The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“NATIONAL SALVAGE MOTOR VEHICLE PROTECTION ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Senate section on pages S11805-S11806 on Oct. 7, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
NATIONAL SALVAGE MOTOR VEHICLE PROTECTION ACT
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the substitute amendment to S. 852, the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Protection Act of 1998.
The substitute makes a number of changes to the Committee-passed bill. While not as far reaching as some would like, I believe that the changes improve a measure that has always had a very laudable intent, but which was criticized nevertheless by attorneys general and consumer groups for preempting, in some instances, more favorable state law and not providing consumers with enough information about a vehicles' history.
As a former Attorney General, I was particularly sensitive to these criticisms, and last Fall I placed a hold on the measure with the expectation of facilitating a consensus between the bill's supporters, the attorneys general, and various consumer advocate groups. Regrettably, a consensus of legislation was not to be had. While the changes in the amendment are generally intended to address concerns raised by the attorneys general and, to some extent, consumer advocates, neither of these groups has endorsed this measure. I removed my hold on the amendment despite this, however, because there is a consensus, of which I am a part, on the need for federal legislation regarding salvage and rebuilt vehicles. The bill, as amended, is not perfect. But as my months of trying to broker an agreement revealed,
``perfect,'' even if defined to mean the best interest of consumers, is a subjective term. S. 852, as amended, is, in my view, and in that of over 50 co-sponsors, better than the status quo.
I remain troubled that the attorneys general and some consumer advocate groups do not agree. I am also somewhat baffled by the seemingly studied misconstruction of the bill, and my amendment to it by some who continue to oppose it.
Let me explain the changes in the amendment to S. 852. In response to complaints that S. 852 set too high a damage threshold for designating a vehicle as ``salvage,'' the amendment lowers the threshold from 80% to the lower of 75% or the percentage threshold in a state as of the date of enactment. Seventy-five percent is the threshold recommended by the task force created by the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, on whose work this legislation is based. Industry defenders of the higher threshold argued that lowering it would hurt, not help, consumers because it would devalue vehicles even when there is no legitimate safety-related reason for mandating the disclosure of prior damage. I understand their point, but don't agree. Yes, there is some threshold at which mandatory labeling, and the bureaucratic burden that attends it, is more costly than beneficial for both buyers and sellers, but I do not believe we have come close to that turning point.
The attorneys general's concern that S. 852 did not provide for sufficient disclosure applied not only to the percent of damage threshold, but also to limited scope of the vehicles covered by the bill. S. 852 proposed to permit the ``salvage vehicle'' label to attach only to vehicles less than seven years old or with more than $7500. While states were free to use any other label they chose for all vehicles, including older vehicles, state attorneys general wanted to be able to use the term ``salvage'' to describe older vehicles because it is the term most commonly used today to advise of prior damage. The amendment to S. 852 permits states to do this, and explicitly provides that states can use the term ``older model salvage vehicle'' to label older vehicles.
Complaints about the mandatory nature of S. 852 ran the gamut. Some critics of S. 852, including the Department of Transportation, objected to the fact that states were not obligated to comply with the Act, arguing that states could opt out and become regional title washing capitals. Others complained that the bill was too prescriptive, and did not allow states (the majority of which, until now, do not appear to have adopted very consumer-friendly laws) to set the standards for labeling and disclosure. Rather than refight the battle that led the House to conclude that a mandate would be unconstitutional, and because I was unable to persuade anyone to agree that we should use a big stick as opposed to a carrot approach, the amendment to S. 852 does not make the labeling system mandatory, but incorporates a provision to address concerns that opt-out states will become title-washing capitals. The amendment to S. 852 makes it a violation of the Act to move vehicles, or vehicle titles, across state lines for the purpose of avoiding the requirements in the Act.
Another minor modification to S. 852 corrects what I believe was an oversight in S. 852, and makes it a violation of the Act not to comply with the labeling and disclosure requirements for ``flood vehicles.''
Another modification made to S. 852 clarifies that states that choose to abide by the provisions of the Act must carry over not only the
``salvage vehicle,'' ``nonrepairable vehicle,'' and ``flood vehicle'' labels on titles, but also any other disclosure that states prescribe. This concept was contained in S. 852, but the language was unclear. The legislation does not restrict states from labeling a car with any term, and prescribing treatment of a car so labeled with any term, other than the very limited list of terms used in the bill. In other words, a state that accepts federal funds for the national motor vehicle identification number database, and that does not specifically state on its titles that it is not complying with the federal titling standards, must use the definition of ``salvage vehicle'' and ``nonrepairable vehicle'' prescribed in the bill. However, S. 852 permits that state to label the same vehicle with any other term it chooses and imposes any restrictions attendant to the other label. The amendment clarifies that states that chose to use the national labels, including those for
``salvage vehicle'' and ``nonrepairable vehicle,'' must not only carry over these labels from other states, but must also carry over any other labels another state chooses to affix, and specify the state that so labeled the vehicle.
Other modifications specifically permit state attorneys general to bring actions on behalf of individuals for violations of the Act, and clarify that the Act in no way affects individuals' ability to bring private rights of action. In response to concerns that S. 852 preempted state causes of action and created a sole remedy for violations relating to title labeling and disclosure, the amendment specifically provides that the Act does not preclude any private right of action available under state law. This provision was intended to provide assurances that nothing in the Act restricts individuals, or attorneys general, from pursuing any claims under state law, such as claims based on violations of consumer protection laws, unfair trade practices, or failures to disclose the material terms of a contract. Curiously, the inclusion of this provision, designed to allay concerns about preemption, appears to have unreasonable stirred them. Some appear to have drawn the illogical and legally unsupported conclusion that any claim not specifically preserved is implicity barred. Let met again try to clarify. There is absolutely nothing in the bill that suggests that the remedies it provides (action by attorneys general) are exclusive. Simply because the legislation states that private actions are specifically preserved does not mean that all other actions are barred or restricted in any way.
The modification that has drawn criticism even from those consumer groups whose interests I was attempting to advance in my amendment, is the striking of the criminal penalty provisions. This modification was not requested by anyone seeking to avoid accountability. Rather, I sought to strike the criminal penalties because I believe that the criminal sanctions in S. 852 were inappropriate in most instances, and unnecessary in others. As a general matter, I believe that Congress creates too many federal criminal offenses, when it should leave this task to state law. A violation of this bill, such as a failures to make disclosures about a vehicle's history, generally is not the type of violation for which people should be sent to jail. If the conduct is so egregious that criminal sanctions are warranted, then existing state laws against fraud, theft, and the like are available based on which to prosecute violators.
The change I have just described to S. 852 are not extensive. They are, nevertheless, important and, in my opinion, improve a bill that is needed at this time.
____________________
