Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. The distinguished Democratic leader said, ``Well, we can't agree to an unlimited extension, but we are prepared to offer carrying it forward.'' We have heard nothing back with respect to that. So that is the play on this issue. This editorial said: Democrats want to keep the committee on a short leash by extending hearings to April 3rd with a final report to follow by May 10th. A limited extension makes sense, but an unreasonably short deadline does not. Five weeks may not be enough time for the committee to do a credible job. Instead, the Senate should give the committee more running room, but aim for ending the entire proceeding before summer when the campaign season really heats up. That would argue for permitting the probe to continue through April or early May. And, of course, we had suggested April 3. I know the Senator has quoted some editorials that say go on with this thing. There are other editorials, of course, which take just the opposite point of view.

Mr. SARBANES. I certainly yield to my colleague.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, let me point out that there are other editorial comments around the country which actually think this should end right now, period. The Sacramento Bee on March 2 had an editorial, ``Enough of Whitewater.'' Let me quote a couple of paragraphs: 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, or at least one presumes until after the November elections. The committee's authorization and funding ran out Thursday, and the Democrats, in part for related political reasons, want to shut the committee hearings down. 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. I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of that editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, finally an editorial in the Atlanta Constitution which calls for bringing this inquiry to an end. It goes on to point out, ``one, that a recent Resolution Trust Corporation investigation found no hint of impropriety by the Clintons regarding their Whitewater involvement.'' It goes on to say: The first couple is still under investigation by Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, a former Reagan Justice Department official, who can be expected to scrutinize the Clinton's legal and business affairs rigorously. Any additional sleuthing by Senator D'Amato would be a waste of taxpayers' money. I ask unanimous consent that that editorial be printed in the Record as well.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the Greensboro, NC, News and Record had an editorial headed ``Whitewater Hearing Needs To Wind Down.'' Let me just quote a couple of paragraphs from that: A legitimate probe is becoming a partisan sledgehammer. Let me repeat that: A legitimate probe is becoming a partisan sledgehammer. The Senate Whitewater hearings, led since last July by Senator Al D'Amato (R-NY), have served their purpose. It's time to wrap this thing up before the election season. Then they end that editorial with this comment: Let the GOP use the fruits of D'Amato's labors as they will in the coming campaign, but don't let the opposition party run a smear campaign at public expense. I ask unanimous consent that that editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent that these two editorials from the Washington Post, that were cited, be printed in the Record, because one of them says: . . . the Senate should require the committee to complete its work and produce a final report by a fixed date. And later it says: That would argue for permitting the probe to continue through April or early May. The other says: The Whitewater committee should be empowered to do just that . . . That is, factfinding within a reasonable time and it suggests 2 additional months. So both of these editorials reject the notion that we should have an indefinite extension of this hearing. I ask unanimous consent that the two editorials be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, in view of the fact that my distinguished colleague from Alabama was quoting the Washington Post editorial, I would like to include in the Record after his remarks the Post editorial from February--both of these editorials come after the one he was citing--February 29 in which the Post said the ``Senate should require the committee to complete its work and produce a final report by a fixed date.'' I underscore ``by a fixed date.'' And then it goes on to say, ``That would argue for permitting the probe to continue through April or early May.'' And in their other editorial of March 4, they say, ``The Whitewater committee should be empowered to do just that''--that is factfinding-- ``but within a reasonable time.'' And it goes on to say, ``Two additional months'' constitutes a reasonable time. I ask unanimous consent that both of these editorials, since they, in fact, make a different point than the one that was being made by my colleague from Alabama, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I listened to Senator D'Amato, the chairman of the Whitewater Committee, with great interest. I want to say that the unreasonable element in this current situation is a request for an indefinite extension of the work of the committee. That was not the premise on which the committee was established in Senate Resolution 120. In fact, it is very clear that in Senate Resolution 120 we agreed to a termination date just as we did in the Iran-Contra investigation at the strong urging of Senator Dole who at that time was the minority leader and who pressed the Democratic majority at that time in the Senate and the House to have a closing date on the inquiry in order to avoid making it a political exercise in a Presidential election year in 1988. That is exactly what we sought to do here by having a termination date of February 29, 1996, and the request that has been made is for an indefinite extension. The minority leader, Senator Daschle, has responded to that by proposing a limited time period. But the proposal before us that was brought first from the Banking Committee, and then by the Rules Committee, on a straight partisan vote is for an indefinite time period in order to carry out this inquiry. And, as I have indicated, this is perceived as unreasonable. I know of no plot, as my colleague suggested, to denigrate Senators. Certainly no one on this side of the aisle is involved in any such endeavor. I want to establish that in a very clear fashion. Two things have been argued. One is we have not gotten all of the material in, and, therefore, we need to extend. Of course, Senator Daschle proposed a period of time for extension. I just observe that the material is all now in. We got these notes. We had hearings on these notes. I have to take the explanations as they come. The Lindsey notes constitute three pages. This is what came. That is the extent of it. These notes, in fact, corroborate what has previously been available to the committee. Let me just read the note that comes from their counsel. It says: Following a recent Senate committee hearing in which questions were raised as to whether a January 10, 1994 memorandum from Harold Ickes was copied to other White House officials and whether they had produced their copies of such documents in response to the committee's request, Mr. Lindsey and this firm undertook a review of all our prior document productions. And I think it is important to point out that there have been very extensive prior document productions. With respect to the January 10th memorandum, we found that an identical copy of the document produced to the committee by Mr. Ickes was in Mr. Lindsey's White House files and had been produced by Mr. Lindsey to the White House Counsel's office January 1995 for review with regard to executive privilege and other issues. In the course of this review, we have identified two other documents in our files which inadvertently were not produced to you, or the White House Counsel's Office, earlier and which are attached. Those are these three pages of notes. And he then goes on to say: First, while Mr. Lindsey previously informed your committee that he did not recall taking any notes as of November 5, 1993 with Mr. David Kendall and other counsel for the President, our recent review has located some very brief handwritten notes set forth as attachment A here, to which Mr. Lindsey did write at that meeting but did not previously recall. As you will see, these brief notes are completely consistent with the testimony of Mr. Lindsey and others, and the Kennedy notes of the same meeting presented to your committee about that meeting. You may want to go at one or another of these people for not producing the documents early but the fact is the document had been produced--the Gearan document. Then we had a full day of hearing on those documents. And the same thing, of course, is true with respect to the Ickes notes. So those matters have been furnished to the committee. And, as I understand it, now every request made by the committee to the White House has been responded to with the exception of two new requests for e-mail that the chairman made in the latter part of February that have not yet been responded to. Those two e-mail requests are pending, and the White House has indicated that it will provide them to the committee as soon as it is able to prepare them and furnish them to the committee.

Mr. SARBANES. Sure.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, they state that in the letter. They are not trying to conceal that fact.

Mr. SARBANES. They are very up front about saying ``previously informed your committee that he did not recall taking any notes.''

Mr. SARBANES. And he now says they have found these brief handwritten notes.

Mr. SARBANES. Yes.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator puts the proposal to recess, Senator Pell has been on the floor for quite a period of time today. We would like for him to be able to make his statement before the Senate goes out this evening.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. What about----

Mr. SARBANES. Yes, but you are----

Mr. SARBANES. Because the Senator continues citing it, yet the editorial very clearly states the Senate should require the committee to complete its work and produce a final report by a fixed date. That is the essential difference between the two sides. You want an indefinite hearing, and we have suggested that there be a fixed date, just like I say to the Senator from Alaska there was in Iran-Contra, which is exactly the position that Senator Dole took at that time and which was acceded to by the Democratic Congress. This editorial is consistently being cited by my colleague from New York, and yet the editorial says, in very clear terms, the Senate should require the committee to complete its work and produce a final report by a fixed date, a matter with which the Senator, as I understand it, disagrees.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. That is the next point I want to address. The fact of the matter is the committee has now received from the White House virtually everything that has been requested. There are a couple of weeks----

Mr. SARBANES. Of course Iran-Contra involved sending investigators overseas, if you recall, both to the Middle East and to South America.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. No, Lasater.

Mr. SARBANES. Why don't you do it. You had all these days when you could have done it, and you did not do it. Why don't you bring him in?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to designate the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland as a National Heritage Area. The purpose of this legislation is to help conserve and promote the resources of the region's communities and their unique contribution to the fabric of the Nation, while revitalizing its local economies and improving its overall quality of life. The Lower Eastern Shore is a very special place. It contains an unrivaled combination of resources and history which represent a unique and integral piece of the diverse tapestry of our national character. Situated on the Delmarva Peninsula between the Atlantic Ocean and the Chesapeake Bay--the largest and most productive estuary in North America, its nationally significant natural resources also include the Coastal Bays--Chincoteague, Sinepuxent, Isle of Wright, and Assawoman; the Wild and Scenic Pocomoke River; and one of the few relatively undisturbed strands of barriers islands on the east coast--to name only a few. Its unique land and water resources contain an extraordinary variety of habitat types--from old growth forests to cypress swamps-- and a tremendous diversity of flora and fauna. The Lower Eastern Shore has played an important role in the history and culture of our Nation from the earliest native American, African- American, and European-American settlements. Evidence of the Lower Shore's past is featured prominently in its daily life--including its watermen who for centuries have sailed the Bay's waters in the legendary Skipjacks--the last commercial sailing fleet left in North America--Bugeyes, and other vessels harvesting oysters, crabs, and fish. The area is recognized as the country's original historic and cultural center for the shell fishing industry. It holds the birth rights to the uniquely American art form of decoy carving through the internationally-recognized work of Lemuel and Steve Ward. The agriculture and water-related industries which flourished throughout the 1700's and 1800's, still contribute heavily to the regional economy. Many of the towns and communities on the Lower Shore including Crisfield, Deal Island, Smith Island, Snow Hill, and Princess Anne look much the same today as they did almost two centuries ago--and their numerous buildings and sites on the National Register of Historic Places still serve as important reminders of the history of the area. The Lower Eastern Shore also boasts a wide array of national recreational amenities including: Ocean City, one of the Nation's premier ocean resorts; the Assateague Island National Seashore, one of the few pristine and unspoiled seashores remaining on the east coast; the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, home to the largest population of bald eagles east of the Mississippi River; and the Beach to Bay Indian National Recreational Trail. Over 10 million tourists visit the area each year to enjoy not only the scenic waterways and recreational draws, but also the historic sites and cultural attractions. Five years ago, State and local government officials, area residents, the National Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the University of Maryland-Eastern Shore, businesses, and other private organizations joined together to harness and at the same time protect this area's distinctive potential. This was one of the early efforts in a growing national movement of concerned individuals, organizations, and governments working together to develop a vision for the future of an area distinguished by its resources, communities, and ways of life. Through that effort, a regional public-private partnership was formed and the Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Committee has prepared and begun to implement a plan which is already showing results in the conservation, preservation, and the revitalization of the Lower Shore counties. The bill which I have introduced will provide further impetus for the successful implementation of a heritage conservation and development plan, while providing the Lower Eastern Shore with the important national recognition it deserves. This legislation is not designed to create a new national park or in any way change existing authorities of Federal, State and local governments to regulate the use of land as provided for by current law or regulations. Rather, it provides Federal technical assistance and grants and seed moneys at the grassroots level to foster Federal, State, and local partnerships, and promote and protect the unique characteristics of the area. The Lower Eastern Shore Heritage initiative has been endorsed by a number of communities and organizations including the town of Berlin, the city of Crisfield, Pocomoke City, the town of Princess Anne, the town of Snow Hill, the Beach to Bay Indian Trail Committee, the Pocomoke River Alliance, the Greater Crisfield Marketing Authority, the Jenkins Creek Environmental Research Center, Wicomico, Worcester, and Somerest County tourism offices, and local chambers of commerce. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and a section- by-section analysis be included in the Record. It is my hope that this bill can be included as part of the broader National Heritage Area legislation which is working its way through the Congress.