[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12762-12765]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                                Y2K ACT

  The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill.


                 Amendment No. 623 To Amendment No. 608

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is a 
Sessions amendment at the desk, No. 623, and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  It is also my understanding, with the agreement of the Senator from 
South Carolina, that the amendment is acceptable to both sides. 
Therefore, I believe there is no further debate on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 623) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 624 To Amendment No. 608

  Mr. McCAIN. The next item of business is the amendment that was 
offered by Senator Gregg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment is very well intentioned. I 
believe we more appropriately sought to deal with this matter when we 
adopted the Inhofe amendment. I come to the conclusion that the Gregg 
amendment could possibly have an adverse affect on the bill and lead to 
more litigation, when certain individuals use this legislation as an 
excuse to avoid legitimate regulation.
  I also believe that the adoption of this amendment might further 
increase the risk of veto of the bill. I want to assure the Senator 
from New Hampshire that we will deal with this matter in a thoughtful 
manner in conference, but I am very concerned about the impact of this 
amendment.
  I believe that under the previous order, unless the Senator from New 
Hampshire requests unanimous consent to speak on the amendment, we 
should move forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.


          Amendment No. 624 To Amendment No. 608, As Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment (No. 624), as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SUSPENSION OF PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN YEAR 2000 
                   FAILURES BY SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``agency'' means any executive agency, as 
     defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, that 
     has the authority to impose civil penalties on small business 
     concerns;
       (2) the term ``first-time violation'' means a violation by 
     a small business concern of a Federal rule or regulation 
     (other than a Federal rule or regulation that relates to the 
     safety and soundness of the banking or monetary system, 
     including protection of depositors) resulting from a Y2K 
     failure if that Federal rule or regulation had not been 
     violated by that small business concern within the preceding 
     3 years; and
       (3) the term ``small business concern'' has the same 
     meaning as a defendant described in section 5(b)(2)(B).
       (b) Establishment of Liaisons.--Not later than 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of this section each agency 
     shall--
       (1) establish a point of contact within the agency to act 
     as a liaison between the agency and small business concerns 
     with respect to problems arising out of Y2K failures and 
     compliance with Federal rules or regulations; and
       (2) publish the name and phone number of the point of 
     contact for the agency in the Federal Register.
       (c) General Rule.--Subject to subsections (d) and (e), no 
     agency shall impose any civil money penalty on a small 
     business concern for a first-time violation.
       (d) Standards for Waiver.--In order to receive a waiver of 
     civil money penalties from an agency for a first-time 
     violation, a small business concern shall demonstrate that--
       (1) the small business concern previously made a good faith 
     effort to effectively remediate Y2K problems;
       (2) a first-time violation occurred as a result of the Y2K 
     system failure of the small business concern or other entity, 
     which affected the small business concern's ability to comply 
     with a federal rule or regulation;
       (3) the first-time violation was unavoidable in the face of 
     a Y2K system failure or occurred as a result of efforts to 
     prevent the disruption of critical functions or services that 
     could result in harm to life or property;
       (4) upon identification of a first-time violation, the 
     small business concern initiated reasonable and timely 
     measures to remediate the violation; and
       (5) the small business concern submitted notice to the 
     appropriate agency of the first-time violation within a 
     reasonable time not to exceed 7 business days from the time 
     that the small business concern became aware that a first-
     time violation had occurred.
       (e) Exceptions.--An agency may impose civil money penalties 
     authorized under Federal law on a small business concern for 
     a first-time violation if--
       (1) the small business concern's failure to comply with 
     Federal rules or regulations constitutes or creates an 
     imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment; 
     or
       (2) the small business concern fails to correct the 
     violation not later than 1 month after initial notification 
     to the agency.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, is the precedent that the presenter of the 
amendment has the last minute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is equally divided.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. This amendment is really fairly simple. Essentially, it is 
an attempt to give the middle person, the small businessperson in this 
country who may, through no fault of their own, be subject to a Federal 
fine because they didn't comply with some Federal law as a result of 
the failure of their computer system, some protection from that fine. 
It says that this can only occur in instances where it is the first 
time it has happened. In other words, you can't have a bad actor trying 
to use this to try and get out from underneath the fines.

[[Page 12763]]

  It says that the small business may have a legitimate, provable 
effort that they tried to protect the computer problem and that they 
notified the Federal agency they had the computer problem. So there is 
ample protection to be sure that the system can't be gamed. The purpose 
of this amendment is simply to protect the small businessperson. This 
will be rated by the NFIB, I understand.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support 
for the Gregg-Bond amendment that was adopted as part of this Y2K bill. 
I know that the small business community in Mississippi and nationwide 
must appreciate our removing the potential for yet another millennium 
headache.
  Almost every federal agency requires small businesses to comply with 
a number of paperwork requirements. That is a fact that is unlikely to 
change with the new century. It is likely, however, that an 
unanticipated Y2K failure could prevent a small business from meeting 
these federal paperwork deadlines on time.
  The Gregg-Bond amendment will provide relief to small businesses by 
waiving civil penalties in this type of case. Let me remind my 
colleagues that this is not an amendment that will reward those who 
misbehave or who fail to prepare themselves for Y2K. As the Senator 
from New Hampshire stated earlier, in order to take advantage of this 
one-time penalty waiver, a small business owner must first prove that 
he or she took prudent steps to prevent the Y2K failure in the first 
place. Let me give you an example of how the amendment will work.
  Let's say a shoe repair shop owner in Inverness, Mississippi, does 
her best to make her computer system Y2K compliant, only to find that 
the New Year brings total system failure. Because of this computer 
crash, the store owner is unable to access her payroll records and 
cannot submit her payroll taxes on time. The Gregg-Bond amendment gives 
the business owner a reasonable amount of time to get her system 
running and pay her taxes--without the IRS slapping huge fines on her.
  Mr. President, this amendment does not say that small businesses do 
not have to comply with the law. It does not say that small businesses 
do not have to meet their paperwork requirements. It simply says that 
if a small business has a legitimate Y2K failure that causes a hiccup 
in its paperwork flow, its federal fines can be waived.
  As we enter the new century, I ask my colleagues: Do we want to start 
the millennium by fining small businesses for unpredictable and 
unintentional first-time paperwork violations?
  Fortunately, the answer is no.
  I would like to thank Senator Gregg and Senator Bond for offering 
this amendment, and my colleagues for adopting it. I would also like to 
thank the National Federation of Independent Business for its hard work 
on this amendment and this bill. The ``Voice of Small Business'' was 
heard loud and clear in this Chamber today. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
624, as modified. The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Chafee) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 164 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--28

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Daschle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Chafee
       
  The amendment (No. 624), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
votes in this series be limited to 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will take 2 of my minutes, and the 
Senator from Oregon will take the remaining 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 2 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. McCAIN. Under a previous unanimous consent agreement, I requested 
4 minutes on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let's be clear about the importance of the 
bill and what is at stake. The bill is supported by virtually every 
segment of our economy. It is important not only to the high-tech 
industry or big business but carries strong support from small 
business, retailers and wholesalers, and the insurance industry.
  On one side of the issue we have the American economy, arguably the 
strongest our Nation has ever enjoyed. It is driven in large measure by 
the technological leadership our companies have and are providing to 
the rest of the world, the resulting revolution in productivity for 
other industries. On the other side, we have those who, for whatever 
reason, desire encouraging disputes rather than solving problems.
  The Y2K situation presents an unparalleled opportunity to tie up the 
country's judicial system and the economy's resources in litigation, 
which only profits the legal profession. Opportunistic litigation costs 
the Nation's economy time and resources which then cannot be spent on 
value-added productivity.
  This is a very important piece of legislation. It is important to the 
future of the economy. It is important to the future development of 
this technology, and it is of great importance to the future of average 
American citizens.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senator Dodd is the Democratic technology 
leader. I join him now in saying that a vote against this bill is a 
vote against the entrepreneurs and risk-takers of this Nation who are 
working their heads off to make their systems Y2K compliant but are 
legitimately fearful of frivolous lawsuits.
  Some have said that small businesses cannot recover their economic 
losses under this bill. If that were the case, why would the Nation's 
small businesses overwhelmingly support the legislation?
  The fact is, small businesses can recover economic losses just as 
they do under the status quo. Specifically, a small business plaintiff 
can recover whatever economic losses are allowed under State contract 
law. Many of these State laws say that if profits are lost as a 
consequence of a Y2K failure, the small business plaintiff can recover 
their economic losses.

[[Page 12764]]

  Failure to pass this bill would be similar to lobbing a monkey wrench 
into the high-tech engine that is driving the Nation's economic 
prosperity. I join with Senator Dodd, our technology leader, in urging 
Democrats to support the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this is a very serious moment for the 
Senate in that we now are going to legalize negligence and legalize 
fraud. How does this come about? It is very interesting that the 
industry itself says 90 percent have no Y2K problems at all. Only 6 
percent here, in this month's Investors Business Daily, said that 5\1/
2\ months ahead of that they could possibly have any problem. 
Straussman of Xerox said it is managerial incompetence not to have it 
fixed by now. We still have 5\1/2\ months.
  We are acting in spite of the fact that the States have been not only 
doing an outstanding job with respect to product liability but also 
with respect to Y2K, and in spite of the Conference of Chief Justices' 
resolve against this measure.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
the Conference of Chief Justices of the State Supreme Courts.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Conference of Chief Justices, Office of Government 
           Relations, National Center for State Courts,
                                      Arlington, VA, May 25, 1999.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ), to express our concern 
     with S. 96 and H.R. 775 in their present form. We understand 
     that S. 96 and H.R. 775 are attempts to address the serious 
     problem of potential litigation surrounding the Y2K issue. 
     However, in part, the bills pose a direct challenge to the 
     principles of federalism underlying our system of government. 
     We are particularly concerned that each bill would in effect 
     replace established state class action procedures in favor of 
     removal to the Federal courts in most cases. The members of 
     CCJ seriously question the wisdom of such an action.
       In this regard, CCJ agrees with the position of the U.S. 
     Judicial Conference as submitted by Judge Walter Stapleton to 
     the House Judiciary Committee on April 13, 1999. His 
     testimony points out that:
       ``State legislatures and other rule-making bodies provide 
     rules for aggregation of state-law claims into class-wide 
     litigation in order to achieve certain litigation economies 
     of scale. By providing for class treatment, state 
     policymakers express the view that the state's own resources 
     can be best deployed not through repetitive and potentially 
     duplicative individual litigation, but through some form of 
     class treatment. H.R. 775 could deprive the state courts of 
     the power to hear much of this class litigation and might 
     well create incentives for plaintiffs who prefer a state 
     forum to bring a series of individual claims. Such individual 
     litigation might place a greater burden on the state courts 
     and thwart the states' policies of more efficient 
     disposition.
       Federal jurisdiction over class litigation is an area where 
     change should be approached with caution and careful 
     consideration of the underlying relationship between state 
     and federal courts.''
       We would emphasize that State courts presently handle 95 
     percent of the nation's judicial business. State and Federal 
     courts have developed a complementary role in regard to our 
     jurisprudence and these bills would radically alter this 
     relationship. It is not enough to argue these bills affect 
     only a segment of commerce, or that resolution of the problem 
     on a state by state basis is inconvenient. It is a bad 
     precedent that could have future ramifications. The founding 
     fathers created our federal system for a reason that Congress 
     should be extremely reticent to overturn.
       If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me 
     directly, or contact Tom Henderson or Ed O'Connell who staff 
     our Government Relations Office. They can be reached at (703) 
     841-0200.
           Respectfully,

                                               David A. Brock,

                                         Chief Justice, President,
                                     Conference of Chief Justices.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. We are acting in spite of the fact that no attorney 
general, no Governor, or any other entity has come up and asked for it. 
Then the question is, Why do we, at the Federal level, rush to suspend 
200 years of State law?
  Right to the headline here in the Washington Post, ``GOP Voice For 
Backing Of High Tech Leaders. Party Aims To Exploit Y2K Vote, CEO 
Summit.'' And yesterday morning's New York Times, the headline, 
``Congress Chasing Campaign Donors Early And Often.''
  If you look on the Republican screen, it says there:

       Senate again attempts to end minority stranglehold--the 
     great Y2K money chase.

  There it is. This crowd, they want to do away with estate taxes, 
capital gains taxes, immigration laws, now the State liability laws. If 
this thing works, I am going to put in an exemption for the corporate 
tax.
  You know, they rebuilt America--not us, who back in 1993 even taxed 
Social Security, cut 300,000 employees, raised taxes some $250 billion 
and cut spending $250 billion so the economy could recover.
  In spite of all that--so the economy could recover, so you could buy 
these computers and everything else of that kind--what is happening 
here is they do not even want a fix. The Senator from California just 
says, ``Let's just get a fix. Get rid of the lawyers.'' They voted it 
down. ``Let's just help the consumers,'' said Senator Leahy. They voted 
that down.
  What they are trying to do is not get a fix but, rather, fix the 
system. They know how to do it. They suspend economic losses. I 
practiced law, and I can tell you here and now what will happen if all 
you can get is, say, two-thirds of the cost of your computer because--
after I bring the investigation, the pleadings, discovery, 
interrogatories, trial, appeal, and convince 12 jurors--after I have 
done all of that, I am deserving of at least 20 or 30 percent. So I 
have to tell the client that is the best you can do after a year in 
court and everything else of that kind. I have never seen such a thing 
in my life.
  This is a bad bill. We could have passed a good one. We could have 
gotten alternative dispute resolution. We could have done this in a 
bipartisan fashion, as we did last year. We could have done this as I 
did with the aircraft bill, which I voted for, or the securities bill, 
which I voted for. But they would not let us. They wanted that computer 
money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Without objection, the substitute amendment is agreed to.
  The substitute amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate bill will be read a third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report H.R. 775.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 775) to establish certain procedures for civil 
     actions brought for damages relating to the failure of any 
     device or system to process or otherwise deal with the 
     transition from the year 1999 to the year 2000, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, H.R. 775 is amended 
by striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof 
the text of S. 96, as amended.
  The bill will be read for the third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Chafee) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 165 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist

[[Page 12765]]


     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Specter
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Chafee
      
  The bill (H.R. 775), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to thank a number of Senators and 
members of their staffs for the hard work and diligence that has 
resulted in the passage of the Y2K Liability Limitation legislation. 
This bill was crafted through the determination of Senator McCain and 
Senator Wyden of the Commerce Committee, Senator Bennett and Senator 
Dodd of the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, and 
Senator Hatch and Senator Feinstein of the Judiciary Committee. 
Additional help from Senator Gorton, Senator Lieberman, and Senator 
Brownback also helped to secure passage of this important legislation.
  Mr. President, it is also important to recognize the work of a number 
of the staff members for the Senators who were instrumental in the 
successful efforts on this bill. We are very fortunate to have such 
intelligent, dedicated individuals working in the United States Senate, 
and the passage of meaningful legislation would not be possible without 
the hard work of these people. Specifically, I would like to thank 
Marti Allbright, Mark Buse, Carole Grunberg, Shawn Maher, Wilke Green, 
Larry Block, Manus Cooney, David Hantman, Tania Calhoun, Laurie 
Rubenstein, Karen Knutson, Brian Henneberry, and Steven Wall . The 
professional skills and abilities of these staff members were important 
in achieving this legislative success. These staff members and their 
colleagues ensure that the United States Senate is a responsive, 
effective body for the American people. On behalf of myself and my 
colleagues in the Senate, I again say ``thank you.''
  Mr. President, the passage of Y2K liability relief provides a 
reasonable public policy for America as our nation enters the next 
millennium. It ensures that America's technology sector focuses on 
solutions to the Y2K problem, rather than spending limited time and 
resources on defending lawsuits. American ingenuity will make certain 
that the Year 2000 problem is solved. Great strides have already been 
made toward this goal, and this bill is an additional critical step in 
the process for America.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, just three weeks ago I joined with 12 of 
my Democratic colleagues to urge the leadership in both parties of the 
Senate to take up Y2K reform legislation as soon as possible. We got 
what we wanted and just completed debate. Many amendments were offered 
but several that would have improved the bill were defeated. Certainly 
the bill we passed today is much better than the proposal that passed 
out of the Senate Commerce Committee months ago.
  Despite some reservations I voted for this bill, because potential 
problems associated with Y2K failures and subsequent litigation could 
be very harmful. Widespread litigation could harm businesses and hurt 
consumers through increased costs in the essential products and 
services we use in our information technology dependant lives. Moving 
the process forward is necessary if we are to adequately protect 
consumers and the businesses who have done all they can to ensure their 
products work at the turn of the century.
  It is important we have mechanisms that will allow for quick 
remediation of Y2K problems, will encourage companies to correct their 
mistakes, and will fairly adjudicate cases when mediation fails. We all 
recognize that computer problems associated with the new millennium 
could be large. These problems need to be addressed.
  Washington is one of the most high-tech-dependant States in the 
Nation. Technology companies make up the most energetic and fastest 
growing segment of the Washington State economy. Information technology 
has also become a major factor in the economic engine of the Nation. 
Many employees and consumers in my State depend on these companies' 
success. The people I represent could be negatively impacted if we fail 
to take action on this issue.
  What we passed today could do much to encourage remediation of the 
problems we face in addressing the Y2K problem. The bill protects 
businesses that have acted responsibly and allows for consumers and 
businesses to punish those who have acted in bad faith. The bill is 
also limited in scope and time with a sunset date just three years 
after enactment, which focuses this bill on the unique, one time event 
which we are seeking to address. What we have done today is an 
important step toward protecting consumers and businesses from Y2K 
problems.
  That said, I have some concerns about the bill. Individual consumers 
were not as well protected as they should have been. While we've been 
able to retain for small businesses as large as 50 employees the 
ability to get a broad array of damages, we were unable to get a 
complete exception for consumers. Individuals have less bargaining 
power and generally don't possess the expertise or money required to 
protect themselves as well as businesses. Therefore, I am hopeful in 
conference we will get measures that exempt consumers from certain 
sections of the bill and allow them greater access and bargaining power 
when Y2K failures harm them.
  I also have concerns about the bill's preemption of State contract 
and tort law. The class action provisions of this bill would allow for 
either party to remove an action from a State proceeding to Federal 
court at virtually any time. This impedes State's rights and could harm 
individual plaintiffs by forcing them to incur more litigation costs by 
having to start anew in federal court. Unlike large companies, 
individuals often have difficulty traveling to new venues and paying 
additional attorney's fees. The court system should encourage 
individuals who are harmed to seek redress, not discourage them as this 
bill does. I also hope we can work on this in conference.
  It is important to note that the version that passed the House of 
Representatives is an even worse bill for consumers. It does not seek 
the balance between plaintiffs and defendants, but resembles the pro-
defendant bill that originally passed from the Senate Commerce 
Committee. The House bill is a step backward from what was achieved in 
the Senate. If we move at all toward the House bill in conference, I 
would hope and I'm confident that many of my colleagues will join me in 
opposing the conference report.
  Overall, passing this bill helps get the process going. It certainly 
is not perfect and I am hopeful the problems I have outlined can be 
dealt with in conference. It is also my desire to see the 
administration get involved in the negotiations at conference.
  My constituents, high-tech companies, and consumers deserve a bill 
that is fair and just, allows for remediation before filing suit, and 
protects people and companies who have acted in good faith.

                          ____________________