Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Current or past, and 50 people, named people over an 18-month period on any subject matter whatsoever. That was the original request. That was not the request that was finally responded to because we were able, by working together, to narrow the request in a way that we were able to limit the number of people, the subject matter, and the time period so it become manageable.

Mr. SARBANES. This was the original thing we were confronted with.

Mr. SARBANES. On the White House staff, yes.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for just a moment on these two Post editorials?

Mr. SARBANES. Would it be--

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Minnesota on the floor. I know he wishes to speak. I want to take a couple of moments because there is one thing my distinguished colleague from Utah made reference to. He talked about the previous hearings and other Congresses when the Congress was Democratically controlled, and I think that is an important point. I just want to come back to revisit the Iran-Contra hearings on which the distinguished Senator from Utah served. As he will recall, at the outset of that, there were Democrats who wanted to extend those hearings into 1988, into the election year. Now, Senator Inouye and Representative Hamilton rejected that proposition and agreed, in response to a very strong representation by Senator Dole for a specific date to end it, and then conducted hearings in a very intense manner in order to accomplish that. Again, I want to make the contrast between the hearings schedule in Iran-Contra in order to meet its cutoff date, which involved 21 hearings between July 7 and August 6. In other words, we had hearings every weekday throughout that period from July 7 to August 6 except for 2 days--21 out of 23 days we held hearings. Contrast that pace, that effort to comply with a requirement that had been passed by the Senate, with what took place over the last 2 months, when this committee in January held only 7 days of hearings--in other words, all of the other days were open to hold hearings, and no hearings were held. The same thing happened in February, where we held only 8 days of hearings. In fact, this committee, over a 2-month period, without the Senate being in session--we had the opportunity to really meet continually--held only 15 days of hearings over a 2-month period; whereas the Iran-Contra Committee, to which my colleague made reference, held 21 days of hearings in a 23-day period. I think this simply demonstrates the effort then in that Congress to keep this matter out of the political election year. It stands in marked contrast to what has transpired over the last 2 months.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I really want to address this suggestion by my colleague from Utah of the double standard and his reference back to Iran-Contra because, if there is any double standard at work, I think it is very amply demonstrated with respect to this proposal now to extend indefinitely this inquiry. Let me go back into that Iran-Contra matter because my colleague from Utah says, well, if this were a Democratically controlled Congress and a Republican administration, you would really be seeing things differently. Now, in early 1987, when Congress was considering establishing a special committee on Iran-Contra, some Members advocated that it have a long timeframe extending right into the 1988 election. There was a conflict between some Democrats both in the House and Senate who wanted no time limitations placed on the committee and Republican Members who wanted the hearings completed within a matter of a few months. It was pointed out at the time, although it really escaped no one's attention, that an investigation that spilled into 1988 would be very political since that was a Presidential election year. Senator Dole was very strong in his comments about the necessity to have a fixed time for the conduct of that inquiry. Now, that is a Republican administration, a Democratic Congress. This is the double standard issue that my colleague raised. He said, and I quote him: If we get bogged down-- This is Senator Dole-- get bogged down in finger pointing; in tearing down the administration--we are just not going to be up to the challenges ahead. All of us--all Americans--will be the losers. And he pressed repeatedly for an ending date for that inquiry. Now, the Democratically controlled Congress responded to that representation, and both Senator Inouye, who was selected to chair the special committee, and Congressman Hamilton, who was selected as its vice chair, recommended rejecting the opportunity to prolong the hearings and to exploit President Reagan's difficulties for political purposes. In fact, they set a termination date, and Senator Dole welcomed that. In fact, he said: I am heartened by what I understand to be the strong commitment of both the chairman and vice chairman to avoid fishing expeditions; and to keep the committee focused on the real issues here. Now, if we do not want a double standard, I ask my Republican colleagues, why will they not respond now as the Democrats responded in 1987? Senator Dole went on to say: We ought to be able to shorten that time, expedite it and complete work on this matter. . . In fact, that is what happened. As I indicated earlier, in order to complete work, the Iran-Contra committee held 21 days of hearings in the last month in order to complete its work, a record that stands in marked contrast with what this committee has done. It has, over a 2-month period here at the end, instead of moving expeditiously in order to finish its work, held only 15 days of hearings. So if you want to talk about a double standard, there is the double standard. The double standard is the comparison between how the Democratically controlled Congress handled the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987 and how the Republican-controlled Senate is seeking to handle the Whitewater hearings in 1996. Now, we agreed in the resolution that was passed last May by an overwhelming bipartisan vote that this inquiry should come to an end on February 29. It is my very strongly held view that, if the committee had intensified its hearings schedule comparable to what the Iran- Contra committee did in 1987 or comparable to the earlier intense effort that this very committee pursued last summer, we could have completed our work by February 29 as provided in the resolution. We could have completed it within the budget and a request for an indefinite extension and for another $600,000 would never have been necessary. Regrettably, that kind of work schedule was not followed. In effect, we had a drawn-out procedure over 2 months when the committee could have been very hard at work, since the Senate was not in session, and we failed therefore to carry through all of the hearings that were being projected. Now, I think the reason we failed is we did not intensify the hearing schedule, and, therefore, I think the responsibility for that rests upon those who were directing the hearings in terms of the schedule they laid out and its lack of intensity. Nevertheless, Senator Daschle, in an effort to be accommodating and reasonable, indicated that he was willing to extend the hearings for another 5 weeks into early April in order for the committee to complete its matters. I regard that as a very reasonable proposal. It has not drawn a response from my Republican colleagues, who continue to adhere and insist upon their original position, which was an indefinite extension of this inquiry into a Presidential election year, thereby virtually guaranteeing that it is going to be a partisan political endeavor. We worked hard to prevent it from being a partisan political endeavor when we established the committee and when we set the parameters of its work, including completion of its work by February 29 of this year--in other words, well before we got into the election year, barely into the primary period. We wanted to bring it to a close so it did not carry on and therefore raise in the public mind, I think, very legitimate questions that this matter was being pressed for political reasons. Prolonging the investigation well into a Presidential election year, in my judgment, cannot help but contribute to a public perception that this investigation is being conducted for political purposes, and that is exactly what is happening. We are now getting editorials in newspapers across the country that are making exactly that point. The Greensboro, NC, paper editorialized: Whitewater Hearing Needs to Wind Down. A legitimate probe is becoming a partisan sledgehammer. The Senate Whitewater hearings, led since last July by Senator Al D'Amato, Republican of New York, have served their purpose. It's time to wrap this thing up before the election season. The Sacramento Bee to the same effect, saying they now want to extend the hearings indefinitely, as they say, ``or at least one presumes until after the November election.'' They go on to make the point that the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, will continue his work on any matters that can be left to him. In fact, it is only the independent counsel who can bring criminal charges in this matter in any event, not something that the Senate committee can do. I think that Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, has put forward a reasonable proposal. The committee ought to be able to conclude its work with a short extension of time. I think that is the path that we ought to follow and avoid pressing this matter throughout the election year and the creating the perception that it is being conducted for political purposes. In fact, Chairman D'Amato, when he went to the Rules Committee last year, stated that--I quote him--``We wanted to keep it out of that political arena, and that is why we decided to come forward with the 1- year request.'' That was the right approach then. It was reflected in the action taken by the full Senate. The majority's proposal now for another $600,000 and an open-ended period of time will project this investigation into the election season, thereby inevitably diminishing public confidence in the impartiality of the inquiry. That is not the right approach. The time suggested by the minority leader should be more than adequate for the Arkansas phase of this investigation. It will save public money and it will complete the job. That is what we ought to be about. The double standard--the double standard--is reflected in the difference in the position of my Republican colleagues with respect to the length of time for this inquiry and the position they took in 1987 with respect to the inquiry in Iran-Contra. It is also reflected in the fact that in 1987, the Democratic majority in the Congress agreed-- agreed--to the representation by our Republican colleagues that we ought to have an end date and not prolong the matter into the political year. Senator Inouye and Chairman Hamilton agreed with that representation. That is the process that we followed. My Republican colleagues refuse now to accede to the same process, thereby clearly applying a double standard to this matter. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. I ask the Senator which is the more reasonable request, if you put it in the context of what occurred in 1987 with respect to the Iran-Contra hearings in which a Democratically controlled Congress was looking into the activities of a Republican administration and had Members who were pressing hard for an open-ended investigation that would carry well into the 1988 political year. The minority leader of the U.S. Senate, then Senator Dole, in early 1987 took a very strong position against an unlimited hearing on that matter, pointing out it would turn into a political exercise in an election year. Senator Inouye, who headed up the select committee on the Senate side, and Chairman Hamilton, from the House side, accepted that argument and agreed to a limited period of time. In fact, later they intensified the schedule in order to finish it earlier in 1987, in August, so it would not carry over into 1988. Now, if you put it in that context, I say to the Senator, is not the proposal made by Senator Daschle an eminently reasonable proposal? I heard talk on the floor today that there is a double standard. Someone got up and said if this were a Republican President now and a Democratic Congress, things would be different. They might well be different. They were different in 1987 when we had a Republican president and a Democratic Congress, and the Democratic Congress then accepted the argument that we did not want to turn it into a political exercise in the 1988 election, and carried through and did the hearings--did 21 days of hearings in 23 days in order to bring the matter to an end. Given that history and placing it in that context, does that not make the proposal of the minority leader, Senator Daschle, seeking to accommodate for the extension of another 5 weeks to do the hearings, a far more reasonable proposition than the proposal of Chairman D'Amato for an indefinite extension of these hearings throughout the election year?

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator would yield on that point, what he said in the debate in early 1987, ``If we get bogged down in finger pointing, in tearing down the President and the administration, we are just not going to be up to the challenges ahead, and all of us, all Americans, will be the losers.'' Let me repeat that, ``and all of us, all Americans, will be the losers.'' As the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, this was an added argument that was made in addition to the argument which was accepted by the Democratic majority that the inquiry ought not to be carried into the election year. There is this the very point that the Senator alluded to just a moment or two ago.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Is the Senator familiar with the request that was made for all communications between anyone on the White House staff, current or past, and 50 named individuals over an 18-month period on any subject whatsoever? Let me repeat that. That was the initial request. For any communication between anyone on the current White House staff or past White House staff and an enumerated list of more than 50 people over an 18-month period on any subject whatsoever. And, of course, the response to that is that this is so broad it is just impossible to comply with. And eventually, by interaction, and so forth, it was narrowed down to more relevant time periods, to more relevant individuals, and to more relevant subjects. And then, once that was done, we were able then in a reasonable period of time to get compliance from the White House. But that is another example along the lines of the 501 area code, which the Senator cited, of the problems we have confronted. Now, as the Senator indicated earlier, I generally joined with the majority in the various document requests, but I refused to do it in those few instances in which the requests were so broad that they literally were not possible reasonably to comply with. And then, over time, eventually we were able to narrow those down, put them in a reasonable framework and then put them forward and get compliance. Now, the White House has now responded to every request that has been made to them as of today with the exception of two new requests made in the last couple of weeks with respect to e-mails. These were additional e-mail requests, beyond the ones that have previously been made. So there has been an effort on their part to comply with some of the most broad and sweeping and onerous requests that I think anyone could imagine.

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly. More than that. More than that. And the White House's response to these overly broad requests is, What can we do with this? We have to get more rationality into the request if we are to respond to it in a reasonable period of time. That has been one of the problems throughout.

Mr. SARBANES. No, no, it was between anyone on the White House staff----

Mr. SARBANES. All I would say to the Senator is that these documents have been furnished to the committee. They have not been concealed from the committee, and they have not been hidden. Now, the people who furnished them said, ``We were late furnishing them for the following reasons.'' Now, you may accept or reject those reasons. And if you want to inquire into the reasons, you are perfectly free to do so. But the fact remains that the committee has these documents. They are now in hand. I have been sitting here listening today to my colleagues recite various aspects of our inquiry. The fact is the matters they have been reciting they can recite because we have gotten documents, we have had hearings, we have had witnesses that we have been able to question, we have taken depositions, and therefore they can get up and talk about these matters--often I think drawing conclusions not warranted by the facts, but leave that to one side--they can talk about these matters because this material has been furnished to the committee. So the fact is now that there has been a tremendous dragnet set out for material and a tremendous amount of material furnished back to the committee, the fact is when we set out on this endeavor last May it was agreed that we would draw it to a conclusion at the end of February. That has been a consistent principle that has been applied to all inquiries and all investigations by the Senate. None of them has been open ended. In 1987, when Democrats pushed for an open-ended hearing, Senator Dole was very strong in saying that should not be done, and the Democrats actually acceded to his representations and a concluding date was set--in fact, quite an early one--and in order to accommodate it, the Iran-Contra committee held 21 days of hearings in the last 23 days of its working period in order to get the job done. Now, as the chairman knows, we urged him in mid January to have an intensified hearing schedule in respect to this matter. We now find ourselves here at the beginning of March. I think that the minority leader has been very forthcoming in proposing an extension of time until the April 3 in order to complete our hearings. And, in any event, I do not regard it as a reasonable proposition to ask for an indefinite time period which is completely contrary to the premise on which we set out. It is completely contrary to the premise of Iran-Contra, and it is completely contrary to the premise of every other inquiry and investigation.

Mr. SARBANES. Let me say to the chairman, let me make a couple of points. First of all, they cite editorials that say do an indefinite extension. I have cited on the floor today editorials that say--let me just quote a couple of them. . . . Whitewater hearing needs to wind down. A legitimate probe is becoming a partisan sledgehammer. . . . The Senate Whitewater hearings, led since last July by Senator Al D'Amato, have served their purpose. It's time to wrap this thing up before the election season. That is the Greensboro, NC, paper. The Sacramento Bee says: With every passing day, the hearings have looked more like a fishing expedition in the Dead Sea. And says these ought not to be extended.

Mr. SARBANES. That is right.

Mr. SARBANES. It is very imaginative, in my opinion. This is a growing body of editorial view about the nature of these hearings. When we agreed to these hearings on a 96 to 3 vote last May, an essential premise was that they would come to a conclusion. In fact, when the chairman went before the Rules Committee, he made the point that he wanted to keep it a year, so it would not extend into the election season. It was very clear that we were not going to defer to Starr and his trial. We were going to carry out our hearings, just the way Iran- Contra carried out their hearings, and Walsh kept going after they concluded their hearings. Iran-Contra did not come in behind the trials. They carried out their hearings and brought them to a close, and, in fact, we stated that to Starr very clearly back on October 2 when we joined and wrote him a letter and said: For these reasons, we believe the concerns expressed in your letter do not outweigh the Senate's strong interest in concluding its investigation and public hearings into the matter specified in Senate Resolution 120 consistent with section 9 of the resolution. And section 9 was the February 29 date. So we were very clear about that, as far back as October. By seeking an indefinite extension, there is a complete change in the ground rules by which the special committee has been operating heretofore. And I say to the chairman, that is part of the basis for the very strong opposition that we have to an indefinite extension of this inquiry. It has not been done before. I commend to you Senator Dole's very strong comments in 1987 on this very issue in which he was very explicit, repeatedly, with respect to this question, and actually to accommodate, the Democratic Congress agreed that we would not extend the inquiry into the election year, thereby politicizing the matter and, I think, increasing the public perception that what is going on is simply a political exercise.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield on that point, there are many people who feel the committee should have done its work within the requirements of Senate Resolution 120, just as Iran-Contra had to do its work within its allotted requirements under the resolution under which it was operating.

Mr. SARBANES. No, I just want you to understand there are some strongly held views of that sort.

Mr. SARBANES. That is right, and we need to examine that up front.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I object.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the issue before us is a resolution that has been reported from the Rules Committee, introduced by Senator D'Amato, the chairman of the Special Whitewater Committee, which would indefinitely extend the special committee and provide another $600,000 over and above the almost million dollars that was provided last year for it to continue its work. The distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, has proposed that the committee's work continue until the 3rd of April with an additional $185,000. The question is really whether the life of this committee ought to be given an indefinite extension throughout the 1996 Presidential election year. I am going to retrace the history of our inquiry with respect to this particular issue, because I am very frank to say that I think the indefinite extension of the work of this committee will only result in politicizing the committee. It will be increasingly perceived by the public as an investigation being conducted for political purposes. Now, that was recognized last year when the resolution establishing the committee was first passed. Last May--on May 17--the Senate adopted Senate Resolution 120, which provided for the establishment of the Special Committee To Investigate the Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters. That resolution, which provided $950,000--almost $1 million to carry out that investigation--provided that the funding would expire on February 29, 1996. The reason it provided that was that from the beginning the intent was to carry out this inquiry in a fair, thorough, and impartial manner, and complete it before the country enters into the Presidential campaign. Therefore, Resolution 120, by authorizing funding only through February 29, accomplished this objective. In fact, the resolution states that the purposes of the committee are ``to expedite the thorough conduct of this investigation, study and hearings'' and ``to engender a high degree of confidence on the part of the public regarding the conduct of such investigation, study and hearings.'' In fact, Chairman D'Amato, before the Rules Committee, stated when funding for the inquiry was being sought, ``We wanted to keep it out of that political arena, and that is why we decided to come forward with the one-year request.'' So it is very important to understand that at the time the resolution was adopted there was a concern about this inquiry becoming a partisan political endeavor. It was very clear that to avoid that it was decided not to extend the inquiry well into the Presidential election year. In fact, the resolution provided that the committee should report to the Senate in mid-January, evaluating its progress and the status of the investigation. When that report was made, regrettably the majority took the position they needed an unlimited extension of the inquiry-- unlimited. In other words, it could go throughout 1996. The minority took the position--and this was back in mid-January-- that the committee should complete its investigation by the date contained in the resolution; namely, the 29th of February. We argued in that report, ``It is well within the ability of the committee to complete its investigation by the February 29th date provided for in the resolution. The committee should undertake a schedule for the next 6 weeks that will enable it to meet that objective.'' In fact, the Senate leadership had announced that the Senate would not be in regular voting sessions from the period of mid-January until near the end of February, and without any competing legislative business, it was our view that the committee could devote full attention of this investigation, hold an intense series of hearings and complete its inquiry on schedule--on schedule--and within budget as provided for in Senate Resolution 120 which this body adopted last May on a vote of 96-3. It was possible for the committee to have met 4 or 5 days a week, a pace the committee has on previous instances followed. This very same committee has followed that pace on other occasions. That would have given the committee the opportunity to do the Arkansas phase of the inquiry, part of which remained to be completed, the committee having largely completed the work on the Foster papers phase and the Washington phase. Now, between July and August of last year, between July 18 and August 10, at a time when the Senate was in session and Members were handling extensive legislative business, this special committee held 13 days of public hearings and examined 34 witnesses. That is a period of 3 weeks last summer, this committee, working hard, held 13 days of public hearings and examined 34 witnesses. The Iran-Contra committee, which I will turn to in a bit to make some other contrasts, held 21 days of hearings back in 1987 between July 7 and August 6 in order to complete its work. Now, there is an important reason not to carry this matter well into a Presidential election year. By authorizing the funding only through February 29, Senate Resolution 120 stated that the purpose was to engender a high degree of confidence on the part of the public regarding the conduct of such investigation, study and hearings. Extending the life of the committee beyond that date, and in particular extending it for an indefinite period of time would undermine this objective. Inevitably, in my judgment, it would diminish public confidence in the impartiality of this inquiry. Now, regrettably, an intensification of the hearing schedule was not pursued through January and February. So we came to the end of February and the majority, now led by Chairman D'Amato, has proposed an unlimited extension of time to continue the Senate investigation. That proposal was reported out of both the Banking Committee and the Rules Committee on a straight partisan vote, in contrast to the vote on Senate Resolution 120 last May. The minority proposed an alternative. We took the position in mid- January that this inquiry could be finished by the end of February, pursuant to Senate Resolution 120, but the kind of hearing schedule that would have been necessary to accomplish that was regrettably never adopted. In fact, we have a situation in which in the 2-month period, we saw opportunities to conduct hearings simply pass by. In January, we held one hearing this week, two hearings this week, two this week, two that week. So we held seven hearings in the entire month of January. January--seven hearings. I remind Senators that last summer this very same committee in the period between July 18 and August 10, a period of 3 weeks, held 13 days of public hearings, 13 days of public hearings. The Iran-Contra committee, in a month, held 21 days of public hearings. Mr. President, seven hearings in the month of January; the pace in February was the same. The month of February we held eight hearings. All of these opportunities to hold hearings on all these other days did not take place, and in the last 2 weeks we held 1 day of hearings out of nine possibilities. So we came to the end of February not having intensified the hearing schedule, and Chairman D'Amato and the majority now propose an indefinite extension of the hearing schedule. Additional funding, $600,000, which, of course, would bring Senate expenditures on the investigation of Whitewater matters to $2 million-- $400,000 in the previous Congress, $950,000 thus far by this committee, and an additional $600,000. Now, of course, that does not take into account the money spent by the independent counsel, which is now understood to be above $25 million, and increasing at about the rate of $1 million a month; or the money spent by the RTC on a civil investigation carried out by the Pillsbury Madison firm, which comes in at just under $4 million. We have no firm figure on the amount spent by House committees looking into the Whitewater matter, nor a figure for the money spent by Federal agencies assisting with or responding to these investigations. In any event, it is very clear that the amount spent in total, including all of these various sources, is over $30 million. Senator Daschle wrote to Senator Dole on the 23d of January, at the time the report was filed, in which the minority argued very strongly that the committee should undertake an intensified hearing schedule in the final 6 weeks, to complete its investigation by the February 29 date, and said in his letter, and I am quoting Senator Daschle now: It is well within the special committee's ability to complete its inquiry by February 29. The committee can and should adopt a hearing schedule over the next 6 weeks that will enable it to meet the Senate's designated timetable. As I indicated, no serious effort to intensify the hearing schedule in order to meet the February 29th deadline occurred. In fact, in the last week no hearing whatever was held. In the week before, only one hearing was held. In other weeks, more hearings were held, two hearings, maybe three hearings, but often with witnesses who had little new to contribute to the investigation. Senator Daschle has put forth an alternative proposal in an effort, really, to demonstrate reasonableness, with respect to the work of the committee, and that is to provide an additional 5 weeks, until April 3, for the special committee to complete its hearing schedule, and until May 10 for the committee to complete its final report and to pay for this extra time by additional funding of $185,000. In my view, 5 weeks of additional hearings should be more than adequate to complete the so-called Arkansas phase of this investigation, a phase which concerns events that occurred in Arkansas some 10 years ago, events which have been widely reported on since the 1992 Presidential campaign, about which much is already known. So, in an effort to reach an understanding, Senator Daschle said we felt that you could have completed your work by the deadline, by February 29, as was enacted by the Senate last May when they passed the resolution establishing the committee. That represented the judgment and the consensus of this body in passing that resolution 96 to 3. And when we reached the mid-January point, it was clearly stressed that an intensified schedule would enable the committee to complete its work on time and within budget. That did not happen. We did not get that intensification of schedule. Now we come, having passed the 29th of February, with Chairman D'Amato and the majority arguing that they now want an indefinite extension of this inquiry. I think the proposal put forth by the minority leader, Senator Daschle, is an eminently reasonable one. Regrettably, it was rejected in the Banking Committee on a straight party-line vote and rejected again in the Rules Committee by a straight party-line vote. In other words, the Democratic position was, we are willing to provide a limited extension in order to finish up the things that you assert are not yet done and will provide a limited amount of time. We do not want to, in effect, commit $600,000, but we will commit $185,000. Let me compare and contrast the procedure that has been followed with respect to this resolution and the question of its extension with what occurred on the Iran-Contra hearings which took place in 1987, namely the year preceding a Presidential election year, just as 1995 precedes a Presidential election year. In considering a resolution with respect to Iran-Contra, Senator Dole took the very strong position that the inquiry ought not to extend into the Presidential election year. In fact, in early 1987, when Congress was considering establishing a special committee on Iran-Contra, some advocated that it have a long timeframe, extending into 1988, in order to complete its work. There was a conflict between some Democrats in the House and Senate who wanted no time limitations placed on the committee, and Republican Members, led by Senator Dole, who wanted the hearings completed within 2 or 3 months. And, of course, it was pointed out at the time, and escaped no one's attention, that an investigation that spilled into 1988 would only place the Republicans in a defensive posture during the Presidential election year. Senator Inouye, who was selected to chair the special committee, and Congressman Hamilton, who was selected as its vice chairman, recommended at the time rejecting the opportunity to prolong, and thereby exploit for political purposes, President Reagan's difficulties. They determined, in fact, that 10 months would provide enough time to carry out the inquiry, and that was the requirement under which the Iran-Contra Committee moved forward. In fact, during the Senate debate on the resolution to establish a select committee on Iran-Contra, Senator Dole noted the good-faith effort of these two congressional leaders to have the committee complete its work in a timely manner. He stated: I am heartened by what I understand to be the strong commitment of both the chairman and vice chairman to avoid fishing expeditions and to keep the committee focused on the real issues here. And the time period then was shortened from what many had been proposing in order to expedite and complete work on the matter and not carry it into the 1988 election year. Senator Dole argued during floor debate that the country had many other matters to deal with, and stated: With all these policy decisions facing us, the Senate--and the country, for that matter--cannot afford to be consumed by the Iranian arms sales affair. So the Senate, when it passed the resolution, established a termination date well before the end of 1987. The termination date in our resolution was in February 1996. But it was recognized that that was to avoid going further into a Presidential election year. In doing that, Senator Dole said: There is still a national agenda that needs to be pursued. There are a number of issues that must be addressed, and the American people are concerned about the Iran-Contra matter. But they are also concerned about the budget, about the trade bill, about health care, and a whole host of issues that we will have to address in this Chamber. He went on to say: The problems of the past, as important as they are, are not as important as the future. And, further, if we get bogged down in finger pointing, in tearing down the President and the administration, we are just not going to be up to the challenges ahead, and all of us--all Americans--will be the losers. I want to compare these two ways of proceeding because it was debated at the time of Iran-Contra, and recognized some push to extend it into 1988 and into the Presidential election year. That was very strongly opposed by Senator Dole, and by his colleagues. In the end, Senator Inouye and Representative Hamilton turned down the opportunity to prolong the inquiry into the election year and extend it for political purposes. This Senate last May took, in effect, the same position by establishing the February 29, 1996 date. We have now reached that date. And we find the majority asking for an unlimited extension of this inquiry after we have been through a period in which neither in January nor in February did the committee embark upon an intense hearing schedule in order to finish its work by the cutoff date. As I have indicated, we had hearings only 8 days in the month of February, a month when the Senate was not in session. And, therefore, when it was possible to really devote all day every day to this issue, there were no hearings in the last week in February--only one hearing in the next to the last week. And in the month of January, once again, many days without any hearings by the special committee, 7 days of hearings out of the entire month, 8 days in February. That is a total of 15 days over 2 months. As I indicated earlier, this very committee last summer in the latter part of July and the first part of August--over a 3-week period--held 13 days of hearings. But let us compare it with Iran-Contra because that was a situation in which the Democrats controlled the Congress. There was a Republican administration. The question then was, what was fair in terms of carrying out this inquiry, and how far should it extend into the Presidential election year? And the Democrats took the position that they were not going to extend it into the Presidential election year. They were going to try to keep politics out of the inquiry. Obviously, the further it goes into a Presidential election year, the more politics will come into the inquiry. And there is just no doubt about that, and the more the public's confidence in the impartiality of the inquiry will be eroded. In 1987, in order to meet this schedule, the Iran-Contra committee held 21 days of hearings between July 7 and August 6. It met literally every Monday through Friday with three exceptions over a 5-week period. So there was an intense set of hearings in order to carry through on the undertaking that had been made to finish up its work in a timely fashion and avoid keeping the matter out of the 1988 Presidential election year--21 days of hearings with only three open days during that period so it could complete its hearing work within the timeframe set forth in the resolution which established it; 21 days of hearings. Contrast that--the undertaking made by the Democratic Congress then dealing with a Republican administration to honor the effort to keep it out of the election year and out of the political context and not to have it turn into a partisan endeavor. Contrast this hearing schedule-- 21 days of hearings in a 1-month period--with a hearing schedule that has been pursued by this committee over the last 2 months. There were only 8 days of hearings in February, and only 7 days of hearings in January for a total of 15; 15 days over 2 months when Iran-Contra had 21 days in a month and finished up its work to honor the undertaking not to project it into a political year. My own view is that the committee could and should have finished its work by the 29th of February as it was charged to do by the resolution that was adopted by this body last May. I think that was well within the ability of the committee. It did not happen. We are now confronted with a situation in which Chairman D'Amato and his colleagues seek an unlimited extension of the work of the committee. Senator Daschle indicated on the 23d of January that he thought the committee could complete its work by February 29. Now he has prepared and has offered an alternative in an effort to accommodate providing some additional time and funding for the committee to carry on its work. In other words, we felt the committee should have finished by February 29. They did not follow a schedule in order to do that. The question is, what now? Senator Daschle, in an effort to accommodate, proposed providing additional weeks of hearings, until April 3 to complete a hearing schedule, until May 10 to complete a final report, and funding to carry out this work of $185,000 as contrasted with the $600,000 that Chairman D'Amato is seeking for an indefinite extension of the work of the committee. In other words, an extension that can go throughout 1996 and obviously right into the Presidential campaign--an extension which, in my judgment, by prolonging the investigation well into a Presidential election year, will contribute to a public perception that the investigation is being conducted for political purposes. It needs to be understood, of course, that the independent counsel's inquiry will continue. The independent counsel operates under, in effect, his own statute. He has unlimited funding. So that inquiry will go on as long as the independent counsel deems that it should go on. Judge Walsh, as we know, went on many, many years with respect to Iran- Contra and, in fact, continued his work after the hearings were concluded. These hearings have never been related to the work of the independent counsel because the independent counsel is on a separate track. As we saw in Iran-Contra, those hearings ended in the latter part of 1987, but the independent counsel continued his work. Of course the work of the current independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, will go forward. He was given broad authority by a special panel of Federal judges to investigate Whitewater. He has a staff that eclipses anything that is available to any other inquiry that is now going on--we understand 30 attorneys and over 100 FBI and IRS agents; and the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act sets no cap on the cost of his investigation, which has been over $25 million thus far. So, in fact, many have raised the point: Let the independent counsel do the inquiry, on the premise that that is a less political arena than hearings conducted here in the Congress, particularly hearings that go into the election year itself, so you have politicians looking at politicians in a political year, and that is almost certain to guarantee a political endeavor. Now, in addition, it is important to realize that the RTC- commissioned report, the comprehensive report by an independent law firm, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, headed by a former Republican U.S. attorney, Jay Stephens, that report has now been made public. It cost almost $4 million. And the conclusion transmitted to the RTC was that they found no basis on which the RTC should bring any actions, civil actions, with respect to the various matters which they investigated. That represents a very thorough and comprehensive review. Let me turn for a moment to the argument about requiring an open- ended extension in order to get more material. It is my understanding that the White House has now provided all material requested with the exception of those further requests made to it by the special committee over the last 2 or 3 weeks. A great to-do is made about material that has been provided 2 weeks ago, a month ago, in early January. But the important thing to remember is that that material was provided; so it was made available to the committee. People raise a lot of commotion about the fact that Mr. Gearan's notes were not provided earlier on. Well, they were provided. He has an explanation as to why they were not provided earlier on. In any event, the committee got them, reviewed them, and held a hearing with Mr. Gearan, an all-day hearing, in which we went over those notes. The same thing is true of the notes with respect to Mr. Ickes. On March 6, today, Jane Sherburne, the special counsel to the President, sent a letter to Chairman D'Amato and to me as the ranking member in which she states the following, and I am quoting the letter: Since the issuance of the Special Committee subpoena on October 30, 1995, the White House has received some 30 new requests from the Chairman. This letter summarizes the status of our response to those requests. We have provided responses to every request with the exception of two new requests for e-mail made by the Chairman in February after we reached what we had understood was the Committee's finalized e-mail request memorialized in my letter to the Committee on January 23, 1996. One of these additional e-mail requests relates to the discovery of copies of Rose Law Firm billing records which were provided to the committee on January 5, 1996, 2 weeks before the Committee staff finalized its e-mail request. The other outstanding e-mail request relates to the period January 3 through January 12, 1994. This request was first made on February 16, 1996, but without the necessary detail to conduct the retrieval process. The detail was later provided by staff orally. As you are aware, the Executive Office of the President already has incurred over $138,000 in out-of-pocket costs for the e-mail described in my January 23, 1996, letter. Although we retrieved and reviewed 10 boxes of e-mails, this effort produced nothing of use to the committee's inquiry. Nonetheless, we are undertaking to respond to the new requests and hope to provide you with the results shortly. Those are additional requests that were made. The original e-mail requests--well, the original request was so broad that no one really reasonably could be expected to respond to it, and after extended discussions, we were able to reach an agreement to focus those e-mail requests and to narrow them down, and they now have all been provided. In addition, the White House undertook to verify that all documents provided to the counsel's office by White House staff beginning in March 1994 had been reviewed and produced to the committee as responsive. They also undertook to verify that all relevant White House files of certain former White House officials that may contain responsive material had been reviewed. So they undertook to go back and scrub down the files as a consequence of a couple of these late- arriving requests. As a consequence of that work, some additional material--not much-- has been provided to the committee. Most of them are copies or duplicates of matters that had previously been produced to the committee. But that material has also now been received by the committee. So the committee now has all of this material in hand, which seems to me argues very strongly for an approach as the one contained in that put forth by the minority leader, by Senator Daschle, which would provide the committee an extension of 5 weeks from the termination date in order to complete its inquiry, some additional time in order to do its report, and would really serve to keep this matter out of the election year. There has been no counterresponse to that proposal of the distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle. I mean, the original proposition put forward by Chairman D'Amato was an indefinite extension and $600,000. Senator Daschle and his colleagues on this side of the aisle indicated that that was unacceptable because it would really politicize this inquiry even further in an election year and guarantee that it would turn into a partisan political endeavor. The Democrats did not seek to do that with Iran-Contra in 1987, and I am frank to say I do not think the Republicans should seek to do that with Whitewater in 1996. The leader, faced with this proposal for an unlimited extension, offered what I think was a very reasonable proposal. That is for an extension until the 3d of April for hearings and until the 10th of May for the report. That has not elicited any response from my colleagues on the other side other than simply to press forward with their original proposal, which was for an indefinite extension and an additional $600,000. As we have indicated, Mr. President, we do not think that is necessary or required. We believe an indefinite proposal would make this inquiry simply a partisan political endeavor. We note that while the original resolution was passed by a very overwhelming bipartisan vote of 96 to 3, the proposal for an unlimited extension is moving along simply on the basis of a straight party vote. We do not believe that is the way this matter should be handled. I urge my colleagues on the other side to look again at the proposal put forth by the minority leader, which I think represents a very reasonable proposition. I yield the floor. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I always enjoy the opportunity for an exchange with my distinguished colleague from Utah. I listened carefully as he quoted from the Washington Post editorial headed ``Extend the Whitewater Committee.'' The Post then, in a subsequent editorial headed ``Extend, But With Limits,'' said: . . . but the Senate should require the committee to complete its work and produce a final report by a fixed date. It then goes on to say, and this may, in effect, get into the area that the Senator was perhaps suggesting in his comments because I listened very carefully and as I made the point myself, the proposal we had from the other side was an unlimited extension.