[The following material was presented at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C. on 1998-07-14.]
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, thank you very much. (Applause.) I didn't know I was going to get that kind of build-up, Bruce. Thank you. I do come over here a lot, and I appreciate all the kind words. And, Dr. Alberts, I want to thank you and all of your staff and team here for all of the help that you've given to the President and me, and to the administration, and to the Congress, and for the role that you play in our country.
It's a great pleasure to be here with so many distinguished guests. And on behalf of the President, I'd like to spend just a moment acknowledging the folks who are on stage with us here. Before I do that, I want you to know that there are several members of the President's Cabinet who are present here today, including the OMB Director, Jack Lew, who plays such a prominent role in this issue; and, of course, John Koskinen, who is Chair of the President's Council on the Year 2000 Conversion. And we want to thank John for all the work that he's done on this. Having been a part of the effort to persuade him to come back out of retirement and take this on, I want to really lay it on thick because he's done a great job. (Applause.) Why don't you stand up, John. We appreciate what you're doing. (Applause.)
Also, let me point out that the Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman, is here; and the Acting Secretary of Energy, Betsy Moler is here; Deputy Secretary of Labor Kitty Higgins and Deputy Secretary of Transportation Mort Downey; Deputy at SBA, Fred Hochberg; also, FCC Commissioner, Michael Powell; and others in the administration -- Janet Abrams is the Executive Director of the Year 2000 Council; Morley Winograd with the Partnership for Reinventing Government.
And from the -- I probably should have started with the members of the Senate and the House -- I want to say a special word of acknowledgment to Senator Bob Bennett and his partner, Senator Chris Dodd -- the two of them are leading the charge on the Senate side to create a very thoughtful, bipartisan forum for addressing this issue that faces our country and the world. And on the House side, I want to especially acknowledge Congressman Steve Horn of California and Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, Congressman John LaFalce of New York and Congressman Jim Turner of Texas.
Now, behind me here on stage are some distinguished Americans who are hard at work on the issue, and the President will be referring to some of them. But I want to acknowledge Erle Nye, a CEO of Texas Utility Corporation; Stephen Wolf, CEO and Chairman of the U.S. Airways Group; John Pasquah (phonetic), Vice President for Y2K at ATT; Peter Turner, who is the COO at Torrington Research Company; and Sandra Wells who is in charge of Y2K for Torrington; and Ed Brown who is Vice President for Internet Services with First Union Bank.
Now, I took notes, Dr. Alberts, of your comments about me and technology, and I was recalling a magazine article -- one of these airline magazines. And they had a list a few years ago of 31 signs that technology has taken over your life. I'll just read a few of them: If you know your e-mail address, but not your Social Security number; if you rotate your screen saver more than your tires; if you have never sat through a movie without having at least one device on your body beep or buzz. (Laughter).
Now, here's the point. My personal favorite was number 23: If Al Gore strikes you as an intriguing fellow. (Laughter.). I don't understand that. Why is that? (Laughter). But technology is, without question, a vital part of our everyday life, and we constantly face the challenge of making sure that we're on top of it and mastering it instead of letting it take control of our lives and master us. And we're here today to discuss what we all need to do to ensure that technology continues to be a path to prosperity and not a source of new problems, especially on the day when the calendar turns on the year 2000.
I'm speaking, of course, about the so-called year 2000 problem which, as everybody knows -- well, unfortunately, not everybody does know it -- but as many people know, and certainly everyone in this auditorium knows, it could cause serious problems for commerce and communications all over the world if we're not serious about fixing it.
This is a story of conscious decisions by people years ago that led to completely unintended consequences. Back in the 1960s and '70s, managers and programmers tried to save money by saving on memory. At that stage of the computer revolution memory was at a premium and they were trying to avoid using any unnecessary space in the memory storage areas. And so they came up with the notion of representing the date with only two digits, instead of four. So 1965 became just 65. And it saved millions of dollars, but it also created one whale of a problem.
The software assumed that every year began with 19, and it wasn't programmed to read the year 2000. The programmers assumed, of course, that the early versions of software that they were using would quickly become obsolete, so they really didn't think about it that much. But software has turned out to be a different kind of technology from toasters or cars -- when you get a new version you don't just throw away the old software, or at least when you develop a new version they didn't throw away the earlier version, they built upon it and added to it.
And software began to evolve in ways that are not completely dissimilar to the evolution of life forms in the sense that the new forms recapitulated some of the earlier evolutionary steps. And without spending much time considering it, the software writers continued to think, well, we'll soon replace this and if we fix the numbers, well, they'll have to go back and fix it all over the place. And so they fell into a pattern of denial and it didn't really seem to them to be a problem.
But as a result the flawed programs were replicated by each successive generation. And over time they built up and today we have hundreds of millions of computers and devices and tens of billions of imbedded chips that will not accurately read -- many of which will not accurately read the year 2000. When you have that many of them, if only a small percentage of them don't accurately read the date, then the world has a problem. And unless the old lines of code are fixed, the problems, of course, will be serious. And that means that if somebody gets a bill in December '99 and doesn't send a check until January of 2000, if that company's computer isn't fixed it might not register your payment because it will think the check is from 1900. And that would be the least of the problem. So it has to be fixed.
And this is a challenge that exists on four different levels. First of all, it's a challenge to the federal government. With more than 7,000 mission critical systems at the federal level, carrying out functions ranging from Social Security payments to air traffic control, it is critical that our electronic systems run effectively and efficiently.
Secondly, it's a challenge to state and local government. States use computers to run vital public health and safety systems, from Medicaid to unemployment insurance to water treatment plants.
Third, it's a special challenge to the private sector. Virtually every American business, both large and small, has a stake in our information economy and ultimately has to take personal responsibility for fixing their own system. The people who are with us on stage today, to whom I referred earlier, have taken a special leadership role on this issue and we want to hold them up as examples, and they're working with us to solve the problem. And private businesses are really doing a wonderful job, in most cases -- we'll talk about some of the others.
Now, fourth, it's an international challenge. In a world with hundreds of different languages, the way in which our computers speak to one another across national boundaries drives our markets, our jobs, and our future.
The President will talk more broadly about all four of these areas in just a moment. Let me take just one minute to focus on the federal role. The federal government has been working very hard to ensure that our critical computer systems will in fact run smoothly when the date changes. Earlier this year the President established the President's Council on the Year 2000 Conversion, and appointed John Koskinen, as the highly respected former Deputy Director of Management at OMB, to head up this effort.
Along with John, I met with the President's Management Council to make clear that their number one job was to meet this challenge. And I joined in the Cabinet meeting when the President laid down the law and went to each Cabinet Department and set in motion efforts to make sure that every Cabinet member understands this is priority number one.
And today, over 30 Executive Branch, independent and regulatory agencies have representatives on that Council and great progress is being made. At the Social Security Administration, for example, more than 90 percent of critical systems are already year 2000 compliant. There are areas where extra attention is being devoted, I assure you, and we know very well that we have serious work ahead of us and we have to remain diligent.
Our goal is to have 100 percent government-wide compliance not by December 31, 1999, but by March of next year. And John Koskinen really is a tireless and talented manager with a stellar record, and I know that together we will continue to make good progress toward meeting that goal.
And we want to thank our colleagues in the Legislation Branch of the government for approaching it with the seriousness of purpose and dedication that they have brought to this task. This can be a model of partnership and, in fact, one of the lessons that businesses are learning is that some of the instinct for conflict or to take advantage of some competitor's problems have to be submerged into a common effort to make sure that everybody in a particular industry sector is solving the problem, because it will affect everybody if that's not stopped. And the same thing is true where the federal government is concerned.
Our Office of Personnel Management is currently working to make sure that every agency has the talent and the personnel needed to address this issue. Last March OPM issued a memorandum that will enable us to bring back retired government programmers to meet this challenge without requiring them to give up their retirement benefits.
After all, much of the work that needs to be done involves computer languages that were en vogue 30 years ago, but are not as prevalent today. And some of these languages even have dialects that can throw you for a loop if you haven't been conversant in them personally. And these programmers have the training and the skills that are greatly needed right now.
So we're doing our part, and part of the message today is that everybody has to do his or her part. Let me be clear about one thing in closing. The year 2000 problem is a management challenge and a programming challenge. It must not be a political football. We need bipartisan cooperation to solve the year 2000 problem, not political rhetoric. More than anything else, the year 2000 problem has revealed how interconnected and interdependent we have become. As software has evolved, so has our society. We're all in this together and we must solve it together.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is no person who understands that better than President Bill Clinton. Over the past five and a half years, no person has worked harder or done more to give our families and communities the tools that they need to make technology work for them and to make it a pathway to a brighter future. And, of course, we see the results in all of the great economic news in most parts of our country -- 16 million new jobs, new records for small business creation every year now, 78 percent of America's schools wired to the Internet, and the biggest increase in education opportunity in a generation.
The President is here today to talk about how the United States of America can keep this progress going and continue to address the year 2000 problem today. It is my great honor to present to you, ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Bill Clinton. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, Dr. Alberts, to all of our platform guests, Senator Bennett, Senator Dodd, Congressmen Horn, Kucinich, LaFalce, and Turner, and members of the administration who are here, and all the rest of you who are committed to dealing with this challenge.
This is one of those days that I never thought would ever arrive, where Al Gore has to listen to me give a speech about computers. (Laughter.) Being President has its moments. (Laughter.)
[unrelated material omitted]
Let me also say at the outset, I want to say a special word of thanks, as the Vice President did, to John Koskinen and his whole team for the work they are doing and to all the people that are working with them. We have just on this platform representative people from utilities, from transportation, from finance, from telecommunications, and from small business. And this really is a joint effort we are all making.
But I thank you, John. You know, before I became President, John Koskinen was a personal friend of mine -- I doubt if he still is now that I got him to do this. (Laughter.) But what's a friendship to save the country's wires, so I thank him. (Laughter.)
I asked Bruce Alberts this -- I remembered that Richard Berks' magnificent statue of Albert Einstein is right outside here, and I wish we could bring him to life for this moment. But I'll drive by it on the way out for inspiration.
It seems unbelievable that it's only 535 days from now, at the stroke of midnight, when we will usher in a New Year, a new century, a new millennium. It will be, to be sure, an astonishing age of possibility, of remarkable advances in science and technology, a time when information clearly will widen the circle of opportunity to more people in the world than ever before, and when technology will continue to shrink our small planet and require us to deal with challenges together, including that climate change challenge that Dr. Alberts referred to.
It is fitting, if more than a little ironic, that this same stroke of midnight will pose a sharp and signal test of whether we have prepared ourselves for the challenges of the Information Age. The Vice President discussed the design flaw in millions of the world's computers that will mean they will be unable to recognize the year 2000. And if they can't, then we will see a series of shutdowns, inaccurate data, faulty calculations.
Because the difficulty is as far flung as the billions of microchips that run everything from farm equipment to VCRs, this is not a challenge that is susceptible to a single government program or an easy fix. It is a complex test that requires us all to work together -- every government agency, every university, every hospital, every business, large and small.
I came here today because I wanted to stress the urgency of the challenge to people who are not in this room. So often one of the wry and amusing aspects of the nature of my work is that when I give a speech like this I am typically preaching to the choir, as we say back home. But hopefully the sermon is heard beyond the four walls of this room because, clearly, we must set forth what the government is doing, what business is doing, but also what all of us have yet to do to meet this challenge together. And there is still a pressing need for action.
The consequences of the millennium bug, if not addressed, could simply be a rash of annoyances, like being unable to use a credit card at the supermarket, or the video store losing track of the tape you have already returned -- has that ever happened to you? It really is aggravating. (Laughter.) It could affect electric power -- I just want to remind you that I used to have a life and I know about things like that. (Laughter.) It could affect electric power, phone service, air travel, major governmental service.
As the Vice President said, we're not just talking about computer networks, but billions of imbedded chips built into everyday products. And it's worth remembering that the typical family home today has more computer power in it than the entire MIT campus had 20 years ago. An oil drilling rig alone may include 10,000 separate chips.
The solution, unfortunately, is massive, painstaking, and labor intensive. It will take a lot of time to rewrite lines of computer code in existing systems, to buy new ones or put in place backup plans so that essential business and government services are not interrupted.
With millions of hours needed to rewrite billions of lines of code and hundreds of thousands of interdependent organization, this is clearly one of the most complex management challenges in history. Consider just one major bank, Chase Manhattan. It must work through 200 million lines of code, check 70,000 desktop computers, check 1,000 software packages from 600 separate software vendors.
The government's Health Care Financing Administration, known affectionately by the governors and others as HCFA, which runs Medicare, processes almost 1 billion transactions a year. It' s computer vendors must painstakingly renovate 42 million lines of computer code.
All told, the worldwide cost will run into the tens, perhaps the hundreds of billions of dollars, and that's the cost of fixing the problem, not the cost if something actually goes wrong.
Already extraordinary efforts are underway by the people on the platform -- many of you out here and others -- but more must be done. We know first we have to put our own house in order, to make certain that government will be able to continue to guard our borders, guide air traffic, send out Social Security and Medicare checks, and fulfill our other duties. We've worked hard to be ready. I set a government-wide goal of full compliance by March of 1999. John Koskinen is heading our council on the Y2K problem. I've met with the Cabinet and charged them personally to produce results and report quarterly to OMB on progress. We're working with state and local governments to do the same thing.
We have made progress. As has already been said, the Social Security Administration has more than 90 percent of its critical systems ready. Other agencies, like EPA, FEMA, and the VA, are well on their way to meeting our goal. But not every agency is as far along as it should be. I have made it clear to every member of my Cabinet that the American people have a right to expect uninterrupted service from government and I expect them to deliver.
I want to thank the thousands of individuals who are working to prepare our government and to make sure we can stay open for business. I especially want to thank the Vice President and John Koskinen and the people who are working with them at OMB and elsewhere. And I very much appreciate these members of Congress who are here and the extraordinary bipartisan interest and support meeting this challenge has engendered.
In my proposed balanced budget for 1999, I asked Congress to fund this initiative on a one-time basis, because it is literally a once-in-a-lifetime challenge. I urge the Congress to fully fund it and to provide contingency funding so that we can respond the unforseen difficulties that are sure to arise as we near January of 2000. We have worked closely with Senators Bennett and Dodd and Congressman Horn and Congressman Kucinich and the other members who are here -- Congressmen LaFalce and Turner and others in the Congress. As I said, there has been a heartening amount of interest in this by people who actually know quite a lot about it in the Congress, and that's a very good thing.
I think we all understand that this is a case where we cannot allow, even in this election season, any shred of partisanship to impinge on the national interest. We, after all, only have 17 months to go.
I believe we also have a role to play in helping to meet this challenge around the world. Surely we can't be responsible for the preparedness of other countries, but I can make the same argument I just made about the IMF and Russia -- if increasingly our prosperity is tied to the well-being of other nations, it would obviously have adverse consequences for us here at home if a number of our trading partners had major malfunctions.
When I was meeting with the world's major industrial organizations in Birmingham, England, a few months ago, I brought this up and I found that we had become far more invested in this and involved in this than some other major nations. When I was in Santiago, Chile, at the Summit of the Americas, I brought it up in our private meeting and a number of countries had literally only begun just to think about the problem.
So I think it is important that the United States recognize that the more we can do to help other countries meet this challenge in a timely fashion, the better off our own economy is going to be and the more smoothly our own businesses will be able to function as we pass over into the new millennium. The United States, to try to help, will provide $12 million to support the World Bank Year 2000 fund for developing countries.
I also want to say what we all know and what you can see from the platform, which is this is not a government problem alone. By far the most significant potential risks fall in the private sector. Large firms already have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure their systems are ready. Many have spearheaded remarkable efforts to make sure their firms and their whole industries are ready. We're encouraged that dozens of firms and thousands of people on Wall Street last night began a simulation to test whether they are ready. And the telecommunication, banking, electric power, and airline industries all deserve praise for the seriousness with which they are taking the challenge.
I want to compliment one person back here in particular. Steve Wolf came all the way back from Africa, got here at 3:00 a.m. in the morning to show up to manifest his understanding of the importance of this challenge to the airline industry, and he is still breathing the rarefied era of Kilimanjaro, so we thank him especially for doing that. (Applause.)
But let me say, in spite of all this progress, in the business sector just as in the government sector, there are still gaping holes. Far too many businesses, especially small- and medium-sized firms, will not be ready unless they begin to act. A recent Walls Fargo bank survey shows that of the small businesses that even know about the problem, roughly half intend to do nothing about it. Now, this is not one of the summer movies where you can close your eyes during the scary parts. (Laughter.) Every business, of every size, with eyes wide open, must face the future and act.
So today I would issue three challenges to our business community. First, every business must take responsibility for making sure it is ready. Any business that approaches the New Year armed only with a bottle of champagne and a noisemaker is likely to have a very big hangover on New Year's morning. (Laughter.) Every business should assess its exposure, asks vendors and suppliers to be ready as well, and develop contingency plans, as we are, in case critical systems or systems of vendors fail as we move into the year 2000.
I want to especially thank Aida Alvarez and the Small Business Administration and its supporters in Congress. And I thank you, Mr. LaFalce, in particular, for the work that has been done to spread the message in the small business community.
And I'd like to salute one firm represented here, the Torrington Research Company, which makes fans for cars and computers. It has only 55 employees, but they've taken the time to check their system and by the end of this year they will be ready --by the end of this year. I want every small business in America to follow their lead. (Applause.)
As the Vice President said, we need literally an army of programmers and information technology experts to finish the task. Many of the computers involved are decades old; some of them use programming language no longer used or even taught. There is a wealth of knowledge in America's tens of thousands of retirees who once worked in the computer industry or government as programmers or information technology managers. I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Labor will expand its jobs bank and talent bank to help to meet this challenge. And I thank Secretary Herman and Deputy Secretary Higgins for that.
The AARP has also agreed to help out. And we're reaching out to civilian and military retirees who did this work for government before. I will ask these older Americans to set aside their well-earned rest and help our nation to meet this challenge.
Second, businesses should exchange and pool information among themselves. It makes no sense for every firm to have to reinvent the digital wheel. Businesses should be able to benefit from the experiences of other firms in the same situation that have found solutions or identified new obstacles.
Today, too many businesses are understandably reluctant to share information, fearing legal complication. We have to take prudent steps to clear away any legal barriers to effective action. Earlier this month the Justice Department stated that competitors who merely share information on how to solve this problem are not in violation of the nation's anti-trust laws. We need to get that message out there loud and clear: no one should be afraid to help another company to deal with this challenge.
There is more we can do. This week I will propose good Samaritan legislation to guarantee that businesses which share information about their readiness with the public or with each other, and do it honestly and carefully, cannot be held liable for the exchange of that information if it turns out to be inaccurate. And here, too, time is of the essence.
Our third challenge to business is that you should take responsibility to accurately and fully tell your customers how you're doing and what you're doing. By letting customers know they are on top of the problem, businesses can help to maintain confidence and override overreaction. This is very important. It is important that we act and not be in denial; it is also very important that we avoid overreaction from people who hear, oh my goodness, this problem is out there. And so we have to do both things.
The proposed Good Samaritan law will give companies the confidence they need to ensure that they keep their customers informed. If ordinary citizens believe they're being told the full story, they'll be far less likely to act in ways that could themselves hurt our economy.
We can do more to help businesses reach these goals. Later this month our Council on the Year 2000 Conversion will launch a national campaign for year 2000 solutions, to promote partnerships between industry groups and government agencies, with the goal of sharing information about what actually works and to prod organizations at every level to get ready, making certain government services are not interrupted, minimizing disruption to commerce, encouraging businesses to share with each other and report honestly to customers, and above all, every business in America taking responsibility for being a part of the solution in the year 2000 conversion. These are the ways we, the American people, can be prepared to meet this challenge.
Now, no one will ever find every imbedded microchip, every line of code that needs to be rewritten. But if companies, agencies, and organizations are ready, if they understand the threat and have backup plans, then we will meet this challenge.
The millennium bug is a vivid and powerful reminder of the ways that we are growing ever more independent as we rise to the challenges of this new era. When our founding fathers urged us to form a more perfect union, I don't think they had this in mind, but they might be quite pleased. The powerful forces of change that have created unimagined abundance also bear within them, as is consistent with human nature, the possibilities of new and unexpected challenges.
But if we act properly, we won't look back on this as a headache, sort of the last failed challenge of the 20th century. It will be the first challenge of the 21st century successfully met. That is the American way, and together we can do it.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
MR. LOCKHART: Good afternoon, everyone. Joining us is John Koskinen, who is Assistant to the President and Chair of the President's Council on the Year 2000 Conversion. And because this is an intricate problem, we thought we'd send the right message by starting on time.
MR. KOSKINEN: Good afternoon, happy to see everyone. As Joe mentioned, as some of you may recall, I was Deputy Director for Management at OMB for three years, through July of last year, and then left and was asked by the President and the Vice President to return to take over the coordination of the federal government's response to the year 2000 problem. As you know, the President and the Vice President made presentations this morning at the National Academy of Sciences outlining both the nature of the problem and the challenges to the public and the private sector and the challenges internationally, as well as to the federal government, and described both the status in general terms of where we are with the federal systems, as well as the challenges we think that exist in the private sector and the initiatives that we've undertaken and are in the process of executing to provide whatever assistance we can to the private sector in particular to help facilitate their addressing this problem.
Q Is the White House up to snuff?
MR. KOSKINEN: The White House is busily engaged in dealing with this problem. Its computers are not at this time Y2K compliant, but they have a plan, as with most federal agencies, to complete their work by the March 31, 1999 deadline.
Q The President and the Vice President cited the Social Security Administration -- what about the rest of the government, where are the problems in particular?
MR. KOSKINEN: As the President noted, he has asked the Cabinet agencies, the major agencies, to report to OMB on a quarterly basis the status of their progress, and those reports are released shortly thereafter, after they're analyzed. As a general matter, about a third of the agencies are in what's called the tier three or making satisfactory progress, nearing completion, and those include the Social Security Administration and those benefits, the Veterans Administration, EPA, FEMA, NASA and others.
The agencies that have the largest challenges, to a large extent, are the agencies with the most complicated and, in some cases, the oldest systems. Actually, the federal government operates some of the most complicated and largest systems in the world. So at this point the agencies dealing with those challenges that we're focusing a lot of time and attention to are the Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, particularly the Health Care Financing Administration, the Departments of Education and Transportation, the Department of Energy and USAID are the six agencies in the last OMB quarterly report listed in tier one, which was described as needing to make greater progress.
Q They are some of the most critical, aren't they?
MR. KOSKINEN: Those clearly are some of the most critical systems, there's no doubt about that.
Q What about IRS?
MR. KOSKINEN: IRS and the Federal Financial Management Service at Treasury both have large, complicated systems. But at this point, the judgment is that they have in place the appropriate management teams and strategies and are making appropriate progress. So Treasury generally is within the OMB category tier two, which is making progress, but still substantially challenged.
Obviously, the IRS has what may be the most difficult and complicated set of interrelated systems in the government. But Commissioner Rossotti is a very experienced manager in this area and I think has a significant challenge, but also I think is on schedule to be able to ensure that those systems operate.
Q What is your goal?
Q Do you expect to make the goal, that the whole federal government will be all ready?
MR. KOSKINEN: Yes, at this point we expect not only to make the goal, but we expect to have all mission critical systems or most mission critical systems completed by March 31, 1999, which will give us nine months to continue to work on them. As the private sector has found, this is a unique problem and a complicated, interrelated one. So once you think you're done is the time you begin to continue to test to catch the last mistakes. But at this stage, I have met with actually the heads of 43 different federal agencies separately with their staffs. And the Cabinet, in particular, officers have all assured me that they are, a, paying attention to this; and, b, that they will meet the government deadlines.
Q What is it exactly? You talk about management systems in place. But what is it that you are doing for them and they have to do for themselves -- is it the purchase, design of a corrective system -- what do they have to do?
MR. KOSKINEN: From the standpoint from the federal agencies where we're spending a significant amount of our time, but not all of it -- we're spending some time worrying about the outreach issues, but with regard to the federal agencies and the chair one agencies in particular, after the last quarterly report, we announced that I would be attending the monthly senior management meetings in each of those agencies to work with them -- not that I have great new insights, but primarily to ensure that we provide whatever support is necessary to those agencies.
And what they need to do -- a critical need for those agencies is to set priorities. That is, not within the mission critical systems, but priorities between work on the year 2000 and all-over computer work. So, for instance, in the IRS reform legislation that just passed, the Congress agreed in response to Commissioner Rossotti's request to delay the implementation date of several the significant provisions that would have required substantial programming and would have jeopardized the IRS's ability to meet the year 2000.
The Health Care Financing Administration announced a couple weeks ago that they were going to have to delay the implementation of some of the balanced budget act amendments that would require programming such that it would interfere with their ability to get to the year 2000.
So the reason I have announced several times that I think the FAA will, indeed, make this deadline is because they have reorganized the way they have thought about this problem, they are now making decisions to make sure that the year 2000 problem is the highest priority in their internal agency processes -- which means that some important and needed modernization are upgrades that would be nice to have will be delayed in their implementation.
So you've got three examples there. And what I'm focusing on with the other agencies is to make sure that as we move through this process, that they ensure that nothing else they're doing -- even though they may be important policy initiatives -- interferes with their ability to deal with this problem.
Q And are they buying new programs or buying expertise to change the systems they've got, or buying new systems?
MR. KOSKINEN: That's a good question. It's actually all of the above. The decisions the agencies made when they started on this project when I was here before, in 1995, was the first stages -- do an assessment and actually create an inventory of all of their systems; analyze which ones could simply be retired without being replaced at all, which ones needed to be replaced and which ones needed to be renovated.
So on those that they're retiring, they have done that already. And they, therefore, have a two-pronged effort. One is to go through appropriate replacement strategies where that seems to be the most cost-effective and efficient way to proceed. And for other, particularly large customized systems, to go through the renovation process for those. Whether they replace or renovate, they then have to test the solutions before they finally implement the year 2000 solution.
Q What's your current best estimate of the government-wide cost of bringing the systems into compliance?
MR. KOSKINEN: The current estimate to OMB and, again, published in their last report, is $5 billion, which would run from Fiscal '96 to the first quarter of Fiscal 2000. About $1 billion of that is in the President's budget request for '99. There's about $200 million in addition that will be spent from prior year funds. So the spending estimated for Fiscal Year 1999 for the government at large is about $1.2 billion.
Q Has Congress gone along, given you everything you want, or have they --
MR. KOSKINEN: As a general matter, there's been great bipartisan support for dealing with this problem. Unfortunately, there's been some hiccup along the road in the House in terms of how to deal with the President's basic request and as well an emergency fund. The President's budget requested the billion dollars in new authority for '99, spread across the agencies specifically identified to deal with this. The President's budget also had a $3.2 billion contingency fund for emergencies designating year 2000 as one of those emergencies.
In the Senate, Senators Bennett and Stevens proposed that there be a designated year 2000 emergency fund of about $2.25 billion. On the House side, what's happened is there's now been a move in some subcommittees to move the budget request for the year into the emergency fund. And there's a debate going on about whether the emergency fund has to have offsets as opposed to the normal way of dealing with emergencies, which is that they do not have offsets that are above the budget caps.
As I do a monthly briefing for Hill staffers, as I told them two weeks ago, from my perspective I'm not concerned about where they provide the money and how they provide it, but I am very concerned that it be provided with adequate amounts and in an appropriate time frame. If this gets caught inadvertently in the end game that comes down to the end of the fiscal year, that will present a major challenge and risk to the agency work on the year 2000.
I think the leadership generally in the Congress has been very supportive and understands that. And my strong hope is that the year 2000 funding will not get tied up in the normal end of session budget debates.
Q By risk do you mean it could delay implementation of the program --
MR. KOSKINEN: Yes, there's no doubt. If the agencies to not have a clear ability to plan the amount of money they're going to have for the year 2000 and have that money on October 1st, for some of them it will be a risk of implementation and a risk of meeting the government deadlines.
Q Will you describe what problems could take place prior to the January 1, 2000 date, and also address how many of the agencies that are in good compliance are simply ones that had to address this problem many years ago because their systems are so forward-looking?
MR. KOSKINEN: You only get two questions at a time, the third question I don't have to answer, right? The first question --what was the first question?
Q What problems could arise --
MR. KOSKINEN: Forward-looking problem -- it's a good question, as I was thinking about it. There is an assumption that the year 2000 problem will only show up on that Saturday, January 1, 2000. And the question is a good one because any system that looks forward into the year 2000 will reveal the problem whenever it has to do that, so if you're, for instance, now trying to make a hotel reservation or an airline reservation in the year 2000, in many cases you can't do that because the computers are still being renovated. Similarly, corporations that have fiscal years that start before the end of the year -- federal government for instance, has a fiscal year that starts on October 1, so October 1 of 1999 will be the start of the year 2000 fiscal year. So in many of those cases you'll begin in advance of January 1, 2000 to begin to see if there are problems as you go forward.
And that corollary then is the answer to your second question of did some agencies sort of get a head start and that's why they're in good shape, including Social Security as one of those agencies. Social Security started working on this problem in 1989 because they do a lot of actuarial and forward-looking calculations and at about that time discovered their systems couldn't deal with the transition from 1999 to the year 2000. So they began to work on it.
They got far enough ahead and have done such a good job that when we set up the first working committee in the government in 1995, we had the Social Security administration people run that working committee for us because they already had significant experience. Others -- FHA and others in as early as '93 had the same issue when they were looking at forward calculations for seven-year debt, and they discovered that they needed to, in fact, adjust their systems. So those that ran into the problem, recognized it and dealt with it did indeed get a significant head start.
Q There are some high priority programs where upgrades would be deferred so that they could concentrate on the Y2K. Are there any programs that are being deferred and that will require either presidential or congressional action to let them defer them?
MR. KOSKINEN: Yes. As I noted, the IRS had to get congressional approval in the IRS reform bill to delay the implementation dates; otherwise, they would have been implemented at a time that would have made it impossible for the IRS to proceed.
HCFA is dealing with its 70 private sector contractors who administer Medicare and Medicaid -- or actually Medicare -- is such that, obviously, that's -- the delay of the Balanced Budget Act amendments require both administration and congressional understanding as you go forward.
There will be others. I've just had discussions in my monthly meeting with the Department of Education that what people have to understand is even the normal adjustments in payment cycles or payment systems or amounts require in many cases substantial programming either by the federal government or by those administering our programs. So one of our focuses is on working with state and local governments because a lot of federal programs are actually administered by the states. So unemployment insurance, Medicaid, job training are actually programs run with federal money by states for us, so we need to have an assurance that their systems are being renovated and upgraded.
Q And have you found any reluctance to go along with this on the part of Congress or the White House for that matter?
MR. KOSKINEN: No. At this point, as I say, as a general matter, I've been delighted with the bipartisan response. Senator Lott and a number of senators have basically said, let us know what we need to do, what support you need, and we'll give it to you. And I continue to expect that this is a unique, clearly once in a lifetime problem and I would be extremely disappointed if we didn't have ongoing and continuing cooperation from the Congress.
Q What does the government compare in terms of dealing with the problem with the private sector -- and also, I guess in laymen's terms, can you explain to ordinary folks what the government agencies need to do to get up to speed?
MR. KOSKINEN: Yes. We compare -- well, we're clearly ahead of 90 percent of the world in terms of countries or governments, which is why I believe our risk exposure is international rather than certainly domestic or from the federal system. From the standpoint of comparison with the private sector, as the President noted this morning, we are well ahead of a whole series of companies who have not yet started to pay attention to the need to assess for this problem. So there are a lot of small, the medium-sized organizations in almost every industry group who are significantly behind the curve, and we are trying to reach out to them to get them to pay attention.
With regard to the large financial organizations -- banks, insurance companies, and securities firms -- many of them started at about the same time as the government earlier, and it depends on the institution as to -- and which part of the federal government you're comparing it to -- as to where they are. Social Security is clearly ahead of a lot of federal agencies and private sector agencies. On the other hand, there's been a lot of very good work done by large complicated systems owned by private sector companies who are ahead of some of the federal agencies that are still being challenged.
In terms of the laymen's view of what you have to do, one of the things we've stressed is that this is not a technological problem. The fix is relatively straightforward and understandable. If you're calculating a year with two dates, you have to in fact change the program so it has four dates -- it takes a little bit of work to do that.
The problem is it's a management challenge because when you start talking about millions of lines of code that have to be reviewed to find out where those dates are operating and then correct it, what you have to do is be able to manage that project. And it's a problem, and it's not just the federal government; any organization that has large, complicated, interrelated systems has to fix a line of code, has to check that that program runs, has to check that that software application runs, has to then check the interfaces with all of the other systems in that organization, and then has to check the interfaces with all the organizations with whom they relate.
So as noted, the Securities Industries Association which has done, I think, a terrific job in this area, started yesterday what they call "beta-testing" or "testing of the test" in preparation for what they're calling "street-wide testing," which will take place early next spring, in which they will test the ability of all participating financial organizations on the street to be able to exchange information across organization lines, because, obviously, everyone is interconnected in their ability to make transactions, to make trades, to close them, to move the funds through the system.
So you'll hear some people talking about end-to-end testing. What they're talking about, for instance, in Social Security is not whether Social Security can just issue the check, but can a beneficiary walk into the office, register someplace in the United States as a beneficiary, have that application processed, a check written, paid out through the system to that beneficiary, deposited in the bank, and cleared. That's the whole process, end to end testing.
Q You mentioned your general delight with the bipartisan consensus on this to date. Yet, both the President and the Vice President expressed their concern that this issue might be used as a political football. What is the cause of their concern and what do you see as the political angle of this situation?
MR. KOSKINEN: Well, I think there is some concern, as I say, before the recess that the funding for the year 2000 got very complicated kind of all of a sudden on the House side. And the issue of how you would pay for the year 2000 and whether there would be offsets against what was in the budget, how you would treat the contingency funding got to be less clear than it had been. And I think there is a concern that if we don't clarify that we could, in fact, end up, as I say, with a lot of arguments about the budget near the end of the fiscal year, which may -- always seems to happen -- somehow drag the year 2000 funding along with it. And that would be the concern that we all have.
Q You sound fairly optimistic about the federal government moving ahead with this. When you look at the commercial and the private sector and the global application of all this, do you think that come the year 2000 that serious problems are inevitable?
MR. KOSKINEN: I don't think they're inevitable. In fact, one of the challenges of this problem is no one knows what the end of next year is going to look like because no one has enough real data. There are a lot of people issuing opinions and guesses, but no one has enough hard data to make an estimate at this stage. Some of the guesses are more educated than others, but they're still basically projections on the basis of what limited knowledge is available.
But with all of that, my guess -- and many people have said that somehow I've been brought in to calm everybody down, or I'm optimistic -- but you keep telling us all of these worrying stories and I say I'm going to quit smiling when I tell the stories. We have great risks, I think, internationally. As the President noted, it's not only a global village, it's a global economy; and it's an economy globally, as well as nationally, that depends increasingly on the ability to exchange information and financial services electronically. So that, much like the old adage that a chain is as strong as its weakest link, we are concerned that there are weak links out in the international arena.
One of the reasons the securities industry is doing street-wide testing, as they're calling it, is to test all of the linkages domestically. But obviously, we have significant economic and other exchanges around the world. And as I said when I started, if the Singapore Stock Exchange -- just to pick an exchange -- doesn't open on that Monday, January 3rd, that's a problem for us, even though it's not our exchange, we don't have any control or authority over it. So we are concerned about international telecommunications, international financial transactions, international transportation. And one of our goals, while we have no control or responsibility directly over any of those systems, has been to reach out as best we can through international organizations to try to get countries around the world to treat this problem seriously and to pay attention to it and to start to solve it.
Q Can you touch on how state agencies are doing in systems that they use in conjunction with federal programs, like, for example, of the IRS you said looks on track to be ready by the time the problem would manifest. How are the state tax agencies doing --
MR. KOSKINEN: The states are -- when I was at OMB I was accused of viewing the whole world as a bell-shaped curve. But the states kind of fit along a bell-shaped curve. Some are doing very well, started on it early, are reporting directly to the governor about it. Others at the other end of the spectrum were somewhat concerned about whether they are paying the right amount of attention to it. And the bulk of them were in the middle, doing a lot of work.
We have exchanged -- at their request, actually -- earlier this spring with all of the states all of the data exchanges between the federal government and the states. So each exchange of data point has been now inventoried and isolated in terms of who runs it on the federal level, who runs it on the state level, and we're now in the process of testing those data exchanges. And it will provide us the first hard information not only of how we're doing, but how they're doing, because if the data exchange works it means it's very likely that the systems behind those data exchanges work.
So we're monitoring that now on a monthly basis and it will be able to isolate for us which federal programs are not able to participate in the data exchanges, and also which states and which state operations are not.
The National Governors Association has arranged for a summit meeting here in Washington later this month with the senior technical and political people in each state working on this problem to come to Washington to meet as a group. We will meet with them and talk with them about the problem. As a general matter, I think it's safe to say that we have high hopes the that states across the board will be able to deal with this problem effectively and each federal agency is dealing with their counterparts.
Of greater concern to us than the states, though, are a lot of the small to medium-sized counties and cities, much as we're concerned with small to medium-sized businesses -- that the problem with both foreign countries with small to medium-sized businesses and small to medium-sized counties and cities is that they all assume if they're not running a major mainframe operation this is not their problem. And what they're overlooking is what I call the growth industry of the problem, which are imbedded chips or integrated circuits -- which there are billions loose in the world, which run everything, as the President said, from major operations to home appliances.
It turns out that we actually now run everything from oil refineries to waste treatment plants to power plants to water control plants with people sitting at computers responding to the information provided by sensors embedded in the process.
So when a lot of medium-sized cities and counties say we're not in the information processing business, one of the things we're trying to get them to understand is they have an issue about whether their major equipment will start and whether it has an embedded chip that will cause it not to function; concern that they need to check all of their emergency response equipment to make sure that their mobile communications systems function. We're concerned that they all look at their local utility operation. We have a lot of municipal and other utilities that are operated. We're concerned that they look at their local medical care systems. There are a lot of county-owned and county-operated hospitals and other health care facilities, all of which have the potential to have difficulties.
In some ways it would be a lot easier problem if we could guarantee that everything would stop because then everybody would go out and fix everything. The problem in the embedded chip area is the estimates -- and they are just estimates, although they're better than the guesses about what's going to happen -- but the estimates are that one to two percent of the chips have a problem, which means that 98 percent or 95 percent will function fine. The problem is you have to figure out which are which.
And you have to remember that in one year alone recently, we shipped approximately 5 billion chips into the market, which at two percent means there's 100 million chips out there that potentially are a problem. So our pitch to small and medium-sized businesses and small and medium-sized counties and cities is you have to make an assessment of this problem. We don't want people wasting money, buying systems, or replacing them that they don't need.
But on the other hand, it was a startling number when Wells Fargo came up with a survey that half of the businesses that know about this are planning to do nothing. And it does strike us that that's a risk not only to them, but if they are enough small and medium-sized organizations not doing anything, that's a risk to the larger public as well.
Q Why are they not doing anything?
MR. KOSKINEN: Because they don't think it applies to them. They look and they figure, my payroll is done by someone else; my accounting service is done by someone else. And at a minimal, we're saying, you have to go find out if those people are going to work, but the counties and others who have run -- the state of Washington advised me they're are large construction equipment, it turned out, when they rolled the clock forward, wouldn't start because it, in fact, depended upon regular maintenance servicing, and it thought when it rolled it forward, it had been 98 years rather than 2 years since it had been maintained.
So we've said that you have to look at fire engines; you've got to look at major construction and highway equipment; you have to look at bulldozers; you need to talk to manufacturers; you need to make sure that you're in the 98 percent of the chips rather than the two percent of the chips. And there's no way to do that other than checking it out one by one. Part of the reason for the President talking this morning was to try to get the message across that people cannot afford not to do that assessment.
Q Have you all examined what liability the federal government might have with any ensuing year 2000 problem?
MR. KOSKINEN: We have not done a thorough examination of that. As a general matter, the Federal Court Claims Act specifically delineates what the federal government exposure is. As a general matter, you can't sue the government except for qualification under that act.
At this stage, we do not expect that the government has a major liability exposure, but as we've told a lot of companies out there, the way to limit your liabilities is to have your systems work. And one of the things we think is that the basic federal systems will either work or, if necessary, we'll have back-up plans that allow them to work. One of the things the President stressed this morning -- we're stressing to everyone -- even if you think your systems are done, you can never know that for sure, so you need to have back-ups or contingency plans for the failure of your systems, but, equally important, you have to have back-up or contingency plans for the failure of other systems on which you depend -- whether they are power, telecommunications, transportation. You need to be able to deal with what, in effect, you would do if there were a hurricane, if there were an earthquake, if there were a typhoon.
People have business recovery plans, and what we're saying is you've got to make sure that those plans are current and that you're able to continue to provide basic services in a face of a problem that may be unanticipated.
Thank you.
