[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7632-7635]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              THE Y2K ACT

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me say we are ready to move forward on 
the bill. We have a couple of amendments that can be accepted by both 
sides. I would like to move forward with that and hope that both 
supporters and opponents of the bill will come to the floor.
  Today I see a Statement of Administration Policy:

       The Administration strongly opposes S. 96 as reported by 
     the Commerce Committee, as well as the amendment intended to 
     be proposed by Senators McCain and Wyden as a substitute. If 
     S. 96 were presented to the President, either as reported or 
     in the form of the proposed McCain-Wyden amendment, the 
     Attorney General would recommend a veto.

  Let me say, I am glad to see the administration's position on this. I 
think it makes it very clear as to whose side they are on. I hope all 
the manufacturers, the small businesses, the medium size businesses and 
the large businesses in America will take careful note of the 
administration's absolute opposition to an effort that would solve this 
very, very serious issue.
  Of course, they support amendments that are proposed by the trial 
lawyers which would gut this legislation. I have no doubt that if we 
accepted the amendments that are going to be proposed, it would gut it. 
But let us come to the floor and debate these amendments and move 
forward.
  We have been on this bill now for 3 days. We still haven't had a 
single amendment. I say to the opponents of this legislation and the 
substitute that Senator Wyden and I proposed, come to the floor. Let us 
debate your amendments and let us move forward. There is a cloture 
petition that will be voted on tomorrow. We may have to move forward in 
that fashion.
  In USA Today, Mr. President, there is an interesting column under 
Technology by Kevin Maney: ``Lawyers Find Slim Pickings at Y2K Lawsuit 
Buffet.''

       Y2K lawyers must be getting desperate, in much the way an 
     overpopulation of squirrels gets desperate when there aren't 
     enough nuts to go around.
       So far, there's been a beguiling absence of breakdowns and 
     mishaps because of the Y2K computer problem. The ever-
     multiplying number of lawyers chasing Y2K lawsuits apparently 
     have had to scrounge for something to do. At least that's the 
     picture Sen. John McCain [R-Ariz.] painted on the Senate 
     floor Tuesday.
       McCain, who is sponsoring legislation to limit Y2K 
     lawsuits, told the story of Tom Johnson. It seems that 
     Johnson has filed a class action against retailers, including 
     Circuit City, Office Depot and Good Guys. The suit charges 
     that salespeople at the stores have not warned consumers 
     about products that might have Y2K problems.
       For one thing, that's like suing a Chrysler dealership 
     because the sales guy didn't tell you a minivan might break 
     down when you're 500 miles from home on a family vacation. Or 
     suing a TV network for failing to announce that its shows 
     might stink.
       Beyond that, Johnson doesn't claim in the suit that he has 
     been harmed. He's just doing it for the good of humanity--and 
     ``relief in the amount of all the defendants' profits from 
     1995 to date from selling these products.''

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Think Johnson's case is an anomaly? We haven't even hit 
     seersucker season, and the lawsuits focusing on Jan. 1 are 
     flying. More than 80 have been filed so far. If you sift 
     through the individual suits, a few seem understandable. The 
     rest seem like Rocco Chilelli v. Intuit.
       Chilelli's suit says older versions of Intuit's Quicken 
     checkbook software are not Y2K ready and alleges that Intuit 
     refuses to provide free upgrades. Filed in New York, the suit 
     is a class action on behalf of ``thousands of customers (who) 
     will be forced to spend even more money to acquire the latest 
     Quicken version and may be required to spend time acquainting 
     themselves with the updated program and possibly re-inputting 
     financial information.''
       After much legal wrangling, the Supreme Court of the State 
     of New York, County of Nassau, found that--duh!--no damage 
     had yet happened, as the calendar hasn't yet flipped to 2000. 
     The case was dismissed.

  Mr. President, the column goes on to talk about the frivolous suits 
that have been filed already. We need to act.
  I note the presence of the Senator from South Carolina. I ask if he 
is ready to consider two Murkowski amendments at this time, which have 
been agreed to by both sides.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. 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. Mr. President, my distinguished chairman continues to 
say let's talk, let's vote, let's move along. He thinks it is a 
procedural question. I guess, in a way, it is when it comes to joint 
and several.
  Mr. President, there is an old story told about the days when they 
used to block minorities from voting down in Mississippi. A gentlemen 
presented himself at the poll and the poll watcher showed him a Chinese 
newspaper. These were the days of the literacy tests in order to be 
able to vote. He presented him with a Chinese newspaper and he said, 
``Read that.'' The poor voter takes it and turns it around different 
ways and says, ``I reads it.'' The poll watcher said, ``What does it 
say?'' The poor minority says, ``It says: Ain't no minority going to 
vote in Mississippi today.''
  Now, Mr. President, in a similar vein, when you have been in this 20 
years, like Victor Schwartz down there at the NAM, when you have been 
in speaking panels before the manufacturers groups, when you have seen 
every trick of the trade that they have had to repeal the 10th 
amendment and take away from the States the administration of the tort 
system, and you know that there are the strong States righters but they 
are willing to do this, and when you know there is a nonproblem--I 
emphasize ``nonproblem''--in the sense that there have only been

[[Page 7633]]

44 cases brought and over half have already been disposed of--some 10 
others have been settled, and only 8 or 9 are pending--and you know 
that here we have a contract case, not a tort case, and you have to 
have privity of contract under joint and several in contract cases.
  But you know this extreme strain about punitive, about joint and 
several, and all of these other hurdles they put in there to discourage 
anybody bringing a suit, setting precedence, if you please, in the tort 
field, then like the poor voter that ``can read'' the Chinese 
newspaper, I can read S. 96. That is right. I can read the McCain-Wyden 
amendment. What that says is, we don't care about Y2K, but we do care 
about reforming torts and federalizing it and taking the richest, most 
capable crowd in the world and giving them all kinds of rights and 
defenses and privileges and take away from middle sector, the small 
businessman, the small doctor.
  We put into the Record, Mr. President, where an individual doctor up 
in New Jersey--he came before the committee--bought this particular 
computer in 1996. He talked about the salesman who bragged in terms 
that it would last 10 years. Like the old adage regarding the Packard, 
he said, ``Ask the man who owns one. Go and see these. They will last 
for years. This will take you into the next century.'' And then he 
finds, of course, that this past year it broke down. It didn't work and 
he could not get his surgical appointments straight, and otherwise. So 
he called the salesman and the company, and they absolutely refused.
  After several weeks he writes a letter and demands, and they still 
refuse. A couple of months pass and he gets an attorney. When he gets 
the attorney, at first they don't respond. But somehow the attorney, or 
others, had the smarts to put it on the Internet. The next thing you 
know, they had 17,000 doctors who were similarly situated, and the 
computer company immediately settled and replaced them free.
  When the demands were first made, they said, ``Yes, we can fix it for 
you for $25,000,'' when the instrument itself, the computer, only cost 
$13,000 in 1996. But to fix it was $25,000. He didn't, of course, have 
the $25,000. So all of those cases were settled to the satisfaction of 
both parties, the computer company, and everything else.
  So these are not bad back cases, or some that are indeterminate with 
respect to injury, pain, and suffering, and a sentimental kind of case 
of a person having lost his job, in that sense, and all that, where you 
get poor people injured in a wreck; but, on the contrary, responsible 
business people who operate by way of contract with the company. You 
see all of these tort things superimposed and you hear them in the 
conferences say it is nonnegotiable, there is a nonnegotiable item 
here, joint and several; it is nonnegotiable because under the 
chairman's onslaught here, it is, ``Let's move, let's vote, let's 
vote.''
  I responded to him yesterday. I am a minority of a minority. I am 
trying to make sense out of a bum's rush. They have all the 
organizations. I have been talking to the trial lawyers about this 
thing. I know all of them, and they have been big friends of mine, and 
they did respond handsomely last year in the campaign. But I have been 
in it 20 years. In the early eighties, in the Presidential race and 
everything else, I still pleaded the cause and I got no help. So I have 
a track record of not just taking a position to help good friends in 
the trial business, but I have the greatest respect for all those 
friends, because they are there for the injured parties. They are the 
ones setting the record on health. These trial lawyers have done more 
to save people from cancer than Koop and Kessler put together. I have 
been on the floor 33 years now, and we could not get anything moving on 
cancer and smoking.
  Now we have it. Not only on account of dollars, not only on account 
of the Cancer Institute, not only on account of the American Cancer 
Society, all leaders that they are with concerns in this field, but on 
account of trial lawyers. I see them institute the Environmental 
Protection Agency and institute the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
  When you see those cars recalled, yes. That trial lawyer, Mark 
Robinson, out there in San Diego, back in 1978 got a $128 million 
verdict. It was $3.5 million actual, but $125 million punitive. He 
never has collected a red cent of the $125 million punitive. But he has 
brought to the automobile manufacturers a conscience rather than a 
cost-benefit study to just write it off and let them pay and pay the 
lawyers, and pay the doctors, and pay for the injuries, or beat the 
case on a cost-benefit study. On the contrary, there was one company 
just last week that recalled another million cars. You see these car 
recalls. That is my trial lawyer friends. I am very proud of them.
  But in this particular case I am trying to protect on the one hand 
that small doctor, that small businessman, or, on the other hand, what 
we are trying to do is protect the States and the administration of 
tort law.
  They talk about the ``glitches''--the ``glitches'' and ``deep 
pockets'' and ``deep pockets.'' We have at this minute, as I speak, on 
the floor of the Senate, glitches. Everybody has a computer. It comes 
up again and again with a glitch. You learn how to get it fixed. Nobody 
is running down to the courthouse. There were only 40 more cases this 
past year. Deep pockets--you have people running around here. They had 
a gentleman come in here from America Online. I saw in the USA Today 
his income last year --just annual--income $325 million. He has deep 
pockets. But nobody is suing him. He is a wonderful, brilliant 
individual who deserves every dollar he makes. I am for him. That is 
the American way.
  But there are deep pockets in this technology computerization 
industry. And there are glitches.
  Don't give me this stuff about January 1 glitches, glitches all of a 
sudden, and that we have to change the whole tort system. You can go 
ahead and get your computer now. As Business Week shows, they are 
demanding that the small businessmen come about with the changes in 
their equipment and become Y2K compliant, or else they are going to run 
out of suppliers and other distributors that will be Y2K compliant. 
They are in business. They are not in the law game that the Chamber of 
Commerce is in downtown. That is their political gain--to get them, 
pile on, find a nonproblem, but find the organizations, go tell all of 
them, and say, ``Do you believe in tort?'' ``Yes. I believe in tort 
reform.'' ``Write your letters to the Senators and talk about $1 
trillion''--outrageous estimations. There is not going to be any such 
thing. Everybody knows it.
  I am happy today to receive from the White House a ``Statement of 
Administration Policy.'' ``This statement has been coordinated by OMB 
with the concerned agencies.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Statement of Administration Policy--S. 96--Y2K Act

                    [McCain (R-AZ) and Frist (R-TN)]

       The Administration strongly opposes S. 96 as reported by 
     the Commerce Committee, as well as the amendment intended to 
     be proposed by Senators McCain and Wyden as a substitute. If 
     S. 96 were presented to the President, either as reported or 
     in the form of the proposed McCain-Wyden amendment, the 
     Attorney General would recommend a veto. The Administration, 
     however, understands that Senators Kerry and Robb and others 
     are working on an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     that would address its primary concerns and which the 
     Administration can support.
       The Administration's main goal is to ensure that all 
     organizations--private, public, and governmental--do 
     everything they can between now and the end of this year to 
     ensure that their systems and those of their customers and 
     suppliers are made Year 2000 compliant. The Administration 
     also recognizes both the importance of discouraging frivolous 
     litigation and the need to keep the courts open for 
     legitimate claims, especially those brought by small 
     businesses and consumers with limited resources to press 
     their cause.
       The Administration's overriding concern is that S. 96, as 
     amended by the McCain-Wyden amendment, will not enhance 
     readiness and may, in fact, decrease the incentives 
     organizations have to be ready and assist customers and 
     business partners to be ready for

[[Page 7634]]

     the transition to the next century. This measure would 
     protect defendants in Y2K actions by capping punitive damages 
     and by limiting the extent of their liability to their 
     proportional share of damages, but would not link these 
     benefits to those defendants' efforts to solve their 
     customers' Y2K problems now. As a result, S. 96 would reduce 
     the liability these defendants may face, even if they do 
     nothing, and accordingly undermine their incentives to act 
     now--when the damage due to Y2K failures can still be averted 
     or minimized.
       S. 96 also would substantially modify the procedural law of 
     the 50 States by imposing new pleading requirements and by 
     effectively requiring nearly all Y2K class actions to use 
     Federal certification standards. While the Administration 
     could support the adoption of certain federal rules that 
     would, in some meaningful way, help identify and bar 
     frivolous Y2K lawsuits, the broad and intrusive provisions of 
     S. 96 sweep far beyond this purpose and accordingly raise 
     federalism concerns.
       The Administration has been working with the Senate on 
     alternatives that would more closely achieve the goals S. 96 
     purports to serve--creating incentives for organizations to 
     be Y2K compliant, weeding out frivolous Y2K lawsuits, and 
     encouraging alternatives to litigation. In that regard, the 
     Administration would support provisions encouraging 
     alternative dispute resolution, and carefully drawn 
     modifications to pleading rules and substantive law that 
     encourage Y2K readiness. The Administration would support 
     Senators Kerry and Robb's amendment because it satisfactorily 
     addresses many of the previously mentioned concerns (although 
     we are working with the Senators to address drafting issues 
     raised by the Department of Justice).

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  There it is, Mr. President. We are trying to mushroom a nonproblem 
into a crisis with $1 trillion worth of lawsuits all on the political 
juggernaut of the Chamber of Commerce downtown for greed, and taking 
away rights to protect the group that is not only protectable--God 
knows they have the money--but they know it. They can bring in their 
instrument right now and make it compliant.
  Those who are purchasing are being told, like that doctor in New 
Jersey, that it is compliant. But they are being taken advantage of. 
You find out it is not, and it is not until they have everybody ready 
to go that, ``Oh, no. We are ready to give you a new computer free.'' 
Not $25,000, as they charged for months, but they would have to be paid 
before they get any results. ``We are glad to give you this free, and 
even to pay your attorney fees.'' Right or wrong? Is this a frivolous 
lawsuit, some kind of bad back, injured party case coming across trying 
to go after deep pockets? It is legitimate small businesses that can 
work right now. They will be like an automobile dealer trying to 
offload their old year models, with misleading purchases sometimes. But 
they find out that hasn't paid, so they have gotten very competitive.
  This market this minute is very, very competitive. Read Business 
Week. The market is working. But there is a political agenda here on 
course, not really to look out for the small businessman, but change 
the rights of the States under the 10th amendment to administer tort 
cases. Here with the administration, do you see any States coming up 
and saying that they are totally inadequate, that they can't handle it, 
that what they really need is the Federal Government to interpose and 
change the rules of jurisprudence?
  Does any State come up here? Does any legitimate legal organization 
come up here? Not at all.
  I heard what the distinguished Senator from Oregon read about the 
American Bar Association, but give us hearings before the American Bar 
and give us the legal folks--they understand law. That is one of the 
difficulties we have in the Commerce Committee. We don't necessarily 
have profound legal talent, so they don't want to study it. They look 
at a business cost-profit standpoint and then it is the bum's rush for 
S. 96.
  I am glad the rush now has stopped with the policy of the 
administration and the recommended veto of S. 96 and the McCain-Wyden 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as always, the Senator from South Carolina 
has raised a number of important issues. I will take a minute or two to 
respond.
  First, it needs to be understood by the Senate that, under the 
substitute offered by the chairman and myself, a plaintiff can file 
suit immediately for injunctive relief should they choose to go that 
route.
  There have been all kinds of discussion raised and I gather it is 
always raised by the administration that somehow the rights of 
plaintiffs are being cut off. The fact of the matter is, under the 
substitute being offered by the Senator from Arizona and myself, it is 
possible for a plaintiff to move for injunctive relief immediately.
  What we are saying is, we ought to look at ways to try to bring about 
corrections in the private sector by private parties coming together, 
trying to encourage the alternative dispute resolution, a process which 
is clearly laid out in our legislation.
  Our substitute makes it very clear that if a plaintiff wants to file 
a suit on day one, they can. If they believe they are being jerked 
around in the marketplace, they can go out on that very first day and 
seek injunctive relief. We think it would be preferable and avoids 
causing this bedlam with everybody rushing to court. We think a lot of 
those approaches can be resolved by the parties coming together.
  Second, it seems to me those who will look at the substitute will 
understand in the vast majority of instances private contract law is 
going to govern. In most other instances it will be State law. In this 
administration statement, the notion is that somehow we are 
federalizing everything, where the substitute clearly lays out in the 
vast majority of cases contract law is going to take the lead in this 
area. That, regrettably, is a part of the administration's position 
that simply is not accurate.
  In fact, I and others raised that issue in the committee. We felt 
there wasn't a strong enough bias in favor of protecting private 
contract law. That was a change made after the bill left committee, 
because a number of consumer and other organizations thought it was 
very important.
  I think what is especially troubling about the policy statement that 
has now been offered by the administration--and this Senator and others 
are going to continue to work with them--is that they are essentially 
telling the Senate that over in the Justice Department they know more 
about the technical issues of running computers and the software 
businesses than do those businesses that have to do it every single 
day.
  The administration statement says this legislation is going to 
decrease the incentives, that these computer and software and other 
technology organizations have to be ready to assist customers to be 
ready for the transition of the next century.
  The fact of the matter is, all of these groups that have to actually 
work with computers and software every single day believe this 
legislation is absolutely critical to their being ready for the 
transition to the next century. Essentially what we have is folks at 
the Justice Department on this issue saying they know a whole lot more 
about the technical issues of the computer business than the folks who 
actually have to work with these systems every single day.
  I raise this issue again with respect to defendants who engage in 
truly outrageous, egregious action. There have been statements made on 
the floor by others and raised in the administration's letter as well 
with respect to the question of proportional liability and particularly 
what you are going to do about those defendants who engage in 
fraudulent activity.
  Under the substitute before the Senate, if a defendant is engaged in 
fraud, it is very clear that joint and several liability stays in 
place. There are no changes whatever with respect to joint and several 
liability if, in fact, a defendant is engaged in an egregious type of 
conduct. We also ensure that joint and several liability is kept when a 
defendant is insolvent. We felt it was important to make sure the 
plaintiff would have an opportunity to be made whole in instances where 
there was an injured party who badly needed a remedy.

[[Page 7635]]

  The fact is that there have been many, many changes made in this 
legislation since it left the committee. In order to be responsive to 
the consumer, the chairman of the committee reached out to a variety of 
parties--myself and others--in order to make those changes. I will take 
a minute or two to outline a couple of those.
  Perhaps the most important is the fact that this is a bill with a 
strong sunset provision. Neither the original McCain legislation nor 
the Hatch-Feinstein legislation, which has many, many good features, 
nor the legislation that our colleague, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, 
offered, which also has many good features in it--none of those bills 
had a sunset provision originally.
  We felt it was important to make sure that this legislation was not 
producing a set of changes for all time but it was going to be 
legislation that specifically targets problems directly related to Y2K 
so we don't have an open-ended onslaught with respect to product 
liability issues.
  I happen to think the Senator from South Carolina made a number of 
important points with respect to tobacco. I also happen to think there 
were other issues that were relevant on this debate. I and others in 
the other body were able to get the tobacco executives under oath to 
say that nicotine was addictive which certainly helped to open up this 
issue in order to protect consumers and injured parties. I think the 
Senator from South Carolina makes a number of important points with 
respect to the issue of lawyers who stand up for injured parties and 
consumers.
  Make no mistake, colleagues, this is not an open-ended tort reform 
bill. It is not an open-ended product liability bill. It is essentially 
a 3-year bill to deal directly with a problem that, frankly, could not 
have been envisaged at the time. At the time many of these decisions 
were made, there was a real question as to whether there would be 
adequate space for disks and for memory, so there was an engineering 
tradeoff adopted a number of years ago to get more space for disks and 
memory. We find it hard today to believe that at one point disk and 
memory space was at a premium. It was at that time.
  Now we are in a position where we have to come up with ways to ensure 
we make our computer and technology systems ready for the next century 
while at the same time providing a safety net when, in fact, there are 
real problems such as frivolous suits.
  I hope our colleagues will look at the many changes that have been 
made: The fact that there is joint liability when a defendant knowingly 
commits fraud, there is joint liability when you have an insolvent 
defendant in order to make a plaintiff whole, that there are punitive 
damages when an individual acts in bad faith, that there are not new 
preemptive Federal standards for establishing punitive damages, that 
there has been an elimination of the vague Federal defenses for 
reasonable efforts.
  I hope our colleagues will look at those changes that have been made. 
I, for one, am going to continue to work with the administration. I 
think there are many in the administration who realize this is a very, 
very serious problem. But I really have to say to the Senate today, 
with respect to the policy statement issued today, that there simply 
are a number of statements in there that, to be charitable, are 
inaccurate. The fact is, this idea that under our substitute injured 
persons are having their rights to sue cut off is simply wrong. Under 
our substitute, a plaintiff, an injured consumer, can go out and file a 
suit immediately on the very first day.
  Under the McCain-Wyden substitute, if you feel that you are a wronged 
party, you can file a suit the first day. We just do not think, as a 
matter of public policy, that is a particularly good idea. We would 
like to encourage parties to work together in the private sector. That 
is what we seek to do through the 90-day period. That is what we seek 
to do through the alternative dispute resolution system. But for those 
who think it is important to basically have the right to sue 
immediately, our legislation does that. We do it in a way that 
protects, first and foremost, contract law rather than writing whole 
new Federal standards to govern in this area.
  Finally, and this is perhaps the area where I have the strongest 
disagreement with what the administration has offered today, I find it 
very, very far-fetched to believe that there are folks in the Justice 
Department who know more about the technical issues of helping those in 
the technology sector get ready for the 21st century; that those folks 
would know more about this technical job we have in front of us than 
people who have to do it every single day in my home State of Oregon 
and across the country. Those are folks who right now, every single 
day, come to work saying, What are we going to do about working with 
our suppliers? What are we going to do about individuals overseas who 
may have been slow to get ready for Y2K? Those folks know a whole lot 
more about the challenge of getting ready for the 21st century than do 
the folks in the Justice Department.
  I hope we listen to those folks across the country in the small 
businesses, in the grocery stores and hardware stores, who, by the way, 
overwhelmingly support this substitute. We have had discussions about 
somehow the grocery stores and the hardware stores and others are ones 
that are not supportive of this legislation, who feel their rights are 
being cut off. The fact is they are overwhelmingly in support of this 
legislation.
  A lot of my colleagues, I guess, are saying: Where do we go from 
here? Is it just going to be impossible to move forward? I am not one 
who shares that view. I think there is a centrist coalition in the 
Senate that very much wants to get a responsible bill that meets the 
needs of consumers and injured parties, and is also concerned about 
preventing bedlam in the private marketplace next January. We have been 
meeting on an ongoing basis for several days now. We have had some very 
thoughtful ideas presented. Senator Dodd has some important 
suggestions; Senator Hatch, Senator Feinstein, and others have made 
real contributions. I understand our colleague from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kerry, continues to negotiate on several of the issues that are 
outstanding.
  So I am very hopeful that with the continued leadership of Tom 
Daschle and Trent Lott on this issue that we can continue to work 
through some of the outstanding issues. I have tried to respond this 
morning to areas where I think the administration is simply off base 
with respect to what the McCain-Wyden substitute is all about, but I 
want to make it clear I remain open to working with them.
  But I would say now is the time for the Senate to deal with this 
issue. If we let this go on, if we just let it fester and take months 
and months and months and arrive at no resolution of this problem, I 
happen to think we may well be back here early next January for a 
special session of the Senate having to deal with this problem. There 
is not a Member of this body who wants that result. Let us continue to 
work together.
  I plan to continue to negotiate with all the Senators I have 
mentioned this morning, and will continue to try to be responsive to 
the concerns raised by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, 
although I think in the end it is quite clear we have a difference of 
opinion on this legislation. But this bill is too important to just 
say: This is it, the end, the administration has given its opinion and 
let's move on.
  I think we have an opportunity to proceed under the McCain-Wyden 
substitute. We have made nine major changes that were requested by 
various organizations to be responsive to areas where they thought the 
committee bill was inadequate. We have made it clear we are open to a 
variety of other suggestions. Senator Dodd, in particular, has offered 
several which I think are very important and ought to be addressed. I 
hope the Senate will continue to work in a bipartisan way to deal with 
this issue, because the time to deal with it is now and not next 
January.
  I yield the floor.




                          ____________________