The divisive politics of Y2K liability exploded Monday when a Justice Department official criticized the Senate Judiciary Committee's bill as stepping inappropriately into an arena best left to state lawmakers.
"The position of the administration has been this is a matter for state law reform," said Assistant Attorney General Eleanor Acheson at a Judiciary Committee hearing Monday.
Acheson also said S. 461 could alter already-set business contracts by letting some businesses off the hook for making "reasonable efforts" to fix Y2K problems, and could require a stricter burden of proof than required in other civil lawsuits.
Cosponsors Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said they were disappointed in Justice's evaluation of the bill, and asked Acheson to take another look at the legislation.
"I'm somewhat surprised at the response to this and it's frankly not helpful," Feinstein told Acheson. "We tried to craft a moderate piece of legislation, and certainly more so than the House. We're willing to entertain amendments."
The partisanship of the bill, and the debate, was exposed by comments by the committee's ranking member, Sen. Patrick Leahy D-VT.
"I sense that some may be seeing to use fear of the Y2K millennium bug to revive failed liability limitation legislation of the past," he said. "These controversial proposals may be good politics in some circles, but they don't solve Y2K."
Sen. Robert Bennett R-UT, who heads the Senate's special Y2K committee, has not lent support to any liability legislation. He warned his colleagues not to adopt anything that would reward companies for ignoring the problem.
"I do know that existing and hard-won statutes should not be altered by or confused with new Y2K provisions, and the use of valuable enforcement tools should not be inadvertently curtailed by the Congress' well-intentioned efforts to address the Y2K litigation crisis," Bennett said.
NEXT STORY: GAO says HCFA will fix Y2K bug in time