Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know there is a sincere effort underway on both sides of the aisle to work out an agreement on this Y2K legislation. I know that will continue. But we need to make progress, or have the opportunity for a cloture vote in the meantime, or, in case that doesn't work out, you always have the option, if we get everything worked out, to vitiate the cloture vote, or we could move to a conclusion earlier. If we can get an agreement worked out and conclusion on Wednesday, that would be ideal. But, barring that, a cloture vote will occur on Thursday. As soon as the time for the vote has been determined, after consultation with the Democratic leader, all Senators will be notified. Call Of The Roll In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 27. I further ask that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then be in a period for morning business until 11:30 a.m., with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Murkowski, for 20 minutes; Senator Coverdell, for 30 minutes; Senator Durbin, for 30 minutes. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following morning business at 11:30 a.m., the Senate immediately begin consideration of S. 96, the Y2K legislation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday and be in a period of morning business until 11:30. After morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of the Y2K liability bill. Amendments to the bill are expected to be offered and debated throughout Tuesday's session. So rollcall votes can be expected during the day Tuesday, and perhaps in the late afternoon, but not into the night. Also, any other legislation or executive calendar items that are cleared for action will be moved.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Then I will go ahead and ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote occur at 5 p.m. on Monday, and that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I regret having to file a cloture motion on this important piece of legislation. However, we need to have a vote on Monday afternoon so that Members will be here. We can have committee meetings hopefully Monday and Tuesday. We have a number of very important issues that need to be considered by committees. We need to move forward on the now two supplemental appropriations requests that we have. So we are going to have a vote on Monday in any case. But also I think this is very important legislation in and of itself. It is important that we get up and get started on the discussion. I had hoped we could actually work on it today and tomorrow. But because of the NATO meeting and the congestion and the concerns about access to and from the Capitol, we will not be in session on tomorrow. That gives the Members who are working together--Senator McCain I know is working with others, Senator Biden, Senator Dodd--time to try to work out some of the remaining problems on this legislation. We can go forward with this cloture vote on Monday afternoon. Or, if something is worked out where it is not necessary, we could still vitiate the cloture vote. We need to get this done. This is urgent. The clock is ticking. We are moving towards 2000. This liability, this problem, is hanging over us like a sword. I think it is important that we go forward. I hope that next week--Tuesday or Wednesday, certainly--we will be in the substance of the bill and we can get to a final conclusion on the substance. I encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to work together to see if we can't resolve this issue and move it on into conference. I thank Senator McCain, Senator Hatch, and Senators from both sides who have been working on it. Having said that, I ask unanimous consent that Friday be considered the intervening day under the provisions of rule XXII.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would be glad to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. LOTT. I now move to proceed to S. 96, and send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. That is certainly my hope. It is encouraging that the Senator from Massachusetts would say that.

Mr. LOTT. Did the Senator from South Carolina have anything further he wanted to say?

Mr. LOTT. Yes. I am happy to yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. LOTT. I hope the Senator would keep in mind that we are going to be squeezed on both ends. We will try to work out a time that benefits the maximum number of Senators. But if you go into the night beyond 6 o'clock, you have all kinds of problems on the other side of the issue. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. President, we are ready to proceed with the debate on the issue. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Of course under the request that has already been agreed to and under the rules of the Senate, we will have a vote on Monday afternoon. It is just a question of time. I know there is an effort here to try to set the schedule at a later time. I remind Senators that I wrestle with this all the time. For every two Senators you are trying to protect who won't get here until 6, you are hurting a couple of Senators who may have to leave at 5:30. This is a very delicate dance.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could, if there was not an objection, I would be glad to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for a question. May I confirm that there is not an objection to that request?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 34, S. 96 regarding an orderly resolution to the Y2K problems.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today marks the 29th annual Earth Day --a day to evaluate our environment--a day to celebrate. Along with all Americans, I too want to live in a clean environment, and like most Americans, I fully believe efforts are needed to ``protect the environment.'' However, I question how ``protecting the environment'' is defined and bureaucratically implemented, especially when it begins to truly hurt Americans. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will look at each environmental policy--new and old--carefully, to make sure the benefits are both real and achievable. Congress should make sure the costs are tolerable and properly allocated, and Congress needs to ensure that the standards and time tables make sense. Most importantly, the Congress needs to make sure that the science is legitimate. There are some who advance an agenda under the guise of environmental concern. This is not only wrong, but harmful. There are some who do not provide accurate costs and who inflate benefits. This too is wrong. There are some who have no concern about those who will really be affected by the new policy. This is also very wrong--Congress should never lose sight of the constituents. Mr. President, the Senate needs to continue to ``protect the environment'' while ``protecting the people'' who live in that environment. The Senate must examine the costs inflicted upon our society, as it relates to the environmental protection, to make sure it is acceptable. This Earth Day anniversary is a good anniversary. There are many things of which to be proud, and many people and organizations which should be proud. Many can rightly take credit. Yes, the federal government stepped in. However, over the past three decades I've seen states and local governments also step up to the plate and act responsibly. After 30 years states should be given more responsibility, because of their effectiveness in environmental matters. Mr. President, this Earth Day anniversary is a good anniversary, because the corporate world has invested billions and billions of dollars more than thirty years to clean the environment--the air, the soil, and the water. Everyone has benefited. The initial federal rules worked, but over the past 30 years industry has learned how to take environmental action in a more effective way. The federal government, not known for its efficiency, should do a better job of asking for these environmental solutions, because the same results at lower costs are good for America. Industry wants to be a partner in this effort. Mr. President, today the new environmental enemy is urban sprawl. This is unfortunate because Congress does not need to find a new evil enemy to pursue to make environmental policy work. Suburbs, backyards, and shopping centers are not our enemy. Mr. President, the family living in the suburbs is not the enemy. I hope my colleagues will take a more balanced approach, and look for ways to legislate that avoid the adversarial approach. For thirty years industry was blamed for our environmental problems, now it's the family living in the suburbs. This is counter productive. This is a terribly destructive way to ``protect the environment.'' Mr. President, nearly 30 years of Earth Days has heightened everyone's awareness--yours and mine. I truly believe everyone is now a better steward of our planet. Lets unleash America's entrepreneurial spirit and search for new approaches and new incentives to protect America's air, soil, and water. Happy Earth Day.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, a few weeks ago I reintroduced the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act, S. 655. This bipartisan bill has several cosponsors including Senator Breaux. It is similar to the measure that Senator Ford and I coauthored during the 105th Congress. This responsible legislation is important to used car buyers and motorists across the country because it will help curtail motor vehicle titling fraud. It does so by providing states with incentives to adopt minimal uniform definitions and standards that promote greater disclosure to potential used vehicle purchasers. During the last Congress, this legislation received the formal support of over 55 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle and a modified version passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming majority last October. Mr. President, every year used car buyers throughout the nation are cheated by those who pass off rebuilt salvage vehicles as undamaged. These consumers are never notified that the used vehicle they purchased was totaled and subsequently rebuilt. Often times, they find out only when the supposedly undamaged car or truck they bought is taken in for repair. It is at this point that they find their vehicle has been rebuilt and that it may pose a safety hazard. One where the cost of repair far exceeds the vehicle's worth or which cannot be fixed for safe operation Today, used car buyers and automobile dealers are paying over $4 billion dollars annually for vehicles that have been rebuilt--many of which are virtually worthless. It is happening in Mississippi and in your own states. Title laundering is a growing problem. It must be stopped. Congress recognized the primary reason that millions of structurally unsafe vehicles were being placed back on America's roads and highways was due to the lack of uniformity in state titling rules. That is why the 103rd Congress passed the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 which required the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish a task force, the Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration and Salvage Advisory Committee, to study problems related to motor vehicle fraud and theft. The Act directed the Committee to include representatives from several cabinet agencies, police chiefs and municipal auto theft investigators, State motor vehicle officials, industry and insurance representatives, recyclers, salvage yard operators, and scrap processors. Their primary function was to develop reasonable and balanced recommendations that would protect consumers. The Salvage Advisory Committee was formed in 1993. It was chaired by the Chief of the Odometer Fraud Staff for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It included the Justice Department's Assistant Director for Consumer Litigation and a senior attorney from the Criminal Justice Division. It also included several Secretaries of State, State DMV Directors and other stakeholders. These are the experts on the front line who deal with titling issues on a day-to-day basis that Congress chose for the Committee. The Salvage Advisory Committee deliberated for almost a year and issued its findings in February 1994. The Committee's report identified a series of practical, well thought out solutions to address the issue of title washing. It included the establishment of national uniform titling definitions and standards for salvage, rebuilt salvage, flood, and non-repairable passenger vehicles. This esteemed group knew what would work and what would not. They did not recommend a complex, overly burdensome titling and registration scheme. Instead, they identified a few definitions that should be standardized and minimal procedures that should be adopted by states. The task force recommended that a passenger vehicle that experiences damage exceeding 75% of its pre-accident value be designated as ``salvage.'' It also recommended that salvage vehicles that have been repaired for safe operation be branded ``rebuilt salvage,'' have an inspection to determine whether stolen parts were used to fix the vehicle, and have a decal permanently affixed to the driver's door jamb indicating the vehicle's history. The Salvage Committee identified a nonrepairable vehicle as a passenger motor vehicle that is incapable of safe operation for use on roads or highways and which has no resale value except as a source of parts or scrap. Another recommendation included the carrying forward of all brands on new title documents so that the terms used in one state would be identified on the titles of other states where the vehicle is re- registered. Mr. President, Senator Ford and I simply authored a bill during the last Congress that codified these task force recommendations. The bill also included a slightly modified definition of flood vehicles. One that focuses on the electrical and mechanical damage resulting from excessive water. The task force originally recommended that all passenger vehicles submerged in water that has reached over the door sill or has entered the passenger or trunk damage be designated as a flood vehicle. Upon further reflection, and actual real world experience, the flood definition in this legislation was modified to brand only those vehicles that suffer debilitating damage instead of simply cosmetic damage, such as wet carpeting, that would have occurred under the original flood definition. The reason for this change was to ensure that a consumer's vehicle is not branded as a flood vehicle merely because its floor mats got wet. It makes no sense to brand a car or a truck as a flood vehicle, causing a significant and unnecessary devaluation of its worth, when the vehicle's operating functions and electrical, mechanical or computerized components are not damaged by water. This legislation also improves upon the task force's recommendations by including any vehicle acquired by an insurer as part of a water damage settlement. S. 655, the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act retains these important provisions and also includes additional technical corrections offered by state Attorneys General, consumer groups, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Modifications that improve the legislation but do not take it in a completely different direction than proposed by the Salvage Advisory Committee. The changes I have made are consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144. The bill now includes the complete range of modifications that states are willing to make to their own titling rules and procedures. To push the envelope further by advancing prescriptive federal titling standards would seriously hinder Congress' efforts to achieve full state participation. Stricter titling requirements, those that create unnecessary and onerous procedures, additional paperwork, and more bureaucracy may also impose an unfunded mandate on states. Mr. President, my colleagues and I believe that it is time to act upon the task force's now five-year old recommendations by enacting the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act. A number of hearings have been held on this issue in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. All with the same conclusion--title washing is a serious problem affecting the wallets of used car buyers and the safety of motorists nationwide. Since the Salvage Advisory Committee issued its report in 1994, consumers have lost as much as $20 billion and as many as 8 million more potentially structurally unsafe vehicles have been placed back on our nation's roads and highways. Some of the unsafe salvage vehicles stealthfully returned to the road were previous Department of Transportation crash test cars. These are cars that were deliberately wrecked, then rebuilt and sold to unsuspecting buyers across America. The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act would help put unscrupulous rebuilders out of business. It is a workable and well accepted legislative solution. It establishes a rational voluntary uniform titling regime that state Motor Vehicle administrators support. The bill is also supported by law enforcement agencies, consumers, and the automobile and insurance industries because it is a common sense approach that will effectively curtail title laundering. It is a program that state legislatures will adopt because it is a win-win for consumers, states, and industry. That is key. Congress should not spin its wheels and push for a burdensome and overly complex titling scheme that most states will reject even if they are eligible to receive offsetting federal funding or are penalized in some way for not adopting such a scheme. The only winners under such a scenario are the thieves and charlatans who will continue to take advantage of state inconsistencies by washing the titles of severely damaged vehicles. Instead of being a federal mandate, The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act provides participating states with a new incentive grant to adopt uniform titling and registration standards. These standards will protect the used car buyers in their states from unknowingly purchasing totaled and subsequently rebuilt vehicles. The authorized funding can be used by states to issue new titles, establish and administer vehicle theft or safety inspections, enforce titling requirements, and for other related purposes. Mr. President, since this is a voluntary program, no state will be penalized for non participation. Mr. President, this particular approach was recommended by the Department of Transportation. It was a sound recommendation and I accepted it. This modification is good public policy since it no longer links state participation with federal seed money for states to participate in the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS). NMVTIS is beneficial to states because it will allow them to instantaneously share and retrieve titling and registration information with each other. The effectiveness of NMVTIS depends on the total number of states that choose to participate in the system. Thus, it is important to have the maximum number of states using NMVTIS whether or not they utilize common terms. The Congressional Budget Office concluded in 1997 that a penalty-based titling branding scheme which denies states funding for NMVTIS would significantly reduce the number of states that choose to utilize the system. This, in turn, would severely undermine the intent of the 103rd Congress which created NMVTIS and would jeopardize the overall effectiveness of a nationwide titling information system. I think it is also important to note that the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act does not recommend definitions or standards that none of the 50 states currently have in place. Instead, this legislation accepts, codifies, and in some cases improves upon the recommendations put forward by a Congressionally mandated task force. A commission created by a Democratically controlled Congress to specifically address the issue of title fraud. The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act goes even further in the direction of promoting disclosure by requiring a written disclosure statement be provided to purchasers of rebuilt salvage vehicles. It permits states to use terms that are synonymous with those identified in the bill. And, it expressly allows states to adopt even greater disclosure standards than are provided for in the legislation. In the case of salvage vehicles, it lets states adopt an even lower threshold than 75% if they so choose. It does not, however, establish a minimum baseline of 65%, a threshold that no state in the union has today. None. The 65% threshold would negatively affect tens of millions of car owners with low value vehicles. A proposal advanced by some that would unnecessarily brand for life the vehicles of low income drivers involved in minor accidents such as fender-benders. There are similar counter-productive proposals that would brand vehicles that have only slight cosmetic and structural damage such as a dented front end and a busted headlight. Who benefits from this? Who will be harmed by this? I want answers to these questions. America's motor vehicle owners deserve answers to these questions. I think my colleagues will agree that Congress should not force states into enacting standards that adversely impact consumers or titling provisions that not even one state has chosen to adopt. Remember, these well intentioned but impractical, confusing, and unwise proposals have been around for many years. States, as well as the task force, expressly rejected them. No one who works on vehicle titling issues wants them. Let me say again that the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act creates a voluntary federal titling program. It creates minimal national standards while offering participating states the flexibility they need and want to adopt additional disclosure requirements and more stringent provisions. It provides appropriate vehicle titling terms and definitions that do not unnecessarily devalue vehicles or cause repairable automobiles to be junked. The bill focuses on pre-purchase disclosure, helps motorists by requiring the tracking of salvage vehicle VIN numbers, continues consumers' ability to pursue private rights of actions available under state law, and allows states to adopt new civil and criminal penalties. And, it has wide-spread support. The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act is the right legislative solution to combat title fraud. It solves the problem without creating new problems and new headaches for consumers, for states, and for industry. It is time for Congress to pass this important measure.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe Senator Lautenberg or perhaps other Senators will be here momentarily and will wish to comment on this subject--perhaps even the Senator from South Carolina. I know Senator Abraham is prepared to begin the discussion. For years we have talked about how we can set aside Social Security to come up with a process so Social Security cannot be used to make the deficit look better or be spent for other programs or, for that matter, for tax cuts. A lot of thought has been given to this. Efforts have been made by Senators on both sides of the aisle. I think what we have this time is real. It will keep this money from being spent, without a supermajority vote in the Senate, for other than defense. It is a clear step in the right direction. We need to be able to say to the American people that not one cent of Social Security is going to be able to be spent on anything but Social Security. This lockbox will make it a lot more difficult, although under emergency circumstances obviously that could still be pierced. The key, though, is to lock this money up, make sure it is not frittered away, and then see if we can come up with genuine long-term Social Security reform so this money can be used for that. If it is not, it will still be used, available to reduce the debt, and, over a period of years, that itself will be a significant benefit to the country, to the economy, to our seniors, and to the Social Security program. So I commend Senator Abraham for his persistence on this issue, and I think the best thing for us to do at this point is to get into a discussion about what we are trying to do here and see if we can get this process through. This is a change in the law; this is not just a budget process change. This is something the Senate would have to act on, the House would have to act on, and we would have to send it to the President. So I think it is time, and appropriate, now, that we have this discussion about the future of Social Security. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LOTT. I believe Senator Abraham is ready now.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Abraham, Senator Domenici, and others, I send an amendment to the pending budget bill to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding work of Mr. Lynn W. Heninger as NASA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs. Having served in this position since December 1987, Mr. Heninger is leaving to pursue other opportunities in the private sector. He definitely will be missed by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I have enjoyed working with Mr. Heninger on a wide range of matters affecting NASA. I always found him to be extremely knowledgeable and very effective in representing NASA's views. He has always maintained a friendly and constructive approach to his work which has served NASA very well. Mr. Heninger had the difficult task of coordinating the NASA legislative agenda. He deftly balanced a wide range of NASA issues including the International Space Station, Rocket Propulsion Programs, Earth Science and Remote Sensing initiatives. Because Mr. Heninger earned the trust and confidence of those with whom he worked, he was able to promote NASA's views very effectively in Congress. After graduation from Utah State University with a Bachelor of Science, he served in the U.S. Army for three years as an artillery officer and helicopter pilot, including duty in Vietnam with the 1st Infantry Division. He returned to Utah State University, after briefly working with NASA Johnson Space Center as a Program Analyst, to earn a Masters in Business Administration. In 1970, he joined the Department of Transportation to work as a Budget Analyst. Mr. Heninger returned, yet again to his alma mater, where he served as a Project Director with the Economic Department at Utah State University. Before rejoining NASA in 1977 as the Chief of Program Support in NASA's Office of Space Science, he worked briefly as an Organizational Specialist with the United Nations in Bogota, Columbia. Lynn is married to the former Colleen Johnson and has five children, Jeffrey, Camille, Diana, Patricia, and Natalie. Mr. Heninger has earned the respect of many Members of Congress and their staffs through hard work and his straightforward nature. As he now departs to share his experience and expertise in the civilian sector, I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize his outstanding and dedicated public service and wish him all the very best in his new challenges.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a civil action commenced by a pro se plaintiff in Yakima County Superior Court, Yakima County, Washington, against Vice President Albert Gore, as President of the Senate, and Senators Gorton and Murray. The complaint attacks the validity of federal tax laws essentially by challenging the validity of all legislation enacted subsequent to the Seventeenth Amendment, on the basis that the Constitution prohibits the direct election of Senators provided for by the amendment. This action is subject to removal from state court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. This resolution authorizes the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Senate defendants in this suit to move for its removal to federal court, and then to seek its dismissal for failure to state a claim for relief.