Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. In the course of it he says, and let me just quote it: It would be foolish to expect a congressional investigation to be above politics. But at what point, in a decent democracy, does politics have to yield to objectivity? At what point does rumor have to retreat before truth? In Whitewater that point would seem to have been reached when we have had an independent, exhaustive study of the case under the supervision of a former Republican U.S. attorney, Jay Stephens. Of course, he is referring there to the study that was commissioned by the RTC, from the Pillsbury, Madison, Sutro law firm. He goes on a little later in that editorial to say: That official report is in, but hardly anyone who has been surfing the Whitewater headlines will know of it. It has been ignored by both the Republicans and a media hungry for scandal. The Stephens report provides a blow-by-blow account of virtually every charge involved in the Whitewater saga. Let us put the conclusions firmly on the record. The quotes below are directly from the Stephens report. And he then goes through questions that were raised about various activities and the conclusions of the report. And then goes on to say: The report concludes: On this record there is no basis to charge the Clintons with any kind of primary liability for fraud or intentional misconduct. This investigation has revealed no evidence to support any such claims. Nor would the record support any claim of secondary or derivative liability for the possible misdeeds of others. Stephens's firm--Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro--spent two years and almost $4 million to reach its conclusions and recommended that no further resources be expended on the Whitewater part of this investigation. Pillsbury, Madison actually asked for a tolling agreement from the Rose Law Firm at the end of December, because of some new material that had come out. And then subsequent to that we received the billing records of Mrs. Clinton from the Rose firm. Other matters came of public record, and they examined all of those before they submitted their final report, which has just come in today. In that report they conclude, as they had concluded earlier, that there was no basis on any of the matters they investigated--and they went carefully through quite a long litany of them-- . . . no basis on which to charge the Clintons with any kind of primary liability for fraud or intentional conduct, nor would the record support any claim of secondary or derivative liability for the possible misdeeds of others. This report needs, obviously, to be carefully examined by my colleagues. It is a very important report; $4 million of public money was expended on it. And it reached the conclusions which I have just outlined. Mr. President, I think the proposal that Senator Daschle has put forward is an eminently reasonable proposal. It is argued, on the one hand, we need even an indefinite time because we need to get more material. The material has now all come--an extraordinary request for material, some of it delayed, in my judgment, because of how far- reaching and onerous the document requests were. Other items were delayed because people misplaced them, did not find them. They have now been provided to the committee. The other argument that is made, which is an interesting argument given the record of this committee, is that we now need to await the trial in Arkansas. It was recognized in Senate Resolution 120 that the independent counsel was already at work, and it was never anticipated that the committee would defer its work to the independent counsel in such a way as to go beyond the February 29 deadline. In fact, when the independent counsel in September of last year indicated to the committee to forbear until some unspecified time any investigation and public hearings into many of the matters specified in Senate Resolution 120, we rejected that in a joint letter which Senator D'Amato and I sent to Mr. Starr. We stated: We have now determined that the special committee should not delay its investigation of the remaining matters specified in Senate Resolution 120. We went on to say: We believe that the concerns expressed in your letter do not outweigh the Senate's strong interest in concluding its investigation and public hearings into the matters specified in Senate Resolution 120 consistent with section 9 of the resolution. Section 9 is the provision of the resolution which called for the February 29 concluding date for the work of this committee. And we went on to say: Accordingly, we have determined that the special committee will begin its next round of public hearings in late October of 1995. This round of hearings will focus primarily on the matters specified in section (1)(b)(2) of Senate Resolution 120, and through the remainder of this year the special committee will investigate the remaining matters specified in Senate Resolution 120 with the intention of holding public hearings thereon beginning in January 1996. That was our position then. I thought it was a correct position. It was not anticipated that the committee would defer its work until after the independent counsel has pursued his trials. It is now said this trial. But he has other trials in the offing as well, all of which, of course, would serve to carry this inquiry on into infinity. Just to underscore it with respect to Mr. Hale because we, the minority, have pressed repeatedly throughout for bringing Mr. Hale in, seeking through subpoena to obtain his documents--and that has consistently been delayed--this issue was considered at a hearing on the 28th of November, and Chairman D'Amato said the following. I now quote: I would like to bring him, Hale, in sooner rather than later so that he can testify and so that he can be examined. If we drag this, if this matter is dragged out into February or later, I believe legitimate questions can be raised as to why bringing him in so late and getting into next year and the political season--and I think that is a very legitimate concern of this committee--both Democrats and Republicans and I would like to avoid that. It certainly was a legitimate concern and the effort to press to move on the Hale matter never was realized. The minority staff continually sent memoranda to the majority about Hale and nothing was done about it. We now find ourselves finding this being used as an argument to defer the hearings to the other side of the trial. As I said, the trial is not going to be in secret. So the matters developed at the trial will be, I can assure you, on the public record and available to the public. Many of the witnesses sought have indicated they will take the fifth amendment. And there is every reason to assume that they will continue to do so. So then they are not going to become available to the committee in any event. And the committee has to do its work and make its report. We have taken an extraordinary number of depositions. Much of what we are now looking at, which involves matters that occurred in Arkansas 10 and 15 years ago, had been covered voluminously in the press. I am really almost staggered by the fact that we hold a hearing and then it is asserted, well, new revelations came out at this hearing. We held a hearing with Ickes. And everyone said, ``My goodness, we have discovered that a special team was set up in the White House to deal with the Whitewater matter in January of 1994.'' A newspaper account in early January of 1994 states that a special team under the direction of Mr. Ickes was set up. So he comes in. We have these notes. He comes in and testifies. We have the situation in the committee where the establishment of this team and him as the head of it is considered as a new discovery when there is a newspaper story from 2 years earlier stating that such a team was being set up and that he would head it up. Interestingly enough, the article that was written on the day after the hearing paralleled the article that was written 2 years earlier. The January 7th, 1994--not 1996, 1994--article in the Washington Post stated, and I quote: With the start of the new year, the White House launched a major internal effort to fight back against mounting criticism of the way it has handled inquiries into President Clinton's Arkansas land investments. A high-powered damage control squad was appointed under the direction of new Deputy Chief of Staff, Harold Ickes, and daily strategy sessions began. That is in 1994. Then we get notes from Ickes about a meeting of the special strategy session that he is heading up, and that is treated as though we discovered something new. In fact, the article reporting on the hearing paralleled the article written 2 years earlier. That is what we have been going through; I mean a replowing of material that has already been available generally in the press and out to the public. In fact, the Atlanta Constitution in the editorial that my colleague, Senator Pryor, cited of February 15 states: The Senate's Watergate hearings of 1973 and 1974 were momentous delving into White House abuses of power and leading to the resignation of the disgraced President and the imprisonment of many of his aides. They lasted 279 days. Next week, Senator Alfonse D'Amato, Republican of New York and his fellow Whitewater investigators, will surpass that mark. Today is the 275th day, and they have nothing anywhere near conclusive to show for their labors. To put matters in context, all they have to ponder is a fairly obscure 1980's real estate and banking scandal in Arkansas. With the February 29th expiration date for the special panel staring him in the face, Senator D'Amato has the effrontery to ask the Senate for more time and money to continue drilling dry investigative holes. Specifically, he wants open-ended authority and another $600,000. That is on top of $950,000 his committee has spent so far plus $400,000 that was devoted to a Senate Banking Committee inquiry into Whitewater in 1994. The partisan motives behind Senator D'Amato's request could not be more obvious. They then go on along this vein. They also make the point in concluding that the independent counsel will continue his investigation and, therefore, the legal and business affairs of the President and Mrs. Clinton will be scrutinized by the independent counsel. This editorial actually called for ending on February 29 as the resolution provided. The distinguished minority leader has in effect come forward and said we will not press this immediate cutoff. We are prepared for the hearings to go on for a limited further period of time, and for a period of time after that in order to do the report. I think that is a very forthcoming proposal, and I very strongly commend it to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Jan. 27, 1996] Docudrama (By Sidney N. Herman) Documents that are relevant to an investigation are found in an unexpected place six months after they were first sought. A shocking development? Absolutely not. In most major pieces of litigation, files turn up late. One side or the other always thinks of making something of the late appearance, but these lawyers know the truth: it could just as easily happen to them. Despite diligent searches, important papers in large organizations are always turning up after the initial and follow-up searches. How many times have you looked for something on your desk and couldn't find it, only to have it appear right under your nose later? Happens all the time. Indeed, as every litigator knows, there is nothing worse than having an important document show up late. You've only highlighted its absence for your opponent. If you know where it is, it is far better to include it in the initial delivery of relevant papers, where it gets mixed in with the rest of the morass. Why red-flag it by holding it back? My former partner, Kenneth Starr, knows all this. As independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation, he will take it into account. But the American people have no reason to know that this is a normal occurrence; it is not part of their everyday experience. Reporters really don't have any reason to know this either. Or they may know, and simply choose to ignore it. Last summer, notes that were critical to the celebrated libel suit brought by Jeffrey Masson against the writer Janet Malcolm appeared in her private study, years after they were first sought. I recall that discovery being treated as an interesting happenstance, nothing more. When documents show up belatedly, even in private quarters, there is simply nothing unusual about it. Exhibit 2 [From the Washington Post, Feb. 29, 1996] Extend, But With Limits We noted the other day that the White House--through its tardiness in producing long-sought subpoenaed documents--has helped Senate Banking Committee Chairman Alfonse D'Amato make his case for extending the Whitewater investigation beyond today's expiration date. If one didn't know any better, one might conclude that the administration's Whitewater strategy was being devised not by a White House response team but by the high command of the Republican National Committee. However, despite the administration's many pratfalls since Whitewater burst onstage, Sen. D'Amato and his Republican colleagues have not provided compelling evidence to support the entirely open ended mandate they are seeking from the Senate. There are loose ends to be tied up and other witnesses to be heard, as Republican Sen. Christopher Bond said the other day. But dragging the proceedings out well into the presidential campaign advances the GOP's political agenda; it doesn't necessarily serve the ends of justice or the need to learn what made the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan of Arkansas go off the tracks at such enormous cost to American taxpayers. The Senate should allow the committee to complete the investigative phase of its inquiry, including a complete examination of the Clinton's involvement with the defunct Whitewater Development Corp. and their business relationships with other Arkansas figures involved in financial wrongdoing. But the Senate should require the committee to complete its work and produce a final report by a fixed date. Democrats want to keep the committee on a short leash by extending hearings to April 3, with a final report to follow by May 10. 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 proceedings before summer, when the campaign season really heats up. That would argue for permitting the probe to continue through April or early May. What the Senate does not need is a Democrat-led filibuster. Having already gone bail for the Clinton White House, often to an embarrassing degree, Senate Democrats would do themselves and the president little good by tying up the Senate with a talkathon. Better that they let the probe proceed. Give the public some credit for knowing a witch hunt and a waste of their money if and when they see one. And that, of course, is the risk Sen. D'Amato and his committee are taking. The burden is also on them. Exhibit 3 [From the U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 29, 1996] The Real Whitewater Report (By Mortimer B. Zuckerman) Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? Forty years ago, Joseph Welch, a venerable Boston lawyer, thus rebuked Joe McCarthy in the Army-McCarthy hearings and stopped his reckless persecution of a naive but innocent young man. How one longs for a Joseph Welch to emerge in the middle of the extraordinary affair now known as Whitewater! The parallels between Sen. Alfonse D'Amato's investigation of a land deal in Arkansas and McCarthy's investigation of communism in the Army are hardly exact, but there is an uncanny echo of 1954 in the fever of political innuendo we are now experiencing and in the failure of an excitable press to set it all in proper perspective. Then, as now, the public found itself lost in a welter of allegation, reduced to mumbling the old line about ``no smoke without fire.'' It would be foolish to expect a congressional investigation to be above politics. But at what point, in a decent democracy, does politics have to yield to objectivity? At what point does rumor have to retreat before truth? In Whitewater that point would seem to have been reached when we have had an independent, exhaustive study of the case under the supervision of a former Republican U.S. attorney, Jay Stephens, a man whose credibility is enhanced by the fact that he was such a political adversary of the Clintons that his appointment provoked Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos to call for his removal. Yes? No. That official report is in, but hardly anyone who has been surfing the Whitewater headlines will know of it. It has been ignored by both the Republicans and a media hungry for scandal. The Stephens report provides a blow-by-blow account of virtually every charge involved in the Whitewater saga. Let us put the conclusions firmly on the record. The quotes below are directly from the Stephens report. Question 1: Were the Clintons involved in the illegal diversion of any money from the failed Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, either to their own pockets or to Clinton's 1984 gubernatorial campaign? ``On this record, there is no basis to assert that the Clintons knew anything of substance about the McDougals' advances to Whitewater, the source of the funds used to make those advances, or the source of the funds used to make payments on bank debt. . . . For the relevant period (ending in 1986), the evidence suggests that the McDougals and not the Clintons managed Whitewater.'' Question 2: What of money diverted to the campaign? No evidence has been unearthed that any campaign worker for Clinton knew of any wrongdoing pertaining to any funds that might have come out of Madison into Clinton's campaign. Question 3: Did taxpayers suffer from Whitewater through Madison's losses on the investment? No. Whitewater did not hurt Madison, the possible exceptions being a couple of payments involving James and Susan McDougal. The report says the Clintons knew nothing about the payments. Question 4: Did the Clintons make any money? The report says they did not; instead, they borrowed $40,000 to put into Whitewater and lost it. Question 5: What of the charge from David Hale, former municipal judge and Little Rock businessman, that Bill Clinton pressured him to make an improper Small Business Administration loan of $300,000 to Susan McDougal? As to the $300,000 loan to Mrs. McDougal, ``there is nothing except an unsubstantiated press report that David Hale claims then- Governor Clinton pressured him into making the loan to Susan McDougal.'' The charge lacked credibility in any event. It was made when Hale sought personal clemency in a criminal charge of defrauding the SBA. What's left? Nothing. The report concludes: ``On this record there is no basis to charge the Clintons with any kind of primary liability for fraud or intentional misconduct. This investigation has revealed no evidence to support any such claims. Nor would the record support any claim of secondary or derivative liability for the possible misdeeds of others.'' Stephen's firm--Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro--spent two years and almost $4 million to reach its conclusions and recommended ``that no further resources be expended on the Whitewater part of this investigation.'' Amen. So when you cut through all the smoke from D'Amato's committee and almost hysterical press reports such as those emanating from the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, what you have is smoke and no fire. No Whitewater wrongdoing to cover up, no incriminating documents to be stolen, no connection between the Clintons and any illegal activities from the real-estate business failure and the web of political and legal ties known as Whitewater. But wait. What about the time sheets showing the amount of legal work that Hillary Clinton performed for the failed S&L? Surely we have some flames there? Again, no. Her role, says the Stephens report, was minimal. Mrs. Clinton did perform real-estate work in 1985 and 1986 pertaining to an option for about 2 percent of the land, but as the report says, that was at most related only tangentially to the acquisition itself. Mrs. Clinton did not play a legal part in the original acquisition of the land, known as castle Grande, although the Rose Law Firm did. Both sides pointed out that the principals, as opposed to the lawyers, put together the deal. The lawyers did only the scrivener work, and if this transaction was a sham, there is ``no substantial evidence that the Rose Law Firm knowingly and substantially assisted in its commission.'' As for the option, the report says there is no evidence that Mrs. Clinton knew of any illegalities in this transaction: ``The option did not assist in the closing of the acquisition. It . . . was created many months after the transaction closed. The option . . . does not prove any awareness on the part of its author of Ward's [Madison's partner] arrangements with Madison Financial. . . . While Mrs. Clinton seems to have had some role in drafting the May 1, 1986, option, nothing proves that she did so knowing it to be wrong, and the theories that tie this option to wrongdoing or to the straw-man arrangements are strained at best.'' Rep. James Leach's spokesman asserts that Hillary Clinton's minimal work on the option put her ``at the center of a fraudulent deal,'' and D'Amato says that her billing records show tremendous inconsistencies with her previous statements on the time she spent on Whitewater. Fraud? The only fraud lies in these congressional statements; they are a political fraud on a credulous public. On the role of real-estate lawyers, I must endorse the Stephens judgments here from my personal business experience of thousands of real-estate transactions. Never, not once, have my lawyers drawing up legal documents determined the business terms or the appropriateness of the price. It is appalling that the smoke and smear game has been played so long by the Republicans and the media that everyone is tagged with some kind of presumption of guilt rather than a presumption of innocence. The double standard of judgment is well illustrated by the performance of those standard- setting newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post. The Times originally broke the Whitewater story on its front page with a jump to a full inside page. What did it do with Stephens's report? Ran it on Page 12, in a 12-inch story. The Post's priorities were so distorted that it mentioned the findings in only the 11th paragraph of a front- page story devoted to a much less important Whitewater subpoena battle. Most other major papers ran very short stores on inside pages, and the networks virtually ignored the report. The press has slipped its moorings here. It seems to be caught in a time warp from the Nixon-Watergate era. The two questions then--what did the president know and when did he know it?--were at the very heart of the matter. The two questions now--what did the president's wife know and when did she know it?--seem a childish irrelevance by comparison. The time, money, and political energy spent barking up the wrong tree are quite amazing. The press gives the impression that it has invested so much capital in the search for a scandal that it cannot drop it when the scandal evaporates. The Republicans give the impression that if one slander does not work, they will try another. No wonder the nation holds Congress, the White House and the media in such contempt; the people know that the press seems to be acting like a baby--a huge appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. We have a topsy-turvy situation here. The Republicans win the case on merit over balancing the budget but are losing it politically on the basis of public perception. The Clintons have the better case on Whitewater but are losing it politically because of smear and slander, a situation compounded by their defensive behavior. The media seem unwilling to focus on the substance of either issue. So much for a responsible press! Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to point out with respect to both the Gearan and Ickes notes, because the point was raised that we have these notes and we got them late in the day. The fact is the committee held a full day of hearing with Mr. Gearan and a full day of hearing with Mr. Ickes with respect to their notes. There was an opportunity to examine their notes, see the contents of their notes, bring them in before the committee, and have a hearing with respect to them. The White House has, in effect, now responded to every request of the committee. We have some e-mails to be obtained, but that is almost completed. I outlined earlier the difficult problems that were associated with the e-mails. First of all, the extraordinary and onerous breadth of the committee's request and the fact that the Bush administration had put in a procedure, a process at the White House that made the recovery of those e-mails extremely difficult. The White House finally had to bring in a consultant, and they are expending hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to provide those e-mails. The ones that have been provided thus far, the weeks covered, have not produced anything. That is in a very real sense a fishing expedition. It has not produced anything thus far. Now, Mr. President, a lot has been made of citing the book by Senator Mitchell and Senator Cohen with respect to having a firm deadline and their feeling that the Iran-Contra inquiry would have worked better without a firm deadline. Of course, as my colleague from Connecticut pointed out earlier, there has been no inquiry conducted in the Senate without a firm deadline. This is an entirely new and different precedent that was going to be established. Let me just quote from their book: At the time, the setting of a deadline for the completion of the committee's work seemed a reasonable and responsible compromise between Democratic members in both the House of Representatives and the Senate who wanted no time limitation placed upon the committee, and Republican Members who wanted the hearings completed within 2 or 3 months. As an aside, I may note that probably the strongest advocate of a time limitation for the committee's work was the then-minority leader, Senator Dole. Time and time again he took the floor to argue that very strenuously, did the same thing in the meetings that were being held between the leadership to work out how that inquiry would be done, and did, in fact, press for a timeframe at one point of only 2 or 3 months, as this book indicates. Now, the book then goes on to say, and I am now quoting it again: ``It escaped no one's attention that an investigation that spilled into 1988 could only help keep Republicans on the defensive during an election year. Both Inouye and Hamilton recommended rejecting'' and I underscore that. ``rejecting the opportunity to prolong, and thereby exploit President Reagan's difficulties, determining that 10 months would provide enough time to uncover any wrongdoing.'' I want to underscore to this body that the Democratic leadership of the Congress, as that book states, Chairman Hamilton from the House and Chairman Inouye from the Senate, agreed to a defined timeframe as the minority leader, Senator Dole, had pressed for very, very hard. And, of course, the reason was to keep it out of the 1988 Presidential election year and, therefore, not turn the inquiry into a political football. That was the thinking here last year when we passed Senate Resolution 120 with an ending date of February 29, 1996, which is where we find ourselves now. That was the thinking. And many of us have taken the view, and I hold to it very strongly, that extending the inquiry deep into a Presidential election year will seriously undermine the credibility of this investigation and create a public perception that this investigation is being conducted for political purposes. I think that is clearly happening, and I think the effort to have the inquiry continue on through the Presidential election year will contribute to that. I was very much interested in an editorial that appeared in U.S. News & World Report on January 29, by its editor in chief, Mortimer Zuckerman. I ask unanimous consent that editorial be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. I place it in the Record simply to make the point, as the article does, that the appearance of documents a considerable period of time after they have been requested is, in fact, not a shocking development. This goes on all the time, as anyone involved in litigation or document requests well knows. In each instance, of course, one has to judge the explanation for the late-appearing documents with respect to their plausibility, but as I indicated when we were discussing Mr. Gearan earlier, his explanation, I thought, was very straightforward. He said by mistake these had been packed into a box he took with him to the Peace Corps. He thought they had remained at the White House where the White House counsel could go through them and provide responsive matters to the committee. It was only by chance that these documents, then, were later discovered in that box that had been sent over to the Peace Corps and then were put back into the loop so that they eventually came to the committee. A great to-do is made of the fact that if you have a fixed date for ending, you will not get the documents, and that to-do is made over documents that we have gotten. I find it incredible--in other words, these documents are furnished to us and then an argument is made if you have a fixed date--as we did, the date of February 29--you will not get the documents. I do not know how you square the two. We get the documents. They are provided to us. Then the assertion is made if you have a fixed date you will not get the documents. We have a fixed date. We got the documents. The people provided them to us in response to the request. I do not understand that argument. Obviously, logically, it does not hold together. Now, the issue here is essentially the difference between the request of my colleague from New York, Chairman D'Amato, for an open-ended extension of this inquiry, and the proposal put forth by Senator Daschle for an extension until April 3 for hearings and until May 10 to file the report. When this resolution was first passed, it was passed on the premise that there would be an ending date, February 29, and the rationale advanced in part for that ending date was to keep this matter out of the Presidential election year and therefore avoid the politicizing of these hearings and the erosion of any public confidence in the hearings because of a perception that they were being conducted for political reasons. I listened with some amazement earlier as the Washington Post editorial was cited by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in support of their position for an unlimited extension. Now, that is the position, and I recognize it, of the New York Times. I recognize that the New York Times' posture is for an indefinite extension; but the Washington Post, which was also cited in support, said today, very clearly, ``The Senate should require the committee to complete its work, produce a final report by a fixed date.'' Now, they question the dates that we put forward as perhaps being too short a period. They said a limited extension makes sense but an unreasonably short deadline does not. They said 5 weeks may not be enough time. They suggested maybe there should be a little extra time, running in the range of through April or early May. In other words, a few more weeks beyond what the leader has proposed in the alternative, which my distinguished friend from Nebraska has suggested was a possible way of approaching this matter. In any event, so that readers of the Record can judge for themselves, I ask unanimous consent that this Washington Post editorial entitled ``Extend But With Limits,'' and which contains as I said the sentence, ``The Senate should require the committee to complete its work and produce a final report by a fixed date,'' which editorial has been used by some in support of an indefinite extension--for the life of me I cannot understand how one can do that, can make that argument. I ask unanimous consent that editorial be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I listened with great interest while my colleague, the distinguished Senator from New York, and his colleagues went on for some length, and I do not intend to match that length at this hour. I do not think that is really necessary, but there are some matters that I think ought to be reviewed with respect to this Whitewater matter. First, a great deal is being made about these documents that appear, as though it is a nefarious plot. I understand that people like to attach sinister intentions, but the explanation for it may be far more innocent than that. And I really want to include in the Record an article that appeared a few weeks ago in the New York Times by Sidney Herman, a former partner of Kenneth Starr. Let me quote from it: Documents that are relevant to an investigation are found in an unexpected place 6 months after they were first sought. A shocking development? Absolutely not. In most major pieces of litigation, files turn up late. One side or the other always thinks of making something of the late appearance. But these lawyers know the truth. It could just as easily happen to them. Despite diligent searches, important papers in large organizations are always turning up after the initial and follow-up searches. Later on he goes on to say: My former partner, Kenneth Starr, knows all this. As independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation, he will take it into account. But the American people have no reason to know that this is a normal occurrence. It is not part of their every-day experience. Reporters really do not have any reason to know this either, or they may know and simply choose to ignore it. Now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I assume the chairman got the floor on his own right, is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Let's have a hearing. Let's test the allegations.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on this editorial?

Mr. SARBANES. Does the Senator read the Washington Post as supporting his position?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, for the same reasons already advanced to the previous request, I object.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall object in just a moment, I just want to point out that the Democratic leader has made a proposal with respect to continuing the Whitewater inquiry for a limited period of time. We think at a minimum, as a courtesy, that proposal needs to be responded to and addressed. Second, we have no idea what the D'Amato amendment is that is contained in this proposal. Third, this provides for moving to immediate passage without an opportunity for sufficient debate, in our view, to explore all of the implications. Therefore, for all of these reasons, but particularly because of the proposal put forward by the Democratic leader earlier this afternoon, I object.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with Senator Hatfield in introducing legislation to reauthorize the National Historical Publications and Records Commission for 4 years. It has been my privilege to alternate with Senator Hatfield in serving as the representative of the U.S. Senate on the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Senator Hatfield represented the Senate from 1983 to 1988, and I succeeded him until my term expired last year. The Commission has had strong bipartisan support throughout its history, and I trust will continue to do so. The NHPRC's statutory mandate is to promote the preservation and use of America's historical legacy. The work of the NHPRC assures all Americans that the history of our Nation will be documented, that vital historical records will be kept safe, and that historians and others will have ready access to those records. Grants awarded through the National Historical Publications and Records Commission are producing valuable results. In my own State of Maryland, the Commission is helping scholars edit, and presses publish, editions of papers that document the emancipation of slaves and the careers of important historical figures. Other important discoveries have resulted from grants awarded to scholars by the Commission. For example, NHPRC grants resulted recently in the discovery of the longest document yet known that Abraham Lincoln wrote in his own hand, a group of letters written to James Madison by a famous jurist in the era of our revolution, an the original drawing made by Architect William Thornton for the ground plan of the U.S. Capitol. Although the Commission has been doing this work since it was established by Congress in 1934, its efforts remain relevant to today's concerns. We have seen States and local governments across the country, with advice and assistance from the Commission, establish archival programs. We have seen the Commission launch several projects to deal with the growing problem facing archivists in controlling and accessing valuable electronic records, and helping historians make their documentary editions accessible electronically on the Internet. Mr. President, it is important that the Commission continue its respected work in preserving the heritage of our Nation. The reauthorization legislation I am joining Senator Hatfield in introducing is a practical and important step in ensuring continuity of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. I urge my colleagues to join us in ensuring its swift passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with Senator Hatfield in introducing legislation to reauthorize the National Historical Publications and Records Commission for 4 years. It has been my privilege to alternate with Senator Hatfield in serving as the representative of the U.S. Senate on the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Senator Hatfield represented the Senate from 1983 to 1988, and I succeeded him until my term expired last year. The Commission has had strong bipartisan support throughout its history, and I trust will continue to do so. The NHPRC's statutory mandate is to promote the preservation and use of America's historical legacy. The work of the NHPRC assures all Americans that the history of our Nation will be documented, that vital historical records will be kept safe, and that historians and others will have ready access to those records. Grants awarded through the National Historical Publications and Records Commission are producing valuable results. In my own State of Maryland, the Commission is helping scholars edit, and presses publish, editions of papers that document the emancipation of slaves and the careers of important historical figures. Other important discoveries have resulted from grants awarded to scholars by the Commission. For example, NHPRC grants resulted recently in the discovery of the longest document yet known that Abraham Lincoln wrote in his own hand, a group of letters written to James Madison by a famous jurist in the era of our revolution, an the original drawing made by Architect William Thornton for the ground plan of the U.S. Capitol. Although the Commission has been doing this work since it was established by Congress in 1934, its efforts remain relevant to today's concerns. We have seen States and local governments across the country, with advice and assistance from the Commission, establish archival programs. We have seen the Commission launch several projects to deal with the growing problem facing archivists in controlling and accessing valuable electronic records, and helping historians make their documentary editions accessible electronically on the Internet. Mr. President, it is important that the Commission continue its respected work in preserving the heritage of our Nation. The reauthorization legislation I am joining Senator Hatfield in introducing is a practical and important step in ensuring continuity of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. I urge my colleagues to join us in ensuring its swift passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I join with the citizens of Highland Beach, MD, as they pay tribute to the memory of Frederick Douglass--one of Maryland's most celebrated native sons--by preserving his historic house as a museum. His house, facing the Chesapeake Bay, looks out onto the open sea and was a joyful reminder to Douglass of the freedom he so greatly treasured. While Frederick Douglass was born in Talbot County, MD, and worked on the docks of Fells Point in Baltimore, he found peace and solace at his home in Highland Beach. Highland Beach was the first town to be established by African-Americans in the State of Maryland and was officially incorporated in 1922, although settlers had been living in the vicinity for decades. The house that is dedicated here today was designed by Douglass, but sadly, he never saw its completion. Instead his son fulfilled the task that was set forth by his father, ensuring that the second floor balcony that Douglass had dreamed of was erected so that, ``as a free man, I could look across the bay to the land where I was born a slave.'' The Frederick Douglass house was placed on the National Registry of Historic Places in 1992 after extensive renovations were completed. The house has also received the Orlando Rideout Prize for exceptional renovation in December 1995 by the Anne Arundel County Trust for Preservation. While these awards reflect the beauty and history of Douglass' home, that Frederick Douglass could own a home as a free man is the true monument. Douglass rightly believed that owning property was a very important economic accomplishment for African-Americans in the years following the Civil War. It is, in my view, most fitting that the commemoration of one of Maryland's most noted African-Americans comes during Black History Month. Over the course of history, Maryland has been the home of many prominent African-Americans including writer Langston Hughes, actor and singer Paul Robeson, Washington Judge Robert Terrell, and educator and author Booker T. Washington; all of whom either visited or lived in Highland Beach. Mr. President, as the Frederick Douglass house becomes a monument in the splendid community of Highland Beach, it provides an avenue for residents and visitors to share in its unique and distinguished past. I join the citizens of Anne Arundel County in demonstrating their pride in the history of Highland Beach and their expectation of continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those who have already spoken in recognition of February as Black History Month. Since 1926 this Nation has designated February as the month in which we honor the achievements and contributions of African- Americans to our history, our culture, and our future. One could also say that February is the month in which we honor our Nation's unsung heroes--from the African-American soldiers who have often received no acknowledgement for fighting in the American Revolution to the African-American poets and authors often excluded from literary anthologies. The history of African-Americans is the history of what this country has come to mean to so many people around the world. It is the story of seemingly unsurmountable odds overcome and challenges yet to be faced. This year the President has asked us all to pay a special tribute to the achievements and contributions of black women who have risen above the twin burdens and racism and sexism. Black History Month provides our Nation with an opportunity to reflect upon the progress which we have made as a nation in our struggle to promote the constitutional principles of liberty, equality, and justice. One black woman who contributed to the preservation of those principles was Barbara Jordan. I was honored to have served alongside Barbara Jordan in the Congress, and I recall very well her steadfast devotion to our Constitution. Barbara Jordan eloquently and with great faith articulated and lived the basic principles underlying our democratic government and society. I witnessed this dedication first-hand during our service on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings of former President Nixon. Barbara Jordan understood that our Constitution is a precious covenant and did her utmost to defend and uphold its promises to all of the citizens of the United States. With her recent passing, our Nation has lost one of the Constitution's great defenders, and I know that my colleagues will agree with me when I say that Barbara Jordan will be greatly missed. Mr. President, my own State of Maryland has been blessed to be the birthplace and home of countless outstanding black Americans. Maryland was a bedrock of the underground railroad which helped many African- Americans find there way out of slavery to freedom. In fact, and Harriet Tubman, the African-American woman credited with leading more than 200 men, women, and children to freedom on the underground railroad, was a Marylander. Born into slavery around 1821 on a Dorchester County plantation, Harriet Tubman escaped in 1849. However, instead of turning her back on those she had left behind, Harriet Tubman used her knowledge of Maryland's Eastern Shore to help other slaves escape to freedom. She was so successful that Maryland plantation owners placed a $40,000 price on her head, dead or alive. Although she is most often remembered for her work on the underground railroad, Harriet Tubman's service to this Nation continued throughout her life. During the Civil War, she served as a spy for the Union Army as well as a scout and a nurse. After the Civil War Harriet Tubman worked to resettle Negro war refugees, to establish the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, and on behalf of women's suffrage. The history of Maryland is replete with the contributions of African- American women--many of which have gone undocumented and unrecognized. Black History Month affords all Americans an opportunity to honor our heroes both past and present, and to remind ourselves of the many national heroes whose faces do not adorn currency or postage stamps and whose stories are not told in history books or encyclopedias. Mr. President, as we near the end of this month, I hope that each of us will take a moment to remember the lessons of Black History Month and to carry them with us throughout the year as a reminder of all that is truly possible. Two hundred years ago, how many Americans would have imagined a Barbara Jordan or an Alice Walker? Black History Month is a time to celebrate--to celebrate all of the great achievements of African-Americans, to celebrate how far this country has come, and to remind us of how much further we have to go.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, 3 years ago President George Bush and President Boris Yeltsin met in Moscow to sign a second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. At that time, the dissolution of the Soviet Union made it possible to achieve additional reductions in our nuclear arsenals beyond those provided in the START I Treaty, thereby advancing United States security and further reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation. On December 5, 1994, President Clinton and the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan convened in Budapest to finalize the entry into force of START I, clearing the way for the ratification of START II. It has thus been a full year since START II has been ready for Senate advice and consent to ratification, and I am pleased that it is finally being considered by the full Senate. The Foreign Relations Committee has held eight hearings on the treaty, in open and closed session, with administration and private witnesses. On December 12, the treaty was reported favorably on a unanimous vote of 18 to 0. Let me elaborate on the substance of this treaty and its benefits to U.S. security. Building upon START I, the START II Treaty advances our interests by eliminating the most threatening and destabilizing types of weapons in the Russian arsenal. Under the treaty, Russia has agreed to destroy all of its heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles [ICBM's], including all its SS-18 missiles, which were the centerpiece of the former Soviet Union's strategic nuclear force. The treaty also ends the practice of putting multiple warheads on (or ``MIRVing'') ICBM's, a practice which had led to exponential increases in the number of deployed nuclear warheads and heightened the threat of a first nuclear strike. START II requires each side to reduce its deployed warheads from the 6,000 allowed under START I to 3,500 by the year 2003. This will mean a significant reduction in Russia's deployed nuclear warheads, which numbered over 10,000 when the Start Treaty went into force. In addition, START II limits the number of warheads deployed on Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles [SLBM's], and expands the stringent verification regime put into place by START I. New verification measures, including on-site inspections of SS-18 silo conversions and missile elimination procedures, along with the inspection for all heavy bombers, were added to START II to reduce the risk of non-compliance. Taken together, the two START treaties will reduce the deployed strategic offensive arms of the United States and Russia by approximately two-thirds by the year 2003. Two out of every three weapons that were once aimed against the United States are going to be dismantled or destroyed over a period of less than 10 years. The United States will retain a credible nuclear deterrent while increasing our ability to verify Russian compliance with its treaty obligations. During the Committee proceedings, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, gave the following testimony in support of ratification: Let me say at the outset that, on the basis of detailed study of our security needs and careful review of the Treaty, it is my judgment, and the unanimous opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the START II Treaty is in the best interests of the United States. I recommend the Senate provide its advice and consent to START II's ratification. President George Bush stated in his January 15, 1993 Letter of Transmittal to the Senate-- The START II Treaty is clearly in the interest of the United States and represents a watershed in our efforts to stabilize the nuclear balance and further reduce strategic offensive arms. I therefore urge the Senate to give prompt and favorable consideration to the Treaty, including its Protocols and Memorandum on Attribution, and to give its advice and consent to ratification. Then-Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger concluded in his letter of submittal to President Bush-- This Treaty is truly an historic achievement. By significantly reducing strategic offensive arms, and by eliminating those that pose the greatest threat to stability, the START II Treaty will enhance the national security of the United States. It is in the best interest of the United States of America, the Russian Federation, and, indeed, the entire world that this Treaty enter into force promptly. I strongly recommend its transmission to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. Mr. President, ratification of START II not only will lock in reductions that benefit U.S. security directly, it will send an important signal to other countries that the United States is serious about nuclear non-proliferation. It will encourage other nations to join us in the process of limiting weapons of mass destruction and will lay the foundation for future arms control agreements. As Spurgeon Keeny, Jr., President of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, warned, ``Failure to complete Senate action promptly could delay for years the entry into force of these agreements with great disadvantage to United States security.'' I think the risks of inaction are grave indeed, and I urge my colleagues to join in giving prompt advice and consent to ratification.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Not under the plan you put forward. You are cutting back on that. You are having senior citizens finding themselves unable to get medical care and, at the same time you are doing all this, you are going to give a big tax break.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, just a couple of days ago Ellen Goodman wrote a very interesting column entitled ``Bootstraps for Middle-Aged Children,'' and she addressed the problem that would confront the elderly and their children if the budget is cut according to the Republican budget proposal. She made the point that middle-aged children may get a small tax cut of less than $1 a day and a nursing home bill of $35,000 a year for their parents if some of these Medicaid cuts go through. Actually, the fact is that Medicaid now pays for 60 percent of nursing home care. The elderly are required to use up their own assets until they get down to a level where they qualify for Medicaid. These are middle-income people who are, in effect, by their health situation, forced to use up their assets in order to meet their medical needs, and then Medicaid covers for them. If Medicaid ceases to do that, the burden is going to come back upon their children. I think if people ask themselves carefully, ``Which would you rather do, forego a small tax benefit or keep the protection against the extraordinary costs of nursing home care?'' they would want to be protected against the nursing home costs. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. If the Interior bill permits clear cutting in the Tongass National Forest, I take it from the Senator's comments he would be opposed to it; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question on that?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I welcome this attitude that we need to try to work out the differences. That is how I think you legislate. The fact is, though, that when President Reagan and President Bush vetoed appropriations bills, until we worked out the differences we passed the continuing resolutions to allow the Government to continue to function. We then considered seriously the basis upon which the President had vetoed the legislation and tried to work out an accommodation so that an appropriations bill could be passed by the Congress to which the President could give his consent. So the veto by the President of legislation because it contains provisions with which he disagrees is a standard practice. What has happened in the past is either we could work that out, or we have provided a continuing resolution in the meantime while we tried to work it out. That has not been done in this instance. I do say to the Senator that I think that his suggestion that we ought to look at the basis of the veto message and see what accommodations can be made between the two branches in terms of passing another bill, my understanding is the other side simply wants to send the same bill back which I would not regard as a constructive action. I assume from the Senator's comments that he would not regard it as a positive or constructive action in the circumstance either.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I posed a question to the Senator from New Mexico and his time then expired. I ask unanimous consent to yield to him at this moment to respond to that question.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. The editorial stated: The turmoil and uncertainty created by vast numbers of Federal workers not going to work or not being paid is poisoning the atmosphere for progress on the budget. Too much hardship has already been inflicted, not only on the 760,000 unpaid workers, but on millions of Americans who cannot get visas, loans, or any number of other Federal services. Congress and the President should reopen the government now. I absolutely agree with that sentiment. There is a colleague in the House, in the Republican leadership in the House, who said in mid- November, ``You have a group in our conference who could not care less if the Government shuts down. They will be cheering.'' What an abdication of responsibility. Do Members of Congress, as my distinguished colleague from New Mexico states, think they have no responsibility for ensuring that the Government continues to function and providing the basic services upon which so many of our people are dependent? The people in the private sector, some will go bankrupt out of this escapade. They will go bankrupt. I have had people call my office who say, ``We are not going to be able to make it. We set up a small private business and things were working fairly well and now we are confronting a situation where we may well go under.'' For 19 days now we have been through this situation after the previous closedown of 6 days, all in order to try to bring a coercive pressure, a scorched earth bargaining tactic, with respect to the larger issue of the 7-year budget projection. Now, that issue involves many difficult and complex questions and a strong difference over what the priorities should be. But in my judgment, it is an irresponsible and impermissible tactic to use the closing of the Government, which has never been done before, to use the closing of the Government as a coercive pressure in to achieve a certain result with respect to the larger budget issues. Are we going to descend, deteriorate into such practices in the Congress, thereby falling short of meeting the responsibilities I think we have under the Constitution? Mr. President, Congress and the President should reopen the Government now as the majority leader sought to do when he moved the continuing resolution and sent it over to the House. House adoption of it would bring this crisis to an end. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Jan. 4, 1996] Day 19: Federal Siege Takes Public, Private Hostages (By Rene Sanchez) The partial shutdown of the federal government dragged through its 19th straight day yesterday with one clear effect. It took even more hostages. Health officials in Nebraska, facing a widespread flu outbreak, urged federal officials to reopen the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help them assess and contain the problem. The federal Meals on Wheels Program, which delivers hot food daily to more than 600,000 needy senior citizens, is running out of money and may be partially closed by week's end. The Peace Corps, also desperately short of cash, began drawing up plans to recall some or all of its 7,200 members worldwide if the shutdown persists much longer. In Mariposa County, Calif., home to Yosemite National Park, which has been closed throughout one of its busiest times of the year, the number of private-sector layoffs climbed past 1,600. Most are hotel, restaurant and gas station workers who usually can depend on the revenue that they collect during the holiday season to carry them until the summer. One-fourth of the adults in the county are now out of work, and officials there have declared an economic emergency. The local newspaper has launched a food drive for those in need, and radio stations in the Yosemite area are urging residents in neighboring counties to drive over and do business there. ``Who's paying the price for this? Not Congress or the president, but the average citizen,'' said Michael Coffield, the Mariposa County administrator. ``All the money our residents are losing is gone for good. Every day, it is getting more and more dire.'' Ever since the shutdown began, President Clinton and congressional Democrats have insisted that it would pose significant hardships, and Clinton made his most strident remarks yet on that subject yesterday by ticking off a lengthy list of problems he said the government's partial closure is causing Americans. But some Republican leaders have countered by saying the shutdown shows how large parts of the government do not affect many Americans. Other Republicans contend that short- term problems from the shutdown are far less important than the long-term crisis an unbalanced budget will create. Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich said that his department has received more than 63,000 phone calls regarding working and wage complaints that it has not been able to answer in the past three weeks. Federal courts have remained open throughout the shutdown by running on filing fees and other miscellaneous funds. But court officials are now predicting that they will exhaust those emergency funds by Sunday. David A. Sellers, spokesman for the federal courts' administrative office, said at that point it would be up to individual courts around the country to decide whether to close or to keep some of their business going. The Peace Corps also has stayed partially open during the shutdown by using leftover funds from the last fiscal year. That pool of money is now drying up. Officials said that if the shutdown persists another week or so they may be forced to recall volunteers who work in 95 countries, because the agency will not be able to pay their living allowances. ``We're having to take a very serious look at that as this goes on,'' said Andre Oliver, a Peace Corps spokesman. The furlough also has begun to threaten the complicated process by which scientists, universities and other research organizations apply to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for money to finance experiments and other scientific studies. January is the beginning of a thrice-yearly cycle in which grant applications are reviewed by committees of outside experts, and then recommendations on whether to fund them is passed on to NIH officials. None of the preparation for that is occurring. NIH also has about 2,000 grants that have been approved but whose financing hasn't been provided to the researchers in the last month. About half are multi-year projects already underway, and about half are for new research waiting to begin. ``We're all sort of teetering on the edge now,'' said Wendy Baldwin, NIH's deputy director for extramural research. ``There's a whole cascade of scheduling in jeopardy.'' Exhibit 2 [From the New York Times, Jan. 4, 1996] The Budget Scrum For fans of political games, President Clinton put on a rip-roaring show yesterday, as he charged right through the budget rift that has opened up on the Republican side between Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole. The new year thus dawns with the surprising spectacle of two archrivals, Mr. Dole and Mr. Clinton, trying to look like grown-ups while the Republicans in the House insist childshly that the only way to apply leverage on the President is to keep the Government closed. More and more it looks as if the zealous freshmen are calling the shots in the House. Say this for the freshmen Republicans. In theory they are just the kind of people the public says it wants in politics--men and women of principle who have a lot more on their minds than re-election. But zeal needs to be harnessed to a caring practicality. In the current impasse, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Dole have it right. The turmoil and uncertainty created by vast numbers of Federal workers not going to work or not being paid is poisoning the atmosphere for progress on the budget. Too much hardship has already been inflicted, not only on the 760,000 unpaid workers, but on millions of Americans who cannot get visas, loans or any number of other Federal services. Congress and the President should reopen the Government now. But it is also time for the White House to help resolve the budget impasse by sketching more details of the President's own thinking on how to achieve a balanced budget in seven years, as House Republicans demand. Mr. Clinton's skill in gaining political advantage from the current situation has been impressive. But his tactics leave even his allies confused on how much he really does want a compromise balanced budget, as opposed to an impasse on which he can run for re-election while defending longstanding Democratic principles. By all accounts, the long hours of negotiating over the holiday weekend involved a lot of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gingrich discussing the arcana of Federal social policies while many other people in the room rolled their eyes. There is no sign yet of real horse-trading except a leak here and there. For instance, the White House might be willing to modify its opposition to a cut in the capital gains tax. The Republicans seem willing to scale back their $240 billion tax cut. But the House freshmen and their allies insist that they simply do not trust Mr. Clinton to bring the process to a conclusion until they get a clearer signal of where he would be willing to make concessions, particularly on Medicare, Medicaid and welfare. The freshmen militants, Mr. Gingrich and even the Democratic leadership have the luxury of being dealt into a game whose outcome means less to them than to Mr. Clinton and Mr. Dole. With their eyes on the Presidential race, each man is trying to calculate whether he has more to gain from accommodation or recalcitrance. Mr. Dole has promised to bring adult leadership to the White House, but he does not look very adult if he cannot stand up to his party's kiddie- corps zealots. Mr. Clinton needs to emerge as a President who can stay resolute in the face of opposition; but at a certain point the Chief Executive of a Government that cannot open for business will begin to look weak. Mr. Dole is right when he observes that Americans are growing impatient with the budget impasse. Right now, Mr. Clinton may have more to gain by holding out on the budget while insisting he wants to reopen the Government. But there is clearly a deal within reach, and the public will remember who walks out of the wreckage with it.