According to unconfirmed reports, President Clinton is becoming involved most forcefully in Y2K.

According to these unconfirmed reports, at a recent top-level meeting a red-faced table-pounding President really let the attendees have it. "Only five months left, and a totally inflexible deadline. Don't you people realize that TIME IS RUNNING OUT!"

"July is nearly over and we still don't have the beginnings of a coherent plan for blaming it on the Republicans."

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), July 21, 1999

Answers

Yes, he is up on his hind legs, alright...

Here is his statement released after he signed the new Y2K legislation yesterday. He completely missed an important oppotunity to actually say something public and meaningful about Y2K.

and the band played on...

http://library.whitehouse.gov/PressReleases.cgi?date=1&briefing=13

July 20, 1999

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_____________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release July 20, 1999

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I have signed into law H.R. 775, the "Y2K Act." This is extraordinary, time-limited legislation designed to deal with an exceptional and unique circumstance of national significance -- the Y2K computer problem.

In signing this legislation, I act in the belief and with the expectation that companies in the high technology sector and throughout the American economy are serious in their remediation efforts and that such efforts will continue. Many have worked hard to identify the potential for Y2K failures among their systems and products, taken reasonable measures to inform those who might be injured from Y2K failures of steps they could take to avoid the harm, and fixed those systems and products, where feasible. If nonetheless there are significant failures or disruptions as we enter the Year 2000, plaintiffs will turn to the courts seeking compensation. Responsible companies fear that they will spend millions or more defending Y2K suits, even if they bear little or no responsibility for the harm alleged. Frivolous litigation could burden our courts and delay relief for those with legitimate claims. Firms whose productivity is central to our economy could be distracted by the defense of unwarranted lawsuits.

My Administration sought changes to make the Y2K Act balanced and fair, protecting litigants who are injured and deserve compensation. We achieved some additional protections. For example, the Y2K Act was modified to ensure that the Federal law leaves intact the State law doctrines of unconscionability that protect unwary consumers and small businesses against unfair or illegal contracts and that public health, safety, and the environment are protected, even if some firms are temporarily unable to comply fully with all regulatory requirements due to Y2K failures.

In addition, the Y2K Act expressly exempts Y2K actions involving private securities claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933 and other Federal securities laws that do not involve actual or constructive awareness as an element of the claim (e.g., section 11 of the 1933 Act). More generally, actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission are excluded from the definition of "Y2K Action."

This is narrow, time-limited legislation aimed at a unique problem. The terms of the statute should be construed narrowly to create uniform Federal rules for Y2K actions in the areas specified in the bill, and to leave in place State law not in direct conflict with the bill's provisions. Moreover, my signature today in no way reflects support for the Y2K Act's provisions in any other context.

I hope that we find that the Y2K Act succeeds in helping to screen out frivolous claims without blocking or unduly burdening legitimate suits. We will be watching to see whether the bill's provisions are misused by parties who did little or nothing to remediate in order to defeat claims brought by those harmed by irresponsible conduct.

In the remaining days of 1999, I hope that the business community redoubles its efforts at remediation. Preventing problems before they start, and developing contingency plans when necessary, are still the best solutions to the Y2K problem.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

Just seeing that "man's" name in print makes me sick to my stomach.

-- newbiebutnodummy (Linda@home.com), July 21, 1999.

Lewis,

He lawyered up on us again. Yow.

"Moreover, my signature today in no way reflects support for the Y2K Act's provisions in any other context."

What is this, a legal disclaimer?

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

Now, Peter.

Give us a clue as to how to trace down these "unconfirmed" reports.

Pleeeeeze?

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

Um..FM..the address is included with the post..it works.

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

(blush)sorry FM, not Peter's...Lewis's..

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

Deborah,

You mean Peter's email address?

I'm confused.

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

Deborah,

We posted at the same time. I understand.

Now Peter, about those unconfirmed reports. . .

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

This Act is likely to set a precedent for easing up on traditional consumer protection laws. This was the main sticking point in Clinton's willingness to go along with a compromise version. From what I saw of the compromise version (I do not know if there have been any changes since then), except in matters involving personal injury or wrongful death, this law will succeed in discouraging consumer actions. I believe this is the basis for Clinton's disclaimer. With only 5 months left, I hope companies and individuals come to understand the need to protect themselves before rollover with adequate contingency plans and compliant suppliers and enforceable contracts. The plaintiff's burden of proof is so stringent, that I do not see the Act creating much incentive for potential defendants to achieve compliancy.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), July 21, 1999.

God what a terrible mess!! Is huncky-dory America ready for this? Are people's expectations including what's coming in five months?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 21, 1999.

Cigar anyone???

snoozin'...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), July 21, 1999.

Just LOVE these Clinton snippets...

...designed to deal with an exceptional and unique circumstance of national significance...

...taken reasonable measures to inform those who might be injured from Y2K failures of steps they could take to avoid the harm, and fixed those systems and products, where feasible.

If nonetheless there are significant failures or disruptions as we enter the Year 2000, plaintiffs will turn to the courts seeking compensation.

...protect unwary consumers and small businesses against unfair or illegal contracts and that public health, safety, and the environment are protected, even if some firms are temporarily unable to comply fully with all regulatory requirements due to Y2K failures.

...expressly exempts Y2K actions involving private securities claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933...

We will be watching to see whether the bill's provisions are misused by parties who did little or nothing to remediate in order to defeat claims brought by those harmed by irresponsible conduct.

In the remaining days of 1999 ... Preventing problems before they start, and developing contingency plans when necessary, are still the best solutions to the Y2K problem.

*Sigh*

Watching. How about preparing the general public? Rather than just contingency planning or holding another community conversation.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

See the USIA Washington Files...

21 July 1999
Text: Clinton Signs Y2K Legislation into Law

http://www.usia.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/ latest&f=99072101.glt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

I don't like Mr. Clinton, but it seems to me that all these "unconfirmed reports" about his being upset at some "top-level meeting" over whatever subject (in this case, Y2K) always follow the same script: they portray him as "red-faced and pounding the table." The red-faced bit I might buy, since Mr. Clinton often is red-faced; I don't know about the "pounding the table" bit, however. Next the gossips will have it that Mr. Clinton pounded the table with his shoe, a la Nikita Kruschev at the UN in 1962 (or thereabouts)--only in Mr. Clinton's case the shoe, no doubt, would be a jogging sneaker. (Well, a "sneaker" would seem to fit Mr. Clinton.) I dunno. If Mr. Clinton really is very worried about Y2K, he sure does an excellent job of concealing that fact in public.

-- Don Florence (dflorence@zianet.com), July 21, 1999.

Don't worry. The government is here to protect you.

-- Prometheus (fire@for.man), July 21, 1999.

To a couple of responders who have shown surprising literal mindedness:

My post was a mordant joke. I made the whole thing up. I had just finished reading Nabi Davidson's post of 7-20, "Government Lack of Preparation Unbelievable". I decided to engage in some sarcasm to show my contempt for the man. I thought everyone would realize that.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), July 21, 1999.

Peter,

We all realized the last part was a joke.

It was the first part we wondered about.

(Do note, however, we DEMANDED CONFIRMATION!!!!!!!)

:)

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

Shouldn't the title of this thread read:

Clinton starts kissing butt on Y2K.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 22, 1999.

for anything else other than y2k i'd say better late than never, it could have been a bump in the road if politicians and management had prepared for it 5 years ago

-- dick of the dale (rdale@coyet.com), July 22, 1999.