Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member of the House to vote for this conference report, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for his leadership on this issue from start to finish. Sometimes individuals introduce legislation and it goes to a committee that they are not a member of and it goes through the process and they are not involved too much. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) has been involved in this process, he and his staff, from start to finish, and I want to commend him for shepherding this legislation. He has done an outstanding job in that regard, making sure that the needs of the high-tech community not only in his district in Northern Virginia but all across the country are met, along with the needs of the broader business community who buys this equipment and needs to make sure that it operates effectively and have good working systems on January 1 of next year, not a good lawsuit on January 1 of next year. That is what this legislation accomplishes. In addition, this legislation is very, very sensitive to the needs of America's consumers, those folks who not only rely on businesses to provide them with the goods and services they need but who have consumer products in their homes. Whether they be microwave ovens or personal computers or automobiles, whatever the case might be, we want to make sure that they have the problems that are associated with Y2K solved; and if they are not solved, that they have still their good legal remedies. Under this legislation, they do. If there is a personal injury involved, for example, this legislation does not affect their rights to bring a cause of action for injury in any way, shape or form. There is a carve-out for consumers with regard to consumer goods that assures them that they can recover the full amount of their loss if they experience one. But the main intent of this legislation is to not see those losses occur at all. That is why I am so proud of this legislation, and have had the opportunity to move it through the Committee on the Judiciary, through the House, and through the conference to a good, solid bill that adheres to the original principles contained in the original legislation of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). While we have compromised, while we have made a number of changes with regard to the details of the bill, the core of the bill in terms of putting caps on punitive damages, in this case for small businesses of fewer than 50 employees, to make sure that we do not have a strong discouragement of solving this problem, that is in the bill. To move to the standard of proportional liability, so somebody who may be 1 percent responsible for a Y2K problem does not get stuck with 100 percent of the bill, that is in this legislation. They will only pay their respective percentage of the problem, except under certain details, in which case it can be a little bit higher. But nonetheless, they are not going to be, in most circumstances, faced with the entire tab if they only caused a small percentage of the problem. Class action reform, something that I am vitally interested in because I have introduced legislation on this in a broader sense to apply to all class actions, we have that reform in this legislation. It makes sense for our Federal courts to handle Y2K class actions when they go beyond the scope of a single State. When they have plaintiffs or defendents from a multitude of States, this legislation will allow us in most instances to remove that legislation to the Federal courts, where they can consolidate actions from different States and they can apply a more consistent standard, and they can avoid the kind of forum shopping that takes place sometimes now. In addition, the legislation contains conditions that if the plaintiffs seek punitive damages in their class action suit the case can be removed to Federal court, regardless of the amount in controversy. So these reforms are vital. In addition, there are reforms that encourage folks to settle their differences outside of the courtroom: A 90-day cooling off period that is so important to allow a defendant who is made aware of a problem that somebody has in their computer system, in the machinery that is operating the manufacture of their products, whatever the case might be, they need to be given notice that the problem exists and then an ample amount of time to correct the problem. This bill does that. The thing that pleases me the most is that because of the bipartisan compromise that we have reached with I think we are going to see soon an overwhelming majority of Members of both sides of the aisle voting for this, and with the support of the White House indicated in several letters that have now been received, because of this cooperation we are getting this bill done in very short order, and that means that we will have about 6 months for everybody who is facing this problem to go at solving the problem without fear of entangling themselves in a litigation morass, and that is going to do more than anything else to make sure that when that clock ticks to 12:01 on January 1 of the year 2000, computers across the country will know that indeed it is the new millenium and that we have not gone back to the horse and carriage era of 1900. That, to me, will spell a continuation of the success we have had in this country with a booming economy as a result of the high-tech industry that is fueling our leadership around the world, our growth in our economy compared to other countries around the world, and the fantastic job creation that has taken place of good, high-paying jobs. This industry needs to have this incentive to move forward, rather than the hindrance to be set back with a major problem in the year 2000. We are going to accomplish that here with passage of this legislation today, send it to the Senate, and then send it to the President, and get on with the business of getting ready for the new millennium.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services. (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman referred to the letter that was sent to the Republican leadership, and yet she indicates that we need to take some time to resolve this. This letter urges us to conclude the process by the July 4 recess.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentlewoman by saying that the President has not indicated that he would veto this legislation. Some of his advisers have indicated that they will recommend to the President that he veto it. I think that is very poor advice, given the urgency that we address this problem immediately, given the fact that we have two good bills to work with between the House and the Senate and that we will come up with a very good solution that we would urge the President to sign. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Everything is on the table before we go to conference. I will, on my own time in a moment, address the efforts that have been made to take into account the input that the administration claims to seek with regard to that.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we will have input from the administration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, surely there are differences between both the House and the Senate on those two items. So, therefore, there will have to be some discussion with regard to the final disposition of the legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 775) to establish certain procedures for civil actions brought for damages relating to the failure of any device or system to process or otherwise deal with the transition from the year 1999 to the year 2000, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan, that we are prepared to accept the motion to instruct that the gentleman has offered, and I would say with regard to the legislative process that we have been through that we have from the outset been concerned about the substantive inputs of the administration and the leadership of both the House and Senate and both the Democratic and Republican leadership, and in fact, the House bill, which I think is an outstanding piece of legislation, which will go a long way to address the concerns of the American people, of the business community, of those who have been negatively affected by the failure to have certain equipment or software, whatever the case may be, ready for Y2K needs; that in all those cases we have in the legislation we passed listened to everyone who had input in this process, and have adapted the legislation that passed the House while taking those inputs into consideration, agreeing with some and disagreeing with others. I know that same process has taken place in the Senate, where they also have passed a good bill. So when the conference meets and considers the relative merits of both the House bill and the Senate bill, we will be interested in hearing the input of the leadership, and have heard the input of the administration in that process. For that reason, we are prepared to accept this motion to instruct. I would say, however, that the House of Representatives is a sovereign body, that it is duly designated on the basis of the United States Constitution to represent the will of the people that we represent, and we will do so with input from a number of different sources, but most importantly, with input from the majority of the Members of the House who supported the bill that we passed through the House of Representatives, taking into account the fact that we want to see legislation signed into law by the President which will reflect the need to address the Y2K problem to avoid frivolous and fraudulent lawsuits, to encourage parties to work on solving the Y2K problem and not on an increasing amount of litigation. We believe those things are reflected in the bill passed by the House. We believe they are also reflected in the bill passed by the Senate. So we will proceed in a fashion that will allow us to come up with legislation that surely the President will want to sign because it is urgent that we solve this problem. One of the points to be made about Y2K legislation addressing this problem is that time is of the essence. It is not only important that we pass this before January 1, 2000, it is important that we pass this and get it signed into law by the President now, because the effects of this legislation will take place immediately. Those who need to solve Y2K problems will be less fearful of getting into a litigation mess and more anxious to get about the business of correcting the actual technological problems that individuals and businesses face with their computer systems if they know now that they can get started now or continue work now without fear of a massive problem with litigation. That is what this bill that we have passed through the House is designed to do. I know that is what the Senate intended, as well. So surely when we work out the differences between the House and Senate bills, we will be able to present to the President something that he should sign immediately, given, I know, the concern that the President has for addressing this problem and addressing it immediately and not dragging us through a long process involving a veto; the addressing of this problem with new legislation that we would have to take up with another version passed through the House, another version passed through the Senate, another conference, and then still not knowing whether the version that that we come up with in that conference would be signed by the President. So it would be my hope that the version that we pass out of the conference will be signed into law by the President, recognizing that we have already been taking into account the concerns raised by the President, have, in the legislation passed in the House and in the legislation passed in the Senate, a reflection of a number of those concerns, but obviously not all of those concerns because, as I said, this is a body that must do the will of the people that we represent. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) from the other side of the aisle to close the debate for us.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I hope that we do have a substantive conference that considers the House bill, which I think is a very strong bill. I was pleased to work with the gentleman from Virginia to craft it and see that it got through the House with a strong bipartisan vote. The Senate bill, while it does not go as far as I would like to see the legislation go, is a bill that I certainly can work with Senator McCain and other representatives of the Senate, and we certainly want to have that input from the administration. The only issue that I have not mentioned yet with regard to the broad subjects of this bill is the cap on punitive damages. It is clear the administration does not like the House bill. The Senate version is considerably watered down from the House version. So between the House bill and the Senate bill there is a lot to work with to enable us to come up with a very, very good bill; and we welcome the administration's input as we work to come up with that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a very good point. But let me point out the things that are in the Statement of Administration Policy that are contained in these bills. The pre-litigation procedures contained in the legislation are compatible with the pre-litigation procedures outlined in the Statement of Policy. The pleading requirements are compatible. The class action, with the exception of the point regarding class action remedies, should be retained and State courts should continue to hear State class actions, in point of fact, States will continue to hear State class actions. It is only class actions that involve a Federal class that would be changed. The duty to mitigate damages that they set forth, that is contained in either the House or the Senate or both. The contract interpretation provisions are the same in the House and the Senate or both. The joint and several liability they have expressed in their statement support for change from the traditional joint and several liability to proportionate liability. They expressed some concerns about the House version. Those are addressed in the Senate version. The economic loss issue is addressed in either the House or the Senate or both.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say that while the administration has not contacted us, they have put out into thin air their administration's Statement of Policy, which we have carefully reviewed. In fact, they put out two, one prior to the House legislation and one prior to the Senate legislation. We have carefully studied these statements, and I can tell my colleague that the overwhelming majority of the principles outlined by the President are contained in either the House bill or the Senate bill or both. And so, if the President is intent upon vetoing this legislation because of the few small remaining matters that are not addressed in either the House bill or the Senate bill, I think there is a great deal of disingenuous behavior on the part of the administration if that is the case.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to work with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) on this issue. I will say to them that I appreciate their concern about the administration's input but, quite frankly, their concern exceeds the concern of the administration. Let me just point out a few things. First of all, I have had the honor of managing this bill both in the Committee on the Judiciary and on the floor of the House, and to this day I have not received one contact, one communication from the administration with regard to this legislation. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) is the principal sponsor of the legislation and he has never received one bit of input from the administration. I checked with my staff to see if perhaps the staff was contacted. Neither my legislative director nor the committee staff has been contacted by the administration to give their input on this legislation. In fact, the only contact with the administration regarding their input came from the committee, because the committee contacted the administration and invited them to testify before the Committee on the Judiciary, and they declined our offer to have a representative of the administration come and testify before the committee and have input with the committee regarding this. So while I know the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) are sincere in their desire to have input from the administration, I certainly hope that the administration's statements regarding this legislation contain the sincerity to work out this problem and address Y2K in a manner that immediately puts to work the Nation on solving the problem rather than setting up a massive problem with litigation.