[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 60 (Thursday, April 29, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4413-S4417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
resume consideration of S. 96, and the last amendment pending to S. 96
be modified with the changes proposed by Senators Dodd, Wyden, Hatch,
Feinstein, Bennett, and Senator McCain which I now send to the desk.
And I send a cloture motion to the desk to the compromise amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Most respectfully, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this
cloture vote would have occurred, if consent had been granted, on
Monday on the so-called compromise worked out among the chairman and
Senator Dodd, Senator Feinstein, and others as mentioned above.
Let me say, I appreciate the effort of the chairman. I appreciate the
effort, the work, and the willingness to try to find an adequate
solution by Senator Wyden. And Senator Feinstein has been involved, and
a number of others, Senator Dodd, obviously.
But in light of this objection, I do not intend to bring this bill
back before the Senate until consent can be granted by the Democrats.
And if it is predicated on agreement that we open this up for every
amendment in the kitchen, then it is over. Or until we get a commitment
that we are going to get the votes for cloture and get a reasonable
solution to this problem, I think it would be unreasonable for me to
waste the Senate's time with any further debate or action on this
amendment.
We need to do this. We can do it. But I am prepared now--if everybody
is ready, we will just say it is over, the trial lawyers won, and we
will move on to the next bill. But I am willing to be supportive of
Members on both sides of the aisle who, acting in good faith, want to
get this done.
We should do it. This is a reasonable approach. There is no reason we
should use the Y2K computer glitch as an opportunity for a litigation
bonanza. I am a lawyer, and everybody in this Chamber knows I have
relatives who would be very interested in this. But I am interested in
what is fair and what is right. We need to do this. The negotiations
have happened. Concessions have been made. But, frankly, I am ready to
move on to something else, unless we can get this done. So I do not
intend to do anything else until we hear some solution to this problem.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrat leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am disappointed with the announcement
just made by the majority leader. I think, as others have already
indicated, that we have made extraordinary progress in the last couple
of days. That would not have happened without Senator Dodd, Senator
Wyden, Senator Kerry, Senator McCain, and a number of other Senators
who have been very involved in bringing us to this point.
I am disappointed, as well, that there was an objection to returning
to the Y2K bill, because we were making real progress toward improving
the bill. I believe that negotiations have delivered progress, even
though more improvements will be needed. I support proceeding back to
the Y2K bill. I support keeping the negotiations going. I want a bill.
I think we will get a bill. I think it is important we get a bill.
[[Page S4414]]
I also think, however, that there were unfortunate decisions made by
the majority about how we consider legislation on the floor. We are
negotiating all of this off the floor. I would much prefer to have a
good debate and offer amendments. The amendment tree is filled. We are
not able to offer a Democratic amendment--relevant or not relevant. So
we are relegated to negotiating off the floor. And we are making
progress even in that context. I only wish we would recognize in this
Chamber all the rich tradition of debate in the Senate and we would
have the opportunity to offer amendments and debate them, dispose of
them, and move on.
Senator McCain has suggested that. So I am not necessarily accusing
the manager of any effort to keep us from having those amendments. But
I will say this. We will not be gagged when it comes to our ability to
offer amendments. It is religion. And it ought to be religion on both
sides. It is a fundamental question about fairness, about rights, and
about any one Senator's opportunity to participate fully in the debate
and consideration of any important legislation.
So I am frustrated that the tree is full. I am frustrated that we are
not able to move this process forward in the normal, open process under
which we should consider any bill, especially this one. But I am also
hopeful that we will come to some resolution. I am hopeful that we will
find compromise. I know we will pass this legislation before long.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator McCain is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I first say, before Senator Daschle
leaves the floor, that having been in the minority for the first 7
years or 8 years I was here, I certainly have sympathy with his
frustration. The great strength of the Senate is that not only does
every Senator have the right to be heard but the minority does also.
But I also think Senator Daschle realizes that if we allow any
amendment on any subject with extended debate, then the body does not
move forward.
I have not seen a better relationship than the one that exists
between Senator Daschle and Senator Lott. It is one of friendship and
it is one of cooperation. I think the legislative accomplishments which
have been achieved during Senator Lott's and Senator Daschle's
stewardship have been incredibly impressive, really.
I think perhaps it would be best for us to recognize that there is
virtue on both sides of the argument, especially in light of, for
example, yes, the tree is filled, but I did state, and the majority
leader stated, we would be glad to vitiate one of those parts of the
tree so that we could take up relevant amendments. I think that was
made clear. So with the tree filled, there was the opportunity to
debate relevant amendments.
I also comment that, as Senator Daschle pointed out, it is not really
best to have all of this progress done off the floor in negotiations. I
can't express a deep enough appreciation to Senator Dodd, Senator
Wyden, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch, and Senator Bennett for their
efforts, and others, and those of Senator Kerry of Massachusetts. From
a personal standpoint, I express my sympathy for Senator Daschle's
frustration. But at the same time, I do believe we could have moved
forward with debate and votes on this issue.
I really appreciate his comments about his commitment to seeing this
bill pass, because we really do have to pass this legislation. We will
engage in further negotiations. But between now and early next week,
what I would sincerely hope is that all of us--the majority leader and
Senator Daschle would urge all of our colleagues to get together, come
up with a set of amendments, as we usually do when this process comes
to an end, come up with a set of relevant amendments, a time period
associated with it, and get this thing done so we do not have to have
another cloture vote and not have this very vital issue addressed.
Again, I also say that these amendments are important. I know the
Senator from South Carolina feels very strongly about many of them. But
it is time, really, that we started going through that process, even
though we are bringing the bill down today.
Again, I express my appreciation to Senator Feinstein, Senator Wyden,
and Senator Dodd on this very important issue.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I just want to ask unanimous consent that
a list of amendments in the 103rd Congress--the last Congress, of
course, that the Democrats were in the majority was the 103rd Congress.
I would be remiss if I did not submit for the Record right now a list
of amendments that were not relevant that were offered by Republicans
to legislation during the 103rd Congress. There were at least 19
nonrelevant amendments offered, and this may not be the complete list.
We may update this as time goes on.
This issue of relevancy is interesting because it was never an issue
in the 103rd Congress. Nonrelevant amendments were added. That list
details a number of things. In fact, the manager of the bill today,
Senator McCain, had a nonrelevant amendment on the motor voter bill
that would have allowed certain rescission authority on the part of the
President. The Senator from Arizona also offered a nonrelevant
amendment to the unemployment compensation bill in December, 1993. The
amendment was to eliminate the Social Security earnings test.
The ability to offer nonrelevant amendments has been part of the
consideration and deliberation of legislation here in the Senate for
every Congress, including the 103rd Congress when we were in the
majority.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
GOP NON-RELEVANT AMENDMENTS--103RD CONGRESS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote No. Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 2/4/93 Family and Medical Leave (H.R. 1,
P.L. 103-3)--Mitchell motion to
table Dole, et al., perfecting
amendment to Dole, et al., amendment
(as amended by Mitchell amendment--
Vote No. 8): Directs Congress to
conduct thorough review of all
executive orders, DOD directives,
and regulations of military
departments concerning appointment,
enlistment, and retention of
homosexuals in armed services before
July 15, 1993; specifies that all
such orders, directives or
regulations in effect on January 1,
1993, shall remain in effect until
review is completed, unless changed
by law; requires President to submit
any change to this policy to
Congress as bill; and sets forth
expedited procedures for Senate and
House floor consideration. (62-37)
27 \1\ 3/10/93 Motor Voter (H.R. 2)--McCain motion
to waive Budget Act to permit
consideration of McCain et al.,
amendment: Permits President to
rescind all or part of
appropriations bill if he
determines, and notifies Congress
within 20 days, that rescission
would help balance Federal budget
and not harm national interests;
deems rescinded budget authority
canceled unless Congress passes
disapproval bill and overrides
expected Presidential veto; and
contains expedited procedures for
Senate floor consideration. (45-52)
109 4/29/93 Department of Environmental
Protection (S. 171)--Glenn motion to
table Nickles-Reid, et al., modified
amendment: Requires Comptroller
General and GAO to prepare impact
statement to accompany each bill,
resolution, or conference report
before it may be reported or
considered by either House of
Congress that describes
legislation's impact on economic
growth and employment, on State and
local governments, on ability of
U.S. industries to compete
internationally, on Federal revenues
and outlays, and on gross domestic
product; requires Executive Branch
agencies to prepare such impact
statements to accompany their
proposed and final regulations; and
requires brief summary statement if
aggregate effect of legislation is
less than $100 million or 10,000
jobs. (50-48)
120 \1\ 5/13/93 RTC Funding (S. 714, 103-204)--Gramm
motion to waive Budget Act to permit
consideration of Gramm-Mack-Brown
amendment: Extends discretionary
spending caps and sequestration for
Defense, International, and Domestic
budgetary categories through FY
1998. (43-53)
160 \1\ 6/22/93 Supplemental Appropriations, 1993
(H.R. 2118, P.L. 103-50)--Roth
motion to waive Budget Act to permit
consideration of Rom, et al.,
amendment: Provides capital gains
tax cut indexed for inflation, 150
percent depreciation expense
increase, $2,000 tax deductible IRA
for all taxpayers, jobs tax credit
for new hiring, repeal of luxury
taxes, and passive loss reform for
real estate; and offsets cost by
eliminating Federal retirement lump
sum benefit, freezing domestic
discretionary spending for five
years, reducing Federal employment
by 150,000, and imposing Medicare
secondary payor reform and reducing
Federal aid for mass transit. (39-
59)
197 7/20/93 Hatch Act Reform (H.R. 20, P.L. 103-
94)--Sasser-Glenn motion to table
Domenici, et al., modified
amendment: Expresses sense of Senate
that President should submit
supplementary budget as required by
law no later than July 26, 1993. (56-
43)
206 7/22/93 National Community Service (H.R.
2010, 103-82)--Moseley-Braum motion
to table Helms amendment: Extends
design patent for insignia of United
Daughters of Confederacy for 14
years. (48-52)
207 7/22/93 National Community Service (H.R.
2010, 103-82)--Bennett motion to
reconsider vote No. 206 by which
Senate failed to table Helms
amendment: Extends design patent for
insignia of United Daughters of
Confederacy for 14 years. (76-24)
208 7/22/93 National Community Service (H.R.
2010, 103-82)--Moseley-Braum motion
to table Helms amendment: Extends
design patent for insignia of United
Daughters of Confederacy for 14
years. (75-25)
327 10/26/93 Emergency Unemployment Compensation
(H.R. 3167, 103-152)--Hutchison
motion to waive Budget Act to permit
consideration of Hutchison-Shelby,
et al., amendment: Eliminates
retroactivity of Tax increase on
upper income individuals: makes
effective date of estate and gift
tax rates August 10, 1993; cuts
discretionary spending caps for
agency and departments operating
expenses by $36 billion over three
years; and exempts DOD expenses from
these cuts in FY 1994. (50-44)
[[Page S4415]]
337 \1\ 10/27/93 Emergency Unemployment Compensation
(H.R. 3167, 103-152)--Gramm motion
to waive Budget Act to permit
consideration of Gramm amendment:
Reduces discretionary spending caps
for FY 1994-98 by amount comparable
to savings achieved from termination
of superconducting super collider.
(58-39)
338 \1\ 10/27/93 Emergency Unemployment Compensation
(H.R. 3167, 103-152)--McCain motion
to waive Budget Act to permit
consideration of McCain amendment:
Eliminates Social Security earnings
test for individuals age 65. (46-51)
339 10/28/93 Emergency Unemployment Compensation
(H.R. 3167, 103-152)--Nickles-Shelby
amendment: Creates point of order
against any bill, amendment, joint
resolution, motion, conference
report or amendment between House
and Senate which increases taxes
retroactively and provides for
waiver by affirmative three-fifths
vote of all Senators, during time of
war, or after adoption of joint
resolution declaring that military
conflict in which U.S. is engaged is
serious threat to national security.
(40-56)
28 2/8/94 Goals 2000: Educate America Act (H.R.
1804, 103-227)--Helms amendment:
Prohibits use of funds by DOE or HHS
to support or promote distribution
or provision of, or prescription
for, condoms or other contraceptive
devices or drugs to unemancipated
minor without prior written consent
of parent or guardian. (34-59)
36 2/9/94 Emergency Earthquake Supplemental
Appropriations, 1994 (H.R. 3759,
P.L. 103-211)--D'Amato amendment, as
amended: Extends to December 31,
1995, or date on Resolution Trust
Corporation (RTC) is terminated,
whichever is later, statute of
limitations for RTC to file civil
lawsuits for certain tort actions
responsible for thrift failure. (95-
0)
44 2/10/94 Emergency Earthquake Supplemental
Appropriations, 1994 (H.R. 3759,
P.L. 103-211)--Byrd motion to table
McConnell-Dole-Nickles amendment:
Expresses sense of Senate that
report and related documents
pertaining to disclosure of Bush
Administration files should be made
available to Congressional Offices
with legitimate oversight interests;
confidentiality of report should be
protected by Congress until Office
of Inspector General (OIG) releases
and OIG should report in writing to
Majority and Republican Leaders why
such procedures were not observed in
release of OIG report entitled
``Special Inquiry into the Search
and Retrieval of William Clinton's
Passport File'' and his reason for
declining to prosecute case. (55-39)
53 3/10/94 National Competitiveness (H.R. 820)--
Glenn motion to table Wallop, et
al., modified amendment: Requires
agencies to submit regulatory
flexibility analysis of all proposed
regulations. (31-67)
251 8/2/94 Improving America's Schools (H.R. 6,
P.L. 103-382)--Biden motion to table
Gramm-Dole amendment: Expands
Federal jurisdiction to all State
crimes of violence and drug
trafficking where gun is used and
provides for minimum penalties for
illegal use of firearm; permits
waiver of these penalties for drug
offenses under specifically defined
circumstances; establishes mandatory
minimum sentence for distribution
and trafficking of drugs by person
under age 18; permits admission of
evidence of previous assault or
child molestation offense in
criminal or civil cases involving
these offenses; and requires
attorney for government to disclose
such to defendant at least 15 days
before scheduled date of trial or at
such later time as court may allows
for good cause. (55-44)
268 8/10/94 DOD Appropriations, 1995 (H.R. 4650,
P.L. 103-335)--Inouye motion to
table Helms amendment (to Committee
amendment): States sense of Senate
that major health care reform is too
important to enact in rushed
fashion, and Congress should take
whatever time is necessary to do it
right deferring action until next
year in order to give Congress and
American time to obtain, read, and
consider all alternatives, unless
Senate has had full opportunity to
debate and amend proposal after CBO
estimates have been made available.
(54-46)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 3/5ths majority.
\2\ 2/3rds majority.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Texas seeking recognition?
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader
alluded to the fact that he had relatives that were trial lawyers. That
puts me in the position of qualifying to even speak. Let me first say
that I am proud to be a trial lawyer. No trial lawyer has called me or
talked to me about this bill. They don't need to. They know and
understand.
Now, what happens is, when you grow up in a small town, you get a
varied experience. I am also known as a good business and corporate
lawyer. I represented a grocery chain that had 125 Piggly Wiggly stores
all over, and we were sued for antitrust. I won that going all the way
to the Supreme Court.
I know about frivolous suits. I represented the local transit
company, the South Carolina Electric and Gas. Every November, somehow
everybody slipped down on the bus. They got their arm caught in the
door. They tripped up on the floor. They were small cases, but the
attorneys who preceded me handling them didn't want to try them. It is
Christmastime, New Year's.
I backed them all up. We tried them all. We won them all. I saved
that corporation millions of dollars. I am the first southern Governor
to get a AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's and Moody's. I know
about business responsibility.
Now, we trial lawyers have had the fortune to represent people who
have been dying of asbestosis, and then we have the young ladies who
had the breast implants, and then moved to the tobacco. But here now
for a change it is trial lawyers. We are beginning to get credibility.
We are representing small businesses, with $20,000 in their pockets or
more. You don't go down and buy a computer for $20. And small business
people are buying that instrument. I wish they would read Business
Week. I wish they would listen to Kaiser Permanente in California, how
they are absolutely opposed to this particular bill, and that it would
hurt the health industry. I wish they would read the record whereby the
individual doctor came from New Jersey. He said he had--I can't
remember the exact name so I don't want to refer to it incorrectly--a
supplier. He bought the computer in 1996, and the salesman bragged
about how it was going to be Y2K compliant. It would last for over 10
years and on and on.
And then he found out last year that it wasn't compliant. You see,
you don't have to wait until January 1. This is an important point for
the Senate to understand. You don't have to wait for January 1.
This is all political applesauce. You don't have to wait until
January 1, when you go in and buy a computer, and everybody who reads
the newspaper and anybody with $20,000 in their pocket knows now the
Y2K problem.
He asked that it be fixed, and they did not even answer when he
called a couple of times. Then he wrote a letter. And after a couple of
months passed, he decided that he had to get a lawyer. He was told that
it would be $25,000. Now, mind you me, he only paid $16,000 for the
computer, but it would be $25,000 to make it Y2K compliant.
So as a result, they brought the suit, and somehow it got on the
Internet. The next thing you know, this particular supplier had 17,000
doctors similarly situated. And immediately the supplier said, oh, yes,
we will fix it for free and even pay the lawyers' fees to get out of
this thing. But that is the cost/benefit of some of these businesses.
We have been into this tort thing. We have the Uniform Commercial
Code. We have the States. No State attorney general is running around
saying we need a national approach and to do away with 200 years of
history of the Constitution under the 10th amendment, and tort law and
all the trial codes of America. The State of Colorado has a good bill,
not like this incidentally, which brings me to the real point about
negotiating.
The crowd that says this is nonnegotiable has been running around
trying to pick up votes. That is what the negotiation has been about. I
just read the amendment to the amendment to the amendment. When it
first started, even chambers of commerce said, this is too violating
and we are not going to get away with this. They actually opposed the
bill when it was first introduced. Then they got this McCain bill. Then
they got the McCain-Wyden bill. Then they got the amendment, and now we
have the amendment to the amendment. It showed how objectionable it
was.
It is tricky. They are still plying downtown. Tom Donahue has been
out in the hall saying what we will go with.
This is a political exercise. There is not a national need for Y2K
legislation, as the Washington Post just this morning said. The
communities know and understand. This is certainly not a conservative
newspaper. I have introduced it. ``Liability legislation for the Y2K
problem can await the Y2K.''
But it is a political problem, if you can identify with Silicon
Valley and get their money and get their votes. They collected 14
million last night and they have to perform. The rich expect a fight,
and you have to show you are fighting. You don't care about Y2K and the
person buying a computer and everything else of that kind. It is taken
care of; it is a nonproblem.
Read Business Week, March 1 issue. All the blue chip corporations of
America have notified their suppliers to be compliant by the end of
April, this year, 7, 8 months ahead of time.
So we are talking about a problem that is a nonproblem. It is
certainly not a Federal problem, but it is a national political problem
between the parties.
Yes, some on this side think they can get in bed with the Silicon
Valley boys who want a capital gains tax cut. They want estate tax
cuts. We have heard it. The bills are running all around. That is the
crowd that is shoving them. If we can just give them a little bit, I
can go out and get a fund-raiser. That is what is going on.
When you refer to the trial lawyers, we trial lawyers are finally
getting a little credibility. We are representing good, responsible,
financially solvent
[[Page S4416]]
clients, not an injured party who is hurt from smoking or from a breast
implant or dying from asbestosis and doesn't have any money, and can
hardly pay the doctor, much less the lawyer. How are they going to get
into court? Like I am committing some civic offense by representing
them--Mr. President, I do not get a dime unless I win. What does
winning mean? Winning means drawing the pleadings and negotiating,
because I know you don't make money in court. But, by gosh, you might
have to go to court.
And then you have to get the jurors. Then they will think of other
things to get up on appeal. And I have to go all the way and pay all
the expenses--investigation, court expenses, and everything else. That
is the contingent fee process, so the indigent poor in this America can
get their day in court. It has worked for 200 years.
It is not the crowd where we have former Senators still indebted,
having been investigated, $450 an hour, sitting down with the mahogany
walls and the blooming Oriental rugs. I want a continuance. I want a
continuance. No trial lawyer is frivolous. He doesn't want a
continuance. He has to move it along. Like Senator McCain says, ``Let's
move it along.'' The trial lawyers are a move-along crowd. But when
they see a fixed jury, then they say, wait, lets stop, look, and
listen.
I earlier remarked on something here. Kenneth Starr is in the morning
news trying to interview the jury after the verdict. We understand,
from this particular charade, that you have to interview the jury
before the verdict, because we are the jury and they are running around
with all of these entities. I can't do it. The Chamber of Commerce, the
Business Roundtable, NFIB--they are all running around--are you for
tort reform? I am for tort reform. We have had it in South Carolina. It
is a good bill. It practices there. I get in all the industries, and no
businessman in my backyard is complaining. I have the best of the best.
Give me the blue chips. I have GE, Westinghouse, BMW, Hoffman-LaRoche.
Give me the best of the best.
I went out to Bosch not long ago. They make the antilock brakes for
Mercedes and Toyota, and they have a contract for all GM. I asked the
gentleman who was briefing us, ``What about product liability on
defective antilock brakes?'' He said, ``No, every one of these is
numbered. We would know immediately where it went wrong.'' That is what
trial lawyers have caused. They have caused the utmost care in
production. You have quality care and you ought to be proud of it. That
is how you get productive --not on a State tax cut or a capital gains
tax cut.
Let the trial lawyers show you the way for quality production. We get
on them when they give you a bad article. That is what we argued about
here when they referred to the trial lawyers as if there is something
wrong with them. I am proud that we can be able to represent people
with money for a change. So I am ready to stay here and object.
If there were some negotiations, it would be better while we move on
some other legislation. They need to get a reasonable bill that doesn't
change all the tort law or joint and several and these other things
they have in there, where you just sue them and they say, ``That part
was made in India, so go out to New Delhi and see if you can find
them''--come on. No small businessman or doctor has the wherewithal to
do that. They have no recourse. They are trying to take away individual
rights on a political bum's rush.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there is a lot I would like to say in
response to Senator Daschle's remarks and Senator Hollings' remarks.
Some of it would probably be better left unsaid, but I must comment.
Regarding amendments, I reiterate what Senator McCain, the manager of
the legislation, said. Amendments that are relevant to this bill,
germane to this bill, we ought to do that. That is why I left a window
in the parliamentary procedure yesterday so we could do that.
Unfortunately, the Senator from Massachusetts showed up and stuck in a
totally irrelevant amendment, and I felt that that was an abuse of my
good-faith effort. But we can still do that. If Senator Dodd, Senator
Robb, or some other Senator has an amendment with regard to Y2K, OK,
that is the way you legislate. But the idea that we are going to have a
political legislative agenda dumped off on this bill, which is a very
thinly veiled effort to kill the bill--that is really what is at stake
here--any majority leader would be certainly unwilling to agree to
that.
I offer this to Senators again: If we have relevant amendments, we
will be glad to do that.
Let me talk for a moment about what this bill does. It seems to be a
little bit clouded by the debate. It provides time for plaintiffs and
defendants to resolve the Y2K computer problems without litigation--
without litigation. That sounds like a good idea to me. Those who think
the solution to the problem in America is more lawsuits, I don't think
they have been talking to the real world. I am a lawyer. But the idea
that we ought to just have more opportunities to file lawsuits--I
understand lawyers are calling the families of the poor victims in
Colorado and saying, ``Can we sue somebody for you?'' That makes me
sick to my stomach, that in this moment of grief, members of my
profession would call and say, ``Let me sue somebody for you.''
No, the answer is not more lawsuits in America. The answer is
solutions, opportunities for resolution, sanity, for Heaven's sake. So
we would like to have a process here where we don't always have to
resort to litigation. Wonderful lawsuits. Great. I don't believe the
American people want that.
This bill 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. Does that make sense? Why,
sure. It is giving them help to solve the problem. This is a unique
problem, one we have never had before. Shall we rush to the courts? No.
Should we try to find a way to resolve the problem for all concerned?
Yes.
The bill provides for proportional liability in most cases, with
exceptions for fraudulent or intentional conduct, or where the
plaintiff has limited assets.
Are there legitimate causes for court actions? Yes. I don't have the
extensive practice background that the distinguished Senator from South
Carolina has, but I practiced a little law and I did some corporate
work and some public defender work, and I filed some lawsuits because I
thought they were necessary. I can remember a medical malpractice case
that I thought was justified. Yes, there are cases, but they should be
only after other avenues have been pursued where there is fraud or
intentional misconduct.
This bill protects governmental entities, including municipalities,
schools, fire, water sanitation districts from punitive damages. Should
there be some general protection for the school districts from being
sued? Sure.
The bill eliminates punitive damage limits for egregious conduct
while providing some protection against runaway punitive damage awards.
Do we need some protection here? You see lawsuits out here in some
States for $40 million, and it is totally inexplicable and, in my
opinion, indefensible.
It provides protection for those not directly involved in a Y2K
failure. And it is a temporary measure. We are not trying to have
product liability reform on this bill or tort reform--although we ought
to have both, in my opinion, and the sooner the better. I can't wait
until we can get it done. But this is a temporary measure to deal with
a temporary, one-time problem. It sunsets January 1, 2002.
I want to emphasize that it does not deny the right of anyone to
redress their legitimate grievances in court.
What is at stake here? What is going on here? Some people don't want
this bill at all, pure and simple. To the credit of the Senator from
South Carolina, I don't think he has denied that. His goal is to defeat
this bill. For every name of people out here in the hall on the
business side, I can assure you there is somebody on the other side.
But the idea that we are going to resort to the courts to solve all of
the problems in America, and the insinuation that this bill is some
sinister plot to block legitimate legal action, I just find that wrong.
[[Page S4417]]
I think it is a good effort. I hope we get it done. But I am willing
to stand on this line right here. Those who just voted against cloture
can live with it, as far as I am concerned, and they can explain it to
their constituents--big businesses, small businesses, farmers, people
who are going to get sued if we don't do this, when it is not even
necessary.
So if this bill dies on this line, it is OK with me, because I think
the blame is clear. But I am not going to be a part of shenanigans
here, to have an agenda dumped on this bill that would result in
killing it. We are not going to keep spinning our wheels. We are going
to come up with a legitimate compromise solution, and we are going to
vote and move or not--either way. If anybody in this Chamber thinks the
solution to the Y2K problem is more lawsuits, I don't believe they have
talked to the people in America.
Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Hollings pertaining
to the introduction of S. 912 are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator
from Texas. She is right on target. We have graduated over 2,000 agents
from the finest school down there for Border Patrol agents. Two who
trained there have already been killed.
I have visited from time to time. The matter of pay is the issue. We
advertise and we solicit in the local area over the entire State--and
nationally--and it is a pay problem.
I hope we can confront it.
Mr. President, I will say a word about the majority leader's
rejoinder relative to this legislation.
He points out specifically that without litigation, we have time; it
gives an avenue, gives 90 days in time, to fix the problem.
Mr. President, this Senator knows, rather than fixing the problem,
they are trying to fix the defendants and see if, on a cost-benefit
basis, they can move the problem out to India or some other supplier
that is indigent or bankrupt or otherwise; that is what they do during
the 90 days.
We do not need in law a 90-day waiting period before you can file.
Nobody is filing immediately. Nobody wants to get to court. These
businesspeople don't run down and get a lawyer. They do as the doctor
did in his testimony before the Commerce Committee: He called and
called, and he wasn't called back; then he wrote the letter; he spent
$16,000 for a computer, and in a year's time he had to pay $25,000 just
to be Y2K compliant.
We live in the real world. Why is this gimmick on all legal
proceedings all of a sudden given a 90-day extension for fixing the
problem? For an individual running a little corner grocery store with a
computer that goes down, if they call the company and don't have the
money to make it Y2K compliant, in 90 days they are out of business.
They are still waiting around while they are maneuvering with their
lawyers.
These manufacturers who are sued have lawyers on retainer sitting up
on the 32nd floor wondering when they can get off to play another golf
game or when they can get another continuance. They think about how to
stay out of the courtroom and how to get the clock running. It is a bad
provision.
Let me agree with the distinguished majority leader and say I agree
that no bill is needed. We find out after all of the debate, here comes
the Washington Post that says, wait a minute, the market is fixing it
now. On January 1, if there is a real problem that the States can't
handle, there are courts in all the States, and if they can't handle
it, we have a national problem, fine. But don't use Y2K as an
instrument to distort the tort system and get through what they haven't
been able to get through for the past 20 years.
I yield the floor.
____________________