John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as chairman of the Commerce Committee and with the authority of the committee, I withdraw the committee amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am going to offer a compromise amendment that is at the desk, and I further ask unanimous consent that debate only be in order following the offering of that amendment until 2:15 today.

Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from Oregon that he has pretty well pointed out that there were several standards which could be used for both legal as well as the sense of how the people who are involved in the Y2K situation are involved. To have one standard, I think, was clearly called for, although perhaps I would have liked to have seen a tougher standard. But the fact is that this was a process of how we develop legislation. We also wanted to respect the individual contracts, as the Senator from Oregon knows. Mr. President, I just want to say again that my dear friend from South Carolina has been very patient, and I know that he wants to speak at some length. I appreciate both his compassion and commitment and knowledge of the issue. We have tried to compromise. We will continue to try to compromise. We are now reaching close to a point where the legislation would be meaningless. I am all in favor of a process where amendments are proposed, where they are debated and voted on. I think that is the way we should do business. If the Senator from South Carolina has a problem with this legislation, I hope he will propose an amendment to this legislation. I will be glad to debate it, and we will be glad to have votes. It is important that we resolve this legislation. I would not like to see, nor do I think the people of this country deserve, a gridlock where blocking of any legislation to move forward on this issue takes place. I don't think that is fair. I don't think it is fair or appropriate on an issue of this magnitude of which time is of the essence. We can't have a blockage of this issue and take this legislation up several months from now. I respect the views of others who oppose this legislation. But let's go through a legislative process. I am willing to stay here all day and all night to debate the amendments, whatever they may be. I don't want to introduce a cloture motion, because obviously that cuts off people's ability to debate this issue because of the timeframe and time limits involved in a cloture motion. But I also urge my colleagues who oppose this legislation, let's not engage in extraneous amendments on minimum wage, or violence on TV, or guns, or anything else. That, frankly, in all due respect to my colleagues, is avoiding this issue. This issue needs to be addressed. In the eyes of every American, there is a huge problem arising at 12:01, January 1 of the year 2000. We have an obligation to address that problem. For us to now be sidetracked with other issues and extraneous amendments, or others, is doing a great disservice to those men and women, small businesses and large and medium size, which will be affected by this serious problem, of which, by the way, even with a select committee we really haven't gotten a good handle on the magnitude of the problem. It depends on what part of our economy, what part of government, et cetera. But there is no one who alleges that there is no problem. It is our obligation to try to address this problem. Let's do it in an orderly fashion with debate, with amendments, and then vote on final passage. I urge my colleagues to respect such a process. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate reconvenes at 2:15 it be in order for the Senate Chaplain to offer a prayer in honor of the moment of silence being observed in Colorado, and following the prayer the junior Senator from Colorado be recognized to speak, to be followed by the senior Senator from Colorado who, after some remarks, will offer a moment of silence.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 27, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 25, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999; S. 446, the Resources 2000 Act; S. 532, the Public Land and Recreation Investment Act of 1999; S. 819, the National Park Preservation Act; and the Administration's Lands Legacy proposal.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, April 27, 1999 beginning at 10 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 27, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``Medical Records Privacy'' during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 27, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to hold an executive business meeting during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 27, 1999, at 10 a.m., in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 27, 1999, in open session, to receive testimony on the threat of international narcotics-trafficking and the role of the Department of Defense in the Nation's war on drugs.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Immigration, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 27, 1999 at 2:15 p.m. to hold a hearing in room 226, Senate Dirksen Office Building, on: ``The Need for Additional Border Patrol at the Northern and Southern Borders.''

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, all I will say is that we had a couple of long meetings of negotiations on this issue. We have still not resolved a couple of outstanding problems. They are tough, very difficult. I am not sure we will be able to resolve them, but we will continue negotiating tonight and into tomorrow. It is my understanding that the majority leader will move back on the bill at noon tomorrow, and we will have the morning to continue those negotiations. I hope we can reasonably sit down together and resolve these remaining problems. We have resolved almost all of them, but there are two or three very difficult issues remaining. All I can do is assure my colleagues, I will make every effort to get them resolved as quickly as possible.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if there is an amendment that is germane that the Senator from South Carolina or anyone else would like to bring up, I believe we could by unanimous consent vacate the final amendment of the majority leader so that we can debate and vote on that amendment. The purpose of filling up the tree was, clearly, to prevent nongermane amendments from clogging up this process. I say to my friend from South Carolina, I think we should debate amendments. We should move forward as quickly as possible and get this issue resolved as quickly as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chair. First, I thank Senator Lott and Senator Daschle for their commitment to try to work out a resolution, a Lott-Daschle amendment on the Kosovo issue. I have been saying, as have many others, that we as U.S. Senators, individually and as a body, have a duty to be on record on this issue. Those who oppose our involvement, I believe, should be on record in that fashion as well as those who are in favor. I think it is well-known by most observers of the U.S. Senate that the 1991 debate that took place in this Chamber on the Persian Gulf war resolution was one of the more enlightened and, frankly, sterling moments of this Senate. It was a very close vote, 53-47. I remember it very well. At that time, Senators on both sides of the aisle and both sides of this United States were heard. They were on record and the U.S. Senate was on record, as well. I point out that immediately following that very close vote there was a unanimous vote in support of the men and women in the military who were conducting that conflict. I thank Senator Lott and Senator Daschle. I am pleased to work out the details of this resolution. I know it is a very, very contentious and difficult issue that we will be debating. I have heard allegations that some Senators don't wish to risk a vote on this issue. I don't believe that is the case. If it were the case, we have young men and women right now who are risking their lives. It is incumbent upon us as a body to act. Second, I say to my friend from South Carolina, I am sorry that we have to go through the filling up of the tree and filing a cloture motion on this bill. I prefer the normal amending process. I believe the pending legislation is the Y2K substitute. What is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the resolution.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington for his kind remarks, but most importantly for his deep involvement in this issue. As a former attorney general of his State, he understands these issues better than I do, and his assistance in this effort is extremely valuable and important. Madam President, I don't have any speakers at this time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I note the presence of the Senator from Washington on the floor, and I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Washington such time as he may consume.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will be offering, with my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, a substitute amendment to S. 96, the Y2K Act, at the appropriate time. The substitute amendment we will be offering is a bipartisan effort. We worked diligently with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address concerns, narrow some provisions, and assure this bill will sunset when it is no longer pertinent and necessary. Senator Wyden, who said at our committee markup that he wanted to get to ``yes,'' worked tirelessly with me to get there. He and others--but he especially--have offered excellent suggestions and comments. I think the substitute we bring today is a better piece of legislation for his efforts. Specifically, the substitute would provide time for plaintiffs and defendants to resolve Y2K problems without litigation. It reiterates the plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages and highlights the defendant's opportunity to assist plaintiffs in doing that by providing information and resources. That provides for proportional liability in most cases, with exceptions for fraudulent or intentional conduct, or where the plaintiff has limited assets. It protects governmental entities, including municipalities, schools, fire, water, and sanitation districts, from punitive damages. It eliminates punitive damage limits for egregious conduct, while providing some protection against runaway punitive damage awards. And it provides protection for those not directly involved in a Y2K failure. The bill, as amended, does not cover personal injury and wrongful death cases. It is important to keep in mind the broad support that this bill has from virtually every segment of our economy. This bill is important not only to the high-tech industry, or only to big business, but it carries the strong support of small businesses, retailers, and wholesalers. Many of those supporting the bill will find themselves as both plaintiffs and defendants. They have weighed the benefits and drawbacks of the provisions of this bill and have overwhelmingly concluded that their chief priority is to prevent and fix Y2K problems and make our technology work, not divert the resources into time-consuming and costly litigation. One of the most troubling aspects of the looming Y2K problem is the new industry being created by opportunistic lawyers. Many companies feel they are ``damned if they do, dammed if they don't'' when it comes to acknowledging potential Y2K failures. If they do not say anything and later have a problem, they will certainly be sued. But if they say something now, they may still be sued, and before anything even has gone wrong. Over 80 lawsuits, mostly class actions, have already been filed and we are still many months away from the year 2000. The SEC reported in February that many companies are not complying with the SEC disclosure requirements either as to what actions they are taking to prepare, how much the effort is costing, or what contingency plans are being put into place. The Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Problem reported February 24--and I quote--``Fear of litigation and loss of competitive advantage are the most commonly cited reasons for barebones disclosure.'' It is my hope that S. 96 will be the catalyst for technology producers to work with technology users to ensure a seamless transition from the 1990s to the year 2000. The goal is to make January 1 a nonevent. The purposes of this legislation is to ensure that we solve the Y2K technology glitch rather than clog our courts with years of costly litigation. The purpose is to ensure a continued, stable economy, which obviously is beneficial to everyone in our country. The bill encourages efficient resolution of failures by requiring plaintiffs to afford their potential defendants an opportunity to remedy the failure and make things right before facing a lawsuit. We should encourage people to talk to each other, to try to address and remedy problems in a timely and professional manner. The potential for litigation to overwhelm the Nation's judicial system is very real. We must reserve the judicial system for the most egregious cases involving Y2K problems. Litigation costs have been estimated as high as $1 trillion. Certainly the burden of paying for litigation will be distributed to the public in the form of increased costs for technological goods and services. The potential drain on the Nation's economy, and the world's economy, from both fixing the computer systems and responding to litigation, is staggering. While the estimates being circulated are speculative, the cost of making the corrections in all the computer systems in the country is astronomical. Chase Manhattan Bank has been quoted as spending $250 million to fix problems with its 200 million lines of affected computer code. The estimated cost of fixing the problem in the United States ranges from $200 billion to $1 trillion. The resources which would be directed to litigation are resources that would not be available for continued improvements in technology, producing new products, and maintaining the economy that supports the position of the United States as a world leader. As I said last week, time is of the essence. If this bill is going to have the intended effect of encouraging proactive prevention and remediation of Y2K problems, it has to be passed quickly. This bill will have limited value if it is passed later this fall. Senator Hollings, my friend, has expressed in committee his concerns. I want to state up front that while we disagree, we have never been disagreeable. I respect his views; we just disagree on this matter. And I know, as I said earlier, we will have a lively debate on this bill. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give careful consideration to the substitute amendment and join with me, Senator Wyden, and our other cosponsors, Senators Gorton, Abraham, Lott, Frist, Burns, Smith of Oregon, and Santorum, in bringing this substitute to fruition. It makes sense, it is practical, and we need it now. There are several letters, Madam President, from various organizations throughout the country that I would like to quote from. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be permitted to meet on April 26, 1999 at 1:00-5:00 p.m. in Dirksen 106 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the comments of the Senator from Nebraska about the late Senator Roman Hruska. There is something unique about Nebraska. There has been a long line of outstanding Senators to represent that State on both sides of the aisle. I know my colleagues and I appreciate very much both of our Senators from Nebraska, and they have carried on the tradition of Senator Curtis and Senator Hruska for honesty and integrity and a forthright addressing of the issues. I know Senator Hruska is proud of Senator Hagel, as Senator Hagel and the rest of us who had the privilege of knowing Senator Hruska appreciate him and his service for 22 years in the Senate --a very long time. I agree with the comments of my old, dear friend from South Carolina that we do need more balance in the Senate. He and I occasionally find ourselves on different sides of an issue, as we do on this one. But our disagreements have been characterized with mutual respect and appreciation. And frankly, I enjoy the debates I have had over the years with the Senator from South Carolina because he marshals his audience, and not only that, he from time to time injects a degree of humor that illuminates as well as elevates the debate.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, April 27, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 96, the Y2K legislation.