Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today I am here to talk to my colleagues about used cars. No, not to sell you one, but more importantly, to protect Americans who buy used cars. I am joined by my friend and colleague Senator Ford in introducing legislation which will require that the title of a vehicle, at the time of resale, indicate that it has been significantly damaged. This bill is about safety. This bill is about consumer protection. We believe America's policy must protect used car consumers from unknowingly purchasing automobiles which have been totaled and rebuilt, but sold as undamaged vehicles. Often these vehicles have serious safety problems. We want you to join us in helping to protect the public. In the last Congress, I worked with Senator Exon to advance similar legislation. We need to complete the job this Congress. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's automobile auction figures, the practice of selling rebuilt salvage vehicles as undamaged used cars costs consumers and the auto industry nearly $4 billion annually. In some States, as many as 70 percent of all totaled vehicles may return to the roads after being purchased by unsuspecting buyers. This is dangerous to everyone on America's highways. While most States require some type of disclosure on the title indicating a vehicle's history, the requirements vary from State to State. Some rebuilders take advantage of these inconsistencies in State titling procedures to obtain clean titles that bear no indication of previous vehicle damage. Not only does this type of fraud affect the consumer's wallet, it also threatens the consumer's safety. Several years ago, Congress established a Federal task force to study this issue. This consumer friendly bill stems from the recommendations of that task force. Our bill requires that any vehicle with damage exceeding 75 percent of its preaccident value be designated as a salvage vehicle. If the salvage vehicle is rebuilt and placed back on the road, the title to the vehicle must be branded as a rebuilt salvage vehicle and it must have an inspection to assure that stolen parts were not used in the repair. In addition, all rebuilt salvage vehicles must have a decal permanently affixed to the driver's side door jamb indicating that the vehicle has been rebuilt. It will also specify whether the vehicle has passed an approved safety inspection. Mr. President, the number of victims in the rebuilt salvage vehicle industry is growing, and it must be stopped. We need to establish policies to stop these illegal practices and protect American drivers. Along with Mr. Ford, I urge you to join us as a cosponsor of this common sense legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today I am here to talk to my colleagues about used cars. No, not to sell you one, but more importantly, to protect Americans who buy used cars. I am joined by my friend and colleague Senator Ford in introducing legislation which will require that the title of a vehicle, at the time of resale, indicate that it has been significantly damaged. This bill is about safety. This bill is about consumer protection. We believe America's policy must protect used car consumers from unknowingly purchasing automobiles which have been totaled and rebuilt, but sold as undamaged vehicles. Often these vehicles have serious safety problems. We want you to join us in helping to protect the public. In the last Congress, I worked with Senator Exon to advance similar legislation. We need to complete the job this Congress. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's automobile auction figures, the practice of selling rebuilt salvage vehicles as undamaged used cars costs consumers and the auto industry nearly $4 billion annually. In some States, as many as 70 percent of all totaled vehicles may return to the roads after being purchased by unsuspecting buyers. This is dangerous to everyone on America's highways. While most States require some type of disclosure on the title indicating a vehicle's history, the requirements vary from State to State. Some rebuilders take advantage of these inconsistencies in State titling procedures to obtain clean titles that bear no indication of previous vehicle damage. Not only does this type of fraud affect the consumer's wallet, it also threatens the consumer's safety. Several years ago, Congress established a Federal task force to study this issue. This consumer friendly bill stems from the recommendations of that task force. Our bill requires that any vehicle with damage exceeding 75 percent of its preaccident value be designated as a salvage vehicle. If the salvage vehicle is rebuilt and placed back on the road, the title to the vehicle must be branded as a rebuilt salvage vehicle and it must have an inspection to assure that stolen parts were not used in the repair. In addition, all rebuilt salvage vehicles must have a decal permanently affixed to the driver's side door jamb indicating that the vehicle has been rebuilt. It will also specify whether the vehicle has passed an approved safety inspection. Mr. President, the number of victims in the rebuilt salvage vehicle industry is growing, and it must be stopped. We need to establish policies to stop these illegal practices and protect American drivers. Along with Mr. Ford, I urge you to join us as a cosponsor of this common sense legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 115, Elizabeth Moler, to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. I further ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and statements relating to the nomination appear at this point in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 12 noon on Monday, June 9, and that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move the Senate stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Monday, June 9. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 97 submitted earlier today by Senator Warner.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period for morning business from the hour of 12 noon to 2 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas from 12 to 12:30 p.m., and Senator Dorgan, or his designee, from 12:30 to 1 p.m.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senate will be in a period for morning business until the hour of 2 p.m. to accommodate a number of Senators who have requested time to speak. At 2 p.m., it is my hope that we will begin debate on the supplemental appropriations conference report. We are working to get a 2-hour debate agreement on that supplemental conference report, of course, to be followed by a vote. Then after that debate, the Senate will, hopefully, be able to begin consideration of the budget resolution conference report with 3 hours of debate on that. Therefore, Senators can expect votes on both the supplemental appropriations conference report and the budget conference report before the Senate adjourns this evening. I thank my colleagues for their attention. I might also note, we hope to be able to confirm the nomination late this afternoon of Elizabeth Anne Moler to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will shortly adjourn over until Monday at noon, 12 o'clock. I announce to all Senators that no votes will occur on Monday prior to the hour of 5 p.m. I expect a lengthy period of morning business on Monday to accommodate a number of requests, and I will update the Democratic leader at a later time with respect to potential legislation the Senate may consider on Monday. We have already had one conversation about that, and we will have some more here in a few minutes. Before I consider two housekeeping items, I would like to thank all Senators for their cooperation this week. The Senate has now passed a budget resolution outlining a long overdue balanced budget for our Nation, and I congratulate all those Senators who have participated in the negotiations. Again, I thank Senator Domenici, the chairman of Budget Committee, and Senator Lautenberg, who also has worked with us getting through some problems we ran into. They both did an excellent job. The Senate also adopted the supplemental appropriations conference report. Consequently, I think this has been a good week, and I hope we can continue that next week.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will observe that I am expecting and hoping that the President will sign the bill, and therefore there would be no necessity for further action. But if he does not, we will act further as soon as we get that information. I might also note that the House has not yet acted, and I do not know when that may be, although I presume it will be sometime later on in the evening. As soon as they act, we will move expeditiously to get the enrollment and send the package down to the President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on the family friendly workplace bill itself, the comptime/flextime issue, I hope that we can come to an agreement on this. Senator Daschle has indicated he would like to work with us on it. The President said during the election campaign and, in fact, 2 weeks ago, he would like to work with us on giving some flexibility to workers' schedules. I believe he has indicated that again today. Senator Ashcroft has done such a magnificent job on this bill. In fact, I believe the President said flextime is very important--flexibility is very important. I wrote it down and gave a copy of it to the Senator from Missouri. So, we all agree that having a little option of taking your comptime in terms of higher pay or the option of it being some time off, that's a good idea. We all agree, I think, that working spouses ought to have a little flexibility in their schedules. That is who really benefits from the flextime portion of this bill. Now, if there are questions or concerns about making sure that it is fair and there is no intimidation, it is truly voluntary, hey, let's work that out. We ought to do that. We want those protections. We want those guarantees. But I want somebody to explain to me how I can explain to the hourly workers in my State that they should not have these options even though Federal employees do. And, as a matter of fact, in truth, so do salaried employees. If they want a little time off, they take it off. But, no, not the hourly workers, not the blue collar workers in my State, not the people out there pulling the load. They don't even have this option. Protect them, make sure that the law doesn't get out of control, that it's abused--let's do that. But to have this type of flexibility, to have a more family friendly workplace, isn't that a worthwhile goal? Can't we do this? The Senator from Massachusetts and I worked together on some bills that he forced me to work with him on. I didn't particularly want to, but we wound up doing it. We got health insurance reform last year, thanks to the good help of the Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum. This very day, an unbelievable achievement was signed by the President of the United States: IDEA, I-D-E-A, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Last year we gave up in exhaustion. We couldn't get it done. This year, because of a lot of good staff work, administration input, Democrats, Republicans, all regions, all races, all ethnic backgrounds, all degrees of philosophy, we came together on a bill that will help education in America--not just for the disabled, but I believe all of our children will be better off because of this bill. We got it done because we put aside our prejudices and our determinations that we were going to be committed to this position or that position and we said we need results and we got results. We need to do this on this legislation. Let's get started. Let's work together. If you have amendments, put them up. I would like them to be germane. I would rather we not solve some irrelevant issue. Let's stick to the subject at hand. And I believe the American people would be the beneficiaries. So I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote for this cloture, or if they don't, tell us how we can come together and give this opportunity to working Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move the Senate stand adjourned. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Thursday, June 5, and that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted.

Mr. LOTT. I move that the Senate stand in adjournment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, today the Senate will immediately resume consideration of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. By previous consent, Senator Kennedy or his designee will be recognized for 30 minutes of debate to be followed by Senator Ashcroft for up to 30 minutes. At the expiration of that time, the Senate will proceed to a vote on cloture on the substitute amendment to S. 4. Senators can therefore expect that cloture vote at approximately 4 p.m. today. I guess it will probably be shortly after 4. Senators are also reminded that they have until 3:30 this afternoon in order to file second-degree amendments to the substitute to S. 4. It is my hope that cloture will be invoked and the Senate can then proceed to conclude action on this very important measure. If that is the case, Senators should be prepared to continue the debate and vote on amendments to S. 4. In addition, as previously announced, it is my hope that we can conclude work on the budget conference report--and I understand the conferees have met today and should be able to complete the conference, if not this afternoon, sometime tomorrow--and the supplemental appropriations conference report as soon as those items are available for consideration. Now, I understand that some of my colleagues are concerned about the supplemental appropriations conference report and are now talking about extensive debate. I do want to say that I have just been advised that the conferees have been working and they feel they have made real good progress and, as a matter of fact, they could conclude action on the conference report even within the hour now. Knowing how conferences work, sometimes when you get right to the end, that last 10 percent or 2 percent causes a problem and they may still encounter further delays. But the appropriators and the conferees are meeting, they are working, and I believe they are making progress. Hopefully, they will get to some conclusion this afternoon on the conference report that we could vote on. I understand the frustration of Members on all sides. It is very important language here. The administration needs to understand that Pennsylvania Avenue is a two-way street. It doesn't just come from the Capitol down to the White House, where we send down billions of the taxpayers' dollars; we have to get a little cooperation. We feel very strongly about the importance of a law enforcement commission to take a look at the overall application of law enforcement in America. We feel very strongly about the census issue. How do we make sure that it's fair and thorough and complete and accurate? We may come to an agreement on how that can be done, either in terms of actual count or some modification, but not without consultation and not without the Congress being involved in a constitutional issue. We also remind people that the only way--the only way--the disaster funds will stop flowing from FEMA or SBA--and the money is flowing right now--is if we have some sort of fun and games at the end of the fiscal year with a Government shutdown. I think we can work these matters out. We should. But everybody needs to understand these are important issues. This is not abnormal. I have been through supplemental bills probably 24 times or more in my career in Congress. I have been through disasters. There is nothing new here. There is nothing out of order here. We need to keep working together, and if we heighten the rhetoric and the partisanship, it doesn't help. I tried my very best to make sure that the Senate in fact is a family friendly workplace. I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, we have flexibility in our schedules and we have tried not to work into the wee hours of the night. In fact, I think only one night this year have we gone beyond 8:30. I think that is wise, because over the years I have noticed that any time the Congress, House or Senate, stays in after about 8 o'clock, they start making mistakes. And some of us still have wives that we like to see or spouses that we like to see or children that we enjoy being with. So the threat of staying up all night tonight to talk about a bill that in fact we hope we can come to agreement on shortly rings hollow to me. Let's just do our work and keep calm and we can get this thing solved.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 4, 1997, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Aviation Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on June 4, 1997, at 2 p.m., on bilateral aviation relations with the United Kingdom.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that tributes to Senator Thurmond be printed as a Senate document.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this morning, until the hour of 12:30 p.m., the Senate will honor the service of our President pro tempore, Senator Thurmond, as the longest serving Member of the Senate. By previous consent, from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m., the Senate will be in recess to allow for the weekly policy luncheons to meet, and, at 2:15 p.m., the Senate will immediately resume consideration of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act, with amendments being offered throughout the day to that legislation. Therefore, Senators can expect rollcall votes throughout today's session of the Senate as we make progress on this most important legislation. I want to commend the Senator from Missouri for the time that he has spent on this legislation, and I look forward to further debate and amendments that may be offered. A cloture motion was filed yesterday on the pending amendments to S. 4. So Members can anticipate a cloture vote on Wednesday morning. As always, Members will be notified accordingly as any votes are ordered with respect to this legislation, or other legislation. Also, under the provisions of rule XXII, Senators have until the hour of 12:30 p.m. today in order to file first-degree amendments to the substitute amendment to S. 4. It is my hope also that the Senate will conclude action on the concurrent budget resolution and the supplemental appropriations conference report this week. We do not have an exact time yet for those two but we expect that they would come up Wednesday and Thursday, one or the other, as soon as they are available, with the budget resolution conference report being one that we will take up first--hopefully tomorrow. I appreciate all Senators' cooperation in this.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina. This is a very special occasion for the Senate, as we take this time to honor the longest serving Member of this body in history. Senator Thurmond is an institution within this institution. Among the American people, he is probably one of the best known--and most recognized--Members of the Senate, every morning opening the Senate dutifully here; almost every day when we open. On rare occasions he is not in the chair. And within this congressional family, he holds a place of respect that is truly unique. I have been honored to serve with him, privileged to learn from him, and proud to call him my friend. If the Senate had a Mount Rushmore, Strom would be on it. As my colleagues know, Senator Thurmond's stature in the Senate is not just a matter of longevity. It is a matter of accomplishment. He was first elected to this body on November 2, 1954, as a write-in candidate, and remains to this day the only person elected to the Senate in that manner. He has served here on both sides of the aisle, and in both the majority and the minority. But he will quickly tell you that the majority is better. He has chaired both the Armed Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee, and he thereby has made an enduring contribution to both our Nation's security and our system of justice. He has stood for causes that were popular and causes that were less so. He has been fearless in defending his views, and what may be more important, equally unafraid to change those views when convinced of the rightness of change. I can remember some of his speeches here in the Senate. He holds the record for the longest speech in the history of the Senate. But I remember as a brand-new Senator, he was standing in this aisle here and giving the most vigorous speech in behalf of the need for a criminal law reform that I believe I have ever heard. It was magnificent. When Strom Thurmond came to the Senate almost 42 years ago, he brought with him enough accomplishments already for a lifetime. He had already been a State senator and circuit judge in his native beloved South Carolina. He had been Governor of the Palmetto State and had been the States Rights candidate for the Presidency in 1948. Most telling of all, he had landed in Normandy on D-day with the 82d Airborne. Senator Thurmond has much to be proud of in his Senate career. But I doubt that any honors bestowed on him in the course of that career can rival the decorations he won in the Normandy landing: The Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster and the Bronze Star for Valor. All of this, of course, is a matter of public record. But what the public generally does not know, however, is the personality and the fantastic character that Senator Thurmond brings to his work in the Senate. I often wish I had his unfailing good humor, which, come to think of it, probably has something to do with his length of service here. He always comes in ready to go to work with a smile on his face, as he did this very morning. We all know firsthand how strongly he can argue his point, how fiercely he can defend his values, and how firmly he can put down an opponent who does not have the facts on his side. But we also know how courteous he is when the debate is over, how generous he is even to those who do not reciprocate that conduct sometimes, and how respectful he has always been to this institution-- and to every Member of this institution. He has been a master of the Senate's rules, for he has always understood that those rules--frustrating and bothersome as they may often seem--are what sets the Senate apart as the most extraordinary legislative body in the world. He has given so much to his country, in so many different ways, and yet he would resist any attempt on our part to thank him for his lifetime of dedication. For in this regard, Senator Thurmond is truly of the old school: He would rather thank his country for the chance to repay the honor of being an American. After all his years, after all those decades, that is the one appellation that best describes him. Though he has been a Democrat, a Dixiecrat, and a Republican, he has ever been and always will be, most of all, Strom Thurmond, proud American. Thank you, Senator Thurmond for what you have done for your State, for your country, and for all of us as individuals. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, these days, just about every aspect of our daily existence is regulated in some way by the Government. And in most instances, it makes sense because we must protect human health and the environment. We would all agree that food and drugs should be inspected, work conditions should be considered and safety measures must be enacted. On the other hand, the Federal regulatory system is notorious for producing top-down, one-size-fits-all regulations that are often inefficient and ineffective. These regulations impose tremendous costs on business and industry, increase the costs of goods and services and reduce economic growth. Most importantly, too many regulations fail in what they are trying to do. As I look more closely at the patchwork of regulation this Government has created in the last few decades, however, I see regulation for regulation's sake. We are witnessing an eruption of regulation based on inaccurate science, poor judgment, and bad politics. Most shocking is the fundamental lack of trust in the ability of the American people to take responsibility for their own actions. I think it's time we returned to the basics, Mr. President. The central goal of regulating is to significantly protect human health, safety or the environment. When held to this standard, many regulations fall short of the mark. So how do we get from here to there? First, agencies must begin issuing regulations based on sound science. This means one thing--that any Federal regulation issued must be justified by solid science. This principle sounds very simple, but many agencies have become obsessed with the power to regulate, forgetting that there must be sound scientific reasoning behind their action. The time has come to raise the level of debate. No longer can agencies be allowed to dream up and order a regulation without genuine oversight or input from the outside scientific world. I know that the more informed Congress is about an issue, the better public policy decision we will make. The same should be true of regulatory agencies. With so many experts in the academic, Federal and private sectors, it is a shame to limit the scope of debate to one elite group of scientists. I have heard some agencies claim that their rulemakings are indeed reviewed by outside experts, but a closer look reveals that these objective scientists are not completely independent. I do not think it unreasonable to ask that there be some consensus among truly independent outside scientific experts as to the proper course of action before issuing a rulemaking. The bottom line is that, to effectively regulate, agencies should not issue rules based on anything but honest, peer-reviewed science. Period. Second, agencies must learn to correctly assess risk. Beginning with sound science, agencies should look at the real world risks of a situation, recognizing that not every risk is avoidable. Sometimes I think that these agencies are on a mission to create a 100 percent risk-free, accident-free--possibly industry-free--world. They also need to acknowledge that all risks are relative. Regulating small risks can have adverse side effects, resulting in greater risks and less protection. We should focus our efforts and our resources on the greatest risks. Agencies should also realize that exposure to a chemical doesn't automatically present a risk or indicate a cause and effect relationship. The risk associated with a given dosage level should be examined. Where exposure to a truckload of almost any toxin poses a significant risk, in most cases, an extremely diluted version may not present any danger at all. Regulators should be sensitive to risks as they relate to dosage instead of assuming that any contact with chemicals presents too great a danger. Too often, regulations are issued based on a better safe than sorry mentality. This can leave us less safe and considerably sorrier. In closing, Mr. President, I reiterate the dire need for regulatory reform. The invasive regulatory hands of Government are slowly choking the life out those whom they seek to save. Let's get back to the basics. Using sound, peer-reviewed science, agencies should make a valid assessment of real world risks and determine a solid cause-and- effect correlation before taking action. I am committed to enacting regulatory reform in the 105th Congress. I welcome the input and support of my fellow Senators.