Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 25, 1999
Y2K Regulatory Amnesty Act of 1999 - Requires a defendant who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of Year 2000 (Y2K) upset to demonstrate, through relevant evidence, that: (1) the defendant previously made a good faith effort to remediate Y2K problems; (2) a Y2K upset occurred as a result of a Y2K system failure or other Y2K emergency; (3) noncompliance with the applicable federally enforceable requirement was unavoidable in the face of such an emergency or was intended to prevent the disruption of critical functions that could result in the harm of life or property; (4) the defendant began immediate action to remediate any violation of federally enforceable requirements upon identification of noncompliance; and (5) the defendant submitted notice to the appropriate Federal regulatory authority of a Y2K upset within 72 hours of becoming aware of the upset. Defines "a Y2K upset" as an exceptional incident involving temporary noncompliance with applicable federally enforceable requirements because of factors related to a Y2K failure that are beyond the reasonable control of the defendant. Excludes from such definition: (1) noncompliance with such requirements that constitutes or would create an imminent threat to public health or safety; (2) noncompliance caused by operational error or negligence; or (3) lack of reasonable preventative maintenance or preparedness for Y2K. Makes the Y2K defense a complete defense to any action brought as a result of noncompliance with federally enforceable requirements for any defendant who meets the conditions described by this Act. Sets the maximum allowable length of a Y2K upset at 30 days unless granted specific relief by the appropriate regulatory authority. Provides for criminal penalties for fraudulent use of the Y2K defense.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.723 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.723 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.723 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.723 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.