S6142 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 4, 1995 

people who have been supportive of reform of the joint liability process in 

the context of product liability, to support this effort to expand this notion 

beyond product liability. 

Every argument that makes sense in 

the product liability context, where 

the people who are likely to be beneficiaries are the producers and manufacturers of products, also makes sense 

when the people who are likely to be 

aided are average American families, 

small businesses, charitable organizations and municipal governments. If 

this reform makes sense for product 

manufacturers, I think it equally 

makes sense for the small businesses, 

the charitable and nonprofit organizations, and for the local governments of 

this country. 

For that reason, I sincerely hope that 

those individuals who will support the 

product liability legislation will support the expansion of this particular 

provision of that legislation to help the 

small businesses, the cities and towns 

of America, the average American families and, I think most importantly, 

the communities of our country. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor and 

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. COVERDELL. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it 

is my understanding that we are in the 

closing minutes of morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is 

correct. 

f 

JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY 

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I 

rise to speak on behalf of the Abraham 

amendment. I am not a lawyer, and I 

am glad that I can take a chance here, 

as a small businessman, to bring perspective on the question a little bit out 

of a legal arena. This whole question of 

joint and several liability, which 

means to an everyday person that if 

there is a wrongdoing that occurs and a 

legal dispute emerges about it, that if 

several parties are involved, and let us 

say party A is responsible for 90 percent of the wrongdoing and party B is 

responsible for 10 percent of the wrongdoing, and a suit is filed against the 

two of them, if it is determined by the 

legal process that party A, who was responsible for 90 percent of the wrongdoing, does not have any money, then 

the person to go after is party B who, 

while only sharing 10 percent of the responsibility, for one reason or another, 

has access to large sums of money. 

Therefore, he is the target. 

Mr. President, I think in the American way that is just considered not 

fair. That is making two victims out of 

the crisis: The person to whom the 

wrongdoing occurred, and then this 

other party who happens to be in the 

arena, who does not share much of the 

responsibility, but just has resources. 

Therefore, that entity becomes the target. 

In American A–B–C logic all across 

the country, it is not right for somebody who does not bear the responsibility, or much of it, to be the target of 

paying up just because they have 

money. 

We have read several of these ludicrous stories of a person coming out of 

the McDonald’s, spilling their milk 

shake, getting into an accident with 

somebody, suing the person they got 

into the accident with but that person 

is uninsured, so they sue McDonald’s. 

Mr. President, in light of the time, I 

will not dwell on this much more. I did 

take an interest in this Newsweek article—I am sure it has been talked about 

before—with the legal tax on the everyday consumer. Because of the kinds of 

things I have just been talking about, 

everybody is scared to death. So they 

build in all kinds of defensive tests and 

costs to protect themselves. An 8-foot 

ladder that costs $119.33, $23 of the cost 

is now a product of our legal system. 

A tonsillectomy which costs $578 has 

$191 built into it because of our legal 

system. That is why 80 percent of the 

American public support the broadening of legal reform that we have been 

battling here for the last 2 weeks. 

I will just close by saying once again 

that it is fundamentally wrong to 

make people who have a very small responsibility, if any, be the subject of 

having to pay damages simply because 

they were in the area or arena, or we 

had a situation where, as I said a moment ago, 90 percent of the responsibility belongs to person A and 10 percent to person B, but person B has resources, so they will ruin that person’s 

life, ruin that victim’s personal business, simply because they had resources and were responsible. 

That is fundamentally unfair. That is 

why so many Americans support this 

amendment on joint and several liability, which means a person is responsible, financially, for their proportional share of what went wrong. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

f 

NOTICE 

Financial disclosure reports required 

by the Ethics in Government Act of 

1978, as amended and Senate rule 34 

must be filed no later than close of 

business on Monday, May 15, 1995. The 

reports must be filed with the Senate 

Office of Public Records, 232 Hart 

Building, Washington, DC 20510. The 

Public Records Office will be open from 

8 a.m. until 6 p.m. to accept these filings, and will provide written receipts 

for Senators’ reports. Staff members 

may obtain written receipts upon request. Any written request for an extension should be directed to the Select 

Committee on Ethics, 220 Hart Building, Washington, DC 20510. 

All Senators’ reports will be made 

available simultaneously on Wednesday, June 14. Any questions regarding 

the availability of reports should be directed to the Public Records Office 

(224–0322). Questions regarding interpretation of the Ethics in Government 

Act of 1978 should be directed to the 

Select Committee on Ethics (224

f 

–2981). 

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION 

HEARINGS 

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in early 

January I announced my intention to 

have the Governmental Affairs Committee develop this year a blueprint for 

the reorganization of executive branch 

departments and agencies. I would like 

to take this opportunity to indicate 

that this effort will begin with hearings on May 17 and 18. That first day 

will be devoted to an overview of the 

general principles relating to the structuring of the Government. The second 

day will focus on specific proposals 

that have made regarding the elimination and consolidation of executive 

departments and agencies. 

A number of such proposals have 

been made recently. In March, for example, our majority leader suggested 

the elimination of four departments—

Commerce, Education, Energy, and 

HUD. Similar proposals have been 

made by other Members, both in the 

House and the Senate. In early January, I said that we might be able to reduce the number of departments by up 

to one-half of the present 14. 

But more is involved in such an effort than simply outright elimination 

of departments and agencies. We may 

need to retain certain existing programmatic responsibilities of an agency that is itself to be terminated. We 

need to think about where to put these 

programs. And to really do this right—

to begin to move us toward a Federal 

Government that is appropriate for the 

21st century—we ought to be thinking 

in terms of a fundamental reorganization of the executive branch. 

In other words, rather than trying to 

restructure the Federal Government 

piecemeal—eliminating a couple of departments this year, consolidating a 

couple of more next year, and leaving 

everything else untouched—we need to 

take a more comprehensive approach. 

And this is what I intend to have 

Government Affairs Committee do. As 

the committee with the jurisdiction 

over the reorganization of the executive branch, including the creation and 

elimination of Cabinet departments, 

the Governmental Affairs Committee 

is ideally suited to look at the big picture, and to ensure that all the pieces 

of a reorganization fit together. Doing 

this may require a fundamental rethinking of what the executive branch 

ought to look like in the future. 

To illustrate what this might mean, I 

would point to a proposal made by the 

Ash Commission during the Nixon administration. It was then proposed that 

four existing departments be retained—

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 4, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6143 

State, Treasury, Defense, and Justice—

and that all the others be folded into 

four new departments with very broad 

jurisdiction—Natural Resources, 

Human Resources, Economic Development, and Community Development. In 

1991, then-Congressman Leon Panetta 

proposed that the executive branch be 

reorganized into just six departments—

State, Defense, Justice, Human Services, Natural Resources, and Economic 

Policy. And just last month the Heritage Foundation proposed that there be 

only five cabinet departments—State, 

Defense, Justice, Treasury, and Health 

and Human Services. 

But before launching into a full-scale 

examination of Federal departments, 

agencies, and programs—to see what 

should be eliminated, consolidated, or 

reorganized—I think we need a better 

understanding of how to approach this 

task. 

This is why I intend first to begin 

with an overview hearing. The purpose 

will be to get a better understanding of 

the principles and criteria that Congress should apply as it looks to specific aspects of governmental organization and operation. For example, is it 

best to centralize responsibility into 

fewer departments, so as to focus accountability and enhance policy coordination? Or is it best to decentralize 

responsibility, in order to eliminate 

layers of bureaucracy and improve responsiveness? Are there innovative 

ways to achieve the advantages to both 

approaches—such as through semiindependent agencies located within 

larger departments? 

If the Federal Government is going 

to retain a certain programmatic responsibility—even after reorganization 

and streamlining—are there better 

ways of doing so? When, for example, 

should a program be part of an independent agency? When should it be 

part of a cabinet department? And 

when is it best to use some sort of autonomous government corporation? 

We will also ask about privatization. 

What does it mean, when should it be 

used, and how should it be implemented? Are there alternative forms 

that might be appropriate, sometimes 

referred to as commercialization or 

marketization. And what about contracting out? 

As I have stated, I intend that the 

hearing on the following day, May 18, 

will address specific proposals for agency consolidation and elimination, and 

program privatization. I would invite 

Members of Congress who have offered 

such proposals to contact the committee if they would like to testify on 

their ideas. 

I should add that I also intend to 

have the Governmental Affairs Committee begin an examination of governmental operational issues. We need to 

improve the performance of government, as we reduce its size and complexity. This means a serious effort at 

civil service reform, as well as looking 

at budget system reform, program performance measurement, and financial 

accountability. We also need to ask 

which responsibilities might most appropriately be devolved to the State 

and local governments. 

I strongly agree with the demands for 

cutting the size and costs of the Federal Government by eliminating obsolete and ineffective programs and agencies. I think the right way to do this is 

to approach the task thoughtfully and 

carefully—but with a clear intention to 

develop a plan that is both bold and 

comprehensive. 

Of course, another way to do this 

would be to appoint a commission—

modeled on the Military Base Closing 

Commission—to develop the plan, and 

require Congress to approve or disapprove the plan. I have in past congresses introduced legislation that 

would create just such a commission, 

and I am still willing to consider it as 

an alternative approach. 

But regardless of what mechanism we 

use to develop it, we need a blueprint 

for the organization of the Federal 

Government that reflects today’s priorities and fiscal realities, and that prepares us for the 21st century. The Governmental Affairs Committee will soon 

begin work on this task. 

f 

IN MEMORY OF SENATOR JOHN C. 

STENNIS 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I 

would like to take a few minutes to 

comment on the life and career of our 

departed colleague and my good friend, 

Senator John C. Stennis, whose long 

and full life ended on Sunday, April 23, 

at the age of 93. 

When Senator Stennis retired in January 1989, he had been in the Senate 41 

years, 1 month, and 29 days. This made 

his service in the Senate longer than 

all but one other person in history. 

When I came to the U.S. Senate in 

November 1972, Senator Stennis had 

been a Member of this body for nearly 

25 years, and I had the great honor and 

privilege of serving with Senator Stennis for 16 years—until he retired at the 

close of the 100th Congress in 1989. So it 

is with sadness that I pay tribute to 

the memory of this departed colleague 

today. 

John Stennis was a man who anyone 

coming to know him well would love 

and admire. I came to know him early 

on my arrival in the Senate. He was 

from my neighboring State, and I 

learned to follow his advice and leadership in certain areas of our service together. 

It was also my privilege to serve with 

John Stennis on the Appropriations 

Committee beginning in 1975. We had 

nearly identical subcommittee assignments on the committee. He was chairman of the then Public Works Subcommittee, now the Energy and Water 

Subcommittee, when I came aboard 

and I succeeded him as chairman of 

that subcommittee when he became 

chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in 1978. We worked 

together on many matters of mutual 

interest, especially the Mississippi 

River and tributaries flood control 

works, and other infrastructure improvements throughout the country. 

He requested my assistance on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway project 

and I was pleased to help floor manage 

the successful completion of that massive project which opened in 1985. The 

New York Times called the Tenn-Tom 

Senator Stennis’ ‘‘pyramid,’’ and I am 

pleased to have had a role with Senator 

Stennis on this impressive project. 

Mr. President, in our committee assignments and work together, I was 

blessed as much as a fellow Senator 

could be blessed by association, counsel, and advice from our departed 

friend. 

As I mentioned earlier, it has been 

my honor and privilege to be closely 

associated with Senator Stennis for 

over 16 years of service together. As 

chairman and ranking member of the 

Appropriations Committee, Senator 

Stennis designated and commissioned 

me to floor manage and handle various 

appropriations measures including supplemental bills and continuing resolutions. He was my chairman, and I was 

always happy and enthusiastic to carry 

out his wishes on these matters. 

Mr. President, John Stennis was 

unqualifiedly and unreservedly a gentleman in the finest American tradition. He was a man whose word was as 

good as his bond. He had an almost reverent sense of discretion and personal 

taste in his relations to the greatest affairs of the Nation as in his relations 

to individuals. He was indeed a giant in 

the Senate. 

John Stennis was a Senator’s Senator. He was gentle and courteous in 

conduct, but tough and strong in conviction and character. He personified 

the highest ideals of honor and integrity within the Senate. 

John Stennis also possessed an extraordinary, and indomitable, fortitude, spirit, and fearless courage. I 

think of the several personal adversities he confronted with such wonderful 

dignity and demeanor. In 1973, he was 

shot by robbers in front of his house 

and left for dead. In 1983, his beloved 

wife of 52 years, he called her Miss Coy, 

passed away. In 1984, he lost a leg to 

cancer and was confined thereafter to a 

wheelchair but, Senator Stennis bore 

these adversities with such great 

strength and courage that he served as 

a great inspiration to us all. 

We are thankful for his character, for 

his modesty and selflessness, for his devotion to the Senate and his family, for 

his outgoing good will to his friends, 

for his high honor as a man. 

Mr. President, I traveled with a number of my colleagues to the burial services for Senator Stennis on Wednesday, 

April 26, at the Pinecrest Cemetery in 

DeKalb, MS. He was born in DeKalb 

County in the red clay hills of eastern 

Mississippi and his mortal remains 

were buried there in the family plot 

next to his beloved ‘‘Miss Coy’’ and 

near his parents. Many of the Stennises 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS