[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 30, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8801-H8802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOW LONG WILL WE CONTINUE TO WAIT TO SOLVE THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Under a previous order of
the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, a few months ago our Subcommittee on
Government Management, Information and Technology held an extensive
hearing on what is known as the year 2000 problem. That is a problem
for those who have inputted month-day-year in most computers over the
last 30 years. Three decades ago, most computers had little capacity
for storage. Thus, a 2-digit figure represented the year instead of 4
digits. In other words, instead of 1966, the year was entered 66. So
when it comes to the year 2000 and the computer registers 2000, it will
only register 00 based on the two spaces for the year software. Thirty
years ago it was difficult to find space in a computer and somebody had
the bright idea: Let's save at least a few bits of spaces when we put
dates in by inputting only the last part of the date, not the century
part of the date.
Mr. Speaker, this will be a major problem. It is estimated by
Gartner Associates, a major consulting firm, that it will take $600
billion worldwide to solve this problem. America is responsible for
half of the computing usage on this planet, and it will take about $300
billion for both private and public entities to make the needed
conversions. Gartner Associates believes that conversion by the Federal
Government might well cost $30 billion to deal with this matter.
On April 29, I had the staff of the subcommittee send an extensive
survey to the 24 Cabinet departments and agencies. We now have the
results. In essence, these are some of the results:
1. Major departments are only in the initial planning stages of the
Year 2000 effort.
2. Even the most advanced agencies have not reached the final stages
of the solution.
3. Only six agencies have any cost estimates.
4. The Department of Defense has not yet completed its inventory of
computer software code which needs to be converted.
5. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration does not
anticipate having a plan completed until March 1997.
6. The Department of Transportation simply did not respond to the
questions as of this date. Some departments started in on this effort
the day after our survey arrived. Little attention has been paid to
this coming crunch by many in the executive branch.
7. The Department of Energy did not begin to address the Year 2000
issue until a week after they received the subcommittee's survey.
Most of the departments that are in the initial planning stages need
to have their systems inventoried and fixed by 1998. If they do not do
so by that time, expert resources will be increasingly scarce because
the private sector, State and local government will be using those
resources to solve their own computer conversion problems.
Various internal codes of our computing equipment need to be changed.
Some of it is just reentering the 4-digit year into new software: You
would put in 1996, not just 96, so when you hit the year 2000, it is
not just 00, but it is 2000 and you can subtract 1996 from 2000.
These Federal departments and agencies must ``get with it'' over the
next year and a half. They need to complete their plans. They need to
inventory and fix millions of lines of internal computer code while
simultaneously meeting agency goals.
Basically, we asked these agencies if they had a plan, was there a
program
[[Page H8802]]
manager? What was the estimated cost? And were they responsive to our
dozen or so questions?
We have had a few stars in this affair that have been working on this
problem systematically. We see that the Agency for International
Development [AID]--responsible for foreign aid operations, Office of
Personnel Management [OPM], Small Business, and, most important, the
Social Security Administration received an ``A.'' The Social Security
``A'' is really the first of the ``A''s. Social Security did not need
any prod. In Social Security, an able staff has been working on this
problem--and rightly so--since 1989. They believe that by 1998 they
will complete going through all of the Social Security files which
affect people's benefits and pensions. We gave a very strong ``A'' to
them.
These are only two in the ``B'' category. By the way, I do not grade
on a curve. As a professor, I graded on an absolute. Education is in
the ``B'' category. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a ``B''. Then
after those six there are 18 below them. The three ``C''s, are followed
by 10 ``D''s and 4 ``F''s. And there are dozens of other agencies that
comprise all of the rest of the Federal Government.
Serious attention needs to be given to this by the responsible
officials in the White House who coordinate management matters within
the executive branch. They are a little weak on that. But the Office of
Management and Budget needs to give this effort its full attention
because both the appropriations and authorizing committees of the House
will be expecting them to ask for the needed resources, or have a plan
to reprogram the needed resources.
Let's get on with it. It is a serious problem that could affect each
of us.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material in
connection with my remarks:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the
agency have Did the
Does the Is there a any cost agency
Grade agency have year 2000 estimates respond to
a year 2000 program for year the
plan? manager? 2000 questions?
solution?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Aid.................................. A X X X X
Personnel (OPM).................................... A X X X X
Small Business..................................... A X X X X
Social Security.................................... A X X X X
Education.......................................... B X X X X
Nuclear Regulatory................................. B X X ........... X
State.............................................. B X X X X
Defense............................................ C ........... X X X
Treasury........................................... C X X ........... X
Science Foundation................................. C X ........... ........... X
Agriculture........................................ D ........... X ........... X
Commerce........................................... D ........... X ........... X
Environmental Protection........................... D ........... X ........... X
General Services................................... D ........... X ........... X
Health and Human Services.......................... D ........... X ........... X
Housing (HUD)...................................... D ........... X ........... X
Interior........................................... D ........... X ........... X
Justice............................................ D ........... X ........... X
NASA............................................... D ........... X ........... X
Veterans Affairs................................... D ........... X ........... X
FEMA............................................... F ........... ........... ........... X
Labor.............................................. F ........... ........... ........... X
Energy............................................. F ........... ........... ........... ...........
Transportation..................................... F ........... ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared for Subcommittee Chairman Stephen Horn, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology.
____________________