BILLS. THE LAST SERIES OF IDEAS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
           INCORPORATED -- AND I'M PREPARED AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IF WE
           GET TO IT, MR. PRESIDENT, TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT, I HOPE, WITH
           SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO WILL SHARE THESE VIEWS -- IS THAT
           WE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE IN MY VIEW ANY CAPS ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES
           EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SMALL BUSINESSES AND MUNICIPALITIES. I
           DON'T THINK A CAP ON PUNITIVE DEPAJS IS NEEDED IN THIS AREA.
           WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS HERE. WE'RE
           TALKING AGAIN ABOUT CONTRACT LAW. I UNDERSTAND SMALLER

           BUSINESSES, THAT CAN BE A HUGE PROBLEM, PUT THEM OUT OF
           BUSINESS ON A SMALL LAWSUIT IT COULD DESTROY THEM. AND FOR
           MUNICIPALITIES WHERE TAXPAYERS END UP PAYING THE COST OF THESE
           BURDENS, I THINK MOST OF OUR COLLEAGUES WILL ACCEPT THOSE
           ARGUMENTS. THE SECOND IS TO TRY AND HAVE A LIMIT -- RAISE THE
           LIMITS OR LIFT THE LIMITS, RATHER, ON THE DIRECTORS AND
           OFFICERS LIABILITY. IN THIS AREA, MR. PRESIDENT, I ALSO DON'T
           THINK THERE'S A NEED FOR CAPS ON THE AMOUNT OF LIABILITY A
           DIRECTOR OR AN OFFICER SHOULD PAY IN A SUCCESSFUL PLAINTIFF'S

           SUIT DEALING WITH Y2K ISSUES. I SAY THAT BECAUSE WHEN WE
           PRACTICESED THE DISCLOSURE ACT A YEAR AGO DEALING WITH THE YEAR
           2000 LEGISLATION, WE PROVIDED IN THAT LEGISLATION A SAFE HALF
           BER FOR FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS -- A SAFE HARBOR FOR
           FORWARD-LOOK STATEMENTS FOR DIRECTORS AND MANAGERS OF THESE
           BUSINESSES. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT PROTECTION PLUS THE
           GENERAL BUSINESS RULE, WHICH PROTECTS BUSINESS LEADERS FROM THE

           KIND OF FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS THAT SOME MIGHT ENVIRGINIA, I THINK
           ELIMINATE THE NECESSITY FOR HAVING A CAP ON DIRECTORS AND
           OFFICERS' LIABILITY IN THIS AREA. SO I WOULD INCLUDE IN MY
           AMENDMENT LIFTING THE CAP ON THAT ISSUE. AND LASTLY IS THE
           ISSUE OF THE STATE OF MIND QUESTION, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT'S A
           LITTLE MORE THORNY FOR PEOPLE. AND THIS CAN GET RATHER ARCANE
           AND ESOTERIC. BUT IT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. PRESENTLY UNDER THE
           BILL OFFERED BY THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA, WHICH IS THE BILL
           BEFORE US, THE ONE THAT'S ON THE FLOOR, AND I BELIEVE THE BILL

           OFFERED BY MY COLLEAGUE FROM UTAH, SENATOR HATCH, AND OTHERS,
           WOULD HAVE A STATE OF MIND THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT IT BE -- I
           THILTS EA CLEAR AND CONVINCING IS THE STANDARD THAT'S USED. I
           MAY BE WRONG ON ONE OF THOUGH, BUT I THINK IT IS IN THE MCCAIN
           BILL. THE ARGUMENT THERE IS, WELL, WE USE CLEAR AND CONVINCING
           AS A STANDARD WHEN WE DID THE FULL DISCLOSURE BILL AND THAT IF
           WE USED IT THERE, WHY NOT CONTINUE USING IT HERE. WE USED IT
           THERE BECAUSE WE WANTED TO PROTECT, IN A SENSE, AND ENKURJT

           LEADERS OF INDUSTRY AND BUSINESS TO DISCLOSE TO EACH OTHER
           WHERE THEY WERE IN THE Y2K REMEDIATION EFFORTS. SO, QUITE
           CANDIDLY, IT WAS TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR SOMEONE TO SUE
           AN OFFICER, A DIRECTOR OF A COMPANY THAT WAS REACHING OUT TO
           ITS CLIENTS, TO ITS FELLOW BUSINESS -- THE FELLOWS IN THE
           BUSINESS COMMUNITY, ITS PEERS, BY SHARING INFORMATION. SO AS
           PART OF THE INCENTIVE OF THE DISCLOSURE ACT TO GET THAT
           INFORMATION OUT. THE REASON THAT I'M UNEASY ABOUT INCLUDING

           "CLEAR AND CONVINCING" IN THIS BILL IS BECAUSE I CAN SEE SOME
           WHO WILL WANT TO BRING LAWSUITS ON Y2K-RELATED MATTERS THAT --
           WHERE IT MAY ACTUALLY BE MORE OF A PRODUCT LIABILITY ISSUE. IT
           MAY BE A TORT ISSUE. BUT THE DEFENDANT WILL SAYS IT'S Y2K ISSUE
           AND SO, EVEN THOUGH THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT THINKING ABOUT THE Y2K
           PROBLEM, THE DEFENDANT WILL USE THE Y2K DEFENSE, RAISING THE
           BAR TO CLEAR AND CONVINCING, MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR THAT

           PLAINTIFF TO BE ABLE TO BRING AN ACTION, WHICH HAS LITTLE OR
           NOTHING TO DO WITH THE YEAR 2000 ISSUE. I ALSO THINK WE
           ESTABLISHED IN THE SECURITIES LITIGATION AREA A LESSER
           STANDARD. IN FACT, I KNOWE DID -- THAN CLEAR AND CONVINCING.
           AND IT SEEMS TO ME TO ME -- AND IT SEEMS TO ME, MR. PRESIDENT,
           BY USING THE STANDARD WE USED IN THE SECURITIES LITIGATION
           AREA, WE WOULD BE ADOPTING A STANDARD IN A MORE PARALLEL FACT
           SITUATION THAN THE DISCLOSURE BILL OF LAST YEAR AND ONE THAT

           HAS ALREADY PROVED TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN TERMS OF WIN AGO LOT OF
           SUPPORT IN THIS CHAMBER AND IN THE OTHER BODY. IT HAS BECOME
           THE LAW OF THE LAND. WE NOW HAVE A FEW YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OF
           THAT STANDARD IN PLACE. CLEAR AND CONVINCING OPENS UP A NEW
           DOOR THAT WE DON'T KNOW, QUITE FRANKLY, WHERE IT GOS. SO I
           WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROPOSAL WHEN
           AND IF I GET THE CHANCE TO OFFER IT. ON THE PUNITIVE CAPS, ON

           THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY, THE CAPS THERE WITH THE
           EXCEPTIONS THAT I'VE MENTIONED, AND ON THE ISSUE OF STATE OF
           MIND. THAT MIGHT NOT BE ENOUGH. I'M SURE THERE MAYBE OTHER
           AMENDMENTS THAT OTHERS MIGHT WANT TO OFFER. BUT I THINK IF YOU
           HAVE A BILL THAT INCORPORATES ROUGHLY WHAT I'VE DESCRIBED HERE
           TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF THE YEAR 2000 BUG PROBLEM, THAT WE
           CAN PASS A BILL HERE WITH A SUBSTANTIAL BIPARTISAN VOTE, GO TO
           THE HOUSE AND GO TO THE PRESIDENT'S DESK WITH A BILL THAT I'M
           CONFIDENT HE'D SIGN INTO LAW. I KNOW THE ADMINISTRATION, I KNOW
           THE PRESIDENT, AND I KNOW THE VICE PRESIDENT CARE ABOUT THIS

           ISSUE. THEY THINK IT IS IMPORTANT AND I THINK WE HAVE A
           RESPONSIBILITY TO ACT. MR. PRESIDENT, THIS ISSUE IS NOT AS
           GALVANIZING, OBVIOUSLY, AS THE ISSUE SURROUNDING THE TRAGEDY IN
           KOSOVO OR THE TRAGEDY IN COLORADO. CLEARLY YOU THOSE ARE TWO
           ISSUES THAT THIS SENATE MUST DEBATE AND DISCUSS IN MY VIEW. WE
           OUGHT TALKING ABOUT WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN MINIMIZE THE TRAGEDY
           THAT OCCURRED IN COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL AND LITTLETON, COLORADO.
           AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MY COLLEAGUES' IDEAS ON WHAT WE MIGHT

           DO AS A COUNTRY. I'M SUSPICIOUS OF QUICK LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS
           TO WHAT PROVOKED AND CAUSED THE LOSS OF 13 LIVES AND -- IN THAT
           TRAGEDY IN COLORADO. BUT, NONETHELESS, I'D LIKE TO HEAR A GOOD
           DISCUSSION OF WHAT MY COLLEAGUES ARE HEARING FROM THEIR
           CONSTITUENTS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY AS TO HOW WE AS A LEGISLATIVE
           BODY MIGHT MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION TO HELPING THIS COUNTRY
           NOT ONLY COME TO TERMS WITH WHAT HAPPENED A WEEK AGO BUT HOW WE
           MIGHT DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO MINIMIZE THE REOCCURRENCE

           OF THAT TRAGEDY. AND SLICKED ON KOSOVO. CLEARLY THERE, THE
           EVENTS THAT ARE UNFOLDING INDICATE THAT WE'RE ON THE RIGHT
           TRACK. IT IS NOT A PERFECT POLICY. BUT I'M PROUD OF THE FACT
           THAT MY COUNTRY IS STANDING UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF HUMAN BEINGS
           WHO'VE BEEN TREATED SO POORLY, TO PUT IT MILDLY, BY THE REGIME
           OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC. MR. PRESIDENT, IT WAS ALMOST 60 YEARS
           AGO YESTERDAY THAT A SHIP CALLED "THE ST. LOUIS" LEFT EUROPE
           WITH ONE-WAY TICKETS. MANY WHO WERE PART OF THE FAMILIES OR

           SURVIVORS. HOLOCAUST WILL KNOW THE NAME OF THE SHIP "ST.
           LOUIS." THAT SHIP SAILED FROM EUROPE WITH A BOATLOAD OF
           PASSENGERS, ALL OF WHOM WERE JEWISH. THEY WERE BOUND FOR CUBA.
           WHEN THEY GOT TO CUBA, ONLY 28 OF THEM WERE ALLOWED TO COME
           ASHORE. AND, UNFORTUNATELY, OUR COUNTRY DENIED THAT SHIP THE
           RIGHT TO ENTER U.S. WATERS. AND RATHER THAN BEING A ONE-WAY
           TICKET TO FREEDOM AND AVOIDING THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST,
           THE "ST. LOUIS" WAS FORCED TO RETURN TO EUROPE AND ALL OF THOSE

           PASSENGERS ON THAT BOAT FACED THE FATE OF THE HOLOCAUST. THIS
           NATION, THE NATION OF CUBA AT THE TIME TURNED ITS BACK ON A
           SHIPLOAD OF PEOPLE SEEKING FREEDOM. 60 YEARS LATER, MR.
           PRESIDENT, WE'RE CONFRONTED WITH A HUMAN TRAGEDY, I WOULD
           ARGUE, NOT OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE HOLOCAUST BUT OF THE OF A
           SIGNIFICANT MAGNITUDE WHERE 1.5 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
           TORTURED, HAVE BEEN EXECUTED, HAVE BEEN DISPLACED BECAUSE OF
           THE APPETITES OF ONE INDIVIDUAL AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT HIM IN
           SERBIA. IT'S NOT EASY TO STAUNDZ, IT IS NOT EASY TO BUILD

           COALITIONS. IT IS COSTLY TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS. BUT IN MY
           AMERICA, WE STAUNDZ FOR PEOPLE WHO FACE THAT KIND OF A PROBLEM.
           AND WHEN WE CAN DO SO WITH 18 OTHER NATIONS STANDING WITH US,
           BEARING THE COST IN PROPORTIONAL WAYS OF TRYING TO RIGHT THIS
           WRONG, THEN I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT ALL AMERICANS CAN BE
           PROUD OF. IT IS LEGITIMATE TO HAVE A DEBATE OVER THE EXCUSE OF
           THIS CONFLICT, HOW IT IS BEING PROSECUTED, WHO'S DOING WHAT AND
           HOW FAST IT'S OCCURRING, WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE GROUND TROOPS
           OR WHETHER OR NOT AIRSTRIKES ARE BEING CAPABLE OF PERFORMING

           AND AKHEEFG THE DESIRED RESULTS. BUT I LAP TO THINK WE'RE ON
           THE RIGHT TRACK. SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE WILL HAVE A DEBATE ON
           THAT ISSUE AS WELL, MR. PRESIDENT. I THINK IT IS HEALTHICALLY
           TO HAVE THAT KIND OF A DISCUSSION. WHAT I'M SUGGESTING HERE,
           MR. PRESIDENT, IS I DON'T MEAN TO SAY THAT THE Y2K ISSUE IS
           UNIMPORTANT. HARDLY SO. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. AND I
           THINK IT'S AN ISSUE THAT WE SHOULD RESOLVE IN THIS BODY AND
           COME TO TERMS WITH IT, TRY AND PASS IT HERE AND SEND A BILL TO
           THE PRESIDENT FOR HIS SIGST. IF DON'T, I THINK WE CAN REGRET
           DEEPLY WHAT MAY HAPPEN AND WILL LOOK BACK AND WISH THAT WE HAD

           TAKEN THE SHORT TIME I THINK YOU NEED TO PASS A BILL THAT WOULD
           ALLOW FOR THIS PROBLEM THAT'S BEING POSED TO BE AVOID. BUT I
           ALSO HOPE, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT WE WOULD GET TO THE ISSUE OF
           KOSOVO, GET TO THE ISSUE OF COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL AND THE
           TRAGEDY IN COLORADO AND TO DISCUSS AND DEBATE HOW WE THINK WE
           CAN RESPOND TO THOSE ISSUES AS WEFM SO WITH THAT, MR.
           PRESIDENT, I SEE THE ARRIVAL OF MY COLLEAGUE FROM CALIFORNIA.
           SHE MAY NOT BE READY TO SAY SOMETHING AT THIS MOMENT, BUT LET
           ME THANK THE CHAIR AND NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
           
           
           
           
           QUORUM CALL:
           
           
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
           

           MR. KENNEDY: MR. PRESIDENT, I SEND --
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CHAIR WOULD NOTE THAT THE SENATE IS
           IN A QUORUM CALL.
           

           MR. KENNEDY: I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WE DISPENSE WITH THE
           QUORUM.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. KENNEDY: MR. PRESIDENT, I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK AND
           ASK FOR ITS IMMEDIATE
           

           CONSIDERATION.
           

           THE CLERK: MR. KENNEDY NOFS RECOMMIT THE BILL TO THE COMMITTEE
           ON HEALTH, KEARX LAIRX AND PENSIONS, TO REPORT BACK FORTHWITH
           WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT NUMBERED 291. AT THE --
           

           MR. MCCAIN: I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT FURTHER READING BE
           DISPENSED WITH.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION. THE SENATOR FROM
           ARIZONA.
           

           MR. MCCAIN: SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO THE MOTION TO
           RECOMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
           

           THE CLERK: THE SENATOR ARIZONA, MR. MCCAIN, PROPOSES AN
           AMENDMENT NUMBERED 292 TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE MOTION TO
           RECOMMIT N LIEU OF THE INSTRUCTIONS, RIKE ALL AFTER THE
           ENACTING CLAUSE AND ADDED
           
           FOLLOWING: "SECTION 1, SHORT TITLE."
           

           MR. MCCAIN: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK THAT THE READING BE DISPENSED
           WITH.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. MCCAIN: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS -- MR.
           PRESIDENT, I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK WILL REPORT -- WILL CALL THE
           ROLL.
           
           
           
           
           QUORUM CALL:
           
{END: 1999/04/28 TIME: 14-30 , Wed.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}