[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 9660]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               YEAR 2000 READINESS AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. KEN BENTSEN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 12, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 775) to 
     establish certain procedures for civil actions brought for 
     damages relating to the failure of any device or system to 
     process or otherwise deal with the transition from the year 
     1999 to the year 2000, and for other purposes:

  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
775, the Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act. I believe that 
this legislation would overturn more than 200 years of legal precedent 
in our nation and would devastate our tort's system. I believe that the 
bill would hurt consumers and reduce the incentive for companies to 
address their Year 2000 computer problems in a timely manner.
  The Year 2000 problem is a complex problem which we all need to work 
together to address. However, this legislation is the wrong answer to 
the problem. This bill would make it more difficult for consumers and 
small businesses to recover any damages if their computers or equipment 
fail. The effect of this bill would be to remove any incentive on the 
part of information technology companies for a problem they have known 
about for many years. This legislation would also encourage all class 
action lawsuits to be considered in federal court rather than state 
courts. Finally, this legislation would mandate that the loser of a 
lawsuit must reimburse the other plaintiff for all of the cost 
associated with the lawsuit and the attorneys' fees. For many 
consumers, this concept of a loser pays would present an obstacle and 
would discourage them to even filing a lawsuit. It would overturn a 
pillar of the American civil justice system in favor of the English 
system.
  I believe that we must work to encourage parties to reach agreements 
through arbitration and dispute resolution. However, I do not believe 
that we should prevent consumers from seeking their day in court if 
they cannot reach agreement with the other party. I also support the 
inclusion of provisions in this bill that would encourage a 90-day 
cooling off period to allow companies time to correct any Year 2000 
problems. However, if the 90-day cooling-off period is not successful, 
I believe we should err on the side of permitting consumers to have the 
right to seek legal redress.
  I will support the Lofgren substitute amendment that would reasonably 
address this issue. The Lofgren substitute would provide the proper 
balance to encourage customers and business partners to fix the 
millennium bug. This substitute would provide an incentive for Y2K 
compliance and would discourage frivolous claims while allowing 
meritorious cases to be litigated. This substitute also includes a 
provision that would provide proportional liability for companies so 
that companies would only be liable for their portion of the fault. As 
a result, companies would not be required to pay large judgments. This 
proportional liability will ensure that all parties will pay their fair 
share associated with the economic losses from computer failures.
  I also believe that we have rushed to judgment on this issue. As a 
member of the House Banking Committee, I have participated in several 
hearings to review our nation's banking system's efforts to address the 
Year 2000 computer problem. During these hearings, we have learned that 
financial institutions are subject to a strict compliance schedule to 
ensure that they will be ready when the new millennium begins. In fact, 
the federal bank regulators have assured us that they will require 
financial institutions to comply or they will lose their federal 
deposit insurance. I believe that these hearings have shown how 
Congress can work on a bipartisan basis to address a critical issue. In 
this case, Congress has not worked on a bipartisan basis. In fact, this 
legislation was rushed through the House Judiciary Committee and 
quickly considered in the House of Representatives. If the Republican 
majority had wanted to consider a bipartisan bill, there were several 
other options available. In the other body, the Republican majority has 
worked diligently with the Democratic minority to craft legislation. 
Regrettably, I believe that the Republican majority is more interested 
in voting on this issue rather than finding a reasonable compromise on 
this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and to 
support the Lofgren amendment that would protect consumers and 
encourage all companies to become Y2K compliant.