[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 57 (Monday, April 26, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4160-S4168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Y2K ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 96, which the clerk
will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 96, a bill to
regulate commerce between and among the several States by
providing for the orderly resolution of disputes arising out
of computer-based problems related to processing data that
includes a 2-digit expression of the year's date.
The Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I yield myself so much time as may be
permitted under the unanimous-consent agreement.
Pending the discussion with respect to the Y2K problem, let me say at
the outset that if there were a Y2K problem, we on this side of the
opposition, let's say, to the particular bill and the amendment
forthcoming with respect
[[Page S4161]]
to Senator McCain and Senator Wyden, anything within reason obviously
could have been worked out; namely, anyone who has a computer knows
glitches. So no one can deny there cannot be a glitch on January 1 of
the year 2000. However, there is not really a problem that would cause
us to try to change tort law. That is what is in the offing here.
I have talked to the best of the best in the computer industry with
the idea that we could compromise and give the 90-day grace period.
People do not want to go to court when they find out their computer
is not working. If there is one thing that takes time--the Securities
and Exchange Commission and so-called tort reform--they are still in
discovery, they are still in appeals, and they are still in court,
without trying the case, some 2 years later, because they have yet to
determine what was intended. The same would be the case here trying to
really venture into the State responsibility and jurisdiction with tort
with so-called overall reform law.
So I thought, fine, let's get together on what could be called a
glitch. Nobody wants to go to court. Give them some time to fix the
glitch, and then move on in the business world. However, we have some
friends down at the National Chamber of Commerce who are really bent on
actually trying to pass product liability and do away with trial by
jury and all the other State tort systems.
I could spot this in my particular position because I have been
engaged in it for at least 20 years on the Commerce Committee from
which it has been reported each time. We have prevailed over the 20
years. The reason we have prevailed is that the professionals in this
particular field, whether it be the American Bar Association, the
Association of State Legislatures, the Association of State Supreme
Court Judges, the Association of Governors, until it was changed in
effect, all opposed, and we were able to withstand the onslaught of
this particular political move.
I can tell you, Madam President, we are going to withstand it again
on Y2K, unless they come around, of course. But I don't see a
compromise in the offing.
So I think immediately of what should be discussed; namely,
television violence. We started on that with hearings at the beginning
of the 1990s. This is 1999. And this Senator introduced a TV violence
bill. We reported it out at that time 19 to 1 from the Congress before
the last.
I remember going up to Senator Dole, then majority leader, who was
running for President, and saying, ``Look, we have got this bill out.
The Attorney General has already attested to the fact that it would
withstand constitutional muster on the freedom of speech provisions,
and I will step aside if you want to make it. I am just interested in
getting the bill, not the credit. So why don't you take the bill?''
The point is that the distinguished Senator had just come in from the
west coast, where he, if everyone will remember, had cussed out the
movie industry for its gratuitous violence in all of its film making.
So I thought it was a natural that he would want to follow through. He
didn't. In the last Congress we then had it reported out by a vote of
20 to 0--TV violence.
This has nothing to do, of course, with the Nintendo games or the
other little games they play on these machines. But it does have to do
with the basic tendency towards violence without cost, without any
harm, or injury, or feeling.
We understand, of course, when you document the civil rights, when
you document the matter of the Civil War, or any of these other things,
you have to show the violence associated therewith in order to make an
honest depiction; that is going to be included. But we are talking
about gratuitous, excessive violence not incidental to the plot.
The bill has been found to stand, as I say, constitutional muster.
So we wanted to control that.
I have that bill in again. I would rather think that really bowing to
the Chamber of Commerce on particulars there with respect to State tort
and State responsibilities--mind you me, my Republican friends in the
leadership caterwaul that the best governed--or the less governed--that
the best governed is at the local level.
Why not let these local school boards control, rather than mandate
from Washington this, that, or the next thing? Now they come with a
mandate that the States have not asked for and the States would
certainly oppose.
I just talked to one of the great leaders in computerization who
said, ``Senator, please don't pass this measure. The fact that
companies don't get ready, they don't comply, is a competitive edge. My
customers are checking them out. If they don't comply, I'm using that
as a competitive advantage.''
Let the market forces operate I say to those who always caterwaul
about market forces and deregulation and wanting to regulate.
Back to the main point. We really ought to whip through a bill on
television violence and control that. We have quite a case to present
to the Congress itself. In the initial stage of broadcasting,
programmers said in the booklets, ``Get a murder early on to hold the
audience.'' They love violence, they love murders, so get in a murder
scene. I can show you that word for word in the CBS program in the
earlier stages of television.
We can also go to the Colorado case. About 4 years ago a solution was
used that is working at this particular time. I went down to Columbia,
SC, which is Richland County. The county sheriff, Leon Lott, said,
``Senator, I want to show you a school that was the most violent we had
in the county--more drugs and trouble. We put a uniformed officer in
the classroom.''
Let me attest to this. I am not talking about some uniformed officer
out in the parking lot looking for theft of the automobiles. I am
talking about a law enforcement officer in contact with the students.
This officer has not only taught the course, but associated himself in
the afternoon with the athletic programs and in the evenings with the
civic programs. If I had to pick a law enforcement officer, I would
pick some all-American like our friend Bill Bradley--someone they look
up to immediately, and put them in uniform.
It is not too much to teach respect and have him associated on the
campus. He walks, talks and teaches with the students, listens to the
teachers and the principals. The students know who brings a weapon to
the school grounds. The students know who brings drugs on the school
properties. All they do is just nod their head, make a little motion.
That security officer gets the hint immediately and goes in way ahead
of time--preventing violence, preventing drugs--and if need be, gets
them counseling or whatever.
Senator Gregg and I provided just this kind of provision in the
State-Justice-Commerce bill for the cops on the beat to be used. That
is what Sheriff Lott was using in the Richland County schools. It is
working in the other schools all over South Carolina.
My reaction at the time of the Columbine High School in Littleton,
CO, was, Did they have an officer? I heard some reports which said yes.
If they did, that officer ought to be fired. Anybody that can offload
that much weaponry--that security officer doesn't know what is going
on. He is not even taking care of security.
The main thing is to become, as they have in this particular
approach, a role model for the students themselves. You can't put
sensitive devices in every school in America. And we are not going to
do that. Praying and counseling are well and good, but let's go ahead
with a tried and true provision and get some leadership now that we can
see, again, more than ever the need. We can be discussing those things
rather than some political fix that you find in the polls.
What about the lawyers? Every pollster and consultant says kill all
the lawyers. That is popular. Reform, reform, reform; tort reform, get
rid of the lawyers. Control their fees, control their verdicts, control
the seventh amendment and the right of trial by jury. That is the whole
scenario. We who understand and appreciate it and have been in the
trenches now for 20 years are going to do our dead level best so that
shall not go on.
I think this afternoon at 5:30 we can vote cloture. I needed the time
because we were not given notice about this particular measure coming
up, but we are going to have to do some more head counting. We will
have to prepare some amendments and debate the real issues facing the
American people--not those being taken care of by the Governors
[[Page S4162]]
and the States. All of the Senators running around trying to play
catchup ball with the Governors from the elections last November, all
those that got elected and preached ``education, education,
education.''
There is a primary responsibility of the Federal Government for
national defense. A primary responsibility of the State government is
education: 93 cents out of every education dollar is at the State or
local level. We only have 6 or 7 cents that we can toy with. We cannot
have all of that influence. We can come across with some good ideas in
one particular State and try to make it possible on a pilot basis for
other States and take the leadership that we gain locally and spread
it. We support the Department of Education on that basis.
It is so ludicrous that those who came from the 1994 elections
wanting to abolish the Department of Education are now running around
throwing money at the Department of Education. It is all politics.
If we can stop using the government to get ourselves reelected with
these silly consultants and what shows up in the poll, but what shows
up on the front page. We know the need nationally to pay our bills. We
had a debate about that--it was totally disregarded--all last week:
``Save Social Security 100 percent.'' That was the majority leader's
amendment.
Madam President, I turned on the TV and he said the $6 billion for
Kosovo was not enough; we will have to add another $6 billion. When
asked where they will get the money, he said, ``From Social Security.''
That is not the only surplus. That is the only way to hide it. But
you can get $12 billion surplus from the civil service retirement fund,
which they have been doing, and from the military retirement fund,
which they have been using, but the mindset is immediately to go and
spend Social Security to savage the fund. There again was another
political charade. Today we are engaged in another political charade.
At this particular time, with respect to the motion to proceed, I do
not see much interest in actually debating. When the proponents come to
the floor, I would like an opportunity to make a few points relative to
the demerits of this particular measure, why it should not be enacted,
and get their response. Thereby, Madam President, I reserve the
remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the time for
the call of the quorum here be allocated equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will be offering, with my friend and
colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, a substitute amendment to S. 96,
the Y2K Act, at the appropriate time. The substitute amendment we will
be offering is a bipartisan effort. We worked diligently with our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address concerns, narrow some
provisions, and assure this bill will sunset when it is no longer
pertinent and necessary.
Senator Wyden, who said at our committee markup that he wanted to get
to ``yes,'' worked tirelessly with me to get there. He and others--but
he especially--have offered excellent suggestions and comments. I think
the substitute we bring today is a better piece of legislation for his
efforts.
Specifically, the substitute would provide time for plaintiffs and
defendants to resolve Y2K problems without litigation. It reiterates
the plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages and highlights the defendant's
opportunity to assist plaintiffs in doing that by providing information
and resources.
That provides for proportional liability in most cases, with
exceptions for fraudulent or intentional conduct, or where the
plaintiff has limited assets. It protects governmental entities,
including municipalities, schools, fire, water, and sanitation
districts, from punitive damages. It eliminates punitive damage limits
for egregious conduct, while providing some protection against runaway
punitive damage awards. And it provides protection for those not
directly involved in a Y2K failure.
The bill, as amended, does not cover personal injury and wrongful
death cases. It is important to keep in mind the broad support that
this bill has from virtually every segment of our economy. This bill is
important not only to the high-tech industry, or only to big business,
but it carries the strong support of small businesses, retailers, and
wholesalers.
Many of those supporting the bill will find themselves as both
plaintiffs and defendants. They have weighed the benefits and drawbacks
of the provisions of this bill and have overwhelmingly concluded that
their chief priority is to prevent and fix Y2K problems and make our
technology work, not divert the resources into time-consuming and
costly litigation.
One of the most troubling aspects of the looming Y2K problem is the
new industry being created by opportunistic lawyers. Many companies
feel they are ``damned if they do, dammed if they don't'' when it comes
to acknowledging potential Y2K failures. If they do not say anything
and later have a problem, they will certainly be sued. But if they say
something now, they may still be sued, and before anything even has
gone wrong. Over 80 lawsuits, mostly class actions, have already been
filed and we are still many months away from the year 2000.
The SEC reported in February that many companies are not complying
with the SEC disclosure requirements either as to what actions they are
taking to prepare, how much the effort is costing, or what contingency
plans are being put into place. The Senate Special Committee on the
Year 2000 Problem reported February 24--and I quote--``Fear of
litigation and loss of competitive advantage are the most commonly
cited reasons for barebones disclosure.''
It is my hope that S. 96 will be the catalyst for technology
producers to work with technology users to ensure a seamless transition
from the 1990s to the year 2000. The goal is to make January 1 a
nonevent.
The purposes of this legislation is to ensure that we solve the Y2K
technology glitch rather than clog our courts with years of costly
litigation. The purpose is to ensure a continued, stable economy, which
obviously is beneficial to everyone in our country.
The bill encourages efficient resolution of failures by requiring
plaintiffs to afford their potential defendants an opportunity to
remedy the failure and make things right before facing a lawsuit. We
should encourage people to talk to each other, to try to address and
remedy problems in a timely and professional manner.
The potential for litigation to overwhelm the Nation's judicial
system is very real. We must reserve the judicial system for the most
egregious cases involving Y2K problems. Litigation costs have been
estimated as high as $1 trillion. Certainly the burden of paying for
litigation will be distributed to the public in the form of increased
costs for technological goods and services.
The potential drain on the Nation's economy, and the world's economy,
from both fixing the computer systems and responding to litigation, is
staggering. While the estimates being circulated are speculative, the
cost of making the corrections in all the computer systems in the
country is astronomical. Chase Manhattan Bank has been quoted as
spending $250 million to fix problems with its 200 million lines of
affected computer code. The estimated cost of fixing the problem in the
United States ranges from $200 billion to $1 trillion. The resources
which would be directed to litigation are resources that would not be
available for continued improvements in technology, producing new
products, and maintaining the economy that supports the position of the
United States as a world leader.
[[Page S4163]]
As I said last week, time is of the essence. If this bill is going to
have the intended effect of encouraging proactive prevention and
remediation of Y2K problems, it has to be passed quickly. This bill
will have limited value if it is passed later this fall.
Senator Hollings, my friend, has expressed in committee his concerns.
I want to state up front that while we disagree, we have never been
disagreeable. I respect his views; we just disagree on this matter. And
I know, as I said earlier, we will have a lively debate on this bill.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give careful
consideration to the substitute amendment and join with me, Senator
Wyden, and our other cosponsors, Senators Gorton, Abraham, Lott, Frist,
Burns, Smith of Oregon, and Santorum, in bringing this substitute to
fruition. It makes sense, it is practical, and we need it now.
There are several letters, Madam President, from various
organizations throughout the country that I would like to quote from. I
ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the first letter I would like to quote
briefly from is from the National Federation of Independent Business,
the Voice of Small Business.
On behalf of the 600,000 members of the National Federation
of Independent Business (NFIB), I would like to thank you for
helping the nation's small business community prepare for the
millennium.
NFIB strongly supports S. 96 . . . specifically the
provisions that limit punitive damages and urge quick
resolution of legal disputes. We believe that S. 96 creates a
fair and level playing field for the settlement of year 2000
(Y2K) disputes.
Because small business owners operate on such a slim profit
margin, every second and every dollar counts. Therefore,
legislation addressing Y2K litigation must provide a speedy
and effective solution to disputes. Small businesses do not
have the luxury of waiting months or years for courts to
replace lost revenues or failed products. S. 96 encourages
the use of alternate dispute resolution (ADR) and provides a
``cooling off" period during which disputes can be resolved
outside of court. NFIB's goal is to keep small businesses out
of court, and we believe S. 96 will do that in most cases.
We do realize that some businesses will--and should--
resolve their disputes in court. Regardless of whether they
would be plaintiffs or defendants, 93% of NFIB members
support limiting punitive damages. Caps help eliminate
frivolous lawsuits and the unnecessary expenditure of legal
fees by small businesses.
That is from the National Federation of Independent Business.
There are those who have argued in the media that this legislation is
simply there to support the ``high-tech community'' and large
corporations. I don't think that would make it possible for the NFIB,
which represents 600,000 members, to support this legislation.
Next I would like to briefly quote from the American Insurance
Association, which represents nearly 300 property casualty/insurers
with millions of policyholders and thousands of employees across the
Nation. Member companies insure families, small businesses and large
businesses in every State.
Even with this commitment and dedication to minimizing Y2K
disruption, we can expect problems to occur. And
unfortunately in our litigious society, lawsuits or the fear
of lawsuits will inhibit solutions and multiply the
disruptive impact of system failures.
[Again,] on behalf of the member companies of the American
Insurance Association, I urge you to support the year 2000
reforms on final passage and cloture.
The Intel Corporation, Tosco, the leading technology corporations,
many of the leading technology industry companies in America, including
the CEO of American Electronics Association, President and CEO of
Alexander Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, CEO of Marimba, Managing
Director of Merrill Lynch, chairman and CEO of Novell, Chairman and CEO
of FileNet, and the list goes on of leading presidents and CEOs of the
high-tech industries in America, MicroAge, Alcatel, and the
International Mass Retail Association--all these organizations and more
support this legislation. I don't think they necessarily do so for
selfish reasons, although certainly they are motivated to a large
degree by their ability to provide the necessary profits to their
shareholders.
But I think also they are more committed to making sure that this
incredible economy that we are experiencing would continue to provide
so many jobs and opportunities for so many Americans, without draining
hundreds of billions of dollars from the economy.
My friend, Senator Hollings, has asserted that S. 96 is the camel's
nose under the tent for product liability and tort reform. I clearly do
not believe that is the case. I am a strong supporter of product
liability tort reform, but I believe that this legislation clearly is
not the case. It contains a sunset provision to assure that this is
considered, as it should be, a temporary measure to deal with a unique
situation.
The sunset language in section 4(a) of the bill provides that the act
applies to a Y2K failure occurring before January 1 of the year 2003,
hardly a victory for widespread tort or product liability reform. The
potential for massive litigation involving virtually every industrial
segment of our country, both small businesses and large, compels a
rational and practical solution to prevent litigation from destroying
the economic well-being of the country.
There is a need for this bill, Madam President. I will just point out
one example of opportunistic legislation. I am told that Mr. Tom
Johnson, acting as a private attorney general under California consumer
protection laws, has brought an action against a group of retailers,
including Circuit City, Office Depot, Office Max, CompUSA, Staples,
Fryes, and the Good Guys, Incorporated for failing to warn consumers
about products that are not Y2K compliant. He has not alleged any
injury or economic damage to himself, but pursuant to State statute,
has requested relief in the amount of all of the defendants' profits
from 1995 to date from selling these products and restitution to ``all
members of the California general public.''
Although he claims that numerous products are involved, he has not
specified which products are covered by his allegations, but has
generally named products by Toshiba, IBM, Compaq, Intuit, Hewlett
Packard and Microsoft.
This is precisely, Madam President, the type of frivolous and
opportunistic lawsuit which would be avoided by S. 96. Rather than have
all of these named companies wasting time and resources preparing a
defense for this case, S. 96 would direct the focus to fixing real
problems. In this instance, it does not appear that Mr. Johnson has an
actual problem. But if he does, he would need to articulate what is not
working due to a Y2K failure. The company or companies responsible
would then have an opportunity to address and fix the specific problem.
If the problem isn't fixed, then Mr. Johnson would be free to bring his
suit.
It is crystal clear that the real reason for this lawsuit is not to
fix a problem that Mr. Johnson has with any of his computer hardware or
software, but to see whether he can convince the companies involved
that it is cheaper to buy him off in a settlement than to litigate,
even if the case is eventually dismissed or decided in their favor.
This case is the tip of the iceberg.
If thousands of similar suits are brought after January 1, the
judicial system will be overrun and the Nation's economy will be thrown
into turmoil. This is a senseless and needless abuse that we can avoid
by passing S. 96.
Madam President, there are numerous provisions in this bill, but I
just want to repeat one of the most crucial aspects of this
legislation. If a problem is identified, then whoever it is that is the
manufacturer has 90 days in order to fix the problem. If they do not
fix the problem, then go to court. But it is hard for me to understand
why a company or corporation who manufactured this particular product
should not be allowed to have an opportunity to fix the problem for the
user. It makes perfect sense--how could anyone object to such a thing--
because these companies and corporations, if they are not committed to
fix the problem, then they should be sued. That is what our court
system is all about. But it makes perfect sense to me to give them an
opportunity to fix a problem that they may not have knowledge of before
they find themselves all day hauled into court.
[[Page S4164]]
Exhibit No. 1
National Federation
of Independent Business,
Washington, DC, April 21, 1999.
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman McCain: On behalf of the 600,000 members
of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), I
would like to thank you for your leadership in helping the
nation's small business community prepare for the millennium.
NFIB strongly supports S. 96, the McCain-Wyden ``Y2K Act,''
specifically the provisions that limit punitive damages and
urge quick resolution of legal disputes. We believe that S.
96 creates a fair and level playing field for the settlement
of Year 2000 (Y2K) disputes.
Every day, more small businesses prepare themselves for
potential Y2K problems within their own operations. No amount
of preparation, however, can keep them from being affected by
problems afflicting others: their suppliers, customers or
financial institutions. For this reason, businesses of all
sizes and types must be encouraged to address their Y2K
problems now. S. 96 encourages mitigation now to avoid
litigation later.
Because small business owners operate on such a slim profit
margin, every second and every dollar counts. Therefore,
legislation addressing Y2K litigation must provide a speedy
and effective solution to disputes. Small businesses do not
have the luxury of waiting months or years for courts to
replace lost revenue or failed products. S. 96 encourages the
use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and provides a
``cooling off'' period during which disputes can be resolved
outside of court. NFIB's goal is to keep small businesses out
of court, and we believe S. 96 will do that in most cases.
We do realize that some businesses will--and should--
resolve their disputes in court. Regardless of whether they
would be plaintiffs or defendants, 93% of NFIB members
support limiting punitive damages. Caps help eliminate
frivolous lawsuits and the unnecessary expenditure of legal
fees by small businesses.
As S. 96 moves to the floor, I would like to commend and
thank you for your leadership on Y2K preparedness
legislation. I appreciate your consideration of the concerns
of the small business community on this issue and look
forward to working with you in the future.
Sincerely,
Dan Danner,
Vice President,
Federal Public Policy.
____
American Insurance Association,
Washington, DC, April 15, 1999.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: The American Insurance Association
represents nearly 300 property/casualty insurers, with
millions of policyholders and thousands of employees across
the nation. Our member companies insure families, small
businesses, and large businesses in every state. A key issue
of concern to AIA members and their employees is providing a
predictable and fair framework within which the courts will
consider Year 2000 disputes. On behalf of our member
companies and their employees, I urge you to support both the
cloture vote and final passage of the pending Year 2000
reforms (the revised S. 96, the Y2K Act).
American Insurance Association members are leaders in
advocating loss prevention measures for our individual and
business policyholders, and we're proud to say that AIA
companies have worked diligently, some for as long as a
decade, to ensure our systems are Y2K compliant. Across the
nation, American businesses are preparing for the Year 2000
in the same way.
Even with this commitment and dedication to minimizing Y2K
disruption, we can expect problems to occur. And
unfortunately in our litigious society, lawsuits, or the fear
of lawsuits, can inhibit solutions and multiply the
disruptive impact of systems failures.
The American Insurance Association supports Congress'
efforts to minimize the economic costs arising from this
once-in-a-millennium event. The bipartisan bill under
consideration, the revised S. 96 provides a balanced,
measured, and modest response to the uncertainty posed by the
Year 2000. Our members strongly support this legislation.
Our priority is legislation that encourages a legal
environment where problem-solvers compete for business, not
fear frivolous lawsuits, legitimate claims are resolved
promptly, and where legal profiteering cannot take advantage
of a once-in-a-millennium problem. The bipartisan bills
accomplish these goals.
Again, on behalf of the member companies of the American
Insurance Association, I urge you to support the Year 2000
reforms on final passage and cloture. With best wishes I
remain,
Sincerely yours,
Robert E. Vagley,
President.
____
Intel Corporation,
Santa Clara, CA, April 19, 1999.
RE: Y2000 Legislation.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: I write to ask for your help in
enacting legislation designed to provide guidance to our
state and federal courts in managing litigation that may
arise out of the transition to Year 2000-compliant computer
hardware and software systems. This week, the Senate is
expected to vote upon a bipartisan substitute text for S. 96,
the ``Y2K Act'', which we strongly support.
Parties who are economically damaged by a Year 2000 failure
must have the ability to seek redress where traditional legal
principles would provide a remedy for such injury. At the
same time, it is vital that limited resources be devoted as
much as possible to fixing the problems, not litigating. Our
legal system must encourage parties to engage in cooperative
remediation efforts before taking complaints to the courts,
which could be overwhelmed by Year 2000 lawsuits.
The consensus text that has evolved from continuing
bipartisan discussions would substantially encourage
cooperative action and discourage frivolous lawsuits.
Included in its provisions are several key measures that are
essential to ensure fair treatment of all parties under the
law:
Procedural incentives--such as a requirement of notice and
an opportunity to cure defects before suit is filed, and
encouraged for engaging in alternative dispute resolution--
that will lead parties to identify solutions before pursuing
grievances in court;
A requirement that courts respect the provisions of
contracts--particularly important in preserving agreements of
the parties on such matters as warranty obligations and
definition of recoverable damages;
Threshold pleading provisions requiring particularity as to
the nature, amount, and factual basis for damages and
materiality of defects, that will help constrain class action
suits brought on behalf of parties that have suffered no
significant injury;
Appointment of liability according to fault, on principles
approved by the Senate in two previous measures enacted in
the area of securities reform.
This legislation--which will apply only to Y2K suits, and
only for a limited period of time--will allow plaintiffs with
real grievances to obtain relief under the law, while
protecting the judicial system from a flood of suits that
have no objective other than the obtainment of high-dollar
settlements for speculative or de minimus injuries.
Importantly, it does not apply to cases that arise out of
personal injury.
At Intel, we are devoting considerable resources to Y2K
remediation. Our efforts are focused not only on our internal
systems, but also those of our suppliers, both domestic and
foreign. Moreover, we have taken advantage of the important
protections for disclosure of product information that
Congress enacted last year to ensure that our customers are
fully informed as to issues that may be present with legacy
products. What is true for Intel is true for all companies:
time and resources must be devoted as much as possible to
fixing the Year 2000 problem and not pointing fingers of
blame.
For these reasons, we urge you to vote in favor of
responsible legislation that will protect legitimately
aggrieved parties while providing a stable, uniform legal
playing field within which these matters can be handled by
state and federal courts with fairness and eficiency.
Sincerely,
Craig R. Barrett,
CEO, Intel Corporation.
____
Tosco,
Stamford, CT, April 14, 1999.
Re: Y2K Act (S. 96)--SUPPORT.
Hon. John McCain,
Senate Russell Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of Tosco Corporation
(``Tosco''), I commend you for sponsoring the Y2K Act (S.
96), which will facilitate computer preparations for the
transition to the Year 2000. Tosco is one of nation's largest
independent refiners and marketers of gasoline and petroleum
products. We market gasoline in Arizona through more than 700
retail outlets in the state under our Circle K, Union 76, and
Exxon brands. Our marketing headquarters is located at Tempe,
Arizona, and we have 6,500 employees in the state.
Your Y2K Act will focus resources on the actual solution of
Y2K problems and will reduce the risk of costly and
unnecessary litigation. The opportunity for pre-litigation
resolution will benefit both potential plaintiffs and
potential defendants. The protection against liability for
harm caused by other parties and the limits on punitive
damages will reduce the incentive for widespread speculative
lawsuits targeted on large companies such as Tosco.
We also urge you to oppose the alternative Y2K bills which
do not provide for proportionate liability and do not limit
punitive damages. These bills will not protect against
``bounty hunting'' lawsuits which could aggravate Y2K
transition problems by hamstringing the business community
with complicated litigation and potentially unlimited
exposure.
Tosco is undertaking a comprehensive effort to have its
computer systems ready for the transition to the Year 2000,
and we are working closely with our customers and vendors.
While we expect a smooth transition, we believe S. 96 will
provide a useful framework for resolving any problems which
may arise.
All members of the business community share the
responsibility to be prepared for the computer transition to
the Year 2000.
[[Page S4165]]
Your well-conceived Y2K Act will help protect companies which
prepare for the transition in a timely manner while retaining
appropriate legal remedies in the event other companies do
not meet their responsibilities.
Tosco strongly supports S. 96. We also oppose the
alternative Y2K legislation which does not place reasonable
limits on litigation exposure. Please call me if you would
like any further information.
Very truly yours,
Ann Farner Miller,
Vice President,
Government Relations.
____
Technology Network,
March 5, 1999.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: We are writing on behalf of some of
the nation's leading technology industry companies to voice
support for the ``Y2K Act'' (S. 96 as amended), and to thank
you for introducing this bipartisan legislation to address
the important issue of Year 2000 readiness.
Technology companies are working aggressively to achieve
Y2K readiness as soon as possible. In close partnership with
their suppliers and customers, our companies are working to
identify potential problems, fix systems and conduct tests to
ensure that they are ready for Y2K. The technology industries
have committed extraordinary resources to ensure a smooth
transition to the Year 2000. Unfortunately, industry efforts
to address Y2K readiness are threatened by concern about
potential litigation.
Lawsuits designed to exploit the Year 2000 issue will turn
industry attention and resources away from the critical task
of ensuring that computer systems are Y2K compliant. We fully
support comprehensive legislation to ensure that companies
that act in good faith to solve Y2K disruptions are protected
from opportunistic litigation that slows the important work
of remediation. Legislation is essential to ensure that
companies concentrate their full attention and resources on
Year 2000 readiness, and not on wasteful or abusive lawsuits.
The technology industry appreciates your leadership in
championing a solution to this critical national issue. This
legislation is an essential part of a comprehensive solution
to the Y2K challenge and builds upon the ``Good Samaritan''
bill that Congress enacted last year.
Immediate action is necessary to protect our nation's
economic vitality and security. We must address this pressing
issue as early as possible in 1999. It is clearly in the
interest of all Americans that we spend resources on
remediation, and not on litigation. We commend you for your
leadership and attention to this important issue and urge the
Congress to enact Y2K legislation as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
John Chambers, President & CEO, Cisco Systems; Les
Vadasz, Senior Vice President, Intel; Pam Alexander,
President & CEO, Alexander Ogilvy Public Relations
Worldwide; William Archey, CEO, American Electronics
Association; Kathy Behrens, President, NVCA; Brook
Byers, Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers; Steve
Case, Chairman & CEO, America OnLine; Wilfred Corrigan,
CEO & Chairman, LSI Logic; William Davidow, Partner,
Mohr Davidow Ventures; Bob Herbold, Executive Vice
President & COO, Microsoft Corporation; George Klaus,
CEO, Platinum Software; Kim Polese, CEO, Marimba, Inc.;
Colleen Poulliot, Senior VP, General Counsel &
Secretary, Adobe Systems; Willem Roelandts, President &
CEO, Xilinx; Michael Rowan, CEO, Kestrel Solutions;
Scott Ryles, Managing Director, Merrill Lynch; Eric
Schmidt, Chairman & CEO, Novell; Ted Smith, Chairman &
CEO, FileNet.
____
International Mass
Retail Association,
Washington, DC, April 15, 1999.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the International Mass
Retail Association (IMRA), I would like to thank you for
sponsoring the Y2K Act (S. 96). This legislation is crucial
to preventing frivolous Y2K lawsuits from imposing needless
costs on businesses and congesting the court system.
Companies should focus their time and effort on assuring
that their computer systems, and those of their suppliers,
will be Y2K-compliant--not in preparing for lawsuits, that
could harm a prospering U.S. economy and even cost some
workers their jobs. Without adequate safeguards against
frivolous lawsuits, American consumers may suffer more from
Y2K lawsuits than from Y2K failures.
IMRA supports the Y2K Act (S. 96). S. 96 gives companies an
incentive to work to prevent Y2K failures. The bill provides
a chance to fix potential Y2K problems before lawsuits are
filed. With an orderly process like this, which favors
remediation over litigation, courts may soon become
backlogged with Y2K lawsuits that could, and should, be
resolved through faster, more cooperative methods.
The International Mass Retail Association represents the
mass retail industry--consumers' first choice for price,
value and convenience. Its membership includes the fastest
growing retailers in the world--discount department stores,
home centers, category dominant specialty discounters,
catalogue showrooms, dollar stores, warehouse clubs, deep
discount drugstores and off-price stores--and the
manufacturers who supply them. IMRA retail members operate
more than 106,000 American stores and employ millions of
workers. One in every ten Americans works in the mass retail
industry, and IMRA retail members represent over $411 billion
in annual sales.
We deeply appreciate your support on this issue and look
forward to working closely with you toward a successful
outcome early next year. Once again, many thanks for your
support of the mass retail industry.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Verdisco,
President, IMRA.
____
Alcatel
Plano, TX, March 26, 1999.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: The purpose of this letter is to
express my personal appreciation and support for the
legislation you recently introduced in the United States
Senate to limit runaway liability awards in the event of Y2K
problems.
As a major telecommunications equipment company and an
employer of over 11,000 people in the United States, Alcatel
USA has a vested interest in this important issue. We have
spent tens of millions of dollars on Y2K remediation and are
making a continuing, company-wide effort to protect our
valued customers from Y2K-related failures. We wholeheartedly
endorse your emphasis on ``remediation not litigation'' and
have put our money, technical expertise and manpower behind
this concept.
I realize that aspects of your legislation are
controversial and that some compromises may be necessary in
the weeks ahead. During the negotiating process I would ask
you to keep in mind what Alcatel considers to be the minimum
essential elements of any legislation limiting the liability
of responsible corporations.
They are:
Preeminence of existing contracts and agreements
Pretrial notice and cure periods
Proportional liability instead of joint and several
liability
Damages limited to direct or consequential
If there is anything that Alcatel USA can do in support of
your legislation, please feel free to contact me or David
Owen, the head of our Washington Government Relations Office
(703-724-2930). Our Washington office has instructions to
work closely with the National Association of Manufacturers,
the Telecommunications Industry Association, and the US
Chamber of Commerce in order to guarantee that our advocacy
activities for Y2K liability limitations are focused and well
coordinated.
In closing, I would like to thank you once again for
spearheading this important legislative initiative to protect
our vibrant economy from a ``feeding frenzy'' of destructive
and ultimately unproductive litigation.
Sincerely yours,
Krish Prabhu,
President and CEO.
____
MicroAge
Tempe, AZ March 3, 1999.
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, Washington
DC.
Dear Senator McCain: I support passage of Y2K Act, S. 96. I
also represent the Computing Technology Industry Association
(CompTIA) with 7800 company members representing IT Industry
manufacturers, distributors and resellers. CompTIA support
passage of Y2K Act, S. 96.
Small and large businesses are eager to solve the Y2K
problem, yet many are not doing so, primarily because of the
fear of liability and lawsuits. The potential for excessive
litigation and the negative impact on targeted industries are
already diverting precious resources that could otherwise be
used to help fix the Y2K problem.
As I understand the bill, the purpose of this proposed
legislation is to encourage Y2K remediation, not litigation.
American industry already is making massive investments
[[Page S4166]]
to prepare for the millennium computer problem. A deluge of
lawsuits would inhibit these efforts--particularly in the
growth sector of the economy. This legislation creates
incentives to fix Y2K problems before they develop by
encouraging parties to resolve disputes without litigation,
but it also preserves the rights of those who suffer real
injuries to file suits if necessary.
The Business Community Coalition, of which CompTIA is an
active member, is also supporting Y2K reform, representing
all industry sectors and business sizes, is supporting Y2K
reform legislation designed to encourage a fair, fast and
predictable mechanism for resolving Y2K-related disputes.
Respectfully yours,
Alan P. Hald,
Co-Founder, MicroAge, Inc.
____
NPES,
Reston, VA, April 20, 1999.
OPEN LETTER TO THE SENATE IN SUPPORT OF S. 96--THE Y2K ACT
On behalf of the over 400 member companies of NPES the
Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing and
Converting Technologies I urge you to support S. 96, the Y2K
Act, when it comes to the Senate floor this week.
S. 96 is a remediation bill that will encourage businesses
to fix Y2K problems without undue concern for unlimited and
unwarranted liability that could arise from Y2K failures. S.
96 does not insulate negligent companies from being held
responsible for their actions, and it does not leave victims
of Y2K-related problems without recourse within the legal
system. S. 96 will discourage frivolous litigation, but it
will not preclude legitimate claims.
Most importantly, S. 96 encourages resolution of disputes
before the contentiousness and expense of litigation. If a
business suffers a Year 2000 failure, the most important next
step should be solving the problem and getting back to
business, not engaging in counterproductive lawsuits that
contribute little towards getting a company back serving its
customers.
NPES' members, as equipment manufacturers and sellers,
could well find themselves as both plaintiffs and defendants
in potential Y2K-related lawsuits. With this perspective, we
believe S. 96 strikes the proper balance encouraging
appropriate remedial action and protecting legitimate
interests of injured parties. Therefore, we urge you to
support S. 96 so that the American business community can
focus on addressing Y2K-related problems in the last months
of the year, rather than diverting resources to responding to
a potential calamity of counterproductive litigation
following New Year's Day 2000.
Sincerely,
Regis J. Delmontague,
President.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I note the presence of the Senator from
Washington on the floor, and I yield the floor at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Is time controlled?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled. Does the chairman wish
to yield time?
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Washington
such time as he may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I support legislation designed to avert
and control what could be a litigation bonanza stemming from the Y2K
problem. We can't be sure what computer-based system, if any, may go
awry at midnight, December 31, 1999, but we should not sit by idly and
wait to find out. The Y2K Act attempts proactively to provide
incentives for everyone, potential plaintiffs and defendants alike, to
cure Y2K compliance problems before they occur and to impose reasonable
limits on liability and rules for the prosecution of lawsuits arising
from Y2K failures.
On today's editorial page, the New York Times criticizes Senator
McCain's Y2K legislation and opines that:
Congress can also clarify the liability of companies once
it becomes clear how widespread the problem really is. But
before the new year, the government should not use the
millennium bug to overturn longstanding liability practices.
I strongly disagree. We know that our current liability
system, longstanding as it may be, is flawed in that it
increasingly lends itself to lawsuits of limited merit, but
huge downside risks, excessive delays, and creative and often
unfair theories of liability. Just as it is irresponsible for
people not to take remedial action to avoid the Y2K problem,
it would be irresponsible for Congress not to fix our
litigation system with respect to its handling of this
specific issue, to deal with the flood of potential cases and
the enormous, possibly destructive, burden that litigation
can impose on potential defendants. Of particular concern to
me are the smaller high-technology companies that have been
thriving in Washington State and across the Nation. I have
met with and heard from numerous representatives from these
companies. To them, the threat of abusive litigation is not
speculative or illusory; it is real and potentially fatal.
Senator McCain's substitute to S. 96, of which I am a cosponsor, is
an improvement in some respects to the bill that we passed out of the
Commerce Committee, not in the least because this substitute enjoys
bipartisan support. Notably, the substitute modifies the provisions in
S. 96 on punitive damages and joint liability. While S. 96 established
strict caps on punitive damages, the substitute permits these caps to
be pierced if the plaintiff establishes by clear and convincing
evidence that the defendant acted with specific intent to injure the
plaintiff. The absolute prohibition on joint liability originally
contained in S. 96 has also been modified.
The substitute roughly tracks the exceptions to joint liability
limits contained in the 1995 securities litigation reform legislation.
Rather than to prohibit joint liability in all cases, the substitute
permits joint liability, subject to State limits, in situations in
which plaintiffs' assets are limited and damages exceed 10 percent of
those assets; in situations in which damages cannot be recovered
against another defendant; and against defendants who acted with
specific intent to injure the plaintiff or who knowingly committed
fraud.
Madam President, these changes have been made by Senator McCain in a
genuine effort to see to it that the broad appeal of this bill becomes
even broader.
In addition to modifying the limitations on punitive damages and
joint liability, the substitute, among other changes, strikes the
provision in S. 96 that created the defense for those using reasonable
efforts to prevent Y2K problems; modifies the circumstances under which
the terms of a written contract will be enforced by recognizing State
statutes that limit enforcement of certain terms, and expands the
exceptions to the economic loss rule.
Madam President, these are not simple legal concepts. While I think
S. 96 has benefitted from more deliberative review by interested
parties representing potential plaintiffs and defendants alike, I am
still not convinced that the substitute has achieved the precisely
correct balance of promoting remedial action, effectively curtailing
abusive lawsuits, and not simply changing the way in which plaintiffs
plead their cases, and ensuring that plaintiffs have adequate recourse
for damages. I nevertheless wholeheartedly support Y2K liability
legislation because I believe it is our responsibility to prevent
foreseeable litigation that could clog our State and Federal courts and
divert enormous resources away from production and toward litigation.
The Senate should pass Y2K liability legislation and should do so as
soon as possible. I expect that the bill can be further refined and
improved during floor debate and again in conference.
I want to add to my formal written remarks my admiration for the
tremendous amount of effort that the chairman of the Commerce Committee
has put into attempting to see to it that we here end up with a bill
that becomes law, even though it requires a number of compromises,
rather than simply to become another item of debate and division.
Tort reform, product liability legislation, and medical malpractice
legislation are all important national issues, but they are all
extremely divisive. In this case, for this particular form of
litigation, which has no precedent in the United States, reform is
genuinely needed. The Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the
Commerce Committee, has brought us a long way along the right road, and
I have every confidence that we will finish with success.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington for
his kind remarks, but most importantly for his deep involvement in this
issue. As a former attorney general of his State, he understands these
issues better than I do, and his assistance in this effort is extremely
valuable and important.
Madam President, I don't have any speakers at this time. I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[[Page S4167]]
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from
Arizona, our chairman, talked about frivolous lawsuits and deep pockets
and glitches. It strikes this Senator that what we have ongoing at the
moment are computer glitches. Every now and again, we all run into it--
on my computer and others' around. Certainly it is an industry that has
deep pockets, is worth billions of dollars, and some never have made a
profit. But the market is valuable, with investments in the billions of
dollars. So with glitches and deep pockets, you would think, by the
description about frivolous lawsuits, that there would be lawyers all
running around with frivolous lawsuits, saying, ``they got deep
pockets,'' and there are glitches, and everybody would be suing
everybody.
Of course, that just proves the contention of the need for this bill.
You go from the different styles. I was here when they went after the
oil money. I was here when the oil went after the milk money. Now, in
2000, they are going after Silicon Valley and everybody is running out
there to get their money and their blessing, and they never had any
lawyers before, or any representatives. Now they have them all marching
into Washington. But other than the politics, the business community is
taking care of it.
I refer, if the distinguished Presiding Officer pleases, to the March
1 issue of Business Week. On page 30, it says:
Lloyd Davis is feeling squeezed. In 1998, his $2 million,
25-employee fertilizer-equipment business was buffeted by the
harsh winds that swept the farm community. This year, his
Golden Plains Agricultural Technologies, Inc. in Colby,
Kansas, is getting slammed by Y2K. Davis needs $71,000 to
make his computer systems bug-free by January 1. But he has
been able to rustle up only the $39,000. His bank has denied
him a loan because--ironically--he's not Y2K-ready. But Davis
knows he must make the fixes or lose business. ``Our big
customers aren't going to wait much longer,'' he frets.
Golden Plains and thousands of other small businesses are
getting a dire ultimatum from the big corporations they sell
to: Get ready for Y2K, or get lost. Multinationals such as
General Motors, McDonald's, Nike, and Deere are making the
first quarter--or the second at the latest--the deadline for
partners and vendors to prove they're bug-free. A recent
survey by consultants at Gemini America says 69 percent of
the 2,000 largest companies will stop doing business with
companies that can't pass muster. The National Federation of
Independent Business figures more than 1 million companies
with 100 workers or fewer won't make the cut, and as many
as half will lose big chunks of business or even fail.
I am glad the market is taking care of them so we will not
have to sue them. So the products we get will be sound.
Reading further:
Cutting thousands of companies out of the supply chain
might strain supply lines and could even crimp output. But
most CEOs figure it'll be cheaper in the long run to avoid
bugs in the first place.
But most CEOs figure it'll be cheaper in the long run to
avoid bugs in the first place.
Here they have 7\1/2\ months to get rid of the bugs. Here, with this
particular article, they had 10 months to get rid of all the bugs. The
technology has been on course for over 30 years. Everyone has been
talking about it. We passed special legislation in the debate last year
to set aside the antitrust provisions so they could work together. And,
yet, some still are going to lag and not do business.
This is why one of the leading computerization experts in the world
just an hour ago in my office said, ``Senator, don't pass this bill.''
He said, ``I will use it for competition.'' Those who do not compete,
who won't comply, and who won't get Y2K ready, ought to fall by the
wayside, as this article and my friend were pointing out.
I quote again from the article:
Some small outfits are already losing key customers. In the
past year, Prudential Insurance Co. has cut nine suppliers
from its ``critical'' list of more than 3,000 core vendors,
and it continues to look for weak links, says the Vice
President for Information Systems at the company. At Citibank
. . . cuts have already been made.
Reading again:
Big U.S. companies are not sugarcoating the problem.
. . . ``if a vendor is not up to speed by April or May,''
Rabat says, ``it's serious crunch time.''
Here it is 6 months away. We are going to pass emergency legislation
for glitches and deep pockets. We have had glitches and deep pockets
all during the 1990s, and there is no trillion dollars' worth of
lawsuits and frivolous lawsuits.
That gets me to the point where I can tell you that the real lawyers
who bring any cases don't have any time to bring frivolous lawsuits.
They are not worth it. They can't get anything for it. And they don't
get paid unless they win. And if they win, they have to prove to a 12-
man jury and withstand all of the legal motions, delays, and everything
else. So the real attorneys just do not bring frivolous lawsuits.
Later, when we get into the full debate on the measure, I will have
the documents to prove that from the Rand Corporation.
Quoting further from the article:
Through the Automotive Industry Action Group, GM and other
car makers have set March 31 deadlines for vendors to become
Y2K compliant.
Madam President, that is just 5 days from now.
In March, members of the Grocery Manufacturers of America
will meet with their counterparts from the Food Marketing
Institute to launch similar efforts. Other companies are
sending a warning to laggards--and shifting business to the
tech-savvy. ``Y2K can be a great opportunity to clean up and
modernize the supply chain,'' says Roland S. Boreham, Jr.,
chairman of the board of Baldor Electric Co. in Fort Smith,
ARK.
There is a statement. This particular so-called ``problem'' is
cleaning out the inept, the inadequate, the incompetent, the
uncompliant. But what they want to do is pass laws and change around
all the States' tort systems for manufactured product downtown at the
Chamber of Commerce, and that you will find in the political polls, so
we can write out to Silicon Valley and say, ``Look what I have done for
you. I am looking out for you. Just contribute to my campaign.''
That is all this is--another political exercise this week.
Quoting further:
The World Bank has shelled out $72 million in loans and
grants to Y2K-stressed nations, including Argentina and Sri
Lanka. AT&T alone has spent $900 million fixing its systems.
It goes on and on in the article.
Madam President, the point here is, we are trying to solve a
political problem, not a business problem. It is one to get the
contributions from Silicon Valley. It is one that has put up a straw
man about a trillion dollars' worth of verdicts and all of that. That
is outrageous nonsense. We haven't had over $12 billion in product
liability cumulatively in this Nation since the incidents of product
liability, but every week we see some automobile company recalling
100,000. The week before last, it was a 1-million-car callback for
retrofitting and everything else. Why? Because some good trial lawyer
brought some good case and on the safety basis has saved many, many
from injury and death.
No. I take the position of the lawyers in reality who really try the
cases. They have deep pockets, and they are all there now, and they are
all prospering and making more money. They haven't come to Washington
to say, ``Look, you know the changes that we have in computers.'' They
change every other year--now almost yearly. So there is another new
model. So there is a glitch. But people do not run around suing
everybody on some kind of glitch. It is a business contract in the
purchase under the Uniform Commercial Code to be controlled, and only
when there is a fraudulent breach do we get into law, and tort law,
which is State tort law.
I don't think we are going to change under this stampede here about
what a grand thing we have--bipartisanship. Oh, no. It is as partisan
as it can be for those trying to get their money, be they Republican or
Democrat, out there in the Silicon Valley campaign.
I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum to be divided by unanimous consent
between both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S4168]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will state.
The legislative assistant read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to
a close debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 34, S. 96, the
Y2K legislation:
Trent Lott, John McCain, Rick Santorum, Spencer Abraham,
Judd Gregg, Pat Roberts, Wayne Allard, Rod Grams, Jon
Kyl, Larry Craig, Bob Smith, Craig Thomas, Paul
Coverdell, Pete Domenici, Don Nickles, and Phil Gramm.
Vote
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on the motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 96, the
Y2K Act, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are required
under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison)
and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), and the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Lautenberg), are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is
absent due to surgery.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``aye.''
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--6
Biden
Boxer
Hutchison
Lautenberg
Moynihan
Murkowski The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are
94, the nays are 0. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
____________________