[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12132-S12133]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  THE CHORUS GETS LARGER AND LOUDER ON THE YEAR 2000 COMPUTER PROBLEM

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, last Wednesday, September 25, I 
introduced S. 2131, a bill to establish a bipartisan National 
Commission on the Year 2000 Computer Problem. In a statement as ominous 
as the problem itself, I summarized the fears of the computer and 
information technology experts on this problem. Their voices, as yet 
largely unheard by Congress and the administration, are multiplying. On 
Monday, September 16, 1996, in the publication New Technology Week, 
Mark Crawford wrote about the lack of preventive action with regard to 
the Year 2000 Computer Problem and about new factors concerning the 
timeliness and costliness of this critical issue.
  Previously, I informed my Senate colleagues that the cost of this 
problem had been estimated in the tens of billions. This article cites 
a recent industry report that tabulated the cost in the hundreds of 
billions. Crawford writes: ``The magnitude of the problem is reflected 
in estimates of the repair bill: $300 billion for the United States and 
$300 billion for the rest of the world.''
  Until now, I had informed my fellow Senators that we had until 
December 1999 to address this problem. Mr. Crawford writes that we have 
even less time. He quotes Mr. Larry Olson, deputy secretary for 
information technology for the State of Pennsylvania, who argues that 
businesses and governments will have to fix their computer codes by the 
end of 1998--not 1999: ``Pennsylvania's Olson figures that States, 
Federal agencies, and companies must fix their problems by the end of 
1998 in order to have adequate time to run systems and identify any 
catastrophic glitches.'' So, not only are the cost estimates rising, 
but the date by which we must address this problem has moved up as 
well.
  We must act expeditiously.
  I ask that the article which appeared in New Technology Week on 
September 16, 1996, entitled ``The Year 2000 Software Fix Unlikely To 
Beat Clock'' by Mark Crawford, be printed in the Record.
  The article follows:

             [From the New Technology Week, Sept. 16, 1996]

             Year 2000 Software Fix Unlikely To Beat Clock

                           (By Mark Crawford)

       The challenge that business, state and local government, 
     and federal agencies face in changing millions of lines of 
     code by the year 2000--so that computer record systems 
     continue to function accurately in the new millennium--is 
     getting bigger by the day.
       According to experts testifying September 10 before a joint 
     hearing held by subcommittees of the House's Science 
     Committee and Government Reform & Oversight Committee, 
     neither industry nor government agencies will be able to make 
     all the required fixes before the clock strikes midnight on 
     December 31, 1999. The magnitude of the problem is reflected 
     in estimates of the repair bill: $300

[[Page S12133]]

     billion for the United States and $300 billion for rest of 
     the world (NTW, Dec. 12, 1995, p. 1).
       At risk is the integrity of many services and functions 
     that are taken for granted--the management of payroll 
     services, retirement programs, medical and health insurance, 
     traffic systems, information databases. The fix: Expand from 
     two digits to four digits the date fields used in computer 
     programs to designate the year. Without this modification, 
     many computer programs, especially older software, will 
     register ``00'' when 2000 arrives.
       Left unchecked, the consequences will range from minor 
     inconvenience to devastation for some record systems and 
     management programs, according to industry and government 
     analysts. The problem is equally daunting for companies, many 
     of which are only now beginning to understand it, according 
     to Larry Olson, deputy secretary for Information Technology 
     for the state of Pennsylvania.
       Olson's state has started an aggressive outreach program 
     aimed at prodding companies located there to attack the 
     problem. And large national companies also are moving 
     expeditiously on the matter, particularly in the securities 
     industry, where it's essential to maintain date-critical 
     information on stock trades, retirement accounts, and other 
     financial transactions.
       Despite the potential for havoc, industry and government 
     agencies have been moving slowly to address the problem. And 
     now both legislators and computer industry officials fear 
     there could be serious--not to mention costly--problems 
     created.
       Why? Daniel Houlihan, first vice president of the National 
     Association of State Information Resource Executives 
     (NASIRE), noted that there has been little direction from 
     Washington on the matter. ``There is no leadership on a 
     uniform solution across the states,'' said Houlihan.
       That criticism is not hard for Rep. Stephen Horn (R-
     Calif.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Government 
     Management, Information, and Technology, to accept. In July 
     he disclosed results of a survey conducted by his panel that 
     showed few federal agencies to be moving aggressively on the 
     issue (see chart, bottom).
       Most of the government's large agencies were graded D or F 
     on their level of preparation to address the Year 2000 
     problem. The Department of Defense got a C and the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Agency a B, while the Social Security 
     Administration was one of four agencies out of a total of 24 
     surveyed to get an A. Said Horn of the state of readiness in 
     the federal government: ``There were very few As, Bs, and Cs. 
     There were a lot of Ds and Fs.''
       It's not likely that federal agencies, state governments, 
     or businesses will be able to make all the computer program 
     changes needed by 2000, said Houlihan. Government agencies 
     and companies alike, he stressed, should focus on 
     ``identifying critical programs that will be affected and get 
     those changes done first.''
       Indeed, Pennsylvania's Olson figures that states, federal 
     agencies, and companies must fix their problems by the end of 
     1998 in order to have adequate time to run systems and 
     identify any catastrophic glitches.
       Only in the last year or so have industry and government 
     begun to attack the problem with any intensity to understand 
     the full scope of the records that must be modified. ``I am 
     afraid that some of the folks don't recognize that they have 
     a problem,'' said Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.).
       Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology 
     Association of America (ITAA), said his organization is doing 
     all it can to make industry aware of the Year 2000 problem 
     and to get top management moving on it. But, Miller noted, 
     some executives have been slow to recognize the scope of the 
     problem and make it a top priority in their organization. 
     Said Miller: ``They need to wake up, look in the mirror, go 
     to the office, and start asking some questions.''
       At the state government level, said NASIRE's Houlihan, who 
     also is director of the data processing oversight commission 
     for Indiana, there is now a high level of recognition of the 
     problem. But states are moving at different speeds to address 
     it, he said.
       Survey data, he said, show that 75 percent of the states 
     are still in the planning stage, with just 25 percent 
     actually moving to implement system changes. At this point, 
     Houlihan said, state projections for finishing software 
     program modifications range from 1997 to December 1999. The 
     size of the problem varies from state to state--ranging from 
     300,000 lines of code to 97 million lines.
       What states that are moving aggressively to tackle the Year 
     2000 program, such as Pennsylvania, fear is that the federal 
     government at this late juncture may step in with rules and 
     standards that could slow their efforts--or, worse yet, cause 
     them to modify program changes that have already been made.
       NASIRE's Houlihan said that what states do want is a quick 
     determination by federal agencies on the level of funding 
     that might be provided to assist state governments and 
     localities in fixing information systems that support or 
     interact with federal programs.
       The costs of modifying date fields in computer programs is 
     daunting at a macro level. The estimate of $600 billion 
     worldwide is based on an estimate of $1 for each line of code 
     that must be changed. Most of that dollar is used not in 
     making the change, but in conducting subsequent tests to make 
     sure that affected programs continue to function properly.
       Just what it will cost companies and governments to bring 
     their software programs into compliance is expected to vary 
     widely, depending on how old the programs are and whether all 
     the underlying source code is available. Pennsylvania 
     estimates that repairing the date fields in its payroll 
     system will involve changing 10,000 lines of code at a cost 
     of $7,500.
       While getting a fix on the accuracy of cost estimates is 
     hard at this time, ITAA's Miller warned that there is certain 
     to be upward pressure on costs--because of a shortage of 
     qualified programmers. Miller said that ITAA, in fact, is 
     concerned that industry and government demand will be so 
     great that fly-by-night companies could spring up and create 
     nightmares for unsuspecting firms.
       To ward off this problem, ITAA is launching a certification 
     program that will help companies and government agencies 
     select firms that have the required capabilities to make 
     software modifications.

                      YEAR 2000 AGENCY PREPAREDNESS                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Grades 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Aid.............................................        A 
Personnel (OPM)...............................................        A 
Small Business................................................        A 
Social Security...............................................        A 
Education.....................................................        B 
Nuclear Regulatory............................................        B 
State.........................................................        B 
Defense.......................................................         C
Treasury......................................................         C
Science Foundation............................................         C
Agriculture...................................................        D 
Commerce......................................................        D 
Environmental Protection......................................        D 
General Services..............................................        D 
Health and Human Services.....................................        D 
Housing (HUD).................................................        D 
Interior......................................................        D 
Justice.......................................................        D 
NASA..........................................................        D 
Veterans Affairs..............................................        D 
FEMA..........................................................        F 
Labor.........................................................        F 
Energy........................................................        F 
Transportation................................................  F 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                

                          ____________________