John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in light of the fact the Senator from New Mexico wants to speak on this amendment, I ask for the regular order. With all due respect to my friends, we were going to vote 45 minutes ago.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague Senator Chafee in introducing the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation would help provide access to health care through the Medicaid system for pregnant women and children who are legal immigrants. In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act making critical reforms to our nation's welfare system. This greatly needed piece of legislation is dramatically improving our nation's welfare system by requiring able-bodied welfare recipients to work and encouraging individuals to become self-sufficient. As my colleagues know, the welfare reform law limits most means- tested benefits for legal residents who are not citizens. The specific provision affecting these benefits is based on the principle that those who immigrate to this nation pledge to be self-sufficient, and should comply with that agreement. However, I have been concerned that this provision is having a negative impact on a vulnerable segment of our population, children and pregnant women. My concern is not new. While Congress was considering this legislation, I raised concerns regarding several provisions which could have negative impact on certain vulnerable populations including children, pregnant women, the elderly and disabled. I believe our nation has a responsibility to provide assistance, when necessary, to our most vulnerable citizens, regardless of whether they were born here or in another country. I am pleased that Congress has addressed many of these concerns and implemented a number of changes to the 1996 welfare reform law. However, my concern for the pregnant women and children who are legal immigrants but were not protected by the changes implemented since 1996 still remains. The consequences of lack of insurance are problematic for everyone, but they are particularly serious for children. Uninsured and low income children are less likely to receive vital primary and preventative care services. This is quite discouraging since it is repeatedly demonstrated that regular health care visits facilitate the continuity of care which plays a critical role in the development of a healthy child. For example, one analysis found that children living in families with incomes below the poverty line were more likely to go without a physician visit than those with Medicaid coverage or those with other insurance. The result is many uninsured, low-income children not seeking health care services until they are seriously sick. These dismal consequences of lack of access to quality health care also have disastrous impacts on pregnant women and their unborn children. Studies have further demonstrated that many of these children are more likely to be hospitalized or receive their care in emergency rooms, which means higher health care costs for conditions that could have been treated with appropriate outpatient services or prevented through regular checkups. Receiving the appropriate prenatal care is essential for the health delivery and development for the unborn child which can help stave off future, more costly health care needs. Under our bill, states would be given the option to allow legal immigrant children and pregnant women to have access to medical services under the Medicaid program. Again, let me reiterate--this is completely optional for the states and is not mandatory This bill would provide our states with the flexibility to address the health care needs of some of our most vulnerable--our children and pregnant women. I urge our colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in introducing the 21st Century Media Responsibility Act. This bill would establish a uniform product labeling system for violent content by requiring the manufacturers of motion pictures, video programs, interactive video games, and music recording products, provide plain-English labels on product packages and advertising so that parents can make informed purchasing decisions. The most basic and profound responsibility that our culture--any culture--has, is raising its children. We are failing that responsibility, and the extent of our failure is being measured in the deaths, and injuries of our kids in the schoolyard and on the streets of our neighborhoods and communities. Primary responsibility lies with families. As a country, we are not parenting our children. This is our job, our paramount responsibility, and most unfortunately, we are failing. We must get our priorities straight, and that means putting our kids first. However, parents need help, because our homes and our families--our children's minds, are being flooded by a tide of violence. this dehumanizing violence pervades our society: our movies depict graphic violence; our children are taught to kill and maim by interactive video games; much of the music that inundates our children's lives delivers messages of hate and violence. Our culture is dominated by media, and our children, more so than any generation before them, is vulnerable to the images of violence that, unfortunately, are dominant themes in so much of what they see, and hear. It is beyond debate that exposure to media violence is harmful to children. Study after scientific study, beginning with the Surgeon General's report in the early 1970's, has established this. Certainly, there is a hard consensus in our society that something must be done. What this bill makes clear is that the manufacturers and producers of these consumer products should have a legal responsibility to provide plain-english so that parents can make truly informed decisions about what their children consume. This is not a rating system. It is a labeling system. it is not censorship. We are not talking about limiting free speech. Rather, we are talking about providing content labels on highly sophisticated, highly targeted, and highly promoted consumer products. This is common sense.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the bill we are considering today, the energy and water appropriations bill, is fundamental to our nation's energy and defense related activities, and takes care of vitally important water resources infrastructure needs. Unfortunately, this bill diverts from its intended purpose by including a multitude of additional, unrequested earmarks to the tune of $531 million. This amount is substantially less than the earmarks included in the FY'99 appropriations bill and I commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their hard work in putting this bill together. In fact, this year's recommendation is about 60 percent lower than the earmarks included in last year's appropriation bill. My optimism was raised upon reading the committee report which states that the Committee is ``reducing the number of projects with lower priority benefits.'' Unfortunately, while the Committee attempts to be more fiscally responsible, there is a continuing focus on parochial, special interest concerns. Funding is provided in this bill for projects where it is very difficult to ascertain their overall importance to the security and infrastructure of our nation. Let me highlight a few examples: $3,000,000 is provided for an ethanol pilot plant at Southern Illinois University; $300,000 is provided to the Vermont Agriculture Methane project; $400,000 is included for aquatic weed control at Lake Champlain in Vermont, and, $100,000 in additional funding for mosquito control activities in North Dakota. How are these activities connected to the vital energy and water resource needs of our nation? Why are these projects higher in priority than other flood control, water conservation or renewable energy projects? These are the type of funding improprieties that make a mockery of our budget process. Various projects are provided with additional funding at levels higher than requested by the Administration. The stated reasons include the desire to finish some projects in a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately, other projects are put on hold or on a slower track. The inconsistency between the Administration's request, which is responsible for carrying out these projects, and the views of the Appropriators on just how much funding should be dedicated to a project, is troubling. As a result, various other projects that may be equally deserving or higher in priority do not receive an appropriate amount of funding, or none at all. Many of my objections are based on these types of inconsistencies and nebulous spending practices. Another $92 million above the budget request is earmarked in additional funding for regional power authorities. I fail to understand why we continue to spend millions of federal dollars at a time when power authorities are increasingly operating independent of federal assistance. Even the Bonneville Power Administration, one of these power entities, is self-financed and operates without substantial federal assistance. We must stop this practice of wasteful spending. It is unconscionable to repeatedly ask the taxpayers to foot the bill for these biased actions. We must work harder to focus our limited resources on those areas of greatest need nationwide, not political clout. I remind my colleagues that I object to these earmarks on the basis of their circumvention of our established process, which is to properly consider, authorize and fund projects based on merit and need. Indeed, I commend my colleagues for not including any projects which are unauthorized. However, there are still too many cases of erroneous earmarks for projects that we have no way of knowing whether, at best, all or part of this $531 million should have been spent on different projects with greater need or, at worst, should not have been spent at all. I will support passage of this bill, but let me state for the Record that this is not the honorable way to carry out our fiscal responsibilities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list of objectionable provisions in S. 1186 and its accompanying Senate report be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague Senator Chafee in introducing the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation would help provide access to health care through the Medicaid system for pregnant women and children who are legal immigrants. In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act making critical reforms to our nation's welfare system. This greatly needed piece of legislation is dramatically improving our nation's welfare system by requiring able-bodied welfare recipients to work and encouraging individuals to become self-sufficient. As my colleagues know, the welfare reform law limits most means- tested benefits for legal residents who are not citizens. The specific provision affecting these benefits is based on the principle that those who immigrate to this nation pledge to be self-sufficient, and should comply with that agreement. However, I have been concerned that this provision is having a negative impact on a vulnerable segment of our population, children and pregnant women. My concern is not new. While Congress was considering this legislation, I raised concerns regarding several provisions which could have negative impact on certain vulnerable populations including children, pregnant women, the elderly and disabled. I believe our nation has a responsibility to provide assistance, when necessary, to our most vulnerable citizens, regardless of whether they were born here or in another country. I am pleased that Congress has addressed many of these concerns and implemented a number of changes to the 1996 welfare reform law. However, my concern for the pregnant women and children who are legal immigrants but were not protected by the changes implemented since 1996 still remains. The consequences of lack of insurance are problematic for everyone, but they are particularly serious for children. Uninsured and low income children are less likely to receive vital primary and preventative care services. This is quite discouraging since it is repeatedly demonstrated that regular health care visits facilitate the continuity of care which plays a critical role in the development of a healthy child. For example, one analysis found that children living in families with incomes below the poverty line were more likely to go without a physician visit than those with Medicaid coverage or those with other insurance. The result is many uninsured, low-income children not seeking health care services until they are seriously sick. These dismal consequences of lack of access to quality health care also have disastrous impacts on pregnant women and their unborn children. Studies have further demonstrated that many of these children are more likely to be hospitalized or receive their care in emergency rooms, which means higher health care costs for conditions that could have been treated with appropriate outpatient services or prevented through regular checkups. Receiving the appropriate prenatal care is essential for the health delivery and development for the unborn child which can help stave off future, more costly health care needs. Under our bill, states would be given the option to allow legal immigrant children and pregnant women to have access to medical services under the Medicaid program. Again, let me reiterate--this is completely optional for the states and is not mandatory This bill would provide our states with the flexibility to address the health care needs of some of our most vulnerable--our children and pregnant women. I urge our colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in introducing the 21st Century Media Responsibility Act. This bill would establish a uniform product labeling system for violent content by requiring the manufacturers of motion pictures, video programs, interactive video games, and music recording products, provide plain-English labels on product packages and advertising so that parents can make informed purchasing decisions. The most basic and profound responsibility that our culture--any culture--has, is raising its children. We are failing that responsibility, and the extent of our failure is being measured in the deaths, and injuries of our kids in the schoolyard and on the streets of our neighborhoods and communities. Primary responsibility lies with families. As a country, we are not parenting our children. This is our job, our paramount responsibility, and most unfortunately, we are failing. We must get our priorities straight, and that means putting our kids first. However, parents need help, because our homes and our families--our children's minds, are being flooded by a tide of violence. this dehumanizing violence pervades our society: our movies depict graphic violence; our children are taught to kill and maim by interactive video games; much of the music that inundates our children's lives delivers messages of hate and violence. Our culture is dominated by media, and our children, more so than any generation before them, is vulnerable to the images of violence that, unfortunately, are dominant themes in so much of what they see, and hear. It is beyond debate that exposure to media violence is harmful to children. Study after scientific study, beginning with the Surgeon General's report in the early 1970's, has established this. Certainly, there is a hard consensus in our society that something must be done. What this bill makes clear is that the manufacturers and producers of these consumer products should have a legal responsibility to provide plain-english so that parents can make truly informed decisions about what their children consume. This is not a rating system. It is a labeling system. it is not censorship. We are not talking about limiting free speech. Rather, we are talking about providing content labels on highly sophisticated, highly targeted, and highly promoted consumer products. This is common sense.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as United States military forces deploy into war-torn Kosovo for another protracted, costly stay of indeterminate duration and of considerable potential risk, I am left wondering why, with all of the readiness and modernization problems that are well-established matters of record, we felt compelled to add over $6 million in this bill for a new Visiting Officers Quarters at Niagara Falls. Is this really the message we want to send to our military personnel and to the American taxpayer. I think not. The propensity of members of Congress to devote enormous time and energy to adding items to spending bills for primarily parochial considerations remains one of our most serious weaknesses. The implications for national defense, however, are no laughing matter. Those of us who serve on the Armed Services Committee have heard a great deal of testimony from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as from regional and functional commanders in chief, of the impact extraordinarily high operational tempos are having on both near- and long-term military readiness. And we hear it directly from troops in the field. They are tired; repeated deployments and declining quality of life has taken a toll. A vicious cycle has emerged wherein the impact of high deployment rates and shrinking force structure are exacerbated by the flight of skilled personnel out of the service as a result of those trends. So I have to wonder why, given the scale of the problems documented, we are adding $12 million to the budget for new visitors quarters at Dover Air Force Base, $12 million for a Regional Training Institute in Hawaii, $3 million for a Marine Corps Reserve Center in Louisiana, $8.9 million for a C-130J simulator facility in Mississippi, $8 million for the Red Butte Dam in Utah, and $15 million for an Armed Forces Reserve Center in Oregon. None of these projects--none of them--were requested by the Department of Defense, and none of them are on the services' Unfunded Priority Lists. Unrequested projects totaling $985 million-- almost $1 billion--was added to this bill, on top of the $5 billion in member-adds included in the defense appropriations bill passed last week. I have asked rhetorically on the floor of the Senate many times when we are going to stop this destructive and irresponsible practice of adding projects to the defense budget primarily for parochial reasons. I have yet to receive an answer. Certainly, the practice has neither stopped nor slowed. The last minute insertion in the defense appropriations bill of $220 million for four F-15 fighters not requested by the Air Force solely for the purpose of appeasing hometown constituencies was one of the more disgraceful acts I've witnessed since, well, since we went through the same exercise last year. The total in unrequested items between the defense and military construction appropriations bills is almost $6 billion. That is serious money. As American pilots continue to patrol the skies over Iraq, maintain a tenuous peace in Bosnia, and proceed into uncharted terrain in Kosovo, we would do well to consider the ramifications of our actions. I'm under no illusions, however, that such contemplation will occur. It is apparently, and sadly, not in our nature. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying list be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think we have had a very excellent debate. I yield the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Utah, followed by 10 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, if that is agreeable to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator from North Carolina want to use his time?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after discussion with the distinguished Democrat manager, Senator Hollings, I would like to modify the unanimous consent agreement to allow Senator Hollings and I 3 minutes each before the vote on final passage is taken. I will withhold that request to clear it on both sides. But I think it is appropriate after we have votes on amendments that Senator Hollings and I be allowed to make brief statements before the final vote on this very important issue. So I will withhold that unanimous consent request, but I intend to make it at the appropriate time. Also for the information of my colleagues, I believe we may not require a vote on the Sessions amendment--I believe we are working that out on both sides--and we may not require a vote on the Gregg amendment as well, although neither have been worked out on both sides. We are attempting to do that. So it is entirely possible that at 2:15 we would be moving to final passage. I note that it is acceptable to the other side, so I ask unanimous consent to modify the unanimous consent request, that Senator Hollings be allowed 4 minutes and I be allowed 4 minutes prior to the vote on final passage of the pending Y2K legislation.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe it is in the unanimous consent agreement that there be 2 hours equally divided; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time I may consume. Mr. President, we are about to culminate the work of many months: investigation, drafting, negotiation, and compromise. The vote we take today will set the tone for the Senate in the new millennium. The Senate will either rise to the challenge that the Y2K problem poses and provide a proactive solution, or it will allow traditional political loyalties to leave us in reactive mode after a problem exists. I am optimistic that most of my colleagues recognize the importance of providing a balanced approach to avoiding a Y2K litigation quagmire, to preserving the nation's economy and providing support to the creativity and ingenuity that makes this country the world's leader in technology. I want to remind my colleagues that many compromises have been made in this bill since it passed out of the Commerce Committee. It is certainly not as strong a bill as that passed by the House. These compromises have been made in order to get a bill that can have bipartisan approval and can be signed into law. We cannot play politics with this important issue--we must ensure that this legislation becomes law. On the other hand, I have stated clearly that I will not be party to passing a mere facade. Unless we really accomplish something, we cannot take credit for doing so. Even with all of the compromises we have made to get the legislation to this point, I firmly believe that the legislation will be effective. Before we vote, I want to walk through the provisions of the legislation and correct some misconceptions as to how this bill would operate. With all of the rhetoric of the past several days, I think there has been some concern about the operation of the legislation, which I want to allay. First, it is critical to remember that this legislation addresses Y2K failures which may be encountered by every industry, business, and consumer in the country. This legislation is not designed to protect the high tech industry or provide it immunity. The intent of the legislation is to provide a balance and orderly system for the resolution of Y2K failures in a manner that is fair, ensures that real problems experienced by consumers and businesses alike are addressed quickly, without litigation whenever possible, and that the judicial system is not overrun with opportunistic and creative lawsuits. It is not the redress of real problems that this legislation seeks to limit. It is important to keep in mind that this legislation is supported by the broadest array of interests I have ever seen in support of legislation. They represent companies which will be plaintiffs, those who will be defendants, and those who will likely be both. These varied interests have debated among themselves many of the points raised on the floor of the Senate regarding the balance between plaintiffs and defendants. The compromises made since the bill was passed from the Commerce Committee also have refined the balance. What remains today to be voted upon is a good piece of legislation for every segment of the nation's economy. Let me also reiterate that the Y2K date code problem is not simple to correct. Millions of lines of code are involved, many in outdated languages or in applications that have been revised and upgraded more than once or twice. Multiple means of correcting the date codes adds to the challenge, as does the rare occurrence of leap year in the first year of a new century. Uncertainty as to all the affected embedded chips, the interface of the various corrections, and the complexities of solving the date code without affecting other aspects of a date program, all make this a complex problem requiring massive dedication of technical ingenuity to correct. Although the opponents of this legislation would like the country to think the solution is simple and could have and should have been fixed a long time before now, it is not so simple. Businesses in every industry will spend hundreds of billions of dollars to correct the problem. Estimates are that the costs in the United States alone will be between $100 and $200 BILLION--without litigation costs. There will undoubtedly be shifts of costs from one business to another, from one industry to another, from consumer to manufacturer, as the ramifications of the problem are better known. The purpose of this legislation is to provide rules and mechanisms for this process of cost shifting; rather than focusing on blame, to focus on solutions, prevention and remediation of real problems, rather than anticipated or perceived problems. Let me review some of the most important aspects of S. 96: First, I want to emphasize that this legislation does not affect personal injury cases. We have done nothing to alter the current law regarding how personal injury or wrongful death claims would be handled. Second, let me state clearly that this legislation sunsets. It applies only to problems that occur within 3 years. This legislation will not change American law for all time. The notice provisions provide time for the potential plaintiffs and defendants to resolve Y2K problems without litigation. The notice period is 30 days. Only if the defendant responds by fixing the problem is another 60 days provided to allow remediation to be completed. If there is no response, or if the defendant declines to fix the problem, the plaintiff can sue on the 31st day. The emphasis here is on providing notice that there is a problem so that it can be fixed. Most people want their equipment to work--they don't want a lawsuit. This provision ensures that the first order of business is to offer an opportunity to fix the problem. In no way does this provision deny someone's right to sue. Instead, it should speed up resolution of problems. A requirement for pleading material injury ensures that the cases which are litigated are those in which there is real injury. This section will not cause problems for consumers or businesses with actual Y2K-related failures. It will cause a problem for plaintiffs solicited for class actions where no injury has occurred, as in the increasingly famous California case brought by Tom Johnson. To remind my colleagues, that is the case brought against six retailers in California, not to remedy any failure or injury, but to disgorge profits made over the past 5 years from selling unspecified products which may or may not be Y2K compliant. The clear intent of this litigation is a large settlement. That kind of profiteering litigation is the kind of litigation which S. 96 seeks to curb. Our judicial system should not be clogged with possible Y2K failures, nor novel complaints to ensure the payment of lottery-type settlements and attorneys' fees. The economic loss rule further ensures that contract actions will not be ``tortified.'' Why is this important? Historically contract actions have provided as remedy the ``benefit of the bargain,'' but not punitive damages. The ``benefit of the bargain'' may include lost profits or similar compensatory damages to ensure that the plaintiff is made whole. By turning contract actions into tort actions, aggressive attorneys can claim the more lucrative punitive damages which are not compensatory in nature and allow a windfall from which to pay attorneys' fees. However, banning the ``tortification'' of contracts does not leave a consumer without remedies for real problems. Principles of contract law govern many situations where only a verbal contract, not a written contract, exists. Additionally, the legislation does not affect rights under State Uniform Commercial Code and consumer protection laws. Punitive damage awards have been limited for small businesses, but not for large businesses, in recognition that small companies are especially vulnerable to an onslaught of litigation. No caps are applicable, however, if the defendant has intentionally caused injury, since such conduct is egregious and should not be protected. These modest limitations also prevent frivolous lawsuits. This is especially reasonable here where we have eliminated personal injury claims, thus the damages suffered are all economic in nature. We have preserved contracts as written to ensure that preexisting contractual relationships are maintained. The parties will receive the full benefit of their bargain. When the terms of a contract are in conflict with this legislation, the contract prevails. There is no reason for attorneys to say, as some trial lawyers have, that the legislation would alter a businessman's right to sue a vendor who does not perform a contract because of a Y2K failure. He can. But the legislation provides a notice period in which the vendor can, and should, remedy the problem without the time and expense of litigation. A critical provision of the legislation provides that where litigation is necessary, the defendants will pay for their proportionate share of the damage. This is fair. A defendant pays for the damage he caused. It also eliminates the incentive to sue the ``deep pockets'' who may not be primarily responsible for the problem. Exceptions are provided for small plaintiffs who should not be at risk for collecting a damage award, and for situations where a defendant, because of particularly egregious behavior, should bear the burden of collecting from other defendants. Those who oppose the bill have alleged that these provisions will actually deter responsible companies from taking necessary action to prevent Y2K failures. The facts do not support this claim. All one has to do is take a quick look at the year 2000 related Internet links to see that massive efforts are already being made to make information about Y2K problems and solutions available. A recent EDS, Electronic Data Systems, ad highlights its free of charge, on-line data base that lists over 230,000 products from more than 5,000 vendors, with links to the vendors, instructions for making products Y2K compliant, and links to other related sites. The ad claims that the site receives 56,000 hits a day. Both the EDS site and other sites provide step-by-step checklists and resource information for solutions. Why is this information being made available? Because the United States is the world's leader in technology. One of the reasons for the high-tech industry's success is that it has responded well to the marketplace. Preventing Y2K problems, letting other businesses and industries know about the problem and how to solve it, make good business sense. If so much work is going into solving the Y2K problem then why do we need this legislation? As I have stated before, the cost of solving the Y2K problem is staggering. Experts have estimated that the businesses in the United States alone will spend $50 billion in fixing affected computers, products and systems. But what experts have also concluded is that the real problems and costs associated with Y2K may not be the January 1 failures, but the lawsuits filed to create problems where none exist. An article in USA Today on April 28 by Kevin Maney sums it up: . . . Experts have increasingly been saying the Y2K problem won't be so bad, at least relative to the catastrophe once predicted. Companies and governments have worked hard to fix the bug. Y2K-related breakdowns expected by now have been mild to nonexistent. For the lawyers, this could be like training for the Olympics, then having the games called off. . . . The concern, though, is that this species of Y2K lawyer has proliferated, and now it's got to eat something. If there aren't enough legitimate cases to go around, they may dig their teeth into anything. . . . In other words, lawyers might make sure Y2K is really bad, even if it's not. The sad truth is that litigation has become an industry. While many fine attorneys represent their clients ethically and in a scrupulous manner, litigation has become big business for a segment of the trial bar. A panel of experts predicted at an American Bar Association convention last August that the legal costs associated with Y2K will exceed that of asbestos, breast implants and tobacco and Superfund combined. A reported 500 law firms across the country have put together Y2K litigation teams. As we have already seen in the Tom Johnson case in California, where no real injury or damage exists, novel theories are pursued to divert attention from prevention and remediation to defending litigation. Time and resources that could be spent on improving technology are diverted to litigation and settlement costs and attorneys' fees. During a hearing on this legislation in the Commerce Committee testimony was presented from two small businessmen who were concerned, legitimately, about problems they had faced with Y2K failures, or anticipated failures. The esteemed Ranking Member of the Committee has often mentioned their testimony on the floor. Both expressed concern that they would be prevented by this legislation from bringing suit, or from being compensated for their damages. In both instances, not only would this legislation not elimate their right to sue, it might help prevent the need to sue. The notice provisions and remediation period would assure prompt attention and resolution to their complaints. We cannot lose sight of the bigger picture in terms of cost of litigation. The costs of both bringing and defending lawsuits are passed on by the businesses and industries into higher prices and cutbacks in jobs or new orders. The impact on our economy of an avalanche of frivolous lawsuits will be felt by all of us. If we do not curtail litigation costs, we will all pay a price in higher prices for computer and software goods, higher prices for every other retail good with embedded chips, higher prices for insurance, and slower, more expensive increases in technological advances. Money that is spent on litigation is money that is not spent on creating new jobs, providing better incomes, retaining our nation's competitive edge. Mr. President, in closing, let me urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is bipartisan, and again I want to thank Senators Wyden and Dodd for all they have done to make it so. It is reasonable and practical. It presents a good balance between the interests of plaintiffs and defendants and will prevent needless and costly litigation. It will assist in preserving the best economy our country has ever enjoyed. I will encourage the continued prosperity and leadership of our nations' technology industries as we enter the new millennium. It will prevent our nation's courts from being clogged for years with litigation that offers no one prosperity except for the lawyers. The emphasis in approaching the Y2K problem must be on prevention, remediation and prompt resolution of Y2K problems. This legislation meets those goals. The coalition of support for this bill is compelling. This legislation is important not only to big business and high tech, but to small businesses, retailers, wholesalers, insurance, consultants-- virtually every segment of the business community. Time is of the essence. For this legislation to provide the direction and impetus desired to assure prevention and remediation of Y2K problems, it must be passed now. We have spent several months getting to this point. Let me be clear. This legislation will make a difference. If we don't pass it, we will be failing to provide leadership for our country. I fear that a year from now we will again turn to this issue, but only after an avalanche of lawsuits has stymied the economy. Support this legislation and be part of the Y2K solution. I again thank Senators Dodd and Wyden and many others for all of their efforts. I also want to congratulate Senator Hollings, my friend from South Carolina, for an impassioned and very compelling argument in opposition to this legislation. I have always enjoyed debating him on a variety of issues, and I know no one who is better informed. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. The next item of business is the amendment that was offered by Senator Gregg.

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

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.

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.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in this series be limited to 10 minutes in length.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will take 2 of my minutes, and the Senator from Oregon will take the remaining 2 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1664 there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided between Senators Nickles and Byrd.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement regarding H.R. 1664 be amended to add 5 minutes for Senator Domenici.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Today the Senate will immediately begin 2 hours of debate on S. 96, the Y2K legislation. Following that debate, the Senate will stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. so that the weekly party conferences can meet. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, a series of stacked votes will begin. The first votes in order will be on or in relation to the pending amendments to the Y2K bill, followed by a vote on final passage. After the disposition of the Y2K bill, a cloture vote on the Social Security lockbox issue will take place. If cloture is not invoked on the lockbox legislation, a cloture vote on H.R. 1664 regarding the steel, oil, and gas appropriations bill will be in order. Further, if cloture is not invoked on H.R. 1664, it is the intention of the majority leader to resume debate on the energy and water appropriations bill. It is hoped that a vote on final passage to that appropriations bill can be completed by this evening.