Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. We will reconvene tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, and we hope to be able to finish tomorrow afternoon, Mr. Chief Justice, but we have to make a lot better progress than we did today.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I certainly agree with that. We are going to have to have a momentary quorum, just to get the doors closed and then officially go forward. We will call and make sure all the committee hearings are being shut down. Actually, I think Members are coming in steadily, and within a moment we are probably going to have almost all the Senators here. But we will take just a couple of minutes to notify committees to complete their actions and come on the floor.

Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LOTT. Correct.

Mr. LOTT. I believe that is correct.

Mr. LOTT. I think the answer to that is yes. You can do that.

Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield to Senator Coverdell.

Mr. LOTT. Also, I know some Senators are still on the way here from committee meetings. There are only two or three going on today, but we didn't give them much notice that we were going to begin at 10, but we are notifying everybody now that we will come in at 10 tomorrow, so that they will go ahead and be able to take action this morning to cancel those hearings and be here sharply at 10 o'clock. Again, we will alternate today, across the aisle, with the speakers going for up to 15 minutes. Senator Inhofe is scheduled to be our first speaker today. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If there is no further business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. LOTT

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 Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume open session.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, if I could respond, give us an opportunity to discuss this with you. We will have another opportunity to do that. I think maybe we can work something out. I would like to make sure we thought it through, if that is appropriate, Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, with that record now having been made, I now move that the doors for final deliberations be closed, and I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated.

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, for that amorphous ruling. (Laughter.) I yield to the Senator from Texas for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LOTT. I am not chairman of the Ethics Committee, but I am assured by those on the committee that you would have to do so. Are we ready to move forward? Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. That is correct. That is my understanding. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, if I may, in a moment I will make a motion to close the doors for deliberations. However, we have to dispose of this.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, that is an accurate understanding, and that is with the presumption that we will go into closed session, and such a motion will be made in short order. I want to also clarify that this is made on behalf of Senator Daschle and myself. We have consulted a great deal on this and we have both been thinking about doing something like this, but we never put it on paper until a moment ago.

Mr. LOTT. I would be glad to yield, Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. LOTT. That is not what is in this proposal. I would like to think about that and discuss it with the Senator from Minnesota and others. I remember making a passionate speech, but I had no prepared notes; and so I could not put it into the Record if I wanted to when we were in one of those closed sessions. I honestly had not considered that. This was aimed at the closing deliberations. I think we need to give some thought to reaching back now to the other closed sessions before we move in that direction. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe this would be applicable only to the final deliberations.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to express my commitment to make the Nuclear Waste Storage Bill an early priority during the 106th Congress. More than 15 years ago, Congress directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to take responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste created by commercial nuclear power plants and our nation's defense programs. Today there are more than 100,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel that must be dealt with. One year has now passed since the DOE was absolutely obligated under the NWPA of 1982 to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from utility sites, and DOE is no closer today in coming up with a solution. This is unacceptable. The law is clear, and DOE must meet its obligation. If the Department of Energy does not live up to its responsibility, Congress will act. I am encouraged that the House of Representatives has begun to address this issue. A bill introduced by Representative Fred Upton and Ed Towns of the House's Commerce Committee would set up a temporary storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for this waste until a permanent repository is approved and built. It is good to see bipartisan cosponsors for a safe, practical and workable solution for America's spent fuel storage needs. This solution is certainly more responsible than leaving waste at 105 separate power plants in 34 states across the nation. There are 29 sites which will reach capacity by the end of 1999. All of America's experience in waste management over the last twenty-five years of improving environmental protection has taught Congress that safe, effective waste handling practices entail centralized, permitted, and controlled facilities to gather and manage accumulated waste. Mr. President, the management of used nuclear fuel should capitalize on this knowledge and experience. Nearly 100 communities have spent fuel sitting in their ``backyard,'' and it needs to be moved. This lack of storage capacity could very possibly cause the closing of several nuclear power plants. These affected plants produce nearly 20% of the United States' electricity. Closing these plants just does not make sense. Nuclear energy is a significant part of America's energy future, and must remain part of the energy mix. America needs nuclear power to maintain our secure, reliable, and affordable supplies of electricity at the same time the nation addresses increasingly stringent air quality requirements. Nuclear power is one of the best ways America can address those who say global warming is a problem--a subject I'll leave for another day. Both the House and the Senate passed a bill in the 105th Congress to require the DOE to build this interim storage site in Nevada, but unfortunately this bill never completed the legislative process. I challenge my colleagues in both chambers of the 106th Congress to get this environmental bill done. The citizens, in some 100 communities where fuel is stored today, challenge the Congress to act and get this bill done. This nuclear industry has already committed to the federal government about $15 billion toward building the facility. In fact, the nuclear industry continues to pay about $650 million a year in fees for storage of spent fuel. It is time for the federal government to live up to its commitment. It is time for the federal government to protect those 100 communities. To ensure that the federal government meets its commitment to states and electricity consumers, the 106th Congress must mandate completion of this program--a program that includes temporary storage, a site for permanent disposal, and a transportation infrastructure to safely move used fuel from plants to the storage facility. Mr. President, this federal foot dragging is unfortunate and unacceptable, so clearly the only remedy to stopping these continued delays is timely action in the 106th Congress on this legislation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to talk about America's used car buyers. They are looking to this Congress to take prompt action on legislation that will curtail the fraudulent practice of ``title washing.'' A deceptive scheme that costs consumers and the automobile industry over $4 billion annually and places millions of structurally unsafe vehicles back on America's roads and highways. Last week I brought to your attention a January 8, 1999, Washington Post article entitled ``Wrecked Cars, On the Road Again.'' This is scary--government crash test cars--deliberately destroyed cars--are being rebuilt and sold to unsuspecting consumers as undamaged vehicles. One of these crash cars could have been next to any one of us on the way to work today. I ask my colleagues to think about how they would feel if their son or daughter unknowingly purchased a NHSTA crash test car. Aside from the significant monetary loss, buyers of these previously totaled cars or trucks are also unwittingly risking life and limb. As well as everyone with whom they share the road. As my colleagues are well aware, Senator Ford and I coauthored legislation in the 105th Congress with the intent of putting dishonest rebuilders out of business. Our bill would have provided greater disclosure to potential used car buyers by establishing national uniform definitions for salvage, rebuilt salvage, nonrepairable, and flood vehicles. As everyone knows, especially the crooks and charlatans who prey on unsuspecting victims, that it is the lack of uniformity and the inconsistencies in state automobile titling procedures that allows title laundering to flourish unabated. Mr. President, the provisions of the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act mirrored the recommendations of the Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration and Salvage Advisory Committee. This congressionally mandated committee, overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation, included State motor vehicle officials, motor vehicle manufactures, dealers, recyclers, insurers, salvage yard operators, scrap processors, federal and state law enforcement representatives, and others. While I would like to claim credit for authoring the definitions in the title branding legislation, they were in fact based on the knowledge and experience of the Salvage Committee and the recommendations offered in their final report. So these are not my definitions, they are the expert advisory committee's definitions. Mr. President, too often Congress lets recommendations from commissions we mandate sit on a shelf gathering dust. Mr. President, I do not want this to happen here. Title washing is a pervasive problem. The salvage advisory group provided a wealth of information and recommendations to address this national problem. Congress needs to act. Aside from promoting the use of uniform definitions, the bill requires rebuilt salvage vehicles to undergo a theft inspection in addition to any required state safety inspection. These vehicles would also have a decal permanently affixed to its window and the driver's doorjamb to provide even greater disclosure. Equally important, the vehicle's brand would be carried forward to each state where the vehicle is retitled. And, the Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN) of irreparably damaged vehicles would be tracked to prevent automobile theft. Contrary to the misrepresentations about this bill, it allowed states to adopt disclosure standards beyond those provided for in the bill. In fact, states would have had broad latitude to provide almost unlimited disclosure to their citizens. This important legislation merely created a basic minimum national standard while allowing states the flexibility to adopt more stringent regulations. It also did not create a federal mandate on the states as some had proposed. As my colleagues will recall, the Supreme Court held 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. Mr. President, Congress came very close to enacting title branding legislation last year. The original measure received the formal support of 57 of our colleagues in this chamber and a similar bill passed the House of Representatives with 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. In a good faith effort, the following changes were included in the modified version of the bill. The percentage threshold for defining a ``salvage vehicle'' was lowered from 80 percent to 75 percent. The final bill included a provision allowing states broad latitude in determining which vehicles would be designated as ``salvage.'' The compromise permitted a state to maintain or establish a lower percentage threshold for defining a ``salvage vehicle.'' So if a state set its percentage threshold below the 75 percent level, it would still have been in compliance with the bill. Some consumer groups and state attorneys general advocated that states be able to set their thresholds as low as they desired. This bill would have allowed any state to do just that. A new provision was added that allowed states to cover any vehicle, regardless of age. This is referred to as ``older model salvage vehicle.'' Another new provision in the legislation granted state attorneys general the ability to sue on behalf of consumers who are victimized by rebuilt salvage fraud and to recover monetary judgments for damages that citizens may have suffered. The bill's section on ``prohibited acts,'' replaced the House's ``knowingly and willfully'' standard with a ``knowingly'' standard. Two new prohibited acts were included--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. In the original bill, conforming states were prohibited from using synonyms of terms defined in the legislation (i.e. reconstructed, unrebuildable, junk) in connection with a vehicle. The modified bill deleted this restrictive language, giving states increased flexibility to provide additional disclosures to their citizens regarding the damage history of vehicles. The compromise bill added a provision making it clear that nothing in the legislation would affect any private right of action under existing state laws. Let me say again that a citizen's ability to pursue private rights of action would have continued under the legislation. At the request of Senator Slade Gorton, the proposed federal criminal penalty provision was removed from the bill. As a former state attorney general, Senator Gorton was concerned that creating new federal penalties would unnecessarily increase the burden on an already stressed federal court system, especially in instances where existing state civil and criminal remedies would adequately address violations of the bill's titling requirements. Senator Gorton's concerns were recently buttressed by Chief Justice Rehnquist who recently complained about Congress' ``trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts.'' While the proposed criminal penalty was dropped, a provision authorizing civil penalties was retained. At the request of Sen. Ernest Hollings, a new provision was added concerning the Secretary of Transportation advising automobile dealers of the prohibition on selling vans as school buses. Again, these were significant changes aimed at achieving consensus and balancing the need for uniformity with the desire to provide states with reasonable and appropriate flexibility. It is also important to point out that the final title branding bill that passed the House with a bipartisan majority last October was strongly supported by state motor vehicle administrators. These are the very people responsible for implementing titling rules and procedures. If there is anyone that Congress should listen to on this topic, it is the state DMV directors. They have the most commitment to and significant knowledge and experience dealing with titling matters. Since they are on the front lines, these administrators know what works and what will not. Their only vested interest is to ensure that the people they serve in their states have an effective titling system. To that end, they have been working with the Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice to develop a National Motor Vehicle Title Information System that would provide titling offices around the country with accurate, reliable, and timely registration information. As I have said repeatedly, title branding legislation would significantly improve disclosure for used car buyers. It would close the many loopholes that exist by establishing uniform definitions. It would create national standards that would protect the safety and well- being of consumers and motorists across America. Enacting this legislation would allow our sons and daughters to buy a used car without fear that they may be purchasing a totaled and subsequently rebuilt vehicle. For these reasons, I intend on introducing the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act as it passed the House last October. I have also solicited technical corrections from a number of interested and affected sources including the U.S. Department of Transportation. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to safeguard our friends and families from title fraud by formally supporting this legislation. With your help, Congress can put thousands of chop-shop owners and con-artists out of business and keep millions of structurally unsafe vehicles off our nation's roads and highways. Let us take quick action to keep our constituents from buying wrecks on wheels.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. All Senators please remain standing at your desk. Thereupon, at 6:27 p.m., the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, adjourned until Wednesday, February 10, 1999, at 10 a.m. (Pursuant to an order of January 26, 1999, the following was submitted at the desk during today's session:)

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following the prayer on Wednesday, the Senate resume closed session for further deliberations of the pending articles of impeachment.