[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.

                          ____________________