[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 137 (Monday, October 6, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10443-S10444]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE RALLYING CRY OF THE ECONOMIST

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the most current issue of The 
Economist has a cover story on the Year 2000 Problem. Entitled the 
``Millennium Bug Muddle,'' the story and editorial describe the global 
reaction to the computer glitch. While the editors do believe much of 
the alarmists hue and cry is overstated, they are careful not to 
minimize the warnings about the critical steps we must take to solve 
this problem.
  First, even with the lowest estimates of cost at $52 billion, the 
millennium bug still counts as a serious computing problem, probably 
the worst to strike the industry to date. Governments and industries 
must be prepared to pay the bill. Executives and public officials will 
have to convince the shareholders and taxpayers that they should foot 
the bill even though the fix will not increase productivity one lick.
  Second, in their research, The Economist authors found that ``firms 
that are a year or so into the repair job say they have learned two 
things. Had they done nothing, the consequences would have been ugly 
indeed, from complete failure of their accounting and billing systems 
to, in the case of some retail firms, an inability to do business at 
all. But solving the problem is proving relatively straightforward, if 
time consuming and expensive.'' This reaffirms my belief that this is a 
management problem, NOT a technological problem.
  Third, the article alludes to the impending deluge of litigation. 
``The results of these unfortunate programming decisions are already 
appearing. The Produce Palace, a retailer in Michigan, brought the 
first millennium bug case to court earlier this year, suing the makers 
of its sales terminals because their terminals cannot handle credit 
cards that expire after 1999 . . . Meanwhile, Hartford Insurance had to 
start fixing its systems as far back as 1988, when it realized that its 
7-year bonds would crash its software from 1993 onwards.'' Our society 
is extremely litigious. Business interruptions and the ensuing blame 
game of lawsuits could have lasting harm on our economy and our courts.
  Lastly, as The Economist does so well, the authors see the larger 
meaning in this problem. They conclude that because we are dependent on 
technology--and the pragmatic solutions that are devised in 
technology's evolution--we can be hindered and, in time, stricken, by 
the unintended consequences of these ``innovations.'' As they point 
out, ``British railwaymen chose Stephenson's standard gauge over 
Brunel's wider one in the first half of the 19th Century, as they did 
in America and most European countries. This standard, originally 
derived from horse-drawn wagons in British mines, has remained even as 
railway engineering has undergone 150 years of change. Not 
surprisingly, it is hopelessly inadequate.''

[[Page S10444]]

  But in the end, though costly, the market will compel us to change. 
The authors write: ``Sometimes a standard will be chosen which later 
turns out to be wrong, (two-digit dates, narrow-gauge railways), but 
market forces keep the waste in check, and eventually the standard 
becomes wrong enough to be replaced.''
  What market forces and The Economist authors have failed to address, 
however, is the lagging response of the U.S. Government to this problem 
(a relative benchmark, as the United States is ahead of most 
countries). With just under 800 days left, we cannot have half of our 
agencies still assessing how many mission critical systems will be 
affected. This is but the first phase of three--renovation and testing/
implementation are the other two. We need an outside body to ensure 
this problem is fixed. My bill, S. 22, will do just that.
  The good news is that cover stories like that of The Economist will 
increase awareness, the bad news is that without mention of the status 
of the Federal Government, the probability of widespread failure will 
increase.

                          ____________________