John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Under a previous unanimous consent agreement, I requested 4 minutes on each side.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let's be clear about the importance of the bill and what is at stake. The bill is supported by virtually every segment of our economy. It is important not only to the high-tech industry or big business but carries strong support from small business, retailers and wholesalers, and the insurance industry. On one side of the issue we have the American economy, arguably the strongest our Nation has ever enjoyed. It is driven in large measure by the technological leadership our companies have and are providing to the rest of the world, the resulting revolution in productivity for other industries. On the other side, we have those who, for whatever reason, desire encouraging disputes rather than solving problems. The Y2K situation presents an unparalleled opportunity to tie up the country's judicial system and the economy's resources in litigation, which only profits the legal profession. Opportunistic litigation costs the Nation's economy time and resources which then cannot be spent on value-added productivity. This is a very important piece of legislation. It is important to the future of the economy. It is important to the future development of this technology, and it is of great importance to the future of average American citizens. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we have learned repeatedly over the last three months, few things seem to go as planned in the Balkans. In fact, I think the warning ``expect the unexpected'' is quickly becoming the first rule of statecraft in the post-cold-war world. The provocative and disturbing occupation of the airport in Pristina by 200 Russian paratroopers has surely complicated our peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. Even more importantly, it exemplifies the huge challenge confronting us as we seek to build a relationship with a former superpower adversary that works to out mutual benefit and that of the world's. I do not know if this action is evidence of a growing breach between Russia's political and military leadership or if Russia's political leaders sanctioned it. I don't pretend to be a scholar of Russian politics. I do know, however, that Russia's continued refusal to accept NATO's command over the entire peacekeeping effort in Kosovo, whether the Russian government or some independent-minded Russian generals issue that refusal, challenges the viability of the fragile peace we are committing 50,000 NATO troops to enforce. It is a challenge we must overcome immediately, with steady nerve and firm resolve. Even though, NATO obviously has the power and authority to work its will in Pristina, overcoming the challenge should not require us to forcibly evict the Russians from the airport. But neither does it require us to pretend that the challenge is so insignificant that it doesn't merit our notice. It is a problem, although not yet a disaster, and it requires our swift and sure-footed response to resolve it as quickly as possible. We must take the necessary steps to prevent the reinforcement of those troops. But, more importantly, we must make abundantly clear to Moscow that we consider this action to be evidence that Russia cannot yet be trusted as good faith partners in preserving European stability. It even casts doubt on their efforts to convince Mr. Milosevic to accept NATO's terms for a settlement, raising the suspicion that there were hidden commitments to secure a de facto partition of Kosovo. Until those suspicions can be allayed--which would require, of course, Russian troops to accede to NATO's authority at the airport-- progress in constructing a new and mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and its allies and Russia will suffer. The coming G-7 meeting in Germany, which was intended to consider efforts to assist the collapsed Russian economy, must now result in a clear, unequivocal statement that no such assistance will be forthcoming while Russian leaders either tolerate or are unable to stop attempts by their forces to undermine our efforts in Kosovo. Moreover, we should exact some specific and public assurance from the putative leader of Russia, Boris Yeltsin--since the word of his ministers is no longer credible--that Russia will play either a constructive role or no further role in Kosovo. A constructive role will entail, of course, Russia's acquiescence in the unified NATO command of the entire operation. There must be no Russian sector in Kosovo even if we select some other euphemism to describe it because most Kosovars believe, quite understandably, it is a pseudonym for the partition of Kosovo. Few if any ethnic Albanians will return unarmed to an area where their security is the responsibility of troops whose loyalties were demonstratively pledged to the Serb persecutors. The United States recognizes the importance of achieving stable, mutually beneficial relations with Russia. We expect Russia to recognize that its best interests lie in friendship with NATO and not in old hostilities that stretch back to the cold war and beyond. The Russian military should be capable of recognizing that its interests are best served by better relations as well. An army that cannot adequately feed and fuel itself, or that is unable to offer a minimum standard of life to its soldiers should see the error in nursing old enmities at the expense of progress toward the common goal of a more secure world. The United States expects nothing more of Russia than that it acts in its own best interests, for its best interests are compatible with the cause for peace and justice in Kosovo, and everywhere else for that matter.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 15, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to conduct a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee in Hart 216 beginning at 9:35 a.m., on June 15.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forest and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 15, for purposes of conducting a hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on issues related to vacating the Record of Decision and denial of a plan of operations for the Crown Jewel Mine in Okanogan County, WA.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I can't help but note the Senator from South Carolina mentioned Mr. Gates has 2,000 employees for millionaires.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murkowski, I send a modification to amendment No. 612. It is my understanding this amendment is acceptable to both sides.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased with the progress we have made thus far on this bill. We have limited the number of remaining amendments, and I am hopeful we will be able to reach agreement as to time agreements on the remaining amendments so we can conclude consideration of this important legislation. I am also pleased we have turned back two attempts to emasculate the legislation. Those critical votes encouraged me that the Senate will be able to pass meaningful and effective legislation regarding the top priority issue for the broadest possible cross-section of the Nation's economy. The ongoing fight between the welfare of the Nation's economy and the trial lawyers is going to reach additional crucial votes on amendments today and in final passage. Over the past few weeks, I have waited to hear rational, logical reasons for defeating this legislation or for gutting it with more compromises. I have heard none. S. 96, with the substitute amendment offered, represents a reasonable and effective means of addressing this important issue. It represents a significant compromise from the version of S. 96 which passed out of the Commerce Committee, and even greater departure from H.R. 775 which was recently passed by the other body. It truly incorporates bipartisan discussion, negotiation, and compromise. While ensuring it is not mere window dressing or mirage, there is nothing in this bill which should be objectionable to any of my colleagues who truly want a solution to the Y2K problem rather than an excuse to protect the litigation industry. This matter is of utmost importance to the broadest cross- section of American commerce imaginable. Accounting, banking, insurance, energy, utilities, retail, wholesale, high tech, large and small, all support this effort to prevent and remedy Y2K problems and to avoid a disastrous litigation quagmire. They are unanimous and steadfast in their support for S. 96 with the Wyden and Dodd agreements. As opponents, we have the trial lawyers, a cost center in our economy. The interests of the trial lawyers are clearly to assure a continued income stream from Y2K litigation. I have been told that over 500 law firms have established practice specialties to handle Y2K litigation. Many of these firms are reportedly touring the country dredging for clients. Opportunistic legislation costs the economy money, time, and resources which then cannot be expended on value-added productivity. As I have stated several times during this debate, the cost of solving the Y2K problem is staggering. Experts have estimated that 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 in 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. I quote: 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. I am looking forward to continued debate on the merits of this bill with those who do object to it. I look forward to voting on other amendments and bringing this critical legislation to a successful conclusion. I believe the two votes we took yesterday, one on the Kerry amendment and one on the Leahy amendment, clearly indicate the position of the significant majority of this body, because those two were very critical amendments. Both of them would have had a significant effect on this legislation--obviously, in my view, a significant weakening effect. I thought the debate we had yesterday, especially with the Senator from Massachusetts but also with others, was a very important and valuable debate and contributed to the knowledge and information of all Members of the Senate. We intend very soon to propose a couple of amendments that have been agreed to by both sides, but at this time, with the absence of the minority in the Chamber, we will wait for that to happen. I want to quote from a statement of ``Administration Policy'' concerning this legislation. The administration strongly opposes S. 96 as reported by the Commerce Committee, as well as the amendment intended to be proposed by Senators McCain and Wyden as a substitute. The administration's overriding concern is that S. 96 is amended by the McCain-Wyden amendment . . . Actually, it is McCain-Wyden-Dodd-- . . . will not enhance readiness, and may in fact decrease the incentives organizations have to be ready to assist customers and business partners to be ready for the transition of the next century. This measure would protect defendants in Y2K actions by capping punitive damages and by limiting the extent of their liability to their proportional share of damages, but would not link these benefits to those defendants' efforts to solve their customers Y2K problems now. As a result, S. 96 would reduce the liability these defendants may face, even if they do nothing, and accordingly undermine their incentives to act now when the damage due to Y2K failures can still be averted or minimized. I have to admit, as a member of the opposition, that I have seen some fairly tortured logic associated with messages of veto threats by the administration. I am not sure I have ever seen such tortured logic as is embodied in this particular paragraph I just described. One of the fundamental facts that has been ignored--obviously must have been ignored in this message from the Executive Office of the President, OMB--is that these companies and corporations that are all supporting this legislation are both plaintiffs and defendants. In other words, many of these companies will be bringing suit themselves or seeking to have others fix their Y2K problems and may bring it to court if that is not the case. When we are talking about this legislation, at least according to the administration, S. 96 would reduce the liability these defendants face, even if they do nothing, and accordingly undermine their incentives to act now. One would have to have one's curiosity aroused as to why people who are prospective plaintiffs would limit their ability willingly to seek redress and to repair any problems associated with their business. From the Clinton administration there is a ``Background Paper'' from PPI, the Progressive Policy Institute, entitled ``Avoiding the Y2K Lawsuit Frenzy, Ensuring Y2K Liability Fairness.'' I would like to quote from that. The authors are Robert Atkinson and Joseph Ward. While the Clinton Administration has voiced support for some of the broad goals found in these bills, it has expressed serious reservations about certain provisions, in part on the grounds that their scope is unprecedented and that it is not fair to limit liability for firms in this or any circumstance. As discussed below, some of its concerns should be addressed in revised legislative language, but the overall concept of a fair liability regime is still very necessary in this case. It is important to recognize that the Year 2000 is a one-time event that appropriately deserves a one-time solution. That seems to have been ignored by the administration. In three years, this legislation sunsets. Then we go back. No matter how zealous an advocate I happen to be for raw tort reform and product liability reform, the fact is that this legislation will be over 3 years from now. The goal of public policy in cases like this should be the side of innovation and economic growth, and not on the side of predatory legal practices that seek to harvest the fruits of others' labor. In this regard, the bills mentioned above are similar to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) supported in 1995, which sought to reduce litigation that would harm economic growth or raise the cost of goods and services for most Americans. However, while PPI believes that some Y2K liability-limiting legislation is needed and that these bills provide a useful framework for action, there are certain aspects in each of the bills that appear to err too far in favor of potential defendants. In particular, it appears that some of the restrictions on who can recover both punitive damages and compensatory damages for economic loss may exclude individuals who suffer losses resulting from a defendant's reckless disregard or fraudulent behavior. In order to ensure that effective liability-limiting legislation passes Congress with required bipartisan support, both sides of the aisle should work together to responsibly and fairly address these issues. Which we did address, thanks to Senator Wyden and Senator Dodd. They: Encourage remediation over litigation and the assignment of blame; Enact fair rules that reassure businesses that honest efforts at remediation will be rewarded by limiting liability, while enforcing contracts and punishing negligence; Promote Alternative Dispute Resolution; and Discourage frivolous lawsuits while protecting avenues of redress for parties that suffer real injuries. Clearly, thanks to not just the original legislation but the changes that we gladly accepted from Senator Wyden and Senator Dodd, we have addressed those concerns. They go on to say: The effects of abusive litigation could be further curbed by restricting the award of punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to punish poor behavior and discourage it in the future. Everybody knows we will not have this problem again. However, because this is a one-time event, the only thing deterred by excessive punitive damages in Y2K cases would be remediation efforts by businesses. Except in cases of personal injury, punitive damages should be awarded only if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knowingly acted with ``reckless disregard.'' Except in cases of personal injury, punitive damages should be awarded only if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knowingly acted with reckless disregard. In his last State of the Union Address, President Clinton urged Congress to find solutions that would make the Y2K problem the last headache of the 20th century, rather than the first crisis of the 21st. Year 2000 liability legislation needs to be a part of that effort. By promoting Y2K remediation rather than unsubstantial and burdensome litigation, we can begin the next millennium focused on continuing this period of unprecedented economic growth, instead of unproductively squabbling over the errors of the past. I want to point out again that already we are seeing a significant drain on our economy just fixing these problems associated with Y2K. Later on I will include in the Record some of the expenses that a number of major corporations and small businesses have already been required to expend that otherwise could have been spent on far more productive and beneficial efforts, such as research and development, et cetera. But if we add this burden, I am convinced, as are most economists, that we can have a definite deadening effect on this unprecedented economic prosperity we are experiencing thanks to the very nature of what we are trying to fix. Had it not been for this incredible information technology revolution we are going through, I know we would not be in this period of unprecedented economic prosperity. That is why I think this legislation is so important. I think in some respects you could rank this legislation among the most important that the Congress will address this year. Again, I thank my friend, Senator Wyden, and others on the other side of the aisle for joining together so we could obtain a significant majority that I believe will now give us room for optimism that we can pass this legislation today or, at the latest, early next week. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. There are 22,000 millionaires. I know our respective staffs feel like millionaires for having had the opportunity of working here in the Senate with us. I know I speak for all of our staffs.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Edwards be recognized to offer two amendments as provided in the previous consent, and time on both amendments be limited to 1 hour total, to be equally divided in the usual form, and no amendments be in order to the Edwards amendments.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before yielding, we would expect votes on the two Edwards amendments probably within an hour or less. That is our desire, and we will clear that with the leaders on both sides. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. EDWARDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank Senator Hatch for his very important and persuasive input in this debate. I appreciate it very much. I did want to save a few minutes for Senator Sessions to make his remarks. I yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 91, S. 886, the State Department reauthorization bill, at a time determined by the two leaders, and that the bill be considered under the following limitations: that the only first-degree amendments in order be the following, and that they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments, with any debate time on amendments controlled in the usual form, provided that time for debate on any second-degree amendment would be limited to that accorded the amendment to which it is offered; that upon disposition of all amendments, the bill be read the third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, with no intervening action. I submit the list of amendments. The list is as follows: Abraham-Grams: U.S. entry/exit controls. Ashcroft: 4 relevant. Baucus: 3 relevant. Biden: 5 relevant. Bingaman: Science counselors--embassies. Daschle: 2 relevant. Dodd: 3 relevant. Durbin: Baltics and Northeast Europe. Feingold: 4 relevant. Feinstein: relevant. Helms: 2 relevant. Kerry: 3 relevant. Leahy: 5 relevant. Lott: 2 relevant. Managers' amendment. Kennedy: relevant. Moynihan: relevant. Reed: 2 relevant. Reid: relevant. Sarbanes: 3 relevant. Thomas: veterans Wellstone: 3 relevant. Wellstone: trafficking. Wellstone: child soldiers.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately resume consideration of the Y2K legislation with the intention of completing action on that bill this afternoon. Following the debate of S. 96, the Senate may begin consideration of the State Department authorization bill, any appropriations bills available for action, or any other legislative or executive items on the calendar. Therefore, Senators can expect votes throughout today's session of the Senate. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. If I could inquire of my colleague from Alaska how his original amendment would have applied if, for example, a company bought a Y2K-compliant computer server in November 1999, and that server has to interact with other software and networked hardware manufactured by other companies that may or may not be Y2K compliant.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague for his clarification and will be pleased to address his concerns in conference.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 to ensure stricter enforcement of timelines and fairness in Indian adoption proceedings. The primary intent of this legislation is to make the process that applies to voluntary Indian child custody and adoption proceedings more consistent, predictable, and certain. The provisions of this legislation would further advance the best interests of Indian children without eroding tribal sovereignty and the fundamental principles of Federal-Indian law. I thank the principal cosponsors, Senators Campbell and Domenici, for their continued support of this much-needed legislation. Let me also point out that this bill is identical to legislation which passed the Senate by unanimous consent in 1996. It is the result of nearly two years of discussion and debate among representatives of the adoption community, Indian tribal governments, and the Congress that aimed to address some of the problems with the implementation of ICWA since its enactment in 1978. Mr. President, ICWA was originally enacted to provide for procedural and substantive protection for Indian children and families and to recognize and formalize a substantial role for Indian tribes in cases involving involuntary and voluntary child custody proceedings, whether on or off the Indian reservation. It was also supposed to reduce uncertainties about which court had jurisdiction over an Indian child and who had what authority to influence child placement decisions. Although implementation of ICWA has been less than perfect, in the vast majority of cases ICWA has effectively provided the necessary protections. It has encouraged State and private adoption agencies and State courts to make extra efforts before removing Indian children from their homes and communities. It has required recognition by everyone involved that an Indian child has a vital, long-term interest in keeping a connection with his or her Indian tribe. Nonetheless, particularly in the voluntary adoption context, there have been occasional, high-profile cases which have resulted in lengthy, protracted litigation causing great anguish for the children, their adoptive families, their birth families, and their Indian tribes. This bill takes a measured and limited approach, crafted by representatives of tribal governments and the adoption community, to address these problems. This legislation would achieve greater certainty and speed in the adoption process for Indian children by providing new guarantees of early and effective notice in all cases involving Indian children. The bill also establishes new, strict time restrictions on both the right of Indian tribes and birth families to intervene and the right of Indian birth parents to revoke their consent to an adoptive placement. Finally, the bill includes a provision which would encourage early identification of the relatively few cases involving controversy and promote the settlement of cases by making visitation agreements enforceable. Mr. President, nothing is more sacred and more important to our future than our children. The issues surrounding Indian child welfare stir deep emotions. I am thankful that, in formulating the compromise that led to the introduction of this bill, the representatives of both the adoption community and tribal governments were able to put aside their individual desires and focus on the best interests of Indian children. This bill represents an appropriate and fair-minded compromise proposal which would enhance the best interests of Indian children by guaranteeing speed, certainty, and stability in the adoption process. At the same time, the provisions of this bill preserve fundamental principles of Federal-Tribal law by recognizing the appropriate role of tribal governments in the lives of Indian children. Mr. President, I believe these amendments would have been enacted several years ago had we been better able to dispel several misconceptions about the bill's purpose. I want to directly address one of these misplaced concerns--that the adoptive placement preferences in the underlying law, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, would somehow lead an expectant mother seeking privacy to prefer abortion over adoption. I want to be very clear when I say that it is my judgment, concurred in by Indian tribes, adoption advocates and many others involved with implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act, that this bill has everything to do with promoting adoption opportunities for Indian children and nothing to do with promoting abortion. It is a terrible injustice that such a misunderstanding has clouded the efforts of so many who wish to simply improve the chances for Indian children to enjoy a stable family life. Over the years, I have had a consistently pro-life record and have actively worked with many pro-life groups to try to reduce and eliminate abortions at every possible opportunity. I firmly believe that this bill would make adoption, rather than abortion, a more compelling choice for an expectant birth mother. What could be more pro-life and pro-family than to change the law in ways which both Indian tribes and non-Indian adoptive families have asked to improve the adoption process? I strongly believe this bill, and the amendments it makes to the ICWA law, will work to the advantage of Indian children and adoptive families. It will encourage adoptions and discourage choices which lead to the tragedy of abortion. A recent editorial by George F. Will in the Washington Post (``For Right-to-Life Realists'') underscores the importance of promoting legislative efforts, such as this bill, as good policy for protecting children and promoting families. He wrote: Temperate people on both sides of the abortion divide can support a requirement for parental notification, less as abortion policy than as sound family policy. . . . Republicans will be the party of adoption, removing all laws and other impediments, sparing no expense, to achieving a goal more noble even than landing on the moon-- adoptive parents for every unwanted unborn baby. Mr. President, this bill has been thoroughly analyzed and debated in the Senate, as well as among the adoption community and Indian tribal governments. I believe it is time for the Congress to act in the best interests of Indian children by enacting these amendments to the voluntary adoption procedures in the 1978 ICWA law. I urge my colleagues to once again pass these amendments and invite the House to do the same this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that those amendments be the only ones in order in consideration of the bill.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments on this side be in order and these amendments only: Senator Murkowski, two amendments; Senator Inhofe, one amendment; Senator Gregg, one amendment; Senator Lott, one amendment; Senator Sessions, two amendments. Although it may be redundant, I add to that the amendments that were already agreed to in yesterday's Congressional Record: Senator Hollings, three amendments; Senator Kerry, one amendment; Senator Boxer, one amendment; Senator Feinstein, one amendment; Senator Feingold, one amendment; Senator Graham of Florida, one amendment; Senator Leahy, one amendment; Senator Dodd, one amendment; Senator Edwards, two amendments; Senator Daschle, one amendment. Would it be agreeable to Senator Hollings if that is included in the unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the purpose of proposing some amendments, I ask that the pending Kerry amendment be set aside for that purpose, with the proviso of returning immediately to the Kerry amendment. I send to the desk two amendments by Senator Murkowski, an amendment by Senator Gregg, an amendment by Senator Inhofe, and two amendments by Senator Sessions, and I ask for them to be numbered.

Mr. McCAIN. First of all, my response to the Senator from Massachusetts is that these companies and corporations that are in favor of this legislation--did the Senator from Massachusetts forget that half of them could be plaintiffs? Why is it that so many of them who could be plaintiffs are in support of this legislation? They are not just the defendants, they are the plaintiffs. The fact is that we are helping business all over America. I have to tell my friend from Massachusetts that I came here to help business all over America. I came here to help entrepreneurs. I came here to stop the flood of litigation that has so distorted the business system in America. I came here with a clear campaign to say, look, we have too many frivolous lawsuits in America; we have too many class action suits; we have too many lawyers and not enough business people. I am unashamed and unembarrassed to tell the Senator from Massachusetts that I am here in behalf of defendants who, if I took a poll tomorrow, would number 90 percent. I don't know the percentage that are lawyers, but I know it grows bigger by the day. But all of those who are lawyers would say: Yes, please, Senator McCain, help business get off this terrible burden where we are paying so much, where we have become a litigious society in America and so many terrible things have happened as a result. As I pointed out, Mr. Tom Johnson--a man who is becoming famous here on the floor of the Senate, I might add--is bringing these lawsuits against honest, hard-working people, especially small and medium-sized businesses. If the Senator from Massachusetts is astonished--and I include the Senator from Oregon in the category--at trying to help businesses, small, medium, and large, from the incredible burden of litigation which has flooded the United States of America--guilty as charged. Guilty as charged. The second aspect of this issue is clearly what I, as a business owner, would tell people. It is that I, as a business owner who distributes my product, would not be able to vouch for other people and other businesses that are also part of this distribution chain of my product. That is again where I get back to the point that I do not know of any business in America that doesn't want to fix the Y2K problem. I know lots of business people who don't know, because of the distribution system--both through distributors and retailers--that they can vouch for those persons' willingness or ability to fix the Y2K problem, which then opens up that flood. I hope I answered the Senator's question.