Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. SARBANES. In fact, the Constitution says: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections . . . . I do not see how constitutionally a President can sign a bill, make it the law, and then undo the law through a procedure that would not have been permitted by the Constitution.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I am pleased to join today with Senator Hatch, Senator Simon, and others as an original cosponsor of legislation to permanently authorize the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. The Hate Crimes Statistics Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1990 and signed into law by President Bush, directs the Department of Justice to compile and publish data on crimes that manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. The 1994 Crime Law added the requirement that data also be collected about crimes based on disability. The categories of crime for which data is collected under the act includes homicide, rape, assault, arson, vandalism, and intimidation. The law expired on December 31, 1995, and not only should be reauthorized, but should be given a permanent mandate. Before enactment of this law, there existed no such national collection of data on hate crimes. At the time it was originally passed, this law was needed to fill the gap in information concerning the deplorable, and increasing, incidence of violent crimes based on bigotry and prejudice. Today, 6 years later, this statute remains vitally necessary. Madam President, far too often, we hear reports of violent hate- related incidents which shock all decent people in this country. It seems inconceivable that in 1996 such crimes can still be so pervasive, but statistics collected under the law indicate that thousands of hate crimes take place each year. Therefore, it is critically important that we continue to monitor the occurrence of these crimes, in order that we may more effectively respond to them. This law has enabled a systematic collection of information about these crimes on a national basis allowing us to develop a clear picture of the problem and fashion appropriate governmental responses. Some States, including my home State of Maryland, officially monitor the incidence of hate violence and law enforcement officials in those States have testified to the usefulness of this information. In addition, a number of private groups have done an outstanding job collecting information and pointing out the serious problem of bigotry- related crimes. In particular, I would like to recognize the work of the National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence at the University of Maryland, formed in 1984 through the efforts of former Governor of Maryland Harry Hughes and others. This fine organization has been a clearinghouse for information on hate crimes and has conducted original research and provided assistance to communities wishing to deal with the problems of hate crime violence. However, these efforts are simply not enough. A national collection of information is vital. The 1990 act accomplished the establishment and implementation of a Federal data collection system which has proven useful and should continue. Although the Federal Bureau of Investigation is required under the law to collect information on hate crimes, participation by State and local law enforcement agencies under the law is strictly voluntary. However, participation has increased over the time that the law has been in effect. There has been a significant effort on the local level to encourage participation in the effort and as participation increases, the information will become increasingly more helpful for purposes of identifying and examining national trends in bias-related crime and effectively responding to such crime. Madam President, experience over the past few years has shown the act also is helpful to State and local law enforcement, both in the effort to provide training with respect to hate crimes and in the effort to identify how law enforcement agencies should direct their resources in dealing with hate crimes. An essential aspect of the effort to address the problem of hate crimes in this country is ensuring that the police have a greater awareness of hate crimes and treat such incidents with more sensitivity and understanding. The presence of more supportive and helpful law enforcement makes it more likely that hate crime victims will report these crimes, which in turn allows Federal, State, and local law enforcement to better respond. I want to congratulate Senators Simon and Hatch for their leadership on this important legislation and I urge my colleagues to support prompt enactment of this bill.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I am pleased to join today with Senator Hatch, Senator Simon, and others as an original cosponsor of legislation to permanently authorize the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. The Hate Crimes Statistics Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1990 and signed into law by President Bush, directs the Department of Justice to compile and publish data on crimes that manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. The 1994 Crime Law added the requirement that data also be collected about crimes based on disability. The categories of crime for which data is collected under the act includes homicide, rape, assault, arson, vandalism, and intimidation. The law expired on December 31, 1995, and not only should be reauthorized, but should be given a permanent mandate. Before enactment of this law, there existed no such national collection of data on hate crimes. At the time it was originally passed, this law was needed to fill the gap in information concerning the deplorable, and increasing, incidence of violent crimes based on bigotry and prejudice. Today, 6 years later, this statute remains vitally necessary. Madam President, far too often, we hear reports of violent hate- related incidents which shock all decent people in this country. It seems inconceivable that in 1996 such crimes can still be so pervasive, but statistics collected under the law indicate that thousands of hate crimes take place each year. Therefore, it is critically important that we continue to monitor the occurrence of these crimes, in order that we may more effectively respond to them. This law has enabled a systematic collection of information about these crimes on a national basis allowing us to develop a clear picture of the problem and fashion appropriate governmental responses. Some States, including my home State of Maryland, officially monitor the incidence of hate violence and law enforcement officials in those States have testified to the usefulness of this information. In addition, a number of private groups have done an outstanding job collecting information and pointing out the serious problem of bigotry- related crimes. In particular, I would like to recognize the work of the National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence at the University of Maryland, formed in 1984 through the efforts of former Governor of Maryland Harry Hughes and others. This fine organization has been a clearinghouse for information on hate crimes and has conducted original research and provided assistance to communities wishing to deal with the problems of hate crime violence. However, these efforts are simply not enough. A national collection of information is vital. The 1990 act accomplished the establishment and implementation of a Federal data collection system which has proven useful and should continue. Although the Federal Bureau of Investigation is required under the law to collect information on hate crimes, participation by State and local law enforcement agencies under the law is strictly voluntary. However, participation has increased over the time that the law has been in effect. There has been a significant effort on the local level to encourage participation in the effort and as participation increases, the information will become increasingly more helpful for purposes of identifying and examining national trends in bias-related crime and effectively responding to such crime. Madam President, experience over the past few years has shown the act also is helpful to State and local law enforcement, both in the effort to provide training with respect to hate crimes and in the effort to identify how law enforcement agencies should direct their resources in dealing with hate crimes. An essential aspect of the effort to address the problem of hate crimes in this country is ensuring that the police have a greater awareness of hate crimes and treat such incidents with more sensitivity and understanding. The presence of more supportive and helpful law enforcement makes it more likely that hate crime victims will report these crimes, which in turn allows Federal, State, and local law enforcement to better respond. I want to congratulate Senators Simon and Hatch for their leadership on this important legislation and I urge my colleagues to support prompt enactment of this bill.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone. This amendment reiterates the Senate's strong commitment to maintaining funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP] despite efforts in the House of Representatives to terminate this program and urges House and Senate conferees to continue to fund LIHEAP at the Senate level of $1 billion. Congress first authorized the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program in 1981 at a time of unprecedented energy costs in order to help low-income households maintain an adequate level of heat in their homes to ensure their health and safety. This program helps an approximate 6.1 million households each year in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. commonwealths and territories. For many of these households, which represent the most vulnerable segment of the population, including the elderly, the disabled, the working poor and children, the assistance they receive through LIHEAP can mean the difference between having to choose between heating their home in the cold winter months or other vital needs such as food, warm clothing, and medical care. Mr. President, a recent study by the National Consumer Law Center indicated that there is a widening gap between the level of LIHEAP funding and the total heating and cooling costs for low-income families. While the LIHEAP benefits provided to these needy families can not meet their entire energy costs, the average benefit of $216 per household for heating assistance can prove critical to the efforts of senior citizens and working poor families on a fixed income to stay safely in their homes. In my own State of Maryland, LIHEAP funds cover only about 20 percent of the cost of the average heating bill for eligible recipients. The Maryland Energy Assistance Program, which administers the LIHEAP program, draws on support from other public sector sources, non-profit agencies, private industry and public utilities in order to best meet the compelling energy needs of approximated 90,000 low-income Marylanders. This collaboration between public and private sector entities has resulted in a number of innovative programs to make home energy more affordable to the most vulnerable group of Maryland citizens. Special payment arrangements with utilities, expanded public education and energy conservation programs, including weatherization assistance, and direct access to other energy-related programs, serve to make the LIHEAP program in Maryland a successful coordinated effort. Mr. President, this winter has seen record snowfalls in the Mid- Atlantic region and bitterly cold temperatures across much of the country. This severe winter weather threatened the safety of millions of Americans and strained States' ability to help needy families at a time when the budgetary impasse made the very future of the LIHEAP program uncertain. This program is effective and over the years has helped many families in need with their energy bills. Support of Senator Wellstone's amendment will send a strong message to the House of Representatives that the Senate will persist in its efforts to maintain adequate funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the time situation?

Mr. SARBANES. Senator Inouye indicated yesterday that the Iran-Contra Committee intensified its hearings as it approached its deadline in order to complete the work. They did 21 days of hearings in the last 23 days. This committee, in contrast, in the last 2 weeks of February, before the February 29 date, did 1 day of hearing--in the last 2 weeks. The Iran-Contra Committee did 21 out of 23 days. This committee, the Whitewater Committee, has worked at a much more intense pace at an earlier time. Back last summer, in 3 weeks in the latter part of July and the first part of August, the committee held 13 days of hearings. The minority leader, Senator Daschle, did not put out a proposal: Well, you have reached February 29. This is the end of it. In an effort to be reasonable and accommodating, he said, we will agree to an extension of 5 weeks in which to conduct hearings, an additional month beyond that in which to submit the report. Let me point out this committee itself held 13 days of hearings during a 3-week period last summer. The Iran-Contra Committee held 21 days of hearings in less than a 4-week period in July and August 1987. So an intense hearing schedule of that sort is clearly possible. It has been done before. It could be done again. I submit that the proposal offered by the minority leader is a reasonable proposal. It is an effort to provide an accommodation in this matter, allow the committee to continue its work and bring it to an appropriate conclusion, and avoid moving this thing into an election year with a perception, increasing perception, that it is being done for partisan political reasons.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, I think that a very significant statement was made on the floor of the Senate yesterday by the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. Senator Inouye, as we know, chaired the Iran-Contra hearings. He served on the Watergate hearings. And he said yesterday in the course of his remarks--and I am now quoting him--``This Republican extension request''--referring to the resolution that is before us--``is unprecedented, and it is unreasonable.'' Let me repeat that. It ``is unprecedented, and it is unreasonable. The U.S. Senate has never before conducted an open-ended political investigation of a sitting American President during a Presidential election year.'' He is correct on that. This is unprecedented in all the previous inquiries and investigations. My distinguished colleague from Connecticut earlier in the debate put in a table which indicated that all of those inquiries have had fixed dates for their conclusion. Senator Inouye later went on in his statement--referring back to the work of the Iran-Contra Ccommittee, which completed its work actually in significantly less time than is being proposed for this committee-- to say, and I quote him: ``Yes, there were requests by Democrats and Republicans''--this is back at the time when we were going to undertake the Iran-Contra hearings. Yes, there were requests by Democrats and Republicans that we seek an indefinite time limit on the hearings, but the chairman of the House committee, Representative Hamilton, and I, in conjunction with our vice chairs, strongly recommended against an open-ended investigation. We sought to ensure that our investigation was completed in a timely fashion to preserve the committee's bipartisanship and to avoid any exploitation of President Reagan during an election year. At that time, one of the most consistent spokesman that the Iran- Contra inquiry not extend into the election year and not be open ended, as some Democrats, who were in control of the Congress, were intending, one of the most consistent exponents of a limitation in that regard was Senator Dole, who repeatedly, both in this Chamber and in conversations with the media, underscored the point of having a closing date and keeping the matter out of the Presidential election year. What happened was that the Democrats responded to Senator Dole and, in fact, not only agreed to an ending date but moved that date forward to get it even further away from the election year. In fact, Senator Dole recognized and acknowledged that in the course of debate in this Chamber. We have a comparable situation here. In fact, Senator Dole said: I am heartened by what I understand to be the strong commitment of both the chairman and vice chairman to avoid a fishing expedition. I am pleased to note that as a result of a series of discussions which have involved myself, the majority leader and the chairman and vice chairman designate of the committee, we have changed the date on which the committee's authorization will expire. In fact, what they did was they moved it up. That was thanks very much to Senator Inouye's leadership, who, as I said, stated yesterday, and let me just quote him again: We sought to ensure that our investigation was completed in a timely fashion to preserve the committee's bipartisanship and to avoid any exploitation of President Reagan during an election year. When this resolution was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, an essential premise of it was the ending date of February 29. Many of us believed the committee could have completed its work within that timeframe.

Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself the remaining amount of time. Is there 2 additional minutes?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. How much time remains?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to be very clear with respect to the reasonableness of the issue that is before us. When Senate Resolution 120 was adopted, it was adopted and encompassed within it certain premises, all of which are now being departed from or violated by the proposal offered by the Senator from New York. The first premise was that there would be a fixed deadline in the proposal that would seek to keep the inquiry out of the election year. That was the February 29 date, and it was agreed to. We had overwhelming bipartisan support for the resolution that was adopted last year for this inquiry. Regrettably, the majority has now gone down a different track and made impossible, up to this juncture, a further bipartisan concord with respect to this matter. Senate Resolution 120 was consistent with Senate precedents. The proposal that is now before us is a complete departure from Senate precedents. The proposal last year for a fixed-ending date reflected the very argument that Senator Dole made in 1987 with respect to Iran-Contra, where some Democrats wanted to extend it into the election year and he said that would not be a fair and reasonable thing to do. Senator Inouye and others accepted that proposition, and they put on a deadline. It is very important that that be understood. The proposal before us departs from that essential premise. Second, this committee had only 1 day of hearings in the last 2 weeks of its existence in the latter part of February. In Iran-Contra, we held 21 days of hearings in the last 23 days in order to complete the work. The distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, wrote to Senator Dole in mid-January saying the committee should intensify its work through the balance of January and through February in order to complete on schedule. The committee did not do that. Third, this resolution premises that there will be consultation between the majority and the minority. In fact, we had such consultation in the formulation of Senate Resolution 120, and when it was brought to the floor, it had been worked out on the basis of discussions between the majority and the minority. That has not taken place in this instance. In fact, Senator Daschle's letter to Senator Dole remained unanswered for a month period. I know Senator Dole was distracted with other matters, but nevertheless, we are still left with the problem with which we are confronted. Finally, I want to underscore that the Office of Independent Counsel will continue its inquiry. It was an essential premise of the original resolution that we would not come in behind the independent counsel and, in fact, Chairman D'Amato and I wrote to Mr. Starr at the beginning of October to make that very point. It was strongly argued that extending it out would turn it political. Now it is becoming political; we simply have to recognize that. There are editorials around the country that are beginning to say that--here is one from Greensboro: A legitimate probe is becoming a partisan sledgehammer. The Senate Whitewater hearings, led since last July by Senator D'Amato, have served their purpose. It's time to wrap this thing up before the election season. One from a Sacramento paper: Senator D'Amato, the chairman of the Senate Whitewater Committee and chairman of Senator Bob Dole's Presidential campaign in New York, wants to extend his hearings indefinitely or at least, one presumes, until after the November election. In this case, the Democrats have the best of the argument by a country mile. With every passing day, the hearings have looked more like a fishing expedition in the Dead Sea. The minority leader, Senator Daschle, has made a very reasonable proposal. The proposal for an indefinite extension, or this 4 months, which amounts to the same thing, is not reasonable. It is not consistent with the premises on which we got an overwhelming bipartisan consensus to pass the initial inquiry resolution. I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota and then 6 minutes to the Senator from Hawaii. Just before doing that, I want to put an editorial in the Record because sometimes we get caught up in the debate and we do not get them in. I listened to my colleague from New York cite editorials. This one is from Friday, March 8, just this past Friday, from Newsday, from the Nassau County edition of Newsday. I ask unanimous consent that the full editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. SARBANES. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, while the distinguished Senator from Hawaii is still in the Chamber, I commend him for his statement and underscore--underscore--the responsible manner in which he dealt with the Iran-Contra issue. At the time, there were Members of the Congress, a Democratically controlled Congress, who wanted to extend those hearings well into 1988, a Presidential election year, for political purposes. And that was obvious. The Republican leader of the Senate, Senator Dole, strongly urged there be a time limit on the work of the committee. He was fiercely opposed to the notion of an open-ended extension and was very clear in making that point in debate on the floor and off the floor in comments to the media. Senator Inouye, who chaired the special committee in the Senate, and Congressman Hamilton, rejected this proposal by some Democrats to prolong the hearing into the election year and therefore exploit, for political purposes, President Reagan's difficulties, and they settled on a reasonable time period. In fact, they moved it up in response to the representation made to them by Senator Dole. It was Senator Dole at the time who pressed very hard that there should be a reasonable time limit, that it should stay out of the election year. In fact, Senator Dole, on the floor, said: ``I am heartened by what I understand to be the strong commitment of both the chairman and vice chairman to avoid fishing expeditions. I am pleased to note that, as a result of a series of discussions which have involved myself, the majority leader, and the chairman and vice chairman designate of the committee, we have changed the date on which the committee's authorization will expire.'' And they moved it forward. Senator Inouye took the lead in achieving that constructive and responsible result. I simply want to underscore it and contrast it with the situation we are now facing, where we have a proposal, now, for an unlimited time period, an additional $600,000. I yield myself 1 more minute. Furthermore, in order to complete its work, the Iran-Contra Committee, on which I was privileged to serve, under the very distinguished chairmanship of the Senator from Hawaii, held 21 days of hearings in the last 23 days, in late July and August, in order to complete its hearings. Contrast that with the work of this committee, which held 1 day of hearings in the last 2 weeks of its existence in the latter part of February; which held only 8 days of hearings in the entire month of February, whereas the Iran-Contra Committee held 21 days of hearings in order to wind the thing up. The minority leader has made, I think, a very reasonable proposal in terms of providing some additional time to finish this matter up. The committee should intensify its schedule and complete it on time, and it ought to follow the example set by the distinguished Senator from Hawaii when he chaired the Iran-Contra Committee and worked assiduously to keep partisanship and politics out of the inquiry and to keep the inquiry out of the election year. I yield the floor. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the time situation?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will quote from it just very quickly in part. The Senate Whitewater Committee ran out of time and money on February 29, but it still wants to embarrass President Bill Clinton. Senate Democrats threatened to filibuster to keep Chairman Alfonse D'Amato from getting $600,000 to continue an open-ended investigation that could stretch to election day and beyond. The Democrats are right about this. In fact, their counteroffer to Chairman D'Amato of $185,000 to wrap up his inquiry in five weeks, at most--is too generous. After 41 days of public hearings and 121 witnesses, Chairman D'Amato has nothing of substance to show for the $950,000 the committee has already spent. It is time to hand off to Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr and see how far he can carry the ball. Then later on in the editorial they say in the closing paragraph: But no more money for Senate hearings. The Senate Watergate Committee, pursuing impeachable offenses by the Nixon administration, called only 37 witnesses. The joint committees on the Reagan administration's illegal arms deals with Iran and the Nicaragua contras heard a mere 28. The Senate has had enough time for a partisan probe of decade-old Arkansas savings and loan deals. I yield to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1494, the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act. This bill addresses some important and time-sensitive matters in the housing area. S. 1494 extends program authorities that have expired and makes some other needed changes in authorizing statutes. Finally, it provides HUD with the authority to support several national nonprofit organizations that are making a huge difference in America's communities. I thank the other members of the Senate for their support of this legislation. S. 1494 extends several housing authorizations that expired October 1, 1995. Among these are the Community Development Block Grant direct homeownership assistance provisions, the Federal Housing Administration [FHA] multifamily insurance risk-sharing programs, and the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program. Each of these programs is a valuable tool in our efforts to make sure that Americans remain the best-housed people in the world. The program extensions on this bill also include the section 515 rural rental housing program and the set-asides within the program for nonprofit developers and for funding to underserved areas. This authorization is necessary because the Rural Housing Service at the Department of Agriculture has been unable to utilize its $150 million appropriation until an authorization passed. Section 515 provides valuable, low-interest credit to support affordable rental housing in rural areas. The bill also includes authority for the HUD Secretary to spend up to $60 million supporting local nonprofit housing and community development activities. I would like to express my enthusiastic support for these provisions. The bill authorizes $25 million for Habitat for Humanity, $15 million for other similar self-help housing programs, $10 million for the National Community Development Initiative, and $10 million for National Cities in Schools. Habitat for Humanity affiliates have been operating in my State for years and creating homeowners among low-income families. The National Community Development Initiative combines Federal funds with funds from foundations to support capacity building for community-based nonprofits. Two terrific national nonprofit intermediaries--the Enterprise Foundation which is based in Columbia, MD, and the Local Initiatives Support Corporation--are key participants in the NCDI program and are factors in the NCDI program's success. The community-based nonprofit sector is an important and growing part of our delivery system of assistance to distressed communities. I am pleased with the recognition that this bill provides to these efforts. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to highlight the language in the bill that permits HUD to renew expiring Section 8 moderate rehabilitation contracts. This provision overturns language passed on the continuing resolution that prohibited HUD from renewing moderate rehabilitation contracts. Clearly, HUD should not renew contracts on housing that is not decent, safe, and sanitary. Likewise, we are working with HUD to identify ways to reduce the cost of Section 8 contracts where rent levels are excessive. However, HUD needs to take a closer look at all of the developments assisted with project-based rental assistance and make decisions about their futures on a case-by- case basis. Before converting project-based assistance to vouchers, HUD should consider the future viability of the development, the ability of the project to support its existing financing, the availability of affordable housing for voucher holders, and the desirability of retaining long-term, affordable housing in that location.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.

Mr. SARBANES. Ninety-six to three.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am going to be very brief. It would be expected that the assertions would be made that have just been made. The fact is that Senator Daschle offered a perfectly reasonable proposal with respect to this inquiry dealing with Whitewater, and that was to provide an extension into early April. The inquiry was supposed to end at the end of February. That was provided for in the resolution which the Senate passed. The reason that was done was in order to keep this inquiry out of the election year so it would not be subject to a public perception that it was being carried on for political reasons. Now, that concern paralleled a concern that was expressed by the Republican leader, Senator Dole, in 1987, when the Iran-Contra inquiry was undertaken. That was in a Congress controlled by Democrats. It was an inquiry into the activities of a Republican administration. There were Democrats who wanted to carry it on indefinitely through the election year. Senator Dole, at that time the minority leader, was very insistent that it would have a fixed timeframe that would keep it out of the election period. The Democratic Senate responded to that and, in effect, agreed that the inquiry would be brought to an end in the latter part--in fact, in the fall--of 1987, and later we moved that date up in order to keep it even more out of the election year. Now, Senate Resolution 120 provides that the two leaders should get together and discuss any proposal for extending the committee, and I think that ought to be done. The proposal before us is for an indefinite time period. The proposal which my colleague from New York has just put forward, the 4-month proposal, is virtually the equivalent of an indefinite time period. I think there needs to be some reasonableness here, and I think the reasonableness was reflected in the proposal put forward by Senator Daschle, the minority leader, which would have provided that the committee could continue its work into early April and have a month after that in order to do its report. Now newspapers across the country are beginning to editorialize about this matter. These are newspapers ``outside of the beltway'' raising questions. For instance, the Tulsa paper says: How far must taxpayers go? How much must they pay to keep this charade going? The vote in the Senate to extend the investigation probably will be along party lines. If it does, the extra $650,000 should come from the coffers of the Republican party, not from the taxpayers. It is the Republicans, not the taxpayers, who stand to benefit. The Whitewater probe is shaping up to be the longest, most costly fishing trip in American history. These are not my words. I am now quoting what is being said out across the country. Of course, what that does, it substantiates the observation I made that if this thing is prolonged through the election year, it will be increasingly perceived as a political endeavor and it will lose its credibility as a consequence, or even further lose its credibility. The Milwaukee paper said: Last week, Senator Moseley-Braun asked a good question of Senator D'Amato, chairman of the Senate committee that is investigating the Whitewater affair. Could these hearings, she asked wearily, go on into perpetuity? Although D'Amato was really at a loss for words, he could not provide a satisfactory answer to that question, but somebody should. They then go on to make the point that this thing has been dragged on long enough. The Sacramento Bee headline said, ``Enough of Whitewater.'' Senator Alfonse D'Amato, the chairman of the Senate Whitewater Committee and chairman of Senator Bob Dole's Presidential campaign in New York, wants to extend his hearings indefinitely, at least one presumes until after the November elections. In this case, the Democrats have the best of the argument by a country mile. With every passing day, the hearings have looked more like a fishing expedition in the Dead Sea. Now, Senator Daschle, I thought, made a very accommodating proposal. There has been nothing back from the other side to which one can attach the rubric of reasonableness. It seems clear to me that as long as they continue to press for an indefinite period or something that is virtually equivalent to it, we ought to resist it because it simply makes it more transparent that this is a political exercise.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.