Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to combat the growing and costly fraud of title washing. Title fraud is a deceptive practice that costs consumers more than $4 billion dollars annually and places millions of structurally defective vehicles back on America's roads and highways. These are millions of unsafe cars and trucks sharing the roads with your loved ones. The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act encourages states to adopt uniform titling and registration standards to protect used car buyers from unknowingly purchasing totaled and subsequently rebuilt vehicles. It is a sound and reasonable measure that enhances consumer disclosure and aids state motor vehicle administrators throughout the nation by giving them identical points of reference to describe salvage vehicles. Let us be very clear on this, there are no uniform definitions and standards in place today and this leads to a hodgepodge of disclosure approaches throughout the country. Unscrupulous automobile rebuilders take advantage of inconsistencies in state titling definitions and procedures to purchase damaged vehicles at a low cost, rebuild them, oftentimes by welding the front and back of two different cars together, and then retitling the vehicle in another state. The new ``clean'' title bears no indication of the vehicle's previous damage record. As a result, consumers in your states are being sold previously totaled cars and trucks without having any knowledge that the vehicle they purchased, sometimes at a very high price, was severely damaged. A vehicle where only minor damage could cause it to fall apart. The unwitting purchasers of these vehicles experience significant economic loss. They and other motorists may also suffer bodily harm from these wrecks on wheels. Mr. President, the title branding bill offered today will promote greater disclosure to potential used car buyers than occurs today. It establishes uniform definitions for salvage, rebuilt salvage, nonrepairable, and flood vehicles based upon the recommendations of the Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration and Salvage Advisory Committee. This congressionally mandated task force, overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation, included the U.S. Attorney General's Criminal and Civil Justice Divisions, State motor vehicle officials, motor vehicle manufactures, auto dealers, recyclers, insurers, salvage yard operators, scrap processors, the U.S. Treasury Department, police chiefs and municipal auto theft investigators, and other interested and affected parties. The uniform definitions and standards contained in this bill are theirs, not mine. Their recommendations are based on a wealth of day-to-day experience dealing with consumer fraud, vehicle titling, and automobile theft. The Salvage Advisory Committee's recommendations struck an appropriate balance between consumers' economic interests and their personal safety. The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act requires rebuilt salvage vehicles to undergo a theft inspection in addition to any required state safety inspection. To further promote disclosure to potential used car buyers, the legislation also requires rebuilt salvage vehicles to have a decal permanently fastened to the driver's doorjamb and a sticker would be affixed to the windshield disclosing the vehicle's status. Additionally, a written disclosure statement must be provided to buyers and the vehicle's title would be branded with the statement ``rebuilt salvage.'' The bill also requires that the brands included on state vehicle titles be carried forward to each state where the vehicle is retitled. So if your state wants to add additional requirements--they can. And these items will be a permanent part of the title. In an effort to take aim at automobile theft, the bill requires the tracking of Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN) of irreparably damaged vehicles. This provision ensures that VINs are not simply swapped from damaged cars to stolen cars to mask their identity. Mr. President, Congress came very close to enacting title branding legislation last year. The original Senate measure received the formal bipartisan support of 57 Senators, and a similar bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 333 to 72. Throughout the legislative process, a number of significant changes were made to the bill to address the concerns expressed by consumer groups and some state attorneys general. The title branding bill before you today retains all of the changes approved by the House of Representatives last October and it includes additional pro-consumer, pro-states rights modifications received from states and the Administration. Under this revised bill, states are free to adopt disclosure standards beyond those provided for in the bill. Let me say again that nothing in this bill prohibits states from providing unlimited disclosure to their citizens. This important legislation merely creates a basic minimum national standard while giving participating states the flexibility to adopt more stringent provisions and additional disclosure requirements. The bill also does not create a federal mandate on the states as some big government advocates would have it. My colleagues are well aware that the Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States [505 U.S. 144 (1992)] that states cannot be forced by Congress to execute programs that should be administered by the U.S. government. In the New York decision, the Justices upheld ``access incentives'' which allow states to decide whether they want to use federal standards. This legislation follows the Supreme Court's ruling by offering incentive grants, as proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, to states that voluntarily choose to participate in the uniform titling regime for salvage vehicles. Thus, states that enact the bill's uniform titling definitions and procedures will be eligible for conformance funding. They can use the authorized funds to issue new titles, to establish and administer vehicle theft or safety inspections, for enforcement activities, and for other related purposes. While I believe most states will decide to participate in this completely voluntary program, rest assured no state will be penalized for choosing not to participate, or for adopting only some of the bill's provisions. I would also like to point out that the revised bill no longer links state adoption of uniform titling standards to the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) funding or participation. Again, there is no penalty for nonparticipation. The bill merely identifies and defines the minimum number of terms that should be used by states to characterize damaged vehicles. The use of nationally and consistently recognized terms will help consumers make informed decisions wherever they purchase a used vehicle. Whether in Mississippi, Utah, Florida, Montana, Texas, Virginia or any other participating state. Mr. President, let me tell our colleagues this bill is about a commission's recommendations. Quite frankly, I took the recommendations from a commission created by Congress and codified their ideas. The ideas of the experts. The ideas of all the stakeholders. As we all know, many commission reports gather dust. I do not want this one to gather dust because motorists could be driving used cars which are literally wrecks. This is the commission's bill and I am proud to be associated with its sponsorship. The bill fully adopts the federal task force's ``salvage'' vehicle definition as a vehicle that sustains damage in excess of 75% of its pre-accident value. This figure is lower than the House's proposal during the 105th Congress which would have set the uniform salvage threshold at 80%. The revised bill also gives states the flexibility to establish an even lower threshold if they choose. A state may set its salvage threshold at 70%, for example. The bill does not, however, set the uniform standard at an arbitrarily low minimum salvage threshold, such as 65%, when no state in the union currently has such a standard. No state. Not one. The bill defines a flood vehicle as one that suffers water damage that inhibits the electrical, computerized, or mechanical functions of the vehicle. This definition expands upon the recommendation of the Advisory Committee by taking into account real world experience. State's found that merely being exposed to water alone does not in and of itself threaten the structural integrity, safety, or value of a vehicle. A car or truck should not be branded a flood vehicle just because its carpeting and floor mats are wet. If it were the case, none of us would drive our cars through the rain or snow. It is only when water damage impairs a vehicle's operating functions and the electrical, mechanical or computerized components have not been repaired or replaced, that the vehicle should be classified as a flood vehicle. The revised bill also goes beyond the task force's recommendations by including any vehicle acquired by an insurer as part of a water damage settlement. A nonrepairable vehicle is one that is incapable of being driven safely and has no resale value except as a source for parts or scrap. This is similar to the nonrepairable definition used by California, our nation's largest state. This is also the common sense definition the Advisory Committee wisely chose in lieu of an arbitrary percentage based definition that would force otherwise repairable vehicles into the scrap heap. It should be noted that only five states have a percentage based nonrepairable definition. I find it troubling that these same five states have been far less successful in reducing automobile thefts than the nation as a whole and accident related deaths higher than the forty five states that do not have a percentage based nonrepairable definition. Coupled with the negative economic effects on consumers, these are additional reasons not to adopt a percentage based definition for nonrepairable vehicles. Mr. President, my colleagues should also be aware that this legislation allows states to use additional terms in their titling regimes such as ``reconstructed'', ``unrebuildable'', and ``junk vehicles'' in addition to the terms defined in this measure. If a state that chooses to conform to the federal standard also wants to use a percentage based definition to describe a ``parts only'' vehicle, it can use a term synonymous to nonrepairable. The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act also allows states to cover any vehicle, regardless of age. It allows older vehicles to be designated as a ``older model salvage vehicle.'' This is a change recommended by a state attorneys general representative to provide states with even more flexibility. Again, the age of a vehicle is no longer an issue under this revised title branding bill. This legislation even grants state attorneys general the ability to sue on behalf of consumers victimized by rebuilt salvage fraud and to recover monetary judgments for damages that citizens may have suffered. Two new prohibited acts are included in the bill--one related to failure to make a flood disclosure and the other related to moving a vehicle or title across state lines for the purpose of avoiding the bill's requirements. Mr. President, I have just gone over a number of changes that I incorporated into the bill. I have reached out to accommodate a number of issues, but there is a point where making changes defeats the purpose of the bill which is to promote consumer disclosure through uniformity. Mr. President, this bill does nothing to inhibit a consumers ability to pursue private rights of actions available under state law. Moreover, states are free to continue or adopt new civil and criminal penalties against individuals or companies that defraud consumers. The bill does not, however, negatively impact the already overburdened Federal courts. This bill is about disclosure. If your son or daughter is buying a used car, you want them to know right up front whether the vehicle they are about to purchase has been severely damaged. Getting relief after several years of litigating in a U.S. Court does not protect consumers. It does not turn the clock back for someone who has been killed or seriously injured in a structurally unsafe vehicle. Mr. President, I would also like to reiterate some key points concerning The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act: State participation is completely voluntary. V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y. There is no preemption of state law. None whatsoever. None. None. None. State legislatures can fully enact the bill's provisions, enact only some of the uniform definitions and standards, or take no action whatsoever. States that choose to participate in the minimal uniform definitions and standards identified in this bill will be entitled to conformance funding. There is no penalty for non-participation by a state. None whatsoever. None. None. None. And, no linkage to state National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) funding or participation. It mirrors recommendations of the Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration and Salvage Advisory Committee. The bill's definitions and standards are the minimum necessary for a voluntary uniform salvage titling framework. M-I-N-I-M-U-M. This legislation does not force states to adopt standards or definitions that not even one state currently has in place. The bill does not unnecessarily devalue vehicles or cause otherwise repairable automobiles to be junked. This is key because some will talk about greater protection, but these proposals threaten the car's value for no good reason and this makes no sense The revised bill includes many additional technical corrections provided to me by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the National Association of Attorney's General, and others. I want to personally thank them for their time and effort in going over the bill with me-- line by line. Their thoughts were invaluable and helpful. Throughout the legislative process, I have made several good faith efforts to reach out to all groups interested in this legislation and where possible, I included reasonable changes in the bill. It is widely supported by state motor vehicle administrators, law enforcement agencies, state legislators, consumers, and the automobile and insurance industries. Widely supported. Experts on the front lines, those who deal with titling issues everyday, have described other proposals that have been floated recently as confusing, or overly complex, or unworkable, or unwise, or counter productive. In many instances, these proposals have been flatly rejected by state legislatures. The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act represents a fair, balanced, and workable approach to dealing with the issue of title fraud. It provides a voluntary framework for states to provide much needed disclosure to potential used-car purchasers. It would help close the many loopholes that exist in state titling rules. This measure maintains a state's ability to provide more disclosure, to take direct and timely action against dishonest parties, and to adopt more stringent rules and procedures should they decide to do so. It is both pro-consumer and pro-states rights. This bill protects the safety and well-being of consumers and motorists across America. I urge the more than fifty of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who formally supported this title branding legislation during the last Congress to cosponsor this important bill again. I ask the rest of my colleagues also to protect their constituents by lending their support to this much needed consumer protection measure. The time has come for Congressional action. Repeated hearings have been held on this issue in both chambers over several years. The record is clear. Title fraud is a significant problem across the country. It continues unabated. The solution is more consumer disclosure based on the use of appropriate and rational national standards. This legislation is a win-win solution for consumers, states, and industry. You know the time has come for Congressional action when the Department of Transportation's crash test cars are rebuilt, title washed, and back on America's roads and highways. Remember, these are deliberately wrecked vehicles. Yes, the time has come for action. Let us work together to move this measure forward. To keep dishonest rebuilders from taking advantage of even one more used car purchaser in your state. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, S. Res. 65 concerns a request for testimony in a civil action pending in North Dakota state court. The plaintiffs in this case claim that defendant Pearson defrauded them into paying him money in return for promises to alleviate plaintiff' tax liability on an investment. In particular, plaintiffs claim that defendant Pearson misrepresented the frequency and nature of his contacts with two members of Senator Dorgan's staff. Counsel for the plaintiffs wish to depose the two staff members to test the accuracy of the defendant's representations about their meetings. Senator Dorgan has approved testimony and, if necessary, production of relevant documents by his staff in connection with this action. This resolution would permit these two members of Senator Dorgan's staff, or any other current or former employees of the Senate, to testify and produce documents for use in this case.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, S. Res. 66 concerns a request for testimony in a criminal trial brought on behalf of the United States against Yah Lin ``Charlie'' Trie, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Mr. Trie, who was one of the principal subjects of the campaign finance investigation conducted by the Committee on Governmental Affairs in 1997, is under indictment for obstructing the Committee's investigation, according to the indictment, by instructing another individual to destroy and withhold documents under subpoena by the Committee. This resolution would authorize present and former staff of the Committee to testify in this matter, which is scheduled for trial in April 1999, with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel, and would authorize the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee, acting jointly, to produce records of the Committee, except where a privilege should be asserted.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, S. Res. 67 concerns a civil action commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado by Representative Bob Schaffer and three other individuals against the President of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Clerk of the House, seeking judicial intervention in the payment of salaries to Members of both Houses. The action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the operation of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, which provides for the automatic adjustment of the compensation of Members of Congress on an annual basis to reflect changes in employment costs in the preceding year, as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is the same annual cost-of-living adjustment paid to Federal judges and senior executive branch officials and is timed to coincide with the annual January 1 adjustment of the general civil service schedule. The issue presented in this action was the subject of a lawsuit brought in 1992 by another Member of the House of Representatives, who sought unsuccessfully to enjoin the 1993 congressional COLA, based on the then newly-ratified 27th Amendment. This resolution authorizes the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Secretary of the Senate and to seek dismissal of this action in order to defend the Secretary's ability to continue to carry out his duty under the law to disburse congressional compensation payable pursuant to the Constitution and Federal statute.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. In light of that agreement, there will be no further votes this evening. However, Senators will be reminded that the next vote will occur at 11 a.m. on Thursday. I thank the chairman of the committee, the managers of the bill, and the Senator from West Virginia for being ready to go, on relatively short notice, on this important matter. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to Calendar No. 28, S. 544, the supplemental appropriations bill, and the only tobacco amendments be relative to the Medicaid tobacco recoupment provision. I further ask that Senator Specter be recognized to offer an earmarking amendment, that all debate conclude on the amendment this evening, with the exception of 90 minutes to be equally divided, and the Senate resume the amendment on Thursday at 9:30. I further ask that the vote occur on or in relation to the earmarking amendment at 11 a.m. on Thursday and that no further amendments be in order prior to that 11 a.m. vote. I further ask that following that vote Senator Hutchison of Texas be recognized to offer her amendment relative to Kosovo.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, millions of Americans awoke yesterday to the tragic news of the derailment of the Amtrak ``City of New Orleans'' passenger train in Bourbonnais, Illinois. Late Monday night, the train, bound for New Orleans from Chicago, struck a tractor trailer at a highway/railroad crossing, throwing the two locomotives and 11 of the 14 cars off the tracks. More than 100 of the 196 passengers, 18 crew members, and two off-duty Amtrak employees were injured. At least eleven passengers were killed, including three Mississippians. Both Tricia and I are keeping the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy in our prayers, especially the Bonnin and Lipscomb families of DeSoto County, Mississippi. June Bonnin of Nesbit, Mississippi was diagnosed with what doctors described as incurable cancer five years ago. However, her strong faith in God kept her going and inspired others around her. She and her granddaughter, Jessica Tickle of Memphis, Tennessee, are in God's hands now, and her daughter Ashley was severely injured. Rainey and Lacey Lipscomb, two young sisters from Lake Cormorant, Mississippi, also perished in this crash. We grieve with these families for their loss. Mr. President, a group of students and adults from Clinton High School and Covenant Christian School in Clinton, Mississippi riding that train were returning to Mississippi after a spring-break ski trip. These young teenagers were jolted into a nightmare situation as some of the train's locomotives and cars overturned, split open, and caught fire. I want to recognize the reactions of two of those students during this catastrophe. Clinton High School students Michael Freeman and Caleb McNair quickly recovered from the initial shock of this crash and went to the aid of their fellow students and passengers. The Jackson, Mississippi newspaper reported today that Michael located an escape route through a side window, which was now at the top of their overturned passenger coach, built a ladder from broken seats, climbed out, and pulled his fellow students out to safety. Meanwhile, Caleb searched the coach for his fellow students. They had rescued more than a dozen students by the time emergency personnel arrived on scene. Michael then assisted one of the injured students to a telephone so she could notify her parents. Mr. President, the actions of these two young men may have prevented the other students from suffering additional injury or even death. Their reaction during this unexpected and disorienting event was truly commendable, as was the response by local, state, and Federal emergency personnel, Amtrak, and the Red Cross. It is unfortunate that the Nation's awareness of the dangers of road/ railway crossings tends to be raised by tragedies such as this, only to fade as time passes. Drivers who fail to heed rail intersection warnings place not only themselves at risk, but others as well. More needs to be done to prevent such accidents. I intend to work with my colleagues this year to do just that.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to combat the growing and costly fraud of title washing. Title fraud is a deceptive practice that costs consumers more than $4 billion dollars annually and places millions of structurally defective vehicles back on America's roads and highways. These are millions of unsafe cars and trucks sharing the roads with your loved ones. The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act encourages states to adopt uniform titling and registration standards to protect used car buyers from unknowingly purchasing totaled and subsequently rebuilt vehicles. It is a sound and reasonable measure that enhances consumer disclosure and aids state motor vehicle administrators throughout the nation by giving them identical points of reference to describe salvage vehicles. Let us be very clear on this, there are no uniform definitions and standards in place today and this leads to a hodgepodge of disclosure approaches throughout the country. Unscrupulous automobile rebuilders take advantage of inconsistencies in state titling definitions and procedures to purchase damaged vehicles at a low cost, rebuild them, oftentimes by welding the front and back of two different cars together, and then retitling the vehicle in another state. The new ``clean'' title bears no indication of the vehicle's previous damage record. As a result, consumers in your states are being sold previously totaled cars and trucks without having any knowledge that the vehicle they purchased, sometimes at a very high price, was severely damaged. A vehicle where only minor damage could cause it to fall apart. The unwitting purchasers of these vehicles experience significant economic loss. They and other motorists may also suffer bodily harm from these wrecks on wheels. Mr. President, the title branding bill offered today will promote greater disclosure to potential used car buyers than occurs today. It establishes uniform definitions for salvage, rebuilt salvage, nonrepairable, and flood vehicles based upon the recommendations of the Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration and Salvage Advisory Committee. This congressionally mandated task force, overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation, included the U.S. Attorney General's Criminal and Civil Justice Divisions, State motor vehicle officials, motor vehicle manufactures, auto dealers, recyclers, insurers, salvage yard operators, scrap processors, the U.S. Treasury Department, police chiefs and municipal auto theft investigators, and other interested and affected parties. The uniform definitions and standards contained in this bill are theirs, not mine. Their recommendations are based on a wealth of day-to-day experience dealing with consumer fraud, vehicle titling, and automobile theft. The Salvage Advisory Committee's recommendations struck an appropriate balance between consumers' economic interests and their personal safety. The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act requires rebuilt salvage vehicles to undergo a theft inspection in addition to any required state safety inspection. To further promote disclosure to potential used car buyers, the legislation also requires rebuilt salvage vehicles to have a decal permanently fastened to the driver's doorjamb and a sticker would be affixed to the windshield disclosing the vehicle's status. Additionally, a written disclosure statement must be provided to buyers and the vehicle's title would be branded with the statement ``rebuilt salvage.'' The bill also requires that the brands included on state vehicle titles be carried forward to each state where the vehicle is retitled. So if your state wants to add additional requirements--they can. And these items will be a permanent part of the title. In an effort to take aim at automobile theft, the bill requires the tracking of Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN) of irreparably damaged vehicles. This provision ensures that VINs are not simply swapped from damaged cars to stolen cars to mask their identity. Mr. President, Congress came very close to enacting title branding legislation last year. The original Senate measure received the formal bipartisan support of 57 Senators, and a similar bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 333 to 72. Throughout the legislative process, a number of significant changes were made to the bill to address the concerns expressed by consumer groups and some state attorneys general. The title branding bill before you today retains all of the changes approved by the House of Representatives last October and it includes additional pro-consumer, pro-states rights modifications received from states and the Administration. Under this revised bill, states are free to adopt disclosure standards beyond those provided for in the bill. Let me say again that nothing in this bill prohibits states from providing unlimited disclosure to their citizens. This important legislation merely creates a basic minimum national standard while giving participating states the flexibility to adopt more stringent provisions and additional disclosure requirements. The bill also does not create a federal mandate on the states as some big government advocates would have it. My colleagues are well aware that the Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States [505 U.S. 144 (1992)] that states cannot be forced by Congress to execute programs that should be administered by the U.S. government. In the New York decision, the Justices upheld ``access incentives'' which allow states to decide whether they want to use federal standards. This legislation follows the Supreme Court's ruling by offering incentive grants, as proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, to states that voluntarily choose to participate in the uniform titling regime for salvage vehicles. Thus, states that enact the bill's uniform titling definitions and procedures will be eligible for conformance funding. They can use the authorized funds to issue new titles, to establish and administer vehicle theft or safety inspections, for enforcement activities, and for other related purposes. While I believe most states will decide to participate in this completely voluntary program, rest assured no state will be penalized for choosing not to participate, or for adopting only some of the bill's provisions. I would also like to point out that the revised bill no longer links state adoption of uniform titling standards to the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) funding or participation. Again, there is no penalty for nonparticipation. The bill merely identifies and defines the minimum number of terms that should be used by states to characterize damaged vehicles. The use of nationally and consistently recognized terms will help consumers make informed decisions wherever they purchase a used vehicle. Whether in Mississippi, Utah, Florida, Montana, Texas, Virginia or any other participating state. Mr. President, let me tell our colleagues this bill is about a commission's recommendations. Quite frankly, I took the recommendations from a commission created by Congress and codified their ideas. The ideas of the experts. The ideas of all the stakeholders. As we all know, many commission reports gather dust. I do not want this one to gather dust because motorists could be driving used cars which are literally wrecks. This is the commission's bill and I am proud to be associated with its sponsorship. The bill fully adopts the federal task force's ``salvage'' vehicle definition as a vehicle that sustains damage in excess of 75% of its pre-accident value. This figure is lower than the House's proposal during the 105th Congress which would have set the uniform salvage threshold at 80%. The revised bill also gives states the flexibility to establish an even lower threshold if they choose. A state may set its salvage threshold at 70%, for example. The bill does not, however, set the uniform standard at an arbitrarily low minimum salvage threshold, such as 65%, when no state in the union currently has such a standard. No state. Not one. The bill defines a flood vehicle as one that suffers water damage that inhibits the electrical, computerized, or mechanical functions of the vehicle. This definition expands upon the recommendation of the Advisory Committee by taking into account real world experience. State's found that merely being exposed to water alone does not in and of itself threaten the structural integrity, safety, or value of a vehicle. A car or truck should not be branded a flood vehicle just because its carpeting and floor mats are wet. If it were the case, none of us would drive our cars through the rain or snow. It is only when water damage impairs a vehicle's operating functions and the electrical, mechanical or computerized components have not been repaired or replaced, that the vehicle should be classified as a flood vehicle. The revised bill also goes beyond the task force's recommendations by including any vehicle acquired by an insurer as part of a water damage settlement. A nonrepairable vehicle is one that is incapable of being driven safely and has no resale value except as a source for parts or scrap. This is similar to the nonrepairable definition used by California, our nation's largest state. This is also the common sense definition the Advisory Committee wisely chose in lieu of an arbitrary percentage based definition that would force otherwise repairable vehicles into the scrap heap. It should be noted that only five states have a percentage based nonrepairable definition. I find it troubling that these same five states have been far less successful in reducing automobile thefts than the nation as a whole and accident related deaths higher than the forty five states that do not have a percentage based nonrepairable definition. Coupled with the negative economic effects on consumers, these are additional reasons not to adopt a percentage based definition for nonrepairable vehicles. Mr. President, my colleagues should also be aware that this legislation allows states to use additional terms in their titling regimes such as ``reconstructed'', ``unrebuildable'', and ``junk vehicles'' in addition to the terms defined in this measure. If a state that chooses to conform to the federal standard also wants to use a percentage based definition to describe a ``parts only'' vehicle, it can use a term synonymous to nonrepairable. The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act also allows states to cover any vehicle, regardless of age. It allows older vehicles to be designated as a ``older model salvage vehicle.'' This is a change recommended by a state attorneys general representative to provide states with even more flexibility. Again, the age of a vehicle is no longer an issue under this revised title branding bill. This legislation even grants state attorneys general the ability to sue on behalf of consumers victimized by rebuilt salvage fraud and to recover monetary judgments for damages that citizens may have suffered. Two new prohibited acts are included in the bill--one related to failure to make a flood disclosure and the other related to moving a vehicle or title across state lines for the purpose of avoiding the bill's requirements. Mr. President, I have just gone over a number of changes that I incorporated into the bill. I have reached out to accommodate a number of issues, but there is a point where making changes defeats the purpose of the bill which is to promote consumer disclosure through uniformity. Mr. President, this bill does nothing to inhibit a consumers ability to pursue private rights of actions available under state law. Moreover, states are free to continue or adopt new civil and criminal penalties against individuals or companies that defraud consumers. The bill does not, however, negatively impact the already overburdened Federal courts. This bill is about disclosure. If your son or daughter is buying a used car, you want them to know right up front whether the vehicle they are about to purchase has been severely damaged. Getting relief after several years of litigating in a U.S. Court does not protect consumers. It does not turn the clock back for someone who has been killed or seriously injured in a structurally unsafe vehicle. Mr. President, I would also like to reiterate some key points concerning The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act: State participation is completely voluntary. V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y. There is no preemption of state law. None whatsoever. None. None. None. State legislatures can fully enact the bill's provisions, enact only some of the uniform definitions and standards, or take no action whatsoever. States that choose to participate in the minimal uniform definitions and standards identified in this bill will be entitled to conformance funding. There is no penalty for non-participation by a state. None whatsoever. None. None. None. And, no linkage to state National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) funding or participation. It mirrors recommendations of the Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration and Salvage Advisory Committee. The bill's definitions and standards are the minimum necessary for a voluntary uniform salvage titling framework. M-I-N-I-M-U-M. This legislation does not force states to adopt standards or definitions that not even one state currently has in place. The bill does not unnecessarily devalue vehicles or cause otherwise repairable automobiles to be junked. This is key because some will talk about greater protection, but these proposals threaten the car's value for no good reason and this makes no sense The revised bill includes many additional technical corrections provided to me by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the National Association of Attorney's General, and others. I want to personally thank them for their time and effort in going over the bill with me-- line by line. Their thoughts were invaluable and helpful. Throughout the legislative process, I have made several good faith efforts to reach out to all groups interested in this legislation and where possible, I included reasonable changes in the bill. It is widely supported by state motor vehicle administrators, law enforcement agencies, state legislators, consumers, and the automobile and insurance industries. Widely supported. Experts on the front lines, those who deal with titling issues everyday, have described other proposals that have been floated recently as confusing, or overly complex, or unworkable, or unwise, or counter productive. In many instances, these proposals have been flatly rejected by state legislatures. The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act represents a fair, balanced, and workable approach to dealing with the issue of title fraud. It provides a voluntary framework for states to provide much needed disclosure to potential used-car purchasers. It would help close the many loopholes that exist in state titling rules. This measure maintains a state's ability to provide more disclosure, to take direct and timely action against dishonest parties, and to adopt more stringent rules and procedures should they decide to do so. It is both pro-consumer and pro-states rights. This bill protects the safety and well-being of consumers and motorists across America. I urge the more than fifty of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who formally supported this title branding legislation during the last Congress to cosponsor this important bill again. I ask the rest of my colleagues also to protect their constituents by lending their support to this much needed consumer protection measure. The time has come for Congressional action. Repeated hearings have been held on this issue in both chambers over several years. The record is clear. Title fraud is a significant problem across the country. It continues unabated. The solution is more consumer disclosure based on the use of appropriate and rational national standards. This legislation is a win-win solution for consumers, states, and industry. You know the time has come for Congressional action when the Department of Transportation's crash test cars are rebuilt, title washed, and back on America's roads and highways. Remember, these are deliberately wrecked vehicles. Yes, the time has come for action. Let us work together to move this measure forward. To keep dishonest rebuilders from taking advantage of even one more used car purchaser in your state. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. I object to further consideration of the bill at this time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in support and am a proud sponsor of S. 257, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. If enacted, it would make the policy of the United States to deploy, as soon as is technologically possible, an effective national missile defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack, whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate. As I go around the country and I talk about this issue, people are surprised, stunned, to hear that we do not have this missile defense capability right now. They think that if there happened to be a rogue missile launched, accidentally or even intended, we would be able to just knock that out, no problem. When they find out we do not have that technology in place now, they are greatly alarmed. So I commend the principal sponsors of this bipartisan legislation, Senator Cochran of Mississippi and Senator Inouye of Hawaii, for their diligent efforts to ensure that all 50 States--indeed, all Americans-- enjoy protection against missile attack. My colleagues are aware that similar legislation has been brought before the Senate before--twice last year--and twice we failed, just one vote short of cutting off a filibuster. I am glad it appears we may not have a filibuster this time, that we can deal with the substance of this bill and we can vote on amendments and hopefully get to final passage, because it is clear there is bipartisan support and the realization that we need to move forward. I know there are those who are concerned that it could be misinterpreted what we are trying to do here and what are the ramifications with regard to the ABM Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. My answer to that is that we should make it clear what our intentions are. This is a defensive mechanism; this is to go forward and develop the technology, and when we have that technology, then we should move to deploy it. But we would have time to explain to one and all--whether it is Russia, members of the Russian Duma or the federation in Russia, their leadership, or members of the Israeli Knesset--what our intentions are. To make sure that is done, I have been discussing with the President and with Senator Daschle, and with others on both sides of the aisle, the idea that we should set up a working group, patterned after the example of the arms control observer group that served us quite well during the 1980s and early 1990s when we were dealing with the SALT treaties and we were trying to get disarmament agreements worked out in Europe and with the Soviet Union. We had Senators and Members of Congress who met with representatives of the then Soviet Government. We went to the Soviet Union. We had them come here. We had meetings in Geneva. And I believe that Members of the Senate who were involved will tell you it was very helpful. I discussed it with Senator Moynihan just yesterday at lunch, and he said clearly when he went to Geneva and met with the Russians and explained what our intentions were, and they talked about their concerns about cruise missiles in Europe, that everybody had a better understanding. So what I have advocated is that we set up a group which would be entitled something like this, although I am not wedded to a title, but the national security and missile defense working group, and that Senator Cochran would chair that group. I understand Senator Daschle has some Senators in mind on his side of the aisle--it would be equally divided--who would be involved in this effort. It would be a follow-on to what we are trying to do with the National Missile Defense Act. I hope that before this day is out we can set up this group and it will represent a broad cross section of the Senate so that everybody will understand what is intended. There are real dangers here. ``The threat is real, serious, and growing.'' That is not my quote. That is a quote of the Central Intelligence Agency, an analyst who works in this critical area. Let me recite what has happened since March of last year: Pakistan launched a medium-range missile that it acquired from North Korea; China and North Korea continue to provide Pakistan with technical and other assistance on missiles and nuclear weapons; Iran launched a medium-range missile. The original design also came from North Korea. It was improved by technology that it has been receiving from Russia and China. Up to this day, Russian companies are still exchanging technology and information with Iran. They are developing greater capability. That is extremely dangerous. While Congress has expressed its concern about this, the administration has even taken actions against certain companies in Russia. It continues to this very moment. We know that Iran is interested in developing and acquiring a long-range missile that could reach--yes--the United States as well as European capitals and that Tehran is benefiting from this extensive assistance from Russia and from China. North Korea is a very nervous situation. That country launched a long-range missile last August that demonstrated both intent and capability to deliver payloads over extremely long distances. Having been advised of this development, the CIA now concludes that the North Koreans ``would be able to use the three-stage configuration as a ballistic missile. . .to deliver small payloads to ICBM ranges.'' With minor modifications, this missile, the CIA notes, could probably reach not only Hawaii and Alaska but also the rest of the United States. The People's Republic of China, PRC, likewise continues to engage in a massive buildup of its missile forces both at the theater level--that is aimed against our friend, Taiwan, their neighbor--and the strategic level--aimed at, perhaps, even the United States. Today the PRC has more than a dozen missiles aimed at American cities. Yet, we are told on occasion there is not a missile aimed at the United States today. That is not true. The Chinese are in the process of developing multiple warheads for those and their next- generation mobile missiles, which are much more difficult to locate. Sadly, there is a serious problem here, and it is one that is growing. Just recently, of course, is the situation brought to the public's attention regarding China's nuclear espionage and how we are dealing with that. There are those wanting to know, How did this happen? Who did it? Who is to blame? All of that is interesting and we should determine that, but here is the real question: Is it still going on? Have we stopped it? I think Congress should take a serious look at this situation. We need to deal with some laws to make it possible for us to stop this sort of espionage. Do they need additional money? We would need to have the appropriate briefing from the Energy Department and the CIA to judge whether or not additional money should be needed. This post-cold-war era is a unique time, but it is also a dangerous time. It is a time when historically, reviewing what we have done in the past, we drop our guard when there appears to be times of calm and peace, but I think that is when we are at our greatest danger. Our inability to defend against incoming accidental or rogue-launched missiles is our Achilles' heel. It is where we are in the greatest danger. Would we not act? Should we not begin the process now? The truth of the matter is we should have already done it. If we don't, there will come a time soon--perhaps early in the millennium--when we will, in fact, be threatened and in serious danger. This National Missile Defense Act will get us started. It will be the kind of progress we need. We will still have to make the decisions about the appropriations and when we actually go forward with deployment. I sense there has been movement in the Senate on this issue. I know there has been movement in the administration on this issue. Now is the time to act. I hope the Senate will do it in an expeditious and bipartisan manner. I believe we will look back on this bill and this vote as one of the most significant votes that we take in the year 1999. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, with regard to the missile defense bill, it seems to me good progress is being made. And the fact that we did not have to have a vote on a motion to proceed or on cloture on a motion to proceed was a very positive development. I hope the Cochran amendment can be adopted and perhaps other action taken today, but if we could actually get to final passage of this bill tonight, that would be very positive, because we do have two other issues we would like to be able to consider in some form this week. One of them is the matter of Kosovo, how the Senate wishes to express itself on that issue and how ground troops would be introduced, if at all. And then also we have the emergency supplemental appropriations bill pending. Next week, the entirety of the week will have to be spent on the budget resolution in order to complete action on that before the Easter recess. So the sooner we can finish the missile defense bill, the better it will be in addressing these other issues in a timely fashion. Mr. President, I know that Senators Hagel and Reid and Edwards are in the Chamber and wish to speak on the resolution commemorating this Congressional Medal of Honor given to Senator Kerrey, but I would like to take just 5 minutes or so to talk about the missile defense bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will begin consideration of a resolution commending Senator Kerrey on the 30th anniversary of his receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor. I had the pleasure of talking to Senator Kerrey late last night, as a matter of fact, as he typically was working aggressively on matters of great interest to our country. I think it is appropriate that we have this resolution before us. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour for consideration of the resolution, with the time equally divided between Senators Hagel and Edwards or their designees. At 11:30 a.m., the Senate will resume consideration of S. 257, the national missile defense bill, with a Cochran amendment pending regarding clarification of funding. Under a previous consent agreement, there will be 1 hour for debate on the amendment, equally divided between Senators Cochran and Levin or their designees. At the conclusion of that debate time, the Senate will recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow the weekly party caucuses to meet. Upon reconvening at 2:15, the Senate will immediately proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Cochran amendment. And further votes are expected throughout Tuesday's session as the Senate continues consideration of the missile defense bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. It is my understanding that the Senator from Missouri's provision makes an important clarification to a discipline provision within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Pennsylvania may wish to make a statement in a moment also, but if I could just do a couple of things here. First, before the Senators leave the Chamber, the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Oregon, I want to again thank them for their effort. It was bipartisan because the Senator from Oregon, Mr Wyden, made it so, stayed in there, worked with us, but I particularly wish to thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, the doctor, who gave us an education. He took us to school. He used apples and information and examples. He acted like a good teacher should. I congratulate him for that. He even showed us how you could use a scalpel to cut the redtape, and that is what this Ed-Flex bill will do. So to the two Senators, I thank them for their leadership, for their work, for their persistence because they both have been heckling me about this bill for a year, and I am glad it is done. I congratulate them for their effort.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, across our Nation, courageous teachers and school administrators, parents and Governors, are working to find creative ways to ensure that our children receive a world class education. The United States Senate is prepared to promote and support these efforts. Nothing is more important to the future of our Nation that the education of our children. The ideas we propose today are confident reform, rooted in tested principles, parents, teachers and principals, the ones who know our children best, should have the greatest influence on their classrooms. The needs of America's schools differ from community to community, and we help them most when we empower them to make wise choices for the children in their care. Our money, manpower and energy should be primarily devoted to teaching children, not to filing paperwork and fueling bureaucracies. These commonsense proposals have broad appeal. They have received strong bipartisan support. Every Democratic Governor in the country supports this bill. Last year, the President promised he would expand the program we are considering today to all fifty States. The bill passed out of committee by a vote of 17-1 last July, and Secretary Riley strongly supported its enactment at that time. There is no reason why the Senate should not quickly pass the bill sponsored by Senators Frist and Wyden. So the question before the Senate is really quite simple. It is not whether we will pass the Ed-Flex bill, for in the end the overwhelming majority of the Senate will support it. Rather, the question is whether the Senate will keep faith with the American people, by working together in a bipartisan fashion, to help America's school children. Republicans stand ready to do just that. The evidence of our commitment is the fact that we offer a bipartisan bill as one of the very first we bring to the Senate floor. Republicans and Democrats have honest disagreements on many education initiatives. Democrats believe that new Federal categorical grant programs that distribute money to States and counties based on complex formulas are the best way to hire more teachers. Republicans believe that Federal dollars should be sent directly to the classroom so that parents, teachers, and principals can address the unique educational needs of their particular students, whether it be to hire more teachers, to provide special tutors, to buy new books or to teach computer skills. These differing philosophies will be debated, and ought to be debated, fully by the Senate. We will have ample opportunity throughout this Congress to do just that. However, there is simply no need to have divisive debates on a bipartisan bill. So I urge my colleagues from across the aisle to choose constructive progress over political posturing for the sake of improving America's schools. Ed-Flex works for America's children. It proposes a simple exchange. States will hold schools accountable for their performance in return for granting each school the freedom to determine how best to achieve those results. This is not an untested premise. Currently, twelve States have this authority. The results have been promising. In Texas, Ed-Flex schools outperformed those without waivers by several percentage points on student achievement scores. An elementary school in Maryland now provides individual tutors for its students who lag behind in reading. The same school has dramatically reduced class size in math and reading, providing one teacher for every twelve students. The bill before us today simply expands the right to become an Ed- Flex State to all fifty States. It is strongly supported by our Nation's Governors, both Democrats and Republicans. Last month, the National Governors Association stated, ``The expansion of the Ed-Flex program is a high priority for Governors. . . . We strongly support this legislation as well as your decision to move forward at this time.'' The Nation's Democratic Governors joined together unanimously saying, ``S. 280 is commonsense legislation that we believe deserves immediate consideration. We hope, therefore, that you will join in supporting its prompt enactment.'' Governors across America are united. There is simply no reason why the Senate should not be as well. I urge my good friends and colleagues on the other side of aisle to listen to their Governors. Join us in supporting the prompt enactment of a simple bill that will provide meaningful reform to schools throughout our Nation. Let's not squander an opportunity to work together to demonstrate our common commitment to America's schoolchildren.

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, the Senate after this vote will be finished for the day. We will not have any recorded votes on Friday, and because we have been able to work out an agreement on how to proceed on the national missile defense issue, we will not have any recorded votes on Monday either. We will be on the bill. We worked it out where we would not have to have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed. I think this is a positive. I want to commend the Democratic leader for working with us on that. Also, before we vote, I want to say how pleased I am that we have completed this Education Flexibility Act. The managers of the bill have done a good job. We have been through all these votes today and we are going to complete this legislation, and the story will be that the Senate passed a bipartisan education bill that is going to help the children at the local level. I commend all who have been involved with it, and I am pleased that, as a result of that, we will not have to have recorded votes on Friday or Monday. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we are through with the list of amendments and we will be ready to go to final passage. Order Of Procedure

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to yield to the Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, so that he can explain a provision that he drafted for Amendment No. 68, an amendment that he and I have offered to the Ed-Flex bill.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now turn to S. 257, the Missile Defense Act.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, then, the Senate will be able to have the initial statement by Senator Cochran, the manager, tonight. We will resume the missile defense bill on Monday, and it is our hope that an agreement can be reached on a time agreement and that amendments will be offered during Monday's session. I urge that Members be present on Monday to make their statements on this legislation and to offer amendments, if they have them. This is a very important defense initiative. I am pleased that we are going to be able to go straight to the bill, and I hope that within short order next week we will be able to get to the conclusion of this very important national defense issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on February 28, 1999, the Senate said farewell to a valuable employee. William D. ``Bill'' Lackey, Jr., Journal Clerk of the Senate, retired after 34\1/2\ years of service to the Senate. Bill arrived at the Senate's doorstep on September 1, 1964, from North Carolina. He served the Senate in a number of important capacities, including Assistant Executive Clerk, Bill Clerk, Assistant Parliamentarian, Assistant Journal Clerk, and from 1987 to 1999, as Senate Journal Clerk. During the last 12 years, Bill was responsible for the production of the Senate Journal. This role required that he sit at the dias here on the Senate floor to record the minutes of the Senate's legislative proceedings. His became a very familiar face to us all. Bill Lackey has been the source of wise and good counsel to many over the years. We commend him for his outstanding service to the Senate and the Nation, and wish him Godspeed as he returns to the beloved foothills of his native Shelby, NC.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. That is correct.