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

S6144 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 4, 1995 

buried there were known as professional people—doctors, lawyers, teacher, and legislators. I was deeply impressed with the tribute given Senator 

Stennis by his son, John Hampton 

Stennis. He stated Senator Stennis’

campaign pledge and creed when Senator Stennis ran for the Senate in 1947, 

after having served as a circuit court 

judge for 10 years. That political creed 

was ‘‘I want to plow a straight furrow 

right down until the end of my row.’’

Obviously, Senator Stennis succeeded 

with that campaign pledge. And that 

philosophy seems to have guided his 

entire political career and his life. 

With those words John Hampton captured the spirit and philosophy of John 

C. Stennis. 

Senator Stennis taught through example. He has left both a challenge and 

a pattern of conduct for citizenship, as 

well as public life. 

What can our citizens today find in 

John C. Stennis to emulate? A course 

of conduct that inspires confidence; absolute personal dedication; noble purposes always foremost as a motive and 

objective; standards in public and private life unexcelled; a willingness to 

serve; a willingness to lead and endlessly carry the penalty of leadership, 

and above all else, the attainment of 

being an honorable man. 

I believe we find here a man and a 

record that fully live up to the everlasting call of the poet, Gilbert Holland, who said: 

God, give us men! A time like this demands 

Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and 

ready hands; 

Men whom the lust of office does not kill; 

Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy; 

Men who possess opinions and a will; 

Men who have honor; men who will not lie; 

Strong men, who live above the fog 

In public duty and in private thinking. 

Mary and I extend our heartfelt sympathy to the family of Senator Stennis—his daughter, Mrs. Margaret Jane 

Womble, and son, John Hampton Stennis, and to his grandchildren of whom 

he was so proud. 

f 

CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION OF 

THE MCKIM BUILDING OF THE 

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this year 

marks the 100th anniversary of one of 

the most beautiful buildings in America, the McKim Building of the Boston 

Public Library. 

Founded by an act of the Massachusetts Legislature on April 3, 1848, the 

Boston Public Library was the first 

free and publicly supported municipal 

library in the world. By 1880, its original 10,000 volumes had grown to 357,440, 

and the legislature empowered the city 

of Boston to take as much land within 

its limits as it needed to build a new library. The trustees envisioned the new 

library to be a ‘‘palace for the people, 

and as such * * * a monumental building, worthy of the city of Boston.’’

They hired architect Charles Follen 

McKim, a senior partner in the New 

York firm of McKim, Mead & White, to 

design this new edifice. 

McKim wanted to create a building 

which would fit with its architecturally distinguished neighbors—H.H. 

Richardson’s Romanesque Trinity 

Church and the Italian Gothic of the 

New Old South Church. He modeled the 

building on Henri Labrouste’s 

Bibliotheque Ste. Genevieve and recruited such outstanding artists as 

American sculptors Louis and Augustus Saint-Gaudens, French muralist 

Puvis de Chavannes, and American 

painters John Singer Sargent and 

Edwin Austin Abbey. 

Since its opening in 1895, the collection has become one of the most outstanding research libraries in the nation, including papers of many Colonia 

Americans and New England Abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison; 

the Sacco and Vanzetti papers, and the 

manuscripts and personal libraries of 

such figures as the famous conductor of 

the Boston Symphony Orchestra Serge 

Koussevitszky and American composer 

Walter Piston. 

It is also a wonderfully user-friendly 

library, providing many services for 

the community. It was the first to have 

a formal system of branch libraries 

throughout the city. In addition, there 

are programs for seniors, for children, 

and for young adults and a structured 

lecture series which provides collegelevel humanities courses free to library 

patrons. The new Johnson addition to 

the McKim Building is also where I 

vote. 

The McKim Building has recently undergone an extensive restoration. I invite by colleagues to visit its marble 

lions, view the mural depicting Sir 

Gawain’s quest for the Holy Grail, and 

enjoy the courtyard. The statute of 

‘‘The Baccahante,’’ originally designed 

to be the centerpiece of the fountain in 

the courtyard, was deemed too scantily 

clad to display in public. She was hidden away in a dark, unlit recess on the 

third floor, unseen and unadmired. but 

now she is being installed in her intended home. 

Joshua Bates, for whom the Great 

Reading Hall is named, wrote to the 

mayor of Boston, 

While I am sure that, in a liberal and 

wealthy community like that of Boston, 

there will be no want of funds to carry out 

the recommendation of the Trustees, it may 

accelerate its accomplishment and establish 

the library at once, on a scale to do credit to 

the City, if I am allowed to pay for the books 

required,which I am quite willing to do. The 

only condition that I ask is, that the building shall be such as to be an ornament to the 

City. 

Mr. Bates, your wish has been amply 

fulfilled. 

f 

ADMINISTRATION’S PLAN TO SELL 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for 

the information of the Senate, I ask 

unanimous consent to have printed in 

the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a letter 

from the Secretary of Energy to the 

President of the Senate that transmits 

administration-proposed legislation. 

The primary purpose of this legislation 

is to sell strategic petroleum reserve 

[SPR] oil to fund the decommissioning 

of the Weeks Island SPR storage facility. I am having the proposed legislation printed in the RECORD instead of 

introducing it because I disagree with 

the policy of selling SPR oil to raise 

money. Let me explain. 

The administration’s legislation proposes three things. First, it authorizes 

the sale of up to 7 million barrels of 

crude oil from the SPR. Second, it earmarks the moneys from that sale for 

the decommissioning of the Weeks Island storage facility, and for other unspecified activities related to the SPR. 

Third, the administration’s legislation 

allows the sale of the SPR oil to not 

count adversely under the budget rules. 

I will not speak to the asset sale issue 

because it is not central to my concerns. 

The key policy issue raised by this 

legislation isn’t whether the Weeks Island SPR storage facility should be 

drained of oil and decommissioned; 

that must occur. Instead, the question 

facing the Senate is whether we should 

authorize the sale of SPR oil to fund 

this activity and a host of other unspecified SPR activities simply because 

the administration is unwilling to ask 

for the necessary money as a part of 

DOE’s regular budget. In a nutshell the 

issue is: Should SPR oil be sold to 

make up for a budget shortfall, or 

should SPR oil be kept on hand in case 

of an energy emergency? Before I explain my concerns about the administration’s proposal to sell SPR oil, let 

me first describe why the Weeks Island 

SPR storage facility must be emptied 

and decommissioned. 

Weeks Island is one of the five SPR 

crude oil storage facilities. Located in 

Louisiana, it holds 73 million of the 

total 592 million barrels of oil stored in 

the SPR. Weeks Island is unique among 

the SPR oil storage facilities. It was a 

commercial salt mine before being purchased by the Department of Energy 

and converted to an oil storage facility. The other four SPR facilities were 

created specifically to store oil. 

In May 1992, a sinkhole was discovered on the ground directly above 

Weeks Island. The cause of the sinkhole was determined to be a fracture in 

the salt formation. Over time, the fracture has enlarged as a result of water 

leaking through it and into the Weeks 

Island storage cavern. In February 

1995, a second sinkhole was discovered 

over Weeks Island, but it has not yet 

been determined if this indicates a second leak. 

The water leaking into Weeks Island 

is accumulating at the bottom of the 

oil storage chamber and it is pushing 

the oil up. Although the leak is slow, 

water intrusion creates a risk of path 

enlargement and increased water inflow. This could ultimately result in a 

catastrophic water inflow, which would 

completely displace the oil stored in 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS