[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 71 (Thursday, June 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12 
o'clock noon having arrived, the Senate will not proceed to the 
consideration of S. 1491, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1491) to amend the Airport and Airway 
     Improvement Act of 1982 and authorize appropriations, and for 
     other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported 
from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, with an 
amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Aviation 
     Administration Authorization Act of 1993''.

     SEC. 2. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) Authorization.--The second sentence of section 505(a) 
     of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. 
     U.S.C. 2204(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' immediately after ``1992,''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, and $18,016,700,000 for fiscal years 
     ending before October 1, 1994'' immediately before the period 
     at the end.
       (b) Discretionary Fund.--Section 505(a) of the Airport and 
     Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2204(a)) is 
     further amended by inserting immediately after the second 
     sentence the following new sentence: ``If the obligation 
     limitation on the amount made available under this subsection 
     for fiscal year 1994 is less than $1,800,000,000 and not less 
     than $1,700,000,000, then $50,000,000 of such amount shall be 
     credited to the discretionary fund established by section 
     507(c), without apportionment and without regard to the 
     distribution requirements of sections 507 and 508; and if the 
     obligation limitation on the amount made available under this 
     subsection for fiscal year 1994 is less than $1,700,000,000, 
     then $100,000,000 of such amount shall be credited to such 
     discretionary fund, without apportionment and without regard 
     to the distribution requirements of sections 507 and 508.''.
       (c) Obligational Authority.--Section 505(b)(1) of the 
     Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 
     2204(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``1993'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``1994''.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 503(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Airport and Airway 
     Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2202(a)(2)(B)(ii)) is 
     amended by inserting ``(including explosive detection 
     devices) and universal access systems'' immediately after 
     ``safety or security equipment''.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE LETTERS OF INTENT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of Transportation may issue letters of intent under section 
     513(d) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 
     App. U.S.C. 2212(d)) and use Airport Improvement Program 
     funds for planning, approving, and administering such letters 
     of intent.

     SEC. 5. LANDING AIDS AND NAVIGATIONAL EQUIPMENT INVENTORY 
                   POOL.

       Section 506(a) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 
     1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2205(a)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Landing aids and navigational equipment inventory 
     pool.--
       ``(A) Establishment of program.--Not later than December 
     31, 1993, and notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     title, the Secretary shall establish and implement a program 
     to purchase and reserve an inventory of precision approach 
     instrument landing system equipment, to be made available on 
     an expedited basis for installation at airports.
       ``(B) Authorization.--No less than $30,000,000 of the 
     amounts appropriated under paragraph (1) for each of the 
     fiscal years 1994 and 1995 shall be available for the purpose 
     of carrying out this paragraph, including acquisition, site 
     preparation work, installation, and related expenditures.''.

     SEC. 6. MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM.

       Section 506(a) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 
     1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2205(a)), as amended by this Act, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Microwave landing system.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, none of the amounts appropriated under this 
     subsection may be used for the development or procurement of 
     the microwave landing system, except as necessary to meet 
     obligations of the Government that may arise under contracts 
     in effect on January 1, 1994.''.

     SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN AVIATION AUTHORITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 313 of the Federal Aviation Act of 
     1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1354) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Assistance to Foreign Aviation Authorities.--The 
     Administrator may provide safety-related training and 
     operational services to foreign aviation authorities with or 
     without reimbursement, if the Administrator determines that 
     providing such services promotes aviation safety. To the 
     extent practicable, air travel reimbursed under this 
     subsection shall be conducted on United States air 
     carriers.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the 
     Federal Aviation Act of 1958 is amended by adding at the end 
     of the item relating to section 313 the following:

``(g) Assistance to foreign aviation authorities.''.

     SEC. 8. FOREIGN FEE COLLECTION.

       Section 313(f) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. 
     U.S.C. 1354(f)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting immediately after paragraph (2) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Recovery of cost of foreign aviation services.--
       ``(A) Establishment of fees.--Notwithstanding the 
     limitation of paragraph (4), the Administrator may establish 
     and collect fees for providing or carrying out the following 
     aviation services outside the United States: any test, 
     authorization, certificate, permit, rating, evaluation, 
     approval, inspection, or review. Such fees shall be 
     established as necessary to recover the additional cost of 
     providing or carrying out such services outside the United 
     States, as compared to the cost of providing or carrying out 
     such services within the United States. The provisions of 
     this paragraph do not limit the Administrator's authority to 
     establish and collect fees permitted under section 334 of 
     title 49, United States Code.
       ``(B) Crediting of preestablished fees.--Fees described in 
     subparagraph (A) that were not established before the date of 
     enactment of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     Authorization Act of 1993 may be credited in accordance with 
     paragraph (5).''.

     SEC. 9. REVIEW OF FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION.

       The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall conduct a review of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration's personnel administration, procurement 
     process, and overall organizational structure. The 
     Administrator shall, not later than March 30, 1994, report on 
     the results of the review to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Public Works and Transportation of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 10. REPEAL OF ANNUAL REPORT REQUIREMENT.

       Section 401 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act 
     of 1979 (Public Law 96-193; 94 Stat. 57) is repealed.

     SEC. 11. DISCONTINUATION OF AVIATION SAFETY JOURNAL.

       The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     may not publish, nor contract with any other organization for 
     the publication of, the magazine known as the ``Aviation 
     Safety Journal''. Any existing contract for publication of 
     the magazine shall be cancelled within 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 12. ACCESS OF FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS TO HIGH DENSITY 
                   AIRPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Title IV of the Federal Aviation Act of 
     1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1371 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 420. ACCESS OF FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS TO HIGH DENSITY 
                   AIRPORTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall not take a slot at a 
     high density airport from an air carrier and award such slot 
     to a foreign air carrier if the Secretary determines that air 
     carriers are not provided equivalent rights of access to 
     airports in the country of which such foreign air carrier is 
     a citizen.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) High density airport.--The term `high density 
     airport' means an airport at which the Administrator limits 
     the number of instrument flight rule takeoffs and landings of 
     an aircraft.
       ``(2) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Transportation.
       ``(3) Slot.--The term `slot' means a reservation, by an air 
     carrier at an airport, for an instrument flight rule takeoff 
     or landing of an aircraft in air transportation.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The portion of the table of 
     contents of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 relating to 
     title IV is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 420. Access of foreign air carriers to high density airports.
``(a) In general.
``(b) Definitions.''.

     SEC. 13. AIR SERVICE TERMINATION NOTICE.

       (a) In General.--(1) Title IV of the Federal Aviation Act 
     of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1371 et seq.), as amended by this 
     Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 421. AIR SERVICE TERMINATION NOTICE.

       ``(a) In General.--An air carrier may not terminate air 
     transportation from a nonhub airport included on the 
     Secretary's latest published list of such airports, unless 
     such air carrier has given the Secretary at least 60 days' 
     notice before such termination.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--The Secretary shall not apply the 
     requirements of subsection (a) when--
       ``(1) the carrier involved is experiencing a sudden or 
     unforeseen financial emergency, including natural weather-
     related emergencies, equipment-related emergencies, and 
     strikes;
       ``(2) the termination of transportation is made for 
     seasonal purposes only;
       ``(3) the transportation subject to termination is a new 
     service and the termination is made pursuant to an agreement 
     between the carrier and the local airport authority 
     concerning the circumstances under which the new service may 
     be terminated;
       ``(4) the carrier involved provides other transportation by 
     jet from another airport serving the same community as the 
     affected nonhub airport; or
       ``(5) the carrier involved makes alternative arrangements, 
     such as a change of aircraft size, or other types of 
     arrangements with a part 121 or part 135 air carrier, that 
     continues uninterrupted service from the affected nonhub 
     airport.
       ``(c) Waivers for Regional/Commuter Carriers.--Prior to 
     April 1, 1994, the Secretary shall establish terms and 
     conditions under which regional/commuter carriers can be 
     excluded from the termination notice requirement.
       ``(d) Definitions.-- For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Nonhub airport.--The term `nonhub airport' has the 
     meaning that term has under section 419(k)(4).
       ``(2) Part 121 air carrier.--The term `part 121 air 
     carrier' means an air carrier to which part 121 of title 14, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, applies.
       ``(3) Part 135 air carrier.--The term `part 135 air 
     carrier' means an air carrier to which part 135 of title 14, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, applies.
       ``(4) Regional/commuter carriers.--The term `regional/
     commuter carrier' means--
       ``(A) a part 135 air carrier; or
       ``(B) a part 121 air carrier that provides air 
     transportation exclusively with aircraft having a seating 
     capacity of no more than 70 passengers.
       ``(5) Termination.--The term `termination' means the 
     cessation of all service at an airport by an air carrier.''.
       (2) The portion of the table of contents of the Federal 
     Aviation Act of 1958 relating to title IV, as amended by this 
     Act, is further amended by inserting immediately after the 
     item relating to section 420 the following new item:

``Sec. 421. Air service termination notice.
``(a) In general.
``(b) Exceptions.
``(c) Waivers for regional/commuter carriers.
``(d) Definitions.''.

       (b) Civil Penalties.--Section 901(a)(1) of the Federal 
     Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1471(a)(1)) is amended 
     by inserting ``section 421 or'' immediately after ``$10,000 
     for each violation of''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be effective beginning on April 1, 1994.

     SEC. 14. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, 
                   AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 312 of the Federal Aviation Act of 
     1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1353) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Cooperative Agreements.--The Administrator may enter 
     into cooperative agreements on a cost-shared basis with 
     Federal and non-Federal entities that the Administrator may 
     select in order to conduct, encourage, and promote aviation 
     research, engineering, and development, including the 
     development of prototypes and demonstration models.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the 
     Federal Aviation Act of 1958 is amended by adding at the end 
     of the item relating to section 312 the following:

``(j) Cooperative agreements.''.

     SEC. 15. SAFETY OF JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

       (a) Study.--(1) Within 30 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in cooperation 
     with the National Transportation Safety Board, the National 
     Guard, and the Juneau International Airport, shall undertake 
     a study of the safety of the approaches to the Juneau 
     International Airport.
       (2) Such study shall examine--
       (A) the crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 1866 on September 
     4, 1971;
       (B) the crash of a Lear Jet on October 22, 1985;
       (C) the crash of an Alaska Army National Guard aircraft on 
     November 12, 1992;
       (D) the adequacy of NAVAIDS in the vicinity of the Juneau 
     International Airport;
       (E) the possibility of confusion between the Sisters Island 
     directional beacon and the Coghlan Island directional beacon;
       (F) the need for a singular Approach Surveillance Radar 
     site on top of Heintzleman Ridge;
       (G) the need for a Terminal Very High Frequency Omni-
     Directional Range (Terminal VOR) navigational aid in 
     Gastineau Channel; and
       (H) any other matters any of the parties named in paragraph 
     (1) think appropriate to the safety of aircraft approaching 
     or leaving the Juneau International Airport.
       (b) Report.--(1) Within 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Public 
     Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives a 
     report which--
       (A) details the matters considered by the study;
       (B) summarizes any conclusions reached by the participants 
     in the study;
       (C) proposes specific recommendations to improve or enhance 
     the safety of aircraft approaching or leaving the Juneau 
     International Airport, or contains a detailed explanation of 
     why no recommendations are being proposed;
       (D) estimates the cost of any proposed recommendations; and
       (E) includes any other matters the Secretary deems 
     appropriate.
       (2) The report shall include any minority views if 
     consensus is not reached among the parties listed in 
     subsection (a)(1).

     SEC. 16. SOLDOTNA AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT.

       (a) Release.--Notwithstanding section 16 of the Federal 
     Airport Act (as in effect on December 12, 1963), the 
     Secretary of Transportation is authorized, subject to the 
     provisions of section 4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (50 
     App. U.S.C. 1622c), and the provisions of subsection (b) of 
     this section, to grant releases from any of the terms, 
     conditions, reservations, and restrictions contained in the 
     deed of conveyance dated December 12, 1963, under which the 
     United States conveyed certain property to the city of 
     Soldotna, Alaska, for airport purposes.
       (b) Conditions.--Any release granted under subsection (a) 
     shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (1) The city of Soldotna, Alaska, shall agree that, in 
     conveying any interest in the property which the United 
     States conveyed to the city by deed dated December 12, 1963, 
     the city will receive an amount for such interest which is 
     equal to the fair market value (as determined pursuant to 
     regulations issued by the Secretary of Transportation).
       (2) Any such amount so received by the city shall be used 
     by the city for the development, improvement, operation, or 
     maintenance of a public airport.

     SEC. 17. ROLLA AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT.

       (a) Authorization To Grant Releases.--Notwithstanding 
     section 16 of the Federal Airport Act (as in effect on 
     December 30, 1957), the Secretary of Transportation is 
     authorized, subject to the provisions of section 4 of the Act 
     of October 1, 1949 (50 App. U.S.C. 1622c), and the provisions 
     of subsection (b) of this section, to grant releases from any 
     of the terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions 
     contained in the deed of conveyance dated December 30, 1957, 
     or any other deed of conveyance dated after such date and 
     before the date of enactment of this Act, under which the 
     United States conveyed certain property to the city of Rolla, 
     Missouri, for airport purposes.
       (b) Conditions.--Any release granted under subsection (a) 
     shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (1) The city of Rolla, Missouri, shall agree that, in 
     conveying any interest in the property which the United 
     States conveyed to the city by a deed described in subsection 
     (a), the city will receive an amount for such interest which 
     is equal to the fair market value (as determined pursuant to 
     regulations issued by the Secretary of Transportation).
       (2) Any such amount so received by the city shall be used 
     by the city for the development, improvement, operation, or 
     maintenance of a public airport.

     SEC. 18. PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Authority To Grant Release.--Notwithstanding section 4 
     of the Act of October 1, 1949 (50 App. U.S.C. 1622c), and 
     subject to the provisions of subsection (b), the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
     grant releases from all of the terms, conditions, 
     reservations, and restrictions contained in the deed of 
     conveyance dated September 15, 1949, under which the United 
     States conveyed certain property to Palm Springs, California, 
     for airport purposes. The releases shall apply only to 
     approximately 11 acres of lot 16 of section 13, and 
     approximately 39.07 acres of lots 19 and 20 of section 19, 
     used by the city of Palm Springs, California, for general 
     governmental purposes.
       (b) Conditions.--Any release granted by the Administrator 
     of the Federal Aviation Administration under subsection (a) 
     shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (1) The Administrator shall waive any requirement that 
     there be credited to the account of the airport any amount 
     attributable to the city's use for governmental purposes of 
     any land conveyed under the deed of conveyance referred to in 
     subsection (a) before the date of enactment of this section.
       (2) The city shall abandon all claims, against income of 
     the Palm Springs Regional Airport or other assets of that 
     airport, for reimbursement of general revenue funds that the 
     city may have expended before the date of enactment of this 
     Act for acquisition of 523.39 acres of land conveyed August 
     28, 1961, for airport purposes and for expenses incurred at 
     any time in connection with such acquisition, and such claims 
     shall not be eligible for reimbursement under the Airport and 
     Airway Improvement Act of 1982 or any successor Act.

     SEC. 19. NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAMS.

       (a) Soundproofing of Certain Residential Buildings.--
     Section 104(c)(2) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement 
     Act of 1979 (49 App. U.S.C. 2104(c)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' immediately before ``to operators 
     of airports''; and
       (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``; and (B) for projects to soundproof residential 
     buildings--
       ``(i) if the operator of the airport involved received 
     approval for a grant for a project to soundproof residential 
     buildings pursuant to section 301(d)(4)(B) of the Airport and 
     Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987;
       ``(ii) if the operator of the airport involved submits 
     updated noise exposure contours, as required by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(iii) if the Secretary determines that the proposed 
     projects are compatible with the purposes of this Act.''.
       (b) Soundproofing and Acquisition of Certain Residential 
     Properties.--Section 104(c) of the Aviation Safety and Noise 
     Abatement Act of 1979 (49 App. U.S.C. 2104(c)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Soundproofing and acquisition of certain residential 
     properties.--The Secretary is authorized under this section 
     to make grants to operators of airports and to units of local 
     government referred to in paragraph (1) for projects to 
     soundproof residential buildings located on residential 
     properties, and for projects to acquire residential 
     properties, at which noise levels are not compatible with 
     normal operations of an airport--
       ``(A) if the operator of the airport involved amended an 
     existing local aircraft noise regulation during calendar year 
     1993 to increase the maximum permitted noise levels for 
     scheduled air carrier aircraft as a direct result of 
     implementation of revised aircraft noise departure procedures 
     mandated for aircraft safety purposes by the Administrator of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration for standardized 
     application at airports served by scheduled air carriers;
       ``(B) if the operator of the airport involved submits 
     updated noise exposure contours, as required by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(C) if the Secretary determines that the proposed 
     projects are compatible with the purposes of this Act.''.

     SEC. 20. RELOCATION OF AIRWAY FACILITIES.

       Compensation received by the United States for transfer of 
     the San Jacinto Disposal Area by the United States to the 
     City of Galveston, Texas, shall include compensation to be 
     provided to the Federal Aviation Administration for all costs 
     of establishing airway facilities to replace existing airway 
     facilities on the San Jacinto Disposal Area. Such 
     compensation shall include but is not limited to the 
     replacement of the land, clear zones, buildings and 
     equipment, and demolition and disposal of the existing 
     facilities on the San Jacinto Disposal Area.

     SEC. 21. AUGUSTA STATE AIRPORT WEATHER SERVICES.

       (a) Requirement.--(1) The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     provide for weather observation services, including direct 
     radio contact between weather observers and pilots, at 
     Augusta State Airport in Maine.
       (2) The Secretary of Transportation shall be responsible 
     for the operation and maintenance of equipment necessary to 
     carry out paragraph (1).
       (b) Reimbursable Agreements.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation is authorized to enter into a reimbursable 
     agreement with the Maine Department of Transportation for the 
     provision of weather services pursuant to subsection (a).

     SEC. 22. STUDY ON CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall conduct a study on the availability and 
     effectiveness of restraint systems that may offer protection 
     to a child carried in the lap of an adult aboard an air 
     carrier aircraft or provide for the attachment of a child 
     restraint device to the aircraft.
       (b) Report.--The Administrator shall submit to the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
     of the House of Representatives a report on the results of 
     the study required in subsection (a). The report shall be 
     submitted within 6 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 23. EXCEPTIONS APPLICABLE TO STATE OF HAWAII.

       (a) Definitions.--(1) Section 101(24) of the Federal 
     Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1301(24)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``For purposes 
     of title IV, the term `interstate air transportation' does 
     not include air transportation of passengers commencing and 
     terminating in the State of Hawaii.''.
       (2) Section 101(26) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 
     App. U.S.C. 1301(26)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``With respect to transportation of passengers by 
     air within the State of Hawaii, the term `intrastate air 
     transportation' means the carriage of persons by a common 
     carrier for compensation or hire, by such aircraft, 
     commencing and terminating in the State of Hawaii; except 
     that the carriage of passengers moving as a part of a single 
     itinerary on a single ticket for transportation on an air 
     carrier or air carriers, beginning and/or ending outside the 
     State of Hawaii, is deemed to be in interstate 
     transportation.''.
       (b) Federal Preemption.--(1) Section 105(a) of the Federal 
     Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1305(a)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply to 
     any transportation by air of persons commencing and 
     terminating within the State of Hawaii.''.
       (2) Section 105(b)(2) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 
     (49 App. U.S.C. 1305(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``(other 
     than the State of Hawaii)''.

     SEC. 24. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 503(a)(2)(B) of the Airport and 
     Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2202(a)(2)(B)) 
     is amended by moving clauses (vii) and (viii) 2 ems to the 
     right.
       (b) Airport Plans.--Section 504(a)(1) of the Airport and 
     Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2203(a)(1)) is 
     amended by redesignating clauses (1), (2), and (3) as clauses 
     (A), (B), and (C), respectively.
       (c) Certain Project Costs.--Section 513(b)(4) of the 
     Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 
     2212(b)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or (in the case of a commercial service 
     airport which annually has less than 0.05 percent of the 
     total enplanements in the United States) between January 1, 
     1992, and October 31, 1992,'' immediately after ``July 12, 
     1976,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) That, with respect to a project at a commercial 
     service airport which annually has less than 0.05 percent of 
     the total enplanements in the United States, the Secretary 
     may approve the use of the funds described under paragraph 
     (2), notwithstanding the provisions of sections 505(d), 
     511(a)(16), and 515.''.

     SEC. 25. EXPENDITURES FROM AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND.

       Section 9502(d)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to expenditure from Airport and Airway Trust Fund) 
     is amended by striking ``(as such Acts were in effect on the 
     date of the enactment of the Airport and Airway Safety, 
     Capacity, Noise Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation 
     Act of 1992)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``(as such Acts 
     were in effect on the date of the enactment of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1993)''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I have the authorization of the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to modify my bill. I send that 
modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify it, and 
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is so modified.
  The modification is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Aviation 
     Administration Authorization Act of 1994''.

     TITLE I--AIRPORT AND AIRWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1982 AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 101. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) Authorization.--The second sentence of section 505(a) 
     of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. 
     U.S.C. 2204(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' immediately after ``1993,'';
       (2) by striking ``$15,413,157,000'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``$17,463,157,000''; and
       (3) by inserting ``, $19,663,157,000 for fiscal years 
     ending before October 1, 1995, and $21,943,157,000 for fiscal 
     years ending before October 1, 1996'' immediately before the 
     period at the end.
       (b) Obligational Authority.--Section 505(b)(1) of the 
     Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 
     2204(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``June 30, 1994'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 1996''.

     SEC. 102. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY.

       Section 502(a) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 
     1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2201(a)) is amended by striking ``and'' 
     at the end of paragraph (13); by striking the period at the 
     end of paragraph (14) and inserting in lieu thereof a 
     semicolon; and by inserting immediately after paragraph (14) 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(15) it is in the national interest to encourage projects 
     that employ innovative technology, concepts, and approaches 
     that will promote safety, capacity, and efficiency 
     improvements in the construction of airports and in the air 
     transportation system, and it is therefore an objective of 
     this Act that the Secretary encourage and solicit innovative 
     technology proposals and activities in the expenditure of 
     funding pursuant to the Act;''.

     SEC. 103. DEFINITION OF AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 503(a)(2) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act 
     of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2202(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by inserting ``(including 
     explosive detection devices) and universal access systems'' 
     immediately after ``safety or security equipment''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and if funded by a 
     grant under this title,''.

     SEC. 104. PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE.

       Section 505 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 
     1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2204) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Preventive Maintenance.--After January 1, 1995, no 
     funds made available for an airport pursuant to a grant under 
     this title shall be available for the replacement or 
     reconstruction of pavement unless the sponsor has provided 
     such assurances or certifications as the Secretary may 
     determine appropriate that such airport has implemented an 
     effective pavement maintenance/management program. The 
     Secretary may require such reports on pavement condition and 
     pavement management programs as the Secretary determines may 
     be useful.''.

     SEC. 105. LANDING AIDS AND NAVIGATIONAL EQUIPMENT INVENTORY 
                   POOL.

       Section 506(a) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 
     1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2205 (a)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Landing aids and navigational equipment inventory 
     pool.--
       ``(A) Establishment of program.--Not later than December 
     31, 1993, and notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     title, the Secretary shall establish and implement a program 
     to purchase a reserve an inventory of precision approach 
     instrument landing system equipment, to be made available on 
     an expedited basis for installation at airports.
       ``(B) Authorization.--No less than $30,000,000 of the 
     amounts appropriated under paragraph (1) for each of the 
     fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996 shall be available for the 
     purpose of carrying out this paragraph, including 
     acquisition, site preparation work, installation, and related 
     expenditures.''.

     SEC. 106. MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM.

       Section 506(a) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 
     1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2205(a)), as amended by this Act, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Microwave landing system.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, none of the amounts appropriated under this 
     subsection may be used for the development or procurement of 
     the microwave landing system, except as necessary to meet 
     obligations of the Government that may arise under contracts 
     in effect on January 1, 1994.''.

     SEC. 107. PRESERVATION OF FUNDS AND PRIORITY FOR AIRPORT AND 
                   AIRWAY PROGRAMS.

       Section 506(e)(5) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act 
     of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2205(e)(5)) is amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 1995,'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``September 30, 1996,''.

     SEC. 108. MILITARY AIRPORT SET-ASIDE.

       Section 508(d)(5) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act 
     of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2207(d)(5)) if amended by striking 
     ``each of fiscal years 1994 and 1995'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``fiscal year 1994 and each of the fiscal years 
     thereafter''.

     SEC. 109. MILITARY AIRPORT PROGRAM.

       Section 508(f) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 
     1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2207(f)) is amended--
       (1) by amending the subsection heading to read as follows:
       ``(f) Military Airport Program.--'';
       (2) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) Designation.--The Secretary may designate one or more 
     military airports to receive funds distributed under 
     subsection (d)(5). Airports designated under this subsection 
     prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration Authorization Act of 1994 shall remain 
     eligible to receive grants under subsection (d)(5).'';
       (3) by striking paragraph (2);
       (4) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``and in conducting the survey under 
     paragraph (2)'';
       (B) by striking ``current or military airports'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``military airports listed in the 
     reports issued by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
     Commission''; and
       (C) by inserting ``most'' immediately before ``enhance'';
       (5) by striking the second sentence in paragraph (4);
       (6) by striking ``for fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995'' 
     in paragraph (6); and
       (7) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (5), respectively.

     SEC. 110. SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT GRANT 
                   APPLICATIONS.

       Section 509(a)(3) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act 
     of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2208(a)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2 or more'' wherever it appears and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``1 or more''; and
       (2) by striking ``similar''.

     SEC. 111. REIMBURSEMENT FOR CERTAIN PAST EXPENDITURES.

       Section 513(a)(2) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act 
     of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2212(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D)(i) it was incurred (I) not more than 2 years before 
     the grant agreement for such project was executed; (II) after 
     September 30, 1993, and not later than September 30, 1996; 
     (III) in accordance with an airport layout plan approved by 
     the Secretary and in accordance with all applicable statutory 
     and administrative requirements that would have been 
     applicable to such work if the project had been carried out 
     after the grant agreement had been executed; and (IV) in the 
     case of projects initiated on or after 90 days following the 
     date of enactment of this subparagraph, after receiving the 
     Secretary's approval of the project;
       ``(ii) allowable costs under clause (i) may include (I) 
     interest payable on, and the retirement of, the principal of 
     bonds or other evidence of indebtedness incurred to initiate 
     the project involved and before the grant agreement for such 
     project was executed; and (II) interest payable on, and the 
     retirement of, the principal of bonds or other evidences of 
     indebtedness the proceeds of which were used to finance the 
     development work for which reimbursement is provided under 
     this subparagraph; and
       ``(iii) only the sums apportioned under sections 507(a)(1) 
     and 507(a)(2) may be obligated for project costs allowable 
     under clause (i) of this subparagraph;''.

     SEC. 112. TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 513(b) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act 
     1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2212(b)) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (5) and redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph 
     (5).

     SEC. 113. AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE LETTERS OF INTENT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the 
     ``Secretary'') may issue letters of intent under section 
     513(d) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 
     App. U.S.C. 2212(d)) and use funds for planning, approving, 
     and administering grants under the Airport Improvement 
     Program for issuing such letters of intent.

     SEC. 114. LETTERS OF INTENT.

       Section 513(d)(1) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act 
     of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2212(d)(1)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(H) Limitation of statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed to prohibit the obligation of 
     amounts pursuant to a letter of intent under this paragraph 
     in the same fiscal year as the letter of intent is issued.''.

     SEC. 115. REPORTS ON IMPACTS OF NEW AIRPORT PROJECTS.

       Section 509(b) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 
     1983 (49 App. U.S.C. 2208(b)) is amended by adding at the end 
     of the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) At least 90 days prior to the approval of a project 
     grant application for construction of a new hub airport that 
     is expected to have 0.25 percent or more of the total annual 
     enplanements in the United States, the Secretary shall submit 
     to Congress a report analyzing the anticipated impact of such 
     proposed new airport on--
       ``(A) the fees charged to air carriers (including landing 
     fees), and other costs that will be incurred by air carriers, 
     for using the proposed airport;
       ``(B) air transportation that will be provided in the 
     geographic region of the proposed airport; and
       ``(C) the availability and cost of providing air 
     transportation to rural areas in such geographic region.''.

     SEC. 116. AIRPORT SAFETY DATA COLLECTION.

       The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. 
     U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 535. AIRPORT SAFETY DATA COLLECTION.

       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may 
     contract, using sole source or limited source authority, for 
     the collection of airport safety data.''.

     SEC. 117. INTERMODAL SYSTEM PLANNING.

       (a) Definition.--The second sentence of section 503(a)(7) 
     of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. 
     U.S.C. 2202(a)(7)) is amended by inserting ``the role which 
     airports plan in the transportation system in a specific 
     area,'' immediately after ``identification of system 
     needs,''.
       (b) Integrated Airport System Planning Grants.--Section 
     508(d)(4) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 
     (49 App. U.S.C. 2207(d)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' immediately before ``Not less 
     than'';
       (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(B) Prior to the Secretary's approval of a grant to a 
     planning agency for integrated airport system planning, the 
     planning agency shall, insofar as its powers permit, certify 
     that the sponsor of any airport enplaning 0.25 percent or 
     more of the total number of passengers enplaned annually at 
     all commercial service airports is considered to be an 
     operator of a major mode of transportation pursuant to the 
     section 134(b)(2) of title 23, United States Code, and that 
     any such sponsor is a member, or will be appointed a member 
     as soon as practicable, of such planning agency.
       ``(C) Where such airport sponsor is a municipality, county, 
     or other entity of local government which already retains 
     membership on such planning agency, such planning agency 
     shall include an additional member from such municipality, 
     county, or entity of local government to represent the 
     airport. In order for the Secretary to approve a grant to a 
     planning agency under this paragraph, the airport must be a 
     co-applicant for such grant, and such grant shall be for 
     planning for projects that substantially benefit the airport 
     and shall be in proportion to the benefit it provides to the 
     airport.''.

     SEC. 118. STUDY ON INNOVATIVE FINANCING.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall study, as a means of 
     supplementing financing available under the Airport 
     Improvement Program, innovative approaches for using Federal 
     funds to finance airport development. Mechanisms should be 
     considered that will produce greater investments in airport 
     development per dollar of Federal expenditure. The Secretary 
     shall consider, among other options, approaches that would 
     permit the entering into of agreements with non-Federal 
     entities, such as airport sponsors, for the loan of Federal 
     funds, guarantee of loan repayment, or purchase of insurance 
     or other forms of enhancement for borrower debt, including 
     the use of unobligated Airport Improvement Program contract 
     authority and unobligated balances in the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund. The Secretary also shall consider means to lower 
     the cost of financing airport development. The Secretary may, 
     in considering innovative financing, consult with airport 
     owners and operators and public and private sector experts.
       (b) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall report the 
     findings of the study required by subsection (a) to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
     of the House of Representatives not later than 12 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 119. ADVANCED LANDING SYSTEM.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, 
     the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     (hereinafter referred to as the ``Administrator'') shall 
     consider for approval under subpart C of part 171 of title 
     14, Code of Federal Regulations, the new generation, low 
     cost, advanced landing system being developed by the 
     Department of Defense. The Charter for approval of such 
     system shall be considered and acted upon expeditiously by 
     the Regional Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration in the region where such system is being 
     developed.

     SEC. 120. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 503(a)(2)(B) of the Airport and 
     Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 Appp. U.S.C. 
     2202(a)(2)(B)) is amended by moving clauses (vii) and (viii) 
     2 ems to the right.
       (b) Airport Plans.--Section 504(a)(1) of the Airport and 
     Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2203(a)(1)) is 
     amended by redesignating clauses (1), (2), and (3) as clauses 
     (A), (B), and (C), respectively.
       (c) Certain Project Costs.--Section 513(b)(4) of the 
     Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 
     2212(b)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or (in the case of a commercial service 
     airport which annually has less than 0.05 percent of the 
     total enplanements in the United States) between January 1, 
     1992, and October 31, 1992,'' immediately after ``July 12, 
     1976,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) That, with respect to a project at a commercial 
     service airport which annually has less than 0.05 percent of 
     the total enplanements in the United States, the Secretary 
     may approve the use of the funds described under paragraph 
     (2), notwithstanding the provisions of sections 505(d), 
     511(a)(16), and 515.''.

     SEC. 121. EXPENDITURES FROM AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND.

       Section 9502(d)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to expenditure from Airport and Airway Trust Fund) 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or the Airport and Airway Safety, 
     Capacity, Noise Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation 
     Act of 1992'' immediately after ``Capacity Expansion Act of 
     1990''; and
       (2) by striking ``(as such Acts were in effect on the date 
     of the enactment of the Airport Improvement Program Temporary 
     Extension Act of 1994)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``or 
     the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 
     (as such Acts were in effect on the date of the enactment of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 
     1994)''.

                 TITLE II--FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958

     SEC. 201. ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN AVIATION AUTHORITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 313 of the Federal Aviation Act of 
     1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1354) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Assistance to Foreign Aviation Authorities.--(1) The 
     Administrator may provide safety-related training and 
     operational services to foreign aviation authorities with or 
     without reimbursement, if the Administrator determines that 
     providing such services promotes aviation safety. To the 
     extent practicable, air travel reimbursed under this 
     subsection shall be conducted on United States air carriers.
       ``(2) Funds received by the Administrator pursuant to this 
     section shall be credited to the appropriation from which the 
     expenses were incurred in providing such services.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the 
     Federal Aviation Act of 1958 is amended by adding at the end 
     of the item relating to section 313 the following:

``(g) Assistance to foreign aviation authorities.''

     SEC. 202. FOREIGN FEE COLLECTION.

       Section 313(f) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. 
     U.S.C. 1354(f)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting immediately after paragraph (2) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Recovery of cost of foreign aviation services.--
       ``(A) Establishment of fees.--Notwithstanding the 
     limitation of paragraph (4), the Administrator may establish 
     and collect fees for providing or carrying out the following 
     aviation services outside the United States: any test, 
     authorization, certificate, permit, rating, evaluation, 
     approval, inspection, or review.
       ``(B) Level of fees.--Such fees shall be established as 
     necessary to recover the additional cost of providing or 
     carrying out such services outside the United States, as 
     compared to the cost of providing or carrying out such 
     services within the United States; except that the 
     Administrator may, for such services as the Administrator 
     designates, establish fees at a level necessary to recover 
     the full cost of providing such services.
       ``(C) Effect on other authority.--The provisions of this 
     paragraph do not limit the Administrator's authority to 
     establish and collect fees permitted under section 334 of 
     title 49, United States Code.
       ``(D) Crediting of preestablished fees.--Fees described in 
     subparagraph (A) that were not established before the date of 
     enactment of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     Authorization Act of 1994 may be credited in accordance 
     with paragraph (5).''.

     SEC. 203. SAFETY AT ASPEN-PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT.

       (a) Nighttime Operations.--On and after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, nighttime operations (takeoffs and 
     landings) at Aspen-Pitkin County Airport in the State of 
     Colorado shall be allowed for pilots operating under parts 91 
     and 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, between 30 
     minutes after official sunset and 11 p.m., local time, only 
     if they are (1) granted clearance by air traffic control, (2) 
     instrument-rated, (3) operating an aircraft that is equipped 
     as required under section 91.205(d) of such title 14 for 
     instrument flight, and (4) operating an instrument approach 
     or departure approved by the Federal Aviation Administration. 
     An instrument-rated pilot may operate under visual flight 
     rules at such County Airport between 30 minutes after 
     official sunset and 11:00 p.m., only if such pilot has 
     completed at least one takeoff or landing in the preceding 12 
     calendar months at such County Airport, is granted clearance 
     by air traffic control, and operates an instrument-certified 
     aircraft.
       (b) Commitments of Airport Owner or Operator.--The owner or 
     operator of the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport shall be 
     considered to be in compliance with the requirements of the 
     Aircraft Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (49 App. U.S.C. 2151 
     et seq.) and not otherwise unjustly discriminatory when such 
     owner or operator notifies the Administrator that such owner 
     or operator (1) commits to modify its existing regulation to 
     expand access to general aviation operations under such 
     special operating restrictions as are created under 
     subsection (a) and such conditions applicable to aircraft 
     noise certification as are currently in effect for night 
     operations at such County Airport and (2) commits permanently 
     not to enforce its 1990 regulatory action eliminating the so-
     called ``ski season exception'' to its nighttime curfew. To 
     remain in compliance, such owner or operator shall carry out 
     both such commitments as of the effective date of the 
     Administrator's action establishing special operating 
     restrictions at such County Airport in accordance with 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Mountain Flying.--The Administrator shall issue a 
     Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on mountain flying.

     SEC. 204. EXEMPTIONS FROM SLOT RULES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the issue of slot requirements imposed by Federal 
     Aviation Administration regulations for high density airports 
     (commonly known as the ``High Density Rule'') is a 
     longstanding, significant concern to each of the affected 
     airports, the residents of neighboring communities, and the 
     aviation industry;
       (2) such slot regulations serve many purposes, including 
     ensuring that each airport operates efficiently; and
       (3) the Secretary has announced as part of the President's 
     Initiative to Promote a Strong Competitive Aviation Industry 
     that the Secretary will undertake a comprehensive examination 
     of such slot regulations and complete such examination by 
     November 1994.
       (b) Study.--(1) The Secretary's current examination of slot 
     regulations, referred to in subsection (a)(3), shall include 
     consideration of--
       (A) the impact of the current slot allocation process upon 
     the ability of air carriers to provide essential air service 
     in accordance with section 419 of the Federal Aviation Act of 
     1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1389);
       (B) the impact of such allocation process upon the ability 
     of new entrant air carriers to obtain slots in time periods 
     that enable them to provide service;
       (C) the impact of such allocation process on the ability of 
     foreign air carriers to obtain slots;
       (D) the fairness of such process to air carriers and the 
     extent to which air carriers are provided equivalent rights 
     of access to airports in the countries of which foreign air 
     carriers holding slots are citizens; and
       (E) the impact, on the ability of air carriers to provide 
     domestic and international service, of the withdrawal of 
     slots from air carriers in order to provide slots for foreign 
     air carriers.
       (2) The Secretary shall, not later than November 30, 1994, 
     complete and transmit the results of such examination to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Public Works and 
     Transportation of the House of Representatives.
       (c) Rulemaking Proceeding.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     rulemaking proceeding based on the results of the examination 
     described in subsection (b). In the course of such 
     proceeding, the Secretary shall issue proposed regulations 
     not later than March 1, 1995, and shall issue final 
     regulations not later than June 1, 1995.
       (d) Exemptions for High Density Airports.--(1) If the 
     Secretary finds it to be in the public interest, the 
     Secretary may grant exemptions from requirements under 
     subparts K and S of part 93 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, pertaining to slots at any high density airport 
     except Washington National Airport, to--
       (A) air carriers using Stage 3 aircraft, and commuter 
     operators, to enable such carriers to provide essential air 
     service under section 419 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 
     (49 App. U.S.C. 1389);
       (B) air carriers and foreign air carriers to enable such 
     carriers to provide foreign air transportation, using Stage 3 
     aircraft; and
       (C) new entrant air carriers at such high density airport, 
     only under circumstances determined by the Secretary to be 
     exceptional.
       (2) Notwithstanding sections 6005(c)(5)(C) and 6009(e) of 
     the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986 (49 App. 
     U.S.C. 2454(c)(5)(C) and 2458(e)), the Secretary may, only 
     under circumstances determined by the Secretary to be 
     exceptional, grant to an air carrier currently holding or 
     operating a slot an exemption from requirements under 
     subparts K and S of part 93 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, pertaining to slots at Washington National 
     Airport, to enable that carrier to provide service with Stage 
     3 aircraft, except that such exemption--
       (A) shall not result in an increase in the number of slots 
     at Washington National Airport;
       (B) shall not increase the number of operations at 
     Washington National Airport in any 1-hour period by more than 
     two operations; and
       (C) shall not result in the withdrawal or reduction of 
     slots operated by an air carrier.
       (3) No exemption granted under paragraph (1) or (2) may be 
     effective on or after the date on which the final regulations 
     issued under subsection (c) become effective.
       (e) Weekend Operations.--The Secretary shall consider the 
     advisability of revising section 93.227 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, so as to eliminate weekend schedules 
     from the determination as to whether the 80 percent standard 
     of subsection (a)(1) of that section has been met.
       (f) Limitation on certain Slot Withdrawals.--
     Notwithstanding section 93.223 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, the Secretary shall not, before final 
     regulations are issued under subsection (c) of this section, 
     withdraw a slot from any air carrier at O'Hare International 
     Airport for the purpose of providing the slot to another air 
     carrier or foreign air carrier.
       (g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) The terms ``air carrier'', ``foreign air carrier'', and 
     ``foreign air transportation'' have the meanings given those 
     terms, respectively, in section 101 of the Federal Aviation 
     Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1301).
       (2) The term ``commuter operator'' means an air carrier as 
     described in section 93.124(c)(2) of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (as in effect on March 1, 1994).
       (3) The term ``high density airport'' means an airport at 
     which the Administrator limits the number of instrument 
     flight rule takeoffs and landings of an aircraft.
       (4) The term ``new entrant air carrier'' means an air 
     carrier that does not hold a slot at the airport concerned 
     and has never sold or given up a slot at that airport after 
     December 16, 1985.
       (5) The term ``slot'' means a reservation, by an air 
     carrier or foreign air carrier at an airport, for an 
     instrument flight rule takeoff or landing of an aircraft in 
     air transportation.

     SEC. 205. AIR SERVICE TERMINATION NOTICE.

       (a) In General.--(1) Title IV of the Federal Aviation Act 
     of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1371 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 420. AIR SERVICE TERMINATION NOTICE.

       ``(a) In General.--An air carrier may not terminate 
     interstate or overseas air transportation from a nonhub 
     airport included on the Secretary's latest published list of 
     such airports, unless such air carrier has given the 
     Secretary at least 60 days' notice before such termination.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--The Secretary shall not apply the 
     requirements of subsection (a) when--
       ``(1) the carrier involved is experiencing a sudden of 
     unforeseen financial emergency, including natural weather-
     related emergencies, equipment-related emergencies, and 
     strikes;
       ``(2) the termination of transportation is made for 
     seasonal purposes only;
       ``(3) the transportation subject to termination is a new 
     service and the termination is made pursuant to an agreement 
     between the carrier and the local airport authority 
     concerning the circumstances under which the new service may 
     be terminated;
       ``(4) the carrier involved provides other transportation by 
     jet from another airport serving the same community as the 
     affected nonhub airport; or
       ``(5) the carrier involved makes alternative arrangements, 
     such as a change of aircraft size, or other types of 
     arrangements with a part 121 or part 135 air carrier, that 
     continues uninterrupted service from the affected nonhub 
     airport.
       ``(c) Waivers for region/commuter carriers.--Prior to 
     October 1, 1994, the Secretary shall establish terms and 
     conditions under which regional/commuter carriers can be 
     excluded from the termination notice requirement.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Nonhub airport.--The term `nonhub airport' has the 
     meaning that term has under section 419(k)(4).
       ``(2) Part 121 air carrier.--The term `part 121 air 
     carrier' means an air carrier to which part 121 of title 14, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, applies.
       ``(3) Part 135 air carrier.--The term `part 135 air 
     carrier' means an air carrier to which part 135 of title 14, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, applies.
       ``(4) Regional/commuter carriers.--The term `regional/
     commuter carrier' means--
       ``(A) a part 135 air carrier; or
       ``(B) a part 121 air carrier that provides air 
     transportation exclusively with aircraft having a seating 
     capacity of no more than 70 passengers.
       ``(5) Termination.--The term `termination' means the 
     cessation of all service at an airport by an air carrier.''.
       (2) The portion of the table of contents of the Federal 
     Aviation Act of 1958 relating to title IV is amended by 
     inserting immediately after the item relating to section 419 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 420. Air service termination notice.
``(a) In general.
``(b) Exceptions.
``(c) Waivers for regional/commuter carriers.
``(d) Definitions.''.

       (b) Civil Penalties.--Section 901(a)(1) of the Federal 
     Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1471(a)(1)) is amended 
     by inserting ``section 420 or'' immediately after ``$10,000 
     for each violation of''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be effective beginning on October 1, 1994.

     SEC. 206. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, 
                   AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 312 of the Federal Aviation Act of 
     1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1353) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Cooperative Agreements.--The Administrator may enter 
     into cooperative agreements on a cost-shared basis with 
     Federal and non-Federal entitles that the Administrator may 
     select in order to conduct, encourage, and promote aviation 
     research, engineering, and development, including the 
     development of prototypes and demonstration models.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the 
     Federal Aviation Act of 1958 is amended by adding at the end 
     of the item relating to section 312 the following:

``(j) Cooperative agreements.''.

     SEC. 207. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       Section 1112 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. 
     U.S.C. 1512) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``50 per centum'' wherever it appears and 
     inserting in lieu ``50 percent'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (3) by inserting immediately after subsection (b) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Compensation paid by an air carrier to an employee 
     described in subsection (a) in connection with such 
     employee's authorized leave or other authorized absence from 
     regular duties on the carrier's aircraft in order to perform 
     services on behalf of the employee's airline union shall not 
     be subject to the income tax laws of a State or subdivision 
     thereof, other than the State or subdivision thereof of the 
     employee's residence and the State or subdivision thereof in 
     which the employee's scheduled flight time would have been 
     more than 50 percent of the employee's total scheduled flight 
     time for the calendar year had the employee been engaged full 
     time in the performance of regularly assigned duties on the 
     carrier's aircraft.''.

     SEC. 208. REVIEW OF PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE PROGRAM.

       The Secretary shall conduct a review of section 158.49(b) 
     of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to assess the 
     effectiveness of such section in light of the objectives of 
     section 1113(e) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. 
     U.S.C. 1513(e)) and shall take such corrective action as the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary to address any problems 
     discovered in the review.

     SEC. 209. EXCEPTIONS APPLICABLE TO STATE OF HAWAII.

       (a) Definitions.--(1) Section 101(24) of the Federal 
     Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1301(24)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``For purposes 
     of title IV, the term `interstate air transportation' does 
     not include air transportation of passengers commencing and 
     terminating in the State of Hawaii.''.
       (2) Section 101(26) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 
     App. U.S.C. 1301(26)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``With respect to transportation of passengers by 
     air within the State of Hawaii, the term `intrastate air 
     transportation' means the carriage of persons by a common 
     carrier for compensation or hire, by such aircraft, 
     commencing and terminating in the State of Hawaii; except 
     that the carriage of passengers moving as a part of a single 
     itinerary on a single ticket for transportation on an air 
     carrier or air carriers, beginning and/or ending outside the 
     State of Hawaii, is deemed to be in interstate 
     transportation.''.
       (b) Federal Preemption.--(1) Section 105(a) of the Federal 
     Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1305(a)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply to 
     any transportation by air of persons commencing and 
     terminating within the State of Hawaii.''.
       (2) Section 105(b)(2) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 
     (49 App. U.S.C. 1305(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``(other 
     than the State of Hawaii)''.

     SEC. 210. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY REPORT.

       Section 315(b)(1) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 
     App. U.S.C. 1356(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``December 
     31'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``March 31''.

     SEC. 211. INTERMODAL ALL-CARGO AIR CARRIERS.

       (a) Definition.--Section 101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 
     1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1301) is amended by redesignating 
     paragraphs (25) through (41) as paragraphs (26) through (42), 
     respectively; and by inserting immediately after paragraph 
     (24) the following new paragraph:
       ``(25) `Intermodal all-cargo air carrier' means--
       ``(A) an air carrier (including an indirect cargo air 
     carrier, as defined in section 296.3 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as in effect on March 1, 1994) that 
     undertakes to provide the transportation described in section 
     105(a)(4); or
       ``(B) any other carrier--
       ``(i) which has authority to provide transportation;
       ``(ii) which (I) is affiliated with an air carrier 
     described in subparagraph (A) through common controlling 
     ownership, or (II) utilizes as principal or as shipper's 
     agent, or is affiliated through common controlling ownership 
     with companies that utilize, an air carrier described in 
     subparagraph (A) at least 15,000 times annually; and
       ``(iii) which undertakes to provide the transportation 
     described in section 105(a)(4).''.
       (b) Preemption.--Section 105(a) of the Federal Aviation Act 
     of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1305(a)), as amended by this Act, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no State 
     or political subdivision thereof, no interstate agency of two 
     or more States, and no other political agency of two or more 
     States shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, 
     standard, or other provision having the force and effect of 
     law relating to rates, routes, or services of any intermodal 
     all-cargo air carrier when such carrier is transporting 
     property, pieces, parcels, or packages between States or 
     wholly within any single State by aircraft or by motor 
     vehicle (whether or not such property has had or will have a 
     prior or subsequent air movement).
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) does not apply to the transportation of household 
     goods as defined in section 10102(11) of title 49, United 
     States Code; and
       ``(ii) shall not restrict safety regulatory authority. For 
     purposes of clause (ii), the authority to regulate rates, 
     routes, or services shall not be construed as safety 
     regulatory authority, except the authority permitted under 
     the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 App. U.S.C. 
     1801 et seq.) to regulate routing.
       ``(C) For purposes of this paragraph, a person who is an 
     intermodal all-cargo air carrier in any one State shall be 
     considered such a carrier in all States.
       ``(D) This paragraph shall not in any way limit the 
     applicability of paragraph (1).''.

 TITLE III--AVIATION SAFETY AND NOISE ABATEMENT ACT OF 1979 AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 301. REPEAL OF ANNUAL REPORT REQUIREMENT.

       Section 401 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act 
     of 1979 (Public Law 96-193; 94 Stat. 57) is repealed.

     SEC. 302. NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAMS.

       (a) Soundproofing of Certain Residential Buildings.--
     Section 104(c)(2) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement 
     Act of 1979 (49 App. U.S.C. 2104(c)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' immediately before ``to operators 
     of airports''; and
       (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``; and (B) for projects to soundproof residential 
     buildings--
       ``(i) if the operator of the airport involved received 
     approval for a grant for a project to soundproof residential 
     buildings pursuant to section 301(d)(4)(B) of the Airport and 
     Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987;
       ``(ii) if the operator of the airport involved submits 
     updated noise exposure contours, as required by the 
     Secretary; and
       (iii) if the Secretary determines that the proposed 
     projects are compatible with the purposes of this Act.''.
       (b) Soundproofing and Acquisition of Certain Residential 
     Properties.--Section 104(c) of the Aviation Safety and Noise 
     Abatement Act of 1979 (49 App. U.S.C. 2104(c)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Soundproofing and acquisition of certain residential 
     properties.--The Secretary is authorized under this section 
     to make grants to operators of airports and to units of local 
     government referred to in paragraph (1) for projects to 
     soundproof residential buildings located on residential 
     properties, and for projects to acquire residential 
     properties, at which noise levels are not compatible with 
     normal operations of an airport--
       ``(A) if the operator of the airport involved amended an 
     existing local aircraft noise regulation during calendar year 
     1993 to increase the maximum permitted noise levels for 
     scheduled air carrier aircraft as a direct result of 
     implementation of revised aircraft noise departure procedures 
     mandated for aircraft safety purposes by the Administrator of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration for standardized 
     application at airports served by scheduled air carriers;
       ``(B) if the operator of the airport involved submits 
     updated noise exposure contours, as required by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(C) if the Secretary determines that the proposed 
     projects are compatible with the purposes of this Act.''.

     SEC. 303. WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 9308(b)(1) of the Aviation Noise 
     and Capacity Act of 1990 (49 App. U.S.C. 2157(b)(1)) is 
     amended by inserting ``or a foreign air carrier'' immediately 
     after ``air carrier'' wherever it appears.
       (b) Definition.--Section 9308(h)(1) of the Aviation Noise 
     and Capacity Act of 1990 (49 U.S.C. 2157(h)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) Air carrier; foreign air carrier; air transportation; 
     united states.--The terms `air carrier', `foreign air 
     carrier', `air transportation', and `United States' have the 
     meanings such terms have under section 101 of the Federal 
     Aviation Act of 1958.''.

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. DISCONTINUATION OF AVIATION SAFETY JOURNAL.

       The Administrator may not publish, nor contract with any 
     other organization for the publication of, the magazine known 
     as the ``Aviation Safety Journal''. Any existing contract for 
     publication of the magazine shall be cancelled within 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 402. SAFETY OF JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

       (a) Study.--(1) Within 30 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary, in cooperation with the National 
     Transportation Safety Board, the National Guard, and the 
     Juneau International Airport, shall undertake a study of the 
     safety of the approaches to the Juneau International Airport.
       (2) Such study shall examine--
       (A) the crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 1866 on September 
     4, 1971;
       (B) the crash of a Lear Jet on October 22, 1985;
       (C) the crash of an Alaska Army National Guard aircraft on 
     November 12, 1992;
       (D) the adequacy of NAVAIDs in the vicinity of the Juneau 
     International Airport;
       (E) the possibility of inaccurate data from Sisters Island 
     DVOR, and the possibility of confusion between Elephant 
     Island Non-Directional Beacon and Coghlan Island Non-
     Directional Beacon;
       (F) the need for a singular Approach Surveillance Radar 
     site on top of Heintzleman Ridge;
       (G) the need for a Terminal Very High Frequency Omni-
     Directional Range (Terminal VOR) navigational aid in 
     Gastineau Channel; and
       (H) any other matters any of the parties names in paragraph 
     (1) think appropriate to the safety of aircraft approaching 
     or leaving the Juneau International Airport.
       (b) Report.--(1) Within 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
     of the House of Representatives a report which--
       (A) details the matters considered by the study;
       (B) summarizes any conclusions reached by the participants 
     in the study;
       (C) proposes specific recommendations to improve or enhance 
     the safety of aircraft approaching or leaving the Juneau 
     International Airport, or contains a detailed explanation of 
     why no recommendations are being proposed;
       (D) estimates the cost of any proposed recommendations; and
       (E) includes any other matters the Secretary deems 
     appropriate.
       (2) The report shall include any minority views if 
     consensus is not reached among the parties listed in 
     subsection (a)(1).

     SEC. 403. SOLDOTNA AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT.

       ``(a) Release.--Notwithstanding section 16 of the Federal 
     Airport Act (as in effect on December 12, 1963), the 
     Secretary is authorized, subject to the provisions of section 
     4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (50 App. U.S.C. 1622c), and 
     the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, to grant 
     releases from any of the terms, conditions, reservations, and 
     restrictions contained in the deed of conveyance dated 
     December 12, 1963, under which the United States conveyed 
     certain property to the city of Soldotna, Alaska, for airport 
     purposes.
       ``(b) Conditions.--Any release granted under subsection (a) 
     shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (1) The city of Soldotna, Alaska, shall agree that, in 
     conveying any interest in the property which the United 
     States conveyed to the city by deed dated December 12, 1963, 
     the city will receive an amount for such interest which is 
     equal to the fair market value (as determined pursuant to 
     regulations issued by the Secretary).
       (2) Any such amount so received by the city shall be used 
     by the city for the development, improvement, operation, or 
     maintenance of a public airport.

     SEC. 404. ROLLA AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT.

       ``(a) Authorization To Grant Release.--Notwithstanding 
     section 16 of the Federal Airport Act (as in effect on 
     December 30, 1957), the Secretary is authorized, subject to 
     the provisions of section 4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (50 
     App. U.S.C. 1622c), and the provisions of subsection (b) of 
     this section, to grant releases from any of the terms, 
     conditions, reservations, and restrictions contained in the 
     deed of conveyance dated December 30, 1957, or any other deed 
     of conveyance dated after such date and before the date of 
     enactment of this Act, under which the United States conveyed 
     certain property to the city of Rolla, Missouri, for airport 
     purposes.
       ``(b) Conditions.--Any release granted under subsection (a) 
     shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (1) The city of Rolla, Missouri, shall agree that, in 
     conveying any interest in the property which the United 
     States conveyed to the city by a deed described in subsection 
     (a), the city will receive an amount for such interest which 
     is equal to the fair market value (as determined pursuant to 
     regulations issued by the Secretary).
       (2) Any such amount so received by the city shall be used 
     by the city for the development, improvement, operation, or 
     maintenance of a public airport.

     SEC. 405. PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA.

       ``(a) Authority To Grant Release.--Notwithstanding section 
     4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (50 App. U.S.C. 1622c), and 
     subject to the provisions of subsection (b), the 
     Administrator shall grant releases from all of the terms, 
     conditions, reservations, and restrictions contained in the 
     deed of conveyance dated September 15, 1949, under which the 
     United States conveyed certain property to Palm Springs, 
     California, for airport purposes. The releases shall apply 
     only to approximately 11 acres of lot 16 of section 13, and 
     approximately 39.07 acres of lots 19 and 20 of section 19, 
     used by the city of Palm Springs, California, for general 
     governmental purposes.
       ``(b) Conditions.--Any release granted by the Administrator 
     under subsection (a) shall be subject to the following 
     conditions:
       (1) The administrator shall waive any requirement that 
     there is credited to the account of the airport any amount 
     attributable to the city's use of governmental purposes 
     of any land conveyed under the deed of conveyance referred 
     to in subsection (a) before the date of enactment of this 
     section.
       (2) The city shall abandon all claims, against income of 
     the Palm Springs Regional Airport or other assets of that 
     airport, for reimbursement of general revenue funds that the 
     city may have expended before the date of enactment of this 
     Act for acquisition of 523.39 acres of land conveyed August 
     28, 1961, for airport purposes and for expenses incurred at 
     any time in connection with such acquisition, and such claims 
     shall not be eligible for reimbursement under the Airport and 
     Airway Improvement Act of 1982 or any successor Act.

     SEC. 406. RELOCATION OF AIRWAY FACILITIES.

       Compensation received by the United States for transfer of 
     the San Jacinto Disposal Area by the United States to the 
     City of Galveston, Texas, shall include compensation to be 
     provided to the Federal Aviation Administration for all costs 
     of establishing airway facilities to replace existing airway 
     facilities on the San Jacinto Disposal Area. Such 
     compensation shall include but is not limited to the 
     replacement of the land, clear zones, buildings and 
     equipment, and demolition and disposal of the existing 
     facilities on the San Jacinto Disposal Area.

     SEC. 407. AUGUSTA STATE AIRPORT WEATHER SERVICES.

       (a) Requirement.--(1) The Secretary shall provide for 
     weather observation services, including direct radio contact 
     between weather observers and pilots, at Augusta State 
     Airport in Maine.
       (2) The Secretary shall be responsible for the operation 
     and maintenance of equipment necessary to carry out paragraph 
     (1).
       (b) Reimbursement Agreements.--The Secretary is authorized 
     to enter into a reimbursable agreement with the Maine 
     Department of Transportation for the provisions of weather 
     services pursuant to subsection (a).

     SEC. 408. STUDY ON CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator shall conduct a study on the 
     availability and effectiveness of restraint systems that may 
     offer protection to a child carried in the lap of an adult 
     aboard an air carrier aircraft or provide for the attachment 
     of a child restraint device to the aircraft.
       (b) Report.--The Administrator shall submit to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
     of the House of Representatives a report on the results of 
     the study required in subsection (a). The report shall be 
     submitted within 6 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 409. AIRCRAFT SMOKE EMERGENCIES.

       The Administrator shall enforce Federal Aviation 
     Administration regulations relating to pilot vision and smoke 
     emergencies caused by dense, continuous smoke in the cockpit 
     on current and future aircraft and shall report to Congress 
     within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act on the 
     Administration's efforts to ensure compliance with such 
     regulations.

     SEC. 410. REAL ESTATE TRANSFERS AND WEATHER OBSERVATIONS IN 
                   ALASKA.

       (a) Transfer of Site in Lake Minchumina, Alaska.--The 
     Administrator shall convey to the community of Lake 
     Minchumina, Alaska, the Federal Aviation Administration 
     building number 106 and a reasonable amount of land to make 
     use of the property, at Lake Minchumina, Alaska, for the 
     purpose of providing educational facilities, under the terms 
     set forth in Agreement No. DTFA04-93-J-82007, between the 
     Federal Aviation Administration and the Iditarod Area School 
     District, and such other terms as are mutually agreed on 
     between the Administrator and the community of Lake 
     Minchumina.
       (b) Transfer of Site in Fort Yukon, Alaska.--The 
     Administrator shall convey to the city of Fort Yukon, Alaska, 
     the buildings of the Federal Aviation Administration and land 
     in Fort Yukon, Alaska (described as that portion of Lot 4, 
     U.S. Survey 7161, within section 8, T.20 N., R.12E., 
     Fairbanks Meridian consisting of 7.14 acres, and containing 
     the health clinic and staff housing for the aforementioned 
     clinic) for the purpose of providing health services, under 
     terms that are mutually agreed on between the Administrator 
     and the city of Fort Yukon.
       (c) Weather Observation Services in Alaska.--(1) The 
     Administrator shall provide human observers to offer real-
     time weather information to pilots by direct radio contact in 
     Alaska at--
       (1) Dutch Harbor, Valdez, Wrangell, Petersburg, Sand Point, 
     and Yakutat on a full-time basis;
       (2) Aniak, St. Marys, Dillingham, Unalakleet, Fort Yukon, 
     Port Heiden, Anaktuvuk Pass, and Gustavus to replace the 
     Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS) in the event of 
     failures and to verify AWOS reports when the safety of 
     aircraft is at risk; and
       (3) other communities that the Administrator determines 
     require human weather observers.

     SEC. 411. STURGIS, KENTUCKY.

       (a) Authorization to Grant Releases.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Administrator is authorized, 
     subject to section 4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (50 App. 
     U.S.C. 1622c), and subsection (b) of this section, to grant 
     releases with respect to such parcels of land, or portions of 
     such parcels, as the Administrator determines are no longer 
     required for airport purposes, from any of the terms, 
     conditions, reservations, and restrictions contained in the 
     deed of conveyance dated July 13, 1948, under which the 
     United States conveyed such property to the Union County Air 
     Board, State of Kentucky, for airport purposes of the Sturgis 
     Municipal Airport.
       (b) Conditions.--Any release granted by the Administrator 
     under subsection (a) shall be subject to the following 
     conditions:
       (1) The Union County Air Board shall agree that, in leasing 
     or conveying any interest in the property with respect to 
     which releases are granted under subsection (a), such Board 
     will receive an amount that is equal to the fair lease value 
     or the fair market value, as the case may be (as determined 
     pursuant to regulations issued by the Secretary).
       (2) Such Board shall use any amount so received only for 
     the development, improvement, operation, or maintenance of 
     the Sturgis Municipal Airport.
       (3) Any other conditions that the Administrator considers 
     necessary to protect to advance the interests of the United 
     States in civil aviation.

   TITLE V--AIRPORT-AIR CARRIER DISPUTES REGARDING RATES, FEES, AND 
                                CHARGES

     SEC. 501. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

       Section 502(a) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 
     1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2201(a)), as amended by this Act, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(16) airport fees, rates, and charges must be reasonable 
     and may only be used for purposes not prohibited by this Act; 
     and
       ``(17) airports should be as self-sustaining as possible 
     under the circumstances existing at each particular airport; 
     and in establishing new fees, rates, and charges, and 
     generating revenues from all sources, airport owners and 
     operators should not seek to create revenue surpluses that 
     exceed the amounts to be used for airport system purposes and 
     for other purposes for which airport revenues may be spent 
     under section 511(a)(12), including reasonable reserves and 
     other funds to facilitate financing and cover 
     contingencies.''.

     SEC. 502. AIRPORT FINANCIAL REPORTING.

       (a) Format for reporting.--Within 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prescribe a 
     uniform simplified format for reporting that is applicable to 
     airports. Such a format shall be designed to enable the 
     public to understand readily how funds are collected and 
     spent at airports, and to provide sufficient information 
     relating to total revenues, operating expenditures, capital 
     expenditures, debt service payments, contributions to 
     restricted funds, accounts, or reserves required by financing 
     agreements or convenants or airport lease or use agreements 
     or convenants. Such format shall require each commercial 
     service airport to report the amount of any revenue surplus, 
     the amount of concession-generated revenue, and other 
     information as required by the Secretary.
       (b) Requirement to use format.--Within 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act and once each year thereafter, 
     each airport which is subject to any grant assurance under 
     section 511(a) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 
     1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2210(a)) shall file reports to the 
     Secretary in the format prescribed by the Secretary under 
     this section.
       (c) Annual summaries.--The Secretary shall provide annual 
     summaries of such reports to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Public Works and Transportation of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 503. ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT AGAINST ILLEGAL DIVERSION OF 
                   AIRPORT REVENUE

       (a) New Policies and Procedures.--Section 511 of the 
     Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 
     2210) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Policies and Procedures to Ensure Enforcment Against 
     Illegal Diversion of Airport Revenue.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall establish 
     policies and procedures that will assure the prompt and 
     effective enforcement of subsections (a)(9) and (a)(12) and 
     grant assurance made under such subsections. Such policies 
     and procedures shall recognize the exemption provision in 
     subsection (a)(12), and shall respond to the information 
     contained in the reports of the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Transportation on airport revenue diversion and 
     such other relevant information as the Secretary may by law 
     consider.
       ``(2) Revenue diversion.--Such policies and procedures 
     shall prohibit, at a minimum, the diversion of airport 
     revenues (except as authorized under subsection (a)(12)) 
     through--
       ``(A) direct payments or indirect payments, other than 
     payments reflecting the value of services and facilities 
     provided to the airport;
       ``(B) use of airport revenues for general economic 
     development, marketing, and promotional activities unrelated 
     to airports or airport systems;
       ``(C) payments in lieu of taxes or other assessments that 
     exceed the value of services provided; or
       ``(D) payments to compensate nonsponsoring 
     governmental bodies for lost tax revenues exceeding stated 
     tax rates.
       ``(3) Efforts to be self-sustaining.--With respect to 
     subsection (a)(9), such policies and procedures shall take 
     into account, at a minimum, whether owners and operators of 
     airports, when entering into new or revised agreements or 
     otherwise establishing rates, charges, and fees, have 
     undertaken reasonable efforts to make their particular 
     airports as self-sustaining as possible under the 
     circumstances existing at such airports.
       ``(4) Administrative safeguards.--Such policies and 
     procedures shall mandate internal controls, auditing 
     requirements, and increased levels of Department of 
     Transportation personnel sufficient to respond fully and 
     promptly to complaints received regarding possible violations 
     of subsections (a)(9) and (a)(12) and related grant 
     assurances and to alert the Secretary to such possible 
     violations.''.
       ``(b) Judicial Enforcement.--If any airport sponsor 
     violates section 511(a)(12) of the Airport and Airway 
     Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2210(a)(12)) or any 
     grant assurance thereunder, or violates section 536(d) of 
     such Act, the Secretary may apply to the district court of 
     the United States, for any district in which such airport 
     sponsor carries on business or in which the violation 
     occurred, for the enforcement of such section or assurance; 
     and such court shall have jurisdiction to enforce obedience 
     thereto by a writ of injunction or other process, mandatory 
     or otherwise, restraining such airport sponsor from further 
     violation of such section or assurance and requiring their 
     obedience thereto.
       ``(c) Witholding of Approval of Applications for Grants or 
     Passenger Facility Charges.--Section 519 of the Airport and 
     Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2218) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Action on Grant Assurances Concerning Airport 
     Revenues.--If after notice and opportunity for a hearing the 
     Secretary finds a violation of section 511(a)(12), as further 
     defined by the Secretary under section 511(i), or a violation 
     of an assurance under section 511(a)(12), and the Secretary 
     has provided an opportunity for the airport sponsor to take 
     corrective action to cure such violation and such corrective 
     action has not been taken within the period of time set by 
     the Secretary, the Secretary shall withhold approval of 
     any new grant application for funds under this Act, or any 
     proposed modification to an existing grant that would 
     increase the amount of funds made available under this Act 
     to the airport sponsor, and withhold approval of any new 
     application to impose a fee under section 1113(e) of the 
     Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1513(e)). 
     Such applications may thereafter be approved only upon a 
     finding by the Secretary that such corrective action as 
     the Secretary requires has been taken to address the 
     violation and that the violation no longer exists.''.
       (d) Civil Penalties.--(1) Section 901(a)(1) of the Federal 
     Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1471(a)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or (C) section 511(a)(12) of the Airport 
     and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 
     2210(a)(12)) or any assurance thereunder,'' immediately after 
     ``under this Act,'' in the first sentence; and
       (B) by inserting a semicolon and ``except that in the case 
     of a violation of section 511(a)(12) of the Airport and 
     Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2210(a)(12)), 
     the maximum civil penalty for a continuing violation shall 
     not exceed $50,000'' immediately before the period at the end 
     of the second sentence.
       (2) Section 901(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Aviation Act of 
     1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1471(a)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting 
     ``, or a violation of section 511(a)(12) of the Airport and 
     Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2210(a)(12)), 
     as further defined by the Secretary under section 511(i) of 
     such Act, or a violation of an assurance under such section 
     511(a)(12)'' immediately before the period at the end.
       (3) Section 901(a)(3)(E) of the Federal Aviation Act of 
     1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1471(a)(3)(E)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) Certain violations of airport and airway improvement 
     act of 1982.--In the case of a violation of section 
     511(a)(12) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 
     or an assurance thereunder--
       ``(I) a civil penalty shall not be assessed against an 
     individual;
       ``(II) a civil penalty may be compromised as provided under 
     paragraph (2) of this section; and
       ``(III) judicial review of any order assessing a civil 
     penalty may be obtained only pursuant to section 1006 of this 
     Act.''.

     SEC. 504. RESOLUTION OF AIRPORT-AIR CARRIER DISPUTES 
                   CONCERNING AIRPORT FEES.

       The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. 
     U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), as amended by this Act, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 563. RESOLUTION OF AIRPORT-AIR CARRIER DISPUTES 
                   CONCERNING AIRPORT FEES.

       ``(a) Authority to Request Secretary's Determination.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue a 
     determination as to whether a fee imposed upon one or more 
     air carriers by the owner or operator of an airport is 
     reasonable, if--
       ``(A) a written request for such determination is filed 
     with the Secretary by such owner or operator; or
       ``(B) a written complaint requesting such determination is 
     filed with the Secretary by an affected air carrier within 60 
     days after such carrier receives written notice of the 
     establishment, or increase, of such fee.
       ``(2) Calculation of fee.--A fee subject to a determination 
     of reasonableness under this section may be calculated 
     pursuant to either a compensatory or residual fee methodology 
     or any combination thereof.
       ``(3) Secretary not to set fee.--In determining whether a 
     fee is reasonable under this section, the Secretary may only 
     determine whether the fee is reasonable or unreasonable and 
     shall not let the level of the fee.
       ``(b) Procedural Regulations.--The Secretary, not later 
     than 90 days after the date of enactment of this section, 
     shall publish in the Federal Register final regulations, 
     policy statements, or guidelines establishing--
       ``(1) the procedures for acting upon any written request or 
     complaint filed under subsection (a)(1); and
       ``(2) the standards or guidelines that shall be used by the 
     Secretary in determining under this subsection whether an 
     airport fee is reasonable.
       ``(c) Decisions by Secretary.--The final regulations, 
     policy statements, or guidelines required in subsection (b) 
     shall provide the following:
       ``(1) Not more than 120 days after an air carrier files 
     with the Secretary a written complaint relating to an airport 
     fee, the Secretary shall issue a final order determining 
     whether such fee is reasonable.
       ``(2) Within 30 days after such complaint is filed with the 
     Secretary, the Secretary shall dismiss the complaint if no 
     significant dispute exists or shall assign the matter to an 
     administrative law judge; and thereafter the matter shall be 
     handled in accordance with part 302 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, and any specifically applicable 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(3) The administrative law judge shall issue a 
     recommended decision within 90 days after the complaint is 
     filed or within such shorter period as the Secretary may 
     specify.
       ``(4) If the Secretary, upon the expiration of 120 days 
     after the filing of the complaint, has not issued a final 
     order, the decision of the administrative law judge shall be 
     deemed to be the final order of the Secretary.
       ``(5) Any party to the dispute may seek review of a final 
     order of the Secretary under this subsection in the courts of 
     appeal of the United States.
       ``(6) Any findings of fact in a final order of the 
     Secretary under this subsection, if supported by substantial 
     evidence, shall be conclusive if challenged in a court 
     pursuant to this subsection. No objection to such a final 
     order shall be considered by the court unless objection was 
     urged before an administrative law judge or the Secretary at 
     a proceeding under this subsection or, if not so urged, 
     unless there were reasonable grounds for failure to do so.
       ``(d) Escrow; Guarantee of Air Carrier Access.--
       ``(1) Escrow.--Any fee increase or newly established fee 
     (except for a fee paid as part of an agreement entered into 
     prior to June 9, 1994, under which such fee is paid under 
     protest), which is the subject of a complaint that is not 
     dismissed by the Secretary, shall be paid by the complainant 
     air carrier into an appropriate escrow account maintained for 
     such purpose, until final disposition of the matter by the 
     Secretary. The balance of the escrow account, including any 
     interest accumulated thereon, shall be disbursed in 
     accordance with directions in the final order of the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Guarantee of air carrier access.--Contingent upon an 
     air carrier's compliance with the escrow requirements of 
     paragraph (1) and pending the issuance of a final order of 
     the Secretary determining the reasonableness of a fee that is 
     the subject of a complaint filed under subsection (a)(1)(B), 
     an owner or operator of an airport may not deny an air 
     carrier currently providing air service at the airport 
     reasonable access to airport facilities or service, or 
     otherwise interfere with an air carrier's rates, routes, or 
     services, as a means of enforcing the fee.
       ``(e) Applicability.--This section does not apply to--
       ``(1) a fee imposed pursuant to a written agreement with 
     air carriers using the facilities of an airport;
       ``(2) a fee imposed pursuant to a financing agreement or 
     covenant entered into prior to the date of enactment of this 
     section; or
       ``(3) any other existing fee not in dispute as of such date 
     of enactment.
       ``(f) Effect on Existing Agreements.--Nothing in this 
     section shall adversely affect--
       ``(1) the rights of any party under any existing written 
     agreement between an air carrier and the owner or operator of 
     an airport; or
       ``(2) the ability of an airport to meet its obligations 
     under a financing agreement, or covenant, that is in force as 
     of the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(g) Definition.--In this section, the term `fee' means 
     any rate, rental charge, landing fee, or other service charge 
     for the use of airport facilities.''.

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, we have worked for months--I think my 
distinguished ranking member, the Senator from South Dakota and his 
staff will understand what we have gone through; I started to say 
Hades; that is a pretty good word--in order to try to work out what we 
have today. I think it is important that I take a few minutes, maybe up 
to 15, to try to describe what is now in the modification that is at 
the desk. I understand there are several amendments to the bill, and I 
am perfectly willing to look at those. Some I think both of us could 
accept here this afternoon, and I think we could move on with the bill. 
Hopefully, we might get it done in the next couple hours. I am not sure 
we can, but I am certainly going to try. So let me take a few moments 
now to describe what is in the modification that is before the Senate.
  Madam President, today the Senate will begin debate on an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, as modified, to S. 1491, the Federal 
Aviation Administration Authorization Act. It has been a long journey 
for this legislation in that it was reported by the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation on November 9, 1993. S. 1491 
proposes a 3-year authorization for the Airport Improvement Program, 
the primary source of the Federal funds for airport development.
  The Airport Improvement Program, referred to as AIP, provides funds 
for the construction and improvement of airports. The program is 
authorized through fiscal year 1996 and is considered ``contract 
authority'' under the bill. If the Congress fails to authorize this 
program, the FAA would be prohibited from providing any grants to 
airports after June 30, 1994.
  Madam President, on April 19, 1994, the Senate passed S. 2024, a bill 
to provide temporary authority for the AIP. This bill was signed by the 
President on May 26, 1994, and provides for funding for airport grants 
until June 30 of this year. This legislation was needed in order to get 
funds to airports for much needed capacity projects. I did not want to 
miss the construction season and many projects were being delayed due 
to other legislative issues.
  S. 2024 also imposed a freeze on airport fees during the period of 
the bill. As my colleagues are well aware, I have been attempting to 
negotiate an agreement between the airports and the airlines on the 
airline fee issue. I am delighted to report that a compromise has been 
reached which I will explain later in my remarks.
  During the discussions between the House and the Senate on S. 2024, 
the issue of the air traffic controller pay demonstration was 
addressed. I know of the importance of this program to Senators from 
Illinois, California, and New York. The agreement is simply a stopgap 
measure to keep the program alive. It is my desire to address this 
issue later this year in an FAA reform package. The bill also required 
that the DOT undertake a study of management, regulatory, and 
legislative reforms of the air traffic control system within the FAA, 
not a corporation for air traffic control, which I oppose.
  S. 2024 resolved the distribution of AIP funds for the duration of 
the authorization which will make the conference on S. 1491 much 
easier. S. 2024 increased the minimum AIP entitlement to $500,000 
annually for small airports and reduced the set-asides for reliever and 
commercial service airports. The agreement on set-asides ensures that 
the FAA is able to meet its current and future obligations under the 
letters of intent program which provides for long-term funding 
commitments to airport projects.
  The set-aside for reliever airports was dropped from 10 to 5 percent. 
The commercial service set-aside dropped from 2.5 to 1.5 percent. Both 
of these changes were suggested by the Clinton administration. The 
small airport fund which was created in 1990 by the turnback of 
entitlement from large and medium sized airports imposing passenger 
facility charges--known as PFC's--will make up the difference so there 
should be no loss to these two categories of airports.
  In addition, reliever airports would be allowed to use AIP funds for 
terminal development and the current $200,000 cap on discretionary 
funds that could be used for terminal development at small commercial 
service airports was removed. The set-aside for integrated airport 
system planning, which was sought by the National Association of State 
Aviation Officials, was increased from 0.5 to 0.75 percent.
  Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to thank my 
colleagues in the House of Representatives--Representative Mineta, 
Representative Oberstar, Representative Shuster, and Representative 
Clinger for their efforts in reaching the agreement on S. 2024. I know 
they would have much preferred settling all of the issues regarding the 
FAA in a long-term bill, but they were willing to work with me to get 
some funding to airports while other issues were being addressed. I am 
extremely grateful for their efforts.
  I would also like to thank my colleagues on the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation--the chairman, Senator Hollings, 
the ranking minority, Senator Danforth, and above all, the ranking 
minority of the Aviation Subcommittee, Senator Pressler. These 
colleagues and their staff have assisted in the bill the Senate is 
considering today. They have provided much needed information and 
leadership on aviation matters. Senator Exon and his staff have also 
been a great source of assistance.
  Turning specifically to S. 1491, the bill establishes an equipment 
inventory of instrument landing systems [ILS]. This is a needed 
provision in that presently it takes the FAA 4 years to commission an 
ILS. The bill authorizes the FAA to charge U.S. and foreign aircraft 
manufacturers for international travel to conduct certification work. 
This is one of the eleven sections in the bill requested by the Clinton 
administration. The bill limits the FAA's ability to take slots for 
international service by foreign carriers from U.S. carriers. The bill 
requires air carriers to provide 60-day advance notice to appropriate 
officials prior to terminating service to small cites. At the request 
of Senator Dorgan the bill requires needed economic study before a new 
airport is constructed.

  S. 1491 also incorporates the provisions of S. 444, the Juneau 
International Airport Safety Act of 1993, and S. 1192, the Soldotna 
Airport Improvement Act. Both of these bills were reported by the 
Senate Commerce Committee in 1993. S. 1498, the Rolla [MO] Airport 
Improvement Act, introduced by Senator Danforth also is included in 
this legislation.
  At the request of Senator Inouye, S. 1491 allows the State of Hawaii 
to regulate intrastate air transportation. This section specifically 
defines the term ``intrastate air transportation'' as a passenger that 
commences and terminates air transportation in the State of Hawaii.
  S. 1491 authorizes the FAA to enter into cooperative agreements with 
Federal and non-Federal entities to pursue research, engineering and 
development activities on a cost-shared basis.
  The bill extends AIP eligibility to include explosive detection 
devices and universal access systems. Passenger facility charges may be 
used to meet Federal mandates under the Americans With Disabilities 
Act, the Clean Air Act, and Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
  One Further issue included in this legislation is that the future 
procurement of the microwave landing system is prohibited. I was 
delighted to learn that the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration, David Hinson, decided to halt further development of 
the category 2 and 3 microwave landing systems. I know many of my 
colleagues agree with me that we need to move forward with the global 
positioning system [GPS] by curtailing spending for the microwave 
landing system program. Many years ago, before many of us were even 
Members of the Senate, MLS was originally thought to be the new 
generation system for tracking aircraft. MLS technology has been 
superseded by the GPS, which relies on a series of satellites to track 
the movement of aircraft.
  On Monday, after several months of meetings and discussion, an 
agreement was reached to settle the debate on Pitkin County Airport and 
the FAA which has been in process for over 4 years. My colleague, 
Senator Campbell, will be addressing this compromise during the debate. 
I commend the representatives of AOPA and NBAA in their efforts to 
resolve this issue.
  There are two final issues addressed in S. 1491--intrastate trucking 
regulation and airport fees and charges. I know all of my colleagues 
have had the opportunity to hear both sides of each of these issues. It 
is hoped I can provide a little background and the need for both of 
these provisions.
  Section 211 of the committee substitute has been included to address 
an inequity by a 1991 ninth circuit court decision which gave Federal 
Express the right to pick up and deliver goods between any two points 
in a single State. This court decision gave one freight carrier a 
distinct competitive advantage in serving the needs of its customers. 
Other transportation companies which compete with Federal Express 
cannot pick up and deliver between two points in those nine States 
unless the State has specifically assigned that company the authority 
to operate between those two points. This means a competitively 
disadvantaged carrier must tell its shippers and customers they are 
unable to provide the service, or cannot provide the service at the 
same rates as Federal Express.
  In today's highly competitive transportation environment, shippers of 
goods often look for one company or a family of companies to meet all 
of their transportation needs. Some shippers no longer even have 
transportation departments--they look to a single transportation 
company to plan their logistics and provide transportation for them. If 
you are a transportation provider but are not allowed to serve between 
two points within a State, you have a problem. If Federal Express has 
the authority to operate between those two points, and others do not, 
or if Federal Express can change or lower rates without filing with a 
State, they will get the business. It is just that simple.
  Section 211 is an attempt to level the playing field so that 
corporations and their subsidiaries or affiliates that engage in 
various modes of transportation and that rely on air cargo as a part of 
their overall family of services are free to operate between any two 
points within a State at rates negotiable with shippers.
  Section 211 will save consumers millions of dollars in shipping 
costs. Today transportation carriers wishing to meet customer needs, 
when feasible, will drive their trucks across a State line to a truck 
terminal, unload the truck, then reload the freight into another truck 
and return to the original State so that the shipment can be considered 
an ``interstate'' move and is thereby exempt from State regulation.
  This circuitous routing is time-consuming, gas guzzling, 
environmentally unsound, adds unnecessary traffic to already 
overcrowded highways, makes the shipping costs of products higher than 
necessary, and in a global economy it is simply ridiculous.
  Let me specify what section 211 does not do. It does not preempt any 
State's regulation of trucking safety or insurance requirements. it 
does not alter any responsibilities of the Interstate Commerce 
Commission. A company does not have to own airplanes to meet the 
definition of this section.
  Section 211 does allow intermodal all-cargo air carriers which 
complete against Federal Express to have the same freedom of operation 
as Federal Express. Federal Express supports the amendment as it seeks 
certainty with the ninth circuit court decision.
  Madam President, during the consideration of S. 2024 on April 19, 
1994, I spent a great deal of time explaining the issues regarding 
airport rates and fees. There is a natural tension between airports and 
airlines in that the airline industry is reeling from record losses. In 
the past 3 years, it is estimated that the airline industry has lost 
$11 billion. The trend within the airline industry is to downsize. 
Airline projections are still flat and aviation analysts do not expect 
any big upturn for several years. The only growth in the airline 
industry is in the low cost point-to-point service.
  With all of the turmoil going on in the airline industry, airports 
keep expanding since their costs are guaranteed. Airports plan to spend 
as much as $50 billion in construction during the next 5 years--double 
what they spent throughout the 1980's. Airports are confident that a 
big rise in airline traffic is just around the corner. In many cases, 
airports are spending millions to improve unused facilities. Airports 
are counting on the airline, certainly a weak revenue source, through 
landing and space rental fees to cover the costs of expansions.
  Airport officials offer bullish predictions of a surge in air travel 
to justify their expansion plans. Cities often see airports as a means 
to promote tourism, attract jobs, and expand air service. Construction 
projects provide local economic and political benefits. But my 
colleagues are aware that the forecasts for increases in airline 
passengers have flopped and airports have been reluctant to adjust 
their predictions downward. For example, it was recently reported that 
in 1990, the FAA estimated passenger projections for the new Denver 
International Airport at 27.4 million passengers boarding in 1995. The 
next year, that projection was lowered 37 percent to 17.2 million 
passengers.
  From 1982 to 1993, landing fees and rental charges per passenger 
increased 96 percent, while producer prices increased 25 percent.
  Let me go into specific airlines. USAir's rent and landing fee budget 
of almost $500 million in 1994 represents 7 percent of their costs--
more than mechanic's wages, flight attendants' wages, or customer 
service wages. In addition, rent and landing fees are the fastest 
growing expense for USAir as in some markets it represents 15 to 20 
percent of their costs. Madam President, this is a problem just facing 
one airline--and an airline the press reports indicate is having 
financial difficulties.
  Several of my colleagues have suggested that there is really no 
problem with airport fees and charges in that the airline can simply 
pass over the increases in the form of higher air fares. This is 
certainly not the case in that airlines price their product in order to 
make a profit and the new no-frills air carriers are creating 
a situation where there is less yield in airline fares. In 1993, 
Northwest Airlines paid $390 million in landing fees and terminal 
rental and $75 million in passenger facility charges. About $30 million 
of the PFC charges on Northwest could not be passed on to the customer 
as the PFC was on connecting flights. I am convinced there is a limit 
in what can be passed on to the passenger by the airlines--and that 
limit was surpassed when the Congress enacted the PFC in 1990 which 
added $12 to a round trip ticket. Airlines can no longer afford 
indulgences such as Italian marble floors and art collections at 
airports. Maybe prime business destinations can get away with such 
costs but the airline passenger, not the local taxpayer, is paying for 
these airport improvements.

  At the same time that this airport building binge has been going on, 
local elected officials have viewed airports as potential sources of 
revenue to pay for unrelated municipal services. These attempts to 
divert airport funds have manifested in a wide variety of creative 
budgetary gimmicks designed to run up the cost of doing business at the 
airport. Funding for police, public housing--you name it--are all 
valuable goals, but should not be funded by airlines through airport 
fees.
  Madam President, in an effort to learn more about airport financing 
my staff contacted the Congressional Research Service. CRS sent over a 
number of textbooks and articles on the subject. I think a few 
explanations of how airports are financed are in order.
  First, airports in the United States, providing air carrier service 
are public-sector enterprises. That is, they are owned and operated as 
governmental facilities and are monopolistic in character. Many 
airports are under the impression that they are like private 
businesses. Yet, Federal tax legislation grants favorable treatment to 
bonds issued to finance airport improvement programs. For Federal 
income tax purposes, the interest income provided to investors from 
airport bonds is not calculated as an item of gross income--thus, 
airport bonds are said to be tax-exempt bonds. Airports have taxing 
authority in the form of passenger facility charges. Federal grants are 
awarded to airports for construction and some airports have powers of 
eminent domain. I cannot imagine any private entity with these sources 
of revenue and power. There have been discussions in the past about 
defederalization of the airports. I am not sure that airports are ready 
to give away all of the funding mechanisms in order to become a private 
business and quite frankly they cannot have it both ways.
  S. 1491 includes language which addresses many of the problems in the 
airport fee and changes disputes. The bill provides a process by which 
airport fees and charges can be remedied. One of the reasons for 
legislating on this issue is that presently there are inadequate 
guidelines on what constitutes reasonable airport rates.
  DOT just last week announced a new procedure to resolve disputes. 
Unfortunately, the proposal does not guarantee a fair process--the 
legislation does. For example, DOT would have an attorney gather facts, 
and present the information to the Assistant Administrator for Airports 
for a decision. Since the airports office within the FAA is established 
to promote airports and award AIP grants, I am disturbed that the 
Assistant Administrator for Airports could decide an airline-raised 
dispute with an airport. This strikes me as unfair. Instead, the bill 
mandates the use of an Administrative Law Judge, with a final decision 
by the Secretary of Transportation in 120 days. The process is similar 
to that used in international route cases. Simple, straightforward, and 
fair--and agreed to by the airports and airlines.
  The compromise would impose civil penalties for airports that 
illegally divert revenue. The Secretary of Transportation has wide 
latitude to mitigate or compromise the penalty. He could, for example, 
eliminate the fine if the airport agreed to recoup the diverted funds 
within a reasonable period.
  Airport lock-outs are prohibited as a means to force payment of 
disputed fees. Airport surplus with no purpose are prohibited and 
strong revenue diversion language is included. I feel so strongly about 
the public nature of airports that I have included language to 
guarantee that airports make their books public. Even if concession 
revenues are not credited to the airlines as in a residual use fee, it 
is inconceivable to me that airlines are negotiating landing fees 
without having any information on other sources of revenues for the 
airports.
  One of the greatest problems in attempting to draft a compromise on 
airport fees and charges is that every definition for what is 
reasonable was challenged by the airports as limiting the ability to 
utilize the compensatory fee approach. I regret that I was unable to 
achieve some agreement on a definition of a reasonable fee as the lack 
of a definition seems to be the problem in the Kent County case. The 
Supreme Court in Northwest Airlines et al. versus Kent County noted 
that the Anti-Head Tax Act [AHTA] requires that rates be reasonable but 
not does define what is a reasonable rate. The Supreme Court stated:

       If we had the benefit of the (DOT) Secretary's reasoned 
     decision concerning the AHTA. * * * we would accord the 
     decision substantial deference. Lacking guidance from the 
     Secretary, however, and compelled to give effect to the 
     statute's use of reasonable, we must look elsewhere.

  The Supreme Court then turned to the standards used in the Evansville 
case. It did this even though it noted that Congress enacted AHTA 
because it did not like the result of the Evansville case.
  I keep hearing that the Kent County decision was a big win for the 
airports in that it resolved the major outstanding rates and charges 
issues. I firmly believe it was not a win for either side, as the 
opinion clearly expresses the frustration in dealing with an area where 
DOT has jurisdiction but does not seem to have exercised that 
jurisdiction or provided any guidance. Also, the Supreme Court was 
dealing with a statute that requires reasonable rates but does not 
define them. I fear that this issue will never be totally resolved 
until a definition is in the statute. Unfortunately, no definition or 
list of factors to be considered in determining reasonableness was 
satisfactory to the airport trade associations.
  Finally, Madam President, I would like to thank the Senate offices 
and staffs involved in the two major issues in S. 1491--airport fees 
and charges, and trucking. Since March, there has been a daily effort 
to resolve these issues in order to get S. 1491 ready for Senate floor 
action. I am very satisfied with the compromises reached and urge the 
support of my colleagues.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I would like to begin by commending 
the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, Senator Ford, for his 
bipartisan leadership on this important reauthorization legislation. He 
and his staff have done an outstanding job, and we thank them for it.
  I also congratulate the ranking member and the chairman of our 
Commerce Committee, Senators Hollings and Danforth, and also Senators 
McCain, Gorton, Stevens, Exon, Dorgan, Kerry, Inouye, Bryan, and 
others, who have worked on this legislation. Much of it has been 
negotiated out over the weeks, and I believe we have a bipartisan 
result.
  This is a multiyear reauthorization bill, and we have reached the 
point of concession that allows this floor debate to occur.
  The Airport Improvement Program [AIP] is of critical importance to 
airport facilities across the country. The Secretary of Transportation 
makes project grants for airport development and planning with the 
purpose of maintaining a safe and efficient nationwide system of public 
use airports. In short, the AIP funds the capital needs of our Nation's 
commercial airports and general aviation facilities.
  Madam President, we should not be short-sighted in our efforts to 
address airport funding needs. According to the FAA, 23 airports 
experience flight delays of 20,000 hours or more annually. At the same 
time, passenger enplanements at our Nation's airports are predicted to 
increase from 452 million in 1991 to 861 million in 2005--6 percent 
annual increase over this 15-year period. In total, FAA has $8 billion 
in unfunded pending grant requests.

  The growth in demand and the limited amount of AIP funds available 
places a tremendous strain on the existing aviation system. In order to 
meet our present and future air transportation needs, it will require a 
commitment to the expansion of system capacity. However, that 
commitment must not be limited to the needs of airports and air 
carriers located in large population centers. We must also address the 
air service needs of small, rural communities.
  As my colleagues know, there was an 8-month gap without AIP 
authorization until a short-term bill, S. 2024, was signed by the 
President on May 26, 1994. S. 2024 provided temporary AIP relief by 
authorizing up to $800 million through June 30, 1994. During that 8-
month gap, no funding assistance was provided to airports for their 
improvement projects.
  Gaps without AIP authorization are hard on airports of all sizes, 
primarily smaller facilities. Such facilities depend on AIP moneys to 
fund development projects. Therefore, it is vital than an AIP 
authorization is passed before the expiration of the short-term bill. 
Any additional periods without authorization could cause airports, 
particularly those in South Dakota and the upper Midwest, to miss 
construction seasons.
  Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to discuss several 
important provisions included in S. 1491:


              air service termination advance notification

  Rural communities depend on adequate air service. Air transportation 
availability is essential to many communities' economic development 
initiatives and enables smaller communities to be connected to our 
national transportation system. Cities in South Dakota and other rural 
areas struggle continually to maintain jet service. This struggle 
becomes increasingly difficult when a carrier terminates service 
without providing advance notification to the affected community. 
Current law allows carriers to terminate air service without giving 
advance notice. For many communities, this lack of notification can 
result in an air transportation crisis.
  This bill contains a provision that would prevent air carriers from 
terminating interstate air transportation to a nonhub airport 
facility--those with less than 250,000 enplanements per year, 
approximately 27 airports--unless the carrier gives the Secretary of 
Transportation a minimum of 60 days written notice before termination. 
Such notification would enable the affected communities to seek 
alternative carriers to provide air service.

  However, the Secretary would be allowed to waive this notification 
requirement. We understand that circumstances may merit a waiver--such 
as when a carrier is experiencing a financial emergency.


              reports on impacts of new airport facilities

  The new, $4 billion Denver International Airport has had a 
significant impact on air service to surrounding States. The airport 
has not even opened--it has failed to open four times--yet has already 
caused many communities in the Midwest to lose jet service or to have 
service reduced. Rapid City, SD, is one such city to be negatively 
affected by this costly new facility.
  In my view, we should not build new grandiose facilities without 
first considering the impact of how such facilities will affect air 
service to surrounding areas. For example, consideration is being given 
currently to building a new airport facility in Minneapolis, MN. 
Senator Dorgan and I, along with our colleagues from North Dakota, 
South Dakota, and Nebraska have expressed our views to FAA 
Administrator David Hinson that before any decisions are made, 
consideration must be made to the impact on service to our states. We 
also contacted Richard Braun, chairman of the Metropolitan Airports 
Commission in Minneapolis, MN, to express our desire to be involved in 
this decisionmaking process.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that copies of our letter to 
Administrator Hinson and Mr. Braun be printed in the Record immediately 
following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, S. 1491 includes a provision to 
require the Secretary to provide to the Congress a report analyzing the 
anticipated impact of a proposed new airport on fees charged to 
carriers, air transportation in the geographic region of the proposed 
airport, and the availability and cost of providing air transportation 
to rural areas in that geographic region. This report would be due 90 
days prior to approving AIP funds for such a proposal. I am hopeful 
that this provision will prevent another Denver Airport fiasco.


                               slot rules

  My Senate Aviation Subcommittee colleagues have listened to me time 
after time expressing my frustration over slots or more accurately, the 
airlines' possession of slots. Slots is a term for the high-density 
rule which is imposed on four of our Nation's airports: Chicago's 
O'Hare, New York's LaGuardia, New York's Kennedy, and Washington 
National.

  Under this rule, the FAA Administrator limits the number of flight 
takeoffs and landings. In order to utilize one of these airports, an 
air carrier must have a slot or have an exemption from the slot 
requirement. Slots are considered valuable assets because they enable 
the owner of the slots to monopolize these limited markets by 
effectively preventing a carrier from having access to the airport.
  While there may only be four high-density airports, hundreds of 
communities are affected by these slot rules. Unfortunately, 
communities which would like service to one of these four airports 
suffer because of the slot holder monopoly. For example, American 
Airlines was granted slot access at Chicago O'Hare under the agreement 
that they would serve communities in South Dakota and North Dakota that 
did not have access to Chicago. But just over a year after American was 
granted those slots, they pulled out of our States, yet were able to 
retain the slots to provide service to other communities. Is this fair 
to our communities?
  While we must not jeopardize safety at these four airports, we should 
consider whether technological advances that have occurred since the 
slot rules were imposed merit lifting the high-density rule or other 
actions to expand the capacity at these airports. Currently, the 
Secretary of Transportation is studying the high-density rule and is to 
complete this study by November 1994.
  S. 1491 would require the Secretary to include in that study the 
impact of the current slot allocation process on essential air service, 
new entrant carriers, and foreign carriers. The study would also 
examine the extent to which U.S. carriers are granted access to 
airports in the counties of slot holding foreign carriers and impact of 
withdrawing slots from U.S. carriers to provide slots for foreign 
carriers. The Secretary would be required to complete a rulemaking by 
June 1, 1995, based on this study. In addition, S. 1491 would authorize 
the Secretary to grant exemptions at these airports--except National 
Airport--for operations involving essential air service, international 
service, and new entrants.


                   airports and airlines fee disputes

  S. 1491 has been delayed by an ongoing dispute between the airports 
and airlines over the fees charged to airlines, such as landing fees, 
rental charges for gate space and baggage handling areas. Fee 
negotiations between airports and airlines belong at the local level 
and are almost always resolved locally to the satisfaction of both 
sides. However, in those rare instances where an agreement cannot be 
reached, we have provided for a dispute resolution process at the 
Department of Transportation.

  This issue has caused a great deal of discussion and debate over the 
past several months. Therefore, I think it is important to review 
exactly what this section of the bill does and what it does not do. 
This bill addresses three aspects of the dispute. The following 
provisions are meant to keep airport money on the airport for capital 
improvements and will provide an expedited process for resolving rate 
disputes.
  First, diversion. Federal law prohibits an airport from spending 
airport generated revenue for nonairport purposes. Despite this 
prohibition certain cities have attempted to use airport money for 
nonairport purposes. This bill would strengthen current law by 
directing DOT to set new diversion policies and procedures and by 
imposing penalties on violators.
  Second, reasonableness of rates. This bill directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to develop procedures and policies for reviewing 
airport-airline fee disputes. It offers guidance to the Secretary 
including a requirement that the total review process of a disputed fee 
be completed within 120 days.
  Third, lockout. In a fee dispute last winter, an airport threatened 
to prevent certain airlines from taking off or landing at the airport. 
This bill would prevent an airport from locking out an airline during 
the pendency of a fee dispute, provided that the disputed amount is 
paid into an escrow account.
  To further clarify, this provision sets up an expedited review 
process at DOT for the resolution of fee disputes. It requires airports 
to submit financial information to DOT on an annual basis. It 
strengthens existing law relating to illegal revenue diversion and it 
provides additional remedies for violations. In addition, this 
provision prohibits an airport from locking-out an air carrier, 
provided that carrier is paying a disputed fee into an escrow account, 
pending final resolution of a dispute.
  However, this bill does not provide a statutory definition of 
reasonableness. This is left to the Department of Transportation to 
determine. Nor does it allow the carriers to challenge concession 
revenues generated at airports and require cross-crediting of those 
revenues. This would constitute making facilities available to air 
carriers at below cost. Further, the bill does not provide de novo 
review of DOT decisions or a private right of action for the carriers.
  Madam President, this provision required lengthy negotiations, but I 
believe it will go a long way in providing necessary remedies for 
resolving fee disputes, preventing revenue diversion, and preventing 
lockouts. I am pleased that the Senate has resisted the temptation to 
act as a ratemaking body by attempting to define reasonableness of 
rates and charges. This would be impossible to do properly on a 
national basis.


                              Section 211

  The final provision in this bill that I would like to mention is 
section 211 which addresses intermodal all-cargo carriers. Of all the 
provisions contained in S. 1491, this is one which causes me concern. 
My concern is for those transportation companies not covered by this 
act. Let me start with a bit of history.
  In 1980, the Trucking Deregulation Act was enacted to prohibit States 
from imposing economic regulation on interstate air cargo or trucking 
operations. However, intrastate truck movements are subject to State 
regulations.
  A 1991 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision preempted States from 
imposing economic regulations on Federal Express when it is moving a 
package through the air or on the ground between any two points within 
a State under the jurisdiction of that court. The court viewed Federal 
Express as an air cargo carrier whose intrastate ground transportation 
was incidental to its main business and, thus, protected from State 
economic regulation.
  While Federal Express was given the authority to provide direct 
delivery of its packages between any two points within a State free 
from State economic regulations, other companies that carry out 
essentially the same services remain regulated by State laws. These 
companies argue that Federal Express has an unfair competitive 
advantage due to this court ruling.
  This bill contains a provision that would preempt State economic 
regulation of certain transportation providers known as intermodal all-
cargo air carriers. These are air carriers, companies affiliated with 
an air carrier through common ownership, or carriers that utilize air 
cargo facilities at least 15,000 annually. Proponents of section 211 
claim its purpose is to establish a level playing field.
  While I can understand while carriers that would be covered under 
this provision strongly support it, what is the impact on those smaller 
carriers not affiliated with an air carrier? In my view, this question 
has not been thoroughly considered. No hearings were held on this 
issue, which I think should fall under the jurisdiction of the Surface 
Transportation Subcommittee. Fortunately, section 211 does not restrict 
State safety regulatory authority.
  Again, I do not have a comfort level with this particular provision. 
I do not know if the carriers not covered by this provision will be at 
a competitive disadvantage. However, I have received some assurances 
from my State's public utilities commission that smaller carriers 
should not be adversely affected. Therefore, I will not lead a fight to 
strike this section of the bill. At the same time, I cannot lend my 
support for the provision either.
  Madam President, I have covered a number of the main sections of the 
bill. This multiyear bill is very important to our Nation's air 
transportation system. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 1994.
     Hon. David Hinson,
     Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Administrator Hinson: We are writing to you to express 
     our interest in plans under consideration to build a new 
     airport in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is our understanding 
     that the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] already has 
     awarded $1.5 million to state and local entities in Minnesota 
     to assess air service needs at the Minneapolis-St. Paul hub, 
     including an examination of the feasibility of building a new 
     airport. It is also our understanding that candidate site 
     selections have been made for a possible new airport and that 
     the FAA has awarded over $100,000 in study funds for these 
     candidate sites.
       Further, we understand that the Minneapolis-St. Paul 
     Council of Governments has applied for an additional $229,818 
     in federal funds for the purpose of advancing the preparation 
     for a new airport to replace the existing hub. It is not our 
     intention to oppose this application at this time. However, 
     we do want to register our concern about building a new 
     airport in Minneapolis-St. Paul and to indicate our desire to 
     be involved in the final decision as to whether a new airport 
     is built.
       The new Denver International Airport demonstrates clearly 
     the impact a major new airport can have on air service. We 
     understand that the costs per passenger have increased three-
     fold at the Denver hub to help defray the costs of the new 
     airport. This cost increase has been a contributing factor in 
     service reductions and terminations in several communities in 
     neighboring states. We are fearful that a similar situation 
     might arise if a new airport is built in Minneapolis-St. 
     Paul.
       The decision to build a new airport in Minneapolis-St. Paul 
     will impact air service in many upper-midwestern states. As 
     Senators representing states surrounding Minnesota we 
     understand that air service to communities in our states is 
     dependent upon access to the Minneapolis-St. Paul hub. Any 
     decision that affects that hub also affects air service to 
     our states.
       It is our hope and request that before the FAA reaches any 
     final decisions with respect to a new airport in Minneapolis-
     St. Paul, we have simple opportunity to voice our views and 
     play a role in this important decision.
       Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to 
     working with you on this issue.
           Sincerely,
     Byron L. Dorgan.
     Robert Kerrey.
     Kent Conrad.
     Thomas Daschle.
     James Exon.
     Larry Pressler.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 1994.
     Richard Braun,
     Chairman, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN.
       Dear Mr. Braun: We understand that consideration is being 
     given to building a new airport in Minneapolis-St. Paul and 
     that federal funds are being used to study the feasibility of 
     this proposal. Since the decision to build a new airport in 
     Minneapolis-St. Paul affects the surrounding states as well 
     as local interests, we feel strongly that we should be 
     involved in this important decision.
       Enclosed is a copy of a letter we sent to Federal Aviation 
     Administrator David Hinson expressing our interests and 
     concerns regarding the possibility of building a new airport 
     in Minneapolis-St. Paul.
       As we indicated in our letter, we hope to play a role in 
     the FAA's decision whether to approve the construction of a 
     new airport. We are very concerned that a new airport would 
     result in substantial increases in costs to air carriers 
     which serve our states through the Minneapolis-St. Paul hub 
     which, in turn, could have a direct impact on our air 
     service.
           Sincerely,
     Byron L. Dorgan.
     Robert Kerrey.
     Kent Conrad.
     Thomas Daschle.
     James Exon.
     Larry Pressler.

  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I appreciate the kind words of support of 
my ranking member of the committee. I look forward to continuing to 
work with him.
  One of the things we might do to satisfy some of the problems we have 
with section 211 is that I hope this bill will pass--even though the 
Senator does not have a very high comfort level, as he stated, in the 
bill--and that we will have hearings and look at what is left to see if 
we cannot work out something in an FAA reform bill or something later 
on in the year.
  I understand where the Senator is coming from and will be glad to do 
that. I think it might be helpful to all concerned.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, at the outset of the discussion on this 
important piece of legislation, I want to commend the chairman, Senator 
Ford, whom I think has done an extraordinary job in putting together a 
bill and bringing it to the floor.
  It is very important that we move this legislation. As you know, we 
all have a fair number of very important projects that need to move 
forward. At least in our part of the country. In the Dakotas, we do not 
have the kind of construction opportunities that the rest of the 
country does. That is why we need to move this legislation so we can 
move forward on some of these projects.
  I did, however, want to just make a couple of comments at the outset. 
I think the Senator from South Dakota mentioned one provision in this 
bill that he and I played a role in developing that deals with the 
notification when a major carrier is going to withdraw jet service from 
an airport. We have included a provision in this piece of legislation 
that I think is very modest, very reasonable, and is a provision that 
communities and people in our region of the country would well expect 
to have happen.
  We are saying that when a major air carrier providing jet service to 
a small, nonhub airport is going to withdraw service, we think the 
community is owed 60 days' notification. That is much shorter than what 
I would like to see but that is what we compromised at, and even at 
that there are some people who are concerned about it.
  We had a carrier who served North Dakota to Denver, which is a major 
hub, for over 30 years. For over 30 years they have connected western 
North Dakota with Denver. All a sudden they woke up and said they did 
not want to do that any longer. No discussion, no warning.
  They have every right to make that decision. But I am saying a region 
of the country whose citizens require that service also deserve some 
notification of the withdrawal of the service to have the opportunity 
to search for its replacement. That is the reason for my amendment, 
which is part of this bill. The fact is we negotiated and narrowed this 
down so it only affects 27 airports in the country. So we have limited 
it, and we have so many exceptions in it, so it is very reasonable. 
Senator Pressler and others worked on it and helped create this 
provision and I hope if someone attacks this provision we will maintain 
the provision that is currently in the bill.
  I will address one other provision in this bill that also is very 
modest. That provision says when the FAA is prepared to move toward 
approval of a project grant application for the construction of a new 
major hub airport, that 90 days prior to that approval they would 
submit a report to the Congress analyzing the impact of that decision. 
That would give us in other parts of the country an opportunity to 
weigh in on this question.
  The point is, when a major city is going to build a hub airport, it 
is going to use, among other things, Federal tax dollars. But it is not 
just that city that is affected by the building of a major hub airport. 
With the hub and spoke system, it is not just the hub, it is the spokes 
that are affected by where the airport is built, how much the airport 
is going to cost, and what the new landing fees will be. That is why I 
want to make sure all of us play a role in these questions.
  Are you going to build a behemoth $2 billion airport someplace? If 
so, how does that affect the smaller city out on the spoke system? How 
much will landing fees increase? Will that affect where the airline 
carriers come in and provide service? If so, we want to have a voice on 
that. And that is the intent of this provision, simply requiring the 
FAA to give 90 days' notice prior to the approval of a plan to 
construct a new major hub airport so other, smaller cities in that 
region whose futures will be affected by this decision have the right 
to play a role in whether or not that airport should be built.
  There are other provisions I would like to speak about, but I will 
defer because we want to move this bill along. I did want to come to 
the floor to say the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] has done a 
masterful job, I think, and provides us today with a legislative 
package that we should approve as it is and move along.

  Madam President, with that, let me again say thanks to my friend from 
South Dakota. I hope those of us who care about this 60-day 
notification provision will be able to resist any attempt to change it 
if there is an attempt on the floor on this bill.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, first of all, I want to join my other 
colleagues in expressing my appreciation to the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Senator Ford, who has done such an outstanding job in 
crafting what is a very difficult piece of legislation and one which 
has a large number of controversial issues associated with it. I 
believe Senator Ford has been able to weave a series of compromises 
which after much delay has brought this bill to the floor.
  I know I speak for every Member of this body when I say it is 
important we move forward. As the Senator from North Dakota just 
mentioned, in order for them to be able to carry out much-needed 
projects and modernization in their facilities in his State, they have 
to do it while the weather is good. There are projects that have been 
kept on hold all over this country, awaiting this legislation. I must 
say I believe Senator Ford has been able to satisfy, I think, a 
sufficient number of us that we can now move forward and get this 
legislation passed.
  There are some areas that may come up, such as allowing airports 
generating revenue to be used for other capital and operating costs. 
There may be some other items of controversy. However, I believe those 
can be resolved.
  I wanted to comment on the part of the bill the Senator from North 
Dakota included that requires a 60-day notice for an airline using AIS 
from requiring a 60-day notification before that service could be 
terminated. I caution my colleagues, after talking to people who run 
airlines, that may be a demotivating factor in the planning process 
that an airline may use in deciding to provide service to a community. 
It is a laudable goal to provide airline service, especially to small 
cities and towns around America. I would do everything I could to 
encourage the airlines to do that. One of the bad effects of 
deregulation is that some cities, towns, especially in smaller States, 
have lost airline service or the cost of air fares have gone up 
dramatically where the cost of a ticket on a relatively short distance 
flight is far more than heavily used routes such as intercontinental 
flights.
  I understand the motivation of the part of the bill that requires 60-
day notification before an airline can terminate that service. But I 
warn my colleagues, you may be defeating the purpose for which this 
part of the bill is included and that is that as long as airlines are 
in the business of having to operate at a profit, they are going to 
take that into consideration as an additional cost if they are going to 
have to make a 60-day notification.
  So, Madam President, I do not intend to make a big issue out of it. I 
have debated it with my colleague from North Dakota in the 
subcommittee. I think perhaps the law of unintended consequences may be 
operative in this case.


                           Amendment No. 1766

   (Purpose: To establish a research program on the development and 
               utilization of quiet aircraft technology)

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Akaka, proposes an amendment numbered 1766.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following new section.

     SEC.   . RESEARCH PROGRAM ON QUIET AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGY.

       The Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering, 
     and Development Authorization Act of 1992 (title III of 
     Public Law 102-581; 106 Stat. 495) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 306. RESEARCH PROGRAM ON QUIET AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGY FOR 
                   PROPELLER AND ROTOR DRIVEN AIRCRAFT

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Administrator of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) shall 
     conduct a study to identify technologies for noise reduction 
     and propeller driven aircraft and rotorcraft.
       ``(b) Goal.--The goal of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a) is to determine the status of research and 
     development now underway in the area of quiet technology for 
     propeller driven aircraft and rotorcraft, including 
     technology that is cost beneficial, and to determine whether 
     a research program to supplement existing research activities 
     is necessary.
       ``(c) Participation.--In conducting the study required 
     under subsection (a), the Administrator of the FAA and the 
     administrator of NASA shall encourage the participation of 
     the Department of Defense, the Department of Interior, the 
     airtour industry, the aviation industry, academia and other 
     appropriate groups.
       ``(d) Report.--Not less than 280 days after enactment of 
     this section the Administrator of the FAA and the 
     Administrator of the NASA shall transmit to Congress a report 
     on the results of the study required under subsection (a).
       ``(e) Research and Development Program.--If the 
     Administrator of the FAA and the Administrator of NASA 
     determine that additional research and development is 
     necessary and would substantially contribute to the 
     development of quiet aircraft technology, then the agencies 
     shall conduct an appropriate research program in consultation 
     with the entities listed in subsection (c) to develop safe, 
     effective, and economical noise reduction technology 
     (including technology that can be applied to existing 
     propeller driven aircraft and rotorcraft) that would result 
     in aircraft that operate at substantially reduced levels of 
     noise to reduce the impact of such aircraft and rotorcraft on 
     the resources of national parks and other areas.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself and Senator Akaka. This amendment would foster the development 
of technology to reduce noise from propeller and rotor driven aircraft. 
It is a relatively simple amendment but it is one that is very 
important to those who are deeply committed to reducing the noise 
pollution in our national parks, not only in Arizona and Hawaii but 
throughout the Nation.
  There is no doubt that one of the great impediments to the enjoyment 
of our national parks, and a growing one, is the incredible increase in 
air tour traffic over them which, by the way, in some cases is the only 
opportunity that some Americans such as the elderly or the disabled 
have to see and enjoy our National Park System. But the fact is, it can 
result in a severe degradation of a park experience, to be in a 
national park and have the noise of loud aircraft overhead.
  Madam President, in 1987, we passed legislation that was intended to 
``substantially restore natural quiet at the Grand Canyon.'' While 
progress has been made at the canyon, the fact is that there is still 
considerable noise pollution, and if we are going to comply with the 
law, we are going to have to further develop quiet aircraft technology. 
This vitally needed technology would help resolve the growing problem 
caused by overflights. Under this amendment, the Federal Aviation 
Administration and NASA would be directed to assess the status of 
available aviation technology to employ Federal resources on additional 
research deemed necessary to help bring safe and economical quiet 
aircraft technology to the market.
  Federal agencies, notably the FAA, NASA, and the Department of 
Defense, have significant experience and expertise in aviation 
technology that could be very useful in the search for noise reducing 
equipment. In fact, the FAA and NASA currently conduct such quiet 
technology research for commercial jet aircraft.
  The amendment would simply expand that program to include helicopters 
and general aviation aircraft, which is the equipment most often used 
for overflights of national parks. The National Parks and Conservation 
Association identified over 100 parks across the country which are 
affected by aircraft noise. In some areas, including the Golden Circle 
of Parks in the Southwest, the spectacular volcanic parks in Hawaii and 
the parks in the Smoky Mountains, visitors feel more like they are 
visiting the local airport rather than our premier natural areas. Park 
visitors deserve a peaceful experience, and we have an obligation to 
ensure they receive it.
  As I said before, in 1987, Congress passed the National Parks 
Overflight Act to address significant noise problems at Grand Canyon 
National Park. The act directed the Park Service and the FAA to 
implement a plan to ``substantially restore natural quiet at Grand 
Canyon.''
  Under the law, the agencies are required to report to Congress on the 
effectiveness of the plan and to recommend additional measures to 
ensure the timely achievement of our noise reduction goals. While the 
report is not yet complete, the agencies will report that the increased 
use of quiet technology would help us to further meet the objectives of 
the National Park Overflights Act at the Grand Canyon and would 
immeasurably strengthen efforts to restore natural quiet at other parks 
throughout the country.
  On March 11, the Department of the Interior and the Federal Aviation 
Administration announced an advance notice of proposed rulemaking which 
sets forth alternatives to address noise problems throughout the 
National Park System. Among the featured options proposed for public 
consideration was the increased use of quiet aircraft technology.
  The good news is that advanced technology will help us to balance 
competing uses of our parks; the bad news is applicable and affordable 
quiet aircraft technology is extremely limited. What technology does 
exist is extremely cost prohibitive and there is little in the way of 
retrofit equipment to help abate noise from existing aircraft. More 
needs to be done.
  Again, this amendment would ensure that we take full advantage of the 
experience and expertise of the Federal Government in this effort. As I 
said, the program is modeled after the existing Federal research 
program for subsonic jet aircraft. If Congress found it necessary to 
establish a research program to benefit commercial jet aircraft, 
general aviation should be included, particularly when doing so would 
support a vital Federal goal of reducing noise at national parks.
  The amendment differs from the existing program only in that it 
includes participation by experts in quiet technology from the 
Department of Defense. The Defense Department has an interest, 
expertise and resources in this area and would add immeasurably to the 
program. The amendment would ensure the Department of the Interior, the 
air tour industry and conservation groups are consulted in the process. 
These groups have a direct and significant interest in this technology 
and should be brought into the process.
  While the amendment is aimed principally at reducing noise in the 
national parks, I must point out its benefits would extend far beyond 
their boundaries. In 1993, the general aviation task force studied the 
issue of aircraft noise. In its report, the task force concluded that 
noise from general aviation aircraft and the associated impacts on 
local communities is a problem which needs to be addressed. Noise from 
aircraft can disturb neighborhoods, reduce the opportunity to access 
certain airports and air space and can prohibit entry into foreign 
markets.
  I doubt there is a Member in this body who has not received 
complaints from constituents regarding the impacts of noisy aircraft. 
This amendment enjoys wide and strong support, including the Department 
of the Interior, conservation groups, the air tour industry, and 
aircraft manufacturers.
  (Mr. DORGAN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the 
Record letters of support from the National Parks and Conservation 
Association, the Grand Canyon Trust, the Helicopters Association 
International, and General Aviation Manufacturers Association.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  General Aviation


                                    Manufacturers Association,

                                     Washington, DC, June 8, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Russell Senate Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: GAMA has long supported the need for 
     ongoing research to develop new and advanced technologies in 
     the area of noise reduction and the environment. Your efforts 
     through the proposed legislation are appreciated.
       General aviation's commitment to developing new 
     technologies was evidenced by the NASA/General Aviation Task 
     Force, which I chaired. In the report, the need for research 
     in noise reduction is emphasized as a high priority area. The 
     task force recognized the benefit of a coordinated and well 
     funded NASA and FAA program. General aviation appreciates the 
     need to obtain the support and confidence of the communities 
     in which it operates. It also recognizes the need to achieve 
     a high level of environmental compatibility.
       Thank you for the opportunity to comment on an issue that 
     is very important to our membership.
           Best regards,
                                               Edward W. Stimpson,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                                                    National Parks


                                 and Conservation Association,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 1995.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for sharing with us your 
     proposed amendment to S. 1491 on quiet aircraft technology. 
     NPCA commends you on your continued efforts to mitigate the 
     disruption of natural quiet caused by aircraft over our 
     national parks, especially the Grand Canyon.
       As we understand it, your amendment directs the FAA and 
     NASA to expand their research program on quiet technology to 
     include rotor and propellor-driver aircraft with the goal of 
     eventually reducing the noise impact of these aircraft on the 
     Grand Canyon and elsewhere.
       We believe that natural quiet is a resource in the national 
     parks which is as worthy of preservation and protection as 
     wildlife, clean water and pure air. To the extent that your 
     amendment may lead to progress in this direction, in the 
     Grand Canyon and elsewhere, NPCA is fully supportive of your 
     efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                              William J. Chandler,
                                  Director of Conservation Policy.
                                  ____

                                            Helicopter Association


                                                International,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 20, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The Helicopter Association 
     International (HAI) applauds your efforts to require a 
     research program on the development and utilization of quite 
     aircraft technology in order to ``substantially restore 
     natural quite'' at units of the National Park System.
       It is essential, as your amendment would establish, that 
     the research yield technology that is safe, effective, and 
     economically viable for the aerial tour industry to employ 
     for both new aircraft and the retrofit to existing aircraft.
       Such research conducted under the authority of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration (NASA) would help accelerate the 
     development of quiet engine technology and enable the 
     industry to take advantage of such cost effective 
     developments in the near future.
       Thank you for this opportunity to comment on your proposed 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                             Frank L. Jensen, Jr.,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                           Grand Canyon Trust,

                                      Flagstaff, AZ, June 9, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: I understand that you are introducing 
     a research program on quiet aircraft technology amendment to 
     S. 1491, the Federal Aviation Administration Research, 
     Engineering, and Development Authorization Act of 1992. The 
     Grand Canyon Trust supports this amendment and commends you 
     on your leadership in protecting natural quiet at Grand 
     Canyon National Park.
       The Grand Canyon Trust supports developing safe, effective 
     and economical aircraft technology for substantially reducing 
     the adverse impacts of noise from fixed-winged and rotary 
     aircraft that fly over national parks. Your amendment would 
     be an important step toward achieving that goal.
       Less noisy aircraft would make a significant contribution 
     toward the ``substantial restoration of the natural quiet and 
     experience of the park * * *,'' as required by the 1987 
     National Parks Overflights Act (NPOA). As you know, the 
     National Park Service has recently concluded that this goal 
     has not been met at Grand Canyon National Park.
       As with the currently proposed amendment, the Grand Canyon 
     Trust applauds your leadership in passing the 1987 NPOA and 
     in your dedication toward protecting the natural values for 
     which our country established Grand Canyon National Park in 
     1919. We also appreciated your inspiring words delivered 
     before the Senate on the occasion of the park's 75th 
     anniversary last February.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Roger Clark,
                                            Conservation Director.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the adoption of this amendment will foster 
the development of technology to preserve peaceful park experience for 
many Americans and help general aviation meet its responsibilities to 
operate as unobtrusively as possible, goals which I am sure all my 
colleagues share.
  I would like to quote from the National Parks and Conservation 
Association which said:

       We believe that natural quiet is a resource in the national 
     parks which is as worthy of preservation and protection as 
     wildlife, clean air and pure air. Your amendment may lead to 
     progress in this direction in the Grand Canyon and elsewhere. 
     NPCA is fully supportive of your efforts.

  The Grand Canyon Trust, which is an organization that I have worked 
with for many years which is committed and dedicated to the 
preservation and improvement of the Grand Canyon, states:

       Less noisy aircraft would make a significant contribution 
     toward the substantial restoration and natural quiet of the 
     park, as required by the 1987 National Park Overflights Act. 
     As with the currently proposed amendment, the Grand Canyon 
     Trust applauds your leadership towards protecting the natural 
     values for which our country established Grand Canyon Park in 
     1919.

  Mr. President, we have a coalition of all those who are users of the 
park in every direction. I am glad to receive all their support. I also 
would like to thank Chairman Ford and Senator Pressler for their 
agreement to accept this amendment.
  I have no further comments. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona makes good points. 
The only little thing that bothers me is that we are requiring several 
agencies--at least two--to do the study and then pull in other agencies 
as they see fit. That is a cost that will have to be funded under their 
present budgetary situation. I think it is appropriate.
  There is one thing I want to be sure about from the Senator. It says 
in 280 days from the passage of this legislation, which has this 
amendment in it, that a report will be made. Also, there is a caveat, I 
think, that if additional study needs to be done, then by notification, 
I guess, from the entities involved, they can go on; there is no 
deadline on that.
  I want to be sure this was not going to be a prolonged thing that 
would keep on going, keep on going and they would do very little 
research and report to us there needs to be more research done. Then 
they would not accomplish, I think, what the Senator's intention is. 
Maybe that is the only way we can get them to pay for something for 
which they are not being appropriated. It may be the best way to do it.
  I just want the Senator to understand that I saw that little flaw, 
and it could be that they could prolong this study on the good Senator 
from Arizona, and I do not think the Senator would want that nor would 
I. I have no objections to the amendment and will be glad to support 
it. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if I may quickly respond to my friend from 
Kentucky and that is, I appreciate his concerns. I would certainly not 
be disagreeable, I say to my friend from Kentucky, if in conference he 
modifies this amendment to the degree that satisfies those concerns.
  I am appreciative of his support, and I am appreciative of his 
concern for the problem of noise pollution in our national parks.
  I think he raises a couple of valid concerns, and if working with the 
staffs we could tighten that up, I would be more than agreeable to do 
so.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, to the pending 
legislation, S. 1491, the Federal Administration Reauthorization Act of 
1994. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of his amendment.
  The McCain amendment simply expands existing research efforts on 
quiet jet aircraft technology to include rotor- and propeller-driven 
aircraft used by air tour operators. In addition, the amendment directs 
that an appropriate research program be established to develop safe, 
effective, and economical quiet aircraft technology, including retrofit 
technology. The amendment requires the FAA, NASA, and DOD to consult 
with the Interior Department, the air tour industry, and conservation 
groups during research and development of quiet aircraft technology. 
Finally, the McCain amendment requires a report to Congress on the 
results of the study.
  Mr. President, this initiative holds special significance for Hawaii. 
The number of commercial air tour operations over Haleakala and Hawaii 
Volcanoes National Parks in the Aloha State is second only to the 
number in the Grand Canyon. The unique topography at these two national 
Parks amplifies the noise from commercial air tour overflights, 
particularly those involving helicopters, seriously degrading the 
natural quiet there. Rotor- and prop-generated noise affects not only 
Hawaii's national parks but also wildlife refuges, State and local 
parks, and even residential neighborhoods. Thus, the development and 
implementation of quieter aircraft technology would be welcomed in 
Hawaii.
  The positive effects of quiet aircraft technology, however, would by 
no means be limited to Hawaii. Almost one-third of this country's 357 
national park units have reported problems with low-level overflights. 
Congress first recognized this issue when it passed the National Park 
Overflights Act of 1987, which established temporary flight 
restrictions at certain parks and required the Park Service to 
undertake a study of the problem of aircraft overflights on units of 
the National Park System. Unfortunately, this study is 4 years overdue, 
and the concerns associated with park overflights have only increased 
in scope and intensity.
  To the administration's credit, Interior Secretary Babbitt and 
Transportation Secretary Pena have recognized the urgency of this 
issue. They recently declared that ``increased flight operations at the 
Grand Canyon and other national parks have significantly diminished the 
national park experience for park visitors.'' Last December, they 
established a special interagency working group to explore ways to 
limit or reduce impacts from overflights of national parks. Earlier 
this year, as a result of the working group's efforts, the 
administration invited the public to comment on the overflights issue 
and discuss various ways to mitigate the impact of airtour operations 
on noise-sensitive areas. The proposal specifically encourages the 
development of quiet aircraft technology incentives.
  Thus, Senator McCain's quiet technology amendment dovetails perfectly 
with the administration's current efforts to address the overflights 
problem throughout the National Park System. by requiring the FAA and 
NASA to jointly conduct a research program to develop new quiet 
technologies for helicopters and propeller aircraft, my colleague from 
Arizona's amendment would establish a mechanism for advancing state-of-
the-art aircraft noise control. The use of quiet aircraft technology by 
commercial air tour operators will ultimately help us achieve a better 
balance between park overflights and the protection of noise-sensitive 
areas.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I commend Senator McCain for his continued 
leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to support this 
important measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 1766) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to just make a brief comment on what may be 
coming. I intend to come back to the Chamber if the amendment is 
proposed that would change the very carefully crafted compromise that 
Senator Ford has put into this legislation concerning diversion of 
revenues to airports and the uses of revenues. In the Subcommittee on 
Aviation, we have had numerous discussions and debate about this issue, 
and I am concerned about any change we might make in the legislation as 
proposed. I would have to be convinced that there would not be abuses, 
that there would not be the use of the airport as a cash cow for 
surrounding communities, States or cities. And I would also have to be 
convinced that moneys which would be spent might not be spent for 
construction of facilities or uses that do not directly relate to the 
airport or are more properly the responsibility of the surrounding 
communities, States or cities.
  So I do not intend to engage in extended conversation on this issue, 
but it has been a significant sticking point. I know that Senator Ford 
has heard from the mayors of major cities in this country, and I 
believe what has been worked out is both fair and appropriate. Whether 
it will achieve its desired effect or not is something that is not 
totally clear to me. But the fact is I have not seen any better 
language that could improve on what the intent of this legislation is, 
and that is that revenues be used to enhance facilities at the airport 
and not for many other uses, which has been the case in the past.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum is noted. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I know there is a lot going on, and Senator 
Pressler and I are sitting here hoping that Senators will come to the 
floor with their amendments. It appears that we only have about another 
30 minutes and the bill, at that point, will have to be set aside. If 
we do that, then that means next week. We could pass this bill today.
  We have several amendments about which we have been notified, and we 
are willing to accept them. If the Senators will come to the floor and 
offer them and not speak too long, Senator Pressler and I are willing 
to accept them. If they come over and bring the amendments and let us 
have an opportunity to get them on the record and get them accepted and 
make them part of the legislation, I am more than happy to do that.
  I understand that Senator Gorton is on his way with an amendment and, 
in all probability, it will be accepted, with the proviso not to speak 
too long. If that works, we will move right on to the next one.
  I have some amendments, and if Senators would just come and say it 
will be alright for me to present the amendments in their behalf, I 
would be pleased to do that, and that might help expedite the 
legislation. If we can get them done, we can go to third reading and 
have a final vote on it next week.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Kentucky in 
imploring Members to please come to the floor to offer their 
amendments, or call us and let us know if we can clear them. I am in a 
very ticklish spot in that I do not feel I can clear some of these 
amendments. If Senators' offices would call, we want to get moving, 
because the hour of 2 o'clock is approaching and we may be delayed.
  So we have a window of opportunity, and we are calling the offices 
and doing everything we can to get people over here.
  Mr. FORD. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton.


                           Amendment No. 1767

(Purpose: To prohibit the installation, transportation, operation, and 
  use of gambling devices on aircraft of air carriers and foreign air 
                carriers and to require certain studies)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1767.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.  . GAMBLING ON COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Amendments.--(1) Title IV of the Federal Aviation Act 
     of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1371 et seq.), as amended by this 
     Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 422. GAMBLING RESTRICTIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--No air carrier or foreign air carrier 
     may install, transport, or operate, or permit the use of, any 
     gambling device on board an aircraft in foreign air 
     transportation.
       ``(b) Defintion.--In this section, the term `gambling 
     device' means any machine or mechanical device (including 
     gambling applications on electronic interactive video systems 
     installed on board aircraft for passenger use)--
       ``(1) which when operated may deliver, as the result of the 
     application of an element of chance, any money or property; 
     or
       ``(2) by the operation of which a person may become 
     entitled to receive, as the result of the application of an 
     element of chance, any money or property.''.
       (2) The portion of the table of contents of the Federal 
     Aviation Act of 1958 relating to title IV, as amended by this 
     Act, is further amended by inserting immediately after the 
     item relating to section 421 the following new item:

``Sec. 420. Gambling restrictions.
``(a) In general.
``(b) Definition.''.

       (b) Aviation Safety Study.--The Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration shall, within 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, complete a study of the 
     aviation safety effects of gambling applications on 
     electronic interactive video systems installed on board 
     aircraft for passenger use. The study shall include an 
     evaluation of the effect of such systems on the navigational 
     and other electronic equipment of the aircraft, on the 
     passengers and crew of the aircraft, and on issues relating 
     to the method of payment. The administrator shall, within 5 
     days after completing the study, submit a report to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
     of the House of Representatives on the results of the study.
       (c) Study on Competition Effects.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall, within 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, complete a study of the competitive 
     implications of permitting foreign air carriers only, but not 
     United States air carriers, to install, transport, and 
     operate gambling applications on electronic interactive video 
     systems on board aircraft in the foreign commerce of the 
     United States on flights over international waters, or in 
     fifth freedom city-pair markets. The Secretary shall, within 
     5 days after the completion of the study, submit a report to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
     of the House of Representatives on the results of the study.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to put U.S.-
flag air carriers on an equal footing with foreign flag carriers with 
respect to in-flight gambling. Under current law, our carriers are 
prohibited from allowing in-flight gambling on international flights, 
but there is a loophole in our law under which foreign flag carriers 
competing directly with them on the same routes can do so.
  Foreign carriers such as Virgin Atlantic and Singapore Airlines have 
announced they intend to provide exactly that.
  We do not think it appropriate, and we certainly do not want the 
potential losses of revenues to U.S.-flag carriers under those 
circumstances.
  So this amendment will prohibit those foreign flag carriers from 
engaging in those kinds of activities while they are flying to or from 
the United States.
  However, some of our colleagues have thought that at some future time 
a different rule might be appropriate. So we called for two studies to 
examine this issue, one by DOT to study the competitive effects of the 
present situation, and the other by the FAA to study the safety 
implications of in-flight gambling.
  This amendment seeks to put U.S. carriers on an equal footing with 
foreign-flag carriers on the issue of in-flight gambling. Under current 
law, U.S.-flag carriers are prohibited from allowing in-flight gambling 
on international flights; however, through an unintended loophole in 
U.S. law, foreign-flag carriers are not.
  As I said, foreign carriers such as Virgin Atlantic and Singapore 
Airlines have already announced that they intend to provide in-flight 
gambling.
  This development will put U.S. carriers at a significant competitive 
disadvantage. An aviation consulting firm has estimated that U.S.-flag 
carriers could lose $680 million a year in revenues from international 
passengers who decide to travel on foreign-flag carriers in order to 
gamble.
  This competitive inequity must be redressed. U.S.-flag carriers, 
which are trying to rebound after 4 straight years of being battered 
with staggering losses, should not be forced by discriminatory U.S. 
laws to endure such financial hardship.
  My amendment forces foreign-flag carriers to compete evenly with 
U.S.-flag carriers. It bans gambling devices from being transported or 
used on foreign-flag carriers, putting these carriers in the same 
position as their U.S. competitors.
  In-flight gambling has raised several issues that I think need to be 
addressed. My amendment also calls for two studies to further examine 
these issues. First, the DOT is required to study the competitive 
effects on U.S.-flag carriers of allowing in-flight gambling on 
foreign-flag carriers. I am confident that this study will further 
emphasize my point of competitive inequity. The second study requires 
the FAA to examine the safety implications of in-flight gambling. I do 
not think it is wise for flight attendants to be burdened with 
collecting fees from gamblers or that safety will be enhanced when 
airline passengers are irate after losing hundreds or thousands of 
dollars on an airline flight. I know I would not want to be the guy 
sitting next to someone who just lost this kind of money.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It restores 
competitive balance to a fragile industry and without allowing injury 
to the U.S.-flag carriers, simultaneously attempts to resolve the 
unanswered implications of in-flight gambling.
  Mr. President, I believe this amendment has now been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have talked with the distinguished 
Senator from Washington, and I talked with the ranking member prior to 
his presenting the amendment and it is agreeable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator 
from Washington.
  The amendment (No. 1767) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy 
concerning North Sea-Tac Park. Sea-Tac Park is located at the north end 
of Sea-Tac International Airport in an area where residences have been 
removed because of noise impacts. At the time of its planning in 
cooperation with local citizens and jurisdictions, it was determined 
that placing a park at this location would be the best use of the 
property. Basically, the park is considered part of the airport.
  The Port of Seattle, the airport sponsor, has contributed 
significantly to the development of the park and then entered into an 
arrangement by which the city of SeaTac pays a $1 annual rent on the 
park. In turn, the city of SeaTac is responsible for all the 
maintenance costs of the park, which I understand to be several hundred 
thousands dollars per year.
  It is my understanding that this kind of airport development, 
undertaken in cooperation with an adjoining municipality would not be 
considered a diversion of airport funds and, in fact, would not violate 
any of the prohibitions against diversion of airport funds contained in 
this bill.
  Mr. FORD. The Senator is correct. The bill is not intended to prevent 
Sea-Tac International Airport from continuing its existing relationship 
with the city of SeaTac for the development and maintenance of North 
SeaTac Park.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we are moving along. We have had two 
Senators here and we have had two amendments, and both of them have 
been accepted. I wish other Senators would come on with their 
amendments or notify us that we can go ahead and put their amendments 
in.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to address a couple of 
questions to the distinguished chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee if 
he would agree.
  I understand that section 204 of the committee substitute would 
authorize the Secretary of Transportation to grant exemptions from the 
slot limitations for certain purposes, including to enable airlines to 
provide essential air service. Is it the case that in passing this 
legislation, the Congress fully intends that the Secretary use this 
exemption authority to provide slots for essential air service and 
small community service to Chicago though O'Hare Airport?
  Mr. FORD. The Senator from North Dakota is correct. If the Congress 
passes this language, it sends a clear signal that the Congress expects 
the Secretary to use this exemption authority at Chicago O'Hare 
Airport. I understand that cities in the surrounding area have lost 
service to O'Hare and other cities would like new or expanded service. 
The Secretary is expected to use this authority to provide slots for 
essential air service and small community service to Chicago via 
O'Hare. I should also underscore that this legislation makes it clear 
that the source of these additional slots will be made through the 
exemption process and the slots will not be taken away from carriers 
currently serving that airport.
  Mr. DORGAN. In using the exemption authority provided under section 
204 of the bill, is the Secretary expected to provide for flights at 
reasonable times, taking into account the needs of passengers with 
connecting flights?
  Mr. FORD. Yes. In designating slots for essential air service at 
Chicago's O'Hare Airport, the Secretary is expected to provide for 
flights at reasonable times, taking into account the needs of 
passengers with connecting flights.
  Mr. DORGAN. Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to thank the 
Senator from Kentucky and commend him for his excellent leadership on 
this important legislation.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kentucky yield for 
a colloquy?
  Mr. FORD. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from 
Colorado to enter into a colloquy with him.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator, the manager of the Federal 
Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. I appreciate his 
efforts in getting this bill to the floor, and I congratulate him and 
the committee on producing an extensive and fine piece of legislation.
  I wish to discuss section 203 of this bill, which pertains to an 
airport in my State in the town of Aspen. I wish to thank the Senator 
from Kentucky and his staff for helping us with the language that is 
included in this bill.
  As Senator Ford knows, section 203 of this bill pertains to Pitkin 
County Airport, located in Aspen, CO. This airport is located high in 
the beautiful mountains of Colorado.
  Having been a pilot myself at one time, I understand the difficulty 
of flying in and out during particularly bad weather. Landing in those 
mountains is not the same as landing in States to the east, in Nebraska 
or Kansas.
  The Aspen airport is especially difficult to fly into and out of due 
to the terrain and unpredictable weather and often very wicked weather 
conditions.
  Due to safety concerns, Pitkin County Commissioners officially closed 
the airport to general aviation from one-half hour after sunset until 7 
a.m., but certificated scheduled air carriers, meeting certain noise 
standards, were allowed to operate until 11 p.m.
  In 1989, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and the National 
Business Aircraft Association filed a formal complaint with the FAA 
charging that this curfew was discriminatory against general aviation. 
We have been dealing with that problem ever since.
  This was a difficult situation. The county commissioners knew that 
the FAA is the Agency responsible for monitoring air safety and that 
local communities do not have this authority. However, they felt strong 
responsibility to ensure the safety of the traveling public and those 
residents living under the flight patterns and around the airport. 
Knowing they were entering a David versus Goliath battle with the FAA, 
and knowing they were at risk of losing Federal funds, the 
commissioners chose to retain the curfew as a matter of principle.
  In January 1994, the General Accounting Office issued a report at the 
request of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and my predecessor, 
former Senator Tim Wirth, regarding the safety risks of mountain 
flying. This report discussed the Aspen airport dispute specifically.
  The GAO report listed several options for resolving the dispute. One 
of these options allowed pilots under instrument flight rule, commonly 
called IFR, access after dark, and prohibited those pilots using visual 
flight rule, commonly called VFR. We used this option as the starting 
point for our current negotiations.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, could the Senator describe the response from 
the FAA for me, please?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, we have been trying to work with them and not 
against them in the process. We tried to schedule several meetings with 
officials from the FAA and representatives from Pitkin County, both in 
Aspen and here in Washington. We were disappointed, to say the least, 
at their unwillingness to move early on this issue. In fairness to the 
FAA, though, I understand that this would be a precedent-setting 
matter. It should be noted that there was never any attempt to 
undermine the FAA's authority. We just wanted them to recognize that 
Aspen airport has significant safety issues that warrant special 
attention that may not be found in any other airport.
  After negotiations with the FAA came to a stalemate, we went to AOPA 
and NBAA, who had filed the complaint in the first place. After many 
hours of hard work, with the tenacity of dedicated people on all sides, 
we did work out a compromise, and that compromise is in the language of 
today's bill.
  This compromise would allow general aviation flights to fly into and 
out of Aspen's airport after dark under the following conditions: The 
plane must be equipped and the pilot certified for instrument flight 
rule; if the pilot flies using visual flight rule, he or she must have 
the permission of the Aspen control tower and must have flown into 
Aspen's airport sometime during the past year.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I say to my friend, I understand that the 
Pitkin County Commissioners, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association, and the National Business Aircraft Association have all 
endorsed this compromise.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. They have all endorsed this compromise.
  Mr. FORD. And the issue of discrimination is resolved because the 
curfew has been lifted?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. That is correct.
  In addition, I am pleased that this agreement contains the same noise 
standard that the community has always had in place, so that has not 
changed.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator from Colorado for his work on this 
matter. It is gratifying to see people use a little common sense and 
that it can always be worked out.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. We are not often accused of using too much common 
sense.
  Mr. FORD. I want to accuse the Senator of using common sense, if that 
is all right.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank my friend from Kentucky, for without his help, 
this compromise could not have happened.
  I also wish to thank the Pitkin County Commissioners, the General 
Accounting Office for their impartial statistics, AOPA, NBAA, and 
certainly the staff who worked so hard to write the language for this 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we only have a few minutes remaining, as I 
understand it, maybe a little bit more. We are moving right along with 
amendments. We could, I think, almost complete the legislation, but I 
need some help as it relates to amendments.
  We have closed off at least five now with several colloquies, and the 
one I just had with the distinguished Senator from Colorado. So there 
are only two or three other items of significance that could be taken 
care of.
  I just inform my colleagues to please come to the floor and let us 
get this legislation behind us. We need to get it passed, get it to 
conference, and have it done before July 1, because the previous 
legislation expires on June 30 that allows us to have some funding to 
go ahead with the construction season. The occupant of the chair made 
such an eloquent statement earlier about how short the window is as it 
relates to the construction season.
  We have that money and available, but that expires now on June 30 and 
we need to put this into place. So it is very important that we get the 
bill out as soon as we can so we can accommodate the June 30 deadline.
  I see no colleagues wishing the floor. Therefore, I suggest the 
absence much a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum is noted. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


      Disadvantaged business enterprise airport concession program

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman of the 
Aviation Subcommittee about a provision that was included in the 
Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise Improvement, and Intermodal 
Transportation Act of 1992. Specifically, I hope the chairman could 
clarify his intent concerning section 117 of the 1992 Act. That 
section, sponsored by the Senator from Kentucky, deals with the 
Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise [DBE] 
airport concession program.
  Mr. FORD. I would be happy to offer my assistance.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the chairman. As ranking member of the Senate 
Small Business Committee as well as ranking member of the Senate 
Aviation Subcommittee, I am very interested in the DBE airport 
concession program. I understand that section 117 of the 1992 act made 
several major changes to advance the DBE program.
  Although I was not the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee at 
the time the 1992 Act was considered and enacted into law, it was my 
understanding that the Aviation Subcommittee considered these changes 
in the DBE program to be critical to the success of the program. 
However, 20 months have passed since this measure was enacted into law 
and DOT has not yet finalized regulations to implement the provisions 
of section 117.
  Mr. FORD. It greatly disturbs me that this important program has 
languished for months with little or no firm regulatory guidance from 
DOT. It was my intent as the sponsor of section 117 here in the Senate 
that is be implemented as soon as possible, but no later than 6 months 
after the 1992 Act became law. That was the statutory deadline which 
the DOT has failed to meet.
  Mr. PRESSLER. To what extent did you intend the changes in the DBE 
airport concession program to provide new business opportunities for 
DEE vendors, such as new car dealers and auto body shope?
  Mr. FORD. It was my intention to provide for the fullest possible 
participation for all certified DBE vendors in the program. DOT must 
make allowances for the special characteristics of different industries 
in order to ensure that the program benefits the small, disadvantaged 
businesses as intended by Congress.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, was it the chairman's intent in crafting 
section 117 to provide care rental concessionaires at federally 
assisted airports with a second, coequal method of demonstrating 
compliance with an airport's DBE goal--namely, through purchases of 
goods and services from DBE vendors?
  Mr. FORD. That was my intention. Section 117 was written to dispel 
any doubt as to whether the car rental industry was covered by the DBE 
airport concession program, and also to provide the industry with an 
alternative method of DBE compliance. There was no intent to create 
unequal methods of compliance.
  Mr. PRESSLER. The language of the new DBE provision requires car 
rental concessionaires be permitted to include the cost of purchasing 
cars in their DBE goals. What credit did the chairman intend car rental 
concessionaires to receive?
  Mr. FORD. It was my intent that car rental companies receive credit 
for the full purchase price for cars purchased from certified DBE new 
car dealers. Any other standard ignores the plain wording of the 
statute.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the chairman for clarifying these points. At 
this time, I would like to submit for the record a number of questions 
I raised with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, 
David Hinson, concerning this important issue during the subcommittee's 
hearing on S. 1491. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of these 
questions and Mr. Hinson's responses be printed in the Record 
immediately following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Questions by Senator Larry Pressler for David Hinson, FAA Administrator

       It is my understanding that the FAA is putting the 
     finishing touches on the proposed rule to implement Section 
     117 of the Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise 
     Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992. This 
     proposed rule is to contain information and guidelines of 
     vital interest to many companies in South Dakota that may 
     wish to supply goods and services to airport concessionaires. 
     I have the following questions about the proposed rule:
       Question. It is my understanding that the purpose of the 
     disadvantage business enterprise (DBE) airport concession 
     program is to generate economic opportunities for DBE's from 
     the operations of concessions at airports into which Federal 
     tax dollars have been invested for construction or operating 
     purposes. This program should help these firms get on their 
     competitive feet and provide economic opportunities. Is this 
     also the FAA's understanding of the purpose of the program?
       Answer. The FAA has prepared a draft notice of proposed 
     rulemaking (NPRM) to implement the DBE provisions found in 
     Sections 511(a)(17) and 511(h) of the Airport and Airway 
     Improvement Act (AAIA) of 1982, as amended. In particular, 
     the NPRM would implement the amendments made in 1992 by the 
     Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise Improvement, and 
     Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-581). We 
     expect the NPRM to be published in the Federal Register soon.
       The FAA concurs that the purpose of the DBE airport 
     concession program is to provide economic opportunities to 
     DBE firms at airports that receive grants for construction 
     and other development projects authorized by the Airport 
     Improvement Program. We also concur that this program should 
     generate economic opportunities for DBE's from the operations 
     of concessions doing business at those airports which will 
     assist such DBE firms in becoming competitive.
       Question. Is the FAA aware that one of the intents of 
     Congress in adopting Section 117 of the 1992 Act was to 
     provide for a viable alternative method of participation 
     within this important program for car rental concessionaires? 
     We authorized this alternative compliance method because this 
     industry cannot, in most instances, engage in direct 
     ownership arrangements with DBE's. As an alternative, 
     Congress authorized car rental firms to participate in the 
     DBE program through purchases of goods and services from DBE 
     vendors. In my opinion, vendor purchases are an equally 
     important method of assuring economic opportunities for DBE 
     vendors. Are you aware of Congress' intent on this issue, and 
     do you believe that the rule being drafted by the FAA will be 
     true to this intent?
       Answer: The FAA is fully aware that one of the intents of 
     Congress in adopting the 1992 amendments to the AAIA was to 
     provide airport sponsors with a viable alternative method for 
     obtaining DBE participation in car rental concessions. We 
     also are aware that this alternative means was included in 
     legislation because in many instances, airport sponsors have 
     encountered difficulty in obtaining DBE participation through 
     direct ownership arrangements, such as prime concessionaires, 
     franchises, and joint ventures. Obstacles to obtaining direct 
     DBE participation in car rental concessions include the high 
     capital costs and high rental payments at airport locations.
       The FAA is full aware of Congress' intent that vendor 
     purchases are an important method of assuring economic 
     opportunities for DBE vendors. Consequently, we believe that 
     the rule, which we have drafted, is faithful to that intent. 
     Moreover, full consideration will be given by the agency to 
     all comments submitted by vendors and other members of the 
     public that address these issues.
       Question. There is no foundation to be found in either the 
     statutory or the report language of the 1992 Act for favoring 
     one form of compliance over another. In my judgement, it 
     should be irrelevant whether the economic opportunity 
     generated by the DBE airport concession program comes to a 
     DBE through vendor purchases from a concessionaire at an 
     airport, or from direct participation as a concessionaire at 
     an airport, or from direct participation as a 
     concessionaire--as long as the economic opportunity exists. 
     Do you agree?
       Answer: We concur with this statement as it applies to car 
     rental concessions. Section 511(h)(3) of the AAIA provides 
     that DBE requirements imposed by airport sponsors on car 
     rental concessionaires may be met through the purchase or 
     lease of goods or services from DBE's, including purchases or 
     leases of vehicles. Alternatively, the statute allows 
     sponsors to count DBE firms participating in car rental 
     concessions through direct ownership arrangements.
       However, for other types of concessionaires, that is, other 
     than car rental firms, the legislation establishes a ``good 
     faith efforts'' test before purchase of goods and services 
     can be counted toward to DBE goals. Section 511(h)(2) 
     provides that as a condition precedent to counting such 
     purchases, good faith efforts must be made by the airport 
     sponsor and the concessionaire to explore all available 
     options to achieve, to the maximum extent practical, DBE 
     participation through direct ownership arrangements, 
     including, but not limited to, joint ventures and franchises.
       Question. Does the FAA intend to promulgate uniform 
     standards for certification of firms as DBE's, which will be 
     binding on all airports under the program, or will the FAA 
     leave it to individual airports to certify DBE's? I am 
     concerned the latter possibly could result in situations 
     where a DBE would be certified at one airport but not 
     certified at another.
       Answer: Subpart F of the existing departmental DBE rule 49 
     CFR Part 23, contains uniform standards and procedures for 
     certification of DBE concessionaires. Additional guidelines 
     will be adopted, if appropriate, to address the 1992 
     amendments to the AAIA.
       Under the current procedures, an airport sponsor may 
     conduct its own certification or it may accept the 
     certification of another recipient of Department of 
     Transportation (DOT) funding. The same procedures apply to 
     the certification of DOT-assisted contractors. In these 
     instances, the accepting agency is ultimately responsible for 
     the validity of the certification.
       Under these procedures, one airport (or other DOT 
     recipient) may certify a given firm, while another airport or 
     recipient may deny certification to that same firm. When a 
     firm is denied certification, it may file on administrative 
     appeal with the departmental Office of Civil Rights (49 CFR 
     23.55).
       We also point out that the Department currently is 
     considering comments that it received to its proposal to 
     revise all of 49 CFR Part 23. The NPRM was published on 
     December 9, 1992 (57 F.R. 58288). Under the NPRM, recipients 
     would be required to participate in a unified statewide 
     certification program. The purpose of this proposal is to 
     bring some centralization to the certification process.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Without objection, it so ordered.


               city of chandler air traffic control tower

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I would ask my long-time friend and 
colleague from Kentucky, Senator Ford, the manager of the bill, if he 
would be willing to enter into a colloquy on a matter of great 
importance to the Senator from Arizona?
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I would be pleased to honor this request 
from my good friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator DeConcini.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I would ask Senator Ford if he is aware of a serious 
problem I have in my State regarding the city of Chandler Airport's 
attempts to secure a much needed air traffic control tower from the 
Federal Aviation Administration [FAA].
  Mr. FORD. I would advise the Senator from Arizona that I have only 
recently been informed about his problem, but based on the information 
I have seen, I can think of no reason why the FAA should not procure an 
air traffic control tower for the city of Chandler Airport and include 
the airport in the contract tower program.
  I am quite surprised that such a busy urban airport would not already 
have a tower. If I am not mistaken, this airport is in the heart of 
metropolitan Phoenix.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. The manager is correct. The city of Chandler is also 
the fastest growing city in Arizona and among the fastest in the 
Nation. I would add that all indications are that this growth will 
continue for some time. In fact, growth will very likely accelerate as 
the Intel Corp. has just broken ground on the second largest private 
corporate and industrial development in the world, a $1.7 billion 
Pentium-class microchip manufacturing facility, only 4 miles from the 
Chandler Airport. Intel's current 1.7 million sq. ft. 486-class 
microchip plant already employs over 7,000 workers onsite just a couple 
of miles away from the new site.
  Mr. FORD. As chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I have witnessed 
several efforts by Congress to limit growth in the number of FAA 
contract towers. While there are plenty good reasons to control growth 
in this program, it does not appear to make sense why the FAA should 
not expeditiously respond in this instance. I am informed that the FAA 
just recently spent over $6 million dollars of the taxpayers money to 
add a second runway and improve the runway aprons at Chandler. However, 
the airport operator says it cannot safely operate both runways without 
a tower.
  I would ask my friend from Arizona whether the FAA has provided any 
rationale for not proceeding with air traffic control improvements at 
this airport.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I would inform Senator Ford that the 
FAA has indicated that a new tower at Chandler does not meet their 
cost-benefit ratio. However, the FAA has yet to provide any 
substantiation for this claim. In fact, I have been waiting a long time 
for information I requested as to how this ratio is computed.
  The city of Chandler has sought with earnest to secure a FAA air 
traffic control tower for over a decade. While the city of Chandler has 
been very active in the past 6 years to secure a control tower, airport 
records show it has been trying since at least April of 1980. Each 
subsequent request in the past few years has been rejected by the FAA 
despite the fact that Chandler Airport substantially met the program 
criteria or even met last year's criteria. Approximately 225,000 to 
255,000 operations annually, or about 500 to 700 per day, occur at this 
airport with no control tower.
  I am growing very impatient with the FAA and the Department of 
Transportation. I believe that flight operations at this airport border 
on dangerous. The city of Chandler Airport is primarily a general 
aviation airport with substantial student training in multiple types of 
aircraft, but also serves as a primary reliever for Sky Harbor 
International Airport--one of the world's busiest airports. Chandler 
Airport is also the site of the largest heliport in the Western United 
States.
  If it were possible for this Senator to compel the FAA to erect and 
operate a tower at Chandler, I would not wait for the FAA to respond. I 
would offer an amendment to do so today. However, I know my friend's 
position on such amendments and I greatly respect Chairman Ford for is 
unwavering adherence to that policy.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Arizona's 
frustration and I also thank him for his willingness to wait a little 
while longer for the FAA to act and forgo any attempt to amend this 
bill for such a purpose. Given the very close proximity of several busy 
airports in the Phoenix area, especially Sky Harbor International, the 
world's sixth business airport in terms of takeoffs and landing, it 
appears that the FAA action should take swift action to abate this 
apparent unsafe condition. I pledge to my good friend from Arizona that 
I will do all that I can to assist him in this important effort.
    
    
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I am deeply grateful for the good 
counsel and continued assistance that my friend from Kentucky has 
continually provided to this Senator throughout my years here in the 
Senate, and I am once again indebted to him for his help to the 
citizens of Arizona and the city of Chandler on this important air 
safety project. I thank my friend and yield back the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1768

  (Purpose: To authorize appropriations of funds from the Airport and 
 Airway Trust Fund for asbestos abatement and building removal at the 
              vacant Air Force Station, Marin County, CA)

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk, as it 
relates to asbestos removal, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for Mrs. Boxer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1768.

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 13, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 122. ASBESTOS REMOVAL AND BUILDING DEMOLITION AND 
                   REMOVAL, VACANT AIR FORCE STATION, MARIN 
                   COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (d) of section 9502 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9502), there is authorized to be 
     appropriated in fiscal year 1995 from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund established by such section 9502 to the account 
     for the Department of Transportation for facilities and 
     equipment of the Federal Aviation Administration such amount 
     as may be necessary to permit the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration to carry out asbestos 
     abatement activities and the demolition and removal of 
     buildings at the site of vacant the Air Force station located 
     on Mount Tamalpais, Marin County, California. The amount 
     authorized to be appropriated by the preceding sentence shall 
     not exceed its share of the costs of carrying out such 
     activities, demolitions and removals.
       (b) Authority To Use Funds.--The Administrator may use the 
     funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization of 
     appropriations in subsection (a) to carry out the abatement 
     activities and demolition and removal described in that 
     subsection. Such funds shall be available for such purpose 
     until expended.

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, the distinguished ranking member and I 
have looked at this amendment. We have made a couple of corrections in 
it. We now both agree with it. It is my judgment we can go ahead and 
adopt it by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. PRESSLER. We have no objection to this amendment, and we 
recommend its approval.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1768) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, if I may, Senator Pressler and I are 
making every effort to accommodate the Senators who have talked to us 
about amendments. We have finished six amendments. We only know the 
possibility of maybe four more. We can pass this legislation, and the 
prospects of being in tomorrow are diminished considerably if we can 
finish this piece of legislation.
  So I encourage colleagues if, under those other three, four, maybe 
five amendments, that we can go ahead and maybe clear it up this 
afternoon, and we may want to have a rollcall vote--I am not sure. A 
lot of things can happen. I hope they will come over and we can move 
expeditiously.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I join in that plea for Senators to 
come to the floor to offer their amendments. We are ready to finish 
this bill right now, if we can just get signals from the various 
offices.
  If there are any students of American Government watching, we are 
trying to move the Senate forward. All Senators are busy with 
committees and elsewhere. We are ready to go if we can get people here. 
To the various offices concerned, please call or send your Senator 
over. We are ready to go.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am very pleased that the committee 
has accepted language authored by me under Senate bill 1491, the 
Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, to provide pilots 
with direct radio contact with a weather observer in Yakutat, AK.
  I strongly support the language that was introduced by Senator 
Stevens to provide human observers to speak to pilots in areas such as 
Dutch Harbor, Valdez, Petersburg, Sand Point, Wrangell and to provide 
human observers at eight locations that rely on the Automated Weather 
Observing System--AWOS, as it is termed--should that automatic 
equipment fail to operate.
  As you know, Madam President, there are numerous times in my State of 
Alaska where we have very, very violent weather conditions, and 
aviation has to operate in those conditions.
  Many of the communities are inaccessible by roads of any kind, 
isolated from other communities, and depend totally on aviation. 
Therefore, a weather observer who can communicate directly with pilots 
is absolutely essential.
  The coverage in Yakutat and Valdez will serve as a good communication 
link to pilots in the Gulf of Alaska, and Sand Point and Dutch Harbor 
on the Alaskan Peninsula, and in Wrangell and Petersburg in southeast 
Alaska. Cities that are so dependent on regular air travel. And they 
are located in areas that experience extraordinary weather changes and 
are heavily trafficked to warrant full-time observers.
  Providing a human observer in the AWOS locations will help general 
aviation and allow regularly scheduled flights to land during times 
when the automatic system is down.
  The necessity of human observers is brought to light by accounts that 
we have received in talking to pilots in our State.
  As an example, Madam President, in August 1993, an airplane carrying 
seven people was ditched in the north Pacific Ocean southwest of Nome, 
AK. Due to the presence of a dedicated FAA employee, those seven people 
were saved. The FAA chief knew where to find an off-duty helicopter 
pilot to fly a search-and-rescue mission. He knew who to call for the 
strongest individuals in the community to lift the swimming survivors 
to the helicopter and where to recruit help from an additional 
helicopter operating in the general area. A remote operator in a 
distant city could not have accomplished this mission. As a 
consequence, the people were saved.
  I have heard reports of cargo planes coming in to land only to find a 
snowplow on the runway. One pilot told me of unknowingly landing on a 
snowy, unplowed runway due to an unreliable Notice to Airmen.
  Air ambulances and other general aviation pilots have experienced 
inoperable runway lights, which have led to dire consequences. These 
are only some of the accounts which I have received, and the reason I 
requested a report from the Department of Transportation on the safety 
of closing flight service stations in the State that rely on automated 
equipment.
  As a consequence of the request and the long delay in receiving the 
report from the Department of Transportation--it is over 120 days late, 
Madam President--flight service station personnel in Alaska who are and 
were scheduled to transfer to the automated flight service stations or 
out of State have been kept in place.
  It is my understanding that the Alaska FAA is planning to rotate some 
of these personnel in and out of their stations, which will provide 
some relief to those whose tours of duty in these remote locations have 
expired.
  I remind my colleagues that Alaska is not a ``Roads R Us" State. We 
rely heavily--virtually entirely--on services that private aviation and 
commercial aviation provide us to get around safely in Alaska. Flight 
service personnel and individuals manning these stations have performed 
superbly. They have provided services that the automated stations and 
machinery will never ever be able to perform, and we all know that.
  Alaskan pilots deserve the most comprehensive, up-to-the-second 
weather information possible. The changes provided in this legislation 
will ensure that the best information will be available in more places 
around Alaska.
   I remind the DOT that the report which they have provided us does 
not address the consequences of reliability of the automated systems in 
relationship to what a human observer can see. Clearly, an automated 
observation device can observe a fog bank in one direction, but it may 
not be clear in the other. And the consequences of an automated device 
that may be looking in one direction where it is clear and having a fog 
bank in the other, and giving a report to the pilots that it is clear 
to the west when fog is laying in the east can be disastrous. That is 
why such automated devices in their current operational mode are not 
adequate to replace the human observer in many of these areas.
  I conclude by reminding the DOT that more often than not, air travel 
to Alaska is not done in a pressurized aircraft at 25,000 feet. More 
often than not, it is in an unpressurized, single-engine aircraft at 
500 to 1,000 feet. And the severity of weather conditions can be 
disastrous if there is inadequate and inappropriate weather reporting 
in those conditions.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence--
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator withhold?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will be happy to withhold.


                           Amendment No. 1769

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I have an amendment on behalf of Senators 
Simon and Moseley-Braun, and I send the amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for Mr. Simon, for 
     himself and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1769.

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Notwithstanding section 512 of the Airport and Airway 
     Improvement Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. App. 2211), the Secretary 
     of Transportation may approve an upward adjustment not to 
     exceed $750,000, in the maximum obligation of the United 
     States under an Airport Improvement Program grant issued to a 
     reliever airport after September 1, 1989, and before October 
     1, 1989, in order to assist in funding increased land 
     acquisition costs (as determined in judicial proceedings) and 
     associated eligible project costs.

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, this deals with the Aurora, Illinois 
Airport project. I have no objection to it. I think it is a fine 
amendment and will help the Senators and that airport. I recommend it 
be approved.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I join in those remarks. We recommend 
that the amendment be agreed to.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The amendment (No. 1769) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1770

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Gramm, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler], for Mr. 
     Gramm, proposes an amendment numbered 1770.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all on p. 22, lines 19 through 23, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(3) The carrier involved has operated at the affected 
     nonhub airport for 180 days or less;''.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, this amendment by Senator Gramm 
modifies the Dorgan amendment slightly, and it is acceptable to our 
side of the aisle.
  I recommend its adoption.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I have discussed this amendment by Senator 
Gramm of Texas as it relates to the provision of Senator Dorgan's which 
was placed in the legislation in the committee. Senator Dorgan has 
agreed to, I understand the staff has agreed to, as long as it 
substitutes--and I think it does--that provision in S. 1491 that 
Senator Dorgan placed in there. We have no objection to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Texas.
  The amendment (No. 1770) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1771

  (Purpose: To provide for preventive maintenance of airport runways, 
              taxiways, and other airport pavement areas)

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1771.

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 104 of the committee amendment, 
     insert the following language:
       ``Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall issue such regulations as may 
     be necessary to ensure that no product shall be used for 
     pavement maintenance or rehabilitation under this section 
     unless the manufacturer of such product warrants to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary the performance of such 
     product.''.

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, the Senator from South Dakota should have 
introduced that amendment. I was a little anxious to get things done. 
But it does allow for warranties as it relates to construction and 
other items related to airports. I have no objections to it now. We 
have had some corrections as it relates to the language of the 
amendment, and it is satisfactory with this side.
  I hope the Senate will accept it.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, we support the amendment very 
strongly.
  Mr. McCAIN, Madam President, each year approximately 60 percent of 
the AIP funding is spent on pavement projects at airports throughout 
the country. These projects normally involve the reconstruction or 
replacement of airport pavements. These projects, understandably, are 
expensive.
  I was surprised recently to learn that while the Federal Government 
hands out hundreds of millions of dollars each year to reconstruct or 
replace aging pavements, there is no requirement that airport 
authorities implement programs to maintain their pavements in order to 
be eligible to receive AIP support. The FAA encourages airport 
authorities to follow responsible pavement management practices, but 
those authorities are left to decide for themselves what, if any, 
course they will take. The predictable result is that some authorities 
aggressively manage their pavements while others make little or no 
effort to preserve theirs. Either way, when the pavement fails, they 
ask for AIP funds, and the funds are granted. This haphazard approach 
to pavement management results in the unnecessary expenditure of 
literally hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
  Madam President, it costs far less to maintain a pavement than it 
does to replace it. And as budgets across the board continue to be 
squeezed, we cannot afford the extravagance of replacing every aging 
airport pavement that might have been preserved by a timely and 
effective maintenance effort. We should require that before an airport 
is eligible to receive AIP assistance for pavement projects, it must 
implement an effective pavement maintenance program.
  Finally, Madam President, my amendment requires that any product 
applied under the AIP program for pavement maintenance or 
rehabilitation must carry a manufacture's performance warranty. The 
reason for this is simple: many products have been applied over the 
years with lavish claims of miracle performances which, unfortunately, 
too often don't come true. Some of those products have actually damaged 
the underlying pavement. So with my amendment we serve this simple 
notice: If you want to sell your product under the AIP program, you 
will have to guarantee its performance. The taxpayer deserves no less.
  Madam President, it costs a lot of money to replace a runway, a 
taxiway, or a parking ramp. It costs a lot less to maintain those 
pavements. My amendment will encourage responsible maintenance, and, I 
am confident, will reduce the Federal burden of maintaining our 
Nation's airports.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1771) was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1772

(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate on the issuance of a report 
              on radar usage at the airport, Cheyenne, WY)

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senators Simpson and Wallop and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler], for Mr. 
     Simpson, for himself and Mr. Wallop, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1772.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 41 between lines 8 and 9, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF SENATE ON ISSUANCE OF REPORT ON USAGE OF 
                   RADAR AT THE CHEYENNE, WYOMING AIRPORT.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of 
     Transportation--
       (1) should take such action as may be necessary to revise 
     the cost/benefit analysis process of the Department of 
     Transportation to fully take projected military emplanement 
     and cost savings figures into consideration with regard to 
     radar installations at joint-use civilian/military airports;
       (2) should require the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration to reevaluate the aircraft radar 
     needs at the Cheyenne, Wyoming Airport, and enter into an 
     immediate dialogue with officials of the Wyoming Air Guard, 
     F.E. Warren Air Force Base, and Cheyenne area leaders in the 
     phase II radar installation reevaluation of the 
     Administration and adjust cost/benefit determinations based 
     to some appropriate degree on already provided military 
     figures and concerns and other enplanement projections in the 
     region; and
       (3) should report to Congress within 60 days following the 
     date of the enactment of this Act on the results of the 
     reevaluation of the aircraft radar needs of the Cheyenne, 
     Wyoming Airport, and of Southeast Wyoming, and explain how 
     military figures and concerns will be appropriately solicited 
     in future radar decisions involving joint-use airport 
     facilities.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, the purpose of this amendment is to 
state the sense of the Senate on the issuance of a report on radar 
usage at the airport in Cheyenne, WY. We have no problem with this. We 
support it, and I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, since this is a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution, our side has no objection to it.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I would express my strong concern that 
the FAA reevaluate an airport project in city of Cheyenne, WY. In last 
year's Transportation appropriations bill, my old friend and senior 
colleague from Wyoming--Senator Wallop--entered into a colloquy 
regarding this exact same matter. Specifically, it involves the use of 
radar at the Cheyenne Airport. Cheyenne is the largest city in Wyoming 
as well as the capital city. It is also the home of Warren AFB, the 
heart of the ICBM defense system for our Nation. The number of 
emplanements and deplanements at the Cheyenne Airport have risen 
dramatically in the last decade. That fact, coupled with an increased 
joint usage by the Air Force and Air National Guard which do not have 
separate airports of their own, demand that the FAA clean the wax out 
of its ears and hear what it is we in Wyoming are saying. For the past 
decade the FAA has said that Cheyenne was being considered for radar 
installations at the existing control tower. And for more than a decade 
the FAA has stonewalled the Wyoming delegation and has been 
unresponsive and arrogant, at best, and deaf to our requests.
  Last October, we called for the FAA to issue a report within 60 
days--regarding the results of a reevaluation concerning the Cheyenne 
Airport's and southeast Wyoming's aircraft radar needs to Congress. We 
still have not seen that report. Indeed, there are many, many 
extenuating reasons for the FAA to reevaluate the Cheyenne Airport 
project.
  I am very concerned and deeply interested in how the FAA responds to 
Wyoming's civilian and military aviation needs. For quite some time 
now, the FAA has had before it all of the most recent data from all 
relevant sources in order to make necessary and appropriate adjustments 
to its cost/benefit analysis procedures for radar installations at 
civilian/military airports. Yet, the agency has wholly failed to hear 
this plea for Wyoming's aviation needs. The time has come for the FAA 
to recognize that the airport in Cheyenne needs radar along with all of 
the necessary auxiliary equipment and that it surely should qualify for 
FAA assistance. I look forward to timely and decisive action by the FAA 
on this issue. The stall here is not becoming at all. Let's end it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1772) was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1773

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I will now submit an amendment to the 
desk. It pertains to Monroe, LA, in the conveying of interest in 
property that has been conveyed to the city. It is one of those 
amendments that is necessary. One, it says it must get fair market 
value and, two, that the money will be spent as it relates to the 
airport.
  I now send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] for Mr. Johnston, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1773.

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     SEC.  . MONROE AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT.

       (a) Authorization To Grant Releases.--Notwithstanding 
     section 16 of the Federal Airport Act (as in effect on the 
     date of transfer of Selman Field, Louisiana, from the United 
     States to the city of Monroe, Louisiana), the Administrator 
     of the Federal Aviation Administration is authorized, subject 
     to the provisions of section 4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 
     (50 App. U.S.C. 1622c), and the provisions of subsection (b) 
     of this section, to grant releases from any of the terms, 
     conditions, reservations, and restrictions contained in the 
     1949 deed of conveyance, or any other deed of conveyance 
     occurring subsequent to that initial transference and before 
     the date of enactment of this Act, under which the United 
     States conveyed certain property then constituting Selman 
     Field, Louisiana, to the city of Monroe, Louisiana, for 
     airport purposes.
       (b) Conditions.--Any release granted under subsection (a) 
     shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (1) The city of Monroe, Louisiana, shall agree that, in 
     conveying any interest in the property which the United 
     States conveyed to the city by a deed described in subsection 
     (a), the city will receive an amount for such interest which 
     is equal to the fair market value (as determined pursuant to 
     regulations issued by the Secretary of Transportation).
       (2) Any such amount so received by the city shall be used 
     by the city for the development, improvement, operation, or 
     maintenance of a public airport.

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I have explained the amendment. We have no 
problems with it on this side and hope the Senate will accept it.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, we have no objection to the Johnston 
amendment. It appears to be a very appropriate amendment and we support 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1773) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The absence of a quorum has been 
suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1774

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am sending an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senators Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Robb.
  We have a provision in the legislation that allows for studies on the 
impact of aircraft noise on affected communities. All we are adding 
here is ``shall not result in a net increase in noise impact on 
surrounding communities resulting from both changes in timing of 
operation permitted under this paragraph.''
  It is acceptable. Therefore, Mr. President, I send the amendment to 
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for Ms. Mikulski, for 
     herself, Mr. Sarbanes and Mr. Robb, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1774.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 18, line 19, strike the word ``and'';
       On page 18, line 23, strike the word ``carriers.'' and add: 
     ``carriers; and
       (F) the impact of aircraft noise on affected communities.''
       On page 20, line 14, strike the word ``and'';
       On page 20, line 16, strike the word ``carrier.'' and add: 
     ``carrier; and
       (D) shall not result in a net increase in noise impact on 
     surrounding communities resulting from both changes in timing 
     of operations permitted under this paragraph.''

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, as I said earlier, the amendment is 
acceptable on this side. I think it is adequate and will not increase 
the noise. Therefore, we ask the Senate to approve it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, we support this amendment, and we ask it 
be approved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1774) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have been working pretty hard this 
afternoon. We have been here a little over 3 hours now. We are getting 
down to where we know of only three or four more amendments. We are 
hoping that those who have these amendments will come to the floor.
  I think it is obvious that Senator Pressler and I are making every 
effort to work with our colleagues. If the language is not what we 
think it should be, we will sit down and try to work them out, and we 
think we have worked most of them out.
  I encourage my colleagues to come with their amendments. I know there 
are some committees that are meeting and those Senators who have some 
amendments are in those meetings. If they will just advise us, we can 
go ahead and offer some of their amendments. We will be glad to do that 
and give them full credit for it.
  So, again, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to come to the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to direct a question to the chairman of the 
Aviation Subcommittee.
  Mr. FORD. I would be pleased to answer my friend from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I am concerned about the effect of section 204(d)(2) of 
the committee substitute. As I understand the provision, it's sole 
purpose is to allow air carriers currently operating at Washington's 
National Airport to move their operations from one hourly period to 
another, within the range expressed in 204(d)(2)(B). Is this the 
chairman's understanding as well?
  Mr. FORD. Yes, the Senator is correct. This provision's intent is to 
give air carriers additional operating flexibility within the existing 
constraints.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I have the floor, and I would like to yield 
7 minutes to the Senator from Delaware for a statement. I ask unanimous 
consent that at the end of his time, the floor revert back to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Roth pertaining to the introduction of S. 2173 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thought we might have another amendment, 
but apparently we do not have one ready at this time.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue with the call of the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               integrated airport system planning grants

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I respectfully request the chairman's 
reconsideration of a specific provision which has been incorporated 
into this important legislation.
  Section 118 of the bill imposes two new conditions on the recipients 
of integrated airport system planning grants. First, that major airport 
operators be given a seat on the governing board of a recipient 
planning agency, even when the municipality or county which owns the 
airport already is represented on the governing board. Second, that 
major airport operators be a co-applicant for future integrated airport 
system planning grants. My understanding is that these provisions have 
not been included in the House version of aviation reauthorization 
which will serve as the basis for conference committee discussions.
  In terms of the first condition regarding a seat on the governing 
board. In many cases, the municipal owners of these airports are 
already represented on various planning agency boards. To require 
additional representation could cause a serious imbalance to voting 
equity for those jurisdictions without a major airport.
  The second proposed condition, requiring major airport operators to 
be co-applicants for future planning grants, would give major airports 
the opportunity to veto grant applications by withholding their 
cosponsorship from any element in a planning program with which they 
disagree. This condition would seriously undermine the integrity and 
independence of the regional airport planning process.
  With these concerns in mind, I would urge the chairman not to oppose 
efforts by House conferees to delete these provisions. I appreciate his 
consideration of California's perspective. I ask unanimous consent that 
two letters--one from the Southern California Association of 
Governments and one from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission--be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Metropolitan Transportation


                                                   Commission,

                                                     June 3, 1994.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Attention: Matt Middlebrook.
     S 1491--Aviation Reauthorization.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: It is our understanding that 
     Senator Wendell Ford may seek Senate floor action as early as 
     June 8 on S 1491, a multi-year reauthorization of the Airport 
     Improvement Program. While MTC generally is supportive of the 
     legislation, we seek your assistance in deleting one 
     provision in the bill which would adversely affect airport 
     system planning activities in the Bay Area and throughout the 
     nation.
       Section 118 of the bill entitled '`Intermodal System 
     Planning'' imposes two new conditions on recipients of 
     integrated airport system planning grants: (1) that major 
     airport operators be given a seat on the governing board of 
     the recipient planning agency, even when the municipality or 
     county which owns the airport already is represented on the 
     governing board; and (2) that major airport operators be a 
     co-applicant for future integrated airport system planning 
     grants.
       With respect to the first proposed condition, the 
     composition of the MTC governing board is specifically 
     established by state law and any change to our membership 
     would require a separate action by the state Legislature. 
     Moreover, we do not believe it is necessary to expand the 
     membership of our board to represent the interests of our 
     three major airport operators (San Francisco, Oakland, and 
     San Jose), since the municipal owners of these airports 
     already are represented on the commission. Finally, our 
     commission is fairly small with 16 voting members; the 
     addition of three airport seats would substantially dilute 
     the voting strength of our existing commissioners who 
     represent the 100 cities and nine counties of the region.
       The second proposed condition essentially would give major 
     airports the opportunity to veto grant applications by 
     withholding their co-sponsorship from any element in our 
     planning program with which they disagree. We believe this 
     condition would seriously undermine the integrity and 
     independence of the regional airport planning process.
       We respectfully request that you offer an amendment to S 
     1491 to delete Section 118 from the bill. Our Washington 
     representative, Thomas J. Bulger, will contact your office 
     shortly to follow-up our request.
       Thank you very much for your time and attention to our 
     concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                Lawrence D. Dahms,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                    Los Angeles, CA, June 1, 1994.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Building Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dianne Feinstein: I am writing to advise you 
     that the Southern California Association of Governments 
     (SCAG) opposes the following new provisions of Section C 
     related to Integrated Airport System Planning Grants in the 
     Airport Improvement Plan ``Long Bill'':
       (1) additional member on the Metropolitan Planning 
     Organization's (MPO) Governing Board representing airport 
     interests (see subparagraph C of Section 508 (d)(4) of 49 
     App. U.S.C. 2207(d)(4));
       (2) requirement for a hub airport to be a co-applicant for 
     any planning grant. (see subparagraph B of Section 508 (d)(4) 
     of 49 App. U.S.C. #2207(d)(4)).
       SCAG is the MPO for the region and currently has an 
     effective means for receiving from input and advice from 
     airport/aviation interests. Our Aviation Technical Advisory 
     Committee (ATAC) consists of 44 members, including the United 
     States Arms Services which is concerned with military 
     facilities and base reuse plans. Further ATAC membership is 
     represented on a county-by-county basis so that all airports 
     within the six county region have a voice on the committee. 
     Please refer to the attached roster for a complete membership 
     list.
       ATAC establishes the policy direction and makes the 
     technical decisions pertaining to aviation systems planning 
     for the SCAG region. This committee was created specifically 
     to ensure that the special and unique aviation planning 
     issues would have a focused forum and strong link to the 
     Governing Board. ATAC's recommendations and actions are 
     reported directly to the MPO's policy committee and Governing 
     Board (SCAG's Transportation and Communications Policy 
     Committee and Regional Council respectively).
       Once again, we oppose the proposed language discussed above 
     because it will dilute the airport/aviation community's 
     valuable and direct contribution to our regional planning 
     process and will prohibit our ability to secure planning 
     grants.
       If you have any questions, please call Nona Edelen, SCAG 
     Principal Government Affairs Officer, at 213/236-1870.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Mark Pisano,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. FORD. I would like to thank the Senator for her views on this 
issue. She is not the only Senator that has brought this issue to my 
attention, and I will keep her concerns, and the concerns of our House 
colleagues, clearly in mind as this bill goes to conference.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, while this legislation, the Airport and 
Airway Improvement Act of 1994 is on the floor, I wanted to make some 
observations about certain provisions of the bill, S. 1491 as reported 
from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  First, I am very concerned that the efforts to weaken the current 
restrictions on high-density airports, especially at Washington's 
National Airport, continue apace. This bill contains language which, 
although I believe it will result in reduced overall noise levels, 
tends to once again tinker with the high-density rule and the 
allocation of slots at National.
  I opposed the 1986 airport transfer legislation at least partially 
due to my longstanding concern about the impact of noise generated by 
the operation of National Airport on the region and my constituents 
along the Potomac River in Maryland in particular and the loss of local 
control over the noise issue. Although I opposed passage of the 
transfer bill, I worked to ensure that it contained language mandating 
conformance with the existing high-density rule. I have strongly 
advocated that the Federal Aviation Administration seek more rapid 
replacement of old noisier aircraft with stage 3 planes that are 
significantly quieter. I am in regular contact with the FAA to ensure 
that the restrictions on flight operations at National including the 
curfew are strictly enforced.
  I thought that passage of the 1986 transfer bill with its strong 
endorsement of the high-density rule and its limits on flight 
operations at National Airport would end the debate over this issue, 
but unfortunately, that is not the case. I would hope that efforts to 
realign slots and flight operations as proposed in this bill are ended. 
The limitations inherent in the high-density rule have been adopted by 
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to its great credit as a 
fundamental operating principle, and significant planning decisions 
have been based on the assumption that these limitations will continue 
as enacted in 1986.
  Along with many local jurisdictions and community groups, I support 
the continuation of the existing limitations in the high-density rule 
and will work to ensure that the ongoing efforts by many to open up 
operations at National are thwarted.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, awaiting the return of our colleague, I 
now suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, there have 
been many public statements made over the past few weeks about the so-
called Whitewater matter, and there have been several private 
discussions between myself and the minority leader, Senator Dole, and 
other interested Senators.
  Several weeks ago, the Senate passed, by a vote of 98 to zero, a 
resolution which reaffirmed the Senate's constitutional obligation with 
respect to oversight and called upon the distinguished Republican 
leader and myself to reach agreement on how to implement those 
oversight responsibilities, including hearings, in a manner and at a 
time which did not interfere with the special counsel's investigation.
  Senator Dole and I have had several discussions since then and 
exchanges of letters with proposals and counterproposals. Although we 
had eliminated several of the disagreements between us, some remained.
  I am advised that our Republican colleagues regarded the current 
status, as of yesterday, as an impasse which could not be resolved. I, 
therefore, suggested that, if we could not resolve it through 
negotiations, we come to the Senate floor and debate it and vote on it.
  I then proposed to our colleagues a unanimous-consent agreement, 
which I will place in the Record, under which I proposed that the 
Senate today take up the Whitewater matter, that our Republican 
colleagues present their resolution, that I present an alternative and 
competing resolution, and that we then debate the two and vote on the 
two. That request for an agreement was rejected by our Republican 
colleagues for reasons which are unclear to me but which I am sure will 
become clear during the debate. The proposal, which I thought to be a 
reasonable and appropriate one--in which they would put up their 
resolution, we would put up our resolution, we would debate them, and 
we would vote on the two resolutions--seemed to me to be an appropriate 
way to resolve the matter.
  In any event, Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the proposed unanimous-consent agreement be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                  proposed unanimous consent agreement

       Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at--p.m. today 
     the Senate turn to the consideration of a Senate resolution 
     regarding hearings by the Senate Banking Committee which is 
     now at the desk; that upon the reporting of the resolution 
     the Republican leader be recognized to offer an amendment 
     dealing with the same subject; that upon the reporting of his 
     amendment the amendment be laid aside and I be recognized to 
     offer an amendment also dealing with the same subject; that 
     there be a total time limitation for debate of 3 hours on the 
     resolution and both amendments to be equally divided between 
     the Republican leader and myself, or our designees; that no 
     other amendments or motions be in order; that upon the use, 
     or yielding back of time the Senate vote on my amendment, to 
     be followed by a vote on the Republican leader's amendment to 
     be followed by a vote on passage of the resolution, as 
     amended, if amended, with the preceding all occurring without 
     any intervening action or debate.

  Mr. MITCHELL. In any event, it was not accepted, and we are now at a 
situation where our colleagues have indicated a desire to proceed with 
their resolution and I have indicated a desire and intention to offer 
my resolution as a second-degree amendment to that of Senator D'Amato's 
amendment. And I understand now that we are going to proceed in that 
fashion. I will yield to the Senator. My understanding is he is going 
to offer his resolution.
  I, then, intend to use my right of recognition to--he is going to 
offer his resolution as an amendment to the pending bill, which of 
course has nothing to do with Whitewater. This is a bill that has to do 
with airport improvements. I am then going to offer my amendment as a 
second-degree to his amendment. Then we will debate the matter as fully 
as our colleagues want.
  I simply say, as I have said from the outset, that the Senate has an 
important responsibility, that it would meet that responsibility in a 
reasonable and appropriate and responsible manner; that there would be 
hearings, and the resolution which I have proposed and which I will 
offer today, calls for hearings to begin within 30 days after the 
completion of the first phase of the special counsel's investigation, 
but in any event not later than July 30.
  Our desire has been to do it in a responsible way and not to have it 
become a political circus. There are, apparently, some disagreements on 
some specific issues which will arise during the course of the debate. 
I welcome the debate. It has been my desire to deal with this matter--
have the Senate deal with this matter, and it is my hope that we could 
do so now and permit the committee to proceed in that regard.
  So, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader yields the floor. The 
Senator from New York, Mr. D'Amato, is recognized.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am sure, as the majority leader has 
indicated, there were efforts--and I think it is appropriate that 
Senator Dole, the minority leader, responds to some of the problems 
that we had, our side, in accepting the proposal put forth by the 
distinguished majority leader. It is certainly not our intention to be 
unfair or not accommodate legitimate needs of all of our colleagues, 
Democrats and Republicans. As a matter of fact, the majority leader and 
the minority leader have spent considerable time and energies in 
attempting to come to some solution so that we could move the process 
forward and set up a format by which we carry out our constitutional 
oversight responsibilities as they relate to Whitewater.
  That is easier said than done. Even people of good will, who are 
attempting to deal with this situation, can have legitimate 
disagreements. Reasonable people may disagree on some of these areas.
  But I would certainly like to see us get a vote on the proposal which 
we have put forth--and that proposal has been outlined heretofore by 
Senator Dole--which would be to set up a special subcommittee of the 
Banking Committee to investigate these matters, many of which are 
within the oversight of the Banking Committee.
  That special subcommittee would be five members of the Banking 
Committee from each side, supplemented by three or four additional 
Members appointed by the respective leaders, so you would have either 
eight or nine. Our present resolution calls for the appointment of four 
by the majority leader, four by the minority leader, with five from the 
Banking Committee. That is done so that we could cover the various 
issues that fall normally and technically outside of the jurisdiction 
of the Banking Committee.
  There are some issues that might spill into, for example the Park 
Service, some issues that might spill over into small business, issues 
within the commodities area and some that relate to the Justice 
Department. That was the reason for this format. It was not an 
arbitrary picking of four additional members.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield just for a brief 
question?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.
  Mr. MITCHELL. The Senator said that he certainly hoped that there 
would be a vote on the resolution which he was to offer. I merely want 
it to be clear, and I inquire of the Senator through the Chair, does 
the Senator understand that the proposal which I made did provide for a 
vote on the Senator's resolution?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Let me say that our problem--our problem was that we 
understand the nature of the Senator's amendment. Notwithstanding that, 
we believe that if we examine both proposals, we feel there is more 
merit to ours and--as we will argue during this debate--and that we 
would not have a real and legitimate opportunity to make those 
meaningful distinctions. As a matter of fact, what will take place is 
that we will have a straight party line vote. It is the nature of 
things. And that vote will be most Republicans, if not all, voting to 
accept the proposal as crafted by Senator Dole and others on our side, 
and most Democrats voting against, with the understanding and assurance 
that the majority leader would then come forth with the proposal which 
he has put forth.
  There are, and I will speak to them, a number of serious 
deficiencies, at least that we discern as it relates to accepting that 
methodology of moving forward.
  Just to get to the essence, we have a constitutional responsibility 
as it relates to the oversight role of the Congress. I believe that we 
have been more than patient in giving to our colleagues an opportunity 
to craft a methodology of moving forward. And I say I think they have 
exercised good faith in attempting to come as far as we have. But we 
now hit a situation where the Democratic leadership is suggesting in 
essence that this Congress will not go forward with their hearings 
until and unless the special counsel has concluded various parts of the 
investigation, and that we cannot go forward until 30 days after the 
initial phase of the special counsel's investigation, or no later than 
July 30.
  And those areas that we could look into are circumscribed, are 
limited. They do not even include an area which the special prosecutor, 
by way of a letter has indicated to me, quite clearly, he is not 
reviewing. Let me refer to that letter from Mr. Fiske of May 26. He 
said,
       Dear Senator D'Amato: I am responding to the two questions 
     raised in your letter of May 23, 1994.
       The commodity transactions of Mrs. Clinton occurred during 
     a period of time which is outside the applicable statute of 
     limitations. We do not preclude looking into those 
     transactions if circumstances develop during our 
     investigation which would nonetheless make that trading 
     relevant to our investigation. I have no present objection to 
     any hearings which Congress might wish to hold on that 
     subject.

  I will ask unanimous consent to have the entire letter printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                            Department of Justice,


                            Office of the Independent Counsel,

                                   Washington, D.C., May 26, 1994.
     Hon. Alphonse M. D'Amato,
     U.S. Senator, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
         Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator D'Amato: I am responding to the two questions 
     raised in your letter of May 23, 1994.
       The commodity transactions of Mrs. Clinton occurred during 
     a period of time which is outside the applicable statute of 
     limitations. We do not preclude looking into those 
     transactions if circumstances develop during our 
     investigation which would nonetheless make that trading 
     relevant to our investigation. I have no present objection to 
     any hearings which Congress might wish to hold on the 
     subject.
       The White House review of Treasury documents relating to 
     contacts between the White House and Treasury officials 
     involves a small number of documents which will not take 
     anyone very long to review. Because of the risk of such 
     documents of becoming public prior to the completion of our 
     investigation, I would prefer that you defer obtaining those 
     documents at this time. I am confident that following that 
     procedure will not cause any delay in any hearings you may 
     decide to hold.
           Respectfully yours,
                                             Robert B. Fiske, Jr.,
                                              Independent Counsel.

  Mr. D'AMATO. But notwithstanding the special counsel saying we do not 
have an intent to look into that, the agreement which has been 
proffered by the majority leader does not give oversight 
responsibility, as it relates to this matter, to the committee. I would 
have to ask why.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Would the Senator like an answer now?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Because it has nothing to do with this matter. It is an 
obvious political fishing expedition by the Senator from New York and 
his Republican colleagues in an effort to embarrass the President and 
Mrs. Clinton. It has no legislative purpose. It only has a political 
purpose. That is why it is not included.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I suggest we have a very real disagreement because we 
are talking about a pattern of abuse, and the question is whether that 
pattern of abuse was a pattern of power being misused in Little Rock, 
taken and moved right on up through the line, covering all of these 
areas. It is a pattern that we have a right to explore and if, indeed, 
there is nothing, nothing will come of it. If, indeed, people conduct 
themselves and the investigation in a manner that is less than 
credible, voters will understand and will know.
  But that is a prerogative and right of the Congress, and to simply 
say no, that we are not going to do it because it might be politically 
damaging and embarrassing, seems to me something we cannot accept.
  I suggest if it were the other way around, that if it were the 
Democratic Congress looking into a Republican in power, you would find 
that that matter would be fair game.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Is it the position of the Senator from New York that 
when an elected official is the subject of an accusation or an 
allegation of wrongdoing or impropriety, that if that elected official 
does not publicly disclose all documents relating to the matter, it is 
a fair inference that the public official has something to hide?
  Mr. D'AMATO. No.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I do not make that inference at all.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thought that.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I do not make that inference. And I suggest that this 
matter, as it relates to whether or not there has been a favoritism 
given to the Governor and to his family as it related to the initial 
investment of $1,000, and the apparent contradictions that have 
appeared thereafter, both in the public record and in those documents 
that have been released, that they are proper subject matter of 
inquiry.
  Did the trader violate the law? Did the exchange violate the law? And 
I think Tyson Foods personnel and the broker should be called in to 
ascertain what, if anything, took place.
  I do not make an accusation as to what did and did not take place. I 
say we have a right to review this. This is the process that has been 
set forth. I am not asking for a different process. We are asking for 
the same process.
  So I point out to the majority leader that that is one of the 
problems right off the bat. Hence, our reluctance to accept his 
agreement. I am not suggesting that he has not attempted as best he can 
to deal with the political realities. Are there politics involved? Of 
course. The nature of the process is one where there is politics 
involved by both the Democratic side and the Republican side.
  For people to say there is absolutely no politics would be 
ridiculous. But the question is the proper discharge in the proper 
manner of our responsibility. That is why we drafted a resolution, and 
I am going to ask the clerk to read the entire text of that resolution 
because it is important. It is substantive. It is something that the 
people will understand when they hear it.
  So when I do put it in--and if the majority leader would like a copy 
now, I will be happy to provide him with that.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, if I might respond to that, what would 
be helpful is if the Senator would just put it in, let me put mine in, 
and then we can debate them. I will not ask mine be read at the time 
the Senator is speaking. If he wants his read, I will ask mine be read 
at a later time when I get recognition. Is that agreeable to the 
Senator?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I want to accommodate the leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. If the Senator will offer his now, I will get 
recognition and offer mine in the second degree.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Let me say this to the leader, if I might. I will ask 
that a copy of this be made available. I think you already have it. 
There may be a slight change here--I think it is very slight--in 
expansion of the subcommittee and the change of several words.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Is there some reason the Senator does not want to offer 
his resolution so I can offer mine?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I am utilizing the same prerogative the leader has. I am 
going to speak to the leader to see if he determines and thinks this is 
the best methodology of moving forward.
  If I had my druthers, I would say let us put it out, let us have our 
discussion, let us have our votes. I think there are going to be lots 
of votes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is fine with me. I am agreeable to have many 
votes. All I am suggesting is the Senator offer his resolution and I 
will offer mine. I will then yield the floor and he will be able to 
talk for as long as he wants, just as he is doing.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I think there are other Members who want to speak to it, 
and I do not want them precluded as it relates to my amendment.
  What I am concerned about is, if I put my amendment in and the leader 
makes a second-degree amendment, we will be able to speak to my 
amendment before we move to that.
  Mr. MITCHELL. The answer is yes; nobody is precluded from speaking 
under those circumstances.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I understand.
  Let me say, I will put it in at this point in time. You have to fish 
or cut bait, and we have been doing a lot of talking.


                           Amendment No. 1775

 (Purpose: To establish a special subcommittee within the Committee on 
 Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to conduct an investigation into 
allegations concerning the Whitewater Development Corporation, Madison 
Guaranty Savings and Loan Association, and Capital Management Services, 
                    Inc., and other related matters)

  Mr. D'AMATO. At this time, Mr. President, I send an amendment to the 
desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], for himself, Mr. 
     Dole, Mr. Wallop, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Mack, Mr. 
     Bond, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Roth, Mr. 
     Nickles, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Lott, Mr. McCain, Mr. Stevens, Mrs. 
     Hutchison, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Craig, 
     Mr. Helms, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. 
     McConnell, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. 
     Specter, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1775.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, if the Senator will agree, I will now 
offer mine in the second degree, and then if the Senator wants to have 
his read, I am perfectly agreeable to that. He already indicated he 
wants it read.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I will not make that request at this time because of the 
methodology which you have now suggested.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, is the amendment of the Senator from New 
York now pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been reported but it has not 
been read.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the Senator's amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new title:
             TITLE ____-SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON WHITEWATER


               establishment of the special subcommittee

       Sec. ____01. (a) There is established a special 
     subcommittee within the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs to be known as the Special Subcommittee on 
     Certain Allegations Concerning Whitewater Development 
     Corporation, Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association, 
     and Capital Management Services, Inc., and Related Issues 
     (hereafter in this title referred to as the ``special 
     subcommittee'').
       (b) The purpose of the special subcommittee is--
       (1) to conduct an investigation into, and study of, all 
     matters which have any tendency to reveal the full facts 
     about--
       (A) the operations, solvency, and regulation of Madison 
     Guaranty Savings and Loan Association, including the alleged 
     use of federally insured funds as campaign contributions;
       (B) the relationship among Madison Guaranty Savings and 
     Loan Association, other federally insured institutions, and 
     Whitewater Development Corporation;
       (C) the management and business activities of Whitewater 
     Development Corporation and its shareholders, including 
     issues of personal, corporate, and partnership tax liability;
       (D) the policies of the Resolution Trust Corporation, 
     Federal banking agencies, and other Federal regulatory 
     agencies regarding legal representation of the agencies, 
     including conflicts of interest and cost controls;
       (E) the independence of the Resolution Trust Corporation, 
     Federal banking agencies, and other Federal regulatory 
     agencies, including any improper contacts among officials of 
     the White House, the Department of the Treasury, the 
     Resolution Trust Corporation, the Office of Thrift 
     Supervision, and any other Federal agency;
       (F) the Resolution Trust Corporation's internal handling of 
     the criminal referrals concerning Madison Guaranty Savings 
     and Loan Association;
       (G) the pursuit by the Resolution Trust Corporation of 
     civil causes of action against potentially liable parties 
     associated with Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan 
     Association;
       (H) the pursuit by the Office of Thrift Supervision, the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Federal 
     Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation of administrative and 
     civil causes of action against potentially liable parties 
     associated with Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan 
     Association;
       (I) the Department of Justice's handling of the Resolution 
     Trust Corporation's criminal referrals relating to Madison 
     Guaranty Savings and Loan Association;
       (J) the delayed recusal of the United States Attorney for 
     the Eastern District of Arkansas from the investigation or 
     prosecution of David Hale, Capital Management Services, Inc., 
     and Whitewater Development Corporation;
       (K) the sources of funding and the lending practices of 
     Capital Management Services, Inc., and its supervision and 
     regulation by the Small Business Administration, including 
     loans to Susan McDougal and the alleged diversion of funds to 
     Whitewater Development Corporation;
       (L) the Park Police investigation into the death of White 
     House Deputy counsel Vincent Foster;
       (M) the operations and underwriting activities of the 
     Arkansas Development Finance Authority;
       (N) the circumstances surrounding and the propriety of the 
     commodities-futures trading activities of Hillary Rodham 
     Clinton;
       (O) the investment activities of Value Partners I, 
     including the compliance of these activities with Federal 
     laws governing conflicts of interest;
       (P) any other issues related to the matters referred to in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (O); and
       (Q) any issues developed during, or arising out of, the 
     hearings conducted by the special subcommittee; and
       (2)(A) to make such findings of fact as are warranted and 
     appropriate;
       (B) to make such recommendations, including recommendations 
     for new legislation and amendments to existing laws and any 
     administrative or other actions, as the special subcommittee 
     may determine to be necessary or desirable; and
       (C) to fulfill the Constitutional oversight and informing 
     function of the Congress with respect to the matters 
     described in this section.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Madison 
     Guaranty Savings and Loan Association'' includes any 
     subsidiary company, affiliated company, or business owned or 
     controlled, in whole or in part, by Madison Guaranty Savings 
     and Loan Association, its officers, directors, or principal 
     shareholders.


        membership and organization of the special subcommittee

       Sec. ____02. (a)(1) The special subcommittee shall consist 
     of--
       (A) 5 members of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs appointed by the chairman;
       (B) 5 members of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs appointed by the ranking member;
       (C) 4 members of the Senate appointed by the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate from the majority party of the Senate 
     upon the recommendation of the Majority Leader of the Senate; 
     and
       (D) 4 members of the Senate appointed by the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate from the minority party of the Senate 
     upon the recommendation of the Minority Leader of the Senate.
       (2) Vacancies in the membership of the special subcommittee 
     shall not affect the authority of the remaining members to 
     execute the functions of the special subcommittee and shall 
     be filled in the same manner as original appointments to it 
     are made.
       (3) For the purpose of paragraph 4 of rule XXV of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, service of a Senator as a 
     member of the special subcommittee shall not be taken into 
     account.
       (b)(1) The chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs shall be cochairmen of 
     the special subcommittee.
       (2) A majority of the members of the special subcommittee 
     shall constitute a quorum for reporting a matter or 
     recommendation to the Senate, except that a quorum shall not 
     be necessary for the purpose of taking testimony before the 
     special subcommittee or for conducting the other business of 
     the special subcommittee.
       (c)(1) The special subcommittee shall promptly adopt 
     appropriate rules and procedures consistent with this title.
       (2) The rules and procedures of the special subcommittee 
     shall--
       (A) govern the proceedings of the special subcommittee; and
       (B) consistent with section ____06 of this title--
       (i) provide for the security of the records of the special 
     subcommittee; and
       (ii) prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information and 
     materials obtained by the special subcommittee in the course 
     of its investigation and study.


                   staff of the special subcommittee

       Sec. ____03. (a)(1) Committee staff from committees having 
     jurisdiction over matters described in section ____01(b) 
     shall be detailed to the special subcommittee, subject to 
     availability, as requested by the cochairmen.
       (2) In addition to staff detailed pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     and to assist the special subcommittee in its investigation 
     and study, the cochairmen, after approval of the special 
     subcommittee, may appoint special subcommittee staff.
       (3) All staff detailed pursuant to paragraph (1) or 
     appointed pursuant to paragraph (2) shall work for the 
     special subcommittee as a whole, shall report to the two 
     cochairmen and, except as otherwise provided by the special 
     subcommittee, shall be under the direction of the cochairmen.
       (b) To assist the special subcommittee in its investigation 
     and study, the Senate Legal Counsel and Deputy Senate Legal 
     Counsel shall work with and under the jurisdiction and 
     authority of the special subcommittee.
       (c) The Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate may 
     each designate one staff person to serve on the staff of the 
     special subcommittee to serve as their liaison to the special 
     subcommittee.
       (d) The Comptroller General of the United States is 
     requested to provide from the General Accounting Office 
     whatever personnel, investigatory, material, or other 
     appropriate assistance may be required by the special 
     subcommittee.


             public activities of the special subcommittee

       Sec. ____04. (a) Consistent with the rights of persons 
     subject to investigation and inquiry, the special 
     subcommittee shall make every effort to fulfill the right of 
     the public and the Congress to know the essential facts and 
     implications of the activities of officials of the United 
     States Government and other persons and entities with respect 
     to the matters under investigation and study as described in 
     section ____01.
       (b) In furtherance of the public's and Congress' right to 
     know, the special subcommittee--
       (1) shall hold, as either cochairman considers appropriate, 
     open hearings on specific subjects, subject to consultation 
     and coordination within the independent counsel appointed 
     pursuant to chapter 28, part 600, of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations (referred to as the ``independent counsel'');
       (2) may make interim reports to the Senate as it considers 
     appropriate; and
       (3) shall make a final comprehensive public report to the 
     Senate which contains a description of all relevant factual 
     determinations consistent with subsection (a) of this section 
     and section ____01(b)(2) and which contains recommendations 
     for new legislation, if necessary.


                   powers of the special subcommittee

       Sec. ____05. (a) The special subcommittee shall do 
     everything necessary and appropriate under the laws and 
     Constitution of the United States to make the investigation 
     and study specified in section ____01.
       (b) The special subcommittee is authorized to issue 
     subpoenas for obtaining testimony and for the production of 
     documentary or physical evidence. A subpoena may be 
     authorized and issued by the special subcommittee, acting 
     through either cochairman or any other member designated by 
     either cochairman, and may be served by any person designated 
     by either cochairman or other member anywhere within or 
     without the borders of the United States to the full extent 
     permitted by law. Either cochairman of the special 
     subcommittee, or any other member thereof, is authorized to 
     administer oaths to any witnesses appearing before the 
     subcommittee.
       (c) The special subcommittee is authorized to do the 
     following:
       (1) To employ and fix the compensation of such clerical, 
     investigatory, legal, technical, and other assistants as the 
     special subcommittee considers necessary or appropriate.
       (2) To sit and act at any time or place during sessions, 
     recesses, and adjournment periods of the Senate.
       (3) To hold hearings, take testimony under oath, and to 
     receive documentary or physical evidence relating to the 
     matters and questions it is authorized to investigate or 
     study.
       (4) To request a grant of immunity under section 6005 of 
     title 18, United States Code, after approved by the 
     independent counsel.
       (5) To require by subpoena or order the attendance, as 
     witnesses before the special subcommittee or at depositions, 
     of any person either cochairman determines may have knowledge 
     or information concerning any of the matters the special 
     subcommittee is authorized to investigate and study.
       (6) To take depositions and other testimony under oath 
     anywhere within the United States, to issue orders by either 
     cochairman or any other member designated by either 
     cochairman which require witnesses to answer written 
     interrogatories under oath, and to make application for 
     issuance of letters rogatory.
       (7) To issue commissions and to notice depositions for 
     staff members to examine witnesses and to receive evidence 
     under oath administered by an individual authorized by local 
     law to administer oaths. The special subcommittee, acting 
     through either cochairman, may authorize and issue, and may 
     delegate to designated staff members the power to authorize 
     and issue, commissions and deposition notices.
       (8) To require by subpoena or order--
       (A) any department, agency, entity, officer, or employee of 
     the United States Government,
       (B) any person or entity purporting to act under color or 
     authority of State or local law, or
       (C) any private person, firm, corporation, partnership, or 
     other organization,

     to produce for its consideration or for use as evidence in 
     the investigation or study of the special subcommittee any 
     book, check, canceled check, correspondence, communication, 
     document, financial record, paper, physical evidence, 
     photograph, record, recording, tape, or any other material 
     relating to any of the matters or questions such subcommittee 
     is authorized to investigate and study which they or any of 
     them may have in their custody or under their control.
       (9) To make to the Senate any recommendations, including 
     recommendations for criminal or civil enforcement, which the 
     special subcommittee may consider appropriate with respect 
     to--
       (A) the willful failure or refusal of any person to appear 
     before it, or at a deposition, or to answer interrogatories, 
     in obedience to a subpoena or order;
       (B) the willful failure or refusal of any person to answer 
     questions or give testimony during his appearance as a 
     witness before such subcommittee, or at a deposition, or in 
     response to interrogatories; or
       (C) the willful failure or refusal of--
       (i) any officer or employee of the United States 
     Government,
       (ii) any person or entity purporting to act under color or 
     authority of State or local law, or
       (iii) any private person, partnership, firm, corporation, 
     or organization,

     to produce before the subcommittee, or at a deposition, or at 
     any time or place designated by the subcommittee, any book, 
     check, canceled check, correspondence, communication, 
     document, financial record, paper, physical evidence, 
     photograph, record, recording, tape, or any other material in 
     obedience to any subpoena or order.
       (10) To procure the temporary or intermittent services of 
     individual consultants, or organizations thereof.
       (11) To use on a reimbursable basis, with the prior consent 
     of the Government department or agency concerned, the 
     services of personnel of such department or agency.
       (12) To use, with the prior consent of the chairman or 
     ranking member of any other Senate committee or the chairman 
     or ranking member of any subcommittee of any committee of the 
     Senate, the facilities or services of the appropriate members 
     of the staff of such other Senate committee whenever the 
     special subcommittee or either cochairman consider that such 
     action is necessary or appropriate to enable the special 
     subcommittee to make the investigation and study provided for 
     in this title.
       (13) To have access through the agency of any members of 
     the special subcommittee, staff director, chief counsel, or 
     any of its investigatory assistants designated by either 
     cochairman, to any data, evidence, information, report, 
     analysis, document, or paper--
       (A) which relates to any of the matters or questions which 
     the special subcommittee is authorized to investigate or 
     study;
       (B) which is in the possession, custody, or under the 
     control of any department, agency, entity, officer, or 
     employee of the United States Government, including those 
     which have the power under the laws of the United States to 
     investigate any alleged criminal activities or to prosecute 
     persons charged with crimes against the United States without 
     regard to the jurisdiction or authority of any other Senate 
     committee; and
       (C) which will aid the special subcommittee to prepare for 
     or conduct the investigation and study authorized and 
     directed by this title.
       (14) To report violations of any law to the appropriate 
     Federal, State, or local authorities.
       (15) To expend, to the extent the special subcommittee 
     determines necessary and appropriate, any money made 
     available to such subcommittee by the Senate to make the 
     investigation, study, and reports authorized by this title.
       (16) Under sections 6103(f)(3) and 6104(a)(2) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to inspect and receive for the 
     fiscal years 1977-1992 any tax return, return information, or 
     other tax-related material, held by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, related to individuals and entities named by the 
     special subcommittee as possible participants, beneficiaries, 
     or intermediaries in the transactions under investigation.
       (d) The level of compensation payable to any employee of 
     the special subcommittee shall not be subject to any 
     limitation on compensation otherwise applicable to an 
     employee of the Senate. No employee of the special 
     subcommittee may receive pay at a rate of pay in excess of 
     the rate of pay payable for a position at level III of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code.


                 protection of confidential information

       Sec. ____06. (a) All staff members and consultants shall, 
     as a condition of employment, agree in writing to abide by 
     the conditions of an appropriate nondisclosure agreement 
     promulgated by the special subcommittee.
       (b) The case of any Senator who violates the security 
     procedures of the special subcommittee may be referred to the 
     Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate for the imposition 
     of sanctions in accordance with the rules of the Senate. Any 
     staff member or consultant who violates the security 
     procedures of the special subcommittee shall immediately be 
     subject to removal from office or employment with the special 
     subcommittee or shall be subject to such other sanction as 
     may be provided in the rules of the special subcommittee.
       (c) Upon the termination of the special subcommittee 
     pursuant to section ____09 of this title, all records, files, 
     documents, and other materials in the possession, custody, or 
     control of the special subcommittee, under appropriate 
     conditions established by such subcommittee, shall be 
     transferred to the National Archives.


                    relation to other investigations

       Sec. ____07. (a) In order to--
       (1) expedite the thorough conduct of the investigation and 
     study authorized by this title;
       (2) promote efficiency among all the various investigations 
     underway in all branches of the United States Government; and
       (3) engender a high degree of confidence on the part of the 
     public regarding the conduct of such investigation,
     the special subcommittee is encouraged--
       (A) to coordinate, to the extent practicable, its 
     activities with the investigation of the independent counsel;
       (B) to seek the full cooperation of all relevant 
     investigatory bodies; and
       (C) to seek access to all information which is acquired and 
     developed by such bodies.
       (b) The cochairmen shall meet with the independent counsel 
     to obtain relevant information concerning the status of the 
     independent counsel's investigation to assist in establishing 
     a hearing schedule for the special subcommittee.
       (c) The Senate requests that the independent counsel make 
     available to the special subcommittee, as expeditiously as 
     possible, all documents and information which may assist the 
     special subcommittee in its investigation and study.


                         salaries and expenses

       Sec. ____08. Such sums as are necessary shall be available 
     from the contingent fund of the Senate out of the Account for 
     Expenses for Inquiries and Investigations for payment of 
     salaries and other expenses of the special subcommittee under 
     this title, which shall include sums which shall be available 
     for the procurement of the services of individual consultants 
     or organizations thereof, in accordance with section 
     ____05(c)(9). Payment of expenses shall be disbursed upon 
     vouchers approved by either cochairman of the special 
     subcommittee, except that vouchers shall not be required for 
     the disbursement of salaries paid at an annual rate.


                          reports; termination

       Sec. ____09. (a)(1) The special subcommittee shall make a 
     final public report to the Senate of the results of the 
     investigation and study conducted by such subcommittee 
     pursuant to this title, together with its findings and any 
     recommendations at the earliest practicable date.
       (2) The final report of the special subcommittee may be 
     accompanied by whatever confidential annexes are necessary to 
     protect confidential information.
       (b) After submission of its final report, the special 
     subcommittee shall conclude its business and close out its 
     affairs as expeditiously as practicable.


                 subcommittee jurisdiction and rule xxv

       Sec. ____10. The jurisdiction of the special subcommittee 
     is granted pursuant to this title notwithstanding the 
     provisions of paragraph 1 of rule XXV of the Standing Rules 
     of the Senate relating to the jurisdiction of the standing 
     committees of the Senate.


                amendment no. 1776 to amendment no. 1775

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I now send a second-degree amendment to 
the desk and ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk will report the second-degree 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Mr. Mitchell] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1776 to amendment No. 1775.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
my amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
                TITLE ____--COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT HEARINGS

     SEC. ____01. SCOPE OF THE HEARINGS.

       The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
     (referred to as the ``committee'') shall--
       (1) conduct hearings into whether improper conduct occurred 
     regarding--
       (A) communications between officials of the White House and 
     the Department of the Treasury or the Resolution Trust 
     Corporation relating to the Whitewater Development 
     Corporation and the Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan 
     Association;
       (B) the Park Service Police investigation into the death of 
     White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster; and
       (C) the way in which White House officials handled 
     documents in the office of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent 
     Foster at the time of his death; and
       (2)(A) make such findings of fact as are warranted and 
     appropriate;
       (B) make such recommendations, including recommendations 
     for new legislation and amendments to existing laws and any 
     administrative or other actions, as the committee may 
     determine to be necessary or desirable; and
       (C) fulfill the Constitutional oversight and informing 
     function of the Congress with respect to the matters 
     described in this section.

     The hearings authorized by this title shall begin on a date 
     determined by the Majority Leader, in consultation with the 
     Minority Leader, but no later than the earlier of July 29, 
     1994, or within 30 days after the conclusion of the first 
     phase of the independent counsel's investigation.

     SEC. ____02. MEMBERSHIP, ORGANIZATION, AND JURISDICTION OF 
                   THE COMMITTEE FOR PURPOSES OF THE HEARINGS.

       (a)(1) For the sole purpose of conducting the hearings 
     authorized by this title, the committee shall consist of--
       (A) the members of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs, who shall, in serving as members of the 
     committee, reflect the legislative and oversight interests of 
     other committees of the Senate with a jurisdictional interest 
     (if any) in the hearings authorized in paragraph (1) of 
     section ____01 as provided in subparagraph (B);
       (B)(i) Senator Kerry and Senator Bond from the Committee on 
     Small Business;
       (ii) Senator Riegle and Senator Roth from the Committee on 
     Finance; and
       (iii) Senator Shelby and Senator Domenici from the 
     Subcommittee on Public Lands, Parks, and Forests of the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources;
       (iv) Senator Moseley-Braun from the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and
       (v) Senator Sasser and Senator Roth from the Permanent 
     Subcommittee on Investigations; and
       (C) the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
     who shall serve for purposes of considering matters within 
     the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, but shall 
     not serve as a voting member of the committee.
       (2) For the purpose of paragraph 4 of rule XXV of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, service of the ranking member 
     of the Committee on the Judiciary as a member of the 
     committee shall not be taken into account.
       (b) The jurisdiction of the committee shall encompass the 
     jurisdiction of the committees and subcommittees listed in 
     subsection (a)(1)(B), to the extent, if any, pertinent to the 
     hearings authorized by this title.
       (c) A majority of the members of the committee shall 
     constitute a quorum for reporting a matter or recommendation 
     to the Senate, except that the committee may fix a lesser 
     number as a quorum for the purpose of taking testimony before 
     the committee or for conducting the other business of the 
     committee as provided in paragraph 7 of rule XXV of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate.

     SEC. ____03. ADDITIONAL STAFF FOR THE COMMITTEE.

       (a) The committee, through the chairman, may request and 
     use, with the prior consent of the chairman of any committee 
     or subcommittee listed in section ____02(a)(1)(B), the 
     services of members of the staff of such committee or 
     subcommittee.
       (b) In addition to staff provided pursuant to subsection 
     (a) and to assist the committee in its hearings, the chairman 
     may appoint and fix the compensation of additional staff.

     SEC. ____04. PUBLIC ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE.

       (a) Consistent with the rights of persons subject to 
     investigation and inquiry, the committee shall make every 
     effort to fulfill the right of the public and the Congress to 
     know the essential facts and implications of the activities 
     of officials of the United States Government with respect to 
     the matters covered by the hearings as described in section 
     ____01.
       (b) In furtherance of the public's and Congress' right to 
     know, the committee--
       (1) shall hold, as the chairman (in consultation with the 
     ranking member) considers appropriate and in accordance with 
     paragraph 5(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate, open hearings subject to consultation and 
     coordination with the independent counsel appointed pursuant 
     to title 28, parts 600 and 603, of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations (referred to as the ``independent counsel'');
       (2) may make interim reports to the Senate as it considers 
     appropriate; and
       (3) shall, in order to accomplish the purposes set forth in 
     subsection (a), make a final comprehensive public report to 
     the Senate of the findings of fact and any recommendations 
     specified in paragraph (2) of section ____01.

     SEC. ____05. POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

       (a) The committee shall do everything necessary and 
     appropriate under the laws and Constitution of the United 
     States to conduct the hearings specified in section ____01.
       (b) The committee is authorized to exercise all of the 
     powers and responsibilities of a committee under rule XXVI of 
     the Standing Rules of the Senate and section 705 of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (2 U.S.C. 288d), including 
     the following:
       (1) To issue subpoenas or orders for the attendance of 
     witnesses or for the production of documentary or physical 
     evidence before the committee. A subpoena may be authorized 
     by the committee or by the chairman with the agreement of the 
     ranking member and may be issued by the chairman or any other 
     member designated by the chairman, and may be served by any 
     person designated by the chairman or the authorized member 
     anywhere within or without the borders of the United States 
     to the full extent permitted by law. The chairman of the 
     committee, or any other member thereof, is authorized to 
     administer oaths to any witnesses appearing before the 
     committee.
       (2) Except that the committee shall have no power to 
     exercise the powers of a committee under section 6005 of 
     title 18, United States Code for immunizing witnesses.
       (3) To procure the temporary or intermittent services of 
     individual consultants, or organizations thereof.
       (4) To use on a reimbursable basis, with the prior consent 
     of the Government department or agency concerned, the 
     services of personnel of such department or agency.
       (5) To report violations of any law to the appropriate 
     Federal, State, or local authorities.
       (6) To expend, to the extent the committee determines 
     necessary and appropriate, any money made available to such 
     committee by the Senate to conduct the hearings and to make 
     the reports authorized by this title.
       (7) To require by subpoena or order the attendance, as 
     witnesses, before the committee or at depositions, any person 
     who may have knowledge or information concerning matters 
     specified in section ____01(1).
       (8) To take depositions under oath anywhere within the 
     United States, to issue orders by the chairman or his 
     designee which require witnesses to answer written 
     interrogatories under oath.
       (9) To issue commissions and to notice depositions for 
     staff members to examine witnesses and to receive evidence 
     under oath administered by an individual authorized by law to 
     administer oaths. The committee, acting through the chairman, 
     may delegate to designated staff members the power to 
     authorize and issue commissions and deposition notices.
       (c)(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2), the 
     committee shall be governed by the rules of the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, except that the 
     committee may modify its rules for purposes of the hearings 
     conducted under this title. The committee shall cause any 
     such amendments to be published in the Congressional Record.
       (2) The committee's rules shall be consistent with the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate and this title.

     SEC. ____06. RELATION TO OTHER INVESTIGATIONS.

       (a) In order to--
       (1) expedite the thorough conduct of the hearings 
     authorized by this title;
       (2) promote efficiency among all the various investigations 
     underway in all branches of the United States Government; and
       (3) engender a high degree of confidence on the part of the 
     public regarding the conduct of such hearing,
     the committee is encouraged--
       (A) to obtain relevant information concerning the status of 
     the independent counsel's investigation to assist in 
     establishing a hearing schedule for the committee; and
       (B) to coordinate, to the extent practicable, its 
     activities with the investigation of the independent counsel.

     SEC. ____07. SALARIES AND EXPENSES.

       Senate Resolution 71 (103d Congress) is amended--
       (1) in section 2(a) by striking ``$56,428,119'' and 
     inserting ``$56,828,419''; and
       (2) in section 6(c) by striking ``$3,220,767'' and 
     inserting ``$3,620,767''.

     SEC. ____08. REPORTS; TERMINATION.

       (a) The committee shall make the final public report to the 
     Senate required by section ____04(b) not later than the end 
     of the 103d Congress.
       (b) The final report of the committee may be accompanied by 
     whatever confidential annexes are necessary to protect 
     confidential information.
       (c) The authorities granted by this title shall terminate 
     30 days after submission of the committee's final report. All 
     records, files, documents, and other materials in the 
     possession, custody, or control of the committee shall remain 
     under the control of the regularly constituted Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

     SEC. ____09. COMMITTEE JURISDICTION AND RULE XXV.

       The jurisdiction of the committee is granted pursuant to 
     this title notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of 
     rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate relating to the 
     jurisdiction of the standing committees of the Senate.

     SEC. ____10. COMMITTEE FUNDING AND RULE XXVI.

       The supplemental authorization for the committee is granted 
     pursuant to this title notwithstanding the provisions of 
     paragraph 9 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

  Mr. MITCHELL. I yield the floor so the Senator may proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, one thing that is clear is that unless we 
have hearings which are fair, which are thorough, and which give an 
opportunity not only to the members of whatever committee ultimately 
carries out these oversight responsibilities-- more importantly, 
committees that can fairly and accurately give a picture to the 
American people--why, then, we are engaging in a disservice.
  That is why the first thing that becomes obvious, at least to this 
Senator, is that by circumscribing, as the amendment of the Senator 
from Maine, the majority leader, does, the manner by which we can 
proceed, limiting the jurisdiction to that of basically stopping and 
starting--and it could be at the whim of the special prosecutor--it is 
a delegation of responsibility that goes further than we have ever 
seen. We would be giving to the special prosecutor powers greater than 
that vested in the President of the United States in vetoing actions of 
the Congress. We do not have a right to do that. We just do not.
  If we say that we should not start this hearing until all of the work 
is done, then that might be one position. That we have to stop and 
start, though, until the special counsel reports to us, and we can only 
look at certain areas at certain times, I think that goes well beyond 
what we as a body should permit anyone--anyone--to prescribe for 
us. And that is, indeed, what would be taking place. It is wrong. It 
says that the Congress cannot and should not be trusted to work with 
the special counsel in dealing with the hearings in a manner in which 
we do not impede, or we do not jeopardize the purposes for which he has 
been employed.

  Mr. President, are we to say that we do not trust a committee 
comprised of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans to do what is 
right? And if I am any judge of what the final makeup and composition 
of the committee would be, it will have a relatively larger number of 
Democrats than Republicans that will represent the approximate balance 
of what the composition of the Congress is. And this Senator could not 
argue vehemently against that being a reasonable position, 
notwithstanding that I advocate that there be an equal division.
  I will already say to the President and to the distinguished majority 
leader, I understand that that may be something on which we have to 
compromise.
  But having said that, are we going to circumscribe ourselves and say 
that the Congress of the United States cannot go forward until the 
special prosecutor has signed off? I do not think that we should be 
doing that. I think it is wrong, and I think we are making a mockery 
and a sham of these so-called hearings.
  I was there, met with the special prosecutor, along with Senator 
Cohen, and I would refer both my colleagues and the media to the exact 
words of the special counsel as it related to with what he was 
concerned. I would refer us to the fact that he talked about 3, 4, 5 
weeks, and we said, well, we will give you longer as it related to 
conducting the initial phase. We are well past that, well past that. We 
are now 3 months down the road, and yet we have not even set the format 
from which to start the committee.
  Mr. President, it would be foolish for anyone to think that we could 
start within 30 days. If we were to pass a resolution, an amendment, an 
agreement saying go forward, start your work, we would have the process 
of setting up the committee, of getting the investigators, looking at 
what areas we would be subpoenaing, consulting with Mr. Fiske as we 
indicated to him that we would, but certainly not prescribing ourselves 
to the limits that are called for in the proposed solution being put 
forth by the other side but, yes, with consultation.
  Are we to say that the Congress and the committee cannot be trusted 
to undertake their responsibilities as we have pledged, as the minority 
has pledged and certainly that the majority would see and hold us to, 
to do it in a fair and in a competent way that would not jeopardize 
other procedures?
  We were first to suggest that we would not be offering grants of 
immunity. Would you require us to just say in this legislation that 
under no circumstances would we grant offers of immunity? Supposing Mr. 
Fiske said, you know, by the way, that is a good idea. Maybe you 
should, or we have no objection; do it.
  And suppose the full committee decided that in a particular case or 
particular witness that they should grant immunity. Are we to say that 
the Democratic side is not responsible enough to say, wait a minute; 
you are not going to grant immunity here, or that the Republican side 
is not responsible enough to say, no, we are not going to do it?
  We have learned the lessons from the past. But supposing every member 
of the committee decides that there is good and sufficient reason for 
the grant of immunity. Are we then to say, oh, no, Congress has for all 
times said we will never grant immunity, because of the situation in 
Iran-Contra. I do not think that the most ardent supporter of saying 
that certainly we should be very, very, very careful and very reluctant 
to grant immunity would say that we should just give a blanket ``no.''
  Will we say for all hearings in the future say that under a case 
where there is a special prosecutor the Congress will not determine 
that they deem it important, whether it be national security or some 
other interest?
  Let me tell you, suppose you have a national security interest that 
comes up and you have a prosecution that might be jeopardized and this 
Congress determines it is more important to get the facts. Are we going 
to suggest that the Congress does not have the capability to make that 
decision? Not only do we not have the capability, we may not have the 
capability to exercise the judgment properly, but it is our 
responsibility and it cannot and should not be abdicated. That is a 
distinction. Think about it. I think maybe some members of the press 
will have difficulty discerning that, but let them think about it.
  Mr. President, this is not simply a matter of a political process 
that is wrong. It is the matter of a political process that is part of 
our governmental structure. It is not politics of expedience. Indeed, 
this Senator has gone to great lengths in the past several months to 
provide an opportunity for the process of give and take, for the 
process of negotiation to deal with the problem. And, unfortunately, it 
has not. It has come to an impasse.
  I think, by the way, we are a lot closer than people think, if you 
want to continue to push that process, to come forward with a 
methodology that will address some of our concerns. And again, one of 
those concerns is saying that we are going to surrender and we are 
going to move in the manner that is so circumscribed that it keeps us 
from looking into areas such as the commodities activities that took 
place, such as the Small Business Administration and their dealings.
  Do you mean to tell me we have to wait for the completion of a 
criminal trial before we can go forward as it relates to that situation 
with respect to Mr. Hale and the $300,000? Is that what we are saying? 
Are we saying that if that takes 2 years or 3 years or 4 years, why, we 
will do that, that we will withhold? Will we have to wait for the 
appeal process to be completed before we have the ability to look into 
this matter?
  Mr. WALLOP. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.
  Mr. WALLOP. I would ask the Senator if he knows of any precedent for 
denying the Senate of the United States or the Congress its right to 
investigate issues and actions of any branch of Government including 
itself or the executive branch?
  Mr. D'AMATO. My colleague has raised a good point, and the answer is 
absolutely not. Congress has never delegated its oversight 
responsibility to an independent counsel--never. And let me respond by 
saying, did the Congress get permission from Archibald Cox or Leon 
Jaworski to hold Watergate hearings, to my friend.
  Mr. WALLOP. Well, clearly not. But then the other question that I 
would direct to the Senator from New York is that if we are now about 
to do what we have not done historically and ought not to do by reason 
of the constitutional privileges that we possess, it seems to me that 
one has to begin to draw conclusions as to why now such a precedent 
would be important. And the only conclusion that one could draw is that 
there is a massive coverup, a massive desire not to allow the American 
people to know what has taken place, a massive desire to deny to the 
Congress its rightful role.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Well, I would have to conclude that even the American 
people who have been patient in recognizing the daily exigencies, the 
battles for survival, say, hey, you know, there are other things, and 
there may be things that are more pressing and important on their mind, 
but they have to come to the conclusion that something is wrong in 
Washington and it is terribly wrong when we cannot go forward in an 
orderly manner. And it does bring to one's concern and one's mind that 
the only thing that has changed is that we have the same Democratic-
controlled Congress, but now we have a Democratic White House, and they 
are working hard to keep facts from coming forward, facts that we have 
a responsibility of putting forward.
  Mr. WALLOP. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.
  Mr. WALLOP. Was the Senator able to read in this morning's Washington 
Times the story of the Lasater investments on behalf of a man named 
Patrick, who never made any investments, and Mrs. Thomason of the White 
House who was part of that?
  These are clearly not things which we have been asked to avoid but 
ought to be a part of the role because it has to do with the subject of 
oversight of the Congress.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I did not read the article. But I spoke to Mr. Lasater's 
associate, Mr. Patrick, who actually came into my office yesterday and 
spent quite some time with our staff. To be quite candid with you, he 
should be sworn in. He should be deposed. We should have a right and 
the people should have a right to hear his testimony and to judge. They 
may judge that it is not credible or they may judge that it is very 
credible.
  But I will tell you this: There are substantial documents to show 
tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars being transferred through 
this fellow's account, a person who has absolutely no wealth, who made 
$22,000 initially. And the question is how? And the question is why?
  Mr. WALLOP. One day $53 million passed through the account of a man 
who is a truck driver from Kentucky.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Tens of millions of dollars, as I have indicated. Our 
staff has been looking. But we cannot look and examine in the manner in 
which we should. I would not be opposed to having a witness deposed. If 
it is not the kind of information that is credible, that we can go 
forward with--so be it.
  Mr. WALLOP. The Senator is aware that there have been four verified 
attempts on this man's life.
  I guess the point I am trying to make by all of this is that the 
administration suffers by having this in the realm of rumor, and it 
cannot lay them to rest from the realm of rumor without pure and simple 
and forthright oversight hearings.
  Would that be a fair judgment?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I believe that is more than fair judgment. I think the 
Senator has made the point, and notwithstanding a temporary respite 
from the issues that are raised--and some of them I would not be averse 
to saying to the distinguished majority leader and to some of the 
members of the media who brought them to me, are speculative, some are 
not worthy of repetition, so I will not attempt to repeat them today. 
Some of the stories we saw become so egregious that they really hurt 
the legitimacy of any inquiry.
  So by permitting this to languish and creating this aura of 
speculation, we do not do the administration or anyone any good.
  Mr. President, I am going to outline, if I might, some of our areas 
of concern.
  I think the Congress has a responsibility to explore and ascertain 
the truth or the falsity as it relates to the potential interference by 
the White House with civil and criminal investigations by the RTC and 
the Justice Department relating to the insolvency of Madison Guaranty 
Savings & Loan.
  In addition, there is the absolute responsibility to ascertain what, 
if anything, was done in connection with the Small Business 
Administration loans or the SBA loans that were made by Mr. Hale to 
Mrs. McDougal. There has been an indictment in that case. Does that 
mean that we cannot look at various aspects, and certainly with the 
cooperation of our staff and the committee in relation to Mr. Fiske and 
his work not looking to impede or to jeopardize that? Do we now just 
cloak that because there has been an indictment? I do not think we can. 
I do not think we should.
  There is the question of the President's and Mrs. Clinton's 
investments in Whitewater and the potential diversion of funds from 
Madison to keep Whitewater afloat.
  The question of whether there has been proper use of federally 
insured moneys in the Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, the question 
of the commodities transactions and whether or not the trades were done 
in accordance with rules, and whether or not there has been the pattern 
and how long that pattern has existed, whether there is responsibility 
on the part of the exchange, the broker, Tyson Foods, or to the lawyers 
involved. We have an obligation to gather those facts.
  Indeed, during my 12 years in the Senate, the Congress has not 
hesitated to hold oversight hearings into the conduct of the executive 
branch of Government. I ask you to look at the speed and the manner in 
which they arrived at these decisions. We have been languishing and 
anguishing over this Whitewater for months now. We have not even set up 
the vehicle by which to undertake the investigation. That is what the 
Senator is attempting to do in this resolution. He wants to set up the 
methodology for moving forward. We cannot even get that going.
  I would refer us to the fact that the Congressional Research Service 
has identified 25 congressional investigations of alleged improprieties 
by administration officials or their family members between 1981 and 
1992.
  Yet, there have been no hearings involving Whitewater. Has the 
responsibilities of Congress changed? The answer is no. Has the 
public's right to know changed? I believe the answer is clearly no. 
There has only been one change; that is, a change in the political 
party in power at the White House.
  To those who say it is the Republicans that are playing politics, the 
record shows that it is the Democrats who are playing politics. First, 
notwithstanding what they may say now, they opposed the appointment of 
the special counsel. They opposed it. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. 
If you would hear the debate that ensues, you would believe that it was 
the Democrats who came forward with the special counsel. It was only 
after a number of Democratic Senators--Senator Moynihan and some 
others--said, ``Look, we have to have a special counsel,'' very 
reluctantly dragged, kicking and screaming, did the Democrats go 
forward with that.
  So this is not a question of ``we in good faith went forward.'' They 
had to do it. They were forced to it. By the way, it was in the nature 
of politics. Of course, it was. There were political considerations 
that they had to weigh. If they had had their druthers, they would not 
have. I think now that they have they will use it as a shield, a shield 
to keep us from doing that which is our constitutional obligation.
  They opposed holding hearings. Then, after finally agreeing to 
holding hearings, they really refused to set a time and a place and, 
more importantly, a course of action that is fair, that is fair to the 
American people, that is fair to this body, that will allow us to 
comport ourselves as we should.
  Let me say I have no pride in authorship in the amendment that I have 
offered. I daresay that the distinguished majority leader could find a 
number of areas of disagreement, and this Senator would yield to him on 
some of those. I daresay I do not say that his methodology in 
attempting to structure an agreement of going forward has nothing that 
is redeeming. There are some important points that would at least get 
the process going. But there are some severe deficiencies that would 
make this a jerky, start-and-stop process where we say we are now going 
to be limited by the work of the special counsel unacceptable.
  Are we really saying that we are not to be trusted as a committee of 
Congress with the responsibility of discharging our obligations in the 
manner which is appropriate and recognizes the special counsel's role? 
That is what I find somewhat egregious as it relates to the amendment 
which my distinguished colleague and friend puts forth as his 
substitute amendment.
  I say let us look at the record. I repeated to Senator Wallop before 
the fact that Congress had never delegated its oversight responsibility 
to an independent counsel; never. And the fact is that we asked 
ourselves did Congress get permission from Archibald Cox or Leon 
Jaworski to hold hearings? The answer is no. Did Congress get 
permission from Lawrence Walsh to review documents involving arms 
shipments to Iran? Of course not. Did Congress get permission from 
Whitney North Seymour, again another special counsel, to interview 
witnesses with information concerning potential conflicts of interest 
involving Michael Deaver? The answer is not at all.

  Now, for the first time, when there are potential improprieties by a 
Democratic administration, the Democratically controlled Congress has 
decided that Congress cannot be trusted to conduct an investigation 
unless it is carefully circumscribed, unless the Congress literally 
gives to Mr. Fiske virtual veto power over congressional hearings.
  This Senator has no problem with the special counsel doing his work. 
I have great faith in him, and I have heard colleagues raising 
questions about Bob Fiske, about his thoroughness, about his fairness, 
and the kind of person he is. I know him, and I repeat--because somehow 
it gets thrown back to me--this is not a question of his fairness, 
competence, or integrity; it is a question of Congress' proper role.
  I think it is absurd to say that we should be limited in the manner 
in which the resolution which is now before us, the amendment now 
before us, would limit us to. We really are saying that, oh, no, you 
cannot be trusted to go forward, even if additional facts are brought 
forth that might bring us into other areas than those which are 
prescribed in this legislation authorizing us to go forward. I think 
that certainly was not the intent, or it should not be the intent of 
those who drafted it. But that is the impact of it. That is how I see 
it. I say that reasonable people can disagree on some of these elements 
contained in both proposals. I recognize that. I say in all good faith 
that to so limit us--and I have no problems with saying that the 
hearings should start no later than July 30. People can disagree and 
say we are going to be going out of session in a couple days 
thereafter. But, look, that is not a thing that I fall upon my sword 
for, or say that it is a critical issue. But to say we are limiting it 
to these few insular areas is wrong: to limit us to the Treasury area, 
what happened at the White House, the death of Vince Foster--in my 
manner of thinking, that terrible tragedy is one that was far overblown 
as it relates to the importance and significance of this case.
  This Senator has never raised the possibility--and some have--as it 
relates to some foul deed in connection with his death. I think that 
thereafter the handling of certain aspects in the investigation may 
have been undertaken with a greater degree of care and concern. But, 
hindsight is a wonderful thing. I think there are some very real 
questions that have to be raised as it relates to who was permitted 
into his office, and why were they there, and what did they do, and how 
did they do it, and what about the papers, and where did the papers go, 
and were papers sent to Little Rock? Can we examine those partners? 
Were papers sent to various attorneys? There are going to be some very 
real questions as to attorney-client privilege that may come up 
regarding this situation. What were those papers doing there in the 
first place?
  Those are some answers that, hopefully, we would be able to begin to 
get at. But that is rather limited. The question of reaching in and 
attempting to deal with whether or not there has been an attempt to get 
the various agencies to do certain things and to influence their 
actions, that is important. That is going to take time. That also, I 
think, is going to require us to have adequate staff to be able to 
investigate and to be able to swear and depose the various people who 
we come in contact with.
  I do not believe that we can abdicate our obligations under the 
Constitution to engage in the oversight activities, and give the 
special counsel unique power that would result. I do not think Congress 
can give it up. I think it is a fundamental responsibility.
  I am confident that this Congress can meet the challenge on how best 
to structure oversight hearings, while counsel investigates the various 
areas of activity. That is why I introduced the resolution that 
establishes, as I have indicated heretofore, a special subcommittee of 
the Senate Banking Committee to investigate and hold hearings.
  By the way, are we really saying that we cannot get into the SBA 
matter? Or we cannot get into Dan Lasater and his stock trades? Are we 
saying that there are areas that the special counsel may not be 
involved in that we have to wait for him to determine? For example, are 
we going to be told that they are bringing in Mr. Lasater and 
ascertaining that in addition to his involvement in drugs, the records 
seem to indicate that huge sums of money were being churned from 
various accounts? Do we have a right to explore whether or not money 
laundering was taking place, as some have come and suggested to us? Do 
we have a right to explore Mr. Lasater and the connections of his 
former executive assistant, Patsy Thomason, who when he was in prison, 
ran what was left of his operation, and now is the Director of 
Administration at the White House, and who found herself in the office 
of Vince Foster on the night of his death, and what papers she did or 
did not take, or what action she had or did not have?
  I think we have a right to examine Mr. Lasater. I think we have a 
right to look into the details of the bond trading that took place. I 
have to say that if the special counsel says, look, we are looking at 
the operation that was set up in Little Rock and run in 1983, 1984, 
1985, 1986, right up until 1990 or 1992, that we are looking into them, 
and therefore we would ask that you not subpoena various people. I do 
not believe there would be one member of the committee who would say, 
yes, we should subpoena that person. We said to special counsel that we 
will tell you who the person is, and if you would like to examine them 
first--he said that to us, that there are people he would like to 
examine before you do. We would be willing to do this.
  So it seems to me that if we are going to so limit the scope of this 
hearing and investigation and fragment it, why then we are kidding the 
American people, and we are not going to be discharging our 
responsibilities as we should.
  I recognize that there has been good effort and good faith to a great 
degree in many of these areas, and I also recognize that while we may 
be accused of playing politics, that--and I think even the majority 
leader would say--there are political considerations that come from my 
colleagues on the other side.
  I hope that we could have our debate and our argument in a manner 
which would not go beyond that which is necessary.
  I understand that the leader has to use his rights to protect the 
interest of his party and of his position.
  I also think in fairness to the whole congressional body, we should 
recognize there are politics at play here. It would be fallacious for 
one to say, however, that one side is engaged in politics and the other 
is not.
  The problem is, that if we go too far in either political direction, 
we damage the credibility of the institution as a whole. That is not 
this Senator's wish. I still hold out the hope that we could develop a 
process to deal with some of the concerns this Senator has brought to 
the floor today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his comments. 
We do disagree. And I would like to specify some of those disagreements 
now.
  The Senator from New York spent several minutes arguing that the 
committee should be given the right to grant immunity to witnesses, and 
he suggested that it was the Democratic leadership that did not want to 
give the committee the power to grant immunity.
  Mr. President, the Senator has evidently forgotten that on March 17 
of this year, the Senate voted 98 to 0 for a resolution which includes 
the following statement: ``No witness called to testify at these 
hearings shall be granted immunity.''
  The Senator voted for that resolution. Every single Republican 
Senator who voted, voted for that resolution. I repeat: The resolution 
stated as explicitly and as clearly as can be stated in the English 
language: ``No witness called to testify at these hearings shall be 
granted immunity.''
  Now in a complete flip-flop, our colleagues suggest the committee 
should have the authority to grant immunity, and the argument is made, 
the words were: Will they never be able to grant immunity for all time?
  Well, of course, that is not the case. That is not what our 
resolution says. Our resolution does what the Senate voted to do by 98 
to 0. And now, having voted for that, our colleagues do a complete 
flip-flop and ask that the committee have the power which they just 
recently said the committee should not exercise, and that in itself 
tells the story of what is happening here.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly.
  Mr. D'AMATO. It is only on that one point.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Go ahead.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I refer the majority leader to page 11 of the amendment, 
lines 17, 18, and 19. It says:

       To request a grant of immunity under section 6005 of title 
     18, United States Code, after approved by the independent 
     counsel.

  If the Senator will compare this language to the similar provision in 
his amendment on page 7, number (2):

       To exercise the powers of a committee under section 6005 of 
     title 18, United States Code, for immunizing witnesses after 
     consultation.

  I have made it more difficult for the special subcommittee to grant 
immunity. In other words, before granting immunity, we need the 
independent counsel's approval. The majority leader says simply that 
immunity may be granted ``after consultation.''
  So I do not see the relevance of the majority leader's argument.
  Mr. MITCHELL. No.
  Mr. D'AMATO. What I have said in my statement is that we go beyond 
what would be required to grant immunity.
  We have not retreated on anything that we previously agreed to. I 
hope the Senator concedes that.
  Mr. MITCHELL. No, I will not. Because unfortunately, as the Senator 
stated as he introduced his resolution, he made some changes.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. As we introduced ours, we made some changes.
  Mr. D'AMATO. OK.
  Mr. MITCHELL. The change we made was to provide that the committee 
shall have no power to grant immunity consistent with it.
  The point the Senator made in his remarks really points up another 
flip-flop. He spent another 10 minutes earlier saying we should not 
have to do what the special counsel said; we should not be subject to 
what the special counsel said. That is the bulk of his argument on 
investigation.
  Now he comes in and says: But we should give the special counsel the 
right to decide when immunity will be granted. I think it is another 
flip-flop.
  On the one hand, the Senator argues that we should not be subject to 
the special counsel. On the other hand, he says that no immunity should 
be granted unless the special counsel approves it.
  So it is just another example of what this is. It is a political 
circus. And the zigs and the zags and the backs and forths and flips 
and flops can be explained in only one way. There is not any consistent 
position here other than--other than--to criticize the President, to 
toss out innuendo and hope some of it sticks on President and Mrs. 
Clinton.
  Make no mistake about it. The American people know what is going on 
here. Listen--just listen--to some of the words that have been spoken 
here in the early moments of this debate. Listen to these words: 
Millions of dollars went through accounts. Four verified attempts on a 
person's life. Money laundering. These are the most lurid of phrases. 
They have nothing, of course, to do with the President and Mrs. 
Clinton, but they are thrown onto the garbage heap in an effort to 
somehow make them stick.
  Then the Senator from New York says, in a really classic quote:

       This Senator has never raised the possibility of some foul 
     deed in connection with his death.

  Of course, in the very denial, he is raising the possibility. We all 
remember those old campaigns where the candidate got up and said, ``I 
have never called my opponent a Communist.''
  Mr. D'AMATO. Will the Senator yield for an observation?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Sure.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I do not really believe I said that. I was attempting--
--
  Mr. MITCHELL. Did the Senator not state those words?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I was attempting to illustrate the absurdity of some of 
the wild speculation surrounding the death. I even said, ``I do not 
want to get into some of the details because it feeds more absurdity 
and more wild speculation.'' There have been all kinds of stories 
published and republished about the death--none of it proved.
  Maybe the stories were titillating, but they were, for the most part, 
I thought, absurd. That is the spirit in which this Senator put forth 
his earlier statement.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I just----
  Mr. D'AMATO. I hope the leader will believe that, because if I am 
going to make a charge, you will know it. If I speak tongue in cheek, 
the leader will know that, as well.
  I hope we will not belabor this point.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, let me just say that a familiar tactic 
has emerged in this Whitewater matter. Lurid and unsubstantiated 
allegations appear in print, often in so-called conservative or other 
types of journalism.
  Then Senators get up here and repeat the accusations and say, well, 
the only way to dispel these is to have a full investigation. There 
must be some--words used today--``massive coverup.'' They must be 
hiding something.
  So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in a political circus. 
Somewhere something appears in print that contains a completely 
ridiculous allegation that is unsubstantiated, but is intended to cast 
aspersions upon the President of the United States.
  And so people who oppose the President get up here and repeat the 
accusations and then say, ``Well, now, there is this cloud over the 
President and we have got to help him out and somehow take this cloud 
away,'' they, having created the cloud. That is what is going on here.
  I take the Senator's statement for what he just explained; that it is 
ridiculous. If it is ridiculous, I suggest we not repeat it on the 
Senate floor.
  Mr. D'AMATO. If I might respond to my colleague, I believe that this 
is the only time I ever referred to that alleged suicide or those who 
attempted to put forth some kind of conspiracy theory connected to the 
death. Again it was only to make the point that there have been some 
very wild and speculative charges put forth. I have not tried to 
subscribe to those theories myself.
  That does not deter me from saying I think we should go forward in a 
somewhat different manner than the leader is suggesting.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I understand and accept that we disagree on that.
  Mr. President, another argument was made earlier in an ostensible 
question and answer period. The words were, ``Has the Senate ever 
denied itself the right to investigate something?''
  Answer, ``No.''
  ``Isn't there, therefore, something wrong with our doing something 
which has never been done?''
  Answer, ``Yes.''
  So the argument from the other side is, if it has not been done 
before, we should not do it now.
  Well, Mr. President, let us take a look at the resolution offered by 
Senator D'Amato and apply that test, which our Republican colleagues 
have just presented, to their resolution.
  In this resolution, the ranking member of the committee--and in plain 
English that is the senior member of the minority party, the senior 
ranking member; and in this case it is the Senator from New York, who 
happens to be here--would have, independently, on his own authority, 
the power to subpoena witnesses.
  Now, will the Senator from New York tell me when that has occurred in 
the Senate?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I indicated earlier there were areas that my friend has 
raised where I would be willing to consider making an accommodation on. 
It would seem to me that, if we did not limit the subject matter, the 
manner, the time, the time within which to issue a report, and other 
prescriptions, we could consider other accommodations--as long as we 
ended up with a committee that was fairly balanced.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I take that to be a no.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I am not aware that this has been undertaken before.
  That was a pretty good political answer.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, it was. I can tell a no when I hear it in several 
hundred words.
  Mr. D'AMATO. It was still a good political statement.
  Mr. MITCHELL. The fact is, none of us know of any such authority.
  So, having applied to our resolution the standard that we should not 
do it because it has never been done, they include in their resolution 
something which has never been done.
  For the first time, to my knowledge--and we are trying to research it 
because we are not sure about this; we are unable to find any authority 
for giving a ranking member of a committee independent authority to 
issue subpoenas. There is no such precedent. There is no precedent, at 
least none that I know of.
  So, Mr. President, I suggest again this tells us what the real motive 
is here. This is not a serious effort. Everybody in America knows that. 
This is a political effort. This is an effort to hurt the President any 
way you can, because they do not have other tools at their disposal 
right now.
  Just a couple of weeks ago, I was walking down the street in 
Portland, ME. A pickup truck pulled up and stopped at the red light. 
The driver rolled the window down and yelled out, ``Hey, Senator, why 
don't you guys stop fooling around with that Whitewater nonsense and do 
some business?''
  Before I got a chance to tell him that it was not me who was fooling 
around with the Whitewater nonsense, he rolled the window up and sped 
off. That is what the American people think.
  Mr. President, almost a year ago, we stood out here on the Senate 
floor and we had a heated and controversial debate on the economic plan 
for this country presented by the President. Our distinguished 
Republican colleagues, one after the other, got up and said, ``If the 
President's economic plan is adopted, the Federal budget deficit is 
going way up, unemployment will go way up, and economic growth will go 
way down.'' We all remember that debate.
  Well, we passed the President's economic plan, and every single 
Republican voted against it.
  What has happened since that economic plan passed? Why, it is the 
opposite of what our colleagues said. The deficit has gone down, 
unemployment has gone down, and economic growth is up. In fact, 
economic growth is so rapid and the decline in unemployment so rapid 
that the Federal Reserve Board has felt the need to raise interest 
rates four times in the past few months to slow down economic growth. 
That is what the people of this country care about.
  But, of course, what do our colleagues have to say about that? 
Nothing. They do not have an economic plan for this country. They do 
not have a program for creating jobs in this country. They have a 
Whitewater program.
  If you yell Whitewater often enough, if you make enough of these 
unsubstantiated, sensational allegations, and somehow try to create the 
impression that the President had something to do with them, and then 
suggest, ``Well, my gosh, we are just trying to help the President; we 
look at these clouds over the White House; we have got to somehow get 
these clouds away''; why, Mr. President, we all know what is going on 
here. The American people know what is going on here--raw partisan 
politics.
  Now I said from the beginning, and have stated consistently, that the 
Senate has a serious obligation under the Constitution and law to meet 
its oversight responsibilities. I said from the beginning, and I repeat 
now, we will do that and we will do it in a serious and responsible way 
that does not create a political circus.
  That is why I and the other 97 Senators who voted--including the 
Senator from New York and all of our Republican colleagues--voted on 
March 17 that there would be hearings and ``the hearings should be 
structured and sequenced in such a manner that, in the judgment of the 
leaders, they would not interfere with the ongoing investigation of 
special counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.'' That is what the Senate voted 
for, not to interfere with the ongoing investigation.
  The resolution offered by our colleague from New York would do just 
that. It would directly interfere with the investigation of the special 
counsel because it would do that which the special counsel has 
explicitly asked not be done. It would get us into those matters that 
are still pending in the investigation and would thereby threaten and 
prejudice the investigation.
  All during the debate, in answer to those accusations, they said, 
``Well, that will not happen because there will be no immunity.'' ``No 
immunity.'' That was included, I believe, at the request of our 
Republican colleagues in the resolution.
  Now here they come, just a few weeks later, and argue, ``We've got to 
have the right to grant immunity,'' the very opposite of what they said 
and voted for just a few weeks ago.
  That tells you something. That tells you that this is not a serious 
inquiry. This is an attempt to create a political circus.
  The resolution which we have offered is consistent with and pursuant 
to the resolution which the Senate previously voted 98 to 0.
  It implements that resolution in perfect good faith. The Republican 
leader and I have discussed this matter over several weeks and we 
reached agreement on several areas. There are some areas of 
disagreement. That is not uncommon. We disagree often. It is simply 
that reasonable people can and do disagree, and I have no criticism 
whatsoever of that fact. We tried hard to reach an agreement. Our 
positions were different. We could not reach an agreement.
  But I believe that this resolution now being offered by the Senator 
from New York directly contradicts the resolution which the Senate 
previously approved by a vote of 98 to zero and directly contradicts 
the stated public request of the special counsel. It would do exactly 
that which the special counsel has asked not be done and it would do 
exactly that which the Senate resolution, voted 98 to zero, said will 
not be done.
  And, so, every Senator should understand that a vote for the 
resolution offered by the Senator from New York would be a reversal of 
vote cast on March 17. A vote for our resolution will be consistent 
with that resolution and would be an effort to implement it.
  Mr. President, there will be a lot more talk in this debate. We know 
what is going to happen here. Our colleagues are going to get up and I 
am sure we are going to hear a lot more of these allegations in the 
form of nonallegations, assertions in the form of denials, and we are 
going to hear a lot of things said that are based upon rumor and 
innuendo and unsubstantiated reports.
  The important thing for the American people to remember is this: a 
special counsel has been appointed. It was, indeed, requested by our 
Republican colleagues. The special counsel is himself a lifelong 
Republican, a man of experience and integrity, whose appointment was 
praised by the Senator from New York. The Senator from New York praised 
the special counsel as a man of integrity and honesty. He is now 
conducting an obviously thorough investigation. And he has asked us not 
to undermine his investigation. The resolution presented by the Senator 
from New York would do just that. It would directly undermine the 
special counsel's investigation in a manner which the special counsel 
has explicitly asked not occur. And, so, we have a special counsel, a 
lifelong Republican, a man of widely praised integrity, trying to do a 
job. And we are trying to do ours in a manner consistent with that.
  The question before Senate is very simple: Are we going to, for 
purely political purposes, do a complete flip-flop from the position we 
took in March? Do it in a way that undermines the special counsel? Or 
are we going to act in a responsible manner that is consistent with and 
implements the resolution passed by the Senate in March and, most 
importantly, complies with the stated request of the special counsel?
  That is the issue before the Senate. I hope we can vote on this 
matter this evening. Let us let everybody have their say. It is my 
intention. We will stay here as long as it takes to have a vote, as 
long as any Senator wants to talk. And then we will vote the matter up 
or down.
  I previously offered to have separate votes on my resolution and that 
of the Senator from New York. That was rejected. So under the procedure 
now we will vote on the resolution which I have presented.
  I welcome the debate. I look forward to hearing from as many of our 
colleagues who wish to address the Senate and the American people. We 
want to proceed on this matter. Let us debate it. Let us vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato].
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I have other colleagues on the floor who 
would like to speak to this issue. Let me, if I might, point out two 
things.
  No. 1, the March 17 resolution putting forth the compromise 
structured by the majority leader did not say that we would go out and 
capriciously grant immunity. Indeed, if you take a look at the language 
of this resolution, it also reflects our intent to work with the 
special prosecutor very clearly. On page 11 we say that we would only 
grant immunity after basically obtaining permission from the special 
counsel. The special counsel might even invite us at some point in time 
to grant immunity under certain circumstances. There might be any 
number of reasons. As I said earlier as a matter of policy we do not 
plan to arbitrarily and capriciously grant immunity, but that certainly 
should be the prerogative of the Congress.
  Do I think we will exercise this authority? We probably will not--but 
it is not an option we want to preclude.
  The majority leader says that you are not approaching this in the 
same spirit that you approached the March 17 resolution. I intend to 
read that resolution right now. Then I want to know how the resolution 
thwarts our previous intentions. The March 17 resolution said that the 
leaders would set up a procedure to proceed with an investigation, and 
hearings. That resolution was adopted in March. April came and went, 
May came and went and it is now June. If my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have their way, Congress would be out of this session 
and there would still be no committee. Let us not kid ourselves--this 
is politics and it comes from the other side. Even worse, it is 
stonewalling.
  If we want to talk about good faith and efforts on the part of those 
submitting today's resolution, we should read page 18 of the 
resolution. Let us read it, starting on line 12:

       (A) to coordinate, to the extent practicable, its 
     activities [that means the committee] with the investigation 
     of the independent counsel;
       (B) to seek the full cooperation of all relevant 
     investigatory bodies; and
       (C) to seek access to all information which is acquired and 
     developed by such bodies.

  Line 19:

       (b) The cochairmen shall meet with the independent counsel 
     to obtain relevant information concerning the status of the 
     independent counsel's investigation to assist in establishing 
     a hearing schedule for the special subcommittee.

  This language clearly shows that we intend to work with the 
independent counsel.
  On page 11 we limit the granting of immunity, pursuant to title 18 of 
the U.S. Code, to situations only ``after approved by the independent 
counsel.''
  I want to know how that is at variance with the March 17 agreement? 
The issue we face today is whether we should have fair and 
comprehensive hearings. If we are going to so limit the hearings, as 
the resolution or the amendment put forth by the majority leader does, 
then we are not having fair hearings.
  Let me ask, what is the difference between the language I just read 
and the language contained in the March 17 resolution? I will read the 
language again.
  Line 17:

       To request a grant of immunity under section 6005 of title 
     18, United States Code, after approved by the independent 
     counsel.

  In our resolution of March 17, we said, ``No witness called to 
testify at these hearings shall be granted immunity under sections 6002 
and 6005, title 18, United States Code, over the objection of special 
counsel Robert Fiske.''
  Can I suggest to you that the provisions from today are one and the 
same with the provisions of March 17? It is written slightly 
differently--but the intent is clear.
  I will tell you how the March 17th resolution came about.
  On December 21, this Senator wrote to Chairman Riegle asking for a 
Banking Committee hearing on Madison Guaranty. On December 23, Chairman 
Riegle declined my request to hold a hearing. At that time, he did not 
decline because of any special counsel. At that time, we had another 
excuse--the Justice Department, headed by Donald Mackey, was 
undertaking an investigation into Madison Guaranty. That was the answer 
to my request for hearings back then.
  In January, Senator Moynihan suggested on Meet the Press that the 
Attorney General appoint a special counsel to investigate Madison 
Guaranty. We spoke about this for weeks and weeks. On January 11, 
Senators Feingold, Bradley, Robb and Kerry joined the call. On January 
12, the special counsel was appointed and Senator Dole called for the 
establishment of a Senate select committee.
  January 12 was almost 6 months ago. Six months have passed, and we 
still do not have the special committee. Instead, we have a format 
suggested that will not do justice to creating a proper oversight 
committee and oversight role.
  To suggest that, because we have said that we will cooperate with the 
special counsel and go to him for approval before granting immunity, 
that somehow this is disingenuous and a flip-flop simply is not 
accurate. Because we say we do not want to be so limited as to do this 
little minutiae part of the hearings does not mean we have flip-
flopped. You see, Mr. President, when you hold hearings, you find that 
one thing may lead you to learn other things.
  Under the majority leader's resolution, we could find ourselves 
precluded from following up these leads because we would be strictly 
confined from going into that other area.
  Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I am going to yield the floor and I do yield the floor 
at this time.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New York.
  It seems to me, as we pursue the questions that are legitimately a 
subject of oversight by the Congress, we need to be able to ask the 
questions and to follow up to assure people of the United States that 
they can have trust and confidence in those who are in high positions 
of authority in Washington, DC. It is, in fact, the legislative body's 
responsibility to exercise oversight over the activities of the 
executive branch. And, quite frankly, it is a matter of practical 
necessity--call it practical politics --people who are of the opposite 
political party are likely to ask the most difficult questions.
  I was the one who asked Mr. Altman the questions in the banking 
hearing in February. Number one: Was the Madison Guaranty case handled 
like all other cases? He replied that it was, even though we now know 
and have found out that, prior to that time, there had been a special 
directive issued by Jean Hanson--who was to become the counsel for the 
Treasury--that any high-profile case be brought to the top level, to 
the attention of the officials in the executive branch.
  I asked questions about whether there had been any contacts between 
the RTC or the Treasury and the White House. I was assured at the time 
there had not been. As we found out subsequently, there had, in fact, 
been contacts. It was not just a heads up given to the White House, 
because the special prosecutor had already been appointed, but there 
was a contact about the substance of the investigations. When we have 
to pursue questions about the activities of the officials in the RTC, 
the Treasury Department, for example, it makes sense that we find out 
what the underlying facts are.
  There are questions that might legitimately be asked by majority 
members of the Banking Committee about how this matter was handled in 
the prior administration. Something very strange was going on that the 
Madison Guaranty questions were not being pursued. Was the previous 
administration concerned about the potential that it would look like 
politics if they raised the question of Madison Guaranty? Was there 
some effort prior to the current administration to keep the lid on what 
was going on in Arkansas? That is a legitimate question that I think 
Members on both sides of the aisle might want to ask, and there may be 
embarrassment for people, administrations of Republicans and of 
Democrats.
  But we, I think, in the Banking Committee have a responsibility to 
find out whether the RTC is able to handle questions which become very 
sensitive, because of the nature of the individuals involved, in a way 
which inspires the confidence of the people of the United States.
  It seems to me that the amendment put forth by our ranking member on 
the Banking Committee raises a number of issues which are within the 
oversight of the Banking Committee that should be pursued. Nobody is 
saying that there are criminal activities. We do not know what went on. 
But there are questions about the Arkansas Development Finance 
Authority. How was that operated? Were there questionable activities 
there? What about the investment activities of Value Partners One? Are 
these securities activities in compliance with the applicable Federal 
guidelines? What was the nature of the advice provided by Mr. Altman to 
the White House when he was heading the RTC?
  Without knowing the underlying information, much of which is within 
the purview of the Banking Committee's oversight responsibility--some 
of which goes beyond--we may not be able to frame the questions 
properly. The Senator from New York has already raised the possibility 
that if the inquiry is narrowly limited in scope, perhaps there will 
not be an opportunity to follow up and ask questions which need to be 
pursued.
  We do know of several instances where statements made in response to 
questions before the Banking Committee have had to be altered time and 
time again to bring them into conformity with the truth. That raises a 
lot of questions. I think the American people who have focused on this 
have a right to know what is going on. I know it has been said that 
some of the Members have been told, ``Ah, get off the Whitewater stuff; 
forget it.''
  Well, we are going ahead--I hope we are going ahead--with important 
matters like health care reform and welfare reform. But we are able to 
do more than one thing at once, and it seems to me that there are 
legitimate questions which are being raised, not only in this body but 
by the media and certainly by people I have run into in my State, as to 
how the activities of the Federal regulatory bodies with respect to the 
activities associated generally under the umbrella of Whitewater have 
been carried out.
  Is something wrong with the way that our Federal agencies are 
handling these investigations? Are there shortcomings that we need to 
overcome? Certainly this is one of the difficult questions that we have 
to face. Have we set up a structure which is adequate to search out 
wrongdoing or shortcomings in a Federal investigation of financial 
institutions?
  Madison Guaranty is just one, but it has become a very interesting 
one because of the unusual activities in it and the interrelated nature 
of many of the activities.
  I cannot give an answer as to what the total picture was because we 
have not had an opportunity to ask the questions. Maybe we will never 
get to the bottom of the questions. Certainly, if we rely solely on the 
special counsel, we will find out whether there are allegations of 
criminal violation. But I submit that that is not nearly enough to 
satisfy the legitimate questions that have been raised.
  We have questions that we should pursue, that I think we must 
rightfully pursue, as to how the agencies assigned to administer the 
banking and savings and loan laws in this country, how the Resolution 
Trust Corporation, which was assigned to take over and carry out the 
resolution of failed S&L's, did their business. Did they do it 
properly? Did they do it without fear or favor of influence?
  These, to me, are legitimate questions. We should be pursuing 
oversight investigations in every committee on matters that are of 
importance to the Government and to the people of this country. I 
believe this is an area where significant questions have been raised. 
They are not just questions about potential criminal conduct.
  I hope this body will move ahead and agree that we ought to be able 
to follow the complicated tales of financial transactions in a 
committee set up to get this out in the open once and for all.
  I believe the ranking member of the Banking Committee, the Senator 
from New York, has made it clear that he wants to do nothing that would 
interfere with the investigations of the special counsel. I think we 
all share that. But I do not imagine that the special counsel would be 
in a position to try to answer every question that has been raised. If 
it does not involve likely criminal conduct, then he should not pursue 
it.
  But the fact that somebody's conduct is not criminal does not 
necessarily mean that it is appropriate for a Government official. 
There may be activities, and I think we have seen some, that raise real 
question about the ability of those in office now to continue to serve. 
I hope we will have an opportunity to find out about those activities, 
both in terms of the credibility and the suitability of those who are 
now in office, and with respect to whether there are adequate 
guidelines, powers, authorities, and legislative directives for the 
regulatory agencies of the U.S. Government to pursue their duties in 
ferreting out wrongdoing, assuring the safety and soundness of our 
financial institutions, and pursuing those who might have caused a 
loss.
  Mr. President, I hope the body will support the amendment by Senator 
D'Amato. I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FEINGOLD). The Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Nickles, is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my friend and colleague, 
Senator Bond from Missouri, for his statement, and I also wish to 
compliment my friend and colleague from New York for his resolution.
  Mr. President, I have spent a little time while Majority Leader 
Mitchell was talking about his resolution and also condemning the 
resolution of the Senator from New York, and I just compared the two 
resolutions. The resolution of the Senator from New York is much more 
extensive as far as what Congress can look into it. But I have looked 
at the purpose of the subcommittee. It is ``to conduct an investigation 
into, and study of, all matters which have any tendency to reveal the 
full facts about,'' and it mentions (A) to (Q), 17 different items that 
should be investigated, all of which are pertinent and relative to 
issues that have been discussed either on the floor or certainly 
received a lot of media attention, all of which are on issues that have 
not had answers. And some of us have said we should have answers.
  And then I also looked at the resolution proposed by the majority 
leader as compared to the D'Amato resolution, which says 17 things, 
mostly dealing with Whitewater. It also says we should look at the 
commodity tradings, and so on. That is not allowed by the majority 
leader. The majority leader says, well, we will look at three things: 
Communications between the White House and Department of the Treasury 
or the RTC relating to Whitewater and the Madison Guaranty Savings Loan 
Association--that is just communication between White House officials 
and RTC relating to Whitewater; Park Service investigation into the 
death of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster; and 3, or (C), the 
way in which the White House officials handled documents in the office 
of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster at the time of his death.
  You can investigate three things under the majority leader's 
resolution. This is a coverup resolution. This does not allow an 
investigation. This does not allow an investigation into dozens, dozens 
of issues that have been raised where questions have been asked and 
have not been answered.
  I do not say that lightly. I will tell my friend and colleague from 
Arkansas, and I told him that this was going to come up today--and I 
was assuming that the majority or the majority leader would come up 
with a resolution that would be defensible. I do not even think this is 
defensible. I hope the media will take a look at this resolution and 
see that it says in these three areas you can conduct an investigation. 
The Senator from New York has said that we should have an investigation 
considering several other things. I will just touch on them because 
they are not covered by the majority leader's resolution.
  The Senator from New York says we should look at the operation, 
solvency, and regulation of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan 
Association, including the alleged use of federally insured funds as 
campaign contributions. You cannot do that under the majority leader's 
resolution. The relationship amongst Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan 
and other federally insured institutions and Whitewater Development 
Corporation; that is not covered by the majority leader's resolution. 
The management and business activities of Whitewater Development 
Corporation and its shareholders, including issues of personal, 
corporate, and partnership tax liability; policies of Resolution Trust 
Corporation, Federal banking agencies, and other Federal regulatory 
agencies regarding legal representations of the agencies including 
conflict of interest and cost controls.
  Everyone in this body knows there have been a lot of allegations 
about conflicts of interest. We cannot touch that under the majority 
leader's resolution. I think we ought to have some answers. And I could 
go on and on. But I compliment my friend from New York. He has 17 
things--and I do not even think that his list is all that exhaustive--
that he says Congress should look at. Frankly, this committee, I do not 
think, is going to be going on wild goose chases. I do not think it is 
a witch hunt. But these are pertinent issues that have been raised by 
the media, that have been raised by countless people, and I think 
people are entitled to an answer and the committee is entitled to 
investigate.
  If we pass the majority leader's resolution, it is going to be so 
constrictive that, frankly, it will not allow it. And I see that as a 
coverup. I do not even know why we would bother to do it. I see this 
resolution as a sham. I know I heard the majority leader say, well, 
Republicans are doing this--this is nothing but raw politics. I am 
looking at what the Senator from New York has in his resolution, and 
they all seem to be pertinent. Maybe if something is not, they could 
point it out.
  I know he has one section in here dealing with commodities. That is 
not in the majority leader's resolution. Maybe some people think we 
should not have an investigation into the commodity futures trading of 
Mrs. Clinton. A lot of serious questions have been asked, but they have 
not been answered. Mrs. Clinton took a $1,000 investment and made over 
$100,000 in 1 year. She was dealing with a firm that was punished for 
directing or allocating accounts; that is, giving some favored 
customers the winners and giving some other customers the losers. To 
turn $1,000 into $100,000 in 1 year is a 10,000 percent rate of return. 
I have been in business all my life. I have never heard of anybody 
making a 10,000 percent rate of return. In the first day of trading, 
$1,000 was turned into $6,300--with a $1,000 investment.
  That information has not been forthcoming. I have heard some 
discussion concerning subpoenas, and so on, and I have heard that the 
information is available; it just has not been made public. I think 
people are entitled to know the facts. I know I have heard Mrs. Clinton 
and President Clinton say they wanted to be forthcoming; they wanted to 
cooperate; they wanted to reveal this information. I think it should be 
revealed. I do not know how it can be revealed unless we have it 
covered under this resolution. It is not covered under the majority 
leader's resolution.
  This resolution is thinly designed to cover as little as possible. 
You can see through it. It does not do anything. It does not allow 
information on commodity trading. It does not allow the committee to 
really ask questions. I cannot imagine this body constricting itself to 
such a degree.
  We have had hearings on a multitude of issues and a multitude of 
investigations.
  But we have never handicapped or handcuffed the investigators to such 
an extent as the majority leader would under his resolution.
  I have asked questions before, like: ``Were federally insured 
deposits of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan diverted to President 
Clinton's 1994 campaign?'' That is a question asked before. It will not 
be answered under the majority leader's resolution.
  ``Were federally insured Madison deposits diverted to pay the 
Clinton's share of Whitewater debts?'' We will never get that answered 
under the majority leader's resolution.
  ``Did Bill Clinton apply pressure to obtain fraudulent federally 
insured Small Business Administration loans?'' We can never ask that 
question under this resolution. And on and on.
  I could go on. But the point is I think I have made the point. This 
resolution as offered by the majority leader is a sham. It says three 
things that you can investigate. The Senator from New York has a more 
extensive one. But if there is a paragraph or something that should not 
be in this resolution, I tell my friend and colleague from New York, I 
just read it recently, I would love to hear it. If this is something 
the Congress should not look at if one of these paragraphs A through Q 
is irresponsible, or goes too far, I think we should be told. Mainly, 
we should delete it if it goes too far.
  But looking at the list--and I mentioned four or five, I could read 
all 17 paragraphs. It will not take that long. I will give you another 
one.
  ``F: The Resolution Trust Corporation's internal handling of the 
criminal referrals concerning Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan 
Association.'' That is a good question that ought to have some answers.
  ``The pursuit by the Resolution Trust Corporation in civil causes of 
action against potentially liable parties associated with Madison 
Guaranty Savings and Loan Association.'' And on.
  Maybe some of these things will find no evil. That is fine with me 
too. I just do not think we should be restricted and say, ``No, we 
cannot look at these things.'' What are we trying to hide? What is 
wrong if it is in this resolution? I know I heard the majority leader 
say this is in real conflict with the resolution that passed the Senate 
on March 17. I looked up the resolution that passed March 17. It says, 
``No witness called to testify at these hearings shall be granted 
immunity under sections 6002 and 6005 of title 18, United States Code, 
over the objection of special counsel, Robert B. Fiske, Jr.'' He said 
this resolution offered by the Senator from New York, Senator D'Amato, 
undermines that. It does not.
  If you look on page 11, it says ``To request a grant of immunity 
under section 6005 of title 18, United States Code, after approved by 
the independent counsel.'' So it almost repeats what was in the 
resolution that passed some time ago. But the majority leader said 
``No, no. This undermines this resolution.'' No. It does not.
  I might mention this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that passed 
March 17. Here we are in the beginning of June, and we have not done 
anything. It looks as if people are trying to say, ``Well, we just want 
to hide behind the special counsel.'' If we do that, we will never get 
answers to questions that need to be resolved.
  I would just tell my friend and colleague from Arkansas and others 
that have an interest in this--and I appreciate his interest--to get 
this behind is not to pass a resolution to limit the investigation so 
narrowly constricted that everybody can see that it is a sham, but to 
really allow the investigation to go forward, allow people to ask 
questions on a broad investigation, on pertinent, relevant information 
that has been out, to get answers, and to finish it. This resolution 
will never finish the so-called Whitewater episode. It hardly even 
scratches the surface. I think it would be a serious mistake.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the resolution, the second-degree 
amendment, offered by the majority leader and to approve the resolution 
offered by the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato].
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I would like to take just a moment on 
the majority leader's second-degree amendment to the amendment offered 
by the Senator from New York and point to what seems to me to be a 
fairly glaring technical issue in the context of this process.
  I would call everybody's attention to the amendment No. 1547 which 
has been referred to repeatedly here this afternoon which was offered 
on the day of March 17, 1994 by the majority and minority leaders. It 
reads: ``The majority leader and the Republican leader should meet and 
determine the appropriate timetable, procedures, and forum for 
appropriate Congressional oversight including hearings''--this is the 
important line, Mr. President -- ``excluding hearings on all matters 
related to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association, Whitewater 
Development Corporation, and Capital Management Services, Inc.''
  This is the amendment offered by the majority leader in conjunction 
with the minority leader, both leaders, and it said that there should 
be appropriate hearings on all matters--``all'' --relating to 
Whitewater, Madison Savings & Loan, and Capital Management.
  Here we are in early June, and we have a new amendment offered by the 
majority leader that says, ``The Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs shall conduct hearings into whether improper conduct 
occurred regarding communications between officials of the White House 
and the Department of Treasury or the Resolution Trust Corporation 
relating to Whitewater Development Corporation and Madison Guaranty 
Savings and Loan Association.''
  So now it is ``communications.'' It is not ``all matters.'' Then the 
one today says relating to the ``Park Service Police investigation into 
the death of White House deputy counsel, Vincent Foster.'' The 
resolution on March 17, Mr. President, does not even mention the death 
of Vincent Foster.
  Then it says today, ``the way in which White House officials handled 
documents in the Office of the White House deputy counsel, Vincent 
Foster, at the time of his death.''
  You would think that these two amendments were offered by two very 
different people.
  March 17, all matters relating to Whitewater, all matters relating to 
Madison Savings & Loan, all matters with regard to Capital Management 
Services. And now today, just the communications between the White 
House and RTC, and for some reason we have now inserted the tragic 
death of White House deputy counsel, Vincent Foster.
  You have to ask yourself, Mr. President, what has transpired since 
March 17, 1994, that would cause the majority leader to so dramatically 
change what he wanted the hearings to cover, from all matters relating 
to these subjects, to these very, very narrow items, and suddenly the 
inclusion of these activities regarding the tragic suicide.
  I think we have questions that abound just from the reading of the 
two amendments offered by the same Member of the Senate. What could 
have transpired between March 17 and early June that would cause us to 
dispense with all matters, and now today we are just going to take a 
very fine microscope to it and talk about communications, a suicide, 
and the way White House officials handled or managed documents.
  Just the nature of the change raises questions in terms of this 
overall debate.
  I would contend that the amendment that was offered by the majority 
leader and the minority leader on March 17, which passed the Senate 90 
to 0, unanimous, that all matters relating to these subjects would be 
subject to an appropriate hearing.
  Mr. President, there has been a lot said today about these whole 
matters simply being nothing more than a partisan dispute. It is an 
internal contest, traditional politics. I do have to say that the fact 
that we were holding, for the last 12 years prior to this 
administration, about two official hearings a year, and during the 2 
years of this administration there have been zero, does do damage to 
the credibility of those individuals arguing that suddenly the U.S. 
Senate has gotten into partisan matters.
  The empirical evidence suggests that that is not a good argument for 
the other side of the aisle to make.
  Mr. President, one other matter on the question of partisan or not: 
This is not a cloakroom exercise. The entire world has become a 
participant in this debate. Before the recess I pointed out that 
prestigious publications throughout Europe and the world are commenting 
on the issues. They are bringing to light new and different facets. 
Either these world journalists--who last I knew were not Republicans or 
Democrats--are savaging the United States and its leadership, or they 
are on to something that needs to be aired. And the only way I would 
suggest that we are going to quiet the world's curiosity, the world's 
investigation, and the world's commentary on these vast allegations, is 
for the Congress to accept its responsibility, have appropriate, fair, 
managed, hearings and put these questions to rest.
  I can assure all who are interested that our having a hearing on some 
minuscule piece of this will have no effect whatsoever on the world's 
comment on this issue. Maybe we need to have our Senate staff just 
accumulate the volumes of accusations and allegations being made 
throughout the world, and particularly Europe.
  Partisan, Republican, Democrat--being outlined in Europe, that does 
not seem logical. This is a world issue. They are talking about the 
leadership of the free world, and they are looking at our institutions 
to see if they have the capacity to resolve these matters in a civil 
and appropriate way, or whether we do not have the will to do that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I think it should be noted this afternoon 
some of the allegations here and some of the, I guess, accusatory 
statements leveled at the majority leader and leveled at Members of the 
Senate on this side of the aisle, such as the reference, and I quote, I 
believe, my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, who called this a 
sham.
  Mr. President, those are very harsh words. In fact, those are words 
that are untrue. Those words are not a proper description of this 
particular resolution before the Senate. As to the resolution, offered 
by the majority leader, I know and feel comfort and hope, certainly, 
that my colleagues on the other sides of the aisle do not think that is 
a proper description.
  Mr. President, we have had a lot made in the last few moments, a lot 
of statements made about why all of a sudden has the scope under 
Senator Mitchell's resolution been narrowed--narrowed--and so, let us 
say, lessened compared to the scope of the resolution adopted by the 
Senate 97 to 0 on March 17, 1994.
  Mr. President, on that point, I think that we need to look at the 
resolution that 97 of our colleagues voted for, including every Member 
of the other side of the aisle when voting. I think it should be noted, 
Mr. President, that we should look under the first section of the 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution, looking at section (D), and I quote:

       The hearings should be structured and sequenced in such a 
     manner that in the judgment of the leaders that would not 
     interfere with the ongoing investigation of special counsel 
     Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

  Mr. President, what we are doing today is attempting to resolve in a 
reasonable and in a common sense way, and also in a way to meet our 
constitutional obligations and the obligations of the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution of March 17, 1994, to get to the bottom of the so-
called Whitewater affair. The proposal offered by the majority leader 
includes those areas, Mr. President, which actually go to the heart of 
the Whitewater issue, but no further.
  For example, Senator Mitchell in his wisdom does not introduce into 
the Senate a resolution that calls for a full-fledged investigation of 
Hillary Rodham Clinton's commodity trading and her futures trading. 
That is not tied to Whitewater. This is a separate issue. This is an 
issue which will be dealt with, I am certain, Mr. President, in another 
way and in another manner, I should say.
  But when we look at the request at the sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
offered by our friend on the other side of the aisle, we see that it 
provides a totally, completely, unprecedented sweeping power to the 
ranking member to direct and to control this investigation. These 
powers, Mr. President, include the right to unilaterally issue 
subpoenas, notice depositions, to compel testimony and the production 
of documents, to organize the committee's hearing schedule, to hire the 
staff, to incur administrative expenses and to obtain IRS records.
  Now, they called Senator Mitchell's proposal a sham. I call this 
proposal a witch hunt. This is a witch hunt of the highest caliber, or 
I should say a witch hunt of the lowest caliber.
  Mr. President, we have an obligation and a duty to work with the 
special investigator in this matter, Mr. Fiske, who, by the way, is a 
life-long Republican; someone that we have confidence in on this side 
of the aisle; someone that I am surprised that evidently the 
Republicans on the other side of the aisle do not have confidence in or 
the degree of confidence that we have on this side of the aisle.
  But, Mr. President, I can only say, with regard to this, that if we 
adopt the proposal offered by the other side of the aisle this evening, 
we are going to rue the day, because we will never end in this session 
of Congress this so-called investigation. It is open ended. There is no 
limit on what we can expend, and we once again will be very, very sorry 
that we gave the powers to the committee of jurisdiction over this, 
that we granted the powers to the committee of jurisdiction that are 
unprecedented and certainly uncalled for.
  Finally, I think that we ought to know and ought to take cognizance 
of the fact that, under the resolution proposed by the other side of 
the aisle, there is no termination date--there is no termination date 
whatsoever--as to when the committee of jurisdiction must even have a 
target for a completion of the so-called Whitewater investigation.
  It includes, in addition to all of this, a request in the name of the 
Senate--I think the majority leader has brought this up earlier this 
afternoon--that ``the independent counsel may make available all 
documents and information which may assist the committee, without 
regard to the potential impact on the Fiske investigation or any 
indication of the nature of the documents and information sought.''
  Mr. President, this does not sound to me like it is a cooperative 
effort with the independent counsel, Mr. Fiske, in trying to ascertain 
the facts and to present these facts not only to the U.S. Senate but 
also to the American people.
  Precisely what Senator Mitchell's proposal is is to get to the bottom 
of this matter and not have extraneous, irrelevant matter brought 
before the committee to unnecessarily consume the time of the committee 
and of the U.S. Senate.
  We do have other work to do, in health care and welfare reform, in 
dealing with the budget, and in dealing with some 13 appropriation 
bills; the authorization bill for our armed services is coming before 
the Senate in just a few days; many, many items that are truly the 
first business of the Senate.
  I think, Mr. President, that the majority leader has offered a 
reasonable resolution, one that complies with our constitutional 
challenges and obligations and certainly one that complies, I think, 
with the wishes of the American people in attempting to find out 
whatever facts in the Whitewater matter that would be revealing to us 
in this body.
  Mr. President, I see other speakers seeking the floor and, at this 
time, for the moment, I do yield the floor.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, the time has come, and this afternoon 
is the time for choosing. Washington is divided today in this Congress 
between two opposing camps. The first is made up of those who expect 
Congress to do its job and to exercise the oversight in this matter 
that it has been elected to do.
  The second is made up of those who would do whatever it takes to 
block a complete congressional investigation--an investigation which, 
at the very least, would be embarrassing to the President.
  While there are many cases, and there have been many, that make 
immediate Whitewater hearings necessary, the trail of intrigue began 
when people started looking into specifics of the overall Whitewater 
scandal, and how the failure of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan came to 
cost the taxpayers of this country millions and millions of dollars.
  Mr. President, when Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, he 
appointed Beverly Bassett Shaffer, a personal friend and political 
crony, to head the Arkansas equivalent of the FDIC.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished Senator from 
North Carolina would yield for a question.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Yes.
  Mr. PRYOR. What is your definition of a political crony?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Someone who has contributed, worked in your campaign, 
been a political friend and worked closely with you on the same 
programs.
  Mr. PRYOR. Is this a sinister relationship?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Is this what?
  Mr. PRYOR. Is this a sinister relationship?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. It is a relationship that went on with Bill Clinton 
and this Beverly Bassett Shaffer. She worked in his campaign. She was a 
personal friend. And if that does not make her a political crony, I do 
not know what would.
  Mr. PRYOR. Is it wrong to appoint a political and personal friend to 
an office or to a position of public trust?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. No.
  Mr. PRYOR. Is the Senator from North Carolina saying this was wrong?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. No, I am not saying it is wrong.
  But if you will let me finish her relationship and how it turned out, 
it was wrong.
  Mr. PRYOR. I would certainly like to listen to the accusations that I 
assume are forthcoming, because I can attest that this is a very fine 
person. She is an excellent attorney. There has never been any 
allegation of wrongdoing against Mrs. Shaffer. I look forward to 
hearing what the Senator from North Carolina is going to say about this 
so-called crony of then Governor Clinton.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I promise you, you will hear immediately.
  In 1985, Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan was insolvent, and it should 
have been shut down by Beverly Bassett Shaffer, who had the authority 
to so do. But, instead, Madison Guaranty hired Hillary Clinton--the now 
President's wife, the then Governor's wife--and the Rose Law Firm to 
lobby Beverly Bassett Shaffer, Mr. Clinton's appointee, to allow them 
to use Mrs. Clinton's legal analysis that said Madison was solvent. 
This is documented.
  Ignoring warnings from professionals inside her own department to get 
an outside legal opinion, rather than to accept that from the Rose Law 
Firm's attorney, Mrs. Clinton, Beverly Bassett Shaffer --the Clinton's 
friend--accepted Mrs. Clinton's legal opinion.
  Incredibly, a supposedly independent regulator accepted the opinion 
of a $2,000-a-month lawyer for the savings and loan that was supposed 
to be regulated. And she did it in a letter which began ``Dear 
Hillary.''
  The rest is history.
  In 1989, Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan was shut down. Hillary 
Clinton's lobbying of her friend on behalf of Madison cost the American 
taxpayers some $60 million.
  Yet, incredibly, after the FDIC shut down Madison, who did the 
Government retain to represent the taxpayers who had just been robbed? 
The Rose Law Firm. The same law firm that had cost the taxpayers 
millions now got $400,000 in fees from the Government to address the 
problem that they themselves had helped create.
  If that sounds like playing both ends against the middle, it gets 
worse as you go on. The lawyer that the Rose firm put on the case was 
none other than Webster Hubbell--who went on to be the number three 
man, as we all know, in the Justice Department.
  What is more, one of the largest outstanding bad loans at Madison 
Guaranty was owned by a man named Seth Ward, an officer in the Madison 
subsidiary of Madison Guaranty, and the father-in-law of Webster 
Hubbell.
  Now, who do you think Seth Ward's partner in this venture was? None 
other than Webster Hubbell. What is more, documents released by Jim 
Leach, ranking Republican on the House Banking Committee now establish 
that funds from Madison Guaranty were diverted to personally benefit 
Governor Bill Clinton and his investment in Whitewater Development Co. 
Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Webster Hubbell, and the Rose Law Firm 
used cronyism and political connections to rob the taxpayers at the 
beginning, the middle, and the end of the Madison Guaranty Savings and 
Loan fisaco. Yet the supposedly independent Resolution Trust 
Corporation still refuses to turn over relevant Madison Guaranty 
documents to Representative Leach or to Senator D'Amato. Additional 
evidence is surfacing that the Madison Guaranty scandal is not an 
isolated incident, but part of a larger pattern on the part of personal 
and political friends of the Clintons, of using access to regulators of 
federally insured financial institutions for personal enrichment. There 
are new revelations almost every day. Many have already heard about Dan 
Lasater, the cocaine dealer who was pardoned by Bill Clinton.
  They have heard how he met Bill Clinton's mother at the horserace 
track in Hot Springs, AR, and how Lasater then gave Clinton's half-
brother, Roger, a job and paid off his drug debts.
  They know how he sponsored fundraising parties for Bill Clinton at 
his offices throughout the State, how he made his airplane available 
for Bill and Hillary Clinton, and how he bankroled the Clinton 
campaign. They also have heard how he then was able to earn millions of 
dollars business for his firm from the Arkansas State government as a 
result of personal support from the Clintons.
  Before he was jailed for trafficking in cocaine, Dan Lasater was sued 
by First American Savings & Loan in Oak Brook, IL. The Federal 
regulators then hired Vincent Foster and Hillary Clinton, who then 
settled the case with their old friend--out of court and in a 
confidential settlement--sealed--that cost the taxpayers several 
million dollars.
  In 1987, Dan Lasater began serving a prison sentence after giving 
Patsy Thomasson--who is today a top White House official--the power of 
attorney to manage his assets. Keep her name in mind, Mr. President. It 
will come up often.
  But what many people have not heard the story of yet another soap 
opera involving Dan Lastater and Hillary Clinton's law firm, Home 
Federal Savings and Loan of Centralia, IL.

  Incredibly, it turns out that the FDIC also hired Vincent Foster and 
the Rose law firm to represent the taxpayers in another case against 
their old friend, Dan Lasater. This time it was a $4.6 million suit 
against Lasater's company for unauthorized trading the Home Federal's 
Treasury Bond futures account.
  As if that were not incestuous enough, Dan Lasater's defense attorney 
in the case was yet another lawyer with ties to the Rose law firm.
  It turns out that Thomas Mars, a Rose law firm attorney who was 
supposed to be suing Dan Lasater in the First American Case, a few 
months later began defending Lasater in the Home Federal case.
  Neither Vincent Foster nor Thomas Mars notified the FDIC of the 
conflict of interest. Because Mars had worked on the First American 
case, he had inside information which gave him an advantage in 
negotiating a settlement for Dan Lasater in the Home Federal case.
  The result? Vincent Foster advised the FDIC's agent in the case, King 
Betz--who was not told about Lasater's ties to the Clintons--that they 
could not get any more than $250,000, and to settle. Mr. Betz was also 
never told that Thomas Mars had previously worked with Vincent Foster 
and Hillary Clinton on the FDIC's First American case.
  I think King Betz put it best when he learned--after the fact--of the 
incestuous connection. He simply said, ``He can't do that!'' Well, Mr. 
President, he did. The American taxpayers picked up the check, and now 
they have the right to expect their U.S. Senators to at least 
investigate the matter.
  Mr. President, Vincent Foster cannot testify about what happened with 
Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan. He cannot testify about what 
happened with Dan Lasater and First American Savings and Loan.
  He cannot testify about Home Federal Savings and Loan and his 5 cents 
on the dollar settlement with his old associate from the Rose law firm.
  Vincent Foster died under very mysterious circumstances. His office 
was searched for 2 hours after his death by Margaret Williams, Hillary 
Clinton's chief of staff, and by Patsy Thomasson--the cocaine 
trafficker Dan Lasater's legal agent I spoke of earlier. Patsy 
Thomasson is now a top White House assistant.
  They were aided by Bernard Nussbaum, then the White House legal 
counsel, and a lawyer who specializes in white collar crime. He went 
through Vincent Foster's papers and did not permit investigators to 
examine any documents he uncovered in the search.
  He then transferred files relating to the Whitewater Development Co. 
to a personal lawyer for Bill and Hillary Clinton.
  The office was searched for a suicide note. One could not be found. 
Six days later, an undated and unsigned note mysteriously appeared in a 
briefcase that had been previously searched by Bernard Nussbaum in 
front of Federal agents. It was torn into 28 pieces, yet had no 
fingerprints on it.
  Mr. President, the legal agents of President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, 
and the convicted cocaine trafficker who is implicated in the two cases 
I just spoke of, admit that they removed documents from Vincent 
Foster's office which directly related to Madison Guaranty.
  No one knows what other files were removed. The agency Hillary 
Clinton wants to put her hanging out friend Ricki Tigert in charge of, 
the FDIC, is investigating any number of Whitewater cases. And we want 
to put Ms. Clinton's favorite hanging out friend in charge of the FDIC.
  Mr. President, there are specific instances that require 
investigation, yet we still have no congressional hearing and no 
rational person can defend the coverup. The U.S. Senate should be 
holding hearings this afternoon. Members of Congress who are aware of 
many, many more facts in the whole web of intrigue that has 
collectively come to be known as Whitewater, know that the whole matter 
will not go away. There is not any way we are going to sweep it under 
the table. It has to be investigated.
  I am proud to join my colleagues in supporting this call for 
immediate hearings on the matter, complete and total hearings.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first, let me indicate that I had apparently 
given the majority leader sort of a consent agreement that we thought 
would give us opportunities to offer amendments and also to try to 
shorten the debates so we could maybe conclude action on this matter 
fairly quickly.
  I ask unanimous consent that that consent agreement be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Whitewater Consent

       I ask unanimous consent that S. 1491 be temporarily laid 
     aside and the majority leader be recognized to offer a Senate 
     resolution regarding Whitewater, and it be subject to the 
     following agreement.
       That following any opening statements regarding the Senate 
     resolution by the majority leader, the Senator from New York, 
     Mr. D'Amato or his designee be recognized to offer a 
     substitute amendment on which there be--hours for debate, to 
     be equally divided in the usual form, and that no amendments 
     or motions be in order, prior to the vote on or in relation 
     to the D'Amato substitute.
       I further ask unanimous consent that following the 
     disposition of the D'Amato substitute, if agreed to, the 
     Senate proceed to adoption of the Senate resolution, without 
     any intervening action or debate.
       Finally, I ask unanimous consent that if the D'Amato 
     substitute is tabled or defeated, the resolution be open to 
     further debate and amendments, and that no call for the 
     regular order serve to displace the Senate resolution.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it has already been referred to a number of 
times by colleagues on both sides what we did last March. It seems like 
a long time ago. By a vote of 98-0 the Senate directed the two leaders 
to determine the scope and the timetable and the forum for hearings 
into the so-called Whitewater affair.
  And I will say that during the past 2\1/2\ months, the distinguished 
majority leader and I have attempted to fulfill this mandate. We have 
met numerous times. We have exchanged correspondence detailing our 
proposals and counterproposals. Our staffs have met and attempted to 
iron out the differences.
  I guess it is fair to report--it has already been indicated by the 
action this afternoon--that we have reached an impasse. At this time, I 
think further discussions would probably not serve any useful purpose.
  Let me add that throughout this process the majority leader has acted 
in good faith, and I wanted to thank him for his willingness to sit 
down and attempt to find some common ground. But the bottom line is, we 
have not found the common ground. The common ground eludes us, and we 
continue to disagree on several key issues.
  The majority leader insists that the bulk of Whitewater falls within 
the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee, and I agree that the Banking 
Committee has a big, big stake. But there are numerous Whitewater-
related issues, and I am not making any accusation of anybody. I am 
saying these are issues that have been raised in public. I never made 
any statement that would accuse anybody of anything, that I can recall.
  But there are other Senate committees that have jurisdiction over 
some of the allegations that have been made.
  The Small Business Committee has interest in diversion of SBA-backed 
funds from Capital Management Services to the Whitewater partnership.
  The Judiciary Committee has an interest in the Justice Department 
handling of the RTC criminal referrals, and in the delayed recusal of 
the U.S. attorney in Little Rock from the prosecution of David Hale.
  The Energy Committee has an interest in examining how park police 
handled the investigation into the tragic death of Vince Foster.
  The Finance Committee has an interest in various tax issues raised by 
the Whitewater transaction.
  The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has general oversight 
responsibilities.
  And the Agriculture Committee may wish to examine the First Lady's 
commodities trades, which press reports indicate may have been used to 
pay off some of the interest on the Whitewater loans.
  The majority leader insists the full Banking Committee should be the 
exclusive forum for a hearing. Normally around here, we have select 
committees. I agree with the Senator from Arkansas, we are not trying 
to run up the tab here, and if we had such a committee, we would have 
to make certain that we had staff from other committees detailed, and 
things of that kind, to hold down the cost.
  So I do not quarrel with anybody who says the last thing we need is 
to give somebody a blank check and say go out and start an 
investigation. We proposed the creation of a special select committee 
equally divided between Democrats and Republicans and composed of 
various committees of jurisdiction, including the Banking Committee.
  After this proposal was rejected, in an attempt to accommodate the 
majority leader's concerns, I suggested the establishment of a special 
subcommittee within the Banking Committee. But, unfortunately, the 
second proposal was rejected as well.
  So I requested that we determine at the outset, with a degree of 
specificity, those issues that would be subject to the hearings. The 
majority leader has never directly responded to the specific list of 
hearing subjects that I proposed to him.
  But I will just go back and suggest that even in the resolution 
passed March 17, 1994--which is on page S. 3176 of the Congressional 
Record--it says:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Congress has a 
     constitutional obligation to conduct oversight of matters 
     relating to the operations of the Government, including any 
     matters related to governmental investigations which may, 
     from time to time, be undertaken.

  That is the first point I would make. We have an obligation; it is in 
the Constitution. There are about five basic laws that give us 
oversight responsibilities and, in my view, we are not meeting our 
responsibilities. We are letting somebody by the name of Fiske decide 
what we will do and when we will do it and how much we will do.

       The majority leader and the Republican leader should meet 
     and determine appropriate timetable, procedures, and forum 
     for appropriate congressional oversight, including hearings--

  And this is what we agreed to, 98-0.

     including hearings on all matters related to Madison Guaranty 
     Savings and Loan Association, Whitewater Development 
     Corporation, and the Capital Management Services, Inc.

  Now we have sort of narrowed the scope. By a vote of 98-0, we were 
going to make a thorough investigation. Now we are going to let that be 
determined by Robert Fiske, who somehow is going to have this veto over 
Congress, and he will decide what we do and when we do it.
  If anybody wants to vote that way, that is certainly their 
prerogative. I think it may be the reason why some people think it is 
time for a change in the Senate of the United States. This is certainly 
a partisan effort by the Democrats. They have the majority. I do not 
think we would act the same if we were in the majority, but we would 
like to be given the opportunity to see what would happen. That may 
come, because if we are going to be limited on what we can do and when 
we can do it and how we can do it, and have to wait to get the approval 
from some bureaucrat hired by the Government to make an investigation--
and he is a fine man; I have no quarrel with him, but we have some 
responsibilities, too.
  So I want my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to understand this 
issue is not going to go away. We do not have the votes. The majority 
party has the votes. I assume this will be a party-line vote, and it 
will be a very limited hearing, very limited in scope, very limited in 
telling the American people anything about anything. Then we are 
supposed to accept that because we are the minority; we have 44 Members 
and the majority has 56.
  I just say, we probably will revisit this a number of times. It is 
not that we do not have confidence in the Banking Committee, but we 
would like to have a committee where you have equal number of 
Republicans and Democrats.
  I did not bring the chart, but we had some 27 investigations of 
Republican branch actions during the 12 years President Reagan and 
President Bush were in the White House, because the Democrats had a 
majority in Congress most of those years. And even in some of those 
years when Republicans had a majority, we investigated our 
administration.
  Now we do not have any desire on the part of Democrats at all to have 
any investigation. They say, ``Oh, first you want a special counsel, 
then you got the special counsel. Now you want something else.'' Nobody 
said if we got a special counsel that would be the end of it.
  So we do not have any specificity. Everybody is going to take the 
Fiske, as I said. We are going to let Mr. Fiske determine what the 
Congress does. Mr. Fiske will tell us what we can do. If we have 
reached that point in the Senate of the United States, we are fairly 
powerless to do much of anything.
  So I have never questioned the importance of cooperation when we can 
with the independent counsel. I have always insisted the Senate has its 
own job to do. On the other hand, we want to use this incremental 
approach, allow Mr. Fiske to be the traffic cop by telling us if and 
when it is appropriate to conduct our oversight hearings and on what 
subjects. So we have one person, one person telling the Congress of the 
United States, 100 Senators and 435 House Members, well, maybe next 
week you can investigate this little piece. Then if you are good boys 
and girls next week we will let you investigate this little piece. It 
will not be a full-blown investigation but circumscribed by an act of 
the Senate what you can do in the committee.

  It just seems to me it is sort of a sad day in the Senate when we 
have to take this and like it. So he is going to tell us when to stop 
and when to go. Stop and go, stop and go.
  And we are supposed to finish all these, according to the majority 
leader's resolution, by the end of this Congress. We are not even going 
to start until late July, or maybe even August. Then there is an August 
recess. Then it is September. This is an election year. We will not be 
here very long in October. But we are told we have to file the report 
no later than the end of the 103d Congress. I guess we could come back 
after the election and continue the hearings, and I assume that would 
be our hope.
  About all I can say about this resolution is that it is going to be a 
confirmation that we are going to have some hearings, although we 
thought we had that confirmation on March 17 when we passed by a vote 
of 98 to 0 we would have hearings. So now it is March, April, May, 
June, and we are told we might have hearings in July.
  Mr. Fiske has been out there 5 months looking around. He is probably 
doing a great job and maybe when he gives us permission he will write 
us a little note and say it is all right for the school to begin this 
class; if I have any problems about any of the questions asked in the 
committee, we will send somebody up from our office and say, ``Oh, you 
can't ask that question, Mr. D'Amato; you can't ask that question, Mr. 
Murkowski.'' So we are going to have this special counsel running the 
whole show.
  Now, if he wants to run for the Senate, that is fine. If he wants to 
be in the Senate, that is fine. But we have some responsibility, too. 
We got elected. We have oversight responsibilities.
  What about the other issues? What about hearings on SBA loans? What 
about the Justice Department issues? What about the RTC's handling of 
criminal referrals, the Whitewater transaction itself, the important 
S&L regulatory issues? After all, the failure of Madison Guaranty cost 
the taxpayers approximately $50 million, perhaps $60 million. That is a 
fairly substantial sum to most Americans. Around here we throw around 
billions. Maybe $50 million does not deserve more than a 2- or 3-day 
hearing. But to the American people it deserves a 2- or 3-day hearing 
or 2- or 3-month hearing if necessary to find out precisely what has 
happened.
  So does Mr. Fiske have veto authority, as I said, or is this just a 
sophisticated way of passing the buck?
  Now, we ought to be sensitive to his investigation. We have never 
said we would not be sensitive. We have given him a 5-month head start. 
We have agreed not to grant immunity to any hearing witness over Mr. 
Fiske's objection, thereby solving the so-called Iran-Contra problem.
  But, Mr. President, ``taking the Fiske'' should not become an excuse 
for abdicating our own oversight responsibilities.
  Mr. Fiske, as I said, is no doubt a fine person and fine lawyer. But 
as I have said before, the independent counsel job is criminal and 
civil prosecution. Congress' job is full public disclosure, public 
oversight. Mr. Fiske was appointed by the Attorney General. We were 
elected by the people of the United States, whether it is Wisconsin, 
whether it is Kansas, whether it is Alaska, whether it is New York, 
whether it is Kentucky or whether it is Arkansas.
  We were elected by the people of the United States. Mr. Fiske gets 
his mandate from a Department of Justice regulation. Our mandate, the 
Senate's mandate, comes from the Constitution itself. And let us not 
forget there are plenty of precedents for holding congressional 
oversight hearings while civil and criminal investigations are 
underway. Michael Deaver, BNL and BCCI all come to mind.
  So anticipating a potentially adversarial hearing, I have insisted 
that the rights of some Senate Republicans be protected. I have 
specifically requested either cochairman--Democrat and Republican--
should be authorized to issue subpoenas, direct staff to obtain 
testimony of witnesses under oath, schedule hearings, and call 
witnesses to testify. But all those have been rejected.
  This is going to be a majority show. The Democrats are going to 
determine who is called and who is subpoenaed and what the 
investigation is going to be about. I have urged that the Senate 
special subcommittee be authorized to hire additional staff, including 
special investigators and outside counsel, and that additional 
resources from the contingent fund of the Senate be made available on 
an equal basis to the two cochairmen. The majority leader has agreed to 
allowing the Chairman of the committee to hire additional staff, but he 
has not agreed to equal distribution of these new resources.
  So the point is we have agreed on some issues, but on the major 
issues there has been no agreement. As I have said, the bottom line is 
that any agreement eludes us.
  This amendment reflects the last formal proposal by the Senator from 
New York and myself, and I think every other Republican will cosponsor 
this. It is virtually identical to the resolution introduced before the 
recess by my distinguished colleague from New York, Senator D'Amato. 
What our resolution would do is to create an 18-member special 
subcommittee on the Banking Committee, which would be charged with 
conducting all aspects of the Whitewater hearings. Ten members of the 
Banking Committee would sit on the new subcommittee. The 
remaining eight members would be selected by the majority leader and 
myself from those committees with a jurisdictional interest in 
Whitewater. He would select four and I would select four. There would 
be nine Republicans and nine Democrats, fair. Fair, just as the Ethics 
Committee is three and three--fair. Do you want the perception of 
fairness or do you want--what is the ratio on the Banking Committee, if 
might ask the Senator from New York?

  Mr. D'AMATO. It is 11 to 8.
  Mr. DOLE. You know how many votes we will win if the Democrats have 
11 and we have 8--zippo, none, unless there is a change.
  So there is precedent for this approach. In 1989, the Banking 
Committee established a special subcommittee to investigate the alleged 
abuses of HUD.
  In 1980, the Judiciary Committee also established a special 
subcommittee to investigate the so-called ``Billygate'' affair. The 
unanimous-consent agreement creating this subcommittee provided that 
two members of the Foreign Relations Committee could serve as 
subcommittee members.
  The resolution does not lay out a hard and fast timetable for 
hearings. Instead, it establishes the forum for hearings, the scope of 
the hearings, the powers of the subcommittee, and then directs the two 
cochairmen--it seems to me this ought to be the two cochairmen--to 
consult with Robert Fiske about scheduling.
  We are sensitive to Mr. Fiske. We are sensitive. We understand there 
are problems. And it should not be left to the leaders. It ought to be 
left to the committee that is going to have jurisdiction, the Senator 
from Michigan [Mr. Riegle] and the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato]. 
They are both very capable, very intelligent, and will do a good job if 
given the opportunity.
  It would have been my preference to resolve this matter off the floor 
of the Senate. Let me again say that we have tried in good faith with 
the majority leader and the Republican leader, but we have failed. In 
this case we could not come to agreement. And if we continue to delay, 
the big winners will be the stonewallers and the foot draggers, and the 
big losers will be the American people, who deserve nothing less than a 
full and complete accounting of the entire Whitewater affair.
  Let us not forget--and I think we should not forget--that these 
hearings are in the best interests of President and Mrs. Clinton. 
Rather than causing more political heartburn, a full public hearing of 
Whitewater should stop the drip, drip, drip of allegations and put this 
matter to rest once and for all.
  Mr. President, this amendment should pass today, but if it fails we 
will be back probably again and again.
  Now, we understand, of course, where the votes are. But I would hope 
that some of my colleagues on the other side will go back and take a 
look at other select committees and how they were composed, and the 
numbers of Republicans, numbers of Democrats, the authority and the 
powers given to each side, and maybe somehow we can break this 
gridlock--this gridlock we have had month after month after month.
  And I do not see the press writing about any gridlock on Whitewater. 
If it was something Republicans were holding up for 2 days, we would be 
accused of gridlock. We have been at this starting last December--
December 21. So it seems to me that maybe people would counsel 
patience. So we were patient: January, February, March, April, May, 
June, and now we are told, well, maybe in July, the 29th of July. It 
will probably get into August. If Mr. Fiske says yes, then we can 
proceed on this very limited basis with hearings.
  I do not see how we are going to accomplish very much. We are not 
going to accomplish very much, as hard as you try and as sincere as 
everybody is on that committee. And what is going to happen if somebody 
asks a question, let us just say about commodities, when there is a 
witness up there.
  Is somebody going to say you cannot answer that question? Is Mr. 
Fiske going to run up and say, ``Hold it. I am not investigating 
commodities''?
  So it seems to me that we are getting ourselves in a box. We are 
getting ourselves in a corner. If there are going to be hearings at 
all, they will be right before the election. I do not think that would 
be the most desirable time for hearings.
  But even though the press has been fairly quiet on Whitewater, the 
facts are there. The allegations are there. As I have said at the 
outset, I have never made any that I recall--if I did, I apologize--any 
allegations about anybody who might be guilty of any violation of any 
law. But that is our job to find out. And perhaps no one was in 
violation of any rule or any regulation or any statute. So we are not 
going to know, because we have to wait for the special counsel.
  In speaking about the special counsel, I wanted to correct the story 
that appeared in the Washington Post today. I just quote. It said:

       Dole first demanded appointment of a special counsel, even 
     though he blocked passage of legislation in 1992 to extend 
     authority for appointment of independent counsel. Then, when 
     one was named, he called for congressional hearings.

  The reality is that my first move on Whitewater was the request for 
hearings in a letter to Senator Riegle of December 21, 1993. It was not 
a request for special counsel. In addition, my call for a select 
committee preceded by a few hours Attorney General Reno's decision to 
appoint a special counsel. So my opposition to independent counsel is 
not inconsistent with my support for a Whitewater special counsel. I 
opposed reauthorization of the independent counsel statute in part 
because it was unnecessary. The Attorney General already has the 
authority to appoint a special counsel in extraordinary cases, as she 
did in this case.
  I just wanted to make that correction for the Record, because some 
people read stories in papers. Otherwise, I found no problem--well, it 
would be better if I had written it by myself. But, in any event, that 
is beside the point.
  I say to the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee that I do 
not know how long, but I assume sooner or later we will vote.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side to think about the 
ramifications and the precedent we are setting here today. We are 
setting a precedent. They are not always going to be in the majority. 
It may be us next year. It may be us 2 years from now. But if this is a 
precedent that we are going to set: When you have your own party in the 
White House, when you have the majority in the United States Senate, 
you try to shuffle this off to some little--I do not say little 
committee in that sense--but to some committee which does not have 
total jurisdiction, and let people come in and ask questions but not 
have any voting powers, including some from the Judiciary Committee, 
then I think we set a precedent that, in my view, will haunt somebody, 
if not this year, next year or the next year. It will come back, 
because what goes around always comes around.
  (Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, will the leader yield?
  Mr. DOLE. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. D'AMATO. The leader was intimately involved in drafting this 
March 17 sense-of-the-Senate resolution--I note it is a sense-of-the-
Senate--to say we go forth with hearings.
  I agree with the fact that it says ``including hearings on all 
matters related to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association.''
  Is the leader aware that the March 17 resolution was a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution, and that the resolution that is before us now at the 
desk leads us to the point where we cannot even talk to the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation and ask what they did or did not do with 
the Whitewater matter? Does the leader agree?
  Mr. DOLE. I think that is correct. In the event that the resolution 
is adopted, I hope we will have a chance to amend it and put in the 
very precise language we used on March 17, which passed the Senate by a 
vote of 98 to 0.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Under the legislation that is at the desk today, we 
could not even ask the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation how they 
made some of their findings--nor could we ask the Office of Thrift 
Supervision. That is how limited this legislation is. It has prevented 
the Congress from doing exactly what we all said we wanted to do on 
March 17. That was to review all matters related to Madison Guaranty 
Savings and Loan Association.
  So I certainly do not think it was the intent on the 17th of March 
when the leader sponsored this, to limit us so severely in the 
hearings. Was it, Mr. Leader?
  Mr. DOLE. My view is that, in fact, it was a compromise, or something 
worked out between the leadership and others on both sides, in good 
faith. We were talking about all matters. Now we are talking about 
three matters, and only when Mr. Fiske sends us a little note telling 
us it is OK for those of us in the Senate, who are elected by the 
people of the United States, to proceed, as long as he wants us to 
proceed. Then he will say stop, go, stop and go. This could last for a 
long, long time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I wonder if I could ask the 
Republican leader to yield on that point, because I want to make sure 
that I understand correctly.
  The vote that we had, which was passed 98 to 0, to authorize the two 
leaders to address a procedure that would allow the Senate to initiate 
the process of investigation encompassed all matters. Clearly, that was 
the interpretation. But what has come out as a consequence of the 
proposal by the majority leader is not something that covers all 
matters, but something that is limited basically to three items.
  In the Republican leader's discussion with the majority leader, I 
assume that there was no agreement on this limitation. That simply was 
a proposal by the majority leader as a second-degree amendment to the 
D'Amato matter which is before this body.
  So this was initiated in a constrictive manner, just the three items, 
which was contrary to the Republican leader's agreement, as I 
understand it. Because, as I read it, it says the majority leader and 
the Republican leader should meet and determine the appropriate 
timetable, procedures, and forum for appropriate congressional 
oversight and on all matters regarding Madison Guaranty Savings, and so 
forth and so on.
  Mr. DOLE. Let me just say that I think, based on the question, it 
might be helpful to put in the exchange of correspondence the majority 
leader and I have had. We have never made our correspondence public. We 
operate in good faith. But I do not think there would be any objection 
because it talks about the scope. And in my letter, I outline the scope 
in 12 different areas--14 different areas, including No. 14, which is 
``Any issues developed during or arising out of the hearings.'' Because 
something is going to come out of the blue, just as it did, and you 
remember Watergate. Somebody asked about recording devices. You have to 
have some protection there on the scope.
  So I ask unanimous consent the exchange of correspondence be included 
in the Record at this point.
  I modify that. I ask unanimous consent that my letters to the 
majority leader be included in the Record. He can determine whether or 
not his answers should be in the Record. So only my letters to the 
majority leader.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                              Office of the Republican Leader,

                                   Washington, DC, March 22, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear George: I am writing as a follow-up to the sense of 
     the Senate resolution passed last week. The purpose of this 
     letter is to outline what I believe to be the various options 
     available to us as we attempt to implement the resolution.
       As you know, the resolution expresses the ``sense of the 
     Senate'' that the hearings should be ``structured and 
     sequenced in a such a manner that . . . they would not 
     interfere with the ongoing investigation of Special Counsel 
     Robert B. Fiske, Jr.'' In my view, the best way to achieve 
     this goal is to empower a single committee with the exclusive 
     authority to examine all of the so-called Madison/Whitewater/
     Capital Management allegations. As you may know, a number of 
     committees and subcommittees have a jurisdictional interest 
     in one or more of these allegations. These committees and 
     subcommittees include: (a) the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
     and Urban Affairs; (b) the Committee on the Judiciary; (c) 
     the Committee on Small Business; (d) the Committee on Energy 
     and Natural Resources (and more specifically, the 
     Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests); 
     (e) the Committee on Finance; and (f) the Permanent 
     Subcommittee on Investigations.
       It appears there are at least four options:
       1. Special Committee. One option would be to establish a 
     Special Committee. To ensure that no questions are raised 
     about the Special Committee's impartiality, the Special 
     Committee should be composed of an equal number of Democrats 
     and Republicans and co-chaired by two Senators. One co-
     chairman would be chosen by you, and the other co-chairman 
     would be chosen by me. The remaining members of the Special 
     Committee would be designated by the Chairman and Ranking 
     Member of each of the committees and subcommittees that have 
     a jurisdictional interest in the Madison/Whitewater/Capital 
     Management allegations. For example, the Chairman and Ranking 
     Member of the Small Business Committee would each designate a 
     member of that committee to serve on the Special Committee.
       At a minimum, the Special Committee should have the 
     authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of 
     obtaining testimony and for the production of documentary 
     or physical evidence. Obviously, a more detailed 
     description of the powers and mandate of the Special 
     Committee would have to be outlined either in a Senate 
     resolution creating the Special Committee, or in a 
     mutually acceptable charter.
       2. Multiple Hearings. A second option would be to allow 
     each committee and subcommittee with a jurisdictional 
     interest in the Madison/Whitewater/Capital Management 
     allegations to conduct its own hearings. To expedite this 
     process, we could both agree on a list of hearing subjects, 
     the appropriate committee or subcommittee to conduct each 
     hearing, and a timetable for the hearings.
       3. Select Committee. A third option would be to establish a 
     full-fledged Select Committee. Like the Special Committee, a 
     Select Committee should be composed of an equal number of 
     Democrats and Republicans and co-chaired by two Senators, one 
     selected by you and the other selected by me. Unlike the 
     Special Committee, all of the members of the Select Committee 
     would be chosen by the two Leaders. As you know, creating a 
     Select Committee would require passage of a Senate 
     resolution.
       Earlier this year, my staff prepared a Select Committee 
     resolution, which I would be happy to share with you.
       4. Joint Hearings with the House of Representatives. 
     Earlier today, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly 
     adopted a resolution that is virtually identical to the 
     resolution passed by the Senate last week. In light of this 
     development, perhaps the Senate and the House should conduct 
     hearings on a joint basis. The obvious benefit of this 
     approach is that it would minimize interference with Mr. 
     Fiske's investigation.
       George, it is my hope that we will able to settle the 
     ``timetable, procedures, and forum'' for hearings shortly 
     after we return from the Easter recess. During the recess, 
     our respective staffs should meet to refine the process.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Bob Dole.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                              Office of the Republican Leader,

                                   Washington, DC, April 11, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     Office of the Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear George: As a follow-up to my letter of March 22nd and 
     our discussions prior to the Easter Recess, I am enclosing a 
     proposal to establish a Special Committee to examine the 
     Allegations concerning Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan 
     Association, Whitewater Development Corporation, and Capital 
     Management Services.
       Please let me know what you think of the proposal and how 
     you would like to proceed.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Bob Dole.
       Enclosure.

         Whitewater Special Committee Proposal--April 11, 1994

       The sense of the Senate resolution provides that hearings 
     should be ``structured and sequenced in such a manner that . 
     . . they would not interfere with the ongoing investigation 
     of Special Counsel Robert J. Fiske, Jr.'' The best way to 
     achieve this goal is to empower a single committee--a Special 
     Committee--with the exclusive authority to examine all of the 
     allegations concerning Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan 
     Association, Whitewater Development Corporation, and Capital 
     Management Services Inc., as well as other similar 
     allegations. Creation of a Special Committee with subpoena 
     authority requires a unanimous consent agreement or passage 
     of a Senate resolution.
       A number of Senate committees and subcommittees have a 
     jurisdictional interest in one or more of these allegations. 
     For example:


                           Banking Committee

       Jurisdiction: The independence of Federal regulatory 
     agencies, including any improper contracts among officials of 
     the White House, the Treasury Department, the Resolution 
     Trust Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and any 
     other Federal agency.
       The RTC's internal handling of the criminal referrals 
     concerning Madison Guaranty.
       The RTC's pursuit of civil causes of action against 
     potentially liable parties associated with Madison Guaranty.
       The policies of Federal regulatory agencies regarding legal 
     representation of the agencies, including conflicts of 
     interest and cost controls.
       The operations, insolvency, and regulation of Madison 
     Guaranty and its affiliates.
       The relationship among Madison Guaranty, its affiliates and 
     Whitewater.


                          judiciary committee

       Jurisdiction: The Justice Department's handling of the 
     RTC's criminal referrals concerning Madison Guaranty.
       The delay recusal of the U.S. Attorney in Little Rock from 
     the prosecution of David Hale.
       Issues of public corruption, including allegations of Hobbs 
     Act violations.


                        small business committee

       Jurisdiction: The relationship between the lending 
     practices of Capital Management Services Inc. and the Small 
     Business Administration, including the diversion of Small 
     Business Administration funds to Susan McDougal and 
     Whitewater.


  Energy Committee (Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks, and 
                                Forests)

       Jurisdiction: The Park Police investigation into the death 
     of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster.


                           Finance Committee

       Jurisdiction: Issues related to personal, corporate and 
     partnership tax liability.


                Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

       The following is a summary description of the Special 
     Committee, the proposed scope of its investigation, and its 
     powers:
       Membership. The Special Committee shall have an equal 
     number of Democrats and Republicans. The Majority Leader 
     shall appoint one co-chairman and the Republican Leader shall 
     appoint the other co-chairman. The remaining members of the 
     Special Committee shall be designated by the Chairman and 
     Ranking Member of each of the committees and subcommittees 
     that have a jurisdictional interest in the Madison Guaranty/
     Whitewater/Capital Management allegations.
       Scope. The Special Committee shall be authorized to examine 
     all matters related in any way to: (1) the operations, 
     solvency, and regulation of Madison Guaranty and its 
     affiliates, including the alleged use of federally-insured 
     funds as campaign contributions; (2) the relationship among 
     Madison Guaranty, its affiliates, and Whitewater; (3) the 
     management and business activities of Whitewater, including 
     issues of personal, corporate, and partnership tax liability; 
     (4) the policies of Federal regulatory agencies regarding 
     legal representation of the agencies, including conflicts of 
     interest and cost controls; (5) the independence of Federal 
     regulatory agencies, including any improper contacts among 
     officials of the White House, the Treasury Department, the 
     Resolution Trust Corporation, the Office of Thrift 
     Supervision, and any other Federal agency; (6) the Resolution 
     Trust Corporation's internal handling of the criminal 
     referrals concerning Madison Guaranty; (7) the Resolution 
     Trust Corporation's pursuit of civil causes of action against 
     potentially liable parties associated with Madison 
     Guaranty; (8) the Justice Department's handling of the 
     Resolution Trust Corporation's criminal referrals 
     concerning Madison Guaranty; (9) the delayed recusal of 
     the U.S. Attorney in Little Rock from the prosecution of 
     David Hale; (10) the relationship between the lending 
     practices of Capital Management Services Inc. and the 
     Small Business Administration, including the diversion of 
     Small Business Administration funds to Susan McDougal and 
     Whitewater; (11) the Park Police investigation into the 
     death of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster; (12) 
     the operations and underwriting activities of the Arkansas 
     Development and Finance Authority; (13) any other issues 
     related to the subjects listed in sections 1-12 above; and 
     (14) any issues developed during, or arising out of, the 
     hearings.
       Subpoena Authority. The Special Committee shall be 
     authorized to issue subpoenas for the purpose of obtaining 
     testimony and for the production of documentary or physical 
     evidence. A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the 
     Special Committee, acting through either of two co-chairmen.
       Immunity. The Special Committee shall not have the 
     authority to grant immunity to any witness over the objection 
     of Independent Counsel Robert Fiske.
       Public Hearings. The Special Committee shall conduct public 
     hearings, unless a majority of the committee votes to conduct 
     a hearing in closed session.
       Staff. The two co-chairmen of the Special Committee shall 
     have the authority to appoint staff. All committee staff 
     shall work for the Special Committee as a whole and shall 
     report to the two co-chairmen. To reduce costs, staff should 
     be detailed from existing committees, including the Permanent 
     Subcommittee on Investigations. The two co-chairmen shall 
     also be authorized to appoint additional staff, including 
     staff investigators and outside counsel.
       Funding. Such sums as may be necessary shall be made 
     available from the Contingent Fund of the Senate to enable 
     the Special Committee to fulfill its responsibilities. Funds 
     may be used to defray the reasonable expenses of the Special 
     Committee, including staff salaries and travel and lodging 
     expenses.
       Public Reports. The Special Committee shall make a final 
     report to the Senate, summarizing the results of its 
     investigation and including any recommendations for 
     legislative action. The Special Committee may also make any 
     interim reports it considers appropriate.
       Timetable. The Special Committee, acting through the two 
     co-chairmen, shall conduct hearings on an incremental basis. 
     Prior to each hearing on a separate subject, the two co-
     chairmen shall consult with Independent Counsel Robert Fiske 
     to discuss how to conduct the hearing in a way that minimizes 
     interference with Fiske's investigation.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                              Office of the Republican Leader,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear George: Thank you for your letter of April 14th.
       Although I disagree with your conclusion that committees 
     other than the Banking Committee have a ``minimal'' 
     jurisdictional interest in the Whitewater/Madison Guaranty/
     Capital Management allegations, I am prepared to accept your 
     proposal to allow the Banking Committee to be the exclusive 
     forum for hearings. In order to proceed on this basis, 
     however, we would first have to reach agreement on the 
     following points:
       a. The Banking Committee should be authorized to examine 
     all relevant issues. For example, notwithstanding the 
     Judiciary Committee's clear jurisdictional interest, the 
     Banking Committee must be authorized to examine the Justice 
     Department's handling of the Resolution Trust Corporation's 
     criminal referrals concerning Madison Guaranty.
       b. Members of other committees who would like to 
     participate in the hearings, as well as in the Banking 
     Committee's investigative activities, should be given this 
     opportunity. For example, members of the Small Business 
     Committee should be given the opportunity to attend, and 
     question witnesses at, any Banking Committee hearing convened 
     to examine the relationship between the lending practices of 
     Capital Management Services Inc. and the Small Business 
     Administration.
       As an alternative, membership on the Banking Committee 
     could be temporarily expanded during the course of the 
     hearings. For example, each of the two Leaders could appoint 
     two additional members to the Banking Committee. This 
     temporary appointment would expire once hearings are 
     concluded.
       c. The scope of the Banking Committee's hearings should be 
     as broad as the scope of the Special Committee hearings 
     proposed in my letter of April 11th. In other words, the 
     Banking Committee must be authorized to examine all matters 
     related in any way to: (1) the operations, solvency, and 
     regulation of Madison Guaranty, its affiliates, other 
     McDougal-controlled entities, and other federally-insured 
     institutions, including the alleged use of federally-insured 
     funds as campaign contributions; (2) the relationship among 
     Madison Guaranty, its affiliates, and Whitewater; (3) the 
     management and business activities of Whitewater and its 
     shareholders, including issues of personal, corporate, and 
     partnership tax liability; (4) the policies of Federal 
     regulatory agencies regarding legal representation of the 
     agencies, including conflicts of interest and cost controls; 
     (5) the independence of Federal regulatory agencies, 
     including any improper contacts among officials of the White 
     House, the Treasury Department, the Resolution Trust 
     Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and any other 
     Federal agency; (6) the Resolution Trust Corporation's 
     internal handling of the criminal referrals concerning 
     Madison Guaranty; (7) the Resolution Trust corporation's 
     pursuit of civil causes of action against potentially liable 
     persons associated with Madison Guaranty; (8) the Justice 
     Department's handling of the Resolution Trust Corporation's 
     criminal referrals concerning Madison Guaranty; (9) the 
     delayed refusal of the U.S. Attorney in Little Rock from the 
     prosecution of David Hale; (10) the relationship between the 
     sources of funding and lending practices of Capital 
     Management Services Inc. and the Small Business 
     Administration; (11) the Park Police investigation into the 
     death of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster; (12) the 
     operations and underwriting practices of the Arkansas 
     Development and Finance Authority; (13) any other issues 
     related to the subjects listed in sections 1-12 above; and 
     (14) any issues developed during, or arising out of, the 
     hearings.
       d. The Banking Committee should be empowered to hire 
     additional staff, including staff investigators and outside 
     counsel. To reduce costs, staff should also be detailed from 
     other committees, including the Permanent Subcommittee on 
     Investigations.
       e. To enable the Banking Committee to fulfill its 
     responsibilities, additional resources from the Contingent 
     Fund of the Senate should be made available on an equal basis 
     to the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
       f. The Banking Committee should conduct public hearings and 
     make a final report to the Senate, summarizing the results of 
     its investigation and including any recommendations for 
     legislative action. The Banking Committee may also make any 
     interim reports it considers appropriate.
       g. As you know, the Banking Committee has the authority to 
     issue subpoenas for the purpose of obtaining testimony and 
     for the production of documentary or physical evidence. The 
     Chairman and Ranking Member of the Banking Committee should 
     each be authorized to (1) issue subpoenas on behalf of the 
     Committee, (2) under oath, (3) schedule hearings, (4) call 
     witnesses to testify, and (5) take other appropriate actions.
       h. Last December, Chairman Riegle turned down Senator 
     D'Amato's request for Banking Committee hearings, stating 
     that ``the present investigative efforts by the Justice 
     Department in the Madison Guaranty case should run their 
     course without Congressional interference. A formal 
     investigative effort by our Committee, if authorized by the 
     Senate, would require the subpoena of documents and witnesses 
     and public hearings that could have the effect of undermining 
     later prosecutorial efforts that may be undertaken by the 
     Justice Department.''
       Delaying Congressional hearings until Independent Counsel 
     Robert Fiske has fully completed his investigation would be 
     an abdication of the Senate's oversight obligations. 
     According to Mr. Fiske, such a delay is also unnecessary, 
     since he himself agrees that Congress can craft a timetable 
     for hearings that minimizes interference with his 
     investigation. To develop such a timetable, the Chairman and 
     Ranking, Member of the Banking Committee should consult with 
     Mr. Fiske at the earliest possible time so that hearings can 
     begin promptly.
       George, I look forward to hearing from you.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Bob Dole.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                              Office of the Republican Leader,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear George: Thank you for your letter of May 23rd 
     concerning hearings into the Whitewater affair. I am pleased 
     that we have agreed that the Banking Committee should be the 
     forum for these hearings.
       As an alternative to the approach suggested in your letter, 
     let me propose the establishment of a 16-member Special 
     Subcommittee within the Banking Committee. The Subcommittee's 
     membership would be determined as follows: The Chairman and 
     Ranking Member of the Banking Committee would each designate 
     five members of the Banking Committee to sit on the Special 
     Subcommittee. You and I, in our capacities as Majority Leader 
     and Republican Leader, would also each designate three 
     Senators from other committees with a jurisdictional interest 
     in Whitewater to sit on the Special Subcommittee. The 
     Chairman and Ranking Member of the Banking Committee would 
     serve as co-chairmen of the Special Subcommittee.
       There is precedent for the subcommittee approach. In 1989, 
     the Banking Committee established a special subcommittee to 
     investigate the alleged abuses at the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development. In 1980, the Judiciary Committee also 
     established a special subcommittee to investigate the so-
     called ``Billygate'' affair. The unanimous consent agreement 
     authorizing the establishment of this subcommittee provided 
     that two members of the Foreign Relations Committee could 
     serve as subcommittee members.
       As I indicated in my letter to you, dated April 26th, it is 
     critical that the two co-chairmen of the Special Subcommittee 
     (or the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Banking Committee, 
     if we go that route) are each authorized to (1) issue 
     subpoenas on behalf of the Subcommittee, (2) direct staff to 
     obtain the testimony of potential witnesses under oath, (3) 
     schedule hearings, (4) call witnesses to testify, and (5) 
     take other appropriate actions.
       It is also critical for the Subcommittee to have adequate 
     resources to conduct its investigation and prepare for 
     hearings. As a result, the Subcommittee must be authorized to 
     hire additional staff, including staff investigators and 
     outside counsel. Staff from other committees should be 
     detailed to the Subcommittee with the approval of either of 
     the two co-chairmen. Additional resources from the Contingent 
     Fund of the Senate should also be made available on an equal 
     basis to the two co-chairmen. Finally, the Senate Legal 
     Counsel and the General Accounting Office should be 
     authorized to provide assistance, if requested.
       I understand your desire to delay taking any action until 
     the House Bipartisan Leadership meets with Robert Fiske on 
     Thursday, May 16. Nevertheless, it is my hope that we can 
     agree on the points outlined in this letter prior to this 
     meeting.
       George, I look forward to hearing from you.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Bob Dole.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, if I could have a clarification, the 
agreement that we voted on to have all matters be addressed is contrary 
to what the majority leader has put forth in his proposal, which is 
limited. So we have something that is contrary to what was agreed upon 
by this body by a vote of 98 to 0.
  Mr. DOLE. It seems a fair reading of the resolution adopted on March 
17. It leaves no other interpretation.
  Let me yield the floor in just one moment.
  Let me make it clear. I have no idea what Mr. Fiske will determine. I 
do not have any. I have never talked to Mr. Fiske. I do not think I 
should talk to Mr. Fiske. The majority leader, I think, has the same 
view. The leader should not be talking with him. Maybe he is about 
ready to release some report.

  But I think this is a piecemeal approach where we have to beg for 
opportunities here from the special counsel. In effect, what can we do 
today, Mr. Fiske? Can we do anything tomorrow, Mr. Fiske? Can we do 
anything next week, Mr. Fiske? If we are good, can we do something the 
following week, Mr. Fiske? Would you please check us out, Mr. Fiske? 
And is it all right to ask this question, Mr. Fiske?
  I think we are getting pretty far afield because we are setting a 
precedent here. If anybody can find any precedent for any kind of a 
Rube Goldberg committee we are setting up, then I will back off. But 
what we are giving is the most limited ability that is possible to 
conduct a hearing.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, if the leader will yield just for a 
question, as the leader reads the legislation proposed by the majority 
leader, I would note that it would seem to me that even if Mr. Fiske 
said that he saw nothing wrong with us going into this or he had no 
objection--by the way he, in essence, sent the letter to me that 
basically says he has no objection to us going into an area. Of course, 
we have the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the trading of 
commodities. We still could not do that under the very narrowly drawn 
legislation that is pending at the present time.
  Mr. DOLE. It is not fair to the American people. You never are going 
to determine what happened. There are other areas where he is not going 
to claim jurisdiction, and we could have hearings on them right now.
  Mr. D'AMATO. As the leader points out, I mention we proposed that 
those issues were developed during the course of hearings because it 
was only after we had the initial RTC hearing that we ascertained that 
there were contacts between the White House and the Treasury. 
Undoubtedly, there will come over facts. So if we were to determine 
other relevant facts we cannot even look into them. That is the way I 
read this legislation.
  What is the leader's observation?
  Mr. DOLE. That is why we had this number 14, this provision that said 
if something did come up during the hearing you could pursue it.
  I would think in any event you ought to have that right. Again, who 
knows? Maybe Mr. Fiske could not let us do it. Of course, we cannot do 
anything without clearing it with Mr. Fiske.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, if I could ask the Senator from New 
York a question as to how the committee would function.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader has the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  I wonder if I could ask the Senator from New York how he would 
envision the committee would function as proposed by the majority 
leader? Eleven to eight I believe the structure of the Banking 
Committee is, 11 Democrats and 8 Republicans.
  Under the limited scope of three subjects proposed to be 
investigated, if you got into a discussion as to whether an additional 
matter that came up as a consequence of a question was appropriate, 
would you have to go to a vote each time? How would you decide how you 
were going to proceed in the committee as to whether or not this fell 
within the scope of the amendment the majority leader has proposed?
  Mr. D'AMATO. There is no doubt that the amendment presently before us 
is so narrowly drawn, so tightly construed that there would be a very 
chilling impact and, as a practical matter, would make legitimate 
oversight all but impossible. It makes a sham of oversight.
  If you read the scope, ``(A) communications between officials of the 
White House and the Department of Treasury or the Resolution Trust 
Corporation relating to Whitewater Development Corporation and 
Madison''--communications? Does it talk about ownership? Does it go 
into the area of oversight of thrift supervision and what was their 
relationship and what they observed, or can we bring them in, or the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and how they made certain 
determinations that made the selection of counsel of the Rose law firm 
and how they regularly made determination which reasonable people could 
question?
  Notwithstanding that this falls right within the jurisdiction of the 
Banking Committee, it would seem to me the committee would have no 
ability to respond to these questions.
  So the Senator's question I would say is not even a question of 11 to 
8. It is a question of the fundamental authorization and the scope of 
the inquiry that denudes the committee of any ability to ascertain the 
facts.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. What kind of discipline could exist within the 
committee, this special committee structure, the Banking Committee, 
under the majority leader's proposal to determine whether or not you 
could pursue a subject? Who would make that decision?
  Mr. D'AMATO. The majority leader's legislation would so inhibit the 
committee and even the committee chairman if you wanted to go into 
areas beyond as it relates, for example, to the March 17 legislation 
sense of the Senate. We talked about Capital Management Corp. It is not 
there. If anybody wanted to tie in any of the activity of the Capital 
Management that is the question that exists, that is the Small Business 
Administration loan for $300,000 and whether or not it was directed or 
not directed, whether funds went into Madison, we cannot go into it.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The committee could not go into any of the facts 
basically.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Notwithstanding, I would say, with the goodwill of the 
chairman of the Banking Committee, he would reasonably be precluded by 
saying, look the legislation will not permit us to raise that issue, 
and we would have votes of 11 to 8. We would be precluded. Indeed one 
who would read the legislation would say, ``Oh, no, you cannot go into 
this area.''
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. You could potentially be tied up in a series of votes 
within the committee as to whether or not you can pursue a subject to 
find out any factual information.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Undoubtedly that would be the case.
  Even worse would be the fact that you would have little to argue 
given the severe limitations that this legislation puts on. The 
restrictions placed by this legislation on the committee would make 
even the most bipartisan nonpartisan member say and rightfully say we 
cannot go into this area because we do not have the authority. And that 
would be the ruling of the Chair, and we would effectively preclude any 
reasonable investigation, including other agencies that have dealt in 
the timely manner with even the limited area that they talk about, like 
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may ask the Senator from New York, if we take the 
third item that the majority leader has included within the limited 
scope of the committee's jurisdiction--the way in which White House 
officials handled documents in the office of White House Deputy Counsel 
Vincent Foster at the time of his death. What does that mean? Does that 
mean we can examine those documents, we can find out what those 
documents were, we can ask for those documents? Or what does ``handled 
documents'' mean?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I see where this would raise great questions as to 
whether or not we were entitled to the documents, the question of 
privilege, et cetera.
  Again, it really begs the question of ascertaining whether or not 
taxpayers' moneys were used and diverted from Madison into Whitewater.
  By the way, when we are asked questions----
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. In the Senator's opinion, could we see what was 
contained in the documents that were found in Vince Foster's office?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I would say that the drafting of this legislation would 
certainly reasonably give the ability to the right of the majority to 
challenge whether or not we could actually see the documents.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Because under the interpretation of the way in which 
White House officials handled documents would not give the scope of 
authority to the committee to find out what those documents were.
  Mr. D'AMATO. That is correct. It leaves a question of whether we can 
subpoena the documents up in the air and would leave one with the 
ability to argue that we do not have the right to subpoena those 
documents. We have the right to know how they handled them but not even 
to see the documents. That could reasonably be inferred as a result of 
the drafting of this legislation in this manner.
  It creates an appearance that we are going to have a committee that 
has oversight but then we take away the ability of the committee to 
conduct meaningful, comprehensive oversight in the truest tradition of 
the Congress, and that is to follow related matters and materials that 
are developed from the hearings.
  We do not even have that as a provision that you would say every 
committee has a right. Not even that is there.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I noted the second portion covers activities of the 
Park Service, police investigation into the death of White House Deputy 
Counsel Vincent Foster. There is no reference to the circumstances 
being pursued as to the cause of death. Could you have available the 
autopsy report that has been withheld?
  It seems so narrow that one could conclude that any factual 
information could be simply deleted because it was not within the scope 
of the committee's jurisdiction under the majority leader's amendment.
  Mr. D'AMATO. It could severely impede even that aspect of the 
investigation that probably has attracted more attention than, or at 
least as much attention as, any single area.
  But certainly one could think of a number of questions such as 
whether or not you could examine the autopsy report, the questions of 
how when the FBI came, what the FBI was permitted to do, what the FBI 
was told, and what the FBI was not told.
  The legislation as drafted will prevent the committee members from 
pursuing some of the most basic underlying questions involving even 
section C as outlined.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Could this committee ask questions whether federally 
insured deposits at the failed Madison Guaranty Savings were, say, 
diverted, as has been alleged, to Governor Clinton's 1984 campaign?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Absolutely not. This committee would be precluded from 
going into some of the basic questions that have been raised. That is 
what this legislation does.
  This legislation does not empower a committee to undertake an 
examination of what took place. This legislation inhibits a committee 
from fully undertaking its constitutional responsibility.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Would it be able to determine if federally insured 
Madison deposits were diverted to pay the Clinton's share of the 
Whitewater debt, which has been alleged?
  Mr. D'AMATO. It absolutely does prohibit exploring this issue making 
it impossible to ascertain whether or not taxpayers' money went into 
the Whitewater project and, therefore, what Whitewater losses were 
incurred by taxpayers.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Would the committee, under the majority leader's 
proposal and second-degree amendment, be able to determine whether, 
after Madison became insolvent, favoritism or conflicts of interest or 
falsification of financial audits presented to State regulators by the 
Rose Law Firm permitted Madison to remain open?
  Mr. D'AMATO. The committee would not be permitted to examine the 
basic question of whether there were abuses by the independent 
regulatory authorities that permitted this situation to take place, or 
was there any interference by the authorities.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Finally, would the committee be able to inquire as to 
whether or not Governor Clinton applied pressure to encourage the Small 
Business Administration to grant a loan that was not permitted to be 
made by the SBA?
  Mr. D'AMATO. They clearly would not. The committee would also be 
precluded from ascertaining whether taxpayers' money from the Federal 
Government lost as a result of this loan was diverted to Whitewater. 
This is a key area and an area that would be precluded by the majority 
leader's legislation.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If the Banking Committee on its own decided to hold 
hearings on Whitewater under the committee's traditional and basic 
jurisdiction, would the hearings be as restricted as those that have 
been proposed by the majority leader in his second-degree amendment?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Absolutely not. There would be no question that we could 
speak to the agencies involved, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, about the adequacies of 
their inspections, the adequacies of their reports, and whether or not 
there was a diversion of taxpayers' dollars.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. As I recall, although I did not listen to the entire 
debate when the majority leader presented his second-degree amendment, 
it seemed to me that there was some reaching out toward political 
opportunism associated with your amendment relative to its broader 
aspect.
  I am not sure that I quite follow the rationale of the majority 
leader for limiting this, other than he indicated that it potentially 
would interfere with the special counsel.
  Mr. D'AMATO. That is correct.
  If one were to look at the language in the legislation that we have 
proposed, we talk about working in consultation with the special 
prosecutor. We do not give him carte blanche to simply say no to 
reasonable requests. In the area of grants of immunity, it is quite 
clear that we have followed the intent of the March 17 resolution and 
we even go beyond what was initially offered by the majority leader to 
say we would not grant immunity unless the special prosecutor 
authorized it.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is hard to believe that our colleagues on the other 
side would want to support such a narrow and limited activity by the 
special committee that obviously would not address the questions that 
the American people are asking and that the media has given some 
inconsistent attention to but have assumed that the special counsel 
would be releasing its finding. And I think we are generally assured, 
by a vote of 98 to nothing, that the U.S. Senate would proceed with 
meaningful investigations.
  But now we are left with the reality that we have a proposal by the 
majority leader that limits the scope to such an extent that really the 
activities of the committee would be meaningless. They would not answer 
the questions of the American people. I question whether the American 
people will put up with that kind of a limited action by this body.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I think the Senator is absolutely right. This becomes 
meaningless. It is a charade. It is a shell game. It is putting a 
facade on an empty building structure that cannot be supported, because 
it is not intended to get to the facts. It is intended to cover up what 
has taken place. And that is exactly what it will do. If Members think 
that by voting for this they can say that they voted for a real 
investigation, a thorough one, that is a sham.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from New York for responding to the 
questions relative to the scope of the amendment that the majority 
leader has proposed. I think, again, we should reflect on what the 98 
to 0 vote meant that authorized the majority and minority leaders to 
enter into discussions on all matters.
  And, you know, it is hard, Madam President, to believe that nearly 12 
weeks have passed since this body voted 98 to zero to authorize the 
majority and minority leaders to enter into these discussions--and, 
again, on all matters. That was the agreement.
  Madam President the agreement has not been adhered to. One can read 
English. And if you look at the limited scope proposed by the majority 
leader, it is just that. It is limited to basically three areas. And it 
would tie up the committee in an impossible situation where they would 
be arguing over what was appropriate and germane under the authority 
given by this body, as opposed to the clear intent of the March 17 
resolution which was to address all matters.
  I hope the American public can understand the difference. It is not a 
matter of taking a political stand. It is a matter of the American 
public recognizing that, if this body is going to go into an extended 
hearing process, it has to be meaningful.
  And I think the media has to recognize that there is a significant 
difference between the amendment offered by the Senator from New York 
to get to the bottom of this and the limited scope of the majority 
leader's substitute. To suggest that it is because it is going to 
interfere with the special prosecutor just does not hold water.
  Madam President, up until today, there has been little movement. The 
intent of the Senator from New York and many of us on this side of the 
aisle is that we wanted this process to proceed, we wanted hearings, 
and we felt that we would get cooperation on meaningful hearings.
  Now, it is a fact, in my interpretation, that the only reason the 
majority leader has put forth his alternative now is because our 
distinguished colleague from New York would simply not back off on his 
demand for hearings. And there is now no agreement on the framework for 
such hearings, the timing of such hearings, the scope of the hearings. 
Really, that is yet to come. We are just arguing over what it is going 
to encompass.

  We finally found out the intention of the other side. It is going to 
be very narrow.
  Madam President, I do not think it is difficult for the American 
public to assume after all this time that there is a concerted effort 
to block public hearings in the unrealistic hope that the questions 
surrounding Whitewater will disappear. But the questions surrounding 
Whitewater, as we all know, will not disappear. And they are not going 
to be swept under any rug.
  I hope the time comes soon when all of the questions relating to 
Whitewater will finally be answered. A time when the public will have 
the answers to the multiple questions surrounding Whitewater; a time 
when the President will be able to pursue his domestic and 
international agenda and have the issues related to Whitewater recede 
into the distant past. I say that genuinely, because we spent a lot of 
time on this. We are going to have to spend a lot more time. But 
further delay neither serves the President, serves the people, nor the 
interests of our Nation. It is now time to establish a timetable, a 
framework for the hearings, and get along with the business at hand.
  The amendment offered by Senator D'Amato would ensure that such 
hearings will go forward--he has proposed it in a nonpartisan manner--
and they will not interfere with the concurrent investigation being 
conducted by the independent counsel, Robert Fiske. And Senator 
D'Amato's amendment ensures all the questions--all the questions, not 
just some of the questions, but all of the questions--relating to 
Whitewater will be answered quickly and will be answered expeditiously. 
We will not be arguing over whether the committee has the authority to 
do so or not.
  By contrast, the substitute, as I have said, offered by the majority 
leader--and I really believe this; if it comes to this, it will be 
interesting to go back in the Record--but the substitute offered by the 
majority leader almost guarantees that Whitewater will drag on as a 
public issue for years to come.
  I read the majority leader's resolution. He is proposing that the 
U.S. Congress, a separate and equal branch of the Government, will 
defer its constitutional and statutory oversight responsibilities until 
the independent counsel, Robert Fiske, completes his investigation--or 
a portion of his investigation, whatever that means. In other words, 
this resolution grants the independent counsel the authority to 
determine when the American people are going to find out the facts 
associated with all the matters relating to Whitewater.
  Mr. Fiske is engaged in a broad criminal and civil inquiry into all 
of the issues surrounding Whitewater. The grand jury that is 
investigating Whitewater may be empaneled for a year, it may be 
empaneled for 18 months, maybe up to 2 years. Are the American people 
going to have to wait another 18 months, up to 2 years, before we can 
piece together what actually happened with regard to the insolvency of 
Madison Guaranty bank, which cost the American taxpayers anywhere from 
$47 to $60 million.
  Madam President, the amendment offered by the distinguished majority 
leader would permit the Banking Committee to hold oversight hearings 
only, as I have said, on three issues relating to Whitewater: One, 
communications--communications between officials of the White House and 
the Department of Treasury or the Resolution Trust Corporation relating 
to Whitewater and Madison Guaranty; second, the Park Service 
investigation into the death of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent 
Foster; and, third, the way in which White House officials handled 
documents. What does that mean? The way they threw them in the 
wastebasket? Filed them?
  Mr. GRAMM. The way they shredded them?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Does it mean anything about what is in the documents? 
We do not know.
  That is it. The committee will not be able to answer questions 
whether federally insured deposits at the failed Madison Guaranty 
Savings were diverted to Governor Clinton's  1984 campaign. Nor will it 
be able to determine whether the federally insured Madison deposits 
were diverted to pay the Clinton's share of their Whitewater debts. Nor 
will it be able to determine whether, after Madison became insolvent, 
whether favoritism, conflict of interest, and a false financial audit 
presented to State regulators by the Rose Law Firm permitted Madison to 
remain open. We do not know. Nor will the committee be able to inquire 
as to whether Governor Clinton applied pressure to encourage the Small 
Business Administration to grant a loan that was not permitted to be 
made by the SBA.

  These are questions that we cannot and will not be able to get 
answers to because of the limited scope proposed by the majority 
leader. And the question is, why? If we are going to have hearings, why 
are we not going to get to the questions that people have a right to 
know the answers to? We have an obligation to ask those questions and 
provide those answers.
  In fact, as I read this resolution, the committee will not be able to 
ask a single question--a single question--concerning the underlying 
issues surrounding Whitewater and Madison. Not a single question. The 
committee can only examine issues relating to communications the White 
House had, not the underlying fact questions relating to Whitewater. 
For the underlying facts, the nuts and bolts of Madison Guaranty's 
failure, the American public may have to wait 6 months, a year, 2 
years--as long as it takes Mr. Fiske to complete his investigation. 
Then we may have to put them together in a piecemeal process.
  Madam President, it is unprecedented for Congress to defer oversight 
investigations because a concurrent investigation is being performed by 
special counsel. We have held simultaneous independent counsel 
investigations when investigations involved high administration 
officials. Everyone remembers Anne Burford and the EPA Superfund. We 
had it then. It did not create any problems. We had simultaneous 
hearings involving Michael Deaver and Iran-Contra. We held hearings at 
the same time independent investigations were being conducted into the 
affairs of the BNL bank and BCCI. It worked. Why is it not going to 
work this time?
  This is something the majority leader has not really reflected on, 
and I think he has an obligation to do so. Because he is telling us 
that somehow it is different this time. Somehow it is so different that 
we cannot have a meaningful Senate hearing while special counsel 
proceeds. History just does not support that. I hope the American 
public pick up on it because it is important.
  Madam President, the time for partisan politicking on Whitewater, in 
my opinion, is long gone. It is Congress' responsibility under the 
Constitution and pursuant to several Federal statutes to exercise 
responsible and meaningful oversight responsibilities with regard to 
the issues related to Whitewater. Surely, our March 17 unanimous vote 
on hearings, meaningful hearings on all matters--not three matters; all 
matters--binds this body, these 98 Members, to adhere to that 
commitment not to go off and suddenly decide they are only going to 
take up three subjects, and then on those subjects, general terms, not 
specifics, not facts. The American public demands we answer all the 
questions associated with Whitewater and we do it now and we get 
started.
  So let us get this behind us. Let us complete these hearings as soon 
as possible. Let us review all the questions relating to Whitewater, 
not three questions this month and four questions in 10 months and 
another 15 questions 18 months from now.
  I urge my colleagues to support Senator D'Amato's amendment and 
reject the substitute offered by the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rockefeller). The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, if I might have the attention of the 
Senator from New York for the purpose of asking him just one or two 
questions? I am somewhat confused about the Senator's amendment versus 
the amendment of the majority leader. Let me precede my question by 
describing my understanding of where we are.
  Senator Dole indicated earlier, if we were to take the approach that 
has been advocated by some, that the Senate would be precluded from 
ever having a hearing on a matter that is under investigation by an 
independent counsel. That is not a precedent I think this Senate wants 
to set. Or, should the Senate be precluded from having hearings only 
when there is a Democratic President in the White House? I think that 
is not a precedent that should be set.
  I think there is legitimate concern on the part of the special 
counsel, who will be, perhaps, an independent counsel, that his 
investigation not be undermined by congressional hearings. This is one 
of the reasons I joined the Senator from New York in a meeting some 
time ago with Special Counsel Fiske to inquire as to whether or not the 
Senate could fulfill its obligations to conduct an investigation into a 
subject matter under its jurisdiction and of interest to the American 
people and do so in a way that would not undermine his investigation.
  At that time, Mr. Fiske stated publicly in a press conference that it 
would be his preference that no hearings be conducted while the matter 
was under investigation by his office, which is understandable. But he 
said that he would have no objection if he were allowed to conclude 
those matters pertaining to activities that occurred here in Washington 
and provided we would grant no immunity. Under those circumstances, 
even though he would prefer no hearings be held, he would not object to 
hearings going forward.
  It was based on that understanding that I believe the Senator from 
New York came forward and spoke with the minority leader who in turn 
spoke with the majority leader to see if such a structure could be 
arranged. The issue was whether we could structure a committee, be it 
the Banking Committee, an expanded Banking Committee, a select 
committee, but a committee that would conduct an investigation, and 
``sequence''--and I am using this word tentatively--the hearings so 
that they would not undermine the special counsel's investigation.
  It was my understanding by the use of that language of ``sequencing'' 
that a committee would be authorized to investigate all of those 
matters that the special counsel was investigating that occurred here 
in Washington. All of those matters that he was investigating that he 
would prefer that we defer any congressional action on were those 
matters that occurred in Arkansas.
  That was my understanding, and I think that was the arrangement that 
was reached as we voted on that matter some 2 months ago.
  My question is am I correct in assuming that if the amendment of the 
Senator from New York were to be adopted, that we envision a sequential 
hearing or set of hearings, dealing with events that occurred in 
Washington; that the special counsel would continue his investigation 
into Whitewater, those events that occurred many years ago, and as he 
concluded that investigation, we would then try to go forward at that 
point if appropriate?

  It sounded to me at the time to be a reasonable resolution of what 
obviously is a very hot political issue. At the same time, it should be 
clear that Congress should not be precluded by the mere appointment of 
a special counsel from investigating a matter.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Correct.
  Mr. COHEN. That is a precedent I think we should never set. Second, 
we do not want to have a double standard, one for Republican Presidents 
and one for Democratic Presidents. So I think we can agree on that.
  The next issue is how do we do this and maintain the integrity of the 
special counsel's investigation while insisting that Congress also 
fulfill its constitutional responsibilities?
  I thought the language that we had proposed that was agreed upon 
really made that clear. Now I am unclear what is going on in terms of 
the amendment of the Senator from New York and the second-degree 
amendment offered by the Senator from Maine, Senator Mitchell, that 
would limit hearings to three items only. That is not my understanding 
of the understanding we had with Mr. Fiske, the understanding that I 
think we had within the Senate membership 2 months ago. Mr. Fiske 
asserted to us at that time that it would take a matter of just a few 
weeks. I remember saying, ``Take a few months. Do not do it too 
quickly. Take a couple of months if you need a couple of months.'' But 
both he and the investigator said, no, we think we can conclude this in 
a matter of a few weeks and at that time, even though he preferred we 
had no hearing, he would have no objection to hearings provided no 
immunity was granted and we confined the inquiry into those matters 
that occurred in Washington during the Presidency, not 10 years ago, 8 
years ago, 5 years ago, not long before Bill Clinton became President, 
not those matters down in Arkansas.
  I thought that was a reasonable request on his part, and I thought 
our response was a reasonable one at the time. So I am somewhat 
confused now as to how that has been changed or interpreted or perhaps 
just ignored.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I believe the Senator's observation is correct; that we 
did agree to undertake sequentially the examination of witnesses and 
the conduct of hearings with the cooperation and consultation of the 
independent counsel; that we would not just subpoena any and all 
witnesses. We would give him first opportunity. We would advise him as 
we were moving ahead. Indeed, the language that we have submitted was 
intended to address that.
  Mr. COHEN. Just to clarify what the Senator from Alaska said--``we 
wanted to have full-blown hearings and investigate this time all 
matters pertaining to Whitewater,'' I think that goes beyond what our 
understanding was. My understanding was we would look at those matters 
pertaining to what occurred here in Washington during the 
administration because that is what Mr. Fiske was going to focus on and 
he felt he could conclude his investigation into those matters within a 
few weeks.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I think what the Senator from Alaska is saying and this 
Senator is saying and Senator Dole is saying is that we should not be 
precluded, as this resolution would do, from going into the full area 
as the March 17 resolution indicated. That resolution it said all 
matters related to Whitewater. But certainly we would undertake it 
sequentially as the independent counsel moved along. And, after all, as 
the Senator recalls, he was talking about 3 to 4 weeks. You are right 
when we said 6 weeks, 7 weeks, make sure, and here we are 10 weeks and 
we have not even set up the methodology of proceeding.
  Mr. COHEN. If I may make one other point. There has been some 
suggestion that perhaps the Senate has to wait until Mr. Fiske files an 
interim report. I do not know where the notion came about the interim 
report. Frankly, I would counsel any special counsel from filing any 
interim report on the basis of a few weeks' investigation. I think that 
it would be not foolhardy but at least risky on the part of a special 
counsel who only has a few weeks to conduct an investigation to file a 
report making a number of assertions because, as we know, that can be 
very shortsighted.
  So I do not know that the Senate should either insist upon or await 
the filing of a report. I think what is required is for Mr. Fiske to 
indicate that he feels, as he indicated before, that he has completed 
his investigation into this facet of this matter and that he would like 
for Congress to defer hearings on those matters currently under 
investigation down in Arkansas.
  I think that is entirely reasonable on his part, and I believe our 
response was a reasonable one. That is the way I would envision any 
kind of an investigation proceeding.
  But it also should not be set in precedent that we are precluded from 
now or in the future conducting an investigation whenever there is a 
special counsel. The current situation is something that is rather 
unique and we ought to take that into account, and we have done so I 
think in our representation to Mr. Fiske and his to us.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator from Maine yield for a question? 
Relative to your understanding of the meeting with the special counsel 
and questions regarding events in Washington vis-a-vis events in 
Arkansas, I would assume that you did not have any limitation on 
activities in Washington being all activities or activities in Arkansas 
being all activities as compared to limiting somehow activities in 
Washington the committee might feel appropriate to complete its 
investigation.
  Mr. COHEN. First of all, as a matter of principle, I do not think the 
Senate should agree to set as a precedent a limitation on the scope of 
its investigatory powers. That we ought not to do.
  In this particular case, what Senator D'Amato and I discussed with 
Mr. Fiske was that he was going to concentrate his investigation on the 
immediate circumstances surrounding, I assume, the suicide but also the 
activities of the RTC and others, inappropriate conversations, 
destruction of documents--all of those activities that occurred here in 
Washington.
  He also simultaneously was going to carry on his investigation into 
the allegations that go back 10 years. Now, my own feeling was that we 
ought to focus principally on what has occurred since the President 
assumed the office, for the time being, and that we leave Mr. Fiske the 
flexibility to go forward.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Will the Senator yield for an observation?
  Mr. COHEN. Yes.
  Mr. D'AMATO. And it is only for this reason, because I want a point 
of clarification. When the Senator said ``for the time being''----
  Mr. COHEN. Right.
  Mr. D'AMATO. In other words, as a matter of moving the process 
forward, that we would start in an area in which he essentially felt he 
had examined necessary witnesses. We even added that as we then went 
forward in the hearings we would tell him who we intended to subpoena 
so he would have first opportunity, if he wanted to examine them first.
  Mr. COHEN. It should always be a matter of comity, of trying to 
accommodate the respective interests of an independent counsel and 
Members of Congress.
  If I might point out this issue arose during Iran-Contra. I recall 
when Judge Walsh came to the select committee which was investigating 
that matter. He made a request that no immunity be granted to several 
key witnesses. We listened to his arguments. We responded by saying we 
had a concomitant obligation to carry forward. We would try to 
accommodate his needs by granting him a certain timeframe to gather all 
of his information, postponing any public testimony on the part of 
Colonel North or that of Admiral Poindexter and, hopefully, trying to 
reach a stage where we could accommodate his needs and ours.
  Now, it turned out through a court interpretation that it was not the 
right thing to do in the circumstances, in the sense of legally 
allowing this to go forward in this fashion. It precluded Judge Walch 
from successfully prosecuting those two individuals. But I think that 
the spirit was accommodation, one of comity.
  That has to also obtain here. We should not lock into precedent an 
agreement that whenever a special counsel has been appointed we are 
precluded from going beyond anything he suggests we do not go beyond.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Might I make an observation again just to that point, 
because I believe that our resolution addresses that problem--we are 
right on, but no one reads the legislation that we have submitted. The 
legislation that we have proposed, which came from this side of the 
aisle, the minority leader and others, deals with that. On page 18, I 
am just going to read two sentences:

       (A) to coordinate to the extent practical its activities 
     with the investigation of the independent counsel.

  That is designed exactly to deal with the issue and do it in a 
coordinated way. And then (B):

       The cochairmen shall meet with the independent counsel to 
     obtain relevant information concerning the status of the 
     independent counsel's investigation, to assist in 
     establishing a hearing schedule.

  It is exactly on point with the meetings and the understanding that 
we had with Mr. Fiske. He is now being used, unfortunately, by the 
Democrats as a shield. Mr. Fiske does not say  do not have these 
hearings; you do not have to restrict it to the extent they have. He is 
put forth as a shield. As he said, he would, as an investigator, like 
to have no hearings whatsoever, but he understood our role and our 
responsibility, and he thought that--given the manner in which we 
indicated to him we thought we would proceed, as encompassed in this 
resolution, he thanked us for our cooperation.

  Mr. COHEN. Let me finally conclude because my friend from Mississippi 
graciously allowed me to proceed to ask these questions. I think if we 
get into the business of trying to legislate specific areas which are 
ambiguous in themselves, it is going to create a charade during the 
hearings. I think the hearings will be contentious; they will be 
argumentative; they will not be productive. And perhaps that is the 
ultimate goal on the part of some. I hope that is not the case. 
Hopefully, the hearings are really designed to be illuminating. 
Obviously there is partisanship on both sides. We have to admit that. 
There are partisan attacks made on both sides, and there are strong 
political issues involved here.
  But it seems to me, to lock this in as narrowly as I understand the 
second-degree amendment is, it is going to invite a great deal of 
hostility, a good deal of contention, and probably result in absolutely 
no illumination but end in condemnation of Congress as a body itself.
  So if it has come to that, I think we just should simply defeat the 
amendment, or not hold the hearings, because I would not want to see 
any hearings held under those circumstances in which members are so 
constrained by ambiguous rules that you have to have a quorum call set 
up to get the special counsel's interpretations as to what would be 
appropriate or inappropriate. If that cannot be agreed on a gentleman's 
basis before we go in, it would be, I think futile and very damaging to 
hold the hearings, and I think it would be counterproductive for 
Congress and contrary to the interests of the American people.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senate, in fulfilling its constitutional 
duty, without question should hold hearings on this so-called 
Whitewater affair. There are two proposals in the Chamber for hearings 
as I understand it now. I regret I was not here for the discussion 
earlier, but I did have an Armed Services Committee markup session and 
could not be here for all of it.
  But any proposal this body agrees to should make sure that Senators 
have the right to ask any question they think might be pertinent to the 
subject, get any information that would be necessary to fulfill our 
duty. I support the proposal made by our colleague from New York, 
Senator D'Amato. His proposal allows Senators to have the authority and 
jurisdiction to truly get to the bottom of the Whitewater matter.
  Now, I have heard--and I am sure it is true--that there have been 
over 20 different congressional investigations during the last two 
administrations. Some of these investigations were serious and some 
were frivolous. In fact, I was involved in some of them. But all were 
serious in the sense that they had to do with this body's 
constitutional responsibility to do its job.

  Now, I want to know, where has the majority been when serious charges 
of malfeasance have been brought against this administration? You have 
a problem when you have one party that controls the White House and 
both bodies of the Congress. Where have the calls for hearings been 
this year? Is there any effort here by the majority to stifle hearings 
on Whitewater?
  At long last though we are having this debate this afternoon, and 
that is good because now we are making the point we need to have these 
hearings; we are getting specific about how and what will be the 
process in which they will occur.
  The leaders have negotiated, I am sure, in good faith, but they have 
been negotiating really for 12 weeks. It is long past time when these 
hearings should have already begun, and yet there is no resolution.
  In fact, we would not even have the majority leader's resolution here 
this afternoon if it had not been for the Senator from New York forcing 
the issue by offering the appropriate resolution on how these hearings 
should proceed and should be conducted. If we do not have hearings and 
have them soon, there will only be three words applicable to the 
situation: blatant, partisan politics.
  You have heard those words spoken earlier this year. Just a couple of 
weeks ago I believe we heard something to that effect. There is no 
justification, no reason to delay these hearings any longer. They 
should begin. They should begin soon. The only question is how do we 
arrange for that to happen.
  Now, I do want to ask one question of the Senator from New York. Not 
only have we no time and no arrangement for having these hearings, as a 
matter of fact the oversight hearings have just disappeared. There have 
not been oversight hearings in the applicable House committees where 
questions could be asked about this Whitewater matter. And as I recall, 
the Senator from New York and others--perhaps the Senator from Texas--
started asking some questions of Treasury Department officials and RTC 
officials, and all of a sudden the hearings stopped. No more hearings. 
No oversight hearings. No regular hearings.
  Now, I want to inquire. We know there have not been any hearings on 
Whitewater, but are other hearings occurring that ordinarily would be 
occurring where questions could even be asked in this arena?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I have to say that certainly in the House they have been 
stonewalled. We have had the one hearing, and while that was a hearing 
for a limited purpose, it resulted in the unearthing of the, I will say 
it, extraordinary meetings--extraordinary--between the Treasury 
Department and White House officials, with contacts right up to the 
Chief of Staff.
  I have to say that if that were taking place in a Republican 
administration, this Chamber would have had hearings conducted, and in 
no way would they have been limited and circumscribed as in this 
legislation. If we have hearings that would be conducted under these 
limitations, they will be worthless--worthless. We will be attempting 
to fool the people.
  So the Senator's observation about what we have been able to do is we 
have been precluding the Banking Committee and the Senate from 
undertaking its meaningful obligations.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for that.
  Mr. President, I guess those who think, well, if we just do not let 
this issue be discussed in the Senate, if we do not have hearings, it 
will just go away. But it will not. The people are asking questions. 
But more importantly than that, there are key questions that have not 
been investigated and have not been asked. There are allegations of 
conflicts of interest, illegal acts, many questions in a number of 
areas not covered by the majority leader's resolution that will sooner 
or later have to be investigated in hearings, held by this body. I 
think we should go forward with it.
  I want to make a couple of points with regard to the majority 
leader's specific proposal here. The scope is extremely narrow. It 
would limit the hearings to only White House, RTC-Treasury contacts, 
Park Police investigations, and White House handling of the Foster 
documents. As I understand it, it would be just those three areas. That 
does not even scratch the surface. That just barely would scratch the 
surface in so many areas where questions exist.
  It would also limit it to the full Banking Committee, without any 
effort being made to have more staff, really, although I think maybe 
there are some additional funds here to get a select committee or even 
a subcommittee, or get members of other committees that are 
knowledgeable, that have the proper questions that should be asked.
  It is not even clear to me--I guess it is clear--that if an issue is 
outside the jurisdiction of Banking and does not fit into one of these 
three categories, I guess there will be an effort to stifle questions. 
That will not fly. The Senate is not going to stand for that. The 
American people are not going to stand for it. Just think of what will 
happen if some U.S. Senator, representing thousands or millions of 
people, wants to ask a legitimate question. Is the chairman going to 
gavel him or her down and say they cannot ask the question? Baloney. 
That will not work.
  Also, the timing of the hearings: It is extremely interesting to me. 
Not next week. Not the week after, no. It does not even come until 
probably July 29. There is an either/or: no later than July 29, 1994, 
or within 30 days after the conclusion of the first phase of the 
independent counsel's investigation.
  There are so many problems with that that I will not even enumerate 
them all. But the interesting point is July 29. That is a curious date. 
I checked my calendar to see when that would be. That is a Friday. Does 
anyone here believe the Senate is going to have an opening hearing on 
the Whitewater matter on a Friday? No way. OK, so you are over to the 
next week. What is interesting about that, then there are only 2 weeks 
before the Senate goes out for the August recess work period, during 
which time the Senate will be gone for 4 full weeks. The goal here is 
to have a couple of weeks of hearings, limit the scope, do not let it 
get going too well, give it 2 weeks, cut it off, go home for the August 
recess, take a month, and everybody will forget about it.
  No deal, Mr. President. If we want to change that date to make it 
July 11 or 12, when we come back from the July 4th recess, or within 2 
weeks, as soon as the committee can be organized, that is fine. But not 
July 29. There is no justification for that kind of delay.
  Also, on the subpoena authority, I know that in the past, for various 
hearings, the committee determines who the subpoenas are issued to, or 
the chairman does that. But the fact of the matter is, when you have 
the White House and both Houses in the Congress controlled by the same 
party, do you think that Senator D'Amato is going to get to subpoena 
any of the key witnesses? Why, of course not. The majority will vote 
against that. The chairman will not allow that.
  Are we going to have full, complete, and honest hearings that will 
perhaps show that the President did nothing wrong, or are we going to 
have a charade? That is the question.
  We should vote for the D'Amato resolution, defeat the majority 
leader's resolution, and get on with serious hearings.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm].
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I know a lot of people are listening to 
this debate, trying to figure out if it is reasonable that we are 
asking that hearings occur on this conglomerate of matters related to 
the suicide of a high-ranking White House official, contacts between 
the White House and the RTC when the RTC was engaged in a criminal 
investigation that might have involved the First Family, or the 
handling of the documents related to the White House aide who committed 
suicide, and the whole question of Madison Savings & Loan and 
Whitewater.
  It seems to me that most people who are not lawyers do not know about 
legal precedent. So the only way they can determine whether this 
request is reasonable or not is by looking at what we have done in the 
past, what has been the standard procedure of the U.S. Congress with 
regard to hearings into possible wrongdoing by an administration and by 
people in an administration.
  It seems to me, Mr. President, that that is the relevant question. 
Under the standards that we have used in the past, is this request by 
the Senator from New York and by the Republican leader for hearings, 
broad-based hearings, reasonable, and based on the standards that we 
have set in the past?
  Well, we have asked the Congressional Research Service to go back and 
look at all of the hearings that we had during the last two 
administrations.
  In fact, in the last two administrations, on 26 occasions, the 
Congress has conducted investigations into the activities of the 
President, the White House staff, and members of the President's 
administration--on 26 occasions, we have held hearings.
  Much has been made out of the fact that, well, do we have a special 
case when there is a special prosecutor investigating similar matters? 
The point is, on at least four occasions in these 26 investigations, we 
had special prosecutors, but committee hearings were held, and 
investigations were wide open. They were thorough, and some of them 
lasted a long time.
  So on 26 occasions, when Ronald Reagan was President, when George 
Bush was President, we had Congressional investigations. And on four of 
those occasions, at a minimum, we had a special counsel in place 
investigating roughly the same matter.
  I want to remind people listening to the debate who may not remember 
all of those important hearings that these hearings covered a wide 
range of subjects.
  One of them was the so-called October Surprise. I know that this 
sounds like I made this up. But the report of a committee was presented 
to Congress and the American people in November of 1992. The allegation 
that was being investigated was that in 1980, 12 years before, Ronald 
Reagan and members of his campaign had secretly conspired with the 
Ayatollah in Iran to keep American hostages in Iran in order to effect 
the outcome of the Presidential election of 1980 in which Jimmy Carter 
was defeated.
  Two weeks ago, I found my picture on the front page of a tabloid in 
every grocery store in America identified as a space alien--and so did 
the Presiding Officer. I guess they discovered I was not from inside 
the beltway; I was from this far away, strange land called America. I 
was kind of flattered by it myself. My mother even liked it.
  I do not remember that even grocery store tabloids took this story 
seriously enough to write about it. Maybe they did. I admit to not 
being a regular subscriber.
  My point is this: In 1992 we had hearings on whether then Governor 
Ronald Reagan conspired with the Ayatollah in Iran to keep American 
hostages in Iran and, in fact, then-Senator Al Gore, now Vice President 
Al Gore, was so exercised over the matter--let me read to you what he 
said.

       I believe the air needs to be cleared. So I am today 
     calling for a formal investigation of these charges and 
     allegations without prejudicing what the investigation might 
     find but believing deeply that it needs to take place in 
     order to establish the truth or falsehood of the allegations 
     that have been made.

  I remind my colleagues this is now the Vice President of the United 
States.
  The date is 1992, an election year. The incredible assertion, as far 
as I know, did not even make the grocery store tabloids, that the 
Reagan campaign team and Governor Reagan might have conspired with the 
Ayatollah against Jimmy Carter, as if he needed any help in the 1980 
elections.
  Now we held these hearings.
  So anybody who asks the question is it reasonable that we are 
requesting that hearings be held on some of the most serious 
accusations that have ever been made against an administration in the 
modern history of the United States of America--now our colleagues on 
the left have said, ``Well, no, it is not reasonable that we should 
look into this.'' But the point is 26 times they looked into Ronald 
Reagan or George Bush or appointees in their administration on such 
trivial matters as conspiracies against Jimmy Carter by the Ayatollah 
and by Ronald Reagan. In fact, members on our left, including the now 
Vice President, felt so passionately about it that they demanded that 
hearings be held, and, of course, they were in the majority, and their 
demands were met.
  So, if anybody is asking themselves how reasonable is this, the point 
is, as everyone knows, if George Bush were still President, if similar 
accusations had been made, we would have been having hearings for the 
last 3 months. Nobody in this Senate, nobody knowledgeable about 
American government, would in any way deny that that would not be the 
case.
  I am astounded when I read about this that I do not see more people 
writing the obvious truth, that we are looking at an incredible double 
standard here. Twenty-six times Ronald Reagan and George Bush were 
investigated. Hearings were held even when special prosecutors were in 
place about trivial matters. And yet no one could possibly claim that 
the accusations that have been made and the documentation that has been 
presented do not constitute some of the most serious charges that have 
been leveled in the modern history of our Government.
  Now, we have not held a hearing on this matter, but we did have an 
RTC oversight hearing. This hearing was made up of the Secretary of the 
Treasury, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, the head of the Federal 
Reserve Bank, hardly people who were actively involved in the RTC 
investigation of Whitewater. They were before the committee to answer 
questions about the RTC. They were asked one question that turned out 
to be relevant, and the one question was, have the people engaged in 
the Whitewater investigations that might be related to the First Family 
and those who oversee them at any time  talked to the President, or the 
First Lady, or their staff, or people that they had hired for their 
defense? One question in a hearing that was not set up to deal with 
Whitewater, one simple question.

  Now what happened as a result of that one question, when we have so 
many of our colleagues who say there is no reason to hold these 
hearings, there is no significance to them? You know what happened when 
that one question was asked, 12 members of the White House staff were 
subpoenaed. The counsel to the President of the United States resigned.
  We had one question in a hearing where we did not have the relevant 
people, presenting nothing having to do with Whitewater, but from this 
1 hearing and 1 question, 12 subpoenas and the counsel to the President 
of the United States resigns.
  Well, that suggests to me that maybe a hearing might have some 
relevance. In fact, I do not remember under similar circumstances 
anything remotely similar to this ever happening in the years that I 
have been in Congress.
  So how our colleagues could say, ``Well, there are no questions to 
ask here, this is not relevant,'' in fact, it is very interesting 
because the parts of the investigation that we have been asked to delay 
asking more questions about came to light only because we asked the 
original question. I am not certain, and I see no evidence to suggest 
otherwise, that those questions would have ever been asked, that the 
subpoenas would have ever been issued, or that the counsel to the 
President of the United States would have resigned had not that one 
question at a hearing that had nothing to do with Whitewater been 
asked.
  Now, the final point I want to make is: I do not want to hold 
hearings if they are not going to achieve their objective. I do not 
want to do this unless when it is over we have settled the matter. I 
think we owe it to the American people and, quite frankly, I think we 
owe it to ourselves not to do it unless we are going to do it right. I 
think that something worse than not holding hearings is to do it under 
circumstances where we cannot ask the relevant people the relevant 
questions. I think under those circumstances we do not serve the 
process.
  I would also like to raise a point that has been made before, but I 
just want to set it in the context of what I am saying. It is very 
interesting to me that 12 weeks ago when we, in an effort for 
bipartisanship, voted 98 to 0 to set up a procedure to hold hearings 
and to have the two leaders set a timetable for the hearings, that we 
set out very, very broad parameters for those hearings, including 
hearings on all matters related to Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan 
Association, Whitewater Development Corp. and Capital Management 
Services, Inc., all matters. This was agreed to by the majority leader, 
who was a cosponsor of the resolution. It was voted for by 98 Members 
of the Senate. Nobody voted against it.
  Now, after 12 weeks where absolutely nothing has happened, where, 
quite frankly, we have seen incredible restraint by Republican Members 
of the Senate, when for 12 weeks the clock has run and nothing has 
happened, no agreement has been reached, every offer we made has been 
rejected, 12 weeks later we have an offer by the majority leader that 
limits the scope of these hearings to three relatively insignificant 
areas and does not even allow us to look at Whitewater, which is what 
the whole process is about.
  So my basic position is this: If we are not going to do it right, if 
we are not going to give both parties the ability to call witnesses and 
to subpoena, if necessary, and if we are not going to have the 
opportunity to look at all of the facts, I do not think we serve 
ourselves or the country to have these hearings.
  After holding hearings on 26 occasions during the last two 
administrations, I know that the Lord must indemnify politicians 
against the sin of hypocrisy. But, quite frankly, I cannot understand, 
to save my life, how anybody could have supported hearings on such a 
ridiculous assertion as whether the Ayatollah and Ronald Reagan 
conspired against Jimmy Carter. By the way, when the hearings were 
over, and naturally, the election was over, they determined that no 
such conspiracy occurred. I do not know how you can say that was 
relevant and Whitewater is not relevant.
  So here is, basically, my bottom line: We are going to vote on this 
every week. We are going to vote on this matter every week. We are 
going to vote on this matter until this is settled one way or the 
other. I know our colleagues are always talking about gridlock, always 
accusing us of gridlock, and I sometimes remind myself that, depending 
on the issue, gridlock may be a good lock on the smokehouse door. Maybe 
you need a lock on this door, I say to our Democratic colleagues.
  But the American people want the door unlocked. You held hearings 26 
times, on trivial matters for the most part. We are going to vote on 
this until finally there is an agreement. And it seems to me that when 
the process starts to slow down, when we are debating this thing 
endlessly and holding up the Senate, at some point somebody is going to 
say, well, this is gridlock.
  Well, I just want the Record to note that this is not our gridlock. I 
simply want to have real hearings if we are going to have real 
hearings. I am not claiming my time is so valuable, but I think the 
time of the Senate is valuable enough that there is no sense in holding 
hearings that are limited to areas that are basically unimportant.
  So I hope we can settle this, and I hope our colleagues will afford 
us the courtesy that they were afforded 26 times during the last two 
administrations. I do not have any doubt about the fact that we will 
ultimately hold hearings and they will be broad-based hearings. I just 
hope we do not end up tying up the process a long time waiting for 
people to come to their senses.
  I thank our colleague from New York. He has exhibited a lot of 
courage in this matter. I want him to know that his colleagues 
appreciate it. I think that when this is all over and we settle the 
matter one way or another, the American people will appreciate what the 
Senator from New York has done.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] is 
recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss some 
of the basic differences between congressional oversight and grand jury 
proceedings which show that the Congress should long ago have been 
proceeding to investigate the Whitewater-related matters and should not 
have been relegated to second-class citizenship, below the grand jury 
investigation, and to have waited in the wings, and now perhaps to be 
precluded at all from fulfilling a very important congressional 
constitutional responsibility.
  It may not be widely understood that the role of Congress goes beyond 
legislation and encompasses as a very important function the oversight 
function, to see what is happening with the agencies of the Federal 
Government. The savings and loan industry has functioned at a gigantic 
multibillion dollar loss to the American people and is an area which is 
prime for investigation and determination by the Congress. And that is 
true regardless of who is involved, what their rank may be, or what 
personalities may be involved.
  A grand jury has an entirely different function. It is an arm of the 
court and an arm of the prosecutor to bring witnesses into closed, 
secret proceedings to make a determination whether a crime has been 
committed. The enforcement of the criminal law is a very, very 
important process, but it is no more important than Congress' role in 
oversight on what is happening in the Federal Government. And the 
reality is that the congressional rule in oversight is much more 
important as a generalization than what a grand jury may be doing. A 
grand jury looks at matters and decides whether an individual ought to 
be prosecuted. The Congress looks, in oversight, to establish broad, 
general rules which apply not to individual matters or individuals, but 
to the whole panorama of Government.
  If you have to accept a generalization, the generalization is only 
that--there may be some criminal prosecutions which are more important 
than laws or corrective procedures which may result in oversight. But 
as a generalization, the congressional investigations are more 
important. There have been some monumental congressional 
investigations, like the Army-McCarthy hearings, where there was a 
clash between Senator McCarthy and processes with the U.S. Army, and 
those oversight hearings were of enormous import, much more important 
than most individual criminal prosecutions.
  We have had the famed Kefauver hearings, which were a little 
different, but matters of enormous importance. We had the famed Iran-
Contra hearings. At the drop of a hat, the House of Representatives and 
the Senate conduct hearings. You can wander through any one of our 
buildings and find hearings by the dozens. Not too many people pay too 
much attention to most of them, but the hearing function goes on on 
matters which are of much less importance than the kinds of 
considerations which are involved here.
  There has been considerable discussion on the floor of the Senate as 
to the deference which the Senate has given to the special prosecutor. 
I suggest, Mr. President, that it was overdone. The congressional 
hearings can be conducted in a way which will not interfere with the 
work of the special prosecutor, and I say that having conducted many 
grand jury investigations as a district attorney, not in the Federal 
system, but in the State system, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 
and they are very similar. There is no reason why a special counsel 
like a district attorney, or like a U.S. attorney, cannot proceed to 
conduct the work of the grand jury while the work of the Congress goes 
on at the same time.
  The Senate has overextended itself in terms of being deferential, so 
deferential that the Senate and the Congress are really accepting 
second-class citizenship, which is very bad for the institution of the 
Congress and very bad for the American people, because an exposure and 
an understanding of what went on here is most likely much more 
important than any prosecutions which may result. I say that probably 
because we do not know for sure what prosecutions may arise. But 
whatever prosecutions are justified by the evidence, they can be 
preserved, and you do not have to wait until the special counsel has 
finished his work. If you want to be accommodating, as has been the 
case here, then you can take those unusual procedures, but it does not 
require an absence or a cessation of any investigation by congressional 
oversight.
  What is really happening here, Mr. President, is that the 
institutions of Government are being subverted because of the 
particular personalities involved in the matter.
  It really does not matter whether it is the President of the United 
States or any other citizen of the United States, the ordinary 
processes of law ought to go forward. That was established by the 
Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Richard Nixon on the 
subpoena issue. Unlike other forms of Government, no person in the 
United States, man or woman, is above the law.
  We have sat back, and I have frankly been amazed by it, in terms of 
the institutional rule and the power of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives to conduct investigations, to allow our rights to be 
ignored and our responsibilities to be ignored.
  The specifics, Mr. President, have been debated extensively. Senator 
D'Amato has introduced a resolution calling for an investigation on 17 
items, all of which are integrally related to what the Senate has 
already voted on 98-to-0. That resolution is worth repeating, because 
it would take less than a minute.
  That 98-to-0 vote called for hearings on all matters related to 
Madison Guaranty Savings, Whitewater Development Corp., and Capital 
Management Services, Inc.
  It is hardly consistent with that mandate for all matters to take a 
look at the three items specified by the amendment offered by Senator 
Mitchell, which has only three items which are of much lesser import.
  When the Senator from Texas made a presentation that we are going to 
vote every week on this matter, I do not know that that is true, Mr. 
President. I think there may be one vote on this matter, and that vote 
may occur in the congressional elections this November. The second time 
that a vote may occur will be in the Presidential election and the 
Senate and House elections in 1996.
  We have on record 98 Senators. All 56 of the Senators on the 
Democratic side of the aisle voted in favor of the resolution to have 
hearings on all matters. That is a pretty plain definition.
  If Senator D'Amato's amendment is to be rejected by this body--and it 
is highly likely that this is going to be a party-line vote because 
this has turned out to be a partisan political matter --if Senator 
D'Amato's amendment is to be rejected, then I would suggest that 
Senators who are running in 1994, and Senators who will be running in 
1996, and Senators who will be running in 1998, will have some 
explaining to do as to why they supported a resolution calling for an 
investigation into all matters, but then, when the Senator from Maine, 
the majority leader, offers an amendment cutting it back in a very 
limited sphere to three matters, that they are prepared to accept that.
  It may be that this whole issue will be resolved in the political 
arena when the matter comes to a vote by the electorate in November 
1994, November 1996, and then beyond perhaps even to the Senators who 
will be up in 1998. The House Members will all be up in 1994.
  I do think it is unfortunate, because the issues which are involved 
here are matters of tremendous public importance. They ought to be 
inquired into in the regular course of business, and that is the course 
of business through congressional hearings which are well established 
and have been followed uniformly.
  It has already been referred to many times how many congressional 
investigations there were when the parties were different, when the 
Democrats controlled the congressional investigative process and the 
Republicans were in the White House. Those congressional investigations 
went on, in many instances, where a special prosecutor was involved.
  I recall very well in November 1986, after the congressional 
elections, when the Democrats took control of the Senate and the 
prospective majority leader came into the Intelligence Committee, where 
I was a member. We were starting an inquiry into Iran-Contra. The 
declaration was made that there was going to be a select committee. And 
there was a select committee which was initiated in December 1986, even 
though special counsel was appointed in 1986.
  You do not have to go back to Army-McCarthy or the Kefauver or any 
other hearings, because it is well within everyone's recollection that 
when there was a Senate and a House--focus on the Senate--controlled by 
the Democrats, there was a select committee which functioned 
simultaneously with the special prosecutor. That is the way it was, and 
that is in accordance with the traditions of the Senate, and that is 
the way it ought to be now.
  We could debate this matter at enormous length. I would be delighted 
to be surprised and see this vote not along party lines. But I think it 
is going to be along party lines, because, bluntly stated, there is an 
interest by the Democrats in protecting the President. That is a fact 
of life. That is why the regular order is not being followed, and that 
is not the American way.
  There will be other votes, but I think those votes will be at the 
polling place where the American people will give their response to 
what this Senate is doing. I think it will be a rejection of the 
Mitchell amendment and affirmance of the D'Amato amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

                          ____________________