[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 91 (Thursday, June 24, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H4844-H4851]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 775, YEAR 2000 READINESS AND 
                           RESPONSIBILITY ACT

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from 
the Speaker's table 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, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.


               Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Conyers moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill H.R. 775 be 
     instructed to ensure, within the scope of conference, that 
     their eventual report to the House reflects due regard for--
       The substantive concerns of the high-technology community 
     and the possible implications of the ``Y2K'' date change on 
     that community and on the Nation's economy;
       The substantive inputs of the Administration and of the 
     bipartisan Leaderships in the Congress on the issues 
     committed to conference; and
       The sense of the House that a decision not to follow this 
     process will lead to a failure to enact legislation.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XXII, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the 
motion to instruct the conferees to engage the administration and the 
congressional leadership of both parties in a substantive discussion to 
make every effort possible to produce a Y2K bill that President Clinton 
can sign.
  The information technology community, as we know, has legitimate 
concerns due to the unique nature of the Y2K problem that should be and 
could be addressed through legislation. This legislation would first 
encourage remediation, it would then encourage mitigation, and finally, 
deter as much as possible frivolous lawsuits.
  We are all interested in legislation that will solve the concerns of 
the high-tech community as we recognize the possible implications of 
the Y2K date change on the high-tech community and on the Nation's 
economy.
  We are optimistic that the conference will result in a bipartisan 
compromise through a substantive discussion of the concerns of the 
information technology community, the administration, and the 
congressional leadership, and that we will address the unique nature of 
the Y2K problem. I urge this cooperation on the part of all the 
different forces that will be part of this conference.
  We on the Democratic side are willing to engage in a deliberative 
conference that makes every effort to avert an impasse and to produce a 
bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this motion to 
instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my good friend, the gentleman 
from Michigan, that we are prepared to accept the motion to instruct 
that the gentleman has offered, and I would say with regard to the 
legislative process that we have been through that we have from the 
outset been concerned about the substantive inputs of the 
administration and the leadership of both the House and Senate and both 
the Democratic and Republican leadership, and in fact, the House bill, 
which I think is an outstanding piece of legislation, which will go a 
long way to address the concerns of the American people, of the 
business community, of those who have been negatively affected by the 
failure to have certain equipment or software, whatever the case may 
be, ready for Y2K needs; that in all those cases we have in the 
legislation we passed listened to everyone who had input in this 
process, and have adapted the legislation that passed the House while 
taking those inputs into consideration, agreeing with some and 
disagreeing with others. I know that same process has taken place in 
the Senate, where they also have passed a good bill.
  So when the conference meets and considers the relative merits of 
both the House bill and the Senate bill, we will be interested in 
hearing the input of the leadership, and have heard the input of the 
administration in that process.
  For that reason, we are prepared to accept this motion to instruct. I 
would say, however, that the House of Representatives is a sovereign 
body, that it is duly designated on the basis of the United States 
Constitution to represent the will of the people that we represent, and 
we will do so with input from a number of different sources, but most 
importantly, with input from the majority of the Members of the House 
who supported the bill that we passed through the House of 
Representatives, taking into account the fact that we want to see 
legislation signed into law by the President which will reflect the 
need to address the Y2K problem to avoid frivolous and fraudulent 
lawsuits, to encourage parties to work on solving the Y2K problem and 
not on an increasing amount of litigation.
  We believe those things are reflected in the bill passed by the 
House. We believe they are also reflected in the bill passed by the 
Senate. So we will proceed in a fashion that will allow us to come up 
with legislation that surely the President will want to sign because it 
is urgent that we solve this problem.
  One of the points to be made about Y2K legislation addressing this 
problem is that time is of the essence. It is not only important that 
we pass this before January 1, 2000, it is important that we pass this 
and get it signed into law by the President now, because the effects of 
this legislation will take place immediately.
  Those who need to solve Y2K problems will be less fearful of getting 
into a litigation mess and more anxious to get about the business of 
correcting the actual technological problems that individuals and 
businesses face with their computer systems if they know now that they 
can get started now or continue work now without fear of a massive 
problem with litigation. That is what this bill that we have passed 
through the House is designed to do. I know that is what the Senate 
intended, as well.
  So surely when we work out the differences between the House and 
Senate bills, we will be able to present to the President something 
that he should sign immediately, given, I know, the concern that the 
President has for addressing this problem and addressing it immediately 
and not dragging us through a long process involving a veto; the 
addressing of this problem with new legislation that we would have to 
take up with another version passed through the House, another version 
passed through the Senate, another conference, and then still not 
knowing whether the version that that we come up with in that 
conference would be signed by the President.

                              {time}  1230

  So it would be my hope that the version that we pass out of the 
conference will be signed into law by the President, recognizing that 
we have already been taking into account the

[[Page H4845]]

concerns raised by the President, have, in the legislation passed in 
the House and in the legislation passed in the Senate, a reflection of 
a number of those concerns, but obviously not all of those concerns 
because, as I said, this is a body that must do the will of the people 
that we represent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as she 
may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the comments of the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and glad to learn that the 
motion will be accepted.
  But, at the very least, I want to explore a little bit further where 
I think we are in this whole process. I received yesterday a letter 
from the Year 2000 Coalition to the Speaker, to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey), to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), and to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Davis). The letter outlines the hopes and expectations of many 
high-tech community leaders.
  Let me just read a couple of important points they made in this 
letter. The Coalition points out that: ``A legislative process that 
terminates in a veto would be viewed as a complete failure, and would 
possess substantial risk to the American economy and could result in a 
serious economic set-back.''
  The letter continues: ``We are confident that, in the course of 
discussions that may occur, resolution of differences can be 
achieved.'' They then go on to offer their assistance in whatever way 
they could to help us as we seek a resolution.
  This letter is signed by dozens of associations; among them, there 
are: the American Electronics Association, the Business Software 
Alliance, the Computing Technology Industry Association, the 
Information Technology Association of America, the National Venture 
Capital Association, and the Semiconductor Industry Association. I 
might add that there are many others.
  I think the concern expressed in this letter is based on various 
press reports as well as rumors that I think we should discuss openly.
  In the Washington Post today, and I have no idea whether this quote 
is accurate so I shall just read it from the paper. Mr. Hastert, the 
Speaker's spokesperson, was quoted as saying, ``You know that the 
President has to make a choice. Basically it is a take it or leave it 
proposition on the bill.''
  The President's people are quoted in turn, saying that the bill that 
passed the Senate will be vetoed by the President. So I do not think 
there is a doubt about the veto. We have the President's statement on 
that.
  So what I see unfolding here is a train wreck that we can avoid, and 
that, I believe, it is our obligation to avoid.
  I note further that, in today's National Journal, in Congress Daily, 
that there is a suggestion, and I do not know if this is what is really 
going to happen, that the conferees will meet only for a short period 
of time, the sole purpose of which meeting would be to remove a section 
of the Senate bill inserted by Senator Hollings, and that no further 
work would be done.
  If this is the case, if this is what does happen, I think it will be 
a tremendous mistake. I think we ought to listen to the 2000 Coalition 
people and understand that we need to work through this and to 
compromise and to come up with legislation that will become law.
  Now, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and I have said 
privately from the beginning, it is my belief--and I think maybe his--
that, if he and I were to go sit in the Speaker's lobby together, we 
could write up a bill that would be acceptable, and would be signed by 
the President.
  There are six or seven different ways to approach the very 
contentious issues that are before us. There is no one magic solution. 
Part of legislation in an issue such as this is to stretch out, to 
reach your hand across the aisle and I would say down Pennsylvania 
Avenue as well, to come up with rational solutions that are flexible, 
that are narrowly tailored, that work.
  I know we can do this. I know that we could do it together. I hope 
that we do it together. If we do not, if instead, we insist, having 
fallen in love with our own work product, that we cannot produce an 
alternative, we shall have failed. We must let go of the love we have 
for the work product we have created, and instead try and understand 
the other person's point of view, craft together narrowly tailored, 
rational responses. I know that we can solve this problem, and we can 
do so promptly.
  But we are not going to be able to achieve this if, instead, we do 
what the press reports suggest, which is to go through a sham of a 
conference that really does not get into the substantive work.
  So I do hope that we can approach this in this way. I am willing to 
do my very best to be flexible and respectful and to come together with 
my colleagues across the aisle and in the Senate and in the White 
House.
  With that, in the spirit of optimism and hope, I appreciate the 
willingness to accept the motion, but I hope that it is more than just 
a motion. I hope it results in some good, solid hard work that extends 
more than an hour and is certainly not what the rumor control has said.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the letter from the Year 2000 Coalition as 
follows:


                                          Year 2000 Coalition,

                                                    June 22, 1999.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Hon. Richard K. Armey,
     Hon. Tom DeLay,
     Hon. J.C. Watts,
     Hon. Thomas M. Davis III,
     U.S. House of Representatives.
       Dear House Leadership: The Y2K Coalition, which has been 
     working with all interested parties to successfully enact 
     legislation which will promote Y2K remediation, is concerned 
     by recent statements by the President's senior advisors that 
     they will recommend the President veto the bill passed by the 
     Senate if that were presented to him for his signature. We 
     are convinced that if such a bill were vetoed, the momentum 
     to legislate on this important matter would be lost. A 
     legislative process that terminates in a veto would be viewed 
     as a complete failure, and would pose substantial risk to the 
     American economy and could result in a serious economic set-
     back. We therefore urge congressional leaders and the 
     Administration to make every effort possible to avert an 
     impasse and avoid such a catastrophe.
       We are confident that, in the course of discussions that 
     may occur, resolution of differences can be achieved. The 
     Coalition will be prepared to offer suggestions for the 
     resolution of such differences.
       We further urge you to initiate and conclude such efforts 
     before the 4th of July recess.
           Sincerely,
       Aerospace Industries Association, Airconditioning & 
     Refrigeration Institute, Alaska High-Tech Business Council, 
     Alliance of American Insurers, American Bankers Association, 
     American Bearing Manufacturers Association, American Boiler 
     Manufacturers Association, American Council of Life 
     Insurance, American Electronics Association, American 
     Entrepreneurs for Economic Growth, American Gas Association, 
     American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, American 
     Insurance Association, American Iron & Steel Institute, 
     American Paper Machinery Association, American Society of 
     Employers, American Textile Machinery Association, American 
     Tort Reform Associates, America's Community Bankers, Arizona 
     Association of Industries, Arizona Software Association, 
     Associated Employers, and Associated Industries of Missouri.
       Associated Oregon Industries, Inc., Association of 
     Manufacturing Technology, Association of Management 
     Consulting Firms, BIFMA International, Business and Industry 
     Trade Association, Business Council of Alabama, Business 
     Software Alliance, Chemical Manufacturers Association, 
     Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, Colorado 
     Association of Commerce and Industry, Colorado Software 
     Association, Compressed Gas Association, Computing Technology 
     Industry Association, Connecticut Business & Industry 
     Association, Inc., Connecticut Technology Association, 
     Construction Industry Manufacturers Association, Conveyor 
     Equipment Manufacturers Association, Copper & Brass 
     Fabricators Council, Copper Development Association, Inc., 
     Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, Edison Electric 
     Institute, Employers Group, and Farm Equipment Manufacturers 
     Association.
       Flexible Packaging Association, Food Distributors 
     International, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Gypsum 
     Association, Health Industry Manufacturers Association, 
     Independent Community Bankers Association, Indiana 
     Information Technology Association, Indiana Manufacturers 
     Association, Inc., Industrial Management Council, Information 
     Technology Association of America, Information Technology 
     Industry Council, International Mass Retail Association, 
     International Sleep Products Association, Interstate Natural 
     Gas Association of America, Investment Company Institute, 
     Iowa Association of Business & Industry, Manufacturers 
     Association of Mid-Eastern PA, Manufacturer's Association of 
     Northwest Pennsylvania, Manufacturing Alliance of 
     Connecticut, Inc., Metal Treating Institute, Mississippi 
     Manufacturers Association, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers 
     Association, National Association of Computer Consultant

[[Page H4846]]

     Business, National Association of Convenience Stores, 
     National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers, National 
     Association of Independent Insurers, National Association of 
     Manufacturers, National Association of Mutual Insurance 
     Companies, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, 
     National Electrical Manufacturers Association, National 
     Federation of Independent Business, National Food Processors 
     Association, National Housewares Manufacturers Association, 
     and National Marine Manufacturers Association.
       National Retail Federation, National Venture Capital 
     Association, North Carolina Electronic and Information 
     Technology Association, Technology New Jersey, NPES, The 
     Association of Suppliers of Printing, Publishing, and 
     Converting Technologies, Optical Industry Association, 
     Printing Industry of Illinois-Indiana Association, Power 
     Transmission Distributors Association, Process Equipment 
     Manufacturers Association, Recreation Vehicle Industry 
     Association, Reinsurance Association of America, Securities 
     Industry Association, Semiconductor Equipment and Materials 
     International, Semiconductor Industry Association, Small 
     Motors and Motion Association, Software Association of 
     Oregon, Software & Information Industry Association, South 
     Carolina Chamber of Commerce, Steel Manufacturers 
     Association, Telecommunications Industry Association, The 
     Chlorine Institute, Inc., The Financial Services Roundtable, 
     The ServiceMaster Company, Toy Manufacturers of America, 
     Inc., United States Chamber of Commerce, Upstate New York 
     Roundtable on Manufacturing, Utah Information Technology 
     Association, Valve Manufacturers Association, Washington 
     Software Association, West Virginia Manufacturers 
     Association, and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a distinguished member of 
the committee.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to instruct, as 
does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). But since the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has expressed concerns of the 
administration, let me say that, first of all, the administration does 
not legislate under the Constitution. They have the choice of signing 
or vetoing the work product of both Houses of Congress.
  However, the Senate, during its deliberations on this bill, moved in 
major efforts towards the President's position to try to modify the 
legislation to address many of the President's concerns. Included are 
changes in the proportional liability section of H.R. 775, the 
elimination of the liability caps on directors and officers, the 
elimination of the reasonable efforts defense, the tort claims, 
modification of the punitive damages provision in H.R. 775, and 
elimination of obligations on attorneys to disclose and report certain 
information to their clients, all of which were in the statement of 
administration position expressing opposition both to the House bill 
and to the Senate bill.
  So there has been a huge movement in the direction of the President. 
However, we all know that this President has been very strongly opposed 
to any changes in tort liability law and any changes in product 
liability law. This is kind of a product liability bill, because it is 
dealing with software that is manufactured by computer companies that 
may or may not fail when the odometer rolls over next New Year's Eve, 
the danger that exists in agreeing to everything that the President 
objects to is, by the time we are done, the bill does not do anything. 
It is merely cosmetic in nature.
  Then I think that, if that is the case, the President and the 
Congress will be equally guilty in fooling the American public that 
something is being done to shield people from frivolous litigation and 
destructive litigation when, in fact, that is not the case.
  So the conferees, I think, have got to be careful. They have got to 
make sure that we give a conference report for consideration by this 
House and the other body which does address this problem and prevent 
frivolous litigation rather than simply passing a piece of paper, all 
of us taking a bow, and this bill becomes law, knowing full well that 
this bill really does not solve the legal problems relating to Y2K 
liability.
  As a conferee, those are the goals I am going to try to achieve, and 
that is to pass a bill that does something, that addresses these 
problems. I would hope that the President, in the spirit of compromise, 
recognizing that the Senate really met him more than halfway with his 
objections to the House bill, would move a little bit by himself.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the dialogue coming from both the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), and I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, many 
of those issues that he mentioned, as good as we were about working 
them out, they are more largely peripheral issues.
  Now, some have made it clear that the conference's only purpose is to 
take up the Senate bill, and that is the troublesome part of our job in 
front of us, strip the Hollings language and send it to the President.
  Now, we are not looking for veto bait. What he will do almost surely, 
if his word can be relied on, and I think that it can, is that he will 
veto the bill as he has suggested.
  Now, the truth of the matter is that I do not think that the sides, 
the two sides are that far apart. I think that we can work something 
out. That is my desire and my hope.
  But let us confront what the larger differences are. The first point 
is the extent to which punitive damages are capped. That has not been 
worked out. It is one that we need to give our most vigorous attention 
to. Then there is the situation, the extent to which joint liability is 
limited. That has yet to be resolved. But I think that we are, we are, 
within close proximity to which we can move forward on it. Then we have 
the extent to which we will federalize State class actions, another 
matter that needs to get our careful and cooperative attention.
  Now, these are issues that can be resolved. They can be resolved 
between Republicans and Democrats, and they can be resolved between the 
administration. Now, I want a bill, and I think all of us here on the 
floor do. If we want a bill, we are going to resolve these issues. I 
hope that we will. I know that we can.
  If there is any desire on anyone's part to kill the bill, then we can 
engage in a campaign, a season of finger pointing, and we will end up 
having a conference that does not attempt real negotiation.
  So the question that this motion poses is, which road will we take? 
How are we going to move here, serious and sincere negotiation which 
will result in a bill within a week or weeks or an insincere process 
which will result in failed legislation and probably a veto?
  I am confident that we can do the former. I am prepared to bring to 
the table conferees that will be working very sincerely on 
accomplishing that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) yielding me this time.
  It is ironic that we have a Year 2000 Coalition letter referred to on 
the other side of the aisle, quoting it as somehow gospel. When they 
supported our legislation here in the House, they were not quoting it 
then, because they opposed what this Coalition wanted at that point. 
They did not give this Coalition the tools they wanted.
  The Coalition, I have met with them subsequent to this letter. I 
might add, the letter was not addressed to the gentlewoman. The letter 
was not addressed to anyone on the other side. It was addressed to the 
Republican leadership, and we have subsequently had discussions with 
members of this group. I think that the representation coming from the 
other side is not quite appropriate, I think, to where everyone is.

                              {time}  1245

  We want a solution to this problem. The difficulty is on the other 
side of the aisle there is absolutely no willingness, no willingness 
that was put forward in their substitute to put any kind of caps on 
punitive damages to any companies at all. Small companies, large 
companies, anyone.
  Their proportion liability was a joke. We cannot have proportion 
liability if, in fact, it is under the circumstances that they have 
outlined. What they have outlined is that if everybody can pay their 
proportion, then they get

[[Page H4847]]

proportional liability. In point of fact, someone is always missing 
from the table. And it is a jury question, as they have defined how we 
get to it. It goes to a jury. And it just, I think, does not give the 
protection to companies that they need.
  I was general counsel for an IT company out in Fairfax. It does a 
billion dollars a year in sales. I understand the issues that are 
raised here. What has been proposed by the administration to date does 
not advance the agendas of these companies one step. Now, if the 
President would reengage, if he would come and sit with us or send an 
emissary up to work something out, we have been waiting for this for 6 
months. But it was 5 months ago that John Koskinen, who is their Y2K 
guru, came before our committee in the House and said, we do not need 
any legislation on Y2K at all.
  They subsequently backed off that, but they have offered nothing in 
the way of punitive damage caps. They have offered nothing in the way 
of proportion liability that makes any sense today. They have offered 
nothing in the way that gives anybody any kind of protection that we 
want. If they have some suggestions, we are happy to hear from them.
  We know what their, quote, bipartisan substitute was that was brought 
up on the House floor during the debate. It got one Republican vote. 
That is how bipartisan it was. We got 28 for our legislation. Now, we 
are willing to compromise with the Senate, and we are willing to work 
with the President, but we have to have something on the table, and at 
this point they have remained silent. As the chief author of the 
legislation, we have had zero contact from the White House on this, 
despite numerous entreaties that we engage in a dialogue.
  American industry wants this problem resolved. The worst thing that 
can happen is to pass the legislation they put before the House earlier 
that does absolutely nothing and to have tens of billions of dollars, 
perhaps a trillion dollars, as the Gardener Group estimated, from these 
companies going into attorneys' fees, litigation, or punitive damages 
instead of going to putting these profits into the production of new 
products so they can compete in the global marketplace, and instead of 
hiring and training new workers so we can remain atop the world economy 
on these IT issues. And that is what this is about.
  We certainly, certainly entreat our colleagues to engage in a 
dialogue with us, but it has to be a real dialogue. And nothing I have 
heard from the other side today and, more importantly, nothing we have 
heard from the White House indicates any willingness at this point to 
come to the table at all on these issues.
  We have a House version that is a pretty strong and a pretty good 
bill, and I do not just say that because I authored it, I say it 
because 230 Members of this body supported it and lined up behind it. 
We have a much, much weaker Senate version. And we are, I think, 
willing, in a very short period of time, within a very limited window 
of time, to engage in discussions with the administration and 
interested Members to bring about a solution to this problem. But we 
are not going to let the administration string this thing out for 
months and let this roll, which, if we left it up to them, is exactly 
what would happen.
  We have to force the issue. If a veto is the end result, it will be 
regrettable. It will not have achieved the goals we had coming in, and 
we will do anything we can to work this out. But it takes two to talk, 
and to date the White House has been silent.
  So I think we need to move ahead and appoint the conferees. I think 
we need to move with the Senate. If the President wants to engage in a 
dialogue, now is the time. This legislation has got to be out and 
working and in operation before we go to the July 4 recess, and if the 
outcome is a veto, so be it.
  I just hope that the administration will engage. We can put 
legislation on his desk that will have the vast majority, if not veto-
proof numbers from both Houses, and we can show the President that the 
American people as well as the titans of industry want this legislation 
and need it, and that they will come around and work with us.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I want to say to my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Davis), let us 
keep hope alive. Let us not assume that the White House has shut down 
negotiations or the process. That is not the case at all.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, as I hear the tenor of this 
discussion, that we might, in fact, not have the kind of substantive 
conference that I think is going to be required.
  I do not agree with the White House on everything, far from it, but I 
have contacted senior members in the White House repeatedly to find out 
what their views are, why they hold those views. I have also contacted 
key players in the technology community. As my colleagues might expect, 
because my district is Silicon Valley, I have talked often to general 
counsels and CEOs on this issue, and I know that there is plenty of 
room to craft a bill that resolves issues for high technology and that 
will get a signature from the President.
  But it is going to take some time and work to do that, and to say 
that we need to pass the Senate bill before the July 4 recess, and if 
there is a veto, well, so be it, that does not solve the problem. What 
we need is a law to be enacted. And we can do that, but it has taken 6 
months for this conference to begin. The maximum allowable time for a 
conference is 20 days. I do not think we would need 20 days, but we are 
going to need more than an hour to find common ground.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman referred to the letter 
that was sent to the Republican leadership, and yet she indicates that 
we need to take some time to resolve this. This letter urges us to 
conclude the process by the July 4 recess.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite 
possible to do that. But if instead of doing a conference and coming up 
with a piece of legislation that can get support from both sides of the 
aisle and can get a signature from the White House, which I know we 
could do, if instead of that effort in a productive conference we 
instead just jam the Senate bill through both bodies up to the White 
House for the veto that he has already said awaits it, then we will 
have done something before July 4, but it will not have been anything 
very productive for the companies that require a resolution and 
remediation of this problem.
  I hope, and I believe my colleague the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), who I have worked very closely with on many technology 
issues, I believe him when he says he wants to accept the motion to 
instruct. I am just concerned that some of the rhetoric can lead me to 
a contrary conclusion; that we are not really, all of us, going to work 
together in the way we need to and that we could do.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to 
the gentlewoman by saying that the President has not indicated that he 
would veto this legislation. Some of his advisers have indicated that 
they will recommend to the President that he veto it.
  I think that is very poor advice, given the urgency that we address 
this problem immediately, given the fact that we have two good bills to 
work with between the House and the Senate and that we will come up 
with a very good solution that we would urge the President to sign.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just ask, what is wrong 
with appointing conferees today? I think we can all agree that until we 
get the conferees in place, we cannot negotiate with anybody. So we 
appoint the conferees today, and I hope we will get a unanimous vote on 
that, and then we can argue it in conference, and, hopefully, the 
administration will engage.
  But I might add that the substitute put up by my friend, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), was overwhelmingly rejected 
by this White House when it was put up before. The members of the Year 
2000 Coalition,

[[Page H4848]]

many of the members in her own district, did not support that 
legislation. And if that is the basis for a compromise, that is not a 
compromise at all.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, 
and I congratulate him for his fine efforts on this, and my friends on 
the other side of the aisle who have worked on this, and, of course, 
our lead sponsor, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), who has been 
working long and hard on it.
  Let us look at what it is we are trying to address. Y2K litigation 
reform is about one thing and one thing only, and it is about keeping 
our economy strong. We have to take a close look at where we have been 
on this Y2K litigation reform issue. I began working on it over a year 
ago. So what is it that has now happened? The House passed a very 
solid, bipartisan, comprehensive bill. And again, I underscore the fact 
that it was reported out of this House with bipartisan support.
  The Senate passed a bill that is unquestionably weaker than the House 
bill. It is the Dodd-Wyden-McCain bill. It is not a Republican bill. 
And, in fact, it is really a bare bones bill when we get right down to 
it. Finally, we have we have what is known as the Kerry proposal, which 
industry groups unanimously agree is so weak that it would not help to 
alleviate the Y2K litigation concerns out there. In fact, it failed 
miserably in both the House and the Senate. And the main reason for 
that is that those individuals, those companies, those engineers, those 
technicians who are trying their doggonedest to find a solution to the 
Y2K problem are, in fact, not helped at all with any kind of relief if 
we were to go ahead with the Kerry proposal.
  So I want very much to see the President sign an effective bipartisan 
Y2K litigation reform bill, even if it is not exactly what we did here 
in the House, which is the measure that I support most strongly. We 
are, in fact, on this side, looking forward with what I believe is 
really a spirit of compromise. I sincerely want to see us do that. In 
fact, I am not one of those who is a proponent of gross politicization 
of this issue. Why? Because we have a very serious potential problem 
out there, and uncertainty is very great.
  So as we have actually said since day one, we want to address the Y2K 
concerns just as quickly as possible. And that gets to the point that 
was just discussed between my friends on this side of the aisle and the 
other. We have that letter that was just referred to by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) where the Coalition talked about a July 4 
date. We want to move quickly. In fact, one of the jokes was that we 
might come up with some kind of Y2K litigation reform by 2001. 
Obviously, that would be way too late. We have been working for 6 
months on this measure. And with uncertainty out there, I think 
everyone can agree that it is our desire to move just as quickly as we 
possibly can.
  This legislation has, in fact, been working its way through what has 
been a very open legislative process in both Houses over the last 
several months. The compromise that was reached in the Senate was the 
product of very, very long and hard bipartisan efforts that were 
launched. Again, it is not a Republican bill that passed over there. It 
is a bill that has people like our former colleagues, Mr. Wyden and Mr. 
Dodd, working with Mr. McCain. So it is itself is a bipartisan measure.
  In many ways, and this is the argument that we are making, the bill 
that did pass the Senate is what could really be considered a 
conference compromise. But what we have said is that there are some 
concerns that do need to be addressed, and so what we are doing here 
today is we are moving to go ahead with the conference. We want very 
much to do that.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules for what he said here, because his remarks have 
underscored what I think we are saying: compromise.
  We have to move to another position. We can do it. A week or so would 
be adequate. And I am just putting that on the table. But the whole 
point is that the gentleman is right. A legislative process that ends 
in a veto would be a huge setback, and that is what I think the 
Coalition was trying to tell us in the letter.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend for 
his contribution, and let me just say that I think a veto would be a 
veto of what really is a bipartisan compromise. And we have to 
recognize that what has emerged from the other body is not a Republican 
bill. And again, what emerged from this body was not a Republican bill, 
it was a bipartisan measure.
  Trying to find that balance between something that is strong enough 
to ensure that those who are looking for a solution are in a position 
to address it and, at the same time, addresses the concerns of others 
is the wisest thing we could do. We need to move ahead with a 
streamlined, bipartisan compromise, and I think we have got it in the 
Senate with a couple of minor modifications.
  So I wholeheartedly support this effort to go to conference.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) has 15 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I still commend the chairman of the Committee on Rules. 
I just wanted to caution him that a couple of things remain, and they 
may not be tiny. Joint liability, class action, and punitive action do 
not sound like small issues that can be resolved easily or quickly. 
That is why we want to move forward, and that is why we come to my 
colleague and support this motion.
  We want conferees appointed. We want to begin our work. But it seems 
to me not totally accurate to say that the administration has not been 
involved in the process. They have not been silent. They have been 
working with us. The high-tech community says that they want us to work 
together to resolve the differences.
  I want to conclude before July 4, but I would rather conclude with 
something we can take back to both bodies if it takes a little longer 
than that then to end up in a veto position. We do not want to serve up 
veto bait. I think the warnings of the administration's representatives 
have been pretty clear in that regard.
  I hark back to this letter that has been re-interpreted here. ``A 
legislative process,'' this is the Year 2000 Coalition, ``that 
terminates in a veto would be viewed as a complete failure.'' I could 
not agree more. And I think we are all in agreement with that.
  So let us get to it, gentlemen. Let us roll up our sleeves and let us 
start moving along.
  Let me pose this question to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte). Are the issues of joint liability and class actions and 
punitive damages really on the table, or are these issues really not on 
the table and we are going to end up with the Senate bill minus 
Hollings? Because it seems to me that is the heart of how we move 
forward and make sure there is no impasse.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Everything is on the table before we go to conference. I will, on my 
own time in a moment, address the efforts that have been made to take 
into account the input that the administration claims to seek with 
regard to that.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, can the gentleman 
assure us that the conference will have a serious discussion on these 
three items? Because I know everything is on the table, but not 
everything is in dispute.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, 
surely there are differences between both the House and the Senate on 
those

[[Page H4849]]

two items. So, therefore, there will have to be some discussion with 
regard to the final disposition of the legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, then will we be able to negotiate not only 
with ourselves but with the administration on these subject matters?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we will have input 
from the administration.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to work with the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) on this 
issue. I will say to them that I appreciate their concern about the 
administration's input but, quite frankly, their concern exceeds the 
concern of the administration.
  Let me just point out a few things. First of all, I have had the 
honor of managing this bill both in the Committee on the Judiciary and 
on the floor of the House, and to this day I have not received one 
contact, one communication from the administration with regard to this 
legislation.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) is the principal sponsor of 
the legislation and he has never received one bit of input from the 
administration. I checked with my staff to see if perhaps the staff was 
contacted. Neither my legislative director nor the committee staff has 
been contacted by the administration to give their input on this 
legislation.
  In fact, the only contact with the administration regarding their 
input came from the committee, because the committee contacted the 
administration and invited them to testify before the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and they declined our offer to have a representative of the 
administration come and testify before the committee and have input 
with the committee regarding this.
  So while I know the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) are sincere in their desire 
to have input from the administration, I certainly hope that the 
administration's statements regarding this legislation contain the 
sincerity to work out this problem and address Y2K in a manner that 
immediately puts to work the Nation on solving the problem rather than 
setting up a massive problem with litigation.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me ask my friends, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), we are talking about compromising, but from 
their perspective, not the administration's, are they willing to 
support the Senate bill, basically the outlines, the parameters of the 
Senate bill in terms of concept, particularly in mind with punitive 
damages caps, or is that too far for them?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the problem 
is that framework that the President has said that he would veto.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue 
to yield, so my colleagues would not support it because the President 
would not support it?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the gentleman, can we negotiate 
with the administration? Maybe they were talking to so many staff that 
they did not know that the staff of the gentleman was not there.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman, 
they know how to reach me. They know my interest in this.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say that while 
the administration has not contacted us, they have put out into thin 
air their administration's Statement of Policy, which we have carefully 
reviewed. In fact, they put out two, one prior to the House legislation 
and one prior to the Senate legislation. We have carefully studied 
these statements, and I can tell my colleague that the overwhelming 
majority of the principles outlined by the President are contained in 
either the House bill or the Senate bill or both.
  And so, if the President is intent upon vetoing this legislation 
because of the few small remaining matters that are not addressed in 
either the House bill or the Senate bill, I think there is a great deal 
of disingenuous behavior on the part of the administration if that is 
the case.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for 
just a comment?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we could be 
helped by our friends on the other side if instead of representing the 
administration they would represent their constituents and urge the 
administration to work towards signing a bill instead of trying to give 
them cover and not voting for a bill unless they approve it. I think 
that is what our constituents are telling me, let us put forward that. 
And if the administration wants to come in, we are open to negotiate 
even at this late hour even though they declined to come to the 
hearings and testify and have declined to notify and talk to our 
offices.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a very good point. 
But let me point out the things that are in the Statement of 
Administration Policy that are contained in these bills.
  The pre-litigation procedures contained in the legislation are 
compatible with the pre-litigation procedures outlined in the Statement 
of Policy. The pleading requirements are compatible. The class action, 
with the exception of the point regarding class action remedies, should 
be retained and State courts should continue to hear State class 
actions, in point of fact, States will continue to hear State class 
actions. It is only class actions that involve a Federal class that 
would be changed. The duty to mitigate damages that they set forth, 
that is contained in either the House or the Senate or both.
  The contract interpretation provisions are the same in the House and 
the Senate or both. The joint and several liability they have expressed 
in their statement support for change from the traditional joint and 
several liability to proportionate liability. They expressed some 
concerns about the House version. Those are addressed in the Senate 
version. The economic loss issue is addressed in either the House or 
the Senate or both.
  Ms. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I want 
desperately to work something out with the administration and that has 
been our goal from day one. But I am not going to surrender principles, 
and I am not going to surrender on issues the point that we are not 
passing any legislation at all that does any good to the people we are 
trying to help. I cannot do that in good conscience.
  I would rather, under those circumstances, let my constituents know I 
did my best to help them and the President vetoed them than to come up 
with nothing. But we are willing to compromise our goal. Our goal and 
our hope is that we can work something out in this. But time is very, 
very short. We have been playing a delay game now for months. It cannot 
go on much longer. The conference will start. I hope they will address 
the conference, give their input, and we can work something out. But if 
not, we have got to move ahead.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make this point. I think 
sometimes we rush and abbreviate and then we end up paying for it down 
the road.
  Looking back, I know it certainly was not the fault of the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) because he and I had a private discussion 
on this, but the draft of this legislation was not available for very 
long before the Committee on the Judiciary went into markup. There was 
one business day between Judiciary markup and being in the Committee on 
Rules.
  So we rushed it through. We could have gotten I think better input 
had we taken more time. That is history now. We cannot undo it. But I 
think that if we take the time at this point, we will be able to 
resolve these issues.

[[Page H4850]]

  As I said, we put together an alternative. It got 190 votes. But I am 
not wedded to that. I have got very favorable feedback from CEOs in 
Silicon Valley on that effort. But it is not perfect. And there are 
ways to make that better or to make the Senate bills better. But we 
need to think outside the box. We cannot just be controlled by the 
Senators' names on which bills. It is think outside the box. It is 
think in terms of the functionality of relief that is required, and we 
will get there.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I hope that we do 
have a substantive conference that considers the House bill, which I 
think is a very strong bill. I was pleased to work with the gentleman 
from Virginia to craft it and see that it got through the House with a 
strong bipartisan vote. The Senate bill, while it does not go as far as 
I would like to see the legislation go, is a bill that I certainly can 
work with Senator McCain and other representatives of the Senate, and 
we certainly want to have that input from the administration.
  The only issue that I have not mentioned yet with regard to the broad 
subjects of this bill is the cap on punitive damages. It is clear the 
administration does not like the House bill. The Senate version is 
considerably watered down from the House version. So between the House 
bill and the Senate bill there is a lot to work with to enable us to 
come up with a very, very good bill; and we welcome the 
administration's input as we work to come up with that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just a couple corrections. One is that the White House 
has communicated to every member on the committees and the leadership, 
indeed every Member in the House. So they have not heard back. If my 
colleagues have not communicated with them, I mean these letters are to 
initiate communication. So that the communication may have been one 
way, but it certainly is not the White House's responsibility after 
they have reached out.
  Secondly, the Department of Justice sought to testify in the House 
Committee on the Judiciary and they were put in a very difficult 
position and were not able to do that.
  So it is not the White House that has not been out of communication. 
But that is not the issue here today. What we are talking about is 
whether or not the questions of joint liability, class action, and 
punitive damages caps are really on the table.
  I think I have heard from the Members on the other side of the aisle 
that they are. If they are, we are all set to take care of the real 
problems. And if we do that, we will be able to take care of a 
conference that will, I think, reflect confidently and positively on 
both Houses.
  The main thing that we want to do is not end up in a situation where 
we have ignored one branch of Government that would force them into a 
veto situation. And that is the only reason I am mentioning them today 
in this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) from the other side of the 
aisle to close the debate for us.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that when we get 
into conference, that we support as much as possible the principal 
elements of the House bill, because the House bill makes common sense.
  A special committee of the American Bar Association was put together 
to look at the potential Y2K litigation. They concluded that the 
potential cost of litigation on Y2K could be more than asbestos, breast 
cancer implants, tobacco and Superfund combined. They concluded that 
the litigation cost associated with Y2K could be as much as $1 
trillion.
  Now, if the cost of fixing the problem is only a small fraction of 
that $1 trillion, do we not have a responsibility as representatives of 
the American people to try to fix the problem, to avoid injuries, 
damages, problems before they occur? We do not want to wait, do we, 
until January 1st of the year 2000 and then get into a long, extended 
legal battle in every part of our economy and our society? We have a 
responsibility to fix the problem.
  When we talk about punitive damages, basically the lesson is, ``Go 
and sin no more.'' That is the lesson we want to tell people. But the 
fact is, this is a one-time occurrence. The same rules do not apply. We 
have got one serious situation and it arises by virtue of the fact we 
are in a technology revolution, things have changed, we have got to get 
over this change in dates. We can do it, we can do it responsibly, we 
can avoid spending $1 trillion to accomplish nothing, or we can do the 
people's will and prevent problems before they occur.
  Let us do the right thing. I would hope we would get a conference 
report that would resemble the House bill as much as possible.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds to ask my friend 
from Virginia if he supports the principle of compromise that we have 
argued, that all parties, not just the House and the Senate, but the 
White House, too, has to indulge in for us to accomplish our goal? This 
is where we are at now.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I totally agree with that, but I think the 
gentleman also agrees, our job is not to pad the pockets of the trial 
lawyers but it is to prevent problems from occurring and to ensure that 
we represent what is in the best interests of the American economy and 
the American society. Sometimes there is a conflict between those two. 
But I agree with what the gentleman said, and I hope that we can be in 
agreement when the conference report comes back on the floor.
  Mr. CONYERS. I tell the gentleman that that is absolutely not in 
contention now. I am just hoping that he can support the Conyers-
Lofgren motion to instruct which is about the compromise around three 
major issues that are still out.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. The answer is yes, I think we all will and we 
all should.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I just would note that the gentleman from 
Virginia mentioned the study done by the American Bar Association on 
the potential exposure of the American economy to litigation, and I 
think that is a serious issue. That is why we are all here. But I would 
note that, I think all of us received a copy of the letter sent by the 
American Bar Association to the President yesterday pointing out that 
the ABA opposes both the Senate bill and the House bill and this letter 
details the reasons why.
  One of the issues that is in contention has to do with federalizing 
all the class actions relative to Y2K litigation. The Chief Justice of 
the United States Supreme Court opposes that, and I think he knows how 
Federal courts work and how our court system works. So these are 
serious issues. They need to be addressed, they need to be remediated, 
and they can be.
  I have been in communication, as I have mentioned, with many, many of 
my constituents in Silicon Valley who are interested in this issue. 
Some of the issues in the Senate bill are meaningless to them, it is 
not important to them in terms of resolving things. Some of the issues 
are important. For example, joint and several liability is a very 
important issue and does need to be addressed.
  I will say this, that the White House has moved from no change in 
joint and several liability to the possibility of change in joint and 
several liability, but I would also note that there are five or six 
different ways to deal with that issue, all of which would resolve the 
problem for high tech. And so it is that kind of approach we are going 
to need, thinking outside the box, and applying solutions to problems 
rather than embracing bills that have been drafted and are in play.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In conclusion, we have made it clear that, first of all, we want 
everyone to support the Conyers-Lofgren motion to instruct. Secondly, 
if we want a bill,

[[Page H4851]]

then we will resolve these outstanding issues. Everyone has spoken in 
the spirit of compromise. The question that this motion poses is which 
road we will take. Are we going to engage in serious, sincere 
negotiation which will result in a bill in a week or so or an insincere 
process that will lead to the finger-pointing that will be inevitable 
with a veto?
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the 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 426, 
nays 0, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 253]

                               YEAS--426

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Brown (CA)
     Clement
     DeLay
     Ehrlich
     Gilchrest
     Kasich
     Rogan
     Towns

                              {time}  1343

  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the Chair 
appoints the following conferees:
  From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of the House 
bill and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference:
  Messrs. Hyde, Sensenbrenner, Goodlatte, Conyers, and Ms. Lofgren.
  From the Committee on Commerce, for consideration of section 18 of 
the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
  Messrs. Bliley, Oxley, and Dingell.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________