Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to table the motion. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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.

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.

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. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, it is.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. He and I work very closely together. The chairman of our committee has gained a reputation against charades and frauds and make-believes and pork and all these things. That is why it doesn't please this particular Senator that he would take this one on. The truth of the matter is that, generally speaking, it is a nonproblem. If there is a problem, the best of the best, Intel, has a web page we lifted just yesterday afternoon entitled ``Updating Your Components, Updating Your PC Hardware.'' ``If you have determined that your PC hardware is not capable of handling the century rollover''--so forth and so on, about how to manually reset and install a BIOS upgrade or patch, if available. 1. Manually reset the date after December 31, 1999, the first time you turn on your PC or laptop after December 31, 1999, and before you use any software applications, simply reset the operating system date on the computer. For nearly all PCs and laptops, this is the easiest and safest way to ensure the computer will handle dates properly in the year 2000. Once reset, the PC hardware clock will maintain the correct date when powered off and on or rebooted. 2. Install a BIOS upgrade or ``patch,'' if available if you wish to ensure that your PC hardware is capable before the new millennium begins. You may want to install a BIOS upgrade or software ``patch'' before the end of 1999. Some PC hardware manufacturers and BIOS and software vendors are offering free BIOS upgrades. I was wondering, Mr. President, about the time, the minimum amount of time, as I understand, and the cost. I lifted, again, in searching back in 1998, an article entitled, ``Tool fixes PC Y2K glitch,'' priced at $94.95. We are hearing millions and billions and everything else, Chick Little, the sky is falling. A lot of people still don't seem to realize that even though they purchase their PC in 1998, it doesn't mean that the system is compliant. There are still PCs out there that are not fully compliant. Tools like the [PCfix2000] provide users with a solution for addressing this. Then they go on to describe this $94.95 fix. I noticed in the month of March, on March 10 of this year: The easiest way to prepare your PCs for the new millennium is with Y2K diagnostic software. We chose five sub-$50 programs that both check your computer for year 2000 compliance and solve any problems they find: Check 2000 PC Deluxe, IntelliFix 2000, Know2000, Norton 2000, and 2000 Toolbox. We scrutinized each program and, finally, chose a winner. (Mac owners: Your machines are, and always have been, free of the Y2K bug.) That interested me, because we only just last week had Michael Dell of Dell Computers, the largest producers of computers in the United States, and he had advertised with the Securities and Exchange Commission that all Dell computers were Y2K compliant. I ask unanimous consent, once again, to print this March issue of Business Week in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. It is very short. Multinationals such as General Motors, MacDonald'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 Cap Gemini America says that 69% 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 less won't make the cut and as many as half could lose big chunks of business or even fail. Some small outfits are already losing key customers. In the past year, Prudential Insurance has cut 9 suppliers from its critical list of 3,000 core vendors. Citibank has already cut. Cuts have already been made. I read further down: If a vendor is not up to speed by April or May, it is a serious crunch problem. Through the Automotive Industry Action Group, General Motors and other car makers have set a March 31 deadline for vendors to become Y2K compliant. In March, members of the Grocery Manufacturers of America will meet with their counterparts from food marketing to launch similar efforts. Other companies are sending a warning to laggards and shifting business to the tech-savvy. Now I quote: ``Y2K can be a great opportunity to clean up and modernize the supply chain,'' says Ronald S. Boreham, Jr., chairman of the board of Baldor Electric Co. in Fort Smith, Ark. The World Bank shelled out millions in loans and grants to Y2K-stressed nations. On and on, Mr. President. Here is another article that the banks now, by June 30, will have all of their Y2K customers and everything else compliant, or they will have cancellations. Otherwise, Paul Gillin said in Computer World earlier this year: Vendors have had plenty of time to prepare for 2000. The fact that some were more preoccupied with quarterly earnings and stock options than in protecting their customers is no excuse for giving them a get-out-of-jail-free card now. That is what Computer World has called the Y2K bill, I say to the distinguished Senator from Arizona--a get-out-of-jail-free card--which is why I am surprised by my colleague, because he is usually on the other side. I quote again from Computer World: The problem belongs--hook, line, and sinker--to the vendors that capriciously ignored warnings from as long ago as the late `70s. . . . It has been five years since year 2000 awareness washed over the computer industry [and everyone should now be compliant]. I was interested that Boeing, for example--and the Senator from Washington was here debating it--started back in 1993. Everyone has done that. This is a political fix--and I will get to that in just a little while. I want to just bring you really up to date with respect to the number of cases. We had a witness, Ronald Weikers, who has written Litigating Year 2000 Cases, published by the West Group. I can tell you, the West Group is not going to publish anything partisan. They have a wonderful reputation for objectivity and reliability of their reports. He says: I frequently write and speak about the subject. I do not represent any clients that have any interest in the passage or defeat of any proposed Y2K legislation. Then he goes on to state: Thirteen of the 44 Y2K lawsuits that have been filed to date have been dismissed almost entirely. I brought that 44 figure up to date because that was the end of April, just a little over a month and a half ago. It is now 50 cases. Twelve cases have been settled for moderate sums of money, or no money. The legal system is weeding out frivolous claims. They act as if the courts just love to see a frivolous claim come into the court that doesn't have any substance. All you have to do is get 12 people and, whoopee, you've got money. You race to the courthouse, see the 12 people, and you get your money. It is a total fanciful picture that is being painted with respect to this legislation. The legal system is weeding out frivolous claims and Y2K legislation is therefore unnecessary. So says, of course, the Washington Post; they editorialized. We included that particular item in the Record, with others. The most recent one is by Institutional Investor, a magazine from Wall Street. They had a survey taken, and this was just this month: Do you feel your company's internal computer systems are prepared to make the year 2000 transition without problems? Mr. President, 88.1 percent said yes; 6 percent said no. Here we are, 5 and a half months, and now the bill. This is a wonderful problem here, and we have to give it time. In January, under the McCain bill, you get 3 months. I am giving them 5 and a half months, the operation, right now, to that 6 percent. Get with it. Have you done a dry run of your computer problems for the year 2000 transition? Twelve percent said no problems. Few problems: 86.4 percent. Then they asked: Do you expect Y2K transition problems to have a material impact on your company's business or financial performance next year? Three point six percent, and we have this wonderful Federal legislation. Of course, States haven't asked for that. No attorney general has ever come up here. In fact, the Conference of State Legislatures has resolved against this political fix. That is all it is, political. We will get to that in just a few minutes. Only 3.6 percent said yes; 89.2 percent said no. And then 95.2 percent say they have worked with their suppliers and cleaned up the problem. So here we are in June, 5 and a half months ahead of time, and we still are insisting, if you please, on the Y2K fix. Let me divert for a second and get right into the matter of safety. I know it is difficult with the matter of gun violence in the schools, and everything else, for us politicians to think in terms of a safe America. But that is the fact. We have the safest society with respect to product liability. That is what this is about, the Y2K problem with your computer, a product liability. Since 1963 in the McPherson case, under the common law, when the courts came in and enunciated the doctrine of strict liability, the State legislatures thereupon have followed suit, enunciating strict liability, joint and several liability, all over the land. When you buy a product, it is not caveat emptor, the buyer beware, but caveat venditor, the seller beware. They have to be responsible right down the line, because the proponents of this bill said they are going to go way down and find somebody with fat pockets, or high pockets. That is total nonsense. I have a glitch on my computer now, and I know they are like fleas on a dog, and they are all rich; it is the richest crowd the world has ever produced, way better than any oil millionaires. I know they have deep pockets, but I am not racing to the courthouse. I told my secretary to get this blooming thing fixed. I have no time to run around to the courthouse. If I went to the courthouse at 12 noon, it would take until the year 2000 to get into the courthouse. File your pleadings and see how it happens. The total unreality of the picture described here for the need of this particular legislation--it has worked and, yes, and the Europeans are following us, incidentally. I have the record here where they are coming along with strict liability and joint and several liability. I only mention that because they come in and say we are losing business to the Europeans. The Europeans are following America. We are setting the example for safe products in America. The conference board has found that. The Rand study has found that. I could go to various others--232 risk managers; the conference board reports that the companies responded to product liability by ``making their products safer.'' So we know the effect it has had. But to emphasize it, yes. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers has done a wonderful job with respect to consumers demanding a safe product, checking it out and understanding it--and various other things. The National Safety Transportation Board has come forth with various regulations, but it is really all prompted, if you please, I say to the Senator from Utah, by the trial lawyers. This town loves lawyers. That is all about lawyers. There are 60,000 of them. This town just loves lawyers. There are 60,000 to fix you and to fix me--not to get to the court. The lawyers are racing to the court around this place. I can tell you. I have been here 32 years now, and I know them. They are delightful folks. They are highly intelligent. I enjoy them. But one thing is that they have started advertising against working lawyers and the trial lawyers. The lawyer that has to come in, if you please, and when he has a client that comes to him, he says first I have got to investigate and make sure the facts are as you say they are and you have been wronged. He has to pay for all the expenses of that investigation--the interrogatories, the discoveries, having to file the different pleadings, the trial of the case itself, and on appeal taking care of the briefs on appeal, the costs thereof, making of appeal and waiting for the court. And all along that so-called talented trial lawyer is rushing to the courtroom. He has to get all 12 jurors--not 11 but all 12 jurors. He has to get a majority opinion from the court. Then he gets his 20 percent or 30 percent, and these Senators run all around and saying they have a lottery, and ``strike it rich,'' and some kind of atmosphere. The consumer has never been mentioned here. That is what trial lawyers represent. They do not represent themselves. They represent a wronged consumer. Ask the Consumer Federation of America. Ask Public Citizen. Ask anybody who represents consumers if they thought that this bill was appropriate. They are absolutely opposed to it, but we have them. They have been very clever in the way that they have postured this particular measure. It isn't about consumers. It isn't about wrongdoing. It isn't about need. This is a measure--sooey, pig. All you computer folks come into town--you millionaires--falling over each other. Billionaires, excuse me. I don't mean to hurt their feelings. Billionaires are falling over each other because we are going to fix it for you, which reminds me; that is some crowd, isn't it? That is some crowd. They are highly intelligent. Bless their success, but that is the crowd now that wants estate tax cuts. That is the crowd that wants capital gains tax cuts. That is the crowd that wants no tax on the Internet. What Wal-Mart has started cleaning up is Main Street. Now we are going to clean up the rest of it, because Main Street in the States and the municipalities is not going to be able to tax businesses as normal businesses on Main Street. In fact, the merchant on Main Street will say: Tell me. Yes. You want siding 42 feet long. That is fine. Let me order it. I will have it delivered tomorrow. I will order it on the Internet, and you won't have to pay the 8 percent sales tax. There is the agent sitting up there in a little cubicle on Main Street, and all we have is the wig shops run up and down Main Street of America. But that is the crowd that says get rid of the immigration laws. They have been spoiled. They have been told that money can buy anything. Get rid of the estate taxes, capital gains taxes, the immigration laws, and now get rid of the liability laws--200 years of State liability laws for wrongdoers--and instead they are saying the wronged injured party now has to pay for the misdeeds of the wrongdoer. I go back to placing emphasis on the point: I want to join on the issue about these lawyers. It was Mark Robinson back in the 1970s who brought the Pinto case wherein the gasoline tank exploded. It was negligently and willfully proved that they knew it was unsafe, but they figured that the extra little cost from a market cost-benefit analysis that they weren't going to put in the safe gas tank. He got a verdict in that death case of $3\1/2\ million and $125 million punitive damages 20 years ago. He collected zero of his punitive damages. He never got a red cent. But pick up the morning paper or yesterday's paper, pick up any news edition and you will find recalls. I went to the National Transportation Safety Board. As of 1994--in the last 4 years--there have been 73 million recalls on account of the Pinto case, on account of trial lawyers. You break that down to $1.8 million, or $18 million each year, $50,000 a day, and 5 percent of the $50,000 would be death, the other 95 percent in injury, and Mark Robinson saved 2,500 people from being killed as of today. He ought to be proud of it. Every trial lawyer who works that hard knows he is taking a risk, and he has to convince by the greater weight of the preponderance of evidence all 12 jurors. He has to be studied and careful and legally sound and prevail on appeal. He is taking care of all the costs, and out of it the average American gets a good lawyer. They do not like good lawyers. They like office lawyers that fix you and me. They don't like working lawyers. So all of us, this thing about running to the courthouse, race to the courthouse, and everything else, we put it to bed. Under our system, torts have been relegated to the States. I would think the contract crowd would understand that. If I remember it, they came to town in 1995 and said the best government is the least government; the best government is closest to the people--the 10th amendment, the rights of the States. Even then the first thing they passed was to make sure the States were made whole. What did they call that thing? Unfunded mandates. That was it. Yes. Unfunded mandates. They wanted to make sure they would take care of the State communities. The States have been administering. They have been doing it on Y2K. Everyone is taking up the Y2K. They don't live in an isolation booth. The people are close to their government at the local level, and all of them have been hearing about this particular problem. It has been advertised. Incidentally, my distinguished friends, the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, and the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, have performed yeomen service in bringing attention to this particular problem. But the States have been administering this, whereby you have to be a accountable for your wrongful acts. Having done so, we have a safe America with the States having administered properly their product liability law. They have refused every time--and this has been going on for 20 years--to get the Federals to come in. Here were the States asking not to do it. No State attorney general has come up and asked for it. No State Governor has said it is inadequate, and we need a Federal statute. Here they want to do away with 200 years of liability law at the State level. Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Look here. All we have to do is get yesterday's New York Times, June 14. On the front, left-hand column, ``Congress Chasing Campaign Donors Early and Often.'' The money chase. If you have any doubt about that, just the day before, on Sunday in the Washington Post, a two- column story appears on two pages, ``GOP Vies for Backing of High-Tech Leaders.'' ``Party aims to exploit Y2K vote at CEO summit.'' That is why they have all of them in town. This is a disgrace. This crowd has gone so political about message, message, message, they got the message together, but they say: Now, wait a minute. Senator McCain and Senator Hollings were ready for a final vote at 12:30 last Thursday, but we have to wait 5 days because you have to have a message but you have to have it timely. Guess who is in town this afternoon when we vote. Bill Gates of Microsoft. You want me to call the roll? Want to hear a bird call? Here we go. John Warnock of Adobe system, Carol Bartz of Autodesk, Greg Bentley of Bentley Systems, Michael Cowpland of Corel Corporation, Dominique Goupil of FileMaker, Bill Harris of Intuit, Jeff Papows of Lotus Development, Bill Gates of Microsoft, William Larson of Network Associates, Eric Schmidt of Novell, John Chen of Sybase, John Thompson of Symantec Corporation, and Jeremy Jaech of Visio Corporation. Of course, we have some that we could not get to meet with us, I guess--like Netscape. I saw Barksdale on TV, and I saw the head of IBM, Gerstner. They were on my morning TV. They are all in town. I thought this was the most amusing thing I had ever seen. I lifted this--I had to scroll it down word for word. Turn on channel 2, the TV here, which is the Republican screen of what is going on. I read it word for word: Senate again attempts to end minority stranglehold--the great Y2K money chase. That is the first time an outreach, bag in hand, has ever been called a ``stranglehold.'' We have been begging, trying to get a little bit of the crumbs from Silicon Valley. We have to run, too. We have never been against technology. I am the author of the Advanced Technology Program. I am the author of the Manufacturers Extension Partnership Program. It all works. It was supported by the electronics industry, the technology industry. It is working extremely well. We are trying to expand it. I would love to get Mr. Gates and Microsoft to South Carolina. I don't speak in a disparaging way. I speak in an adoring way. But don't come here with the screen about stranglehold. We have the Federal Election Campaign Commission. Last year, according to their records: Intel, Andy Grove, hard money, the Democrats got $16,000; the Republicans got $64,000. Microsoft, the Democrats got $71,000, and the Republicans got $143,000. Soft money, Microsoft, the Democrats got $135,000; the Republicans got $629,000. This is usually a performance of my distinguished chairman from Arizona, because I have heard him and he is very effective. I am just shocked he is not doing this and I am forced to do it. I could go down the list here. Computer Services Corporation, the Democrats, $25,000; the Republicans, $53,000. Microtech, Democrats, soft money, zero; Republicans, $16,000. Advanced Micro Devices, soft money, the Democrats got $1,000; the Republicans, $95,000. I have the list. You can go over there. Stranglehold? Come on, give me a break. Here is what they are doing. They come here. We all have to run. So we create a problem. We raise a straw man of trial lawyers. We don't talk about consumers. We don't talk about the wrongdoing. We don't talk about trial lawyers representing wrongdoers. They are not just running around with frivolous cases. That is an imaginary thing that could be brought at the political level but not at our level, I can tell you that. Trial lawyers worth their salt are not fooling around. They have to make a living. They don't run up and down and ruin their reputation. You know they are not getting anywhere. The courts take care of the frivolous charges. They raise that thing and they are saying: Here is what we are going to do; we are going to get rid of the lawyer. It was very obvious in the debate how they are going to get rid of the lawyer. They said get rid of economic damages. If you come in with a $10,000 or $20,000 computer and that is all you are limited to, that is all you can recover. What I have just described--for the investigation, the pleadings, the interrogatories, the depositions, the trial, the appeal, the cost, the time--as a lawyer, I would tell my secretary up front, if they come in, tell them those are very complicated cases and there are a lot of legal loopholes to go through and delays, and we are just not in a position to handle those cases. That is the way to get rid of the lawyer. They know exactly what they are doing. When Senator Edwards of North Carolina came up and said, wait a minute, you can't do that, the Senator from Oregon said, we will give you exactly whatever the contract. You don't contract for torts. You don't say, we are going to contract for the wrongdoing; the contract is complied with. If they defraud you, if they engage in wrongdoing, while the computer is down you are losing your customers to your competition, you are losing your business, you may have to let go of some of your good employees to tide yourself over. All the time that business has to wait--and a small business at that--I can tell you right now, there will be serious economic damages. If there is any doubt about it--because that is what small business wants. They don't want a law case; they want it fixed--up comes the Senator from California, Senator Boxer. She said: Don't give us trials, don't give us lawyers; just get a fix. They denied that in an up-and-down vote. They said instead of fixing the computer, we are going to fix the lawyers; we are going to fix the system. Just like any car dealer who comes around, what we are going to do is take your junk off the shelves and sell it; don't worry about it, because the law will protect you for 3 years. You can get rid of all your old models. Don't worry about it. Get rid of the junk. We will repeal the liability bill. We will say that fraud pays for the first time in America. No one is going to get these cases. That is what they will do. I can see exactly what was happening with that particular witness from New Jersey who came before the committee. He bought an update that was represented to last for 10 years. Within a year he found out it wasn't Y2K compliant. He paid $13,000. He called them twice and nothing ever happened. He wrote a letter. They finally came back and said they would make it Y2K compliant, for $25,000. That was after he got a lawyer and it went on the Internet and some 17,000 similarly situated people filed, and that particular manufacturer, supplier, came back and said they would fix it for nothing and pay legal fees. You can see the game that business will play on a cost-benefit basis. We live in a rough world, but we have a responsibility in American society. It is done well at the State level and has worked well at the State level. No State has asked for this particular measure. Instead, the Association of State Legislatures has resolved against the Federal Y2K bill. But they have the audacity to come up here and raise a straw man of lawyers running to the courthouse, in a litigious society and all of that nonsense, 5\1/2\ months ahead of time, and insisting on passing this particular measure, and insisting on the time of its passage is when the computer folks are in town so they will know who delivered the goods. I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I don't know. I had not discussed it with the distinguished Senator.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I am intrigued by the Senator's comments with respect to the industry itself. This Senator does not know of a lousy computer manufacturer. It is the most competitive industry in the world. You have to have the most brilliant talent around you. As they say, it changes every other year. Or every year, and so forth, it is outdated. So, that being the case, there are no real laggards or hangers-on. Right to the point, does the Senator realize, for example, that they have to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission what we call a 10-Q report; namely, of the Y2K problem? Do they know of the problem? What is the potential risk under the problem? What is to be done in order to correct that particular problem, and otherwise? What is the cost to the company? The stockholders want to know this information. The Securities and Exchange Commission requires it. Just looking at the Boeing Company Y2K report under their 10-Q report: ``The State of Readiness. The company recognized the challenge early, and major business units started work in 1993.'' Did the Senator realize that?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I hold in my hand an Institutional Investor. This is the real official document, the investment industry. They had a survey of the Congressional Financial Officers Forum of all the large corporations in the country. To the question, Do you feel your company's internal computer systems are prepared to make the year 2000 transition without problems, do you realize that 88.1 percent said yes, and only 6 percent said no? So that is 6 percent that have another 6 months to take care of it. With respect to actually getting and working out with their suppliers, do you realize that 95.2 percent said they have worked with their suppliers and are ironing out all the problems? It really verifies exactly the astute nature of the computer industry, as described by the Senator from California. You are right on target, and it hasn't been said on the floor as you are saying it, with authority, too. I commend the Senator.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished leader is manifestly correct. I was told, let's not even have a cloture vote, because looking at this measure, there could be three more cloture votes. And viscerally, not next Tuesday, I hope we do not vote until Tuesday 2001, the way I feel about it. But I entered public service to get some things done. You win some; you lose some. You have to go along. This is embarrassing to the body. Here we are, the Senate, talking about all the important things to get done and everything else of that kind. So we yield. We talk Senators into not offering their amendments. We finally get time agreements on all of the amendments on this side so no one has been in a proliferation or stretchout or extended debate. We were even forced to vote early last night to make sure we cleared the way to finish this afternoon. All we have is Senator Sessions' amendment and Senator Gregg's amendment, two amendments that could be disposed of in the next hour. In fact, the manager and our chairman, Senator McCain, has been yielding back his time and ready to vote. So it could be less than an hour. By 2:30 this afternoon, we could be finished with the bill. My question is, why do we want to wait and palaver and waste time and not go on to some of these important measures this afternoon? We are here and we are ready to go. I thank the minority leader and the whip for their particular comments, because we have been riding all the Senators pretty hard to limit the amendments and to have time agreements. Let's get moving. Senator McCain wanted to move the bill. We said so. I know the Republican screen all week long said they are going to finish this afternoon. I can't understand the change of pace now, to do nothing but talk to each other all afternoon. What a distressing situation this is, and no votes tomorrow and on Monday and just wait until Tuesday. I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me thank and join in with the comments made by our distinguished leader, Senator Byrd from West Virginia. No one knows the history and appreciates the history of the Senate better than Senator Byrd and the compliment thereof. He reminded me, when he talked about the fatal crash that Senator Stevens was involved in, I had just traveled with Senator Stevens and his first wife, Annie. We were in Cairo, Egypt, out on the Nile to a conference with Anwar Sadat. We stopped in Madrid. I will never forget it. My wife and Annie took a quick trip, as we were being briefed. There was the purchase of a cut-glass bowl, and Annie Stevens had that in her lap, and that plane went head over heels. It broke Senator Stevens' arm, and it cost her life, but there was not a crack in the bowl. I can tell you from the early days when I first got up here in 1966 that I used to hold the hearings for Senator Bob Bartlett up there in Seattle with Dixie Lee Ray and John Lindberg and all on oceanography and what have you, and then go up to Alaska to Point Barrow. There is no closer friend in the Senate to me than Ted Stevens of Alaska. I am his admirer. I like his fights. Senator Byrd was more tactful about describing it, but I am telling you right now, when he gets worked up, get out of the way right now, because he is going to get it done one way or the other, and he is not yielding. He has that conviction of conscience that really guides all of us in our service up here. Over the many years, we visited, we traveled, we worked together, and we have been identified both on the Appropriations Committee and on the Commerce Space Science Transportation Committee. Senator Stevens long since could have been chairman of that Commerce Space Science Transportation Committee, but he elected to take over at the appropriations level. As a result, Alaska is well served. I can tell you that. It is filled up. They used to say about my backyard with Mendel Rivers that if he got one more facility, Charleston, SC, was going to sink below the sea. I think second in line for that kind of result would be Alaska as a result of the diligence for the local folks. I will never forget; we traveled up to Point Barrow. The Natives had erected a cross and a statue to Annie Stevens who was lost in that wreck. I want to emphasize that more than anything else--of course, his wonderful wife, Catherine, and his daughter, Lily--that he might make 12,000 votes, but he will miss votes, I can tell you, to be there with Lily. In fact, we had planned during the August break to take another survey trip, and he said: Oh no. Lily goes to Stanford then. We have to put it off until later. You have to admire that about an individual, as busy as we get and as wound up as we get with the important affairs of state, to never forget the personal responsibilities, and the love and that Ted has for his family, and, of course, for each of us in the Senate. He is most respectful. He works both sides of the aisle. As a result of that, he is most effective. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, there is no question that the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, and the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, have done yeomen work in alerting the land with respect to the potential Y2K changeover as of January 1, 2000. Pursuant to their diligent work, we have had hearings in several of the committees. We have had laws passed now that allowed the parties to communicate with each other without fear of antitrust violations so they could go ahead and work to make sure that everyone was Y2K compliant. I only came to the floor just momentarily, hearing about predatory law exercises, exercises of predatory law practices and otherwise you get what you get under the contract. The atmosphere or environment is totally out of sorts. We are hearing about a litigious society. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut again and again said, and I noted the expressions I was looking for in the morning Record: ``running to the courthouse,'' ``race to the courthouse,'' ``rushing to the courthouse,'' on and on. Again: ``shopping around to find someone with deep pockets,'' ``glitches.'' I have a glitch on my computer right now, and I know they have deep pockets, but I am not rushing to the courthouse. People who have computers want to do business. They rely on the computers for the procedures and the progress of their interests. Having practiced law actively in the courtroom for 20 years, I can tell you nobody rushes to the courthouse. Try a rush beginning this afternoon and you will find yourself standing in line. All the civil dockets and criminal dockets are full. This panorama and environment painted by the proponents of this legislation is all out of sorts with reality. Tort claims are down. All the surveys we have had at the hearings show that tort claims are down. It is a litigious society. Everybody is suing everybody for sex discrimination or age discrimination or racial discrimination and various other suits that were unheard of 30 years ago and are now abundant on the docket. But with respect to claims, tort claims, if this afternoon I brought a summons and complaint on behalf of my distinguished chairman, I would be lucky if I could get to the courthouse during the year 1999. That is the reality. Incidentally, the cases they talk about--litigious, frivolous cases and spurious charges and those kinds of things--and trial lawyers, they try to fit trial lawyers in there like they prey; ``predatory'' is the word used by my chairman. Trial lawyers have no time for fanciful or spurious claims whatsoever. They know when they get the client, the client does not have any money for billable hours. On the contrary, the client principally has to rely on the lawyer's faith in the claim of the client in order to take care of all the charges, all the expenses of interrogatories, discovery, the pleadings, the filings, the motions, the trial itself. And when you come to verdicts, mind you me, those who bring the claim have to get all 12 jurors by a greater weight or the preponderance of the evidence making that finding; 11 to 1 is a mistrial. So you have to get all 12 and you have to be sure there is no error within the trial. All along, the expenses are taken care of. That is what nonpluses this particular individual Senator, in the sense I am surrounded here in the District of Columbia with 60,000 billable hour boys running around talking about ``litigious society,'' ``predatory practices,'' ``rushing to the courthouse,'' ``racing to the court,'' ``running to the courthouse,'' ``shopping around.'' Here is 59,000 lawyers registered to practice in the District of Columbia who will never see a courthouse. They will see a Congress. They will see you and me, the jurors. We are supposed to be fixed, so they work on fixing juries and running around spreading rumors and doing a favor here and getting a favor there. So that is the real world we live in. But to paint this legislation as doing away with predatory practices and racing to the courthouse and running to the courthouse? You have a $10,000 or $20,000 computer, if you are a doctor and you have a computer, and you want it fixed. You do not want a trial. They have made it so you are bound to go out of business and not get a lawyer, if you cannot get any damages, economic damages. The distinguished Senator from Oregon, again and again and again, says: Get what the contract says, get what the contract says, billable hours, get what the contract says. If you go buy a computer and get a warranty--and that is the contract--it is only for a certain period of time and everybody reads that warranty quick. Who says anything about economic damages? It will say something about a sound article for a sound price and they will give you some repairs after you stand in line, and so forth. But with respect to your standing in line and waiting, under this bill for 90 days, you are broke. You are out of business. You are closed down. You have lost your customers. This is a fast-moving world in which we live and small business, with all the competition, does not have in-house counsel on retainer, on billable hours, just as all the computer companies do that are force-feeding this particular measure. That is why the Senator from South Carolina gets annoyed with the entire thrust of the measure. With respect to its needs, let's go to the record. Under the Securities and Exchange Commission, all publicly listed companies, through their 10(k) reports to the SEC, give notice to the stockholders of the state of readiness, the worst case scenario, or the risk involved, the contingency plans to comply with any potential Y2K problem, and the cost. Many of them, most all of them--I do not know any privately. I talked with the gentleman from Yahoo. Four years ago, he was a Stanford student, and now he is well along the way. I admire him because, unlike AOL, America Online, that everybody is hugging and loving around here, dining and wining and traveling out to Virginia, Yahoo does not charge. America Online is trying for a monopoly. The cable folks have around 300,000 to 400,000; America Online has 17 million, and their push for openness, openness, openness means: Let me make sure I retain my monopoly. In any event, all of these are publicly held companies and they are burdened with that duty, and this has been going on. We act like everything with Y2K is going to happen tomorrow. The bill gives them 90 days. We are going to give them 180 days. Tell them to go ahead and fix it. Call up everybody now; test it; find out if it is Y2K compliant. I look forward to meeting some of these company people later today. Cisco Systems, as of December 1998, a year and a half ago: Current products are largely compliant in their 10(k) report to the SEC. Yes, here it is. Dell Computer. Here is a distinguished gentleman who has made a tremendous success. He deserves every bit of credit. I am not talking in a cursory or derogatory fashion. I am talking in an admiring fashion. I love success and particularly business success. I give him every bit of respect. Dell Computer, as of December 14, 1998, in their report: All products shipped since January 1997 are Y2K certified, I say to the Senator from Oregon. I want him to hear that. We have it here. Dell Computer, one of the best, as of December 14, 1998, all products shipped since January 1997 are Y2K certified. General Electric: A complete analysis of the microprocesses; Y2K compliant as of November 12, 1998. Intel Corporation: The company has assessed the ability of its products to handle the Y2K issue and developed the list, published it and support follows. As of November 10, 1998, they will be in compliance. Deployment, integration tested, will be completed by mid- 1999. I do not have their mid-1999 report, but that is what they reported to their stockholders. That is where lawyers look at these things. Incidentally, this Senator voted for the Securities and Exchange Commission reform with respect to the excessive reading of these filings and bringing any and every charge as a result of 10(k) filings. We did not want to require the filing and just lay the groundwork for predatory legal practices. I helped the distinguished Senator, Nancy Kassebaum, pass the airplane tort liability bill. I have been on both sides of this fence. But they have me categorized, and I love it. The truth is, Yahoo systems are currently Y2K compliant in all respects. That is February 26, 1999. Even writing a book with respect to this is very interesting. The book, to be published later on this summer, by Eamonn Fingleton, is ``In Praise of Hard Industries.'' I quote from page 65: A major part of the problem is that corporate America's top executives have not been monitoring their information technology departments as closely as they should. As Paul A. Strassmann has pointed out, the millennium problem, for instance, is stunning evidence of ``managerial laxity.'' In his book, The Squandered Computer, Strassmann comments: ``There is absolutely no justification for allowing this condition to burst to executive attention at this late stage.'' According to Strassmann, a former chief information officer of Xerox Corporation, the computer software industry should have started getting ready for the new millennium by the early 1970s, if not the mid-1960s. He gives short shrift to the software industry's excuse that the millennium bug arose because programmers were legitimately concerned about economizing on computer space. He maintains that such economizing was justifiable only in the very earliest days of computerization, the era of punched cards, which ended in the mid-1960s. ``The insistence on retaining for more than thirty years a calendar recording system that everyone knew would fail after December 31, 1999, is inexcusable management.'' There you go. Here they come up with Chicken Little, the sky is falling, predatory law practice, racing to, running to the courthouse, whoopee to the courthouse, a total fanciful background that does not exist. Let me come up to date. What is this? I never have read it before, but I learn. The May 1999 issue of Institutional Investors. This crowd does nothing but make money and sit around and punch. The article, on page 31, ``Y2K? Why not?''. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Presiding Officer. These worries notwithstanding, most U.S. companies appear to believe they have the Y2K problem licked. A resounding 88.1 percent of the chief financial officers responding to this month's CFO Forum expect that their companies will make the transition to the next century without any computer problems. Just as important, CFOs know that outside contacts must be ready as well, and 95.2 percent say they have worked with suppliers to that end. Nearly 73 percent of the respondents are convinced that their suppliers and clients will be prepared for the year 2000; only 4.8 percent worry that suppliers or clients won't be ready. Now we are going to change 200 years of tort law for 4.8 percent that still have 180 days, and the law does not give them but 90. So they must think something can happen in 90 days. We can double that. You like 90; I give you 180. Start right now. You don't have to do that. The market will take care of it, as Business Week says it is doing. I quote further: Such is the CFOs' confidence that 62.7 percent of respondents believe that failures of a millennial computer crisis are overblown. And as for those predictions of economic recession, not a single CFO responding to the survey agrees. This prediction had been made some months back, last year sometime by Yardeni, a respected economist. I remember the gentleman because I was at the hearings when he used to be with Chase Manhattan. He talked that it could even cause a recession. Not a single CFO responding to the survey agrees with that. Admits economist Yardeni, ``I seem to be the only one on this planet who thinks we'll have any chance of a recession, let alone a severe one.'' Tell Yardeni to come to the Congress. The majority around here knows we are going to have a recession--predatory practices, racing to the courthouse. There would just be a jam to get the business. I quote: He suspects that CFOs are relying too much on their tech departments' reassurances. ``I wish there was more verification of these happy tales * * *.'' Time will tell. Here is the question that is printed in the particular article: Do you feel your company's internal computer systems are prepared to make the year-2000 transition without problems? The answer is: 88.1 percent said yes; 6 percent said no. Next question: Have you done a dry run of your computer systems for the year-2000 transition? The answer is: 80.2 percent said yes; 19.8, no. So four-fifths have already been testing as a result of the fine work by the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Connecticut and, of course, our distinguished Senator on the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Hatch, and Senator Leahy of Vermont. Then you go down there: What have you done? They have all kinds of things down here: 86 percent bought new software. You see Dell and Intel and everybody else, they are certifying that when the purchase is made, this is Y2K compliant. Business is business. They cannot be playing around with monkey shines waiting on politicians in Washington to change the tort law. They have good sense. That is why they are successful. Do you expect the Y2K transition problems to have a material impact on your company's business or financial performance next year? The answer: 3.6 percent said yes; 89.2 percent said no. Do you think the fears of a year-2000 crisis are overblown [in the business world]? They give you a long list. You know how chambers of commerce work. They are stupid enough, by gosh, to give me a medal this year for last year when they are opposing me in the election. So don't tell me about the Chamber of Commerce. You are looking at the fellow with the Enterprise Award from the National Chamber of Commerce. But last year I got the stinkbomb. I can tell you that right now. They send around letters and leaches and everything that I was terrible for business. So don't listen to all the letters about all of those places. None of those State chambers of commerce is complaining. I notice they got one from South Carolina. They don't know from sic'em down there about Y2K. That is one place. You don't have to worry about what the State of North Carolina does. They will be ready come next month. They had a recent article--just yesterday morning; I should have brought that to the floor--that they are all in shape and ready to go. But for all the cases, the best I have heard, as my distinguished chairman mentioned, 80 cases--I have not been able to find that. The best authority has said that is mixed in with some other cases. The most recent information--and brought right up to date --is the letter a month ago by Ronald Weikers who appeared before our committee, an attorney at law. Let me qualify him. The gentleman says here in this letter: I have studied the Y2K problem carefully from the legal perspective, and have written a book entitled ``Litigating Year 2000 Cases'', which will be published by West Group in June. I frequently write and speak about the subject. I do not represent any clients that have an interest in the passage or defeat of any proposed Y2K legislation. Feel free to call me, should you have any questions. He starts off the letter: Thank you for speaking with me earlier. Thirteen (13) of the 44 Y2K lawsuits-- This is as of April 26-- Thirteen (13) of the 44 Y2K lawsuits that have been filed to date have been dismissed entirely or almost entirely. There is a court system, undescribed, or improperly described, by Senators on the floor of the Senate. The court generally does not have stumblebums just sitting up there and all rushing to the courtroom: Let me give you 12 people, and here is your money, and let's go. They test the truth of all the allegations, and even agreeing with all your allegations, you still do not have a case in court. Thirteen of them have already been dismissed. Twelve (12) cases have been settled for moderate sums or for no money. They are not deep-pocket cases. The legal system is weeding out frivolous claims, and Y2K legislation is therefore unnecessary. Thirty-five (35) cases have been filed on behalf of corporate entities, such as health care providers, retailers, manufacturers, service providers and more. Nine (9) cases have been filed on behalf of individuals. This trend will continue. Thus, the same corporations that are lobbying for Y2K legislation may be limiting their own rights to recover remediation costs or damages. That is signed by Ronald N. Weikers. We asked yesterday, and he has updated the 44 to 50. He has added six more since that time, which we have here for the record. So there is all the law and the Securities and Exchange Commission requiring that you notify your stockholders about any and all problems, and what are you doing about it, and the potential costs. And there is all of the debate in Congress, and the special law passed this year, and everything else like that. Those who usually are on the side of corporate America--even the Washington Post says let's not just be jumping around passing laws. That is the most irritating thing. I cannot get anything done with the budget. Here we are spending over $200 billion more than we are taking in, and everybody is talking about: The surplus, the surplus, the surplus. It is not just the $127 billion from Social Security, it is the money from the Senators' retirement fund, the civil service retirement fund, the military retirees, the highway trust fund, the airport trust fund, the Federal Financing Bank. Medicare moneys are being used for Kosovo. Think of that, Senators. But everybody is talking about whether we are going to have a spending cut or spending increase or tax cut because of the fat surpluses. I hope they will bring that thing up. I cannot get anything done about that. I can't get anything done about campaign finance. I was here when we passed it in 1974, 25 years ago. It was a good law. It did away with soft money, no cash, everything on top of the table, and limited spending in elections. Senator Thurmond and I could have had about 670,000 registered voters. Let's double it to 1\1/2\ million, 2 million. I just had to spend $5.5 million to come back here and make this talk. I can tell you here and now, this thing is outrageous, because I am spending all my time racing around the country. Talk about small business. Raise in a year and a half to 2 years 5\1/2\ million with shares of stock in general at $100 a share. That is a pretty good business. Don't tell this politician about small business. I am a small businessman. We had to raise that money, but it is a disgrace. We can't get anything done. Fortunately, I supported McCain-Feingold. Senator McCain now has joined me on my constitutional amendment, one line: The Congress is hereby empowered to regulate or control spending in Federal elections. In fact, the States like it so much we added the States are able to control spending in State elections. Thereby, we immediately go back and we make constitutional the original act, or whatever they want to do. It doesn't disturb McCain-Feingold. We can still proceed with that and not hear the argument of the Senator from Kentucky about whether it is issue oriented or candidate oriented. All that is subjective. We will know, once we pass McCain-Feingold, it is constitutional; that we hadn't wasted time. That is what I want. Just give the Congress its will to get rid of this cancer on the body politic. We can't get that done. You can't get anything for the Patients' Bill of Rights. You can't get anything for the ultimate solution to Social Security. You can't get anything done about anything, but they come up with a nonproblem that everybody, corporate America and everybody else, says, look, we have been moving on. We have cut off our suppliers and everything else of that kind. Then you come to the floor with the overreach. Well, last year we protected the consumers, and yesterday afternoon we said no protection for the consumers. They said they won't get a lawyer. I can guarantee you, they won't get a good lawyer. A lawyer who is really working for a living would say: Wait a minute, businessman. You come in here, you have to wait. You came in too quick. You have to wait 90 days before you really come in and get anything done. In the meantime, they have been given notice so they are hiding all the records. They learned something from Rosemary Woods and President Nixon, I can tell you that. So the records are not around. They have cleaned up their records. So they know. Otherwise, having waited that time, then you have to file; then you have to get in line. You are waiting another year. Who is the lawyer who is going to carry those expenses? He has other work to do. So they are not going to be bringing any cases. You are not going to be able to get a lawyer with this bill. That is what is going to prevent you from getting a lawyer, because there is no economic damage. The economic damage, the real loss is not the $10,000 for the computer. It is the million-dollar loss of customers and goodwill and the ability to serve and the loss of advertising revenues and everything else going down. My friend from Oregon says: Well, we give you what the contract says; this bill will give you what the contract says. Sure, it gives what the contract says. That is an oxymoron. We know it gives you what the contract says. But the contract doesn't contract for economic loss. We are talking about misrepresentation, wrongful acts, fraudulent representation, tort--not contract. So don't give me this stuff about the contract, and we are giving you exactly what the contract says. That is our complaint. We want what States all over the Nation, all 50 States, give you right now, and we do not want to repeal that. When we don't repeal it, then they come in in the next 180 days, the next 6 months, and they go to work and they start getting something done, because they realize this bill has either been killed in the Congress or vetoed by the President. They have to get right with the market world or get out of the way. That is the way free enterprise works. It is a wonderful thing. We all talk about it. By the way, don't give me this thing about the computer world created all of this productivity. Sure, it increases productivity. But what really created this economy--we are not going to stand here and listen time and time again--is the 1993 economic plan. Don't give the award to Bill Gates; give it to Bob Rubin. We were there. We had to struggle to get the votes. We had to bring in the Vice President to get the vote. They were saying over at the White House and at the Economic Council: Let us have a stimulus; we have to have a stimulus. Rubin says: No, pay the bill. What did we do? We paid the bill. We started paying off the bill. With what? Increased taxes. With increased taxes on what? Social Security. I voted for it. The Senator from Texas said: You voted for increased taxes on Social Security. They will hunt you down in the streets and shoot you like dogs. That is what he said. The other Senator, Mr. Packwood, said: I will give you my house, the chairman of the Finance Committee, if this thing works. Kasich, who is running for President, I am trying to find John. I don't know whether he is running as a Democrat or Republican, because he said: If this plan works, I will change parties and become a Democrat. We have the record. They are trying to subterfuge this as this computerization is moving overseas and asking for what? They want all the special laws. They want capital gains. They are making too much money. So they have the onslaught: Wait, estate taxes, we ought not to die and be taxed at the same time. So we have to change the formula for estate taxes. No, excuse me, immigrants. Don't pay Americans, just bring them all in. Let's have an exemption from the immigration laws. Let's have an exemption from the State tort laws. Let's do everything. Let's upset the world for the idle rich. Come on, 22,000 millionaires for Bill Gates. I employ, by gosh, instead, 200,000 textile workers at the mill. I would much rather have that crowd. Fine for the IQ group, but I am talking about working Americans, middle America, the backbone of our democratic society. So what we have here is an onslaught for the computer world, for capital gains, immigration laws, estate taxes, Y2K exemptions, any and every thing. They have money. They have contributions. We would like to get their contributions. So Democrats and Republicans are falling all over each other trying to show what goody-goody boys we are. We will change the State laws. We will take the rights away from consumers and injured parties. We will destroy small businesses that bought a computer. They won't even be able to get a lawyer with all of this stringout of how to bring a case and everything else of that kind. Saying, don't worry about it, it is only for 3 years, 3 years it will be gone--if there is a crisis on January 1, it shouldn't exist for over a year. Everybody will know within a year whether they are Y2K compliant and be able to file. But no, they want to use this for further argument, and I gainsay the way they are shoving it now, not agreeing to economic damages in the Kerry amendment, turning down the Leahy amendment for consumers rights. I am afraid what I said was a footprint for the Chamber of Commerce, but rather I think they really are on a forced drive for a veto because they can use that. Who vetoed productivity, the great industry that brought all of this productivity to America? Who vetoed it? I can see Vice President Gore trying to get up an answer to that one. That is going to be very interesting. Senator Hatch led the way with his bill last year, and we got together and started confronting this particular problem. As I speak-- and I am ready to yield now to my distinguished colleague from North Carolina--they have not 90 days, but we are giving them twice that amount. Put everybody on notice, this thing they tell me is on C-SPAN so everybody ought to know to get Y2K compliant, try it out, test your set. If it is not, go down and, by gosh, get it fixed now. Don't run to the courthouse. Run to the computer salesman who sold you the thing, because they--Dell, Intel, Yahoo, all the rest of them--are coming in and saying that everything is Y2K compliant. We can't wait around for Congress to change all the tort laws. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to table the motion. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Twenty-two thousand. That is in Time magazine, the year-end report. It is a wonderful operation.