Patrick Leahy: “this conference report on the Y2K liability protection bill is being roundly praised, but not universally. Not…”

“this conference report on the Y2K liability protection bill is being roundly praised, but not universally. Not universally. And it should not be. This bill is worse than the bill the Senate passed only a few weeks ago. The conference report provides expanded legal protections, especially at the expense of consumers, and I believe it raises serious constitutional questions. I do not support it because it is an unjustified wish list for special interests that are or might become involved in Y2K litigation. The conference report greatly expands the scope of the Senate-passed bill by amending this act to apply to a potential Y2K failure. In fact, section 4 of the bill was amended during the conference to apply to the act's legal restrictions for a potential Y2K failure that could occur or has allegedly caused harm or injury before January 1, 2003. Let me ask, what is a potential Y2K failure? Nobody knows. I tell you this, over the next 4 years almost every lawsuit involving any technology issue could trigger the bill's special legal protections under this sweeping definition. Once again, the majority is manipulating a key phrase to suit the wants of a special interest. The business lobby has inserted its own expanded definition of a Y2K action to broaden the scope of this bill.”