[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 12, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H3006-H3013]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 775, YEAR 2000 READINESS AND 
                           RESPONSIBILITY ACT

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 166 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 166

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 775) to establish certain procedures for civil 
     actions brought for damages relating to the failure of any 
     device or system to process or otherwise deal with the 
     transition from the year 1999 to the year 2000, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by the amendments 
     printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to 
     that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in part 2 of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only

[[Page H3007]]

     in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
     Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the first time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: 
     (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follow 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

                              {time}  1045

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my terrific colleague, the gentleman from South 
Boston (Mr. Moakley) pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded will 
be for debate purposes only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the pending resolution provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 775, the Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility 
Act, under a structured rule with 1 hour of general debate divided 
equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  The rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment the Committee on the Judiciary amendment in the nature of a 
substitute now printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed 
in part 1 of the Committee on Rules report. The rule also makes in 
order only those amendments printed in part 2 of that report.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that amendments made in order may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by 
a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting 
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions.
  This is a fair rule that provides for full and meaningful debate on 
all of the key issues relating to this very important legislation. 
There were 17 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules. Of them, 
seven were made in order. Five of those seven amendments were authored 
by Democrats, including an amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
which as I recall was the first request made of me by the distinguished 
ranking member the gentleman from Massachusetts. It is the substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking 
Democrat on the full committee, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Boucher) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), two other 
very able members of the committee.
  Then I see my friend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
here. We were very pleased that we were able to make an amendment of 
hers in order. We have made amendments in order from the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), who is an original cosponsor of the legislation, 
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler) as well. I believe that this rule is worthy of strong 
bipartisan support just as the bill itself is.
  Mr. Speaker, uncertainty is the first word in any serious discussion 
of the year 2000, Y2K computer problem. The reality is no one, no one 
is certain what will happen in our digitally interconnected world if 
some computers and electronic machinery fail to deal with the year 2000 
issue. Now, I pride myself on not being an alarmist, and I hope very 
much that we will not suffer any problems at all. But that does not 
mean that we can sit back and ignore this issue. As we move forward, we 
need to realize that the Y2K problem is not a partisan issue at all. In 
fact, I underscore, this is a very, very bipartisan issue. We all share 
the same priority.
  I am in fact with the people, I will say. We want to solve potential 
problems that affect all the people before they occur. We need to do 
everything that we can to ensure that Americans can deal worry-free 
with such mundane tasks as making telephone calls or getting a car 
repaired or having a package delivered on time. I am very confident 
that we can all agree on that overall goal, to make sure that those 
things are able to work out.
  There is absolutely no question that in today's digital economy, many 
private sector business operations involve multiple companies and 
numerous hardware and software systems. Therefore, being sure that 
systems will operate in the year 2000 demands teamwork. Companies need 
to work together in a positive way.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American private sector, the most 
energetic, creative and powerful force for positive change in the 
world, is up to the challenge of tackling these problems. In 
particular, our computer and software companies are the world's best 
and brightest. We should get this done, but we cannot have hurdles 
thrown up along the way. The reality today is that unbridled Y2K 
litigation is jeopardizing coordination and teamwork. This adversarial 
mentality hampers private sector efforts to solve Y2K problems. Adding 
another whole layer of uncertainty, and there is that word again, 
uncertainty, to Y2K planning is the wrong thing to do. It is 
discouraging cooperation at the very time that we desperately need as 
much teamwork as possible. While we need to do everything we can to 
solve Y2K problems before they happen, we also need to head off the 
temptation to scapegoat our vibrant high tech industries in the event 
of some failures.
  This technology problem was set in place decades ago, many years ago. 
It is absolutely appropriate to expect high tech companies to marshal 
their abilities to solve Y2K problems, but we all lose if they are 
bankrupted by lawsuits.
  Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility 
Act will replace the adversarial blame game with the kind of private 
sector cooperation needed to get Y2K problems solved. It is critical 
for everyone to understand just how broad the coalition supporting this 
legislation is. It goes far beyond high tech companies that produce 
computers and software. Instead, it includes a myriad of industries, 
big businesses, small businesses. They are the ones who use those 
products and see themselves as potential plaintiffs as well as 
potential defendants. Let me repeat. Most of them see themselves both 
as potential plaintiffs and potential defendants. That is why this 
legislation does not eliminate anyone's right to their day in court.
  Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, there is a basic difference of 
opinion dividing people on this bill. Some people claim that the fear 
of lawsuits is a good thing, that this threat drives companies to solve 
their Y2K problems. I totally disagree with that. I believe that line 
of reasoning represents a fundamental misunderstanding of our great 
private sector economy. It misses the point behind why our economy is 
the strongest in the world. Our system works because private sector 
businesses, entrepreneurs, want to succeed. They want to provide goods 
and services that consumers want. That same incentive is working to 
solve the Y2K problem. Remarkably, American businesspeople want to be 
in business in the year 2000. There is no greater incentive for 
business to find Y2K solutions than next year's bottom line.

[[Page H3008]]

 Legal uncertainty is a hurdle standing in the way of teamwork and 
problem solving. This bill lowers that hurdle.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule in a 
bipartisan way, and I urge them to support the bill. We look forward 
anxiously to a full and very vigorous debate on some of the changes 
that my colleagues are offering.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, my dear friend, my 
chairman for yielding me the customary half-hour, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule, and I oppose this bill in its 
current form. A number of responsible and well-crafted amendments were 
submitted to the Committee on Rules but are not allowed under this 
rule. Mr. Speaker, in 7 months the year 2000 will be upon us, and we 
will find out just how bad the Y2K problem really is. This seemingly 
small technical problem could have very serious effects on our everyday 
life. But hopefully it will not. High tech companies all over the 
country are doing what they can to prepare for it. They are making 
corrections in their programs, and they are preparing for the 
possibilities that their technical glitches could threaten medical 
care, food expiration dates and environmental safety. But, Mr. Speaker, 
this bill may change all that. I am not saying we should not prepare 
for the lawsuits related to the Y2K problem. The high tech community 
wants some legislative solutions. They want narrow legislative goals, 
and we should pass them. But we are not. My Republican colleagues are 
using Y2K fears and exaggerated predictions of lawsuits to bring this 
bill to the floor today, which can be summed up in one word, Mr. 
Speaker: Overkill. My Republican colleagues are using millennium fears 
to bring up the most far reaching tort reform legislation ever to come 
to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, again this is nothing but the widest, most severe tort 
reform legislation ever to come before us. What they are really doing 
is swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. This tort reform bill 
discourages corporate responsibility, it robs consumers of their 
ability to seek relief, it poses a disadvantage to small businesses, 
and it is hiding behind the skirts of the Y2K fears because it could 
not pass on its own.
  If my Republican colleagues want tort reform so badly, they should 
bring a separate bill to the floor of the House and label it 
accordingly.
  Mr. Speaker, the high tech companies did not ask for a broad tort 
reform bill, they did not ask for an overhaul of the American legal 
system, but that is exactly what we are giving them today. Although my 
Republican colleagues feel strongly about States rights, this bill 
would supersede most State law.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will not resolve Y2K problems. In fact, it may 
even make companies less likely to correct the problems that they have. 
Under this bill, companies really have no incentive to fix things. Why 
repair the problem today if they are protected from any significant 
legal action tomorrow?
  Both the Justice Department and the administration oppose this bill, 
as do consumer groups, environmental groups, and many doctors. As this 
April 26 New York Times editorial stated graphically: This legislation 
is misguided and potentially unfair. It could even lessen the incentive 
for corrective action. A potential crisis is no time to abrogate legal 
rights. Those are not my words. Those come right from the April 26 New 
York Times editorial page.
  Mr. Speaker, I include that editorial in the Record at this point.

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 26, 1999]

                    Liability for the Millennium Bug

       With 249 days to go until the year 2000, many experts are 
     alarmed and others are only midly concerned about the danger 
     of computer chaos posed by the so-called millennium bug. One 
     prediction seems safe, however. Whatever the damage, there 
     will be lots of lawsuits. In anticipation, some in Congress, 
     mainly Republicans, want legislation to limit the right of 
     people and businesses to sue in the event of a Y2K disaster. 
     Their reasoning is that the important thing is to get people 
     to fix their computer problems now rather than wait and sue. 
     But the legislation is misguided and potentially unfair. It 
     could even lessen the incentive for corrective action.
       As most people know by now, the millennium bug arises from 
     the fact that chips and software have been coded to mark the 
     years with only two digits, so that when the date on 
     computers moves over to the year 2000, the computers may go 
     haywire when they register 1900 instead. A recent survey by a 
     Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 found that while 
     many Government agencies and larger companies have taken 
     action to correct the bug, 50 percent of the country's small- 
     and medium-size businesses have not. The failure is 
     especially worrisome in the health sector, with many 
     hospitals and 90 percent of doctors' offices unprepared.
       If hospitals, supermarkets, utilities and small businesses 
     are forced to shut down because of computer problems, 
     lawsuits against computer and software manufacturers will 
     certainly result. Some experts estimate that liabilities 
     could reach $1 trillion. Legislation to protect potential 
     defendants, sponsored by Senator John McCain of Arizona, is 
     expected to be voted on in the Senate this week. The bill 
     would impose caps on punitive damages and tighter standards 
     of proof of liability, and provide for a 90-day waiting 
     period in which the sued company would be allowed to cure the 
     problem. The bills would also suspend ``joint and several 
     liability,'' under which wealthy defendants, like chip or 
     software companies, could have to pay the full cost of 
     damages if other parties could not be sued because they were 
     overseas or unable to pay.
       These provisions would curtail or even suspend a basic 
     protection, the right to sue, that consumers and businesses 
     have long enjoyed. The White House and the Congressional 
     Democratic leadership are right to view such a step as 
     unnecessary. Existing liability laws offer plenty of 
     protections for businesses that might be sued. Proponents of 
     the legislation argue, for example, that companies that make 
     good-faith efforts to alert customers of Y2K problems should 
     not be punished if the customers ignore the warning, or if 
     the companies bear only a small portion of the 
     responsibility. But state liability laws already allow for 
     these defenses. The larger worry is that the prospect of 
     immunity could dissuade equipment and software makers from 
     making the effort to correct the millennium-bug problem.
       It might make sense to have a 90-day ``cooling off'' period 
     for affected businesses to get help to fix as many problems 
     as possible without being able to file lawsuits. But it would 
     be catastrophic if stores, small businesses and vital 
     organizations like hospitals and utilities were shut down for 
     90 days. They should have the same recourse to relief from 
     the parties that supplied them with faulty goods that any 
     other customer has.
       Government can certainly help by providing loans, subsidies 
     and expertise to computer users and, perhaps, by setting up 
     special courts to adjudicate claims. 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. A potential crisis is no 
     time to abrogate legal rights.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Lofgren/Conyers/
Boucher substitute which will make companies more likely to fix the 
millennium bug, weed out frivolous Y2K claims and encourage 
alternatives to lawsuits. I also urge my colleagues to oppose this very 
restrictive rule and this bill. It is just tort reform under another 
name. It will hurt ordinary citizens and small businesses who may find 
themselves facing some very, very serious problems in the millennium.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say that we have just begun the battle of the Times.

                              {time}  1100

  The New York Times, which is in a great part of the country, very 
nice part of the country, it is a State that is well represented by my 
colleague from upstate, has come out with an editorial which is 
criticizing this bill. I am very proud that this morning's Los Angeles 
Times, which is actually the place where most of the work is going to 
be done that will solve the Y2K problem for the American people, has 
editorialized strongly in support. So when it comes to picking the New 
York Times versus the Los Angeles Times it is a no-brainer for me.
  This L.A. Times editorial says it believes that protections against 
frivolous lawsuits are vital to dissemination of the honest information 
about Y2K readiness that the Nation needs. It goes on, in particular, 
the Congress must set limits on damages, encourage or mandate mediation 
as an alternative, and set grace periods giving companies time to fix 
Y2K problems, and there must be penalties in place for those who 
institute spurious lawsuits. All of these provisions are intact in the 
Y2K Readiness Act that we are going to be considering today.

[[Page H3009]]

  So, Mr. Speaker, comes between those two newspapers, it is an easy 
call for me.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert the LA Times editorial for the Record:

               [From the Los Angeles Times, May 12, 1999]

                          The Bug's Legal Bite

       What figures to be the most costly aspect of the so-called 
     year 2000 bug? Well, it could be an onslaught of Y2K-related 
     lawsuits, many of which might use the Y2K hook to seek 
     damages for frivolous or unrelated problems. That, should it 
     come, could well surpass the costs of real Y2K problems. 
     Clearly, temporary liability protections should be in place.
       The computer glitch involves short-sighted programming in 
     which two digits were used to denote a year. What will happen 
     when the 99 that designates the current year rolls over to 
     00? If computers think it's 1900, not 2000, serious problems 
     could arise, and many of them would surely find their way 
     into the courts.
       Congress is awash in bills intended to protect businesses 
     against Y2K-related lawsuits. This is serious stuff. A rash 
     of suits by aggrieved customers and suppliers could damage 
     the economy. The bills in Congress set forth a number of 
     protections, from caps on punitive damage awards and required 
     mediation to grace periods to allow defendants the time to 
     fix the problem--anything from disrupted supply to computer 
     crashes. The California Legislature too is looking for legal 
     solutions.
       Unfortunately, the strongest congressional bills, which 
     were by no means perfect to begin with, have been greatly 
     watered down or will be. Generally, the legislation is 
     opposed by public-interest groups and trial lawyers and 
     others who fear it as a back-alley path to permanent 
     limitations on the right to sue. They worry that legitimate 
     lawsuits could be crippled.
       The Times believes that protections against frivolous 
     lawsuits are vital to dissemination of the honest information 
     about Y2K readiness that the nation needs. President Clinton 
     and Congress pushed through legislation designed to encourage 
     large businesses to own up to their Y2K problems, but its 
     success has been mixed at best. As of February, the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission reported, companies had 
     filed only limited information on their Y2K readiness.
       Every business relies on others. True Y2K readiness extends 
     to a company's suppliers and vendors. Currently, when 
     businesses ask associated companies whether they are prepared 
     for the year 2000 glitch, they are too often greeted with 
     foot-shuffling silence.
       For obvious reasons, many companies are unwilling to talk. 
     If a supplier is inclined to acknowledge that it is not or 
     might not be ready, it is deterred because its vendors surely 
     will look for another source. If a supplier claims it is Y2K-
     ready and it turns out that it wasn't, the supplier figures 
     it will be sued. Unless strong protections against frivolous 
     lawsuits are in place, this stalemate will continue and 
     companies will lack the confidence they need to work with 
     those that are not fully prepared.
       The Congress must set limits on damages, encourage or 
     mandate mediation as an alternative and set grace periods 
     giving companies time to fix Y2K problems. And there must be 
     penalties in place for those who institute spurious lawsuits. 
     The Congress has enough options before it to fashion 
     comprehensive and fair legislation.
       These bills should not represent a long-term abrogation of 
     legal rights. Y2K liability protection is a necessary short-
     term fix for a once-in-a-modern-civilization problem, and new 
     laws must have a strict time limit. Proper legislation can 
     and should prevent billions of dollars in unnecessary 
     lawsuits.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Buffalo, New York (Mr. Reynolds), my 
friend and very able member of the Committee on Rules who is going to 
tout the arguments of the Los Angeles Times.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), I must say that editorials are supposed to be thought-
provoking, and while I am a daily reader of the New York Times and 
their editorial pages have given me great opportunities to reflect on 
their comments and some of my views, it is true that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) has pointed out the bug's legal bite which 
appeared in today's in Los Angeles Times has also given me thought-
provoking aspects of a message that I think the gentleman has outlined. 
But I think the first paragraph really sets the tenor for my 
cosponsorship and support of this legislation, what figures to be the 
most costly aspect of the so-called Year 2000 bug.
  Mr. Speaker, it could be an onslaught of Y2K-related lawsuits, many 
of which might use the Y2K hook to seek damages for frivolous or 
unrelated problems. That, should it come, could well surpass the cost 
of real Y2K problems. Clearly, temporary liability protections should 
be in place.
  It is clear to me that uncertainty must be the first word in Y2K 
discussions. No one is certain what will happen in our digitally-
interconnected world should some computers and electronic machinery 
fail to deal with the year 2000. The threat of Y2K legislation, 
replacing coordination and teamwork with the threat of adversarial 
litigation is hampering the private-sector effort to solve the Y2K 
problems by adding another whole layer of uncertainty to Y2K planning 
and discouraging cooperation.
  H.R. 775 is focused on replacing the adversarial blame game with the 
kind of private-sector cooperation needed to get Y2K problems solved. 
The bill enjoys bipartisan support and is backed by a very broad 
coalition of private sector groups, the private sector coalition, far 
beyond high-tech companies that produce computers and software. 
Instead, it includes industries, big businesses and small that use 
these products and see themselves as potential plaintiffs as well as 
potential defendants.
  Finally, the threat of lawsuits is not driving companies to solve 
their Y2K problems. Instead, business simply wants to be in business in 
the year 2000. There is no greater incentive for business to find Y2K 
solutions than next year's bottom line. Legal uncertainty is a hurdle 
that stands in the way.
  In summary, Mr. Speaker, this legislation reduces excessive 
litigation; it encourages mediation and for businesses to solve its 
problems; and, finally, it protects everyone's right to a day in court.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule that is before us is fair, it is bipartisan, it 
gives a clear opportunity for debate today. I urge passage of the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, as we debate this particular legislation, the House 
Committee on Science meets today and announces that the Y2K will not 
affect our satellite system. That is good news. But we also recognize 
that the Y2K is a viable concern for most Americans. In fact, 
throughout our districts we are holding Y2K hearings and meetings to 
inform our constituents of the impact of Y2K.
  So, I am appreciative of the fact that we are debating this question, 
and might I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules and my friend, I am certainly 
appreciative of the wisdom of the Committee on Rules and his generosity 
in making one of my amendments in order. I believe, however, that we 
have a serious problem with this legislation.
  As a member of the Committee on Science, I heard hearings in that 
committee and, as well, in the House Committee on the Judiciary, and 
much of the testimony opposed this bill. Although some of you have 
disagreed with the New York Times editorial, which opposes this bill 
also, I think one sentence is really relevant to this legislation. It 
states that this legislation or these provisions in this legislation 
``would curtail or even suspend a basic protection, the right to sue 
that consumers, that businesses have long enjoyed.''
  The N.Y. Times opinion is not saying that it prevents litigants from 
being litigious and frivolous. It says that they will be denied the 
basic protection of the right to sue; and, frankly, Mr. Speaker, that 
is what is wrong with this legislation. We are not talking about one 
big business versus another. We are actually talking about hospitals 
and supermarkets, utilities and small businesses which are forced or 
may be forced to shut down if they need to sue over their Y2K problem 
and this bill tip the scales of justice against them. They are going to 
be less able to pursue their problems in terms of litigation.
  I am concerned about this rule. I wish it was an open rule because 
two of my amendments were denied. One of those amendments was an 
important one that I drafted, which would have sunsetted the provisions 
of the bill after 2 years in line with the statute of

[[Page H3010]]

limitations in most States, including my home State of Texas. If this 
bill is designed to bring certainty to our legal system, then the best 
thing we can do is to make certain that its provisions will be stricken 
from the books after a predetermined amount of time. We should not 
allow its provisions to be borrowed or referenced by new statutes 
passed by this House several years down the line. This is not automatic 
tort reform. This is especially true of some of the more extreme 
provisions in this bill that affect class action status, put caps on 
punitive damages and eliminate joint and several liability.
  Let me refer my colleagues to the remarks by Mr. Thomas Donohue that 
this is, in fact, a special case bill, meaning that it is based on a 
unique problem posed by the Y2K bug. Because of that, it is reasonable 
that it should be sunsetted. The President and CEO of the United States 
Chamber of Commerce as I mentioned, the main proponents of the bill, 
have testified that this bill is different from others simply because 
of its magnitude. When questioned by a Congresswoman at our science 
hearing earlier this year, he stated that ``this bill is different 
because everybody is in the same boat at a very, very challenging time. 
It is choppy waters. We look for a way not to upset the very fine 
balance in our economy. I think that needs special consideration.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis on special consideration I think argues 
for the point that a sunset provision is a viable provision, it is a 
fair provision. It says we have a problem dealing with Y2K, the year 
2000, but this bill is narrowly focused on that and does not then 
characterize the whole legal justice system, and should not have 
extended life.
  We should take Mr. Donohue's testimony at its face value. This 
problem is a temporary and special one, and therefore we should ensure 
that none of the dangerous pro-defendant provisions in this bill that 
unbalances the scale of justice outlives the Y2K bug.
  A second amendment that I would have liked to have offered was an 
attempt to bring equity back to the table in this difficult and 
contentious time. During the Committee on the Judiciary's sole hearing 
on this bill just a few weeks ago, I noted there was a series of 
provisions that heavily tipped the delicate balance of justice to 
defendants. Many of these provisions are procedural in nature.
  My amendment would remove one of the procedural obstacles that 
remains for plaintiffs in the current version of this bill, the 
provision that deals with the ability to collect punitive damages. 
Under section 304 a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing 
evidence that the conduct of the defendant was reckless, indifferent to 
the rights of others and that the defendant's behavior was the 
proximate cause of the plaintiff loss.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment does not change the two prongs that the 
plaintiff must prove to gain access to punitive damages. It does change 
the procedural standard that must be met in order for them to win their 
case. The change is from the heightened standard of clear and 
convincing evidence to the common standard used in other cases, 
preponderance of the evidence.
  Mr. Speaker, I started out by saying this is a special case piece of 
legislation. In addition, it deals with the everyday citizen, the 
supermarket owner, the hospital worker, the small business owner. Why 
are we putting an onerous burden of clear and convincing evidence on 
the guy that just needs his supermarket cash register to work.
  Like one of the witnesses said: ``My grocery store shut down when I 
had a Y2K problem.'' Are we going to put the burden of clear and 
convincing evidence on this small business person who is simply trying 
to make a living?
  Mr. Speaker, I wish the rule was an open rule. I thank the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules for his generosity in allowing one of my 
amendments in. However, I oppose the rule because this is an important 
issue that should be addressed more deliberatively and should not be as 
imbalanced against the consumer as H.R. 775 is.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to this rule, which sets 
the debate for H.R. 775, the Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act 
of 1999.
  This is an important bill that will help us transition into the Year 
2000. It is a dangerous bill because its provisions are far reaching, 
perhaps far-more-reaching than is demanded by this problem. Perhaps 
because this bill is not the result of an honest attempt to remedy the 
Y2K problem, but rather an attempt to gain the favor of the high tech 
industry. What is important to note, however, is that this bill does 
much more than what the high-tech community needs, and far more than 
what they have asked for. If we are to tackle the Y2K bug in earnest--
and pass a meaningful Y2K bill, we need a full and robust debate under 
an open rule. Therefore, I would like to urge my colleagues to reject 
this rule.
  I also oppose the recommended rule because a great number of solid 
and deserved amendments were not made in order. One of those amendments 
was an important one that I drafted which would have sunsetted the 
provisions of this bill after two years--in line with the statutes of 
limitations in most states, including my home State of Texas.
  If this bill is being designed to bring certainty to our legal 
system, then the best thing we can do is make certain that its 
provisions will be stricken from the books after a pre-determined 
amount of time. We should not allow its provisions to be borrowed or 
referenced by new statutes, passed by this House several years down the 
line. This is especially true of some of the more extreme provisions in 
this bill that affect class action status, put caps on punitive 
damages, and eliminate joint and several liability.
  Additionally, by adding a sunset provision to this bill, we could 
have encouraged further remediation as we transition into the year 
2002. Defendants who, up until December of 2001, had still not fixed an 
existing Y2K defect, would have known that they must act quickly to 
remediate the problem before they could no longer invoke the 
protections of this bill.
  This is supposed to be a ``special case'' bill, meaning that it is 
based on the unique problem posed by the Y2K bug. Even Mr. Thomas 
Donohue, the President and CEO of the United States Chamber of 
Commerce, whom are the main proponents of the bill, has testified that 
this problem is different from others simply because of its magnitude. 
When questioned by Congresswoman Rivers at a Science hearing earlier 
this year, he stated that this bill is different because ``everybody is 
in the same boat at a very, very challenging time. It is choppy water. 
We ought to look for [a] way not to upset the very fine balance in our 
economy. I think that needs your special consideration.''
  We should take this testimony as its face value--this problem is a 
temporary and special one, and therefore, we should ensure that none of 
the dangerous pro-defendant provisions in this bill outlive the Y2K 
bug. We should send this rule back to the Rules Committee so that we 
can have a meaningful debate on a sunset provision.
  A second amendment that I would have like to have offered was an 
attempt to bring equity back to the table in this difficult and 
contentious time.
  During the Judiciary Committee's sole hearing on this bill just a few 
weeks ago, I noted that there were a series of provisions that heavily 
tipped the delicate balance of justice to defendants. Many of those 
provisions are procedural in nature--requiring that the plaintiff 
overcome huge obstacles in order to win a case against an entrenched 
defendant.
  My amendment would remove one of the most significant procedural 
obstacles that remains for plaintiffs in the current version of this 
bill--the provision that deals with the ability to collect punitive 
damages. Under Section 304, a plaintiff must prove by ``clear and 
convincing evidence'' that the conduct of the defendant was recklessly 
indifferent to the rights of others, and that the defendant's behavior 
was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's loss.
  While my amendment does not change the two prongs that the plaintiff 
must prove to gain access to punitive damages, it does change the 
procedural standard that must be met in order for them to win their 
case. The change is from the heightened standard of ``clear and 
convincing evidence'' to the common standard used in other cases--
``preponderance of the evidence''.
  We must remember, damages that are punitive are dealt as punishment 
for behavior that is reprehensible. I believe that most, if not all of 
you would agree, that in the cases of the Produce Palace and Medical 
Manager, both of which were the subject of significant discussion 
during the Judiciary Committee's deliberations, punitive damages should 
have been awarded had a judgment been rendered. In both cases, vendors 
of computer systems were sued for selling non-Y2K compliant systems 
even after questioning on that issue by the plaintiffs. And in both 
cases, the defendants were incredibly delinquent in their 
responsiveness to their customer's needs, ignoring hundreds of phone 
calls, and in the Medical Manager case, holding back a simple ``patch'' 
solution that would have cleared all of the plaintiff's misery in 
minutes--just so that they could extort more money out of the 
plaintiffs.
  If we are to provide a deterrent for this type of behavior, then we 
ought to make sure that

[[Page H3011]]

punitive damages are realistically achievable. This bill, as currently 
written, does not provide that. And under this rule, we will not have a 
chance to fix it.
  The Y2K bug is a formidable foe for us to grapple with, I agree, but 
that does not mean we ought to trammel upon the rights of business-
owners and individuals all over the country to defeat it. Furthermore, 
we should not abdicate Y2K solution providers of responsibility for 
their own actions, especially when they engage in egregious behavior, 
no matter how noble the cause.
  This bill is a step in the wrong direction, and we should have every 
opportunity to improve it. I urge you all to reject this rule, and give 
this House the opportunity to show their support for each of the 
amendments that were offered at the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas wishes it were an open rule 
but thanks me for my generosity. I will take that one.
  Let me say that we have just gotten a news flash, and that is the 
fact that the Fairfax Journal has now joined the Los Angeles Times in 
editorializing in strong support of this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Fairfax, Virginia (Mr. Davis), my friend and the prime sponsor of 
the measure who has been our leader on this and done a terrific job.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me also thank the gentleman 
for making the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas in 
order. He can see the gratitude he gets, the vote on the rule, but we 
have tried to try to streamline this and make this an appropriately 
structured rule where both sides to this argument get their 
substitutes, they get their amendments in, and we can have an honest 
debate here on the House floor over exactly how to best remedy this Y2K 
situation.
  Let me make a couple of comments going in:
  First of all, the fastest growing part of the American economy today 
is our technology sector. They are leading the way in the stock market, 
in terms of job production, in terms of producing tax revenues, and we 
are threatening this area with Y2K lawsuits over something that, in 
many cases, these companies are doing everything they can to rectify, 
and sometimes it is beyond their means to control.
  For example, one can have their system perfectly cleaned up, they can 
have tested it, it can work, and then somehow someone who they never 
interacted with because of the interconnectivity of this ends up 
connecting with them, communicating with them, and it brings their 
system down. And under this legislation, even though they really had 
nothing to do with the problem except having a computer modem where 
someone could talk to them, could communicate with them, they could be 
held liable for all of the damages that may ensue, plus punitive 
damages of an unlimited amount.
  That is not fair. But not only is it not fair, it threatens the 
fastest-growing part of the American economy. In a time when our 
technology sector is leading the way in a world economy, we threaten to 
burden it down, so instead of investing their profits in new products 
where we can remain competitive, these products, the products would not 
be invested in, and, in fact, money would have to be tied up in 
litigation, in lawsuits, in settlements, in attorney fees.
  Mr. Speaker, what that does to America on the world marketplace is it 
moves us down, makes us less competitive, costs Americans' jobs and 
will have long-term effects on the American economy. And, of course, 
the administration that opposes this legislation and others would find 
it will not be here at the time when we see what results are ensuing.
  Now we have talked a little bit about these are extreme provisions I 
heard from the other side that we have in this provision. Some of these 
extreme provisions have been voted out of this House by pretty 
substantial margins in other legislation before by both Republicans and 
Democrats, but let me talk about one of the extreme provisions.
  We talk in class actions. If an attorney comes forward and makes me 
part of a class, maybe he bought a set of toasters that malfunctions 
because the microchip in there was not Y2K compliant and purports to 
represent me. All we require is for that attorney who purports to 
represent me, who can settle on my behalf, cut off my access to legal 
system, be required to notify me so that I can have an opportunity to 
opt out or get my attorney if I want. That is one of the extreme 
provisions that they discuss from the other side because it revises 
existing law in some States.
  It does deal in some cases a little bit differently with the Uniform 
Commercial Code, but we have to remember we are in an information age, 
and a lot of the old rules are going to fall by the wayside if we are 
indeed going to remain competitive.
  Joint and several liability is an issue that even the administration 
has been willing to address. Their concern has been that if we go to 
proportional liability we may not have the real culprits and be able to 
hold them in line and the consumer may not be able to get their full 
damages. Under our legislation, if one causes only part of the problem, 
they are only held to part of the damages in this case, and I think 
that is fair. If one has a company and they try to come in and fix an 
information technology system and during that time they make it better 
but it is still not corrected and someone is damaged, they can be 
punished for trying to fix that.

                              {time}  1115

  That is having an effect today on companies coming forward and being 
willing to fix some of these systems because they know that just by 
touching a system if something should go wrong downstream they can be 
held under the doctrine of joint and several liability, liable for all 
of the damages.
  As a result of that, companies who come in and try to fix problems 
are really putting down some very burdensome rules and regulations in 
terms of the systems they are trying to fix on the people who are 
trying to get the systems fixed and that hurts hospitals, it hurts 
small businesses, it hurts grocery manufacturers, and other groups like 
that.
  That is why the National Federation of Independent Businesses support 
this legislation. That is why the Chamber of Commerce and any number of 
business organizations who are potential plaintiffs as well as 
defendants support this legislation, because under this legislation, if 
someone is damaged by a Y2K problem they get their full damages. In 
fact, they can get three times their damages in punitive of the actual 
economic harm. They can get three times that in punitive damages, or 
$250,000, whichever is least.
  So they can move ahead and get it, but what we take away are these 
long-term, high end, without-cap punitive damages that some jury in 
some jurisdiction can bring down some of the fastest growing and 
productive companies that we have in this country. That is what we are 
trying to fix. It is a one-time problem.
  The Y2K problem applies to the year 2000. We will not see this 
problem again for another 1,000 years, at best. That is why this does 
not go to the heart of tort reform and we have constructed this 
legislation in a way that we are not trying to rewrite tort law for any 
and all claims, for any and all instances. We even exempt bodily harm 
and death and disability and those kind of issues that pertain to this.
  For product liability and the like, if someone causes the problem 
they ought to pay, but we should not jeopardize the fastest growing 
part of the American economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule on this. I think it has been fair to 
all sides. I would be happy to support it and would urge my colleagues 
to do likewise.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule on our debate of 
H.R. 775, the Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act. I do this, I 
think, probably to the surprise of many Members on both sides of the 
aisle because I have the privilege of representing what I think is one 
of the most distinguished congressional districts in the country, the 
home of high technology in Silicon Valley. This is an issue that

[[Page H3012]]

certainly worries them and can have an overall impact and effect on 
them.
  The Y2K liability problem certainly is a serious one. We here in the 
Congress have the responsibility to shape something that is both 
reasonable and effective, that will really touch on all of the bases 
that the companies and many of their customers are concerned about.
  I oppose 775 for the following reasons: I believe it is overreaching 
and so I think that we need to pull in in several areas to make it a 
more effective bill that will not be vetoed by the White House; nor a 
response that is simply going to fail on the floor to secure the right 
amount of support on both sides of the aisle.
  So in order to reach, I think, the ultimate bipartisan compromise on 
this issue, we need to look to proportionate liability, the punitive 
damages areas and the attorneys fees that are in the bill.
  As I said, I think the bill goes too far. It would set up a rigid 
system of proportionate liability. The plaintiff would have to 
institute a separate lawsuit against every possible wrongdoer.
  Now to those that look to me for some kind of leadership on these 
issues, I know something about proportionate liability. I shaped a bill 
that ultimately was supported with bipartisan broad support. I shaped 
something in private securities litigation reform where companies were 
joint and severally liable only in certain situations. Even then, it 
created a more proportionate way of determining the share of liability.
  The cap on punitive damages in H.R. 775 is also troubling.
  Thirdly, the reasonable efforts defense contained in the bill that is 
going to be debated is opposed strongly by the Department of Justice 
because it sets up a new standard for businesses to avoid lawsuits.
  I applaud anyone that wants to come forward to help speak to the 
problem that our country faces with Y2K and the liabilities that might 
ensue as a result of it. I do not believe, in my best judgment, my fair 
judgment, that H.R. 775 answers that. I believe the other body is 
moving toward consensus, especially in the areas that I just outlined.
  I will work with Members from both sides of the aisle. I do not think 
that we should advance something that we clearly know the White House 
is going to veto. Nor do I think simply bringing something to the 
floor, where we know it is going to fail here on the floor, is the 
answer. We really need something that is reasonable and effective and I 
stand ready to do that. For the reasons that I outlined, and others 
that I did not, I will not only oppose the rule but I oppose 775.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, just to quote the New York Times editorial, 
April 26 of this year, this legislation is misguided and potentially 
unfair. It could even lessen the incentive for corrective action. A 
political crisis is no time to abrogate legal rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that says it all. Also, the Attorney General of 
the United States is going to recommend to the President of the United 
States to veto this bill if it is passed in its present form.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is very important legislation. We have gone 
through, over the past several years, securities litigation reform 
which was very, very critical, but I happen to believe that dealing 
with this Y2K issue is something that not a lot of people are focused 
on but quite frankly needs to be addressed, because the ramifications 
are overwhelming.
  We have our colleagues here in the House, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), 
who are working on the governmental involvement with Y2K. This is a 
measure that we are going to be addressing here today that impacts the 
private sector primarily, but obviously it has an impact that will be 
very, very far-reaching.
  Now, as we have listened to this debate, some are trying to argue 
that this is special interest legislation, special interest legislation 
which is designed to simply help those who created some sort of 
problem.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. We have to recognize that 
this legislation is being supported by those who will be both 
plaintiff, potentially plaintiff, and defendant.
  If we look at the organizations that have come out in support of this 
measure, they are not organizations that are simply in the business of 
trying to find a solution. They are the organizations which are 
potentially impacted by it, groups like the National Federation of 
Independent Business; the Chamber of Commerce; the National Association 
of Manufacturers; one of the largest organizations, which we all want 
to address, the League of Cities, they potentially could be imposing 
lawsuits on this thing.
  We have the National Retail Federation, the National Restaurant 
Association, and actually we have over here the list. My eyes glazed 
over when I started to look at it, because we have energy companies all 
over this Nation, we have organizations that are supportive of this 
measure.
  So if there is, in fact, a special interest it is the interest that 
is opposed to this measure.
  My brother-in-law is a trial lawyer in Chicago, Illinois. I will say 
that we often have interesting family discussions because while I have 
been supportive, and I want to make sure that everyone has a right to 
their day in court and there is nothing in this legislation that denies 
their day in court, but the colleagues of my brother-in-law from around 
the country are unfortunately in the process of developing what is 
really a cottage industry, a cottage industry getting ready to strike.
  Our goal here is very simple. We want to mitigate rather than 
litigate. We want to take care of this problem before it takes place. 
There is so much common sense to that.
  This is a one-time effort. We are not changing this in perpetuity. It 
is a one-time effort so that we can deal with this Y2K problem, so that 
the everyday lives of people can continue; so that they can make 
telephone calls, they can make sure that the flow of their electricity 
continues. We want to do it as early as possible, and that is why this 
is a bipartisan measure.
  I know some people have tried to describe it as partisan. Upstairs in 
the press gallery, my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) joined me on the 
Republican side, and on the Democrat side we have the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), my fellow Californian, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), three 
Republicans and three Democrats moving ahead with this.
  We have had consistent opposition from the administration until we 
received the news this morning that they are willing to work with us on 
it.
  So it is a very important measure. I am proud of the rule. As I said, 
we have made in order amendments from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee, and he is joined by 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and my fellow Californian, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  We have also been able to make in order amendments that were proposed 
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and by our friend, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). So of the 7 amendments we 
made in order of the 17 that were filed, 5 of them have been offered by 
Democrats.
  This stresses the fact that we want to have a full debate, allowing 
for consideration of amendments from both sides of the aisle, but when 
it gets to the end I hope that we will pass very positive legislation 
which will ensure that we can keep the lives of the American people 
going on track just as smoothly as possible.
  I urge support of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the

[[Page H3013]]

point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 188, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No 123]

                               YEAS--236

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barton
     Brown (CA)
     Engel
     McIntosh
     Napolitano
     Peterson (PA)
     Scarborough
     Slaughter
     Thornberry

                              {time}  1147

  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. FORD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________