The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE YEAR 2000 INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H6873-H6877 on July 31, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE YEAR 2000 INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the administration sent to Congress the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act. As the chairman, with the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) as cochairman of the House Task Force on the Year 2000 Problem, we are encouraged to see the President has recommended action on this issue.
Our subcommittees, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) as chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology of the Committee on Science, myself as chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, have long waited for the administration to start very active work in this area.
{time} 1545
This issue should be a national priority. The Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act is an attempt to facilitate the Year 2000 repairs in the private sector. For those that do not know the meaning of that, what we are talking about is what happened in the 1960s when we had large mainframes in computing, and there was very little storage capacity. Somebody had the bright idea, ``Hey, why are we always putting the year in as a four-digit year? Why do we not just have 67, not 1967 to represent the year. Indeed, that loosened up a lot of storage space in the very small capacity computers of the day.
Thirty five years later, we face the music. They knew in the 1960s that we would have this year 2000 problem as we passed January 1, 2000; and that is, on that date, the computer will read 00; it will not know if it is 2000 or 1900. With that fact comes some of the chaos with which we are involved.
So this Presidential initiative is correctly an urgent matter for both the administration and Congress. This legislation deserves our very serious consideration in a timely way. This is a bipartisan effort.
Yesterday, by request, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, myself, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), and 24 original cosponsors introduced H.R. 4355.
Although the year 2000 computer problem is complex and technological, the key to solving it is committed and effective management. Senior executives--whether they are in the Federal Government, whether they are in the State or local governments or in our local hospitals or in our nonprofit organizations as well as the thousands of small businesses and the many large businesses which face a major problem as they rearrange their priorities to make sure that they have freed up the fiscal and the human resources to do that job.
That job begins with an assessment of the situation, that job is then one of fixing and renovating the two-digit years into a four-digit year. Or the job could be doing away with the year if it is no longer needed. Ultimately, the whole phase needs to be completed: testing, validation, and implementation of the computer programs which have been done so that they can make sure that the program will put it back in the operational mode, make sure those computers are working on January 1, 2000.
As many of my colleagues know, we have been grading the executive branch on their degree of compliance. There is a lot of lagging. Social Security is way ahead of the other departments and independent agencies. Social Security is about 93 percent done with a year and a half to go. That is important. Social Security had the wisdom and the vision to start in 1989. No other Federal agency did. A few organizations in the private sector did. But Social Security has set the example of the time we need to assess, to revamp, to implement, and then really test it to be certain that the program works when they are run through the date of January 1, 2000.
The key is the management. Although this problem is in many aspects,
``Technical,'' but nothing is going to happen if management does not take the responsibility and make sure that the technological and human resources are motivated, are dealt with so they can divide up the problem and get that problem solved in a timely way.
That is what this is all about, time. No one by executive order or anything else can change the coming of January 1, 2000. We have to deal with that. This is a worldwide situation. The estimate has been made that the cost of conversion is between $300 billion to $500 billion or half a trillion dollars to remedy this problem in both the private and the public sector in the United States.
We have half the computers in the world. So the rest of the world has a similar problem. Needless to say, some organizations are not going to be as active in solving the problem and reaching the goals as will many of the major American firms. This will result in another problem, if we interact with computers from Asia and Europe, Africa, and other parts of the world, we face another very real challenge and that, is that our converted systems will be polluted by those which have not been revamped.
To be successful, organizations will have to work with other organziations. I commend the administration for sharing our various codes dealing with missiles with Russia and others. We do not want any mistakes when it comes to missile targeting, missile maintenance, and all the rest.
Besides these problems with the typical computer, we also have embedded chips that guide our elevators, our microwaves, many TV sets, so forth. There are billions of them throughout the world.
But what we have done in the two subcommittees over the last 3 years is to ask various agencies of the Federal Government, (and the same needs to be done at the State and local government, at the major businesses and the hospitals, and all the rest) the question: ``What are your critical mission systems?''--then focus on converting those systems as a high priority. That is where we are now with the Federal Government.
The President did appoint a coordinator, Mr. John Koskinen in February. He took office in March. But the clock is ticking. So this legislation is very important. It is sort of a Good Samaritan bill to make sure that one firm can cooperate with the other, one business with the other, industries with the other.
When that executive pulls together those fiscal and human resources, it is very important that management know what is going on, because what has happened and what was predicted in our first hearing in April of 1996 was that executives who are behind in the conversion will start to panic. The cost of human resources will rise. Where do I find programmers who know COBAL, a language out of the 1960s. Where do I find FORTRAN experts.
A lot of the COBAL people have retired, but their codes and systems live on. Flexibility has been authorized for those hired by the Federal government. COBAL specialists are being brought out of retirement. And the government is letting them keep their retirement stipend.
So the problem is when we get the skilled employees we have people bidding up the cost of labor higher and higher, whether it be in our regional hospitals, whether it be in our State and local governments, whether it be in business or any other organizational entity that depends on computing power.
Part of the process in any of these organizations, as I noted, is to assess an organization's vulnerability to the problem, both within the organization and through all of its information trading partners. Organizations should share information in order to identify the obstacles and master solutions as quickly as possible.
A potential barrier, however, to this efficient approach is the fear that any disclosure of information related to the year 2000 problem could increase an organization's risk of being sued. The executives of companies are afraid that they will be sued if they disclose the status of the year 2000 compliance of their own products and there are any errors in this information. This would obviously be a major concern.
The Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act is an attempt to relieve that concern and encourage that exchange of information between firms and industries. The key provision of the bill shields companies that make inaccurate statements on year 2000 issues from civil liability unless the statements are knowingly false or negligent.
We can all make mistakes in this complicated area. The hope is that this would facilitate effective action as the clock ticks toward January 1, 2000. This approach raises some concerns. No one that I know wants to relieve companies of liability for building bad products or doing sloppy work or simply being careless with the truth. H.R. 4355 is not designed to protect those examples of wrong conduct. We need to be very careful that we do not inadvertently give any negligent company or any negligent organization a free ride.
There has been some debate over whether the liability protections of this bill should extend to communications with consumers. Drawing a line between certain types of communications will prove to be very difficult. At the same time, we do not want to create a situation where unscrupulous companies can take advantage of the year 2000 problem.
The Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act raises a variety of other challenges. For example, should liability protections be extended to accurate statements, or should only inaccurate statements be covered? Also, who should be covered by the provisions of the bill?
These are all difficult questions requiring careful, well-informed answers within our committee system of the House of Representatives. The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction on this matter, and we hope that they will give it a very close review and that we will have it before us, hopefully, in the next month.
The test for the positive liability legislation is whether it promotes effective year 2000 repairs without creating a windfall for negligent organizations. This is a very hard balance to strike, but we cannot proceed without that balance. Counterproductive legislation is worse than no legislation at all.
I encourage all my colleagues to think carefully about the need to facilitate year 2000 repairs and to consider the best way to accomplish that through congressional action. If there is positive legislation to be passed, we should act quickly. Time is short. The millennium date change will soon be upon us.
Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of this legislation, I ask that H.R. 4355 be printed in the Record for all of our colleagues to review, and I also enclose a sectional analysis prepared by the administration which will guide my colleagues through the bill.
We would welcome all these thoughts, as I am sure would the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). We look forward to seeing this legislation progress through the legislative process.
I include the documents referred to as follows:
H.R. 4355
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Thousands of computer systems, software, and semiconductors are not capable of recognizing certain dates in 1999 and after December 31, 1999, and will read dates in the year 2000 and thereafter as if they represent the year 1900 or thereafter. This could cripple systems that are essential to the functioning of markets, commerce, consumer products, utilities, government, and safety systems in the United States and throughout the world. Reprogramming or replacing affected systems before this problem cripples essential systems is a matter of national and global interest.
(2) The prompt and thorough disclosure and exchange of information related to Year 2000 readiness of entities, products, and services would greatly enhance the ability of public and private entities to improve their Year 2000 readiness and, thus, is a matter of national importance and a vital factor in minimizing disruption to the Nation's economic well-being.
(3) Concern about the potential for legal liability associated with the disclosure and exchange of Year 2000 compliance information is impeding the disclosure and exchange of such information.
(4) The capability to freely disseminate and exchange information relating to Year 2000 readiness with the public and with other companies without undue concern about litigation is critical to the ability of public and private entities to address Year 2000 needs in a timely manner.
(5) The national interest will be served by uniform legal standards in connection with the disclosure and exchange of Year 2000 readiness information that will promote disclosures and exchanges of such information in a timely fashion.
(b) Purposes.--Based upon the powers contained in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, the purposes of this Act are to promote the free disclosure and exchange of information related to Year 2000 readiness and to lessen burdens on interstate commerce by establishing certain uniform legal principles in connection with the disclosure and exchange of information related to Year 2000 readiness.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) Year 2000 statement.--The term ``Year 2000 statement'' means any statement--
(A) concerning an assessment, projection, or estimate concerning Year 2000 processing capabilities of any entity or entities, product, or service, or a set of products or services;
(B) concerning plans, objectives, or timetables for implementing or verifying the Year 2000 processing capabilities of an entity or entities, a product, or service, or a set of products or services; or
(C) concerning test plans, test dates, test results, or operational problems or solutions related to Year 2000 processing by--
(i) products; or
(ii) services that incorporate or utilize products.
(2) Statement.--The term ``statement'' means a disclosure or other conveyance of information by 1 party to another or to the public, in any form or medium whatsoever, excluding, for the purposes of any actions brought under the securities laws, as that term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(47)), documents or materials filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or with Federal banking regulators pursuant to section 12(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or disclosures or writings made specifically in connection with the sale or offering of securities.
(3) Year 2000 processing.--The term ``Year 2000 processing'' means the processing (including, without limitation, calculating, comparing, sequencing, displaying, or storing), transmitting, or receiving of date or date/time data from, into, and between the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and the years 1999 and 2000, and leap year calculations.
(4) Year 2000 internet website.--The term ``Year 2000 Internet website'' means an Internet website or other similar electronically accessible service, designated on the website or service by the person creating or controlling the website or service as an area where Year 2000 statements and other information about the Year 2000 processing capabilities of an entity or entities, a product, service, or a set of products or services, are posted or otherwise made accessible to the general public.
(5) Covered action.--The term ``covered action'' means a civil action arising under Federal or State, law except for any civil action arising under Federal or State law brought by a Federal, State, or other public entity, agency, or authority acting in a regulatory, supervisory, or enforcement capacity.
(6) Republication.--The term ``republication'' means any repetition of a statement originally made by another.
(7) Consumer.--The term ``consumer'' means an individual who buys a consumer product other than for purposes of resale.
(8) Consumer product.--The term ``consumer product'' means any personal property or service which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes.
SEC. 4. PROTECTION FOR YEAR 2000 STATEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in subsection
(c), in any covered action, to the extent such action is based on an allegedly false, inaccurate, or misleading Year 2000 statement, the maker of any such statement shall not be liable under Federal or State law with respect thereto unless the claimant establishes, in addition to all other requisite elements of the applicable action, that the statement was material, and--
(1) where the statement was not a republication, that the statement was--
(A) made with knowledge that the statement was false, inaccurate, or misleading;
(B) made with an intent to mislead or deceive; or
(C) made with a grossly negligent failure to determine or verify that the statement was accurate and not false or misleading; and
(2) where the statement was a republication of a statement regarding a third party, that the republication was made--
(A) with knowledge that the statement was false, inaccurate, or misleading; or
(B) without a disclosure by the maker that the republished or repeated statement is based on information supplied by another and that the maker has not verified the statement.
(b) Year 2000 Internet Website.--In any covered action in which the adequacy of notice about Year 2000 processing is at issue and no clearly more effective method of notice is practicable, the posting of a notice by the entity purporting to have provided such notice on that entity's Year 2000 Internet website shall be presumed to be an adequate mechanism for providing such notice. Nothing in this subsection shall--
(1) alter or amend any Federal or State statute or regulation requiring that notice about Year 2000 processing be provided using a different mechanism;
(2) create a duty to provide notice about Year 2000 processing;
(3) preclude or suggest the use of any other medium for notice about Year 2000 processing or require the use of an Internet website; or
(4) mandate the content or timing of any notices about Year 2000 processing.
(c) Defamation or Similar Claims.--In any covered action arising under any Federal or State law of defamation, or any Federal or State law relating to trade disparagement or a similar claim, to the extent such action is based on an allegedly false Year 2000 statement, whether oral or published in any medium, the maker of any such Year 2000 statement shall not be liable with respect to such statement, unless the claimant establishes by clear and convincing evidence, in addition to all other requisite elements of the applicable action, that the statement was made with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.
(d) Limitation on Effect of Year 2000 Statements.--In any covered action, no Year 2000 statement shall be interpreted or construed as an amendment to or alteration of a written contract or written warranty, whether entered into by a public or private party. This subsection shall not apply--
(1) to the extent the party whose statement is alleged to have amended or altered a contract or warranty has otherwise agreed in writing to so alter or amend the written contract or written warranty;
(2) to Year 2000 statements made in conjunction with the formation of the written contract or written warranty; or
(3) where the contract or warranty specifically provides for its amendment or alteration through the making of a Year 2000 statement.
Existing law shall apply to determine what effect, if any, a Year 2000 statement within the scope of paragraph (1), (2), or (3) has on a written contract or written warranty.
(e) Special Data Gathering.--A Federal entity, agency, or authority may expressly designate requests for the voluntary provision of information relating to Year 2000 processing
(including without limitation, Year 2000 statements) as
``Special Year 2000 Data Gathering Requests'' made pursuant to this subsection. Information provided in response to such requests shall be prohibited from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552 et seq.), and may not be used by any Federal entity, agency, or authority, directly or indirectly, in any civil action arising under any Federal or State law, Provided, however, That nothing in this subsection shall preclude a Federal entity, agency, or authority from separately obtaining the information submitted in response to this subsection through the use of independent legal authorities and using such separately obtained information in any action.
SEC. 5. EXCLUSIONS.
(a) Consumer Information.--This Act does not cover statements made directly to a consumer in connection with the sale of a consumer product by the seller or manufacturer or provider of the consumer product.
(b) Effect on Information Disclosure.--This Act does not affect, abrogate, amend, or alter, and shall not be construed to affect, abrogate, amend, or alter, the authority of a Federal or State entity, agency, or authority to enforce a requirement to provide, disclose, or not to disclose, information under a Federal or State statute or regulation or to enforce such statute or regulation.
(c) Contracts and Other Claims.--Except as may be otherwise provided in subsection 4(d), this Act does not affect, abrogate, amend, or alter, and shall not be construed to affect, abrogate, amend, or alter, any right by written contract, whether entered into by a public or private party, under any Federal or State law, nor shall it preclude claims not based solely on Year 2000 statements.
(d) Duty or Standard of Care.--This Act shall not be deemed to impose upon the maker or publisher of any Year 2000 statement any increased obligation, duty, or standard of care than is otherwise applicable under Federal or State law. Nor does this Act preclude any party from making or providing any additional disclaimer or like provisions in connection with any Year 2000 statement.
(e) Trademarks.--This Act does not affect, abrogate, amend, or alter, and shall not be construed to affect, abrogate, amend, or alter, any right in a trademark, trade name, or service mark, under any Federal or State law.
(f) Injunctive Relief.--Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to preclude a claimant from seeking temporary or permanent injunctive relief with respect to a Year 2000 statement.
SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY.
This Act shall apply to any Year 2000 statement made on or after July 14, 1998, through July 14, 2001. This Act shall not affect or apply to any action pending on July 14, 1998.
____
Co-Sponsors of the Year 2000 Bill
Mr. Horn, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Davis (Virginia), Mr. Sanford, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Barcia, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Leach, Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Gordon, Ms. McCarthy (Missouri), Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Luther, Mr. Brown
(California), Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Moran
(Virginia), Ms. Johnson (Texas), Ms. DeGette, Mrs. Capps, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. Lampson.
____
Administration Sectional Analysis
section 1--short title
This section provides a short title for the bill.
section 2--findings
The findings contained in this section declare that the Year 2000 technology problem (hereinafter referred to as
``Y2K'') presents a serious challenge to our Nation's economic security and well-being. This technology problem may cause computers and embedded systems which run our critical infrastructure to malfunction as we progress from the year 1999 into the new Millennium. Businesses and organizations, both public and private, throughout the United States and abroad have a very limited period of time to address this problem and ensure that these critical structures continue to operate in a sound and effective manner. This technology problem cuts across all segments of our economy. The bill does not address other concerns held by private sector companies about broader liability questions related to Y2K.
The findings declare that the potential for legal liability associated with the disclosure and exchange of information on Y2K compliance and readiness has caused a chilling effect on the ability to address this problem. The purpose of this bill is to promote the open sharing of information among all entities, including competitors, about the Y2K problem and solutions to remedy that problem. The bill facilitates this purpose by establishing a uniform standard of legal liability to protect those who share Y2K information in good faith from claims based on disclosures and exchanges of information.
It should be noted that the Administration has taken steps to allay fears about the potential for antitrust action against parties exchanging information related to Y2K. The Department of Justice has stated in a business review letter to the Securities Industry Association that competitors in any industry who merely share information on Y2K solutions are not in violation of the antitrust laws.
section 3--definitions
This section defines certain terms used in the bill. Of particular note, a ``covered action'' is defined to include any civil action involving either Federal or State law. The definition also includes any civil action brought by or against a Federal, State, or other public entity in which the Federal, State, or other public entity is essentially acting as a customer. Specifically excluded from the coverage of this bill are actions in which a Federal, State, or other public entity is acting in a regulatory, supervisory, or enforcement capacity. Thus, the bill will not limit public regulators, supervisors, and enforcement agencies from carrying out their responsibilities with regard to Y2K information that may be false, inaccurate, or misleading.
The definition of ``statement'' excludes, for purposes of actions brought under the securities laws, certain materials filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or with Federal banking regulators. Under Section 12(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, banks and savings associations must file periodic reports with their appropriate Federal banking agency instead of the SEC. This exclusion would also cover those reports. Also, excluded, for these purposes, are any disclosures or writings made specifically in connection with the sale or offering of securities. In addition, this bill is not intended to apply to internal communications within an organization.
The term ``consumer product'' covers only personal property or services normally used by an individual for personal, family, or household purposes. It does not cover the same product or service when purchased by a business user. However, a product normally purchased for personal use, that may be used only incidentally for business purposes, would still be a consumer product. (For example, if a computer is marketed for use for family bills, communications, and internet access, but a family member may on occasion use it for professional purposes, the product remains a consumer product.)
Section 4--Protection for Year 2000 Statements
This section generally deals with five issues, namely, a standard of liability for actions involving Y2K information, use of an Internet website to provide notice, defamation actions, an exclusion for written contracts and warranties, and special Y2K information gathering by Federal agencies.
This section provides limited liability protection for claims that one party may bring based on an allegedly false, inaccurate, or misleading Y2K statement made by another.
Subsection (a) addresses claims arising from false, misleading or inaccurate Y2K statements. Where the information contained in a Y2K statement is originally developed by the person or entity making the statement, there would be no liability imposed on the maker, regardless of current law, unless the claimant also proves: (a) that the Y2K statement was material to the underlying legal claim; and
(b) that the statement was either (i) made with knowledge that it was false, inaccurate, or misleading, (ii) made with an intent to mislead or deceive others, or (iii) made with a grossly negligent failure to determine or verify that the statement was accurate and not false and misleading.
In the case of a statement being a republication or restatement of information originating from another entity, the claimant would need to prove the additional elements of:
(x) that the Y2K statement was material to the underlying legal claim, and (y) that the statement was republished or repeated either (i) with knowledge that it was false, inaccurate, or misleading, or (ii) without a disclosure by the republisher that the statement was based on information supplied to it by another entity. This subsection is not intended to give protection to the republication of Y2K statements where the subject of the Y2K statement is the party making the republication.
Subsection (b) establishes a method of providing others with Y2K information through the posting of such information on the entity's Y2K Internet Website where no clearly more effective method of providing notice is practicable. No duty is created for any entity to provide such information; the subsection only grants approval to one medium for notification where notice is required to be provided and no specific medium for notice has been stated. Where a medium for notification is specified either by statute, regulation, or contract, this subsection will not have any effect. Since the Internet is an effective way to distribute to the public Y2K information, this subsection encourages the use of an Internet website as a means of disseminating Y2K information by giving a presumption of adequacy of notice where no other form of notice is dictated by statute or otherwise or is practicable. This section only addresses the adequacy of the mechanism of notice and does not purport to address the adequacy of the substance of the notice or its timelines.
Subsection (c) addresses claims for defamation, trade disparagement, or the like. In these actions, the additional element to be proven by the claimant, by clear and convincing evidence, is that the Y2K statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to the statement's truth or falsity. This section does not preclude a person or entity from seeking injunctive relief against a false, inaccurate, or misleading Y2K statement.
Subsection (d) reinforces that the bill does not alter, and should not be construed to alter, written contracts by stating that no Y2K statement shall be interpreted or construed as an amendment to or alteration of any public or private written contract or warranty provided that certain explicit conditions are not present.
Subsection (e) grants Federal agencies and authorities the right to designate any request for the voluntary provision of information relating to Y2K processing as a ``Special Year 2000 Data Gathering Request,'' thereby exempting any response from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and being used, either directly or indirectly, against the entity providing the response. This subsection does not prevent an agency or authority from separately obtaining from an entity, through its independent legal authority, the information provided in response to a ``Special Year 2000 Data Gathering Request,'' and using such separately acquired information in any action.
Section 5--Exclusions
Subsection (a) makes clear that this bill does not cover statements made directly to a consumer in connection with the sale of a consumer product or service by the seller, manufacturer, or provider of that product or service, because protection for such statements is not necessary to further the purpose of the bill--to encourage the sharing of information regarding Y2K problems and solutions so that organizations can move quickly and efficiently to make their systems ready for January 1, 2000. This exclusion is intended to cover statements made directly to a consumer, such as advertisements in mass media that are directed to consumers, as opposed to advertisements in trade publications directed to business users or a website providing information about a company's products or services that would be of use or interest to those other than consumers as defined in the Act. The exclusion does not cover statements made to an individual buying a consumer product for purposes of resale rather than for personal, family, or household purposes, and the bill continues to cover such statements.
Subsection (b) makes clear that this bill does not affect, abrogate, amend, or alter the authority of any Federal or State agency to enforce a requirement to provide, disclose, or not disclose information under a Federal or State statute or regulation. Other subsections provide that the bill does not affect, abrogate, amend, or alter written contracts or rights in trademark, trade name, or service name. Thus, a Y2K statement does not necessarily fulfill an entity's obligation under other Federal or State statutes or regulations to provide information about its Y2K status to a Federal or State agency or to consumers. Separately, if any Federal or State statute or regulation (or court or agency order issued under a statute or regulation) prohibits the disclosure of any information, such information may not be included in a Y2K statement. This includes, for example, information contained in or related to examination reports prepared by the financial institutions regulatory agencies. Further, the bill does not preclude a claimant from seeking injunctive relief with respect to a Y2K statement. This injunctive relief may either ban or proscribe an activity, to be affirmative in nature.
Section 6--Applicability
This bill applies to any Y2K statement covered by its terms that is made during a three-year period commencing on July 14, 1998, and ending on July 14, 2001. The bill extends its protections beyond the year 2000 because all Y2K technology problems will not be cured by January 2000. This is an ongoing problem which will require the free flow of information for months, and possibly years, into the new Millennium. By the same token, this bill provides a high degree of protection from liability to makers of a narrow category of statements that may be false, inaccurate, or misleading. Therefore, this protection should not be extended for a period of time beyond what is needed and reasonable. For these reasons, the bill provides a three-year window in which the protection is available. Finally, should a claim arise after this three-year window, but result from a statement made within that period, the claim would remain subject to the provisions of this Act.
____________________
