United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Gove.

Navy T-AO Kaiser Class oiler contract : hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, May 2 and 4, 1995 online

. (page 1 of 30)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on GoveNavy T-AO Kaiser Class oiler contract : hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, May 2 and 4, 1995 → online text (page 1 of 30)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


S. Hrg. 104-167

NAVY T-AO 187 KAISER CLASS OILER CONTRACTS



Y 4. G 74/9: S. HRG. 104-167



K»vy T-AO 187 Kiiser Class Diler Co...

HEARINGS

BEFORE TILE

PERMANENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION



MAY 2 AND 4, 1995



Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs




NOW 141995



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
9 1-266 CC WASHINGTON : 1995



For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-047678-X



\ y j \ S. Hrg. 104-167

NAVY T-AO 187 KAISER CLASS OILER CONTRACTS

Y 4. G 74/9: S. HRG, 104-167 =^— ^— =

Kivy T-ftO 187 Kaiser Class Diler Co...

HEARINGS

BEFORE TIIE

PERMANENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION



MAY 2 AND 4, 1995



Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs




NOV J <,5J5



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
91-266 CC WASHINGTON : 1995



For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-0A7678-X



COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOHN GLENN, Ohio

WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine SAM NUNN, Georgia

FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee CARL LEVIN, Michigan

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BOB SMITH, New Hampshire BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

Franklin G. Polk, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Leonard Weiss, Minority Staff Director
Michal Sue Prosser, Chief Clerk



PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

WILLL\M V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska SAM NUNN, Georgia

WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine JOHN GLENN, Ohio

FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee CARL LEVIN, Michigan

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawau

BOB SMITH, New Hampshire BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

Harry Damelin, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Daniel S. Gelber, Chief Counsel to the Minority
Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk

(II)



CONTENTS



Opening statements: Page

Senator Roth 1, 55

Senator Nunn 4

Senator McCain 7, 60

WITNESSES

Tuesday, May 2, 1995

Derek J. Vander Schaaf, Deputy Inspector General, Department of Defense,
accompanied by Timothy J. Staehhng, Project Manager, Office of the In-
spector General, Department of Defense; and David Cole, Auditor, Depart-
ment of Defense 8

Captain C.J. Pete Schrodt, U.S. Navy, retired, former Supervisor of Shipbuild-
ing, Brookl5Ti, NY 34

Captain Karl M. Klein, U.S. Navy, retired, former Supervisor of Shipbuilding,
Jacksonville, FL 38

Thursday, May 4, 1995

Ronald J. Stevens, former President, Pennsylvania Shipbuilding Company,
and Thomas C. Weller, Jr., former Chief Executive Officer, Pennsylvania
Shipbuilding Company, accompanied by Robert S. Bennett, Esq., Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, and Thomas M. Dyer, Esq., Dyer, Ellis,
Joseph and Mills 62

William R. Boyles, Jr., Vice President, Tampa Shipyards, Inc., accompanied
by Robert E. Banker, Esq., Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and
Banker, P. A., and Arnold L. Bums, Esq., Proskauer, Rose, Goetz and
Mendelsohn 79

Steven S. Honigman, General Counsel of the Navy, accompanied by Ronald
Kiss, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and Harold V. Hanson,
Contracting Office, Naval Sea Systems Command 91

Alphabetical List of Witnesses

Boyles, William R. Jr.:

Testimony 79

Prepared statement 168

Honigman, Steven S.:

Testimony 91

Prepared statement 180

Klein, Capt. Karl M.:

Testimony 38

Prepared statement 134

Schrodt, Capt. C.J. Pete:

Testimony 34

Prepared statement 127

Stevens, Ronald J.:

Testimony 62

Prepared statement 143

Vander Schaaf, Derek J.:

Testimony 8

Prepared statement 115



(III)



IV

Page
APPENDIX

Prepared statements of witnesses in order of appearance 115

List of exhibits 189

Exhibit List

1. Chart of the United States Navy Acquisition Chain of Command pre-
pared by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) 189

2 Chart of Capital Marine Corporation's Corporate Structure prepared

by PSI 190

3. Letter to the Chairman of the United States Senate Appropriations

Committee from William L. Ball, III, Secretary of the Navy, dated
December 13, 1988, regarding industrial mobilization (Second version
retyped for clarification in record) 191

4. Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)

analyses, dated May 1992 through June 1993, regarding Tampa Ship-
yard's financial stabiUty *

5. Letter from Thomas M. Dyer, Esq., Counsel to the Pennsylvania Ship-

building Company, dated April 24, 1995, submitting factual correc-
tions to Department of Defense Inspector General Report, dated
March 25, 1994 *

6. Affidavit of John Lawlor, former Manager, Engineering Department,

Pennsylvania Shipbuilding Company, dated April 27, 1995 *

7. Affidavit of William H. Martin, former Gate Superintendent, Pennsylva-

nia Shipbuilding Company, dated April 27, 1995 *

8. Affidavit of William Gallagher, former Executive Vice President and

General Manager, Pennsylvania Shipbuilding Company, dated April

28 1995 *

9. Contract #Nd6d24^5^2'ii5ras iiiod^

Class (191 Series) *

10. Letter to Harold V. Hanson, Contracting Officer, NAVSEA, from R.J.

Stevens, President, Pennsylvania Shipbuilding Company, dated No-
vember 15, 1988 199

11. Letter to Harold V. Hanson, Contracting Officer, NAVSEA, from Thom-

as C. Weller, Jr., Chairman of the Board, Pennsylvania Shipbuilding
Company, dated November 15, 1988 200

12. Letter and attachments fi*om Robert E. Banker, Counsel for CSreorge

Steinbrenner, to Senator William V. Roth, Jr., dated May 31, 1995,
regarding TAO Investigation/MARAD Settlement and Lobbying Ac-
tivities 202

13. NAVSEA memorandum dated November 16, 1989, regarding Justifica-

tion and Approval to Procure Using Other than Full and Open Com-
petition Document •. 210

14. Letter to CJeneral Counsel, General Accounting Office, from NAVSEA,

dated December 29, 1989 regarding protest filed by Avondale Indus-
tries, Inc *

15. Letter to Ms. Sabrina Cooper, General Accounting Office, fi-om

NAVSEA, dated February 14, 1990 *

16. Navy Pre-Award Survey of Pennsylvania Shipbuilding Company, dated

Januaiy 30, 1985 214

17. Guaranties dated as of December 31, 1984, between Employers Cas-

ualty Company and Capital Marine Corporation and between Texas
Employers Insurance Association and Capital Marine Corporation 227

18. Promissory Note dated as of December 31, 1984, between Employers

Casualty and Capital Marine Corporation 229

19. Letter from Lawrence H. Berger, Esq. to Ralph P. Johnson, Vice Presi-

dent, Employers Casualty Group, dated August 28, 1985 regarding
execution of Promissory Note 231

20. NAVSEA memorandum, dated February 11, 1985, to John A. Kimener,

from Christopher D. Pigott, Procurement Analyst, regarding the Fi-
nancial Responsibility of Pennsylvania Shipbuilding Company 232



V

Page

21. Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract (P00017), dated

May 6, 1985 including excerpt from Attachment A to Contract Modi-
fication 238

22. Excerpt from NAVSEA Business Clearance Memorandum (undated) re-

garding payment to Pennsylvania Shipbuilding Company of $90,000

per day storage fee on holidays 241

23. Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract (P00019), dated

May 6, 1985 242

24. Trust Indenture dated March 26, 1985 244

25. Security Instruments to Trust Indenture *

26. Information provided to PSI by Thomas M. Dyer, Esq., Counsel to

Pennsylvania Shipbuilding Company, on April 20, 1995 *

27. Form UCC-1 dated August 24, 1989 granting NAVSEA security inter-

est in Derrick *

28. NAVSEA letter, with enclosure, dated January 28, 1989, filing security

interest in Derrick 259

29. Title Abstract for the Derrick 265

30. Deposition of Terence C. McPoyle, Corporate Trust Administrator, First

Fidelity Bank, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, dated April 5, 1995 *

31. Deposition of George Steinbrenner, Acting Chairman of the Board,

American Shipbuilding Company, dated May 26, 1995 267

32. Letter from Robert E. Banker, Counsel to George Steinbrenner, to Har-

old Damelin, Chief Counsel, dated June 1, 1995 *

33. Letter from Richard Leidl to Thomas C. Weller, Jr., Chairman of the

Board, Pennsylvania Shipbuilding, dated June 2, 1995 338

34. Audit Report prepared by the Office of Inspector General, Department

of Defense, titled, "DoD Hotline Allegations Concerning Construction
of Henry J. Kaiser Class (TAO-187) Oilers," Report No. 94-069, dated
March 25, 1994 *

35. Audit Report prepared by the Office of Inspector General, Department

of Defense, titled, "Contractors' Uses of Additional Funds Appro-
priated for Three Navy Shipbuilding Programs," Report No. 94—009,
dated October 28, 1993 *

36. Decision of the Comptroller General of the United States regarding

American Shipbuilding Company, dated November 8, 1988 *

37. Letter from Thomas C. Weller, Jr. to Mr. Christopher Pigott, dated

March 15, 1985 340



* Retained in the files of the Subcommittee.



NAVY T-AO 187 KAISER CLASS OILER
CONTRACTS



TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1995

U.S. Senate,
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
OF the Committee on Governmental Affairs,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. William V. Roth,
Jr., Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

Senators Present: Senators Roth, McCain, Nunn, and Dorgan.

Staff Present: Harold DameHn, Chief Counsel and Staff Director;
Eric Thorson, Chief Investigator; Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk; Ste-
phen H. Levin, Counsel; Christopher Greer, Investigator; Mary
Ailes, Staff Assistant; Michael Bopp, Counsel; John H. Cobb, Coun-
sel; Daniel S. Gelber, Chief Counsel to the Minority; Mary D. Rob-
ertson, Assistant Chief Clerk to the Minority; John Sopko, Deputy
Chief Counsel to the Minority; Scott Newton, Minority Investigator;
Mark Foreman (Senator Roth); Ginny Koops (Senator Roth); Clau-
dia McMurray (Senator Thompson); Marty Grenn (Senator Cohen);
Ron Indicott (Governmental Affairs); Creighton Green (Armed
Services); Brian Dettelbach (Senator Glenn); Dale Cabiness (Sen-
ator Stevens); and Charlie Murphy (Senator (jrassley).

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROTH

Chairman RoTH. The Subcommittee will come to order.

I have to report that at 11 a.m., there will be a series of votes.
We are not certain at this stage how many, but it could be as many
as 11. It is my intent to recess at that time for whatever period
of time appears appropriate, and then we will reconvene at the end
of that period and complete the hearings for today.

The Subcommittee is beginning this morning 2 days of hearings
to review what has become a decade-long fiasco known as the Navy
T-AO 187 Kaiser Class oiler contract.

I sat in this chair exactly 12 years ago tomorrow, when the Sub-
committee previously examined the Navy's ship procurement proc-
ess. At that time, I said, "This hearing should provide a new per-
spective on the continued defense debate, a hard look at how the
Navy contracts and supervises shipbuilding at private facilities
throughout the country. We in Congress need to know, and what
American taxpayers demand to know, is this: Are we truly purchas-
ing a dollar's worth of defense for every dollar we spend?"

Apparently, some things never change, for that is exactly why we
are here again today, to attempt to bring about a change, a change

(1)



in the way the Navy procures its ships and a change in the
mindset of how the Defense Department spends taxpayers' dollars.

This hearing is also about accountability. It is a great respon-
sibility to be entrusted with the power to spend hundreds of mil-
lions of dollars that the taxpayers have contributed for the defense
of this Nation. We must hold those individuals who have that im-
portant responsibihty accountable for their actions. That is the task
of an oversight committee and that is why we are here today.

In 1985, the Navy awarded a contract for two oiler ships, with
options for two more, to the Penn Ship Company of Philadelphia
at a cost of approximately $400 million, or about $100 million per
ship. The contract was awarded despite great concern by the Navy
about the contractor's financial capability to complete such a task.

The Navy's financial concerns resulted in the assets of Penn Ship
being placed in a trust designed to protect the interests of the Navy
in case the contract was terminated for default, and that is exactly
what happened. The Navy terminated the contract for default. For
the first time in nearly 20 years, a Navy ship was not completed.

Inexplicably, the Navy cancelled the trust agreement as part of
the termination for default. A closer look at the trust agreement
showed that the liens and mortgages on the various properties se-
cured for the Navy were never filed, leaving the Navy unprotected.
The Navy's financial interest was unsecured. Despite tens of mil-
lions of dollars owed by Penn Ship as a result of the default, the
only thing the Navy received was a floating dry dock.

After terminating the contract, the Navy had the two partially-
completed oilers towed out of Penn Ship Company's yard in Decem-
ber 1989. At that point, these two ships had cost the Navy over
$300 million. Remember, under the original contract, four ships
were to cost roughly $400 million total.

Our investigation has also revealed that, after terminating the
contract for default, the Navy paid Penn Ship $45,000 per day, and
$90,000 on holidays, for providing security for the ships and mate-
rials that remained at the yard but belonged to the Navy. The
Navy continued to make these payments even after the ships were
long gone and only left-over materials remained in the yard. Even
though Penn Ship still owed the Navy millions of dollars, the Navy
paid Penn Ship a total of $4.6 million more under this security ar-
rangement.

In the final settlement of this matter, the Navy credited Penn
Ship with $19 million for a dry dock, which our investigation indi-
cates the Navy has never used. While the Navy is quick to explain
that the dry dock is leased out, it appears that the Navy receives
no money for the use of this $19 million asset.

Unfortunately, the saga does not end here. The contract to com-
plete these two ships was not given to the company who had suc-
cessfully built all the previous oilers, nor even to the low bidder.
The contract was awarded to Tampa Shipyards, a company which
was also in serious financial condition. Almost immediately, Tampa
Shipyards showed signs of trouble.

The financial situation became so bad that suppliers would not
deliver materials to the yard, prompting Tampa Shipyards owner
Cxeorge Stembrenner to ask the Navy for a $25 million bailout. The
Navy declmed. Despite financial relief granted by the Congress,



Tampa Shipyards was soon back in dire financial trouble. After
$102 million more of taxpayer dollars were paid to Tampa Ship-
yards, this contract, too, was terminated by the Navy for default.

The two unfinished ships are now rusting in the James River off
Virginia. They will probably never be finished. Just last week, a
settlement was reached on a suit filed by Tampa Shipyards against
the Navy. Under the settlement, the Navy will pay an additional
$18 million to Tampa Shipyards.

The bottom line of this hearing is that nobody appears to be look-
ing out for the taxpayers' bottom line. The Navy spent about $450
million; the American taxpayer received no ships. That is $450 mil-
lion spent and nothing but two rusting hulks to show for it. This
case stands as a devastating indictment of the current state of the
military procurement system.

This morning, we will hear from Derek Vander Schaaf, Deputy
Inspector General of the Department of Defense, who will outline
the report his ofiice did on this matter.

We will also hear from two Navy captains, now retired, who had
the task of overseeing these contractors. Both Captain Schrodt and
Captain Klein advised the Navy that these two shipyards could not
complete these ships. Had their recommendations been followed
immediately, we probably would not be convening this hearing
today, and there likely would be two more ships in the fleet.

On Thursday, May 4, we will receive testimony from officials of
the two contractors, Penn Ship and Tampa Shipyards.

I want to thank our ranking member, Senator Nunn, for his co-
operation and for his staffs assistance in this investigation. I look
forward to continuing our tradition at PSI of working together to
eliminate these indefensible examples of waste in our Nation's de-
fense procurement system.

Prepared Statement of Senator Roth

This morning the Subcommittee begins 2 days of hearings to review what has be-
come a decade-long fiasco known as the Navy T-AO 187 Kaiser Class Oiler contract.

I sat in this chair exactly 12 years ago tomorrow when the Subcommittee pre-
viously examined the ship procurement process. At that time, I said, "This hearing
should provide a new perspective on the continued defense debate; a hard look at
how the Navy contracts and supervises shipbuilding at private facilities throughout
the country. We in Congress need to know, and what American taxpayers demand
to know, is this: Are we truly purchasing a dollar's worth of defense for every dollar
we spend?" ^

Apparently, some things never change for that is exactly why we are here again
today — to attempt to bring about a change; a change in the way the Navy procures
its ships, and a change in the mindset of how the Defense Department spends tax-
payer's dollars.

This hearing is also about accountability. It is a great responsibility to be en-
trusted with the power to spend hundreds of millions of dollars that the taxpayers
have contributed for the defense of this Nation. We must hold those individuals who
have that important responsibility accountable for their actions. That is the task of
an oversight committee and that is why we are here today.

In 1985, the Navy awarded a contract for two oiler ships, with options for two
more, to the Penn Ship Company of Philadelphia at a cost of approximately $400
million, or about $100 million per ship. The contract was awarded despite great con-
cern by the Navy about the contractor's financial capability to complete such a task.
The Navy's financial concerns resulted in the assets of Penn Ship being placed in
a trust designed to protect the interests of the Navy in case the contract was termi-



^ "Irregularities in Navy Ship Procurement," hearing before the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, May 3, 1983.



nated for default. That is exactly what happened — the Navy terminated the contract
for default. And for the first time in nearly 20 years, a Navy ship was not com-
pleted.

Inexplicably, the Navy cancelled the trust agreement as part of the termination
for default. A closer look at the trust agreement showed that the liens and mort-
gages on the various properties secured for the Navy, were never filed, leaving the
Navy unprotected. The Navy's financial interest was unsecured. Despite tens of mil-
lions of dollars owed by Penn Ship as a result of the default, the only thing the
Navy received was a floating dry dock.

After terminating the contract, the Navy had the two partially-completed oilers
towed out of Penn Ship Company's yard in December 1989. At that point, these two
ships had cost the Navy over $300 million. Remember, under the original contract,
four ships were to cost roughly $400 million total.

Our investigation has also revealed that, after terminating the contract for de-
fault, the Navy paid Penn Ship $45,000 per day, and $90,000 on hoUdays, for pro-
viding security for the ships and materials that remained at the yard but belonged
to the Navy. The Navy continued to make these payments even after the ships were
long gone, and only left-over materials remained in the yard. Even though Penn
Ship still owed the Navy milUons of dollars, the Navy paid Penn Ship a total of $4.6
million more under this security arrangement.

In the final settlement of this matter, the Navy credited Penn Ship with $19 mil-
lion for a dry dock, which our investigation indicates the Navy has never used.
While the Navy is quick to explain that the dry dock is leased out, it appears that
the Navy receives no money for the use of this $19 million asset.

Unfortunately, the saga does not end here. The contract to complete these two
ships was not given to the compemy who had successfully built all the previous oil-
ers, nor even to the low bidder. The contract was awarded to Tampa Shipyards, a
company which was also in serious financial condition. Almost immediately, Tampa
Shipyards showed signs of trouble. The financial situation became so bad that sup-
pliers would not deliver materials to the yard, prompting Tampa Shipyards' owner
George Steinbrenner, to ask the Navy for a $25 million bailout. The Navy declined.
Despite financial relief granted by the Congress, Tampa Shipyards was soon back
in dire financial trouble. After $102 million more of taxpayer dollars were paid to
Tampa Shipyards, this contract, too, was terminated by the Navy for default.

The two unfinished ships are now rusting in the James River off" Virginia — they
will never be finished. Just last week a settlement was reached between Tampa
Shipyards and the Navy under which the Navy will pay an additional $18 million
to Tampa Shipyards.

The bottom line of this hearing is that nobody appears to be looking out for the
taxpayers' bottom line. The Navy spent about $450 million and the American tax-
payer received no ships. That's $450 million siient, and nothing but two rusting
hulks to show for it. This case stands as a devastating indictment of the current
state of the military procurement system.

This morning we will hear firom Derek Vander Schaaf, Deputy Inspector General
of the Department of Defense, who will outline the thorough report his office did
on this matter. We will also hear fipom two Navy captains, now retired, who had
the task of overseeing these contractors. Both Captain Schrodt and Captain Klein
advised the Navy that these two shipyards could not complete these ships. Had
their recommendations been followed immediately, we would probably not be con-
vening this hearing today, and there likely would be two more ships in the fleet.

On Thursday, May 4, we will receive testimony fi-om officials of the two contrac-
tors, Penn Ship and Tampa Shipyards. We will conclude our 2-day hearing with rep-
resentatives from the Navy.

I want to thank our Ranking Member, Senator Nunn, for his cooperation and for
his staffs assistance in this investigation. I look forward to continuing our tradition
at PSI of working together to eliminate these indefensible examples of waste in our
Nation's defense procurement system.

Senator RoTH. Senator Nunn.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR NUNN

Senator Nunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank
you for having this hearing and I thank your staff for the excellent
work they have done on this hearing.



Mr. Chairman, I remember in April of 1983, this Subcommittee
met, and you were Chairman at that time and I was the ranking
member at that time, and we had a hearing on irregularities in
Navy ship procurement. That hearing focused on cost mischarging
at a single shipyard.

Today, we will examine problems associated with a major ship
procurement. It is with some irony that I note that the specific case
study we will review today began its life cycle about the time of the
1983 hearing. The fact that we are here again is an illustration of
the enormous complexity of the procurement process, the myriad
figures and factors which play a part in that process, and the re-
quirement for adequate pre- and post-award oversight.

I understand the staff investigation will show that poor pre-
award evaluation took place. Improper planning, faulty construc-
tion, and poor contract oversight led to the point where the Navy
is now the owner of two unfinished, unsalvageable, and unwanted
tankers.

While each of the participants will have an opportunity to pro-
vide their view of events, it appears that there are enough prob-



Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on GoveNavy T-AO Kaiser Class oiler contract : hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, May 2 and 4, 1995 → online text (page 1 of 30)