Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation along with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein and Bryan, that will protect consumers from the unscrupulous practice known as ``title washing'' the current practice of selling rebuilt wrecks to unsuspecting buyers. The objective of this legislation is to make it more difficult for unscrupulous auto sellers to conceal the fact that a vehicle has been in an accident by transferring the vehicle's title in a state with lower standards than where the vehicle is ultimately sold. In developing this bill, Senators Feinstein and Bryan and I worked closely with national consumer protection groups and a number of state Attorneys General. We have crafted a bill that is truly consumer protective and sets high national standards that did not previously exist. We took great care to ensure that our bill would not preempt the rights of states to retain or enact laws that exceed the minimum federal standards in this bill. National automobile salvage title legislation is needed because there is no uniform standard for when a vehicle must be declared salvage or nonrepairable. About 2.5 million cars are severely damaged in auto accidents each year. More than half of them are returned to the road. Many of these rebuilt cars are sold to unsuspecting consumers without disclosure of the car's prior history, increasing the chance of serious injury to the drivers and passengers of these rebuilt cars. The National Association of Attorneys General estimates that the sale of rebuilt or salvaged motor vehicles as undamaged, costs the motor vehicle industry and consumers up to $4 billion annually. Currently, some states, like Michigan and California and others, have tough consumer protection laws dictating when a vehicle's title must be branded as salvage or nonrepairable, but other states do not. Unfortunately, unscrupulous people now take advantage of this lack of uniformity and take wrecked vehicles to states with low or no standards to retitle them and thus wipe out the vehicle's prior damage history. Our bill would provide for uniform standards of nationwide seller disclosure for every vehicle sale of previous salvage and major damage vehicles, and ensure these title brands are carried forward with all titles each time the vehicle is sold. This proposal is consistent with the National Association of Attorneys General auto salvage resolution adopted in 1994. This bill also has the support of Michigan's Attorney General, who wrote in a letter endorsing the bill, This bill will further empower consumers to have more information available in making an informed decision about what is generally their second most costly purchase, motor vehicles used for personal transportation. I urge Congress to enact this bill. The salvage title requirements in our bill are modeled after the successful 25 year old federal odometer law which requires the milage of a vehicle to be disclosed before a vehicle can be transferred. This law requires each seller to fill out a statement on the odometer reading that verifies its accuracy and a vehicle buyer cannot get a state title without this disclosure on the title. Our bill would work in a similar manner. Our bill is basically a disclosure bill. It requires that whenever a vehicle's title is transferred, the seller must disclose in writing to the buyer any accident history of the vehicle which includes: salvage, flood, nonrepairable or major damage. Our bill defines ``salvage'', ``flood'', ``nonrepairable'' and ``major damage'' to provide broad disclosure and to protect consumer safety. These definitions are consistent with recommendations from the state Attorneys General. Mr. President, in conclusion, the sale of rebuilt wrecks to unsuspecting buyers is a serous problem and should be stopped as soon as possible. The Feinstein, Levin, Bryan bill will do just that by establishing uniform disclosure standards for all vehicle sales and requiring all states to carry forward this disclosure on the vehicle's title. Simply put, our bill will put an end to title-washing. I ask that additional materials be printed in the Record. The material follows: Resolution Adopted by National Association of Attorneys General, March 20-22, 1994 mandatory disclosure of salvage history and major damage to motor vehicles Whereas, motor vehicles which are severely damaged or declared a ``total'' loss are often subsequently rebuilt or salvaged and then resold; and Whereas, the fact that a vehicle is rebuilt or salvaged is material to any subsequent sale of the vehicle; and Whereas, not all states require that a vehicle's salvage history be marked on the vehicle's title or that such a title brand be carried forward on new titles issued or that a vehicle's salvage history be disclosed to subsequent purchasers; and Whereas, branding the title is an effective means of allowing dealers, subsequent purchasers and law enforcement authorities to track a vehicle's true history and has been supported by NAAG for tracking vehicles returned under state lemon laws; and Whereas, it is estimated that the sale of rebuilt or salvaged motor vehicles as undamaged, costs the motor vehicle industry and consumers up to $4 billion annually; Now, therefore be it Resolved, That the National Association of Attorneys General: 1. Supports federal legislation that: a. creates a uniform definition of a ``salvage vehicle'' as a vehicle declared a total loss by an insurance company or where the retail cost to repair the vehicle exceeds 65 percent of its fair market value immediately prior to being damaged; and b. requires that each transferor of a motor vehicle disclose to the transferee orally and in writing at or before the time of sale, whether the vehicle is a salvage vehicle and whether the vehicle has suffered major damage; and c. requires that each applicant for a motor vehicle title disclose, on the application, whether the motor vehicle is a salvage vehicle and whether the vehicle has suffered major damage; and d. requires that each motor vehicle title issued, conspicuously show whether the motor vehicle is a salvage vehicle and whether the vehicle has suffered major damage, if that information is disclosed on the title application or on any title previously issued by that state or another state; and e. provides for recovery of actual damages, minimum statutory damages of $5,000 and attorneys fees, where appropriate, by consumers injured by violation of the statute, and f. provides the civil enforcement by state Attorneys General which includes injunctive relief, civil penalties and restitution; and h. provides for criminal penalties of up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to three years for each willful violation; and i. does not preempt state laws which provide greater protection for consumers as long as state provisions are not inconsistent with the federal law; and 2. Authorizes its Executive Director and General Counsel to make these views known to all interested parties.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation along with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein and Bryan, that will protect consumers from the unscrupulous practice known as ``title washing'' the current practice of selling rebuilt wrecks to unsuspecting buyers. The objective of this legislation is to make it more difficult for unscrupulous auto sellers to conceal the fact that a vehicle has been in an accident by transferring the vehicle's title in a state with lower standards than where the vehicle is ultimately sold. In developing this bill, Senators Feinstein and Bryan and I worked closely with national consumer protection groups and a number of state Attorneys General. We have crafted a bill that is truly consumer protective and sets high national standards that did not previously exist. We took great care to ensure that our bill would not preempt the rights of states to retain or enact laws that exceed the minimum federal standards in this bill. National automobile salvage title legislation is needed because there is no uniform standard for when a vehicle must be declared salvage or nonrepairable. About 2.5 million cars are severely damaged in auto accidents each year. More than half of them are returned to the road. Many of these rebuilt cars are sold to unsuspecting consumers without disclosure of the car's prior history, increasing the chance of serious injury to the drivers and passengers of these rebuilt cars. The National Association of Attorneys General estimates that the sale of rebuilt or salvaged motor vehicles as undamaged, costs the motor vehicle industry and consumers up to $4 billion annually. Currently, some states, like Michigan and California and others, have tough consumer protection laws dictating when a vehicle's title must be branded as salvage or nonrepairable, but other states do not. Unfortunately, unscrupulous people now take advantage of this lack of uniformity and take wrecked vehicles to states with low or no standards to retitle them and thus wipe out the vehicle's prior damage history. Our bill would provide for uniform standards of nationwide seller disclosure for every vehicle sale of previous salvage and major damage vehicles, and ensure these title brands are carried forward with all titles each time the vehicle is sold. This proposal is consistent with the National Association of Attorneys General auto salvage resolution adopted in 1994. This bill also has the support of Michigan's Attorney General, who wrote in a letter endorsing the bill, This bill will further empower consumers to have more information available in making an informed decision about what is generally their second most costly purchase, motor vehicles used for personal transportation. I urge Congress to enact this bill. The salvage title requirements in our bill are modeled after the successful 25 year old federal odometer law which requires the milage of a vehicle to be disclosed before a vehicle can be transferred. This law requires each seller to fill out a statement on the odometer reading that verifies its accuracy and a vehicle buyer cannot get a state title without this disclosure on the title. Our bill would work in a similar manner. Our bill is basically a disclosure bill. It requires that whenever a vehicle's title is transferred, the seller must disclose in writing to the buyer any accident history of the vehicle which includes: salvage, flood, nonrepairable or major damage. Our bill defines ``salvage'', ``flood'', ``nonrepairable'' and ``major damage'' to provide broad disclosure and to protect consumer safety. These definitions are consistent with recommendations from the state Attorneys General. Mr. President, in conclusion, the sale of rebuilt wrecks to unsuspecting buyers is a serous problem and should be stopped as soon as possible. The Feinstein, Levin, Bryan bill will do just that by establishing uniform disclosure standards for all vehicle sales and requiring all states to carry forward this disclosure on the vehicle's title. Simply put, our bill will put an end to title-washing. I ask that additional materials be printed in the Record. The material follows: Resolution Adopted by National Association of Attorneys General, March 20-22, 1994 mandatory disclosure of salvage history and major damage to motor vehicles Whereas, motor vehicles which are severely damaged or declared a ``total'' loss are often subsequently rebuilt or salvaged and then resold; and Whereas, the fact that a vehicle is rebuilt or salvaged is material to any subsequent sale of the vehicle; and Whereas, not all states require that a vehicle's salvage history be marked on the vehicle's title or that such a title brand be carried forward on new titles issued or that a vehicle's salvage history be disclosed to subsequent purchasers; and Whereas, branding the title is an effective means of allowing dealers, subsequent purchasers and law enforcement authorities to track a vehicle's true history and has been supported by NAAG for tracking vehicles returned under state lemon laws; and Whereas, it is estimated that the sale of rebuilt or salvaged motor vehicles as undamaged, costs the motor vehicle industry and consumers up to $4 billion annually; Now, therefore be it Resolved, That the National Association of Attorneys General: 1. Supports federal legislation that: a. creates a uniform definition of a ``salvage vehicle'' as a vehicle declared a total loss by an insurance company or where the retail cost to repair the vehicle exceeds 65 percent of its fair market value immediately prior to being damaged; and b. requires that each transferor of a motor vehicle disclose to the transferee orally and in writing at or before the time of sale, whether the vehicle is a salvage vehicle and whether the vehicle has suffered major damage; and c. requires that each applicant for a motor vehicle title disclose, on the application, whether the motor vehicle is a salvage vehicle and whether the vehicle has suffered major damage; and d. requires that each motor vehicle title issued, conspicuously show whether the motor vehicle is a salvage vehicle and whether the vehicle has suffered major damage, if that information is disclosed on the title application or on any title previously issued by that state or another state; and e. provides for recovery of actual damages, minimum statutory damages of $5,000 and attorneys fees, where appropriate, by consumers injured by violation of the statute, and f. provides the civil enforcement by state Attorneys General which includes injunctive relief, civil penalties and restitution; and h. provides for criminal penalties of up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to three years for each willful violation; and i. does not preempt state laws which provide greater protection for consumers as long as state provisions are not inconsistent with the federal law; and 2. Authorizes its Executive Director and General Counsel to make these views known to all interested parties.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. What is intriguing--Mr. President, I do not know who has the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me just thank the Senator from New Mexico. He has raised a very important issue which was the subject of major discussion at the Armed Services Committee the other day; that is, the importance that any weapon system, before it is deployed, be shown to be operationally effective. I think his sensitivity to that issue has been longstanding, and I want to thank him for clarifying the Record relative to this bill. So that it is clear to Senator Bingaman and to all of the Members, the word ``effective'' in the bill includes the concept of operational effectiveness. There are other elements of effectiveness which could also be covered, but surely it includes the operational effectiveness concept which the Senator has championed for so long. I thank the Senator. Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. To my good friend from New Mexico, I say there is no prohibition in this bill against them using the regular procedures. So it is my assumption they would use those procedures given the absence of any prohibition. Secondly, the word ``effective'' that is in the bill, it seems to me, does include the critical operational effectiveness concept which the Senator has referred to. Indeed, the word ``effective'' could cover a number of elements of effectiveness, but surely one of them is, I believe--and the sponsor of the bill has just confirmed this, I believe--that ``operational effectiveness'' would be included in the concept of ``effectiveness.''

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is exactly correct. And that is precisely what we are now doing relative to our treaty with Russia, with the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty. We are sitting down with Russia now and seeing whether we can't negotiate a modification in that treaty which would permit two things to happen: 1, the deployment of a national missile defense should we decide to deploy it; and, 2, continuing nuclear arms reductions which have been provided for--in effect, permitted -- under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. So that is exactly what we are trying to do now. But any comparison between the situation of having a treaty relationship with somebody and having a treaty which was aimed against that person, it seems to me, is an inapt comparison. I just wanted to briefly comment on it.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my good friend from Virginia is very wise and perceptive. Indeed, I do have a comment. He asked the question whether the Senate is more concerned about Russian reaction to national missile defense than about Russian reaction to NATO expansion. And, of course, there is a huge difference. In one case we have a treaty with Russia. It is called the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. And before we pull out of that treaty, or unilaterally act in a way that is in violation of that treaty, we ought to consider the ramifications. The point is we have a treaty with Russia that has made possible significant nuclear arms reduction. We had no such treaty with Russia relative to NATO; quite the opposite--our NATO treaty was against the former Soviet Union. Russia wasn't part of any NATO treaty. Its predecessor, the Soviet Union, was the problem against which that NATO treaty was created. So this is a day-and-night comparison. Surely, when you have a treaty with someone, before you unilaterally breach it or threaten to breach it, you should consider the consequences of that. We have such a treaty with Russia. The opposite was true with NATO. So the difference is a 180-degree difference.

Mr. LEVIN. That is not the issue, though, that we have been discussing here this morning. The issue we have been discussing here this morning is whether or not we can work out with the Russians a modification of the ABM Treaty such as to permit us to deploy what is admittedly covered now by the treaty, namely a limited National Missile Defense system. The discussions which have been referred to by my friend from Virginia had to do with the question of what is or is not covered by the treaty as it is currently written: What is the correct demarcation between those missile defenses which are covered by the treaty and those missile defenses which are not? And, indeed, he is correct; those demarcation discussions have been going on with the Russians, and indeed there was an agreement relative to the proper demarcation line. But the discussions relative to modifying the treaty so that we could deploy a limited national missile defense against what is admittedly covered by the treaty are discussions which have only begun in a preliminary manner in February of this year and informally began, I believe, last year.

Mr. LEVIN. I support the passage of this bill with the two amendments we have adopted. We have made a number of very important changes in the bill which now cause me to support the bill because, very specifically, we now have two policies that are set forth in the bill, no longer just one. The first amendment that we have adopted, which was an amendment saying that the funding for national missile defense is subject to the annual authorization and appropriation of funds for this system, makes it clear explicitly, specifically, that this bill does not authorize anything. This is not an authorization of anything. It is not an appropriation of funds. Perhaps somebody could argue before that amendment was adopted that this bill did authorize or did commit us to appropriate funds. But after the adoption of that first amendment yesterday, it cannot be argued that this authorizes anything or appropriates funds for any system. This bill now states two policies of the United States. That is very different from a bill which commits us to authorize funds or to appropriate funds for a particular system. So the first amendment made an important difference. It is an amendment which the Senator from Mississippi offered with a number of cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. It seems to me it made it very clear that we are not committing to deploy a national missile defense system in this bill. We are stating now two policies in this bill. The first amendment I referred to makes it clear that the authorization to deploy a national missile defense system would come only if and when we act on funding to deploy such a system through the normal authorization and appropriation process. We are not doing that in this bill. One of the things this bill says is, before a deployment decision is made, there must be an effective system. That word ``effective'' clearly means, in the view of the military--and I think reasonably--an operationally effective system. That is one of the clear meanings of the word ``effective'' in this bill. And there was a colloquy earlier today between the Senators from Mississippi and New Mexico relating to that issue. An effective national missile defense system means, among other elements of ``effectiveness,'' an operationally effective system. The second amendment that has made a major change and a major improvement in this bill is the Landrieu amendment. Until Senator Landrieu's amendment was adopted, this bill ignored the crucial importance to our national security of continuing reductions in Russian nuclear weapons. Without the Landrieu amendment, this bill would have put nuclear reductions at risk--reductions that have been negotiated before and are now being implemented, reductions that have been negotiated before and are hopefully about to be ratified in the Duma. Without the Landrieu amendment, this bill ignored those reductions. It would have put such reductions at risk and increased the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That greater threat would have resulted from the larger number of nuclear weapons being on Russian soil, with the greater likelihood, in turn, that there would be leakage of such weapons to a terrorist state or a terrorist group. The Landrieu amendment adds a second policy to this bill. It is a most crucial policy statement, that it is our policy to seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces. This critically important change in the bill states that we understand the value of continuing the nuclear arms reductions which have been negotiated before and that, hopefully, will continue to be negotiated in START III, and that those reductions improve our security by reducing the numbers of nuclear weapons on Russian soil. Mr. President, without those two amendments, I would not have supported this bill. As I stated in my opening statement, it is critically important, in my opinion, that we continue to see reductions in nuclear weapons in this world, and most specifically, reductions in nuclear weapons in Russia. I think many of our colleagues, if not all of us, see the importance of those reductions. Now we have a specific policy statement equal to the policy statement relative to deploying an effective limited national missile defense subject to authorization and appropriations. The second policy statement which is critically important says that it is the policy of the United States to continue to negotiate reductions in the number of nuclear weapons on Russian soil. Because of these amendments, the President's senior national security advisers will now recommend that the President not veto the bill if it comes to him in this form. That is an important measure of the significance of these changes in this bill. The White House has not changed its position on national missile defense anymore than I have. The bill has been changed in two significant ways. I think the bill has been vastly improved. It has been improved because of the efforts of many people. I want to thank the Senator from Mississippi, the author of this bill, for his cooperation in including both the Cochran amendment and the Landrieu amendment. And I particularly want to commend and thank the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, who is now the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, for her hard work and her dedication in bringing about the adoption of an amendment which made such an important difference in this bill. I yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to briefly make a statement before asking the question, so he doesn't lose his right to the floor. The Senator has put his finger on a very significant issue--and it is one that all of us should struggle with, and many of us have struggled with. His effort here is to focus the attention of this body on a range of threats that we face. And to attempt to see if we can't get a better handle on the likelihood of those threats actually emerging is a very important action on his part. The chart he has used demonstrates what the problem is. There are many threats which are much more likely than a ballistic missile attack against us for which we have no defense. Perhaps we should devote resources to those, and then what would be the relationship between the costs of defending against those more likely threats compared to the cost of defending against a missile attack of the kind that could come from North Korea, theoretically. General Shelton phrased the issue this way. This was on January 5. He said: there are two aspects of the National Missile Defense [issue] that we have to be concerned with. Number one is: is the technology that allows us to deploy one that is an effective system, and within the means of this country money- wise? This is General Shelton, Chairman of our Joint Chiefs saying this. Secondly is the threat and whether or not the threat, when measured against all the other threats that we face, justifies the expenditure of that type of money for that particular system at the time when the technology will allow us to field it? Those are the factors that the Chairman of our Joint Chiefs wants to consider, and those are some of the issues which the good Senator from Iowa is addressing our attention to. I asked General Shelton to give us what we call a ``threat spectrum'' and asked him to try to give us a continuum of threats in terms of the most likely and less likely. The least likely is in the upper right-hand corner, strategic missile attack, 6,000 Russian warheads. The next least likely is the rogue missile. The next least likely, major theater wars, such as in Korea. The next least likely is information wars, attacks on our satellites, or our power systems, or similar assets. The next least likely, but now becoming more and more likely, are terrorist attacks in the United States, some of which for instance the Senator from Iowa is talking about, and then terror attacks abroad, regional conflicts, and so forth. This is the issue which the Senator from Iowa is really focusing our attention on today. But his amendment goes significantly beyond this chart, which, by the way, was prepared by General Shelton. The amendment of the Senator from Iowa would get us into a greater element of comparative risk in terms of trying to get a range of likelihood of the risks, not just whether one risk is more likely than another. But his amendment, the way it is drafted, would consider how much more or how much less likely is one threat than another. That is very valuable information, and General Shelton is attempting to work on that issue now. But the amendment of the Senator from Iowa puts it in a very precise and useful form. In addition, it would be very helpful for us to know what would the range of costs be to defend against the various threats, if we can do so. And all I can do is assure my good friend from Iowa that we on the Armed Services Committee will take a good look at his amendment. It has my very strong support, and as he mentioned, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee said he would be open to such an amendment on the defense authorization bill. I think that is a very appropriate place for the amendment to go, and I think he would find, hopefully, bipartisan support on the committee for this kind of a study, because it really addresses an issue which I think every Member of this body would like to see addressed. I thank him for his effort and assure him of my support on the armed services bill. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I would support an expansion of what we are doing to include the kind of factual analyses for which his amendment would call. I thank him for the amendment and just assure him, if he does not offer it here, there will be a major effort to get it or something very close to it on the authorization bill.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEVIN. The discussions between us and the Russians relative to the demarcation line, for instance, between a theater missile defense and strategic defense, the defense against strategic missiles has, indeed, been going on a long time.

Mr. LEVIN. The debate on the ABM Treaty has gone on since before the treaty was up here for ratification.

Mr. LEVIN. I would agree that the bill as it now stands, with an amendment which adopts as a policy of the United States to continue to negotiate arms reductions with Russia, is indeed going to be an incentive to those discussions because it no longer threatens to just unilaterally breach a treaty between ourselves and Russia. On the first point, however, I would disagree with my dear friend from Virginia. I believe the discussions with the Russians on our National Missile Defense program did not begin until last year, and the informal discussions relative to modifications in the ABM Treaty did not occur until February. I believe, in fact, I wrote the administration--and I think I shared my letter with my friend from Virginia--I wrote the administration I believe in August urging that these discussions and negotiations take place. Mr. President, in 1993 the administration, the Clinton administration, just as it came into office, terminated the defense and space talks which dealt precisely with modifications of the ABM Treaty. I think we can produce a record how this debate on the ABM Treaty has gone on for a very, very long time without any productive or concrete results.

Mr. LEVIN. I think those negotiations began just a few weeks ago. And I was urging the administration in the middle of last year to begin those discussions and those negotiations. So the actual preliminary discussions I think began in February. As far as I am concerned, it would have been better to begin those discussions before that, and I had urged the administration last year to begin them. But as I understand it, there were informal discussions which had occurred before this recent visit that the Senator from Virginia, my good friend, has referred to.

Mr. LEVIN. I did. I believe that our leaders have denied such an agreement with Mr. Gorbachev, and we would be happy to dig up the difference relative to that.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, what is intriguing is, in fact, we did assert our position relative to the correct demarcation line, and indeed we put it in law, and indeed the demarcation line which was adopted by this administration and Russia followed what we had put into law. So we had asserted what our position was as the U.S. Senate and, if my memory is correct, as a Congress, because I believe the language ended up in the final authorization bill as to where that demarcation line should be. The agreement which was reached indeed--my understanding is and my recollection is--followed the demarcation line which the Congress had set forth in that authorization bill. So it is nothing new for Congress to assert its involvement in these kinds of issues. We should. We have. We should be partners with the administration on this issue. I believe this bill as amended--I know it is now acceptable to the President with these amendments--represents the effort to come up with a more bipartisan approach to these critical national security issues.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. There is no time limit, of course, at this point. Mr. President, I then alert our colleagues. I think I am speaking for Senator Cochran also. We are seeking to know how many people will want to speak on the pending amendment after the Senator from Colorado has completed. Perhaps the cloakrooms can be notified of that promptly, if that is appropriate, so we can determine just whether it is possible to have a vote on the pending amendment sometime prior to the--what was the Senator's goal?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a brief 10 seconds. As I indicated earlier, I have been informed by the President's National Security Adviser that if this amendment is adopted, the recommendation to the President to veto this bill will be withdrawn. I think that is a very significant development and I think folks may want to consider that as part of the overall debate on this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have no objection to that, and I believe that all of the Senators on this side of the aisle now are included. I wanted to make sure that they all understand there is, in addition to this list, a time agreement here, as the Senator from Mississippi has indicated.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Colorado. I want to make an inquiry of both him and the Senator from Louisiana as well and, of course, the floor managers, and the sponsors of the bill. We are trying to determine how much time is going to be needed on the Landrieu-Levin amendment which is pending. We are seeking a fairly early vote on this amendment. I wonder if I can inquire of my friend from Colorado approximately how long he plans on speaking.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in honoring someone who has already done more to serve his country than most people could accomplish in several lifetimes, Bob Kerrey. Many of my colleagues today have described the circumstances thirty years ago when a twenty-five year old Lieutenant Kerrey led an elite Navy Sea, Air, Land (SEAL) team to successfully apprehend a group of North Vietnamese soldiers. I stand in awe as they have recounted the way in which Lt. Kerrey continued to direct the team despite his serious injury. For his extraordinary valor, Lt. Kerrey was rightfully bestowed the nation's highest award for military service, the Medal of Honor in 1970, by President Richard Nixon. These actions alone are worthy of reflection by this body thirty years after the event. However, this was only one episode in a lifetime of extraordinary service to his country by Senator Bob Kerrey. Luckily for our nation, he did not allow the unfortunate events of that day thirty years ago to stop him from reaching the lofty goals that he had always set for himself. After a trying rehabilitation in Philadelphia, Kerrey returned to Nebraska and began his life anew, becoming a successful businessman and eventually winning a race for the state's Governorship. In 1988, he won election to the Senate after mounting a spirited campaign. During his time in the Senate, Bob Kerrey has continued to exhibit exemplary bravery and dedication. He has taken on some of the most important and difficult issues this body faces: Social Security reform, IRS reform and repeated farm crises. Senator Kerrey focused on the issue of Social Security early in his career, and his many efforts have greatly enhanced the prospects for reform of this important and far reaching program. Senator Kerrey is a champion of American agriculture, working tirelessly to support and protect family farmers facing economic hardship. He has also dedicated himself to improving health care services in the United States. Mr. President, we honor Senator Bob Kerrey today because thirty years ago he exhibited extraordinary heroism under the most difficult of circumstances. Senator Kerrey's duty and sacrifice on that day and his important contributions since continue to earn him the respect of the people of Nebraska and the United States. I am delighted to join my Senate colleagues in honoring Senator Bob Kerrey.