Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that we recess the proceedings for 15 minutes.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I suggest that this would be an excellent time to take a 1-hour break for lunch.

Mr. LOTT. Senator Hatch.

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. And thank you, Chaplain, for your opening prayer. I know we all listened and appreciated the admonitions that were given in that prayer. Order Of Procedure I want to say, again, I appreciate the participation of all the Senators yesterday. Fifty questions were asked, I think a lot of good questions, and obviously good responses. We have a considerable amount of time left for questions. But, again, it is our intent to go today as long as the Senators feel that they have a need for further questions. It is up to 16 hours; it doesn't require 16 hours. So I think we should go forward and try to ask the needed questions, and then get a sense of where we are as we go through the day. But at any rate, it would be our intent not to go later than 4 p.m. We hope to take a 1-hour lunch break sometime around 12 or 12:30, but it will depend on how the questions are going. We will also take a break here in an hour, hour and a half, something like that. Following today's session, the Senate will reconvene on Monday at 1 p.m. and resume consideration of the articles of impeachment. All Members will be notified of the details of Monday's schedule, and beyond that, once we have had an opportunity for a consultation between Senator Daschle and myself and we get a feel for exactly what Senate Resolution 16 provides in terms of activities on Monday and Tuesday. In a continuing effort to make this as bipartisan and as fair as possible, you will note yesterday while we alternated back and forth, some of the questions were directed from this side to the President's counsel and the reverse. I am sure that will happen again some today. We began the first question yesterday and you concluded; so today we would reverse that. Senator Daschle will ask the first question and then we will go through the process until we complete those questions, with us ending with the last question sometime today. With that, Mr. Chief Justice, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in the past several months, through the Leader's Lecture Series, we have been honored to hear from some of America's most outstanding leaders. Speaking just down the hall in the stately Old Senate Chamber, these distinguished guests have shared recollections and observations of life in the Senate, in politics, in this great country. Their imparted wisdom allows us not only to add to the historical archive of this institution, but also to gain perspective on our own roles here. As sponsor of the series and a student of recent history, I am especially appreciative of their participation. At the conclusion of each Congress, the Senate will publish the collected addresses of these respected speakers and make them available to the public. But their words should be recorded prior to that time. For this reason, Mr. President, I now request that the presentations of our most recent lectures--former President George Bush, who was here Wednesday night, and Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who spoke in the fall--be printed in the Record. The material follows: Remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd: The Senate's Historic Role in Times of Crisis Clio being my favorite muse, let me begin this evening with a look backward over the well traveled road of history. History always turns our faces backward, and this is as it should be, so that we might be better informed and prepared to exercise wisdom in dealing with future events. ``To be ignorant of what happened before you were born,'' admonished Cicero, ``is to remain always a child.'' So, for a little while, as we meet together in this hallowed place, let us turn our faces backward. Look about you. We meet tonight in the Senate Chamber. Not the Chamber in which we do business each day, but the Old Senate Chamber where our predecessors wrote the laws before the Civil War. Here, in this room, Daniel Webster orated, Henry Clay forged compromises, and John C. Calhoun stood on principle. Here, Henry Foote of Mississippi pulled a pistol on Thomas Benton of Missouri. Senator Benton ripped open his coat, puffed out his chest, and shouted, ``Stand out of the way and let the assassin fire!'' Here the eccentric Virginia Senator John Randolph brought his hunting dogs into the Chamber, and the dashing Texas Senator, Sam Houston, sat at his desk whittling hearts for ladies in the gallery. Here, seated at his desk in the back row, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was beaten violently over the head with a cane wielded by Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina, who objected to Sumner's strongly abolitionist speeches and the vituperation that he had heaped upon Brooks' uncle, Senator Butler of South Carolina. The Senate first met here in 1810, but, because our British cousins chose to set fire to the Capitol during the War of 1812, Congress was forced to move into the Patent Office Building in downtown Washington, and later into a building known as the Brick Capitol, located on the present site of the Supreme Court Building. Hence, it was December 1819 before Senators were able to return to this restored and elegant Chamber. They met here for 40 years, and it was during that exhilarating period that the Senate experienced its ``Golden Age.'' Here, in this room, the Senate tried to deal with the emotional and destructive issue of slavery by passing the Missouri Compromise of 1820. That act drew a line across the United States, and asserted that the peculiar institution of slavery should remain to the south of the line and not spread to the north. The Missouri Compromise also set the precedent that for every slave state admitted to the Union, a free state should be admitted as well, and vice versa. What this meant in practical political terms, was that the North and the South would be exactly equal in voting strength in the Senate, and that any settlement of the explosive issue of slavery would have to originate in the Senate. As a result, the nation's most talented and ambitious legislators began to leave the House of Representatives to take seats in the Senate. Here, they fought to hold the Union together through the omnibus compromise of 1850, only to overturn these efforts by passing the fateful Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Senators moved out of this room in 1859, on the eve of the Civil War. When they marched in procession from this Chamber to the current Chamber, it marked the last time that leaders of the North and South would march together. The next year, the South seceded and Senators who had walked shoulder to shoulder here became military officers and political leaders of the Union and of the Confederacy. This old Chamber that they left behind is not just a smaller version of the current Chamber. Here the center aisle divides the two parties, but there are an equal number of desks on either side, not because the two parties were evenly divided but because there was not room to move desks back and forth depending on the size of the majority, as we do today. That meant that some members of the majority party had to sit with members of the minority. It did not matter to them. The two desks in the front row on the center aisle were not reserved for the majority and minority leaders as they are now, because there were no party floor leaders. No Senator spoke for his party; every Senator spoke for himself. There were recognized leaders among the Senators, but only unofficially. Everyone knew, for example, that Henry Clay led the Whigs, but he would never claim that honor. Clay generally sat in the last row at the far end of the Chamber. The Senate left this Chamber because it outgrew the space. When they first met here in 1810 there were 32 Senators. So many states were added over the next four decades that when they left in 1859, there were 64 Senators. Yet, while the Senate had increased in size, it was essentially the same institution that the Founders had created in the Constitution. Today, another century and four decades later, and having grown to 100 Senators, it is still essentially the same institution. The actors have changed; the issues have changed; but the Senate, which emerged from the Great Compromise of July 16, 1787, remains the great forum of the states. This is so, largely, because as a nation, we were fortunate to have wise, cautious people draft and implement our Constitution. They were pragmatists rather than idealists. James Madison, particularly, had a shrewd view of human nature. He did not believe in man's perfectability. He assumed that those who achieved power would always try to amass more power and that political factions would always compete out of self-interest. In The Federalist Papers, Madison reasoned that ``in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and, in the next place, oblige it to control itself.'' Madison and other framers of the Constitution divided power so that no one person or branch of government could gain complete power. As Madison explained it: ``Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.'' However, ambition has not always counteracted ambition, as we saw in the enactment by Congress of the line item veto in 1996. Just as the Roman Senate ceded its power over the purse to the Roman dictators, Sulla and Caesar, and to the later emperors, thus surrendering its power to check tyranny, so did the American Congress, the Senate included. By passing the Line Item Veto Act the Congress surrendered its control over the purse, control which had been vested by the Constitution in the legislative branch. This brings me to the first point that I would like to leave with you this evening. It is this: the legislative branch must be eternally vigilant over the powers and authorities vested in it by the Constitution. This is vitally important to the security of our constitutional system of checks and balances and separation of powers. George Washington, in his Farewell Address of September 17, 1796, emphasized the importance of such vigilance: ``It is important likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department, to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. . . . The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions of the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern. . . . To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.'' Each Member of this body must be ever mindful of the fundamental duty to uphold the institutional prerogatives of the Senate if we are to preserve the vital balance which Washington so eloquently endorsed. During my 46 years in Congress, and particularly in more recent years, I have seen an inclination on the part of many legislators in both parties to regard a chief executive in a role more elevated than the framers of the Constitution intended. We, as legislators, have a responsibility to work with the chief executive, but it is intended to be a two-way street. The Framers did not envision the office of President as having the attributes of royalty. We must recognize the heavy burden that any President bears, and wherever and whenever we can, we must cooperate with the chief executive in the interest of all the people. But let us keep in mind Madison's admonition: ``Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.'' As Majority Leader in the Senate during the Carter years, I worked hard to help President Carter to enact his programs. But I publicly stated that I was not the ``President's man''; I was a Senate man. For example, in July 1977, I opposed President Carter's plan to sell the AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) to Iran. Iran was then a military ally of the United States, but I was troubled over the potential security risks involved and the possibility of compromising highly sophisticated technology in that volatile region. I was concerned that the sale ran contrary to our national interests in maintaining a stable military balance and limited arms proliferation in the Middle East. Both Houses of Congress had to vote disapproval resolutions to stop the sale. I enlisted the support of the Republican Minority Leader, Howard Baker. Senator Baker was someone who could rise above political party when he believed that the national interests required it, just as he did during the Panama Canal debate. The Carter Administration chose to withdraw the sale of AWACS temporarily. Shortly afterwards, the Iranian Revolution occurred and the Shah was deposed. Had the sale gone through as planned, those sophisticated aircraft would have fallen into the hands of an unfriendly government. As so often has happened in our history, individual courage and character again charted our course. This brings me to my second point. On the great issues, the Senate has always been blessed with Senators who were able to rise above party, and consider first and foremost the national interest. There are worthy examples in Senate history. When I came to the Senate in 1959, artists were at work painting five porthole portraits in the Senate reception room. The Senate had appointed a special Committee chaired by Senator John F. Kennedy to select the five most significant Senators in Senate history. This was no easy task, because there were many potential candidates. In setting the criteria, the Committee looked to Senators who had stood firm for principle, who had not blown with the prevailing political winds, and who had made personal sacrifices for the national good. They were not saints or perfect men. Daniel Webster's personal financial dealings left an eternal blot on his record; yet, he deserved to have his portrait in the Senate reception room, not simply as a great orator but as a man who sacrificed his own political standing by endorsing the compromise of 1850, which was deeply unpopular in his home state of Massachusetts, but which he realized was the best chance to hold the Union together. In my almost 46 years in Congress, I have seen other courageous Senators. I have already referred to the courage demonstrated by former Senator Howard Baker during the Panama Canal debates. Without Senator Baker's support, the Panama Canal Treaties would never have been approved by the Senate. The killing of American servicemen in Panama would have gone on, but Senator Baker threw his shoulder behind the wheel and helped to construct what he and I referred to as leadership amendments, amendments which protected U.S. interests in that region, and we both worked shoulder to shoulder against great odds, as indicated by the polls. We did so because we believed, after careful study, that the Treaties were in the best interests of the United States. Howard Baker knew what Mike Mansfield and all students of the Senate's institutional role know. Political polarization--too much emphasis on which side of the aisle one sits, is not now, and has never been, a good thing for the Senate. I am talking about politics when it becomes gamesmanship or when it becomes mean-spirited or when it becomes overly manipulative, simply to gain advantage. I am not talking about honestly held views or differing philosophical positions. Those things enrich our system. Americans have always loved a good debate. And that is what I believe they wish for now--more substantive and stimulating debate and less pure politics and imagery. But I well understand history and its ebb and flow, and I well know that we live in an age of imagery. It is simply my wish that, sometime soon, the rising tide of imagery and partisanship will begin to ebb rather than to flow quite so freely. Washington, in his farewell address, warned us against the ``baneful effects of the spirit of party'' when he said: ``. . . in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming, it should consume.'' I believe that the American people are more than tired of partisan warfare. I believe they wish for less of it from the Congress, especially in the Senate, where more statesmanship and a longer view are still expected. Declining participation in elections, and repeated public surveys which indicate weariness, distrust, and alienation within our system ought to serve as a harbinger to be ignored at our peril. It must be a matter of concern to all of us that all too few Americans look to officeholders for inspiration in these troubled and turbulent times. How can we attract the talent needed to serve in public office in future years if elected officials continue to be held in such low esteem? I would very much like to see a rekindling of basic faith in our leaders, and a renewal of interest in politics and in public service. But the existence of inspiring leadership by public officials is fundamental to a shoring up of that faith. In short, I think the American people are in desperate need of some old-fashioned heroes. Now, it seems, today's heroes, if we want to loosely use the term, are merely celebrities-- rock stars who spout deplorable messages, or sports figures who amass fortunes advertising baggy clothes at exorbitant prices. Not much to look up to here, I say. Not much to build dreams on. Look hard at the content of our popular culture. There is really nothing much to inspire and uplift. And regrettably there also is not much to counter the empty commercialism which is so prevalent today. It has become the norm. So where are we in all of this? What is our role? What part can we as Senators--authority figures, statesmen representing the people--play while we simultaneously endeavor to carry out our 200-year-old mandate, bequeathed to us by some of the most brilliant men of their age, or of any age before or since? Well, we have our prescribed and our tangential duties, we can show up for roll call votes, carry out our committee assignments, issue the obligatory press releases, dutifully follow up on constituent requests, and answer our mail. All of these are necessary and to a greater or lesser degree important. But a reemphasis by the Senate on our strict institutional role is certainly something which I would like to see. It is a sobering and heavy responsibility all by itself, and its very weightiness tends to cool the over- heated passions of political demagoguery. After all, that role is, in a Constitutional sense, the reason we are here. The Framers expected a zealous defense of our powers to keep the tyrants at bay. But there is still another role--an intangible something-- that we who are privileged to sit in this body, and indeed leaders in the private sector, as well as those who write and reflect upon the news, are called upon to play. I call it the duty beyond our duties. The duty I am talking about is the duty to endeavor to inspire others and to demonstrate, through personal example, that public service of all types ought to be an honorable calling. Contrary to what many believe, it is absolutely the wrong place for the slick and the insincere. Serving the public in a leadership role demands honesty, hard work, sacrifice, and dedication from those who dare to ask the people for such an awesome trust. Those who ask to shoulder that mantle also shoulder a much larger personal obligation than many of us may regularly contemplate. We all have a clear responsibility to serve as role models to inspire our people, and particularly our young people, to be and to do their best. On that score, we politicians, as a group, generally miss the mark. Perhaps it's because power, whether it be the power of political office, or the power to run giant corporations, or the power to report and analyze events, is a very heady thing. It can lead to arrogance, self aggrandizement, disregard for playing by the rules, and contempt for the people. It can lead us to forget that we are servants, not masters. In the real world, exemplary personal conduct can sometimes achieve much more than any political agenda. Comity, courtesy, charitable treatment of even our political opposites, combined with a concerted effort to not just occupy our offices, but to bring honor to them, will do more to inspire our people and restore their faith in us, their leaders, than millions of dollars of 30-second spots or glitzy puff-pieces concocted by spin meisters. These are troubling times for our nation and our people on both the national and international fronts. For our country to weather the rough seas ahead, we must use most tempered judgments and seek out our best and most noble instincts. Our example here can be a healing element--a balm to salve the trauma of distrust and disillusionment too long endured by a good people. Let each of us follow his or her own conscience when it comes to issues, but as we do so, may we be ever mindful of the sublimely uplifting part which the example of simple dignity, decency, decorum, and dedication to duty can play in the life of a nation. Let us also remember that even after two hundred years, the Senate is still the anchor of the Republic, the morning and evening star in the American constitutional constellation. It has had its giants and its little men, its Websters and its Bilbos, its Calhouns and its McCarthys. It has been the stage of high drama, of comedy and of tragedy, and its players have been the great and the near great, those who think they are great, and those who will never be great. It has weathered the storms of adversity, withstood the barbs of cynics and the attacks of critics, and provided stability and strength to the nation during periods of civil strife and uncertainty, panics and depressions. In war and in peace, it has been the sure refuge and protector of the rights of the states and of a political minority because great and courageous Senators have always been there to stay the course and keep the faith. As long as we are ever blessed in this august body with those who hear the clear tones of the bell of duty, the Senate will continue to stand--the great forum of constitutional American liberty!

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I move that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I believe we have a question at the desk.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, may I inquire about the time that has been used on each side?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe we are ready to resume the questions, and I believe this will be question No. 16. We send the question to the Chief Justice.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe we have had an equal number of questions, although the timing may not be exactly equal. I ask unanimous consent that we take a 15 minute recess at this point.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, we send our next question to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I do send the first question to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. If there is nothing further, I move we adjourn, Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe we have reached a point where we can take a break. I think we have had responses to approximately 50 questions today. Now we will have a chance to assess, on all sides, what additional questions might be needed to be asked tomorrow. I remind my colleagues that we are scheduled to resume at 10 a.m. on Saturday. notice of intent to suspend the rules of the senate by senator hutchison, senator specter, senator lieberman, senator hagel, senator collins, and senator snowe In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I (for myself and for Mr. Specter, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Hagel, Ms. Collins, and Ms. Snowe) hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend the following portions of the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials for the final deliberation on the articles of impeachment of the trial of President William Jefferson Clinton: (1) The following portion of Rule XX: ``, unless the Senate shall direct the doors to be closed while deliberating upon its decisions. A motion to close the doors may be acted upon without objection, or, if objection is heard, the motion shall be voted on without debate by the yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the Record''; and (2) In Rule XXIV, the phrases ``without debate'', ``except when the doors shall be closed for deliberation, and in that case'' and ``, to be had without debate''. Adjournment

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Mr. Chief Justice, I had indicated that we would probably go 5 hours today, which would take us to approximately 6 o'clock. But I think we would certainly go for at least another hour or so, perhaps not quite all the way to 6 o'clock, but we will talk to each other and look for a signal from the Chief Justice about exactly when we would end the day's proceedings. At this point, Mr. Chief Justice, I believe we are ready for the next question. I believe the previous question came from Senator Lieberman; therefore, I send the next question to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. With that, I would ask unanimous consent that we take another brief recess of 15 minutes.

Mr. LOTT. I would like to note that in the response to the previous question, question probably No. 28, that it was not filed by the managers; it was filed by a group of Senators. Recess

Mr. LOTT. This afternoon, the Senate will begin the question-and- answer period for not to exceed 16 hours, as provided in Senate Resolution 16. I have consulted several times about this procedure with Senator Daschle and others, and we have determined that the majority will begin the questioning process with the first question, and we will then alternate back and forth. As I noted yesterday, this has not been done in quite a while, so we will just have to go forward in a way that we feel is fair and comfortable. We ask that you give the benefit of the doubt to us in how we send the questions up to the Chief Justice. Senator Daschle and I will try to make sure that the time stays pretty close to even as we go through the day. Of course, the Chief Justice, I am sure, will make sure the deliberations and the answers are fair. We hope the answers will be succinct and that they will respond to the questions. One question that has arisen from Senators on both sides is, can we direct a question to both sides, the White House counsel and the House managers, simultaneously, and the answer is no. Under our rules, we will direct the question to one side or the other, and our questions for either side may go to either one of the parties, but only one can answer that question. Of course, there is the possibility for a follow-up question that might be directed to one side or the other. We will just deal with that as we go forward. I expect, for the information of all Senators, that we will go approximately 5 hours today. I don't know how many questions we can get done in an hour, but I suspect by 6 o'clock on Friday we will have exhausted a series of questions that will entitle us to a break at that point. But, again, we will just have to see how we feel about it. We would not stop, obviously, in the middle of a question. We will resume again on Saturday at 10 a.m., alternating between both sides. The schedule at this point is undecided. We need to see how many questions are left that Senators really feel need to be asked and, again, we will have to see how the day progresses. I did have Senators come up to me yesterday and talk to me about we need some reasonable limit on that. But I am thinking in general terms of not going beyond 4 o'clock on Saturday. We will converse and make those announcements after consultation as we go forward tomorrow or during the day even tomorrow. I hope we can complete our questioning period by the close of business tomorrow, but if we go with the times I basically mentioned, we are talking about 10 hours, not 16. So we will have to consult and determine if we ask the basic questions or if we want to continue it later or even over on Monday. I believe, Mr. Chief Justice, that completed the explanation that I wanted to give at this time. I do have the first question prepared to send to the Chief Justice, but I thought perhaps he had some further business he might want to address before I did that.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. In this case, the vehicle had been totaled as part of a government crash test. After being demolished by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the vehicle, which the Post called ``cannon fodder,'' was sold at an auto auction. It was then rebuilt and sold to a used car buyer in Wisconsin who had no way of knowing that he purchased a crash test car. Apparently, as the article suggests, he is not alone. There may be thousands of government crashed vehicles that have been returned to the road for normal highway driving. Think about that. Thousands of NHTSA crash-tested cars back on America's roads and highways. This consumer, like millions of other used-car purchasers across the country, fell victim to the fraudulent practice known as ``title washing.'' In the Wisconsin case, a clean title was easily obtained bearing no indication of the vehicle's previous damage history. Since the vehicle's checkered past was concealed, the buyer ended-up paying thousands of dollars for a structurally unsafe car that posed a threat not only to his well-being, but to the safety of everyone with whom he shares the road. Mr. President, during the last Congress, Senator Wendell Ford (D- Ky.), and I co-authored The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Protection Act to begin closing the dangerous loopholes that allow unscrupulous rebuilders to take advantage of used car consumers. The Act would have dramatically improved public disclosure by requiring that totaled vehicles be designated ``salvage vehicles.'' It also required that rebuilt salvage vehicles be inspected to ensure that stolen parts were not used in the repair. Additionally, ``rebuilt salvage vehicles'' would have a decal permanently affixed to the driver's side door jamb. The bill also contained a provision requiring all previous brands on a vehicle to be carried forward to each state retitling the vehicle. As my colleagues are aware, the practice of selling rebuilt salvage vehicles as undamaged used cars costs consumers and the auto industry nearly $4 billion annually. It is estimated that every year, as many as one million vehicles are ``totaled,'' rebuilt, and placed back into used car commerce. In some states, as many as 70 percent of all ``totaled'' vehicles may return to the roads after being purchased by unsuspecting citizens. While most states require some type of disclosure on a vehicle's title to indicate its history, the requirements vary from state to state, and it is the resulting hodgepodge of conflicting state laws that allows dishonest rebuilders to obtain ``clean'' titles. When a title has been laundered, all future purchasers are deprived of important information alerting them to potential problems with the vehicle. These later buyers may include private purchasers or automobile dealers. Dealers typically purchase used vehicles from auctions and from their customers as trade-ins, and then sell them to used car consumers. In such cases, both parties are victims. Congress acted on this problem by adopting legislation in 1992 directing the creation of a task force to examine the problems associated with salvage vehicles. The task force included a diverse group of stakeholders who concluded that the lack of uniformity in state laws allows unscrupulous rebuilders to easily wash titles and to subsequently sell rebuilt vehicles as undamaged. It also noted that rebuilt vehicles could be a risk to the driving public. Among the task force's recommendations was the development of federal legislation to create uniform definitions and procedures for titling salvage vehicles. The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Protection Act was based largely on the task force's recommendations. I do not want the recommendations of a federal task force to collect dust. All too often, Congress does not follow through with the recommendations of commissions it creates. Here is one of those instances where Congress wants to implement them-- a majority of both chambers want to enact them. A widely diverse bipartisan group. This much needed legislation received the formal support of 57 Senators, including the distinguished Minority Leader, Tom Daschle, Senator McCain, Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Harry Reid, and other colleagues from both sides of the aisle. It also garnered broad bipartisan support in the House of Representatives which approved similar title branding legislation by a vote of 333 to 72. Even though this non-partisan consumer-friendly legislation was widely supported by both chambers of Congress, it fell victim to a steady stream of misrepresentation. Throughout the legislative process in both chambers, a number of significant changes were made to address the concerns of state attorneys general and consumer groups. Unfortunately, even after these changes were adopted, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a direct contributor to this national problem, opposed this modest but important bill as a bargaining chip for its own agenda. Mr. President, it is my intention to reintroduce auto salvage legislation during this session. I have given NHTSA the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed bill. I welcome NHTSA's input and I am hopeful that the Administration will join with us, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the experts on titling matters, to foster national uniform titling requirements. It is time to put politics aside to protect the public from the practice of title washing and the greed of dishonest rebuilders.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to call our colleagues attention to an article that appeared in the January 8, 1999, edition of The Washington Post. It is important because it touched on a serious and growing problem plaguing our nation's consumers and motorists everywhere. Under the title, ``Wrecked Cars, On the Road Again,'' the Post writer detailed how easy it is for a person to unwittingly purchase a rebuilt salvage vehicle completely unaware of the car's previous damage history. At this time Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the January 8, 1999, article from The Washington Post. The article follows: [From the Washington Post, Jan. 9, 1999] Wrecked Cars, On the Road Again--Repaired U.S. Test Vehicles Pose Safety Problems for Unsuspecting Owners (By Cindy Skrzycki) The huge concrete barrier rolled down a track at 20 miles an hour and smashed into the 1996 Mustang GT convertible. The Mustang fishtailed, the windshield shattered and the side of the car was heavily damaged. This Mustang was essentially cannon fodder in a regular series of safety tests conducted by the government--in this case, to determine whether the fuel system would stay intact in an accident. The car passed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration test and, as usual, the Government Services Administration sold it at an auction on July 2, 1997. Stamped at the bottom of the GSA's sales receipt: ``Salvage Only--Not to be Titled for Highway Use (wrecked/ inoperable).'' So why did David Staber end up tooling around Cadott, Wis., in the Mustang after paying $9,500 for it? And why did Daniel Mencheski of Green Bay, Wis., sink $22,000 into a 1995 Chevrolet Tahoe that had been rear-ended by a moving barrier in another government test? You have to go back to Arkansas, where investigators believe a car salesman figured out how to doctor the bills of sale from the GSA and pass the cars off as any other damaged used car. In other words, cars sacrificed to the altar of safety by the government are illegally finding their way back to the street--where they constitute a safety hazard. ``All of these cars have gone through some form of destructive testing and have extensive to severe damage. There's no assurance they could be repaired or meet safety standards,'' said Philip Recht, deputy administrator of the NHTSA, who called it ``the ultimate contradiction of our mission and whole compliance program.'' It's a problem that happens all too often in the used car business, in which unsuspecting buyers purchase cars with ``washed'' titles that remove any warnings that the cars may have been in accidents and sustained damages that would make them junk in some states. Bernard Brown, a Kansas City, Mo., lawyer who specializes in car fraud, said there may be as many as a million vehicles totaled, rebuilt and resold to unsuspecting consumers every year. The NHTSA case also highlights the patchwork of state laws and requirements for obtaining a vehicle title that allow it to be driven and considered safe. ``We have handled cases of persons suffering severe injuries in accidents caused by improperly rebuilt wrecks. We have had experts examining large numbers of unsafe, rebuilt wrecks. We have seen documentation on tens of thousands of rebuilt, totaled wrecks retitled by states with `clean titles' that show nothing of the cars' salvage histories,'' Brown said. Overall, since the inception of the crash-test program in the 1970s, NHTSA has damaged 7,120 vehicles at four test sites. No one has traced the history of all of those cars, but there may be many more back in commerce, posing unknown safety problems for their owners. The agency alerted the Department of Transportation's inspector general's office, which is handling the case. Carfax Inc., a computerized vehicle-history service in Fairfax, has been working with NHTSA to identify how many cars and trucks are likely to have been fraudulently titled. It reviewed the histories of 494 cars that NHTSA crashed from 1995 to 1998, coming up with the 25 that were repaired, retitled, and sold to unsuspecting owners. Carfax found another 67 that were retitled, but some of those may be ``branded'' as salvage. That means they may be driven in some states and, in others, they could be used only for parts. Scott Fredericks, Carfax director of consumer marketing, said it's likely that ``a goodly number [of the 67] are back on the road, which is a hazard to consumers.'' Legislation stipulates that funds from the GSA auction sales be returned to NHTSA to help pay for more vehicles for its crash-test programs, which cost $2.7 million in 1997. The auctions raised about $290,000 in 1996 and nearly $570,000 in 1997. In the case of the Mustang, the GSA sold it to Ben Still of Century Auto Sales in Benton, Ark., who paid $5,037 by check. Century Auto, in turn, sold the vehicle to a used car and salvage dealer in Hortonville, Wis., with what appeared to be a ``clean'' Arkansas title, according to documents acquired by The Post. Still's name is on the GSA official receipt, according to a copy obtained by the Post. Investigators said the Wisconsin dealer then sold the car for $9,500 to Staber, who took ownership on Nov. 6, 1997. The Mustang had only 720 miles on the odometer. Staber, who owns Cadott Auto Recyclers and buys as many as 500 damaged vehicles a year, said he spent another $8,000 to repair and repaint the car, which retailed for about $28,500. ``I know what I'm doing, but this one got me,'' said Staber, who is suing the Wisconsin dealer from whom he bought the car. ``I saw the title and I never suspected the fraud. I don't like losing $18,000. I work too hard for my money.'' Mencheski's Tahoe also was bought from a GSA auction by the same Arkansas dealer for $6,678, according to the receipt from the auction sale. It then took a circuitous route through northern Michigan before reaching Green Bay, Wis., where Mencheski bought it. The vehicle now sits in Mencheski's driveway without a title and is undrivable. Mencheski said it will cost him $400 a month in loan payments for the next six years; he borrowed against his 401(k) retirement account to buy a used minivan to replace the useless sport-utility vehicle. He, too, is suing the dealers who handled the Tahoe before he bought it. ``I wanted one with a clean title,'' said Mencheski, who is a lineman for Wisconsin Electric Power Co. ``It had less than 100 miles on it.'' Here's how the process worked: Over time, investigators said, Century Auto made 13 purchases at GSA auctions. Century Auto then sold three of those cars--Staber's Mustang, another Mustang and Mencheski's Tahoe--to Michael Schmidt, president of Schmidt's New London Auto Salvage Inc. in Hortonville. Those transactions are documented in the official paper trail that followed the cars from the auctions to titling in Wisconsin. ``Our investigation indicates Century Sales fraudulently obtained an Arkansas clean title, number 9720521491, on July 24, 1997, by submitting a fictitious GSA purchaser's receipt and authority to release property. The document submitted did not have the language that was on the original document,'' said a letter that the Wisconsin Department of Transportation sent to Staber. Mencheski got a similar letter. The warning on the bottom of the receipt saying the car was for salvage only had been erased. Investigators believe Century Auto made up ``new'' GSA bills of sale, excluding the warning. At the bottom of those, the company allegedly stated the make, model year, the vehicle identification number and odometer reading. A few signatures and dates also were altered, the receipts show. Still did not return phone calls. His lawyer in Little Rock had no comment. What apparently happened next was that Still or his associates took the ``clean'' sales receipts to get Arkansas titles for the cars--and got them with no problem. Roger Duren, of the Arkansas Office of Motor Vehicles, said either the GSA bill of sale or another government form known as ``Certificate to Obtain Title to Vehicle,'' which transfers a vehicle from government ownership to the auction buyer, is acceptable. The title certificate is supposed to be stamped by GSA ``Not to be Titled for Highway Use'' and would have been a flag to state examiners. In the case of the Mustang, at least, the form mistakenly did not carry that warning, GSA officials said, and Still or his associates did not present that form. Still--in Arkansas--then told Schmidt he had three cars with collision damage that were drivable, Schmidt said. Still advised that they would go fast. He wanted the money in advance, sight unseen. He promised clean Arkansas titles, according to Schmidt. ``As soon as we saw them, we knew they were crash-test stuff,'' said Schmidt. But the titles didn't arrive until Schmidt agreed to sign ``as is'' forms and accept the cars, Schmidt said that when Still wouldn't take them back, he decided to sell the Mustang and the Tahoe. Schmidt sent the Mustang convertible to a salvage auction in Appleton, Wis., and Staber was the high bidder. Schmidt said he told Staber everything he knew about the Mustang. ``At the time, I didn't know you couldn't drive a crash-test car,'' he said. The Tahoe was sold at a private salvage auction to a dealer in Michigan, who took it to a repair shop in Green Bay owned by Mencheski's brother-in-law. The brother-in-law thought the Tahoe would be just the four-wheel-drive his sister and her husband were looking for. The other vehicle bought by Schmidt was a Mustang coupe, which he sold for parts. ``So, who should be at fault? I'm just the guy in the middle,'' said Schmidt, who believes the blame lies with ``the people who issue the titles.'' As for Still, investigators are looking at whether he forged the signature of a federal official, altered a federal document and gave false information to the Arkansas Office of Motor Vehicles. Staber and NHTSA learned about the Mustang's unlawful title when Staber had transmission problems and took the Mustang to Jim Carter Ford in Eau Claire, Wis. Ford Motor Co. checked the vehicle identification number and found it was a NHTSA test vehicle, which voided the warranty coverage, according to documents from the investigation. A month later, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation told Staber he was driving a fraudulently titled government test vehicle. In the wake of the discovery, NHTSA has alerted consumers on its World Wide Web site to vehicles that have been in the crash-test program for the years 1996 through 1998.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that we will continue the questions on Saturday beginning at 10. We don't know exactly how long it will go. It depends on the feeling in the Senate and whether or not we asked the questions we need to have answers to. I hope, though, it will not exceed 4 p.m. on Saturday. I thank my colleagues for their attention and participation today.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the last Congress enacted legislation which protects our nation's vital underground infrastructure. Power cables, telephone lines, water mains and pipelines affect our daily lives, and it is essential that they are given the best protection possible. This legislation, based on S.1115, the Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act, does just that. It provides incentives for states to improve their notification systems--systems which provide for accurate marking of underground facilities, and systems which prevent damage during excavation. This bill became law as part of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA 21. I am pleased to report that the response to the one-call legislation has been extremely positive. The truely bipartisan spirit that characterized Congress' approach to the legislation has been carried over into the cooperative spirit of the participants in implementing the bill. The bill's first mandate convened a study on the best practices in one-call notification. This study will be submitted to Congress in June of this year, and is being carried out by the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) of the Department of Transportation. I have received reports that OPS has fully involved those affected by the law in all phases of the design and implementation of the best practices. This has proven to be an excellent model for conducting a cooperative effort between the public and private sectors. Mr. President, I am particularly pleased by the leadership the excavation community has shown in working with one- call center representatives, underground facility operators and others interested in underground infrastructure protection by moving this study process forward. This study is a bottom-up effort with emphasis on letting those with hands-on experience play leading roles. After a public meeting last August to bring together interested parties, the participants formed nine teams covering various aspects of underground infrastructure protection: one-call center practices, excavation, mapping, locating and marketing, compliance, planning and design, reporting and evaluation, public education, and emerging technologies. The teams are currently gathering information, receiving and discussing any and all comments, and will produce the first drafts of the chapters for the final report. Team meetings are completely open to interested members of the public. Infact, schedules and minutes are being published on the OPS web page, http://ops.dot.gov, under ``damage prevention.'' Mr. President, the affected parties have checked their differences at the door, have worked together with openness and goodwill, have solved a very important infrastructure problem, and, because there was real world input, it will improve practices in the real world. Looking ahead, the second phase of the bill calls for the Secretary of Transportation to offer grants to states which encourage improvements in their states' one-call notification systems. I expect the best practices study to significantly help devise criteria for awarding these grants. I hope the President's budget proposal funds these grant activities from general revenues in full recognition of the broad public benefit that accrues from effective underground infrastructure protection. Mr. President, the process moving forward within the Department of Transportation has enlightened federalism through a government-industry partnership. I congratulate the monitoring the additional steps in the inclusive process to implement the protection of our vital underground infrastructure.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the nominations to the Office of Inspector General, excepting the Office of Inspector of the Central Intelligence Agency, be referred in each case to the committee having substantive jurisdiction over the Department, Agency, or entity, and if and when reported in each case, then to the Committee on Governmental Affairs for not to exceed 20 days. I finally ask unanimous consent that if not reported after that 20-day period, the nomination be automatically discharged and placed on the Executive Calendar.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there are four bills at the desk that are due for their second reading. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be considered read a second time and placed on the Calendar, and that the reading be shown separately in the Record.