[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 122 (Monday, September 15, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7273-H7276]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM: CAN IT BE MANAGED?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] is recognized 
for 30 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, we have a major 
problem coming up on January 1, the year 2000. It is called the ``Year 
2000 Problem'', and it relates to our problems with computers that have 
been programmed going back into the sixties, where we had very little 
capacity and somebody came up with the bright idea that we could save a 
few digits here and there by not putting 19 before the year. If it is 
1967, let us just put in '67 and we can do all our subtraction and 
addition based on that.
  As we near the year and the day of January 1, 2000, we face the 
problem of thousands and tens of thousands of computers within the 
Federal Government, throughout the private sector, State government and 
other parts of society where we will have 00 and the computer will not 
know whether it is the year 1900 or the year 2000.
  Now, this affects millions of people in terms of Federal 
entitlements, in determining age eligibility, and so this is the second 
report card that the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology, which I chair, has issued. The other one 
was last year. We first began focusing attention on this matter in 
April 1996. We urged the administration to focus attention on this 
problem.
  The big problem that year was to get the administration to make an 
estimate as to what it would cost to make the conversions, where lines 
of code, some of them placed in computers in the sixties, the 
seventies, the eighties, and the nineties have to be brought up on the 
screen. That information has to be looked at, by a technician, who 
determines: Is this date relevant? If so, should we save it? And if we 
are going to save it, we need that date to be in 4-digit years, not 2-
digit years.

                              {time}  1315

  We now have unbelievable capacity in our computers. Many laptops have 
a storage capacity now that would take a whole room of computers to 
provide such storage in the sixties. So this is a solvable problem. But 
there are no easy answers. If there were, somebody would be a 
billionaire in solving this problem. So I urge high school students 
that might watch this to think about how they can fit into helping us 
solve this crisis, because it is a crisis and it involves not only the 
Federal systems but State systems, and systems in local governments and 
the private sector.
  When we held our hearings in April 1996, we had experts in computing 
estimate that this was a $600 billion worldwide problem. And since half 
the computers are in the United States, it is a $300 billion problem 
for the United States in private and public sectors. The Gartner Group 
also estimated that the Federal Government had a $30 billion problem. I 
thought that was high. But we are not sure. We will know on January 1, 
2000.
  We asked in the appropriations legislation last year for the 
submission by the President of the budget it would take to solve this 
year 2000 problem. The budget for fiscal year 1998 that will end 
September 30, 1998 and will begin on October 1, 1997, which is just a 
few weeks away. We asked the administration to give us a 
recommendation. The recommendation was that it was a $2.3 billion 
problem to make the various renovations and conversions of existing 
computer systems in the executive branch.
  I must say I had a hearty laugh when I read that figure. I felt that 
was so far out of touch with reality that maybe it was not even worth 
considering. So we held a hearing and we had a number of key experts 
testify. Obviously, one major user of computers is the Department of 
Defense. We had the very able Assistant Secretary for Command, Control, 
Communications, and Intelligence General Emmett Paige, Jr., as a 
witness. We asked him about the administration figure of $2.3 billion 
for the whole executive branch. He smiled and responded that $1 billion 
of that $2.3 billion was his recommendation; and that DOD has not even 
started to look at the assessment to see what is really there in the 
thousands of systems that the Department of Defense has responsibility 
to operate.
  So we knew that the administration had not quite done its homework. 
What we have been pressuring for the last few months is to get a much 
more solid figure on which Congress could depend.
  I have very high regard for the Director of OMB, the Office of 
Management and Budget. Dr. Franklin Raines is a very able person. He 
immediately started to get on top of this when he became Director last 
fall. He is planning to make it a major issue in his budget reviews as 
the Cabinet departments, independent agencies, and smaller commissions 
come before the Office of Management and Budget to prepare their 
recommendations to the President for fiscal year 1999 that will begin 
October 1, 1998.

[[Page H7274]]

  Now, with computing, we usually underestimate or overestimate, 
depending on whether it is money or work. What my colleagues will see 
here in our chart of our original grades made in 1996 compared with the 
current grades in 1997. Some went completely backward. Only one 
agency--the Social Security Administration--received an A, and that was 
an A-minus at that. Three received B's. One received a B-minus. The 
rest are in trouble. Almost half the agencies involved, there are 11 
D's and F's. Those are failing grades.
  Some agencies received worse grades than last year because they made 
very little progress in terms of renovation of these programs. Last 
year we were putting the stress on: ``Are you planning? Are you 
organized? Have you faced up to your resources?'' This year we are 
talking about, ``Okay, last year was to get you organized for planning 
and looking at the resources. Now, have you gone far enough to renovate 
some of your systems and to convert them so there will not be a problem 
on January 1 of the year 2000.''
  I will take the responsibility for the actual grades, but my decision 
was based on an interaction with our fine professional staff in the 
subcommittee headed by Russell George, the staff director, and a very 
fine team from the General Accounting Office, which is the legislative 
branch's financial end program auditors, under Joel Willemssen, the 
Director of Information Resources Management. And they concur in my 
conclusions on this.
  We have asked the General Accounting Office to look into some of 
these cases in great depth. And we will continue to do that and depend 
on them, just as Congress has since they were established in 1921.
  Thousands of Government programs must be changed before the 1st of 
January 2000 or they are going to fail in a series of unpredictable 
ways. Most of the failures will be very frustrating. Imagine yourself 
applying for Social Security or Medicare. There is an age relationship 
between your eligibility and receipt of that check.
  And so, the Social Security Administration gets the A-minus here. 
They had an A last year. They have been working on this problem on 
their own initiative since 1989, and I commend them for that. The 
reason they received an A-minus this year is they have not looked into 
the State portion of their systems on disability and other programs 
that involve joint State-Federal action through the Social Security 
Administration. Social Security needs to get to work on those and bring 
them up to speed as to where they are in terms of year 2000 compliance 
in their basic database.
  But my colleagues can imagine those entitlement programs, be it a 
student loan or a Social Security check or a Medicare check, a lot of 
them are date-related. What we have to do is make sure that those 
agencies that affect human beings solve the problem. There are millions 
of people affected by the Social Security Administration. These people 
must not have a failure of Government service on January 1 of 2000. 
These are serious problems and not a laughing matter.
  Some of the failures will probably be humorous. We had one a few 
months ago. A delinquency notice was sent on a contract. It said to the 
vendor that it had been 97 years delinquent. It is because they passed 
into the 2000 period and instead of giving them a 3-year delinquency, 
the computer did not know what to do and did what it did. Computers are 
dumb unless human beings program them.
  But these are the kinds of things that can happen. And unfortunately, 
many of the failures have been disastrous. That is why we are urging 
the executive branch to get focused on this, and I think Dr. Raines 
knows what I am talking about, we see eye to eye, that we do not waste 
a lot of time looking for money up here, that we reprogram money 
already in the executive branch.
  This is the time of year to reprogram. That unspent money is 
reverting to the Cabinet officers. They are not spending it on some of 
the authorized programs. They need to put the year 2000 problem as 
program No. 1 to solve. They need to take those millions that are left 
in almost every department and independent agency and apply them to the 
year 2000 program. These agencies must not fall behind schedule.
  Some, such as those with especially low grades such as HUD, the 
Housing and Urban Development Department, the Department of the 
Interior, Department of Labor, all in the C's and getting down here in 
the D's and the Fs.
  AID is a rather interesting one, the Agency for International 
Development. We gave them an A last year. They had the planning. They 
had the resources. They had the focus. And they were getting a new 
computer system and, by George, they would not have these problems in 
the year 2000. Lo and behold, they secured the new computer system and 
then they found it was not year 2000 compliant. It was making the same 
mistakes. The only difference was it was new. So they have fallen 
rather far from A to F.
  They used to tell the old story in college that the only difference 
between the A student and the F student is that the F student forgot it 
before the exam. Well, AID had a little problem here after the exam. 
Last year they were A on the exam. Now they are on F until they solve 
the problem.
  We know that a lot of programs are going to fail, and we know that 
Government payments will not be made. And so, our problem is we do not 
know which programs will fail until there is further assessment by the 
departments and the independent agencies.
  Waiting for a disaster is frankly not my style of governance or 
management. All Congress can do is to provide oversight. We can goad 
and prod those that are legally responsible in the executive branch to 
keep moving.
  Management should be active, not passive. The President needs to 
appoint an individual who will step up to the plate and directly 
address the Nation's Year 2000 computer problems, starting with the 
executive branch. The American people deserve nothing less.
  Last year's agencies could achieve a good grade by having a complete 
set of plans. That was last year. This year plans are not enough, as I 
have suggested in the other examples. Action is what is required.
  On the average, only 20 percent of the fixes have been made and only 
14 percent tested to see that the fix actually works. When we held our 
hearing after the administration's $2.3 billion budget recommendation 
in February. It was clear that too many had not even looked at the 
extent of the problem.
  I cited the Defense example: $1 billion of the $2.3 billion. It was a 
figure out of the air. Now the administration has recommended that the 
cost is going to be a little higher now. Now it is $3.8 billion. But 
that plan did not make sense either. One gap was the plan to implement 
and test for some agencies in the same year, 1999.
  Now, anyone who has worked with computer systems, and I have, knows 
that what they tell us is usually not what occurs. I will not compare 
it to used car salesmen, but there is some of that there. They always 
overestimate. The Government needs time to make sure that after the 
assessment, after the renovation, that there is an operating 
evaluation.
  I learned long ago, and I have said this many times, that I do not 
want to be the alpha site, or the first site, on a new computer; I want 
to be the beta site, or the second site, on a computer system where 
someone else has worked out all the bugs and they do not have to be 
worked out on my watch or my beat, to use the analogy of the Navy and 
the police.
  So the administration believed last February it was a $2.3 billion 
problem. Our hearing showed that the estimate was not in touch with 
reality. They now estimate the cost to $3.8 billion. That figure is 
also unrealistic.
  Another factor must be considered: Scarce human resources. As we near 
January 1, 2000, the cost of human resources to fix the problem will 
rise dramatically. It is not simply a matter of do we have enough time 
in the year 1999 before we face January 1, 2000. The problem is, the 
slower we go now, the faster we will have to be in 1999. Our costs will 
also rise.
  The simple answer is that it takes human resources to sit in front of 
that computer screen, pull up the existing database and deal with it in 
a new format or get rid of it if we do not need it. That takes people, 
and those people are going to have higher and higher wages as we get 
down to crunch day.
  The executive branch, the President, cannot issue an executive order 
to move January 1, 2000. It is going to happen. What they need to do is 
get

[[Page H7275]]

their act together in terms of management. In his last appearance 
before our Subcommittee on Government Management, I asked the very able 
and distinguished Deputy Director for Management, ``How many people in 
the Office of Management and Budget give any attention to management?'' 
And he said right away, ``Oh, 540.''
  Well, that is nonsense. That is the total number of personnel in the 
Office of Management and Budget. The fact is that if they have 20 
employees focused on strictly management problems, I would be amazed. 
But former administrations had that number or so back under President 
Truman, President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, President Johnson. 
They had a first rate management staff in what was then the Bureau of 
the Budget. That staff could advise Cabinet officers how to solve some 
of these problems, and that is what we need now.
  Our committee will be suggesting down the line that we create an 
Office of Management whose Director will report to the President or an 
individual the President delegates within the Executive Office of the 
President. Right now we have a first rate budget Director who has an 
interest in management questions. That is not enough.
  We have a $5.3, $5.4 trillion national debt and we have a budget that 
for the first time since 1969 will be balanced thanks to the work of 
Congress and the agreement of the President. We have a budget that 
should zero out in 2002 and some even think it might zero out in 1999. 
The Director of OMB has a full load of budget problems. The President 
needs an office where a first rate staff can advise on management 
problems.

                              {time}  1330

  The year 2000 problem is not a technical problem. It should not be a 
money problem. The director is right. Let us reprogram existing money 
at the end of the fiscal year. We need senior management direction in 
these Cabinet departments to make the decision to free up resources so 
that the job will be done.
  The year 2000 problem is a crucial problem. It is a management 
problem. It needs attention at the highest level of the executive 
branch. We wrote the President a few months ago. He is a great 
communicator. We urged him to use some of that skill and to make people 
aware that this is a serious problem. The citizenry needs to be assured 
that the executive branch will do its work in a timely way.
  If this problem does not have the attention at the highest level of 
the executive branch, many of our fellow citizens will be adversely 
affected. The costs are going to be rising, because skilled personnel 
to do this will demand more for their services. They will be in demand 
by State governments, by corporations, by investment houses, by local 
governments, among others.
  While the President and the Vice President promise computer marvels 
to come in the 21st century, the American taxpayer needs today's 
Federal computers fixed before they come crashing down in the near 
future, which is actually only 838 days away. The clock is ticking.
  Despite it all, I am still hopeful. It is within the power of every 
agency listed here to earn an A next year. I grade on an absolute. I do 
not grade on the curve. I never have. You either all get A's, or you 
all get F's.
  Now you can see that we have a real problem here in the executive 
branch. Here is where the C's start, which is a D plus. Here is where 
the D's start: Commerce, Energy, Justice, National Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Agriculture, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Treasury.
  Then you get down to the F's. I mentioned the Agency for 
International Development, Department of Transportation, Education. As 
a former university president and professor, it anguishes me to see 
Education down in the F's. We gave them a B last year for their 
planning.
  I mentioned the Department of Transportation, two very fine 
Secretaries in the last few years, Secretary Pena, Secretary Slater. 
Interestingly enough and unbeknownst to all Secretaries, the Federal 
Highway Administration, within the Department of Transportation, had 
discovered this problem the same time that Social Security did, back in 
1989. But it apparently never percolated up the communications 
management network of the Department of Transportation so it could get 
to the desk of the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary or the Under 
Secretary, the people who are responsible at the top management level 
in the Department. They were working on it, but the executive staff did 
not know it. They did not even know it last year. And we found out by 
accident that this had happened. I do not know that they have continued 
it, but I am told they had one marvelous person that recognized the 
problem and started working on it. That is what Social Security did. 
They took their own initiative.
  Well, we have had the two showings of initiative now. Now what we 
need is systematic daily concentration to get the job done. The 
President needs to appoint someone that can devote executive efforts 
full time. It is not someone in OMB who has a million other things to 
do, such as regulatory affairs, for example, or many other assignments. 
This issue needs full-time attention until the job is done.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we should take this very seriously in all the 
relevant authorization committees of the House, the various 
appropriation subcommittees. The subcommittee of the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] has done a fine job in demanding that the 
administration produce a realistic budget in this area. As I have 
suggested the first administration budget was not realistic. The second 
budget is about as dubious. But I an encouraged that Director Raines 
will systematically go through the department, agency, and commission 
budgets this fall and view how they are handling the year 2000 problem 
so he can make recommendations to the President for the budget he will 
submit to us in February 1998.
  It is a serious problem. It needs focus. It needs people talking 
about it. It needs every employer in America, public and private, 
asking their top staff the question: Are we 2000-year-compliant? If 
they are not compliant, then they need to pitch in and help solve the 
problem. These systems will not be able to interact with each other 
without being fixed. If they are not fixed, they could pollute those 
systems which have been fixed.
  So what we have here is a bug, a virus, call it what you will, that 
can really create chaos throughout integrated computer systems. Our 
Subcommittee on Government Management, the Subcommittee on Technology 
of Science, and the Subcommittee on General Government Appropriation 
and this House have shown that we are determined to do something about 
this problem. We urge the executive branch to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:

 REPORT CARD, YEAR 2000 PROGRESS FOR MISSION CRITICAL SYSTEMS OF FEDERAL
                        DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2000
             Agency                 1996     1997    1998   1999   Final
                                                                   exam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSA (Social Security              A        A-
 Administration).
GSA (General Services             D        B
 Administration)\1\.
NSF (National Science             C        B
 Foundation)\1\.
SBA (Small Business               A        B
 Administration).
HHS (Department of Health and     D        B-
 Human Services)\1\.
EPA (Environmental Protection     D        C
 Agency)\1\.
FEMA (Federal Emergency           F        C
 Management Agency)\1\.
HUD (Department of Housing and    D        C
 Urban Development)\1\.
Interior (Department of the       D        C
 Interior)\1\.
Labor (Department of Labor)\1\..  F        C
State (Department of State).....  B        C
VA (Department of Veterans        D        C
 Affairs)\1\.
DOD (Department of Defense).....  C        C-
Commerce (Department of           D        D
 Commerce).
DOE (Department of Energy)\1\...  F        D
Justice (Department of Justice).  D        D
NRC (Nuclear Regulatory           B        D
 Commission).
OPM (Office of Personnel          A        D
 Management).
Agriculture (Department of        D        D-
 Agriculture).
NASA (National Aeronautics and    D        D-
 Space Administration).
Treasury (Department of the       C        D-
 Treasury).
AID (Agency for International     A        F
 Development).
DOT (Department of                F        F
 Transportation).
Education (Department of          B        F
 Education).
State Governments (State          ?        ?
 Governments).
Local Governments (Local          ?        ?
 Governments).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Improved from last grading period.
 
Prepared for Subcommittee Chairman Stephen Horn.
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology.
Subcommittee Home Page on the Internet: http://www.house.gov/reform/
 gmithtml, September 15, 1997.

       SOCIAL SECURITY: A minus The negative grade resulted from 
     concerns that certain systems which process State disability 
     claims may be susceptible to Year 2000 problems.

[[Page H7276]]

       GSA: B This is a big improvement from its ``D'' grade last 
     year. It's based on the percentage of renovation, testing and 
     implementation completed.
       NSF: B Based on renovation and testing completed. An 
     increase from last year's ``C.''
       SBA: B It went from ``A'' to a ``B'' based on its 
     percentage of renovation, testing and implementation.
       HHS: B minus It moved up from a ``D'' based on its 
     renovation percentage. [GAO has more information in its 
     summary]
       EPA: C It missed the assessment deadline, but moved up from 
     a ``D'' last year due to the percentage of renovation and 
     testing completed.
       FEMA: C Missed assessment deadline, has shown weakness in 
     the renovation percentage. It improved from an ``F'' last 
     year.
       HUD: C It is lacking in both renovation and testing 
     percentages.
       INTERIOR: C It improved from a ``D'' based on renovation 
     reported, however, it has conducted no testing.
       LABOR: C It improved from an ``F'' but is lacking in 
     renovation and testing.
       STATE: C Its grade was reduced from a ``B'' due to its poor 
     renovation and testing percents.
       VETERANS: C Improved from its ``D'' grade, the agency has 
     not completed its assessment.
       DEFENSE: C minus DOD has half of the Federal Government's 
     computer systems, and has not completed the assessment phase. 
     [GAO summary provides greater detail] Last year ``C.''
       COMMERCE: D Failed to complete assessment, poor renovation 
     and testing percentages. Last year it received the same 
     grade.
       ENERGY: D Failed to complete assessment, poor renovation 
     and testing percentages. It received an ``F'' last year. [GAO 
     has more information in its summary]
       JUSTICE: D Very poor renovation and testing percentages. 
     Same grade last year.
       NUCLEAR REGULATORY: D It dropped from a ``B'' due to zero 
     renovation and testing.
       OPM: D One of the biggest declines in grades (``A'' last 
     year) due to poor renovation and no testing.
       AGRICULTURE: D minus Failed to complete assessment, poor 
     renovation and testing percentages.
       NASA: D minus Has not completed its assessment and has poor 
     renovation and testing percentages.
       TREASURY: D minus Failed to complete its assessment and has 
     poor renovation and testing percentages. [See GAO's summary 
     for additional information]
       AID: F The most dramatic drop, (it received an ``A'' last 
     year) is because the new system they adopted has Year 2000 
     problems despite statements made last year by AID that the 
     new system would be Year 2000 complaint.
       TRANSPORTATION: F For the second year in a row, it receives 
     an F. This is due to its failure to complete its assessment, 
     with no renovation, testing or implementation. [GAO has more 
     information in its summary]
       EDUCATION: F Dropped from a ``B'' due to its failing to 
     complete its assessment and conducting no renovation, 
     testing, or implementation.

               YEAR 2000 PROGRESS FOR MISSION CRITICAL SYSTEMS OF FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                In percent
                                     -------------------------------       Any
    Assessment completed  Yes/No          Renovation       Testing   implementation      Grade
                                           completed      completed       Yes/No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSA (Social Security Administration)  Yes                       78            67     Yes            A-
GSA (General Services                 Yes                       35            26     Yes            B
 Administration).
NSF (National Science Foundation)...  Yes                       33            25     No             B
SBA (Small Business Administration).  Yes                       35            35     Yes            B
HHS (Department of Health and Human   Yes                       28            10     Yes            B-
 Services).
EPA (Environmental Protection         No                        33            28     Yes            C
 Agency).
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management    No                        35            35     Yes            C
 Agency).
HUD (Department of Housing and Urban  Yes                        9             2     Yes            C
 Development).
Interior (Department of the           Yes                       43             0     No             C
 Interior).
Labor (Department of Labor).........  Yes                       15            11     Yes            C
State (Department of State).........  Yes                       25             0     No             C
VA (Department of Veterans Affairs).  No                        51            28     Yes            C
DOD (Department of Defense).........  No                        40            34     Yes            C-
Commerce (Department of Commerce)...  No                        15             6     Yes            D
DOE (Department of Energy)..........  No                        10            10     Yes            D
Justice (Department of Justice).....  Yes                        1             1     No             D
NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission).  Yes                        0             0     No             D
OPM (Office of Personnel Management)  Yes                        3             0     No             D
Agriculture (Department of            No                         8             4     Yes            D-
 Agriculture).
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space  No                         8             7     Yes            D-
 Administration).
Treasury (Department of the           No                         6             5     Yes            D-
 Treasury).
AID (Agency for International         No                       N/A           N/A     N/A            F
 Development).
DOT (Department of Transportation)..  No                         0             0     No             F
Education (Department of Education).  No                         0             0     No             F
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The grades are based on percentages reported by departments and agencies for four categories: Assessment,
  Renovation, Testing, and Implementation. The departments and agencies are responsible for the accuracy and
  consistency of percentages reported.

  

                          ____________________