Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. No. What I suggested was we have Senators--I realize it is hard for Senators to work on Fridays and Mondays. It is a real inconvenience. But what I suggested was the amendments be offered on Monday, on Friday, and debated, that amendments be offered all day Monday--the Senator could surely get his amendment offered on Monday, and I think it is one that ought to be offered and debated--have the debate, and then on Tuesday we would vote on all those amendments that had been offered up to that point, and have votes. Then we would go on to other amendments with time limits agreed to during Tuesday afternoon, and then have those voted on, and final passage by Tuesday afternoon. That was objected to. The problem is, Senators don't want to offer their amendments on Mondays or Fridays or Tuesday afternoons. It really makes me question whether they are serious about getting to a conclusion.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I wonder if the Senator would yield. Is there a possibility we could work out some agreement where we wouldn't have to have the vote on the motion to proceed? It is pretty hard to explain to people, when you are facing the threat of a filibuster even to take up a bill. So I wonder if we could maybe get some agreement to skip over that and then go on, if we had to have a cloture vote on the bill itself. I hope you will think about that or talk to the people who are involved to see if that would be a possibility. That would perhaps then vitiate the necessity of having to get this started next Tuesday in order to get it completed within a week's time. If we could get around that vote, that would help.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I know all the Senators are interested in what the schedule might be. It is that time of the week when we begin to have to make some decisions. I would like for us to finish this bill tonight. There have been a dozen or more amendments that have been considered and others I am sure have been accepted. We still have a large number of amendments, though, that are pending. I hope Senators will consider either not offering their amendments or agreeing to put them in a package of amendments. We are encouraging Senators on this side of the aisle to do that, and we have at least one that has been done that way. If we finish the bill tonight, then we will not have any votes tomorrow. If we do not finish it tomorrow, then it is essential we stay in tomorrow. This is important legislation. A lot of amendments have been offered. Others will be offered that are critical amendments and very important to Members on both sides. I have discussed this with Senator Daschle, and I know Senators on both sides and the managers are trying to work through a list of amendments that probably is still in the range of 40 or 50. We have to work very fast and hard to get through those. With that in mind, I say, again, that we will go as late as we can tonight. I know we have a delegation of eight or so Senators that is supposed to leave for Kosovo at 6:30 in the morning. We will have to ask them to delay that. We can keep going tomorrow and we can keep going, if it is the desire of the Senate, even into Saturday. I have to check with Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy. They are committed to getting this bill done. The reason we have to complete it this week is that next week we have to deal with supplemental appropriations, which I hope will be ready then. We hope to have something we can vote on concerning Y2K next week. We have the bankruptcy bill. We also have State Department authorization, defense authorization and defense appropriations and a satellite bill, all of which we would like to consider and get done before the Memorial Day recess. It is not a question of not wanting to complete this bill. It is just we do not have time next week. So we will either have to work through these amendments quickly or we will have to keep going tonight and over into tomorrow. Please work with the managers. They are trying to do the job and they need your cooperation. I say to those of you who are looking to leave tonight or tomorrow morning, right now it looks as if we will not be able to finish tonight and we will have to be in session tomorrow. We cannot even give you assurances that we will finish by noon. We will just have to keep going until we get it done. If we really cooperate with these managers, which happens quite often, I believe we can finish tonight. I looked down the list, and I think there are maybe four to six amendments that we really need to have discussion and votes on. I think we can find a way to complete that tonight or early in the morning. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to urge the two managers, if you would tonight, to work to get a McConnell and a Kohl--or what other amendments are in order--get those two locked in, and a vote, and do it tonight. The Members would like to know what the timeframe is going to be tomorrow morning. If you could get that locked in tonight during the process of the debate, that will help facilitate moving forward. Having said that, then, we have had the last vote of the night. The next votes will be the two votes stacked in the morning at 9:40.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond, I encourage Senator Reid to continue that effort, and I ask Senators Hatch and Nickles, who will work with him on that, to continue. I urge the managers, Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch, during the debate tonight, to sit down and see if we can't squeeze this down. Some of you are thinking that if we just stay with it and keep working tonight, we might actually see this thing concluded at 11, 12, 1, or 2. We have been thinking in those terms, but we have not been able to get an agreement beyond what we have right here. It is going to take, apparently, 3 hours of debate to get through these two amendments, which will put us to 10:15 or 10:30. At that point, it would be physically impossible to complete this action. So I hope we can complete it tonight, but I think there is no choice other than to be in session on Friday and have votes, which we have told the Members we would do up until at least noon on Friday. In this case, it could actually go beyond noon. The good news is, as we announced some time ago, there will not be recorded votes next Monday or Friday because of conflicts which we identified to the Members 2 months ago. But that also makes it difficult for us to do the other things we have to do next week, including the supplemental appropriations, Y2K liability, and bankruptcy reform. We must conclude this bill either tomorrow or Saturday or sometime before we have to go to these other bills.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could say this so Members will understand how we are going to proceed and how we are going to deal with this issue and others, I regret that we have had that much time on this vote. We had been trying to work out some way to make progress on this bill tonight and, hopefully, even get some amendments done tonight or complete it. At this point, it is obvious we are not getting enough movement to achieve that tonight. I know there are a lot of Senators who have commitments tomorrow and hoped we could complete it tonight. At this juncture, sufficient progress is not being made and it is unrealistic to attempt that. I have a unanimous consent request to deal with two of the amendments that are in line now, and we would have the two votes in the morning at 9:30. After that, during the process of the night, hopefully more amendments can be accepted, combined, or even worked out, where we could have more than just the two votes in the morning, or the next couple of amendments would be in order. What I am saying here is, with this consent request, we would expect two votes at 9:30 a.m., and we would expect to keep going, and we will see where we are in the morning. Something short of that has not been achievable at this point. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to amendment No. 344--that is the Hatch-Craig amendment--debate be limited to 2 hours equally divided in the usual form with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and following that debate the amendment be laid aside. I ask consent that Senator Schumer be recognized to offer an amendment regarding Internet firearms, and that the debate be limited to 1 hour, that following that debate the amendment be laid aside and the Senate proceed to a vote in the order in which the amendments were offered, with 5 minutes prior to each vote for explanation. So we will come in at 9:30, have 5 minutes of explanation on the amendments, equally divided, and the votes will begin at 9:40 a.m. Friday.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I ask my colleagues to take heed of the wisdom offered by the many DMV directors who submitted comments on S.655 and other title branding proposals. Congress needs to pass S.655, the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act, for America's used car buyers and motorists and for the people who have to administer titling rules. Exhibit 1 American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Arlington, VA, March 22, 1999. To: Chief Motor Vehicle Administrators, Chief Law Enforcement Officers From: Kenneth M. Beam, President & CEO Re: Introduction of Salvage Titling Legislation I am pleased to report that Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) along with 13 co-sponsors recently introduced S. 655, the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act of 1999. This bill establishes national uniform requirements regarding the titling and registration of salvage, nonrepairable and rebuilt vehicles. AAMVA has worked closely with Senator Lott's staff to assure that the bill reflects AAMVA policy on uniform salvage definitions and procedures. For the most part this bill mirrors language in S. 852, which was introduced by Senator Lott and supported by 57 members of the Senate in the 105th Congress. However, there are two major differences in S. 655 we would like to highlight. First, the bill does not require that states who receive federal funding from the Department of Justice for the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) to conform with the requirements of the bill or place a notice on the certificate of title that their state is not in compliance. Second, the bill includes incentive grants for states that do carry out its provisions. S. 655 authorizes $16 million to states for fiscal year 2000. No state that is eligible for the grant shall receive less than $250,000. The ratio shall be apportioned in accordance with section 402, Title 23 of the U.S. Code. Any state that receives a grant under this section shall use the funds to carry out the provisions of this bill including such performance related activities as issuing titles, establishing and administering vehicle theft or salvage vehicle safety inspections, enforcement and other related purposes. In addition, AAMVA has worked closely with other interested organizations to respond to concerns raised by the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG). We are enclosing a copy of our response to those concerns. If you have questions or comments, please direct them to either Linda Lewis, director of Public & Legislative Affairs or Larry Greenberg, vice president, Vehicle Services at 703- 522-4200.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators recently provided me with letters it has received from state motor vehicle administrators across the country on title branding legislation. As a collective group, DMV directors are looking to Congress to enact a balanced and responsible measure to combat title fraud. Legislation that is based on real world experience. Legislation that they can implement. As my colleagues know, I reintroduced the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act, S. 655 back in March. This legislation is similar to the bipartisan title branding bill Senator Ford and I coauthored during the 105th Congress. Legislation that received 57 cosponsors and which overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives with some modifications last October. S.655 is an appropriate legislative solution to a growing national problem. A problem that costs millions of unsuspecting used car buyers billions of dollars and places motorists in every state at risk. Everyday, severely damaged cars are put back together by unscrupulous rebuilders who sell these vehicles without disclosing their previous damage history. They are able to shield the vehicle's history due to significant advances in technology and, in large part, because their is a hodgepodge of titling rules throughout the nation. They take repatched vehicles, or their titles, to states that have minimal or no salvage vehicle rules and have them retitled with no indication that the vehicle previously sustained significant damage. The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act would help curtail title washing by encouraging states to adopt a model title branding program for salvage, rebuilt salvage, flood, and nonrepairable vehicles. The bill provides states with incentives to establish minimum titling definitions and standards. This is key. It is particularly aimed at that those states which need to bring their rules and procedures to a universally accepted minimum standard. In 1992, as part of the Anti-Car Theft Act, Congress mandated the establishment of a Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration, and Salvage Advisory Committee to devise a model salvage vehicle program. The Salvage Advisory Committee, led by the U.S. Department of Transportation, issued its findings in February 1994. Its report recommended specific uniform definitions and standards for severely damaged passenger vehicles. It included a 75% damage threshold for salvage vehicles, anti theft inspections for salvage vehicles before they could be placed back on the road, and the permanent retirement of vehicles that are unsafe for operation and have no value except as a source of scrap or parts. The report recommended the branding of titles as the most appropriate method for disclosing a severely damaged vehicle's prior history. Mr. President, Senator Ford and I simply drafted legislation that would largely codify the Salvage Advisory Committee's recommendations. Recommendations that encompassed the wisdom of all of the experts on titling matters. This committee of key stakeholders, led by the U.S. Department of Transportation, provided real world solutions to address title fraud and automobile theft. Solutions based on state motor vehicle titling trends--uniform titling definitions and standards that states would be willing to accept. Senator Ford and I introduced a sound, reasonable, and appropriately balanced measure during the 105th Congress. It did not take sides. It did not codify the recommendations of one particular interest group. It did not benefit one group at the expense of another. Instead, it reflected a balanced, bipartisan consensus. Even so, a number of significant changes were incorporated during the last Congress to accommodate the concerns raised by certain State Attorneys General, consumer groups and others. I would like to highlight some of the revisions made by me in a good faith effort to satisfy the concerns expressed and to advance the bill. The ``Salvage'' vehicle threshold was lowered from 80% to 75%--so that if a late model vehicle has sustained damage exceeding 75 percent of its pre-accident value, it would be branded ``salvage. The bill also allowed a state to cover any vehicle regardless of its age. The original bill did not allow conforming states to use synonymous terms. That has been stricken from the bill--so now states may use additional terms to define damaged vehicles. For example, a state can use the bill's ``nonrepairable" definition and can also use another term such as ``junk'' if it wants to have a different definition to describe parts only vehicles. The revised bill included a new provision granting state attorney's general the ability to sue on behalf of citizens victimized by fraud and to recover monetary judgements for consumers. It included two new prohibited acts--failure to make a flood disclosure and moving the vehicle or its title into interstate commerce to avoid the bill's requirements. Another new provision makes it clear that the bill will not affect any private right of action available under state law. The bill clearly established that states could provide additional disclosures beyond those identified in the legislation. At the request of Senator Hollings, a new provision was added regarding the Secretary of Transportation advising automobile dealers of the prohibition on selling vans as school buses. Instead of penalizing states for non-participation by withholding National Motor Vehicle Titling Information System (NMVTIS) funding, my bill now provides states with incentive grants to encourage their participation. This was a very good recommendation offered by the U.S. Department of Transportation. It takes into account the fact that 20 or more states will have received their NMVTIS funding by the time the bill becomes effective. These new grants can be used by participating states to issue new titles, establish and administer theft or safety inspections, and enforce titling requirements. This voluntary approach also gets around the very real concerns that states and the Supreme Court have raised about Congress requiring states to legislatively adopt federal regulations. Remember, motor vehicle titling has been, up to this point, almost exclusively a state function. This revised approach also overcomes the strong possibility that preemptive federal titling rules and procedures would impose a significant federal unfunded mandate on states. The revised bill also incorporates a change made by the House of Representatives last year which allows states to adopt an even lower salvage threshold if it chooses. It simply does not start the threshold at 65% which, while advocated by some, has been expressly rejected by states. I think it would be irresponsible for Congress to establish a minimum federal salvage threshold that is not in use anywhere and which states have maintained that they do not want. S.655 provides a very reasonable compromise. Those who want a lower salvage threshold than 75% are free to work with state legislatures to convince them that a lower threshold in their states is warranted. Also, at the request of the National Association of Attorney's General, S.655 includes provisions which require: the retail value of a ``late model vehicle'' to be adjusted by the Secretary of Transportation every five years; flood vehicle inspections to be conducted by an independent party; and the Secretary's establishment of a publicly accessible national record of conforming states. Mr. President, I believe S.655 is the right legislative solution to address title fraud. It creates a model program based on balanced titling definitions and standards for salvage, rebuilt salvage, flood, and nonrepairable vehicles. It does not violate the Supreme Court's rulings on federal versus state roles and responsibilities. Instead it establishes a voluntary titling framework. It is not a federal unfunded mandate. Instead it provides states with seed money to encourage their participation. It does not take away a state's NMVTIS funding or jeopardize the implementation of this system. Instead, it fosters maximum state participation in this important national title information system. It does not harm consumers who own low value vehicles or cause motor vehicles to be branded unnecessarily. Instead, it adopts the reasonable thresholds recommended by the Salvage Advisory Committee and it focuses on severely damaged vehicles and pre-purchase disclosure. It does not force otherwise repairable vehicles to be junked because of arbitrary thresholds. Instead, it subjects vehicles to a rational vehicle retirement standard based on a case-by-case determination. A standard employed by California, Illinois, and a number of other states. It leaves intact state criminal penalties and causes of action without imposing significant additional burdens on the already overwhelmed federal court system. Mr. President, the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act is a sound, reasonable, and workable title branding measure. This is not just my opinion, but the view of state motor vehicle administrators. These are the experts on the front line. The very people who would be responsible for administering the provisions of the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several letters from state motor vehicle administrators on the issue of title branding legislation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to congratulate my good friend and colleague, Senator Joe Biden, on casting his 10,000th vote in the United States Senate. All of us who have listened--and listened--to Senator Biden on the Senate floor have come to deeply respect his leadership and commitment to causes of concern. He led the historic effort for NATO expansion with courage and conviction. He has a deep concern for America's role in the world and is a true leader of our foreign policy establishment. Senator Biden has been a champion of victims of crime, particularly crimes against women. Most of all, those of us who know him, have watched his grace and courage through personal suffering and serious illness. I join my colleagues in recognizing Senator Biden's contributions to the Senate and extend my congratulations to him. I congratulate the Senator from Delaware. I note he is only 56. I am 1 year older and he has already cast 10,000 votes. What an achievement. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet on Wednesday, May 5, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. on pending committee business.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 4, 1999, at 10:00 a.m. in open session, to consider the nomination of Ms. Carolyn L. Huntoon to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday May 5, 1999. The purpose of this meeting will be: (1) To consider the nomination of Thomas J. Erickson to be a Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; and (2) to discuss agricultural trade options.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 5, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 5, 1999, to conduct a hearing on ``The Financial Institutions Insolvency Improvement Act of 1999.''

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate Wednesday May 5, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an Oversight Hearing on Tribal Priority Allocations. The Hearing will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. LOTT., Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be permitted to meet on Wednesday, May 5, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. for a hearing on the State of Federalism.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, The finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, May 5, 1999 beginning at 10: 00 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing to receive testimony from Timothy Fields, Jr., nominated by the President to be Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response of the Environmental Protection Agency Wednesday, May 5, 9:00 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406).

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 5, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on damage to the national security from Chinese espionage at DOE nuclear weapons laboratories.

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, May 5, 1999, at 3:00 p.m. to hold a closed markup.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, Members should be aware that votes will occur today on the CRA issue and possibly other banking issues. If debate is completed before the 7 o'clock hour, there are other amendments that could be considered. There will certainly be one at 7 o'clock on this CRA issue. If the Senate is able to complete this banking bill by the close of business on Thursday, then I would be prepared to announce at that time that there would be no votes on Friday. So if we can get this work completed--and it looks as if we may be able to; the managers are working together. And we have a couple of issues that will have to be debated and considered carefully, plus there are other amendments that won't take as long to be debated. This could be completed by Thursday night. If that is the case, we will not have any votes on Friday. If we are not able to finish it Thursday night, we may have to go over until Friday and complete it. I wanted Members to be aware of that possibility. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. What is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LOTT. I yield myself time out of my leader time.