John Sarbanes: “It is very imaginative, in my opinion. This is a growing body of editorial view about the nature of these hearings. When…”

“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.”