[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7371-7378]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       Y2K ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 96, which the clerk 
will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 96, a bill to 
     regulate commerce between and among the several States by 
     providing for the orderly resolution of disputes arising out 
     of computer-based problems related to processing data that 
     includes a 2-digit expression of the year's date.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I yield myself so much time as may be 
permitted under the unanimous-consent agreement.
  Pending the discussion with respect to the Y2K problem, let me say at 
the outset that if there were a Y2K problem, we on this side of the 
opposition, let's say, to the particular bill and the amendment 
forthcoming with respect to Senator McCain and Senator Wyden, anything 
within reason obviously could have been worked out; namely, anyone who 
has a computer knows glitches. So no one can deny there cannot be a 
glitch on January 1 of the year 2000. However, there is not really a 
problem that would cause us to try to change tort law. That is what is 
in the offing here.
  I have talked to the best of the best in the computer industry with 
the idea that we could compromise and give the 90-day grace period.
  People do not want to go to court when they find out their computer 
is not working. If there is one thing that takes time--the Securities 
and Exchange Commission and so-called tort reform--they are still in 
discovery, they are still in appeals, and they are still in court, 
without trying the case, some 2 years later, because they have yet to 
determine what was intended. The same would be the case here trying to 
really venture into the State responsibility and jurisdiction with tort 
with so-called overall reform law.
  So I thought, fine, let's get together on what could be called a 
glitch. Nobody wants to go to court. Give them some time to fix the 
glitch, and then move on in the business world. However, we have some 
friends down at the National Chamber of Commerce who are really bent on 
actually trying to pass product liability and do away with trial by 
jury and all the other State tort systems.
  I could spot this in my particular position because I have been 
engaged in it for at least 20 years on the Commerce Committee from 
which it has been reported each time. We have prevailed over the 20 
years. The reason we have prevailed is that the professionals in this 
particular field, whether it be the American Bar Association, the 
Association of State Legislatures, the Association of State Supreme 
Court Judges, the Association of Governors, until it was changed in 
effect, all opposed, and we were able to withstand the onslaught of 
this particular political move.
  I can tell you, Madam President, we are going to withstand it again 
on Y2K, unless they come around, of course. But I don't see a 
compromise in the offing.
  So I think immediately of what should be discussed; namely, 
television violence. We started on that with hearings at the beginning 
of the 1990s. This is 1999. And this Senator introduced a TV violence 
bill. We reported it out at that time 19 to 1 from the Congress before 
the last.
  I remember going up to Senator Dole, then majority leader, who was 
running for President, and saying, ``Look, we have got this bill out. 
The Attorney General has already attested to the fact that it would 
withstand constitutional muster on the freedom of speech provisions, 
and I will step aside if you want to make it. I am just interested in 
getting the bill, not the credit. So why don't you take the bill?''
  The point is that the distinguished Senator had just come in from the 
west coast, where he, if everyone will remember, had cussed out the 
movie industry for its gratuitous violence in all of its film making. 
So I thought it was a natural that he would want to follow through. He 
didn't. In the last Congress we then had it reported out by a vote of 
20 to 0--TV violence.
  This has nothing to do, of course, with the Nintendo games or the 
other little games they play on these machines. But it does have to do 
with the basic tendency towards violence without cost, without any 
harm, or injury, or feeling.
  We understand, of course, when you document the civil rights, when 
you document the matter of the Civil War, or any of these other things, 
you have to show the violence associated therewith in order to make an 
honest depiction; that is going to be included. But we are talking 
about gratuitous, excessive violence not incidental to the plot.
  The bill has been found to stand, as I say, constitutional muster.
  So we wanted to control that.
  I have that bill in again. I would rather think that really bowing to 
the Chamber of Commerce on particulars there with respect to State tort 
and State responsibilities--mind you me, my Republican friends in the 
leadership caterwaul that the best governed--or the less governed--that 
the best governed is at the local level.
  Why not let these local school boards control, rather than mandate 
from Washington this, that, or the next thing? Now they come with a 
mandate that the States have not asked for and the States would 
certainly oppose.
  I just talked to one of the great leaders in computerization who 
said, ``Senator, please don't pass this measure. The fact that 
companies don't get ready, they don't comply, is a competitive edge. My 
customers are checking them out. If they don't comply, I'm using that 
as a competitive advantage.''
  Let the market forces operate I say to those who always caterwaul 
about market forces and deregulation and wanting to regulate.
  Back to the main point. We really ought to whip through a bill on 
television violence and control that. We have quite a case to present 
to the Congress itself. In the initial stage of broadcasting, 
programmers said in the booklets, ``Get a murder early on to hold the 
audience.'' They love violence, they love murders, so get in a murder 
scene. I can show you that word for word in the CBS program in the 
earlier stages of television.
  We can also go to the Colorado case. About 4 years ago a solution was 
used that is working at this particular time. I went down to Columbia, 
SC, which is Richland County. The county sheriff, Leon Lott, said, 
``Senator, I want to

[[Page 7372]]

show you a school that was the most violent we had in the county--more 
drugs and trouble. We put a uniformed officer in the classroom.''
  Let me attest to this. I am not talking about some uniformed officer 
out in the parking lot looking for theft of the automobiles. I am 
talking about a law enforcement officer in contact with the students. 
This officer has not only taught the course, but associated himself in 
the afternoon with the athletic programs and in the evenings with the 
civic programs. If I had to pick a law enforcement officer, I would 
pick some all-American like our friend Bill Bradley--someone they look 
up to immediately, and put them in uniform.
  It is not too much to teach respect and have him associated on the 
campus. He walks, talks and teaches with the students, listens to the 
teachers and the principals. The students know who brings a weapon to 
the school grounds. The students know who brings drugs on the school 
properties. All they do is just nod their head, make a little motion. 
That security officer gets the hint immediately and goes in way ahead 
of time--preventing violence, preventing drugs--and if need be, gets 
them counseling or whatever.
  Senator Gregg and I provided just this kind of provision in the 
State-Justice-Commerce bill for the cops on the beat to be used. That 
is what Sheriff Lott was using in the Richland County schools. It is 
working in the other schools all over South Carolina.
  My reaction at the time of the Columbine High School in Littleton, 
CO, was, Did they have an officer? I heard some reports which said yes. 
If they did, that officer ought to be fired. Anybody that can offload 
that much weaponry--that security officer doesn't know what is going 
on. He is not even taking care of security.
  The main thing is to become, as they have in this particular 
approach, a role model for the students themselves. You can't put 
sensitive devices in every school in America. And we are not going to 
do that. Praying and counseling are well and good, but let's go ahead 
with a tried and true provision and get some leadership now that we can 
see, again, more than ever the need. We can be discussing those things 
rather than some political fix that you find in the polls.
  What about the lawyers? Every pollster and consultant says kill all 
the lawyers. That is popular. Reform, reform, reform; tort reform, get 
rid of the lawyers. Control their fees, control their verdicts, control 
the seventh amendment and the right of trial by jury. That is the whole 
scenario. We who understand and appreciate it and have been in the 
trenches now for 20 years are going to do our dead level best so that 
shall not go on.
  I think this afternoon at 5:30 we can vote cloture. I needed the time 
because we were not given notice about this particular measure coming 
up, but we are going to have to do some more head counting. We will 
have to prepare some amendments and debate the real issues facing the 
American people--not those being taken care of by the Governors and the 
States. All of the Senators running around trying to play catchup ball 
with the Governors from the elections last November, all those that got 
elected and preached ``education, education, education.''
  There is a primary responsibility of the Federal Government for 
national defense. A primary responsibility of the State government is 
education: 93 cents out of every education dollar is at the State or 
local level. We only have 6 or 7 cents that we can toy with. We cannot 
have all of that influence. We can come across with some good ideas in 
one particular State and try to make it possible on a pilot basis for 
other States and take the leadership that we gain locally and spread 
it. We support the Department of Education on that basis.
  It is so ludicrous that those who came from the 1994 elections 
wanting to abolish the Department of Education are now running around 
throwing money at the Department of Education. It is all politics.
  If we can stop using the government to get ourselves reelected with 
these silly consultants and what shows up in the poll, but what shows 
up on the front page. We know the need nationally to pay our bills. We 
had a debate about that--it was totally disregarded--all last week: 
``Save Social Security 100 percent.'' That was the majority leader's 
amendment.
  Madam President, I turned on the TV and he said the $6 billion for 
Kosovo was not enough; we will have to add another $6 billion. When 
asked where they will get the money, he said, ``From Social Security.''
  That is not the only surplus. That is the only way to hide it. But 
you can get $12 billion surplus from the civil service retirement fund, 
which they have been doing, and from the military retirement fund, 
which they have been using, but the mindset is immediately to go and 
spend Social Security to savage the fund. There again was another 
political charade. Today we are engaged in another political charade.
  At this particular time, with respect to the motion to proceed, I do 
not see much interest in actually debating. When the proponents come to 
the floor, I would like an opportunity to make a few points relative to 
the demerits of this particular measure, why it should not be enacted, 
and get their response. Thereby, Madam President, I reserve the 
remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the time for 
the call of the quorum here be allocated equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will be offering, with my friend and 
colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, a substitute amendment to S. 96, 
the Y2K Act, at the appropriate time. The substitute amendment we will 
be offering is a bipartisan effort. We worked diligently with our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address concerns, narrow some 
provisions, and assure this bill will sunset when it is no longer 
pertinent and necessary.
  Senator Wyden, who said at our committee markup that he wanted to get 
to ``yes,'' worked tirelessly with me to get there. He and others--but 
he especially--have offered excellent suggestions and comments. I think 
the substitute we bring today is a better piece of legislation for his 
efforts.
  Specifically, the substitute would provide time for plaintiffs and 
defendants to resolve Y2K problems without litigation. It reiterates 
the plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages and highlights the defendant's 
opportunity to assist plaintiffs in doing that by providing information 
and resources.
  That provides for proportional liability in most cases, with 
exceptions for fraudulent or intentional conduct, or where the 
plaintiff has limited assets. It protects governmental entities, 
including municipalities, schools, fire, water, and sanitation 
districts, from punitive damages. It eliminates punitive damage limits 
for egregious conduct, while providing some protection against runaway 
punitive damage awards. And it provides protection for those not 
directly involved in a Y2K failure.
  The bill, as amended, does not cover personal injury and wrongful 
death cases. It is important to keep in mind the broad support that 
this bill has from virtually every segment of our economy. This bill is 
important not only to the high-tech industry, or only to big business, 
but it carries the strong support of small businesses, retailers, and 
wholesalers.

[[Page 7373]]

  Many of those supporting the bill will find themselves as both 
plaintiffs and defendants. They have weighed the benefits and drawbacks 
of the provisions of this bill and have overwhelmingly concluded that 
their chief priority is to prevent and fix Y2K problems and make our 
technology work, not divert the resources into time-consuming and 
costly litigation.
  One of the most troubling aspects of the looming Y2K problem is the 
new industry being created by opportunistic lawyers. Many companies 
feel they are ``damned if they do, dammed if they don't'' when it comes 
to acknowledging potential Y2K failures. If they do not say anything 
and later have a problem, they will certainly be sued. But if they say 
something now, they may still be sued, and before anything even has 
gone wrong. Over 80 lawsuits, mostly class actions, have already been 
filed and we are still many months away from the year 2000.
  The SEC reported in February that many companies are not complying 
with the SEC disclosure requirements either as to what actions they are 
taking to prepare, how much the effort is costing, or what contingency 
plans are being put into place. The Senate Special Committee on the 
Year 2000 Problem reported February 24--and I quote--``Fear of 
litigation and loss of competitive advantage are the most commonly 
cited reasons for barebones disclosure.''
  It is my hope that S. 96 will be the catalyst for technology 
producers to work with technology users to ensure a seamless transition 
from the 1990s to the year 2000. The goal is to make January 1 a 
nonevent.
  The purposes of this legislation is to ensure that we solve the Y2K 
technology glitch rather than clog our courts with years of costly 
litigation. The purpose is to ensure a continued, stable economy, which 
obviously is beneficial to everyone in our country.
  The bill encourages efficient resolution of failures by requiring 
plaintiffs to afford their potential defendants an opportunity to 
remedy the failure and make things right before facing a lawsuit. We 
should encourage people to talk to each other, to try to address and 
remedy problems in a timely and professional manner.
  The potential for litigation to overwhelm the Nation's judicial 
system is very real. We must reserve the judicial system for the most 
egregious cases involving Y2K problems. Litigation costs have been 
estimated as high as $1 trillion. Certainly the burden of paying for 
litigation will be distributed to the public in the form of increased 
costs for technological goods and services.
  The potential drain on the Nation's economy, and the world's economy, 
from both fixing the computer systems and responding to litigation, is 
staggering. While the estimates being circulated are speculative, the 
cost of making the corrections in all the computer systems in the 
country is astronomical. Chase Manhattan Bank has been quoted as 
spending $250 million to fix problems with its 200 million lines of 
affected computer code. The estimated cost of fixing the problem in the 
United States ranges from $200 billion to $1 trillion. The resources 
which would be directed to litigation are resources that would not be 
available for continued improvements in technology, producing new 
products, and maintaining the economy that supports the position of the 
United States as a world leader.
  As I said last week, time is of the essence. If this bill is going to 
have the intended effect of encouraging proactive prevention and 
remediation of Y2K problems, it has to be passed quickly. This bill 
will have limited value if it is passed later this fall.
  Senator Hollings, my friend, has expressed in committee his concerns. 
I want to state up front that while we disagree, we have never been 
disagreeable. I respect his views; we just disagree on this matter. And 
I know, as I said earlier, we will have a lively debate on this bill.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give careful 
consideration to the substitute amendment and join with me, Senator 
Wyden, and our other cosponsors, Senators Gorton, Abraham, Lott, Frist, 
Burns, Smith of Oregon, and Santorum, in bringing this substitute to 
fruition. It makes sense, it is practical, and we need it now.
  There are several letters, Madam President, from various 
organizations throughout the country that I would like to quote from. I 
ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the first letter I would like to quote 
briefly from is from the National Federation of Independent Business, 
the Voice of Small Business.

       On behalf of the 600,000 members of the National Federation 
     of Independent Business (NFIB), I would like to thank you for 
     helping the nation's small business community prepare for the 
     millennium.
       NFIB strongly supports S. 96 . . . specifically the 
     provisions that limit punitive damages and urge quick 
     resolution of legal disputes. We believe that S. 96 creates a 
     fair and level playing field for the settlement of year 2000 
     (Y2K) disputes.
       Because small business owners operate on such a slim profit 
     margin, every second and every dollar counts. Therefore, 
     legislation addressing Y2K litigation must provide a speedy 
     and effective solution to disputes. Small businesses do not 
     have the luxury of waiting months or years for courts to 
     replace lost revenues or failed products. S. 96 encourages 
     the use of alternate dispute resolution (ADR) and provides a 
     ``cooling off" period during which disputes can be resolved 
     outside of court. NFIB's goal is to keep small businesses out 
     of court, and we believe S. 96 will do that in most cases.
       We do realize that some businesses will--and should--
     resolve their disputes in court. Regardless of whether they 
     would be plaintiffs or defendants, 93% of NFIB members 
     support limiting punitive damages. Caps help eliminate 
     frivolous lawsuits and the unnecessary expenditure of legal 
     fees by small businesses.

  That is from the National Federation of Independent Business.
  There are those who have argued in the media that this legislation is 
simply there to support the ``high-tech community'' and large 
corporations. I don't think that would make it possible for the NFIB, 
which represents 600,000 members, to support this legislation.
  Next I would like to briefly quote from the American Insurance 
Association, which represents nearly 300 property casualty/insurers 
with millions of policyholders and thousands of employees across the 
Nation. Member companies insure families, small businesses and large 
businesses in every State.

       Even with this commitment and dedication to minimizing Y2K 
     disruption, we can expect problems to occur. And 
     unfortunately in our litigious society, lawsuits or the fear 
     of lawsuits will inhibit solutions and multiply the 
     disruptive impact of system failures.
       [Again,] on behalf of the member companies of the American 
     Insurance Association, I urge you to support the year 2000 
     reforms on final passage and cloture.

  The Intel Corporation, Tosco, the leading technology corporations, 
many of the leading technology industry companies in America, including 
the CEO of American Electronics Association, President and CEO of 
Alexander Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, CEO of Marimba, Managing 
Director of Merrill Lynch, chairman and CEO of Novell, Chairman and CEO 
of FileNet, and the list goes on of leading presidents and CEOs of the 
high-tech industries in America, MicroAge, Alcatel, and the 
International Mass Retail Association--all these organizations and more 
support this legislation. I don't think they necessarily do so for 
selfish reasons, although certainly they are motivated to a large 
degree by their ability to provide the necessary profits to their 
shareholders.
  But I think also they are more committed to making sure that this 
incredible economy that we are experiencing would continue to provide 
so many jobs and opportunities for so many Americans, without draining 
hundreds of billions of dollars from the economy.
  My friend, Senator Hollings, has asserted that S. 96 is the camel's 
nose under the tent for product liability and tort reform. I clearly do 
not believe that is the case. I am a strong supporter of product 
liability tort reform, but I believe that this legislation clearly is 
not the case. It contains a sunset provision to assure that this is 
considered, as it should be, a temporary

[[Page 7374]]

measure to deal with a unique situation.
  The sunset language in section 4(a) of the bill provides that the act 
applies to a Y2K failure occurring before January 1 of the year 2003, 
hardly a victory for widespread tort or product liability reform. The 
potential for massive litigation involving virtually every industrial 
segment of our country, both small businesses and large, compels a 
rational and practical solution to prevent litigation from destroying 
the economic well-being of the country.
  There is a need for this bill, Madam President. I will just point out 
one example of opportunistic legislation. I am told that Mr. Tom 
Johnson, acting as a private attorney general under California consumer 
protection laws, has brought an action against a group of retailers, 
including Circuit City, Office Depot, Office Max, CompUSA, Staples, 
Fryes, and the Good Guys, Incorporated for failing to warn consumers 
about products that are not Y2K compliant. He has not alleged any 
injury or economic damage to himself, but pursuant to State statute, 
has requested relief in the amount of all of the defendants' profits 
from 1995 to date from selling these products and restitution to ``all 
members of the California general public.''
  Although he claims that numerous products are involved, he has not 
specified which products are covered by his allegations, but has 
generally named products by Toshiba, IBM, Compaq, Intuit, Hewlett 
Packard and Microsoft.
  This is precisely, Madam President, the type of frivolous and 
opportunistic lawsuit which would be avoided by S. 96. Rather than have 
all of these named companies wasting time and resources preparing a 
defense for this case, S. 96 would direct the focus to fixing real 
problems. In this instance, it does not appear that Mr. Johnson has an 
actual problem. But if he does, he would need to articulate what is not 
working due to a Y2K failure. The company or companies responsible 
would then have an opportunity to address and fix the specific problem. 
If the problem isn't fixed, then Mr. Johnson would be free to bring his 
suit.
  It is crystal clear that the real reason for this lawsuit is not to 
fix a problem that Mr. Johnson has with any of his computer hardware or 
software, but to see whether he can convince the companies involved 
that it is cheaper to buy him off in a settlement than to litigate, 
even if the case is eventually dismissed or decided in their favor. 
This case is the tip of the iceberg.
  If thousands of similar suits are brought after January 1, the 
judicial system will be overrun and the Nation's economy will be thrown 
into turmoil. This is a senseless and needless abuse that we can avoid 
by passing S. 96.
  Madam President, there are numerous provisions in this bill, but I 
just want to repeat one of the most crucial aspects of this 
legislation. If a problem is identified, then whoever it is that is the 
manufacturer has 90 days in order to fix the problem. If they do not 
fix the problem, then go to court. But it is hard for me to understand 
why a company or corporation who manufactured this particular product 
should not be allowed to have an opportunity to fix the problem for the 
user. It makes perfect sense--how could anyone object to such a thing--
because these companies and corporations, if they are not committed to 
fix the problem, then they should be sued. That is what our court 
system is all about. But it makes perfect sense to me to give them an 
opportunity to fix a problem that they may not have knowledge of before 
they find themselves all day hauled into court.

                             Exhibit No. 1

                                               National Federation


                                      of Independent Business,

                                   Washington, DC, April 21, 1999.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman McCain: On behalf of the 600,000 members 
     of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), I 
     would like to thank you for your leadership in helping the 
     nation's small business community prepare for the millennium.
       NFIB strongly supports S. 96, the McCain-Wyden ``Y2K Act,'' 
     specifically the provisions that limit punitive damages and 
     urge quick resolution of legal disputes. We believe that S. 
     96 creates a fair and level playing field for the settlement 
     of Year 2000 (Y2K) disputes.
       Every day, more small businesses prepare themselves for 
     potential Y2K problems within their own operations. No amount 
     of preparation, however, can keep them from being affected by 
     problems afflicting others: their suppliers, customers or 
     financial institutions. For this reason, businesses of all 
     sizes and types must be encouraged to address their Y2K 
     problems now. S. 96 encourages mitigation now to avoid 
     litigation later.
       Because small business owners operate on such a slim profit 
     margin, every second and every dollar counts. Therefore, 
     legislation addressing Y2K litigation must provide a speedy 
     and effective solution to disputes. Small businesses do not 
     have the luxury of waiting months or years for courts to 
     replace lost revenue or failed products. S. 96 encourages the 
     use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and provides a 
     ``cooling off'' period during which disputes can be resolved 
     outside of court. NFIB's goal is to keep small businesses out 
     of court, and we believe S. 96 will do that in most cases.
       We do realize that some businesses will--and should--
     resolve their disputes in court. Regardless of whether they 
     would be plaintiffs or defendants, 93% of NFIB members 
     support limiting punitive damages. Caps help eliminate 
     frivolous lawsuits and the unnecessary expenditure of legal 
     fees by small businesses.
       As S. 96 moves to the floor, I would like to commend and 
     thank you for your leadership on Y2K preparedness 
     legislation. I appreciate your consideration of the concerns 
     of the small business community on this issue and look 
     forward to working with you in the future.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Dan Danner,

                                                   Vice President,
     Federal Public Policy.
                                  ____



                               American Insurance Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 15, 1999.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The American Insurance Association 
     represents nearly 300 property/casualty insurers, with 
     millions of policyholders and thousands of employees across 
     the nation. Our member companies insure families, small 
     businesses, and large businesses in every state. A key issue 
     of concern to AIA members and their employees is providing a 
     predictable and fair framework within which the courts will 
     consider Year 2000 disputes. On behalf of our member 
     companies and their employees, I urge you to support both the 
     cloture vote and final passage of the pending Year 2000 
     reforms (the revised S. 96, the Y2K Act).
       American Insurance Association members are leaders in 
     advocating loss prevention measures for our individual and 
     business policyholders, and we're proud to say that AIA 
     companies have worked diligently, some for as long as a 
     decade, to ensure our systems are Y2K compliant. Across the 
     nation, American businesses are preparing for the Year 2000 
     in the same way.
       Even with this commitment and dedication to minimizing Y2K 
     disruption, we can expect problems to occur. And 
     unfortunately in our litigious society, lawsuits, or the fear 
     of lawsuits, can inhibit solutions and multiply the 
     disruptive impact of systems failures.
       The American Insurance Association supports Congress' 
     efforts to minimize the economic costs arising from this 
     once-in-a-millennium event. The bipartisan bill under 
     consideration, the revised S. 96 provides a balanced, 
     measured, and modest response to the uncertainty posed by the 
     Year 2000. Our members strongly support this legislation.
       Our priority is legislation that encourages a legal 
     environment where problem-solvers compete for business, not 
     fear frivolous lawsuits, legitimate claims are resolved 
     promptly, and where legal profiteering cannot take advantage 
     of a once-in-a-millennium problem. The bipartisan bills 
     accomplish these goals.
       Again, on behalf of the member companies of the American 
     Insurance Association, I urge you to support the Year 2000 
     reforms on final passage and cloture. With best wishes I 
     remain,
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Robert E. Vagley,
     President.
                                  ____



                                            Intel Corporation,

                                  Santa Clara, CA, April 19, 1999.
     Re Y2000 legislation.

     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: I write to ask for your help in 
     enacting legislation designed to provide guidance to our 
     state and federal courts in managing litigation that may 
     arise out of the transition to Year 2000-compliant computer 
     hardware and software systems. This week, the Senate is 
     expected to vote upon a bipartisan substitute text for S. 96, 
     the ``Y2K Act'', which we strongly support.
       Parties who are economically damaged by a Year 2000 failure 
     must have the ability to

[[Page 7375]]

     seek redress where traditional legal principles would provide 
     a remedy for such injury. At the same time, it is vital that 
     limited resources be devoted as much as possible to fixing 
     the problems, not litigating. Our legal system must encourage 
     parties to engage in cooperative remediation efforts before 
     taking complaints to the courts, which could be overwhelmed 
     by Year 2000 lawsuits.
       The consensus text that has evolved from continuing 
     bipartisan discussions would substantially encourage 
     cooperative action and discourage frivolous lawsuits. 
     Included in its provisions are several key measures that are 
     essential to ensure fair treatment of all parties under the 
     law:
       Procedural incentives--such as a requirement of notice and 
     an opportunity to cure defects before suit is filed, and 
     encouraged for engaging in alternative dispute resolution--
     that will lead parties to identify solutions before pursuing 
     grievances in court;
       A requirement that courts respect the provisions of 
     contracts--particularly important in preserving agreements of 
     the parties on such matters as warranty obligations and 
     definition of recoverable damages;
       Threshold pleading provisions requiring particularity as to 
     the nature, amount, and factual basis for damages and 
     materiality of defects, that will help constrain class action 
     suits brought on behalf of parties that have suffered no 
     significant injury;
       Appointment of liability according to fault, on principles 
     approved by the Senate in two previous measures enacted in 
     the area of securities reform.
       This legislation--which will apply only to Y2K suits, and 
     only for a limited period of time--will allow plaintiffs with 
     real grievances to obtain relief under the law, while 
     protecting the judicial system from a flood of suits that 
     have no objective other than the obtainment of high-dollar 
     settlements for speculative or de minimus injuries. 
     Importantly, it does not apply to cases that arise out of 
     personal injury.
       At Intel, we are devoting considerable resources to Y2K 
     remediation. Our efforts are focused not only on our internal 
     systems, but also those of our suppliers, both domestic and 
     foreign. Moreover, we have taken advantage of the important 
     protections for disclosure of product information that 
     Congress enacted last year to ensure that our customers are 
     fully informed as to issues that may be present with legacy 
     products. What is true for Intel is true for all companies: 
     time and resources must be devoted as much as possible to 
     fixing the Year 2000 problem and not pointing fingers of 
     blame.
       For these reasons, we urge you to vote in favor of 
     responsible legislation that will protect legitimately 
     aggrieved parties while providing a stable, uniform legal 
     playing field within which these matters can be handled by 
     state and federal courts with fairness and eficiency.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Craig R. Barrett,
     CEO.
                                  ____



                                                        Tosco,

                                     Stamford, CT, April 14, 1999.
     Re Y2K Act (S. 96)--support.

     Hon. John McCain,
     Senate Russell Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of Tosco Corporation 
     (``Tosco''), I commend you for sponsoring the Y2K Act (S. 
     96), which will facilitate computer preparations for the 
     transition to the Year 2000. Tosco is one of nation's largest 
     independent refiners and marketers of gasoline and petroleum 
     products. We market gasoline in Arizona through more than 700 
     retail outlets in the state under our Circle K, Union 76, and 
     Exxon brands. Our marketing headquarters is located at Tempe, 
     Arizona, and we have 6,500 employees in the state.
       Your Y2K Act will focus resources on the actual solution of 
     Y2K problems and will reduce the risk of costly and 
     unnecessary litigation. The opportunity for pre-litigation 
     resolution will benefit both potential plaintiffs and 
     potential defendants. The protection against liability for 
     harm caused by other parties and the limits on punitive 
     damages will reduce the incentive for widespread speculative 
     lawsuits targeted on large companies such as Tosco.
       We also urge you to oppose the alternative Y2K bills which 
     do not provide for proportionate liability and do not limit 
     punitive damages. These bills will not protect against 
     ``bounty hunting'' lawsuits which could aggravate Y2K 
     transition problems by hamstringing the business community 
     with complicated litigation and potentially unlimited 
     exposure.
       Tosco is undertaking a comprehensive effort to have its 
     computer systems ready for the transition to the Year 2000, 
     and we are working closely with our customers and vendors. 
     While we expect a smooth transition, we believe S. 96 will 
     provide a useful framework for resolving any problems which 
     may arise.
       All members of the business community share the 
     responsibility to be prepared for the computer transition to 
     the Year 2000. Your well-conceived Y2K Act will help protect 
     companies which prepare for the transition in a timely manner 
     while retaining appropriate legal remedies in the event other 
     companies do not meet their responsibilities.
       Tosco strongly supports S. 96. We also oppose the 
     alternative Y2K legislation which does not place reasonable 
     limits on litigation exposure. Please call me if you would 
     like any further information.
           Very truly yours,

                                            Ann Farner Miller,

                                                   Vice President,
     Government Relations.
                                  ____



                                           Technology Network,

                                                    March 5, 1999.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: We are writing on behalf of some of 
     the nation's leading technology industry companies to voice 
     support for the ``Y2K Act'' (S. 96 as amended), and to thank 
     you for introducing this bipartisan legislation to address 
     the important issue of Year 2000 readiness.
       Technology companies are working aggressively to achieve 
     Y2K readiness as soon as possible. In close partnership with 
     their suppliers and customers, our companies are working to 
     identify potential problems, fix systems and conduct tests to 
     ensure that they are ready for Y2K. The technology industries 
     have committed extraordinary resources to ensure a smooth 
     transition to the Year 2000. Unfortunately, industry efforts 
     to address Y2K readiness are threatened by concern about 
     potential litigation.
       Lawsuits designed to exploit the Year 2000 issue will turn 
     industry attention and resources away from the critical task 
     of ensuring that computer systems are Y2K compliant. We fully 
     support comprehensive legislation to ensure that companies 
     that act in good faith to solve Y2K disruptions are protected 
     from opportunistic litigation that slows the important work 
     of remediation. Legislation is essential to ensure that 
     companies concentrate their full attention and resources on 
     Year 2000 readiness, and not on wasteful or abusive lawsuits.
       The technology industry appreciates your leadership in 
     championing a solution to this critical national issue. This 
     legislation is an essential part of a comprehensive solution 
     to the Y2K challenge and builds upon the ``Good Samaritan'' 
     bill that Congress enacted last year.
       Immediate action is necessary to protect our nation's 
     economic vitality and security. We must address this pressing 
     issue as early as possible in 1999. It is clearly in the 
     interest of all Americans that we spend resources on 
     remediation, and not on litigation. We commend you for your 
     leadership and attention to this important issue and urge the 
     Congress to enact Y2K legislation as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
         John Chambers, President & CEO, Cisco Systems; Les 
           Vadasz, Senior Vice President, Intel; Pam Alexander, 
           President & CEO, Alexander Ogilvy Public Relations 
           Worldwide; William Archey, CEO, American Electronics 
           Association; Kathy Behrens, President, NVCA; Brook 
           Byers, Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers; Steve 
           Case, Chairman & CEO, America OnLine; Wilfred Corrigan, 
           CEO & Chairman, LSI Logic; William Davidow, Partner, 
           Mohr Davidow Ventures; Bob Herbold, Executive Vice 
           President & COO, Microsoft Corporation; George Klaus, 
           CEO, Platinum Software; Kim Polese, CEO, Marimba, Inc.; 
           Colleen Poulliot, Senior VP, General Counsel & 
           Secretary, Adobe Systems; Willem Roelandts, President & 
           CEO, Xilinx; Michael Rowan, CEO, Kestrel Solutions; 
           Scott Ryles, Managing Director, Merrill Lynch; Eric 
           Schmidt, Chairman & CEO, Novell; Ted Smith, Chairman & 
           CEO, FileNet.
                                  ____

                                                International Mass


                                           Retail Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 15, 1999.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the International Mass 
     Retail Association (IMRA), I would like to thank you for 
     sponsoring the Y2K Act (S. 96). This legislation is crucial 
     to preventing frivolous Y2K lawsuits from imposing needless 
     costs on businesses and congesting the court system.
       Companies should focus their time and effort on assuring 
     that their computer systems, and those of their suppliers, 
     will be Y2K-compliant--not in preparing for lawsuits, that 
     could harm a prospering U.S. economy and even cost some 
     workers their jobs. Without adequate safeguards against 
     frivolous lawsuits, American consumers may suffer more from 
     Y2K lawsuits than from Y2K failures.
       IMRA supports the Y2K Act (S. 96). S. 96 gives companies an 
     incentive to work to prevent Y2K failures. The bill provides 
     a chance to fix potential Y2K problems before lawsuits are 
     filed. With an orderly process like this, which favors 
     remediation over litigation, courts may soon become 
     backlogged with Y2K lawsuits that could, and should, be 
     resolved through faster, more cooperative methods.

[[Page 7376]]

       The International Mass Retail Association represents the 
     mass retail industry--consumers' first choice for price, 
     value and convenience. Its membership includes the fastest 
     growing retailers in the world--discount department stores, 
     home centers, category dominant specialty discounters, 
     catalogue showrooms, dollar stores, warehouse clubs, deep 
     discount drugstores and off-price stores--and the 
     manufacturers who supply them. IMRA retail members operate 
     more than 106,000 American stores and employ millions of 
     workers. One in every ten Americans works in the mass retail 
     industry, and IMRA retail members represent over $411 billion 
     in annual sales.
       We deeply appreciate your support on this issue and look 
     forward to working closely with you toward a successful 
     outcome early next year. Once again, many thanks for your 
     support of the mass retail industry.
           Sincerely,
                                               Robert J. Verdisco,
     President.
                                  ____



                                                      Alcatel,

                                        Plano, TX, March 26, 1999.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The purpose of this letter is to 
     express my personal appreciation and support for the 
     legislation you recently introduced in the United States 
     Senate to limit runaway liability awards in the event of Y2K 
     problems.
       As a major telecommunications equipment company and an 
     employer of over 11,000 people in the United States, Alcatel 
     USA has a vested interest in this important issue. We have 
     spent tens of millions of dollars on Y2K remediation and are 
     making a continuing, company-wide effort to protect our 
     valued customers from Y2K-related failures. We wholeheartedly 
     endorse your emphasis on ``remediation not litigation'' and 
     have put our money, technical expertise and manpower behind 
     this concept.
       I realize that aspects of your legislation are 
     controversial and that some compromises may be necessary in 
     the weeks ahead. During the negotiating process I would ask 
     you to keep in mind what Alcatel considers to be the minimum 
     essential elements of any legislation limiting the liability 
     of responsible corporations.
       They are:
       Preeminence of existing contracts and agreements
       Pretrial notice and cure periods
       Proportional liability instead of joint and several 
     liability
       Damages limited to direct or consequential
       If there is anything that Alcatel USA can do in support of 
     your legislation, please feel free to contact me or David 
     Owen, the head of our Washington Government Relations Office 
     (703-724-2930). Our Washington office has instructions to 
     work closely with the National Association of Manufacturers, 
     the Telecommunications Industry Association, and the US 
     Chamber of Commerce in order to guarantee that our advocacy 
     activities for Y2K liability limitations are focused and well 
     coordinated.
       In closing, I would like to thank you once again for 
     spearheading this important legislative initiative to protect 
     our vibrant economy from a ``feeding frenzy'' of destructive 
     and ultimately unproductive litigation.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                     Krish Prabhu,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                                     MicroAge,

                                          Tempe, AZ March 3, 1999.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science & 
         Transportation, Washington DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: I support passage of Y2K Act, S. 96. I 
     also represent the Computing Technology Industry Association 
     (CompTIA) with 7800 company members representing IT Industry 
     manufacturers, distributors and resellers. CompTIA support 
     passage of Y2K Act, S. 96.
       Small and large businesses are eager to solve the Y2K 
     problem, yet many are not doing so, primarily because of the 
     fear of liability and lawsuits. The potential for excessive 
     litigation and the negative impact on targeted industries are 
     already diverting precious resources that could otherwise be 
     used to help fix the Y2K problem.
       As I understand the bill, the purpose of this proposed 
     legislation is to encourage Y2K remediation, not litigation. 
     American industry already is making massive investments to 
     prepare for the millennium computer problem. A deluge of 
     lawsuits would inhibit these efforts--particularly in the 
     growth sector of the economy. This legislation creates 
     incentives to fix Y2K problems before they develop by 
     encouraging parties to resolve disputes without litigation, 
     but it also preserves the rights of those who suffer real 
     injuries to file suits if necessary.
       The Business Community Coalition, of which CompTIA is an 
     active member, is also supporting Y2K reform, representing 
     all industry sectors and business sizes, is supporting Y2K 
     reform legislation designed to encourage a fair, fast and 
     predictable mechanism for resolving Y2K-related disputes.
           Respectfully yours,
                                                     Alan P. Hald,
     Co-Founder.
                                  ____



                                                         NPES,

                                       Reston, VA, April 20, 1999.


       OPEN LETTER TO THE SENATE IN SUPPORT OF S. 96--THE Y2K ACT

       On behalf of the over 400 member companies of NPES the 
     Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing and 
     Converting Technologies I urge you to support S. 96, the Y2K 
     Act, when it comes to the Senate floor this week.
       S. 96 is a remediation bill that will encourage businesses 
     to fix Y2K problems without undue concern for unlimited and 
     unwarranted liability that could arise from Y2K failures. S. 
     96 does not insulate negligent companies from being held 
     responsible for their actions, and it does not leave victims 
     of Y2K-related problems without recourse within the legal 
     system. S. 96 will discourage frivolous litigation, but it 
     will not preclude legitimate claims.
       Most importantly, S. 96 encourages resolution of disputes 
     before the contentiousness and expense of litigation. If a 
     business suffers a Year 2000 failure, the most important next 
     step should be solving the problem and getting back to 
     business, not engaging in counterproductive lawsuits that 
     contribute little towards getting a company back serving its 
     customers.
       NPES' members, as equipment manufacturers and sellers, 
     could well find themselves as both plaintiffs and defendants 
     in potential Y2K-related lawsuits. With this perspective, we 
     believe S. 96 strikes the proper balance encouraging 
     appropriate remedial action and protecting legitimate 
     interests of injured parties. Therefore, we urge you to 
     support S. 96 so that the American business community can 
     focus on addressing Y2K-related problems in the last months 
     of the year, rather than diverting resources to responding to 
     a potential calamity of counterproductive litigation 
     following New Year's Day 2000.
           Sincerely,
                                             Regis J. Delmontague,
                                                        President.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I note the presence of the Senator from 
Washington on the floor, and I yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Is time controlled?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled. Does the chairman wish 
to yield time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Washington 
such time as he may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I support legislation designed to avert 
and control what could be a litigation bonanza stemming from the Y2K 
problem. We can't be sure what computer-based system, if any, may go 
awry at midnight, December 31, 1999, but we should not sit by idly and 
wait to find out. The Y2K Act attempts proactively to provide 
incentives for everyone, potential plaintiffs and defendants alike, to 
cure Y2K compliance problems before they occur and to impose reasonable 
limits on liability and rules for the prosecution of lawsuits arising 
from Y2K failures.
  On today's editorial page, the New York Times criticizes Senator 
McCain's Y2K legislation and opines that:

       Congress can also clarify the liability of companies once 
     it becomes clear how widespread the problem really is. But 
     before the new year, the government should not use the 
     millennium bug to overturn longstanding liability practices. 
     I strongly disagree. We know that our current liability 
     system, longstanding as it may be, is flawed in that it 
     increasingly lends itself to lawsuits of limited merit, but 
     huge downside risks, excessive delays, and creative and often 
     unfair theories of liability. Just as it is irresponsible for 
     people not to take remedial action to avoid the Y2K problem, 
     it would be irresponsible for Congress not to fix our 
     litigation system with respect to its handling of this 
     specific issue, to deal with the flood of potential cases and 
     the enormous, possibly destructive, burden that litigation 
     can impose on potential defendants. Of particular concern to 
     me are the smaller high-technology companies that have been 
     thriving in Washington State and across the Nation. I have 
     met with and heard from numerous representatives from these 
     companies. To them, the threat of abusive litigation is not 
     speculative or illusory; it is real and potentially fatal.

  Senator McCain's substitute to S. 96, of which I am a cosponsor, is 
an improvement in some respects to the bill that we passed out of the 
Commerce Committee, not in the least because this substitute enjoys 
bipartisan support. Notably, the substitute modifies

[[Page 7377]]

the provisions in S. 96 on punitive damages and joint liability. While 
S. 96 established strict caps on punitive damages, the substitute 
permits these caps to be pierced if the plaintiff establishes by clear 
and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with specific intent 
to injure the plaintiff. The absolute prohibition on joint liability 
originally contained in S. 96 has also been modified.
  The substitute roughly tracks the exceptions to joint liability 
limits contained in the 1995 securities litigation reform legislation. 
Rather than to prohibit joint liability in all cases, the substitute 
permits joint liability, subject to State limits, in situations in 
which plaintiffs' assets are limited and damages exceed 10 percent of 
those assets; in situations in which damages cannot be recovered 
against another defendant; and against defendants who acted with 
specific intent to injure the plaintiff or who knowingly committed 
fraud.
  Madam President, these changes have been made by Senator McCain in a 
genuine effort to see to it that the broad appeal of this bill becomes 
even broader.
  In addition to modifying the limitations on punitive damages and 
joint liability, the substitute, among other changes, strikes the 
provision in S. 96 that created the defense for those using reasonable 
efforts to prevent Y2K problems; modifies the circumstances under which 
the terms of a written contract will be enforced by recognizing State 
statutes that limit enforcement of certain terms, and expands the 
exceptions to the economic loss rule.
  Madam President, these are not simple legal concepts. While I think 
S. 96 has benefitted from more deliberative review by interested 
parties representing potential plaintiffs and defendants alike, I am 
still not convinced that the substitute has achieved the precisely 
correct balance of promoting remedial action, effectively curtailing 
abusive lawsuits, and not simply changing the way in which plaintiffs 
plead their cases, and ensuring that plaintiffs have adequate recourse 
for damages. I nevertheless wholeheartedly support Y2K liability 
legislation because I believe it is our responsibility to prevent 
foreseeable litigation that could clog our State and Federal courts and 
divert enormous resources away from production and toward litigation. 
The Senate should pass Y2K liability legislation and should do so as 
soon as possible. I expect that the bill can be further refined and 
improved during floor debate and again in conference.
  I want to add to my formal written remarks my admiration for the 
tremendous amount of effort that the chairman of the Commerce Committee 
has put into attempting to see to it that we here end up with a bill 
that becomes law, even though it requires a number of compromises, 
rather than simply to become another item of debate and division.
  Tort reform, product liability legislation, and medical malpractice 
legislation are all important national issues, but they are all 
extremely divisive. In this case, for this particular form of 
litigation, which has no precedent in the United States, reform is 
genuinely needed. The Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the 
Commerce Committee, has brought us a long way along the right road, and 
I have every confidence that we will finish with success.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
his kind remarks, but most importantly for his deep involvement in this 
issue. As a former attorney general of his State, he understands these 
issues better than I do, and his assistance in this effort is extremely 
valuable and important.
  Madam President, I don't have any speakers at this time. I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona, our chairman, talked about frivolous lawsuits and deep pockets 
and glitches. It strikes this Senator that what we have ongoing at the 
moment are computer glitches. Every now and again, we all run into it--
on my computer and others' around. Certainly it is an industry that has 
deep pockets, is worth billions of dollars, and some never have made a 
profit. But the market is valuable, with investments in the billions of 
dollars. So with glitches and deep pockets, you would think, by the 
description about frivolous lawsuits, that there would be lawyers all 
running around with frivolous lawsuits, saying, ``they got deep 
pockets,'' and there are glitches, and everybody would be suing 
everybody.
  Of course, that just proves the contention of the need for this bill. 
You go from the different styles. I was here when they went after the 
oil money. I was here when the oil went after the milk money. Now, in 
2000, they are going after Silicon Valley and everybody is running out 
there to get their money and their blessing, and they never had any 
lawyers before, or any representatives. Now they have them all marching 
into Washington. But other than the politics, the business community is 
taking care of it.
  I refer, if the distinguished Presiding Officer pleases, to the March 
1 issue of Business Week. On page 30, it says:

       Lloyd Davis is feeling squeezed. In 1998, his $2 million, 
     25-employee fertilizer-equipment business was buffeted by the 
     harsh winds that swept the farm community. This year, his 
     Golden Plains Agricultural Technologies, Inc. in Colby, 
     Kansas, is getting slammed by Y2K. Davis needs $71,000 to 
     make his computer systems bug-free by January 1. But he has 
     been able to rustle up only the $39,000. His bank has denied 
     him a loan because--ironically--he's not Y2K-ready. But Davis 
     knows he must make the fixes or lose business. ``Our big 
     customers aren't going to wait much longer,'' he frets.
       Golden Plains and thousands of other small businesses are 
     getting a dire ultimatum from the big corporations they sell 
     to: Get ready for Y2K, or get lost. Multinationals such as 
     General Motors, McDonald's, Nike, and Deere are making the 
     first quarter--or the second at the latest--the deadline for 
     partners and vendors to prove they're bug-free. A recent 
     survey by consultants at Gemini America says 69 percent of 
     the 2,000 largest companies will stop doing business with 
     companies that can't pass muster. The National Federation of 
     Independent Business figures more than 1 million companies 
     with 100 workers or fewer won't make the cut, and as many as 
     half will lose big chunks of business or even fail.
       I am glad the market is taking care of them so we will not 
     have to sue them. So the products we get will be sound.

  Reading further:

       Cutting thousands of companies out of the supply chain 
     might strain supply lines and could even crimp output. But 
     most CEOs figure it'll be cheaper in the long run to avoid 
     bugs in the first place.
       But most CEOs figure it'll be cheaper in the long run to 
     avoid bugs in the first place.

  Here they have 7\1/2\ months to get rid of the bugs. Here, with this 
particular article, they had 10 months to get rid of all the bugs. The 
technology has been on course for over 30 years. Everyone has been 
talking about it. We passed special legislation in the debate last year 
to set aside the antitrust provisions so they could work together. And, 
yet, some still are going to lag and not do business.
  This is why one of the leading computerization experts in the world 
just an hour ago in my office said, ``Senator, don't pass this bill.'' 
He said, ``I will use it for competition.'' Those who do not compete, 
who won't comply, and who won't get Y2K ready, ought to fall by the 
wayside, as this article and my friend were pointing out.
  I quote again from the article:

       Some small outfits are already losing key customers. In the 
     past year, Prudential Insurance Co. has cut nine suppliers 
     from its ``critical'' list of more than 3,000 core vendors, 
     and it continues to look for weak links, says the Vice 
     President for Information Systems at the company. At Citibank 
     . . . cuts have already been made.

  Reading again:

       Big U.S. companies are not sugarcoating the problem.
       . . . ``if a vendor is not up to speed by April or May,'' 
     Rabat says, ``it's serious crunch time.''

  Here it is 6 months away. We are going to pass emergency legislation 
for glitches and deep pockets. We have had

[[Page 7378]]

glitches and deep pockets all during the 1990s, and there is no 
trillion dollars' worth of lawsuits and frivolous lawsuits.
  That gets me to the point where I can tell you that the real lawyers 
who bring any cases don't have any time to bring frivolous lawsuits. 
They are not worth it. They can't get anything for it. And they don't 
get paid unless they win. And if they win, they have to prove to a 12-
man jury and withstand all of the legal motions, delays, and everything 
else. So the real attorneys just do not bring frivolous lawsuits.
  Later, when we get into the full debate on the measure, I will have 
the documents to prove that from the Rand Corporation.
  Quoting further from the article:

       Through the Automotive Industry Action Group, GM and other 
     car makers have set March 31 deadlines for vendors to become 
     Y2K compliant.

  Madam President, that is just 5 days from now.

       In March, members of the Grocery Manufacturers of America 
     will meet with their counterparts from the Food Marketing 
     Institute to launch similar efforts. Other companies are 
     sending a warning to laggards--and shifting business to the 
     tech-savvy. ``Y2K can be a great opportunity to clean up and 
     modernize the supply chain,'' says Roland S. Boreham, Jr., 
     chairman of the board of Baldor Electric Co. in Fort Smith, 
     ARK.

  There is a statement. This particular so-called ``problem'' is 
cleaning out the inept, the inadequate, the incompetent, the 
uncompliant. But what they want to do is pass laws and change around 
all the States' tort systems for manufactured product downtown at the 
Chamber of Commerce, and that you will find in the political polls, so 
we can write out to Silicon Valley and say, ``Look what I have done for 
you. I am looking out for you. Just contribute to my campaign.''
  That is all this is--another political exercise this week.
  Quoting further:

       The World Bank has shelled out $72 million in loans and 
     grants to Y2K-stressed nations, including Argentina and Sri 
     Lanka. AT&T alone has spent $900 million fixing its systems.

  It goes on and on in the article.
  Madam President, the point here is, we are trying to solve a 
political problem, not a business problem. It is one to get the 
contributions from Silicon Valley. It is one that has put up a straw 
man about a trillion dollars' worth of verdicts and all of that. That 
is outrageous nonsense. We haven't had over $12 billion in product 
liability cumulatively in this Nation since the incidents of product 
liability, but every week we see some automobile company recalling 
100,000. The week before last, it was a 1-million-car callback for 
retrofitting and everything else. Why? Because some good trial lawyer 
brought some good case and on the safety basis has saved many, many 
from injury and death.
  No. I take the position of the lawyers in reality who really try the 
cases. They have deep pockets, and they are all there now, and they are 
all prospering and making more money. They haven't come to Washington 
to say, ``Look, you know the changes that we have in computers.'' They 
change every other year--now almost yearly. So there is another new 
model. So there is a glitch. But people do not run around suing 
everybody on some kind of glitch. It is a business contract in the 
purchase under the Uniform Commercial Code to be controlled, and only 
when there is a fraudulent breach do we get into law, and tort law, 
which is State tort law.
  I don't think we are going to change under this stampede here about 
what a grand thing we have--bipartisanship. Oh, no. It is as partisan 
as it can be for those trying to get their money, be they Republican or 
Democrat, out there in the Silicon Valley campaign.
  I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum to be divided by unanimous consent 
between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

  We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of 
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to 
a close debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 34, S. 96, the 
Y2K legislation:
         Trent Lott, John McCain, Rick Santorum, Spencer Abraham, 
           Judd Gregg, Pat Roberts, Wayne Allard, Rod Grams, Jon 
           Kyl, Larry Craig, Bob Smith, Craig Thomas, Paul 
           Coverdell, Pete Domenici, Don Nickles, and Phil Gramm.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 96, the 
Y2K Act, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are required 
under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) 
and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), and the Senator from New Jersey 
(Mr. Lautenberg), are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
absent due to surgery.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``aye.''
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Boxer
     Hutchison
     Lautenberg
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 94, the nays are 0. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________