him

[31:45] >> if uh we close down the allegations

[31:51] against Pacwood and accept his apology I

[31:54] think that uh the women's movement will

[31:58] not be tipperized in any way.

[32:00] >> Lily I have some questions for you too

[32:02] but first I want to go to Lisa Bailick

[32:04] who is watching this appearance of

[32:06] Senator Pacwoods with a group called

[32:08] Oregonians for Ethical Representation.

[32:10] Lisa, what's the reaction there?

[32:12] >> Mark, so far we don't know. About a

[32:14] dozen men and women who were gathered

[32:15] here were busy taking notes. Very little

[32:16] reaction on their faces. They have now

[32:19] gone to another room to try and talk

[32:20] among themselves briefly as to what they

[32:22] want to say. But it's very clear some of

[32:23] the things that they wanted to hear,

[32:24] they did not hear. One thing that they

[32:26] will definitely bring up is a senator's

[32:28] avoidance of the allegations. He tried

[32:29] to dig up dirt on his accusers. He is

[32:32] those that were watching saw that he did

[32:33] not discuss that. Did not want to get

[32:35] into any specifics about digging up dirt

[32:37] on the women before or after the

[32:38] allegations came forward. The main thing

[32:40] they didn't hear that they really wanted

[32:41] to hear was that he would resign. And

[32:43] the senator of course said in no

[32:44] uncertain terms he will not do that. So

[32:46] these men and women know they have a

[32:47] very long fight ahead of them. They say

[32:49] though that we are sure they're going to

[32:51] say that they will not be giving up

[32:52] their fight that they will pursue. At

[32:54] first uh on January 5th they will try

[32:55] and make sure the senator is not seated

[32:57] when Congress uh reconvenes. That is

[32:59] however very unlikely because a majority

[33:02] of the senators would have to vote uh

[33:04] that they also agreed that he should not

[33:05] be seated and again that's very

[33:07] unlikely. They will also pursue in

[33:08] putting together their cases to go

[33:10] before the Senate ethics committee. We

[33:11] will hear from them shortly. They're

[33:12] adjourned for about five or 10 minutes

[33:14] and they'll be back down here. Mark.

[33:15] >> Okay, Lisa. So, they're just gathering

[33:17] to discuss this and then they'll be uh

[33:19] presenting a statement a little bit

[33:20] later.

[33:20] >> That's correct.

[33:21] >> Okay. Thank you very much. Uh let's talk

[33:24] a little bit about what seems to be the

[33:26] the key element flowing out of this. And

[33:28] let me ask you that question, Lily. Um

[33:30] some people say he is now too

[33:32] politically damaged. Senator Pacwood is

[33:34] too politically damaged to be effective

[33:36] in the Senate. How do you respond to

[33:38] that?

[33:39] >> I don't believe his personal life has

[33:41] that much effect on his political life

[33:43] really. Um, a lot of the senators, we

[33:46] don't know what happens in their private

[33:49] life and uh, we only see their record in

[33:52] the paper. I think way too much time and

[33:56] uh, energy has been spent on these

[33:58] allegations and uh, that he should get

[34:01] on the whole Congress should get on with

[34:04] the problems that face our country. What

[34:06] do you think of the allegations when you

[34:07] first read them? What did you think of

[34:09] them?

[34:09] >> I guess we all made mistakes 20 years

[34:11] ago. Who knows? I feel like he does. I

[34:14] can't remember what I did 20 years ago,

[34:16] but

[34:17] >> Well, some of them were quite serious to

[34:18] the women involved. Certainly, the the

[34:20] women felt as though they were quite put

[34:21] upon by Senator Pacwood.

[34:22] >> They should have uh said something about

[34:24] it 20 years ago and not wait until 1992.

[34:27] >> Well, some of the allegations were more

[34:29] recent than than 20 years ago, weren't

[34:30] they?

[34:31] >> I'm not sure. Uh

[34:33] >> yeah, I think some were more many were

[34:35] that old in fairness to the senator.

[34:36] Many were fairly old and in fact he

[34:38] pointed that out today, but some were

[34:39] more recent than that. But anyway, they

[34:41] they didn't strike you as a as anything

[34:43] too significant.

[34:45] >> Not significant enough to um waste that

[34:50] much time on them because I think

[34:52] there's important things. As I said

[34:54] before, there's too many important

[34:55] things uh that affect our country much

[34:58] more vitally than a little hanky panky

[35:02] to um

[35:04] >> waste time on them.

[35:04] >> Yeah. Elmer, what do you think happens

[35:06] with these allegations? What do you

[35:07] think happens with this whole

[35:08] controversy?

[35:11] Well,

[35:13] it's unfortunate that it

[35:16] came out at this time, but uh

[35:21] I feel that uh

[35:24] women in

[35:26] cases where

[35:29] a man

[35:31] uh

[35:33] performs in a inappropriate way, they

[35:36] should respond immediately, you know,

[35:39] with a raised stand and stop stop it

[35:42] immediately. And uh remembering these

[35:47] things over a period of time is

[35:50] detrimental to uh

[35:53] any any situation. You know, those type

[35:56] situations should be just brief and not

[36:00] extended.

[36:02] I'm I'm going to give this a

[36:03] counterpoint. Now, let's go back to Lisa

[36:05] Baileik and find out exactly what that

[36:06] group that she has been following has to

[36:08] say about the senator's news conference.

[36:14] The group, I'm told, is now about to

[36:16] start their news conference, and we'll

[36:18] get a picture of it here shortly. Again,

[36:19] that group is called Oregonians for

[36:21] Ethical Representation. And that group

[36:23] has called for the senator to resign. Uh

[36:26] they did not hear that. Just to recap

[36:28] what the senator had to say today, they

[36:29] did not hear that the senator is going

[36:31] to to resign. They heard instead that he

[36:33] is going to fight to keep his job. And

[36:35] they did hear an apology, however, from

[36:37] Senator Pacwood.

[36:42] >> My name is Teddy Carbono. I'm an Oregon

[36:44] Republican and I am outraged that Bob

[36:47] Pacwood has abused his power for 20

[36:51] years. He's lied to Oregonians for 20

[36:54] years and now he thinks he can dismiss

[36:55] it with an apology and have us just

[36:58] forget that and move on.

[37:01] I'm Ed Armstrong, a registered

[37:03] Republican and a former state official.

[37:06] I'm taken aback by the arrogance that I

[37:11] witnessed today. And I'm really hung up

[37:14] on the arrogance of people in power who

[37:17] take full responsibility for their

[37:19] conduct and their actions, but there are

[37:21] never any sanctions.

[37:24] I I don't think Bob Pacwood gets the

[37:26] fact that he's lied to the people of

[37:28] Oregon. He's stonewalled about facing

[37:31] the charges that have been made and not

[37:33] denied. And the fact that he is willing

[37:36] and should should go through the

[37:39] procedures of the ethics committee of

[37:41] the Senate begs the question that we

[37:43] made him appear by electing him to that

[37:45] office. I think the people of Oregon

[37:48] have a right to expect more. I think

[37:50] they have a right to feel that the

[37:51] senator is impaired in his position and

[37:54] capacity to represent the best interests

[37:56] of the people of Oregon. And I think

[37:59] that he if he really con concentrates on

[38:02] his family and what he owes to the

[38:04] people of Oregon and himself that he

[38:07] will seriously think about resigning.

[38:11] I'm Mark Gardner and I have a few

[38:13] comments and then other people in our

[38:15] group would like to speak.

[38:17] Uh, Oregonians are very compassionate

[38:19] people, but we're not fools.

[38:22] And what we saw today does not answer

[38:25] the concerns of Oregonians and was not

[38:27] an answer by Bob Pacwood to the concerns

[38:28] of Oregonians. Let's review the record.

[38:32] First, the sexual harassment. And it

[38:34] wasn't just sexual harassment, as bad as

[38:36] that is, but physical sexual aggression.

[38:39] It wasn't 20 years ago, but as recently

[38:41] as 1992.

[38:44] And Pacwood, according to the stories

[38:47] earlier, was warned for decades that

[38:49] this was a problem and never saw fit to

[38:52] resolve it until he was caught. He said

[38:55] today he just didn't get it. I do now.

[38:58] I'll quote from one of the people that

[39:00] tried to tell him, "I cannot tell you

[39:02] how many people sat down with him and

[39:04] said, you are going to come to a bad

[39:06] end. All your career's work on women's

[39:08] issues and on progressive issues is

[39:10] going to turn to dust." claiming that he

[39:12] only really recently realized that this

[39:14] was a problem just is not credible. The

[39:18] other thing that was really appalling

[39:19] about today's statement was his refusal

[39:22] to discuss with the people of Oregon,

[39:26] his actions in attempting to smear his

[39:28] victims. They bely his statements that

[39:31] he gets it now and his pleas for trust

[39:35] and mercy from the people of Oregon. And

[39:37] these actions did not stop early in

[39:39] November. As he has previously stated,

[39:42] it was still going on as recently as

[39:44] this week with calls from Senator

[39:46] Pacwood and his staff to friends of of

[39:48] victims asking lewd questions about

[39:52] those victims.

[39:54] He has lied to the people of Oregon and

[39:56] manipulated the press to try to and in

[40:00] fact successfully steal the election

[40:02] from the citizens of Oregon. And this

[40:04] continues

[40:06] through today. It is a gross abuse of

[40:09] power. And the only way that Bob Pacman

[40:11] can get the trust of the people of

[40:13] Oregon is to resign and run again and

[40:16] let the people of Oregon decide.

[40:26] I'm Holly Puit. I'm with the Oregon

[40:28] Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual

[40:30] Violence. And I have to tell you that I

[40:33] am I am frightened. Um I have talked to

[40:36] a number of other women who have similar

[40:39] um allegations to those printed in the

[40:41] post about Senator Pacwood and I'm truly

[40:45] frightened for them. Uh because Senator

[40:47] Pacwood today said on the one hand that

[40:50] he would take responsibility for his

[40:52] actions and on the other hand refused to

[40:55] acknowledge that he had personally

[40:57] engaged in in smear attempts against

[40:59] many of these women and continued to do

[41:02] so into this week. Uh to say on the one

[41:05] hand that his convictions are uh run

[41:08] counter to his conduct is almost to

[41:11] imply uh that he that he has a severe

[41:13] psychological disorder. And uh I'm

[41:16] really concerned and frightened for what

[41:18] that means for those women who have come

[41:21] out against him uh because he still

[41:24] refuses uh to take responsibility for

[41:26] his actions towards them.

[41:30] >> Members of Oregonians for ethical

[41:32] representation and clearly we haven't

[41:34] heard the last of this. Senator Pacwood

[41:36] apologizes but refuses to step down over

[41:39] allegations of sexual harassment. We'll

[41:41] have more news on this later in the hour

[41:42] and of course a complete report at noon

[41:44] today.

[41:46] We're going to go back now, I'm told, to

[41:48] Betty Roberts, uh, former Supreme Court

[41:50] justice here in Oregon who is now

[41:52] speaking on this issue.

[42:04] his attempts to cover up is as serious

[42:08] as the acts that he has admitted to

[42:12] and that's what we witness today

[42:16] uh in his statement

[42:18] is a cover up. He did not deny any of

[42:22] the allegations

[42:24] but he would not speak about them. He

[42:26] was asked numerous times

[42:29] in numerous ways about those incidents,

[42:34] the facts, and he said he would not

[42:37] discuss those. The question is, is he

[42:40] going to go before the Senate Ethics

[42:42] Committee and say, "You have the facts,

[42:44] and I'm not going to dispute them. Judge

[42:47] me on what you have."

[42:49] Uh, and simply try to stonewall it. and

[42:52] to ask the Senate Ethics Committee um to

[42:56] just consider that, but to go on with

[42:59] business as usual uh when he attempted

[43:02] to divert the direction that the um the

[43:06] purpose for which the news u um press

[43:10] was called and go off into other uh

[43:13] other areas of on other issues totally

[43:16] unrelated uh to this issue. So, it's his

[43:20] attempt to avoid it. Um, he still

[43:23] doesn't get it and that's the message.

[43:25] He still doesn't get it.

[43:30] >> Pardon?

[43:31] >> She has been one of the senator's most

[43:33] visible critics. Again, Senator Bob

[43:34] Pacwood apologizes but refuses to step

[43:37] down over allegations of sexual

[43:38] harassment. I'm Mark Hendricks. Let's

[43:40] rejoin the CBS Morning News.