THE CLERK: THE SENATOR FROM SHRX MR. GREGG, PROPOSES AN
           AMENDMENT NUMBERED 624.
           

           MR. GREGG: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT FURTHER
           READING BE DISPENSED WITH.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. GREGG: MR. PRESIDENT, I'M OFFERING AN AMENDMENT HERE WHICH
           ENSURES THAT SMALL BUSINESSES WHICH ARE HIT WITH THE Y2K
           PROBLEM WILL NOT BE PENALIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR
           ACTIVITIES WHICH THEY'RE UNABLE TO DEAL WITH AS A RESULT OF THE
           Y2K PROBLEM. AND OVERZEALOUS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEARING DOWN ON
           A SMALL BUSINESS CAN BE A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM. I KNOW THAT ALL
           OF US HAVE CONSTITUENTS WHO HAVE HAD SMALL BUSINESSES THAT HAVE

           FOUVEND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE OVER BEARING WITH IT. IT
           WOULD, THEREFORE, BE UNIQUELY IRONIC AND INAPPROPRIATE IF THE
           OVER OVERZEALOUSNESS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WERE TO BE
           THROWN ON TOP OF A SITUATION IN WHICH A SMALL BUSINESS HAD NO
           CONTROL OVER, WHICH WOULD BE THE FAILURE OF THEIR COMPUTER
           SYSTEM AS A RESULT OF A Y2K PROBLEM. THIS DOESN'T GET INTO THE
           ISSUE OF LIABILITY, WHICH MAY BE THE UNDERLYING QUESTION WITHIN
           THIS BILL. IT DOESN'T RAISE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE
           COMPUTER COMPANY SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY, WHICH I KNOW

           HAS BEEN A GENUINE CONCERN OF THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.
           RATHER, IT SIMPLY ADDRESSES THE NEED FOR EQUITY AND FAIRNESS
           WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH SMALL BUSINESSES, WHICH THROUGH NO
           FAULT OF THEIR OWN HAVE SUDDENLY BEEN HIT WITH A Y2K PROBLEM
           AND, THEREFORE, FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A FEDERAL EVENT OR
           FEDERAL REGULATION AND END UP GETTING HIT WITH A HUGE FINE. ALL
           OF WHICH THEY HAD NO CONTROL OVER. THIS AMENDMENT IS TIGHTLY
           DRAFTED SO THAT A SMALL BUSINESS CANNOT USE IT AS AN EXCUSE NOT
           TO MEET A FEDERAL OBLIGATION OR A FEDERAL REGULATION. IT

           DOESN'T ALLOW A SMALL BUSINESS TO TAKE THE Y2K ISSUE AND USE IT
           TO BOOTSTRAP INTO AVOIDING AN OBLIGATION WHICH IT HAS IN THE
           AREA OF SOME FEDERAL REGULATORY REGIME. RATHER, IT IS VERY
           SPECIFIC. IT SAYS THAT FIRST OFF, THIS MUST BE AN INCIDENT OF
           FIRST-TIME REGULATORY VIOLATION VIOLATION. SO THAT NO SMALL
           BUSINESS WHICH HAS ANY SORT OF TRACK RECORD OF VIOLATING THAT
           FEDERAL REGULATION COULD QUALIFY FOR THIS EXEMPTION. SO IT HAS

           TO BE A FIRST-TIME EVENT. AND SECONDLY, IT HAS -- THE SMALL
           BUSINESS HAS TO PROVE THAT IT MADE A GOOD-FAITH EFFORT TO
           REMEDY THE Y2K PROBLEM BEFORE IT GOT HIT WITH IT. SO IT CAN'T
           BE A SITUATION WHERE THE SMALL BUSINESS SAID OH, I'VE GOT THIS
           Y2K PROBLEM COMING UP AND I'VE GOT THIS FEDERAL REGULATION
           PROBLEM COMING UP, AND AT I'M GOING TO LET THE Y2K PROBLEM
           OCCUR AND THEN I'LL CLAIM THAT THAT'S MY REASON FOR NOT
           COMPLYING. THE SMALL BUSINESS MUST HAVE MADE A GOOD-FAITH

           ATTEMPT TO REMEDY THE Y2K PROBLEM. THIRDLY, THE Y2K PROBLEM
           CANNOT BE USED TO AVOID OR RESULT FROM -- THE VIOLATION WAS TO
           AVOID OR RESULT FROM EFFORTS TO PREVENT DISRUPTION OF THE
           CRITICAL FUNCTION OF SERVICE. FOURTHLY, THE ACTION TO REMEDIATE
           THE VIOLATIONS WERE BEGUN WHEN THE VIOLATION WAS DISCOVERED. SO
           THAT THE SMALL BUSINESS HAS TO SHOW THAT IT ATTEMPTED TO
           ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AS SOON AS IT REALIZED IT HAD A Y2K
           PROBLEM. AND IT CAN'T ALLOW THE FACT THAT IT HAS A Y2K PROBLEM

           AGAIN TO GO UNABATED AND USE THAT LACK OF CORRECTION OF THE
           PROBLEM AS AN EXCUSE FOR NOT MEETING THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE
           FEDERAL REGULATION. AND FOURTHLY, THAT NOTICE WAS SUBMITTED TO
           THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY WHEN THE SMALL BUSINESS BECAME AWARE OF
           THE VIOLATION UNDER THE -- WHEN THE SMALL BUSINESS BECAME AWARE
           OF THE VIOLATION AND, THEREFORE, KNEW IT HAD A Y2K PROBLEM. THE
           PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THIS WILL BE THAT SMALL BUSINESSES

           THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTRY WHICH ARE INADVERTENTLY AND BEYOND
           THEIR OWN CAPACITY TO CONTROL HIT WITH A Y2K PROBLEM WILL NOT
           BE DOUBLED UP WITH THAT -- WITH A PENALTY FOR NOT MEETING A
           FEDERAL REGULATORY ACTION THAT THEY COULDN'T MEET AS A RESULT
           OF A Y2K PROBLEM KICKING IN. IT IS A SIMPLE AMENDMENT. IT'S A
           REASONABLE AMENDMENT. IT REALLY DOESN'T GET INTO THE OVERALL
           CONTEST THAT'S BEEN GENERATED AROUND THIS BILL WHICH IS SHOULD
           THERE BE AN EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR THE MANUFACTURERS OF

           THE PRODUCT WHICH CREATES THE Y2K PROBLEM. RATHER, IT'S TRYING
           TO ADDRESS THE INNOCENT BYSTANDER THAT GETS HIT, THAT SMALL
           BUSINESS PERSON WHO SUDDENLY WAKES UP, REALIZES THEY HAVE A
           SMALL -- THEY HAVE A Y2K PROBLEM, TRIES TO CORRECT THE Y2K
           ROBLEM, CAN'T CORRECT THE Y2K PROBLEM. SARLT, FAILS THIS COMPLY
           WITH A FEDERAL REGULATION -- AS A RESULT, FAILS TO COMPLY WITH
           A FEDERAL REGULATION, AND AS A RESULT, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
           HITS THEM WITH A FINE. AND THERE WAS NOTHING THE SMALL BUSINESS

           COULD DO. IT GETS HIT WITH A DOUBLE WHAMMY. THEIR SYSTEMS GO
           DOWN AND THEY GET HIT WITH A FINE. NOW, THIS JUST GOES TO CIVIL
           REMEDY, TO REMEDIES WHICH INVOLVE MONETARY ACTIVITY. SO IT DOES
           NOT ADDRESS ISSUES WHERE A BUSINESS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REMEDY
           THROUGH ACTION. FOR EXAMPLE, -- AN AMPLE HERE MIGHT BE OSHA. IF
           THEY HAD TO CORRECT A WORKPLACE PROBLEM, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE
           TO CORRECT THAT WORKPLACE PROBLEM WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD THE

           Y2K FAILURE. IF THEY HAD A ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM WHICH WOULD
           REQUIRE REMEDIAL ACTION, SUCH AS A CHANGING IN THEIR WATER
           DISCHARGE ACTIVITIES. AGAIN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE
           REMEDIAL ACTION. ALL THIS AMENDMENT DOES IS VERY LIMITED IN
           SCOPE AND JUST GOES TO THE -- TO THE FINANCIAL LIABILITY THAT
           THE COMPANY MIGHT INCUR AS A RESULT OF FAILING TO MEET A
           REGULATION. IT IS A PROPOSAL WHICH IS STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY THE
           SMALL BUSINESS COMMUNITY, THE NFIB IS A SUPPORTER OF THIS
           PROPOSAL, AND WILL BE SCORING TH VOTE AS ONE OF ITS PRIMARY

           VOTES AS IT PUTS TOGETHER ITS ASSESSMENT OF PEOPLE WHO -- OF
           MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THEIR SUPPORTER FOR SMALL BUSINESS.
           IT'S A REASONABLE PROPOSAL, AND I CERTAINLY HOPE IT WILL END UP
           BEING ACCEPTED. BUT IN ANY EVENT, I UNDERSTAND UNDER THE
           UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST WHICH HAS BEEN GENERATED, THERE WILL
           BE A VOTE ON IT ON TUESDAY. AND I'D YIELD BACK MY TIME. I YIELD
           THE FLOOR.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON.
           

           MR. GORTON: THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE IS CORRECT. HE HE'S
           EXPLAINED HIS AMENDMENT WITH GREAT CLARITY. IT MAY OR MAY NOT
           BE SERIOUSLY CONTESTED. WE SIMPLY AREN'T GOING TO KNOW THAT
           UNTIL EARLY NEXT WEEK. AND SO I THANK HIM FOR HIS GRACIOUSNESS
           IN WAITING FOR A FINAL DECISION UNTIL THEN. MR. PRESIDENT, I
           SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
           

           MR. GORTON: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON.
           

           MR. GORTON: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK THAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER
           THE QUORUM CALL BE DISPENSED WITH.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. GORTON: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
           SENATE NOW GO INTO A PERIOD OF MORNING BUSINESS WITH SENATORS
           ALLOWED TO SPEAK THEREIN FOR UP TO TEN MINUTES.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
           

           MR. GORTON: AND, MR. PRESIDENT, I SUGGEST THE A ABSENCE OF A
           QUORUM.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
           
           
           
           QUORUM CALL:
           
{END: 1999/06/10 TIME: 17-15 , Thu.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}