Segment 4 Of 5 Previous Hearing Segment(3) Next Hearing Segment(5)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
NELSON REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
HEARING ON REVIEW HIGHWAYS, PIPELINES AND
PUBLIC BUILDINGS ISSUES RELATED TO THE
YEAR 2000 COMPUTER PROBLEM, Y2K: WILL WE
GET THERE ON TIME?
Tuesday, October 6, 1998
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jay Kim [acting chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Petri, Duncan, Kim, Horn, Hutchinson, Davis of Virginia, Fossella, Rahall, Traficant, Norton, Pascrell, Boswell, and Lampson.
Also Present: Representative Morella.
Mr. KIM. [presiding] Good morning. The committee will come to order.
I would like to welcome all the members this morning on this third in a series of hearings that the committee is holding on the year 2000 or Y2K computer problems that face the transportation systems and infrastructure of the Nation. There is quite a bit of speculation in the media and elsewhere that the potential glitches in computer systems caused by the millennium date are not receiving sufficient attention.
The purpose of these hearings is to negate this charge with regard to the transportation industry and the public infrastructure of this country. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee considers this issue a top priority and it's dedicated to assessing the potential risks facing the Nation in the area of transportation and public infrastructure, as well as facilitating solutions.
Page 198 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Today's hearing will focus on the problems with the GSA's Federal building inventory, and the Capitol complex, and the Smithsonian Institution, and the Nation's surface infrastructure, including highways and pipelines. As to the Federal building inventory as well as the Smithsonian and Capitol complex, buildings nationwide contain many different facilities related systems, such as elevators, climate control, fire alarms, and security systems, which are controlled by the computer systems that may fail on January 1, year 2000. This failure would be due to microchips or software that will incorrectly treat the date as January 1, 1900. The General Services Administration, the caretaker of the Federal Government's office real estate portfolio as well as the architect of the Capitol, and the Smithsonian Institution, all have all initiated programs to address these potential computer problems. Today we'll hear from the heads of these Government entities on their programs and the progress they have made. In addition, we will hear from the representatives from the Building Owners and Managers Association International on the actions being taken in the private sector. We will then turn the attention to the problems facing the surface infrastructure of our Nation.
With that, I want to close my remarks by thanking Chairman Shuster for holding this series of year 2000 hearings. We'll now call on the members who wish to make a statement.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Traficant for an opening statement.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to see Mr. Barram here, the fine job that he has done at GSA, has probably managed as well as any agency in the Federal Government, for some of the things they have done. I understand that the Office of Management and Budget has given your agency a B+. Knowing them, that must be an A+, because they don't toot anybody's horn. So when OMB gives you a pat on the back, I think that's laudable.
I am interested in hearing from you, Mr. Barram, about the validation process and the implementation schedule. Though I continue to encourage you to try and hold onto your jurisdictional authority and not to let OMB through their nice words try and continue to usurp your authority.
Page 199 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Also the Office of the Architect plays a prominent role, not only to the visiting public here but for the Members of Congress. I welcome Mr. Hantman here. I look forward to hearing your testimony and the fine job that you have done.
Finally, Mr. Heyman, who is in charge of the national treasure. I don't think anybody ever complains about the Smithsonian. We want to hear what the museum is doing to protect those treasures and our artifacts.
Mr. Colvin, from the Building Owners and Managers Association, will provide a look from GSA's private sector counterpart in the real estate sector, and give a status report from that viewpoint. I think all of that is in good order.
I think the Y2K issue must be addressed. I want to compliment and commend Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Oberstar, and Chairman Kim for continuing to purge the issue.
Mr. KIM. At this time, I see we have Mrs. Morella joining us this morning. She is the distinguished chairperson of the Subcommittee on Technology of the Science Committee, and the co-chair of the Speaker's Task Force on Y2K. At this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to sit on this meeting. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes Mrs. Morella.
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Chairman Kim. I appreciate that. Thanks for that unanimous vote to sit on the panel. I will be here only briefly, but I just wanted to make sure I was here to join the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in participating, if only briefly, in this important hearing to explore the impact of the year 2000 computer problem upon critical components of our Nation's public works systems such as Federal buildings, pipelines, highways and intelligent transportation systems. I do also want to commend Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Oberstar. I want to commend you, Chairman Kim and Ranking Member Traficant, as well as other members of the committee for their cooperation and their leadership in examining this critical issue. I am pleased to be able to be here with you today.
Page 200 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
In my role as Chair of the House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, and as co-chair of the House Y2K Task Force, along with my other co-chair who is here, Congressman Steve Horn, I've worked with my colleagues over the past two and a half years to focus on a wide spectrum of year 2000 issues that will potentially affect every American, ranging from its impact on our Nation's financial and banking sectors, to the delivery of Federal services and public benefits.
In our hearings, it has become apparent that the ability of the Nation's infrastructure to perform its critical functions on January 1, 2000, and beyond, rest not only with the computer system, but is also reliant upon the effect of microchips embedded in virtually all facilities. Embedded chips, microprocessors that store our processed data, drive a number of products that keep our Federal system operating and our Nation's transportation system moving, from our Federal courthouses to the pipelines that safely carry oil and natural gas, to the smartcards in automated toll ways. With the threat of a year 2000 failure, we need to examine the Y2K effect of these embedded chips.
We have much to do in a very short time to ensure that the right Y2K solutions are put into place. While I remain optimistic, the Department of Transportation as well as all Federal agencies must work proactively with State and local governments, with private industry and Federal stakeholders, to develop contingency plans in the event they are needed to ensure that the transportation of people, goods and services are not significantly impaired by the millennium bug.
I agree with the chairman of the President's Council on the Year 2000 Conversion, John Koskinen, that the goal now should not be absolute perfection, but rather prioritizing to minimize Y2K disruptions. The real challenge for agencies and industries dealing with Y2K is to catch up and meet the OMB milestone for March 1999 so that enough time is left to conduct the costly and time consuming end-to-end testing of systems, and very, very important aspect of it.
Page 201 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
I am pleased that you have assembled here, Mr. Chairman, a very distinguished panel to help us review these issues. I want to thank them for their recognition of this problem, their willingness to share the year 2000 views and strategies. The fact that this committee is devoting four days of hearings to Y2K underscores the importance of transportation and infrastructure to our Nation's economy and welfare. I look forward to having them review these issues with the committee today.
Mr. Chairman, if I might just comment that on your third panel, you have several people who represent Montgomery County, Maryland, which is very special to me and it is my congressional district. I am proud that they are here. It is the third panel, but I did want to acknowledge Mr. Gordon Aoyagi, who is the chair of the Emergency Management Group of the Montgomery County Government. He is accompanied by Mr. Donald V. Evans, who is the director of the Department of Information Systems and Telecommunications. He is going to be able to point out some of the advances that are made by Montgomery County. I want to thank him for being here, thank our county for moving ahead, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy you have extended to me. So I yield back.
[The statement of Mrs. Morella follows:]
********** INSERT **********
Mr. KIM. Thank you. I wish to welcome our distinguished public buildings panel this morning. Before I proceed, are there members who wish to make any opening statement?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Horn.
Mr. HORN. I do not wish to make an opening statement. I will commend everybody that deserves to be commended. Let's get down to the nitty gritty.
Mr. KIM. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak? Seeing none, the first panelist will be the Honorable David Barram. He is the GSA Administrator. He is accompanied by the GSA chief financial officer, Thomas Bloom, the chief information officer, Shereen Remez, and the public buildings service chief information officer, Paul Wohlleben. To speak on the Capitol complex, the architect of the Capitol, the Honorable Alan Hantman. And from the Smithsonian Institution, the secretary of the Smithsonian, the Honorable Michael Heyman. Also from the private sector we have the secretary treasurer of BOMA International, Mr. Coffee Colvin.
Page 202 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
We appreciate your participation this morning and look forward to hearing your testimony. Starting with Mr. Barram.
STATEMENT OF DAVID BARRAM, ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS BLOOM, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; SHEREEN G. REMEZ, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; PAUL WOHLLEBEN, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER; MICHAEL HEYMAN, SECRETARY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION; ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, AND R. COFFEE COLVIN, SECRETARY/TREASURER, BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL
Mr. BARRAM. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the challenges of the year 2000 and what the General Services Administration is achieving. Thank you, Mr. Traficant, for your kind words. The reason we are able to do so much and so well is that I have a terrific bunch of people. Three of them are here today. The chairman mentioned Tom Bloom, our chief financial officer. Shereen Remez is beside me, the chief information officer, and Paul Wohlleben from Public Buildings Services.
I am proud of the tremendous progress GSA has made on the Y2K conversion both within our agency systems and as a Government-wide leader. We have received high marks from the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology chaired by Congressman Horn, and the Office of Management and Budget on our quarterly progress reports. As you may know, GSA through PBS manages more than 300 million square feet of space in over 8,600 buildings. Our approach includes three strategies. One, for the buildings we own, a different approach for the buildings we lease, and a third for other Government buildings not under our control. Finally, our CFO has assured us that our financial systems will be Y2K ready to issue bills and collect revenues.
Page 203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Our strategy simply put has been to replace most of our systems with year 2000 compliant technology and to renovate the rest to meet Y2K testing. The upgrades to GSA's public buildings service systems, for example, are already in the second generation of year 2000 compliance. What I mean by that is this. We replaced our major 27 year old legacy system with a modern mainframe platform in January 1997, Y2K compliant. Then we replaced that system with the distributed system, STAR, that increases business functionality. STAR brings commercial off-the-shelf software and web-based transactions to our agency as well as ensuring Y2K readiness.
As a leader in property management, GSA has not only moved to assure the compliance of its own property, but has also begun sharing information with the private sector and other public building managers. We are also partnering under the auspices of the President's Council on Y2K Conversion, with the leader in international building management, BOMA. I want to personally commend BOMA for its proactive leadership and accomplishments on Y2K.
We believe that the key to solving this challenge is information and sharing that information across industry. To that end, we were very pleased to note House and Senate approval of the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act last week.
GSA building managers have surveyed equipment in 75 percent of our approximately 2,000 Government-owned buildings. At risk are systems and equipment such as elevators, HVAC, security systems, management control systems, and fire alarm systems. We have asked Logistics Management Institute to survey vendors on the compliance of equipment in GSA-owned space. So far they have collected information on nearly 4,000 products in GSA buildings and 10,000 total products. We have posted that information on a public website for use by all building managers, both in the public and private sector.
What is a critical system? A system was considered critical if its failure could result in a risk to occupants or a loss of or damage to property, or a significant reduction in the ability to perform normal business operations, or the inability to maintain the systems historic files. As we go along in this process, we are going to see a lot of information and misinformation in the media. We need to remind our tenants not only of our progress and continued work on this issue, but also the fact that nearly all building systems have manual overrides that can be activated in the event of any problems. To this end, we are planning a tenant information program that will be rolled out later this year.
Page 204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
In the next several months, we will complete testing and validating of our systems and preparing contingency plans. The first phase of testing will focus on vendor-certified compliant equipment. The second will test renovated and repaired systems. A draft contingency plan is in place for all systems as well as for unexpected failures. This plan focuses on manual overrides and encapsulation, which involves using an alternative date as a temporary work-around. We are continuing to refine this plan.
Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I thank you for this opportunity to speak and the continued cooperation between Congress and the Executive Branch in meeting the year 2000 challenge. GSA is fully prepared to meet the Y2K challenge in the buildings area as well as in all of its areas of responsibility.
[The statement of Mr. Barram follows:]
********** INSERT **********
Mr. KIM. Thank you for that fine testimony.
The next panelist will be Mrs. Sherry Remez. You don't have any statement this morning?
Ms. REMEZ. No statement.
Mr. KIM. Who is going to be next then? Oh, the Honorable Mr. Heyman.
Mr. HEYMAN. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you. I have gathered the information concerning the readiness of the Smithsonian for the year 2000 problem. It is an especially interesting problem because of our context. We have so many parts dedicated to the increase and diffusion of knowledge. We have 16 museums and galleries that cover an enormous number of topics. We have a series of research institutes involved with biology, both terrestrial and marine, with emphasis on tropical. We have research institutes on astrophysics and astronomy, on estuarine environments, on endangered species. I mention all of these because each of them give us a somewhat different problem with regard to year 2000 than most everything else dealing with administration.
Page 205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Then we have a series of very large outreach efforts. We have a traveling exhibition service. We have the Associates of the Smithsonian, who put on a rich continuing education program. We have about 45 hours on the Internet, which is our most effective outreach program or at least in getting to people. We have started an affiliations program with museums around the country. So communication is very important as is administration. We have sites not only in Washington, D.C., but in many other States and in a number of other countries. We have about 6 million square feet of facilities, dwarfed of course by GSA, but nevertheless a large sum.
Beginning in October 1997, we surveyed our possible year 2000 problems and how we would attain compliance. We classified the problems into the highest priority problems on mission-critical systems, then a next priority, and then thirdly, the systems that involve our revenue producing or trust fund activities. On the highest priority, most of these systems are now year 2000 compliant. That includes fire alarm and suppression systems, elevators. As you would imagine in the Smithsonian, we only have two elevators which are computer controlled. Financial and payroll, with a little bit to go on the treasurer's system. Animal safety and nutrition in the zoo, which is also part of the Smithsonian. The telephone systems, except for voice mail, which we're working on and believe we'll have done by March 1999. And computer communications between the units of the Smithsonian.
The high-priority ones that we are still working on are heating, air conditioning, and lighting. We plan to have that done by July of 1999. Mailing and postage, which is a vendor service system. We are working with the vendor. Contracting and purchasing. The software has been installed and we are now testing that system. The security system at the Smithsonian does not pose a particular year 2000 problem. It is a problem because we have an antiquated sensor and computer system which occasionally fails. We monitor it constantly and we know when there's been a failure in any specific location. We immediately send up manual backup. We are working with the Corps of Engineers on a new system. We have hopefully in the Interior budget as it comes out of conference, the first sum of money necessary for solving a $12 million problem. But I must say that our security record is really excellent. Our loss ratios are tiny. If insurance, for instance, premiums are any indication, we are very highly rated as a secure place because we pay very low insurance premiums for our materials.
Page 206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
The next priority are important systems not quite as important as the ones I have just indicated. Compliance has been achieved in grants management, in inventory, in e-mail, and our visitor information systems. Others are in process. For instance, web sites which we'll have done by December, library and archival by March. Facilities management, a new system is under test presently. Collection information systems are mostly done. We have a little bit to go and we'll be getting those done in the next month or two. So we're doing well with those.
As far as our trust fund activities are concerned, our donor systems are in good shape. Catalog sales systems are fine. The Associates program ticketing for the events is fine. The shops, the retail operations of the Smithsonian have all been brought into compliance. As far as the Smithsonian Institution magazine is concerned, we are in progress but we expect to have it completely compliant by December of this year.
I think this review underlines our complexity, but it also indicates our readiness. If there are questions that arise later, I will be happy to address them or ask the two people I brought with me, the Under Secretary Connie Newman, or Rick Rice, who is director of facilities, to help.
[The statement of Mr. Heyman follows:]
********** INSERT **********
Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Heyman.
Next, Mr. Hantman, the architect of the Capitol.
Mr. HANTMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to present to the committee a status report on the architect of the Capitol's response to the many year 2000 challenges that the millennium change brings the agency. The approach of the year 2000 present a major problem to the continued operations of many automated systems that we operate internally and rely upon to provide the Congress with routine and critical business processes. At the same time, there are external services that we are responsible for procuring to support congressional activities such as utilities. We have also been working to ensure the continuance of these services in the next millennium.
Page 207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
I will first address our internal processes. The AOC approached this task by looking at what other Federal agencies were doing to meet the year 2000 challenge. The Best Practices Subcommittee of the Federal Government's Interagency Year 2000 Committee had developed a high level model and structured approach for year 2000 programs that was recommended by the General Accounting Office. This model included five phases and was the basis for organizing and implementing our year 2000 strategies. The five phases are awareness, assessment, renovation, validation, and implementation.
The initial stages of the AOC year 2000 effort were directed toward creating a general awareness of the problem and developing an assessment. The agency's information resources management division was tasked with taking the lead in this effort. They developed a high level plan for performing the renovation, validation, and implementation phases of the approach model. In order to reduce the risk of system failures, information systems were targeted to be compliant well before October 1, 1999. There were numerous systems and related year 2000 activities that had to be identified and tracked. We compiled an inventory of all systems and equipment that had potential year 2000 related problems. The inventory was inclusive of all AOC automated systems and were organized by office, major system, and detailed component. Each major system and detailed component was analyzed for year 2000 compliance. A determination of the status of each item was made using vendor information, independent verification, and validation by the AOC or other test sources, including GSA.
For all items found not to be year 2000 compliant, solutions and implementation plans consistent with the year 2000 project completion date were developed. Creating a comprehensive system inventory was a central and necessary component of success in dealing with the year 2000 problem. A point of contact was identified and this person was designated as the primary person responsible for year 2000 compliance on that particular system. A data base was created to capture consolidated status information for each item in the system inventory.
Page 208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
The AOC also established a year 2000 committee to support increased awareness within AOC. Additionally, we participated in the Interagency Management Council's Chief Information Officer Council's Subcommittee on the Year 2000, and also the Y2K Building Systems Subcommittee. They addressed Government-wide issues concerning year 2000 and supports the development of technical solutions, dissemination of information.
As a result of this effort, Mr. Chairman, we have come a long way toward meeting the year 2000 challenge. The year 2000 compliance status of major AOC systems is as follows: With respect to mainframe computer applications, most all applications operating on the UNISYS mainframe computer were not year 2000 compliant. The system was phased out effective October 1, 1998. Upgrade or replacement of these applications was required. The upgrade and re-hosting of AOC financial systems was the largest and most critical requirement. That was accomplished effective October 1 of 1997.
With respect to client/server computer applications, our offices developed new applications and re-hosted some older ones to serve the client/server architecture. They are all year 2000 compliant.
With respect to network equipment software, the year 2000 impact on network equipment software is basically minimal. On desktop computer software, it currently includes a mix of older non-compliant and newer compliant software. There are several applications being migrated to year 2000 compliant software. We expect to be completed by October 1 of 1999 on these issues.
With respect to desktop and server computer hardware, newer equipment in this technology is generally 2000 compliant. There is an existing population of older equipment that is not compliant, however, and they will require equipment upgrade and replacement. That is being accomplished as part of our ongoing life cycle equipment replacement program, and should be completed by June of next year.
Page 209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
With respect to agency interfaces, we have automated system interfaces in operation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Finance Center, the NFC, and the Department of the Treasury Financial Management Services, FMS. Based on correspondence between us and these agencies, we have established a time table to create four-digit data exchange solutions that will in place well before the year 2000. We have also worked with Treasury to assure that our electronic interfaces with the FMS is now exchanging data with four-digit data fields.
With respect to our results in meeting the year 2000 challenge, I am pleased to report that we are meeting the challenge and succeeding. In the first quarter of Fiscal Year 1998, the General Accounting Office was tasked with assessing and tracking the progress of selected Legislative Branch agencies in their year 2000 compliance efforts. This included the Senate, the AOC, Library of Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Office of Compliance, GAO, GPO, Capitol Police, et cetera. So far, the GAO has presented two quarterly reports on the progress of these agencies. I am pleased to report that this agency has consistently been one of the top rated ones among the selected agencies monitored. We also continue to take a look at all of our issues across the board.
With respect to other year 2000 issues, embedded chip systems were discussed earlier. We have many systems supporting our internal operations. There are several other areas of responsibility in operations that have also been reviewed for year 2000 compliance. These areas include engineered systems such as our energy management and control systems, elevator control systems, electrical systems, fire protection, life safety systems, and the systems that monitor the operations of the Capitol power plant. In each case, year 2000 compliance for the electronic components within these systems has either been confirmed by the manufacturer or we have established a comprehensive program to bring them into compliance in a timely manner.
With respect to external year 2000 issues, we are working with PEPCO, our major utility that supplies electricity to the Capitol complex, as well as sources that supply fuels for the Capitol power plant and the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority. We are working to have each of these services providers confirm that they have exercised sufficient precaution to be able to continue delivering uninterruptable services to the Congress. We have been advised in writing by PEPCO that they are undertaking every necessary effort to meet the year 2000 challenge.
Page 210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mr. Chairman, in follow-up to this written testimony submitted for the hearing, I met yesterday with the president and CEO of PEPCO to get an update and a last up-to-the-minute report on their progress in solving Y2K issues that might impact our electrical supply. He was accompanied by the group vice president for transmission and marketing, who was primarily responsible for resolution of Y2K issues. They reported that they will have made the required Y2K changes and tested their generating units by the end of the first quarter of 1999. They will then remediate any problems found in these tests.
Although they can not say that everything will be 100 percent perfect, they stated that the likelihood of anything happening is practically zero. This is due to the redundancy of their capability and their ability to take a lot of hits before we would be impacted in any significant way.
PEPCO, as you may know, Mr. Chairman, is part of the PJM power pool in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. That represents eight companies in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. This is one of the oldest and tightest power pools in the U.S., having some 540 generating units and some 56,000 megawatt capacity of electricity. PJM's grid system has many redundancies, giving us more reliable service than many areas in the United States.
There are many systems and many steps that PEPCO and PJM are taking to eliminate potential Y2K problems. They are reporting their efforts to the President's Council on the Year 2000, Mr. John Koskinen, and are well underway with respect to their compliance. Among two of the major issues they are doing to back up the system just in case something should go wrong is normally--sir, just finishing up. In January, they normally don't have many of their units operating. This January of the year 2000, they will have all their units operating as backup to what we will be doing. So just in case one unit fails, they will have other units really to support us.
Page 211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Although PEPCO states that no one can say that there won't be a problem, they also state that the last thing in the world that they want to do is to have anything happen in Washington, D.C. We will continue to monitor their services.
Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
[The statement of Mr. Hantman follows:]
********** INSERT **********
Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Hantman.
The next speaker will be Mr. Colvin, representing BOMA International.
Mr. COLVIN. Good morning. BOMA represents over 16,000 property management professionals who collectively own or manage over 6 billion square feet of commercial office buildings and facilities in North America and abroad. Our members are responsible in both the public and private sector. Indeed, the General Services Administration is a member of BOMA. Many of our private sector members own or manage buildings in which Government agencies are tenants. In that vein, I want to publicly acknowledge the leadership role GSA, and in particular, Administrator Barram has taken on the year 2000 issue. BOMA has been privileged to work with the GSA in addressing the potential challenges raised by the century date change. We look forward to launching new efforts beginning with the promotion of a nationwide Y2K awareness week to take place October 19 through the 23rd.
Building owners and managers find themselves on both sides of the year 2000 coin. On the one hand, we are consumers who need to obtain the most accurate information concerning the Y2K compliance of embedded systems directly from the manufacturers and installers of those systems. At the same time, building owners are vendors of property services from whom tenants are demanding warranties of Y2K performance. For this reason, BOMA would like to thank the Congress for passing Good Samaritan legislation, the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act. We expect it will assist our members in responding to concerns being raised by our tenants. We also believe it will prompt our suppliers to provide more information about the anticipated Y2K performance of the embedded systems they manufacture and install.
Page 212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Embedded systems are part and parcel of building operations. An embedded system is one where software is contained within the hardware. A microprocessor that runs a building's heating, ventilating and air conditioning, for example, or a computer chip that controls fire and life safety equipment. Other types of embedded systems are building access controls, surveillance cameras, badge readers, refrigerant leak detectors, underground storage tank monitors, telecommunication systems, power generators and distributors. As the premier trade association representing commercial real estate, BOMA has taken the lead in educating property professionals on the steps needed to ensure that critical building systems continue to function smoothly as the century date change approaches.
This education is being carried out in three major areas. The first is our year 2000 guidebook. In January of 1998, BOMA published Meeting the Year 2000 Guidebook--Challenge, excuse me, which sets out an eight-step plan for successfully managing this issue in buildings. This guidebook has been enormously popular with over 18,000 copies distributed to date. A copy has been included with our testimony today for each member of the committee.
Second are our educational seminars. Concurrent with the guidebook, BOMA launched a series of education seminars throughout the country. Over 50 such seminars have taken place or will be held before the end of the this year.
Third is our home page and listserv. Our web site, WWW.BOMA.ORG is a foremost source for information on Y2K from the standpoint of building operations. BOMA has also established a listserv that facilitates discussion and experience, exchange between real estate professionals on this vital issue. BOMA has also carried out advocacy efforts to advance the real estate's industry concerns on Y2K. As I mentioned, we supported the concept of Good Samaritan legislation and communicated specific ideas for clarifying and strengthening the bill.
Furthermore, we have called upon the administration to move the Federal new year's holiday from December 31, 1999, a Friday, to January 3, 2000, a Monday. This millennium moratorium would give property professionals added time to remedy any unforeseen problems stemming from building systems that incorrectly interrupt the century date change. I understand that the President's Council has taken the idea under advisement, and BOMA wishes to commend the value of this to your committee also.
Page 213 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
In conclusion, BOMA International has embarked upon a wide range of activities designed to prepare both public and commercial building owners and managers for the potential impact of Y2K embedded systems. While we do not anticipate any major problems, that possibility can best be prevented through an organized program of due diligence, which is exactly what BOMA has been advocating through our year 2000 guidebook and educational programs.
We thank you for this opportunity to testify and will be happy to answer any questions at your pleasure.
[The statement of Mr. Colvin follows:]
********** INSERT **********
Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Colvin.
I do have a couple of questions for each panelist.
Mr. Barram, you mentioned the cost will be around $5.5 billion. My goodness, why is the cost so high? Is there any chance you can come back and ask for more money later on, saying well the estimate was wrong, we're now asking for $7.5 billion? That seems to be a trend.
Mr. BARRAM. I misunderstood part of what you asked. We are not asking for any additional appropriations. We are going to do the repairs or the renovations, the replacements that we need in our regular appropriated budget.
Mr. KIM. Well you asked for Fiscal Year 1998, you requested $3.25 billion already.
Mr. BARRAM. The administration did.
Mr. KIM. That is correct. Aren't you a part of the administration?
Mr. BARRAM. Yes. We are. So is your question why did the administration ask for so much money?
Page 214 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mr. KIM. Why are the costs so high, $5.5 billion? Is there a chance you can come back and ask for more money? Is that estimate pretty accurate?
Mr. BARRAM. With all due respect, I would like to leave that question to John Koskinen or Ed Desev, who are managing the administration's overall budget on this.
Mr. KIM. All right.
Mr. BARRAM. I know that this is an area of substantial discussion. I am not prepared to--
Mr. TRAFICANT. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. KIM. I am more than happy to yield.
Mr. TRAFICANT. What was GSA's piece of that $5.5 billion? Would you know?
Mr. BARRAM. We have spent an estimated $9.7 million. In 1992, we expect to spend $4.2 million. All of that is inside of our budget. So we have relatively small in terms of other agencies, in large part because we have been replacing systems as we go over the past few years. They have been Y2K compliant. It's not that we have spent only that much on information systems. We have spent quite a bit.
Mr. KIM. You mentioned that GSA received A-and B+ on progress you put on this Y2K program. What do you mean by A-and B+?
Mr. BARRAM. That means pretty good. Congressman Horn's subcommittee gave us those grades. They were at the very top of the list. Obviously you want to have a--we would like to always get As from him, so we're still--we would rather not get a B+, but it's pretty good because some people didn't do anywhere near that well.
Mr. KIM. It is my understanding that we have a roughly about 1,600 federally owned buildings and 6,000 leased buildings. Now what happens if owner will not participate or refuses to participate. Then what happens?
Page 215 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mr. BARRAM. Well all of our leased buildings, we have leases with the landlord. The landlords are required to keep the buildings in good operating order. If we determine that they are not Y2K compliant and that matters to the health and safety and operation of the clients inside, we have a lot of leverage with the building owners.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. KIM. Yes. I'm more than happy to.
Mr. TRAFICANT. One quick question while we are on that subject regarding the vendors who are not compliant in assuming that that may be the case. Will GSA at that point exercise the Government's right to terminate a contract for non-compliance predicated on the Y2K problem or lease?
Mr. BARRAM. If we had to we would. We like to think we can get to that point because we have a--every landlord knows we have that authority. So we think that between now and then we can convince people to be Y2K compliant. But yes, we do have that authority.
Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Barram.
Mr. Heyman, you mentioned the security issue. You mentioned the security issue a couple of times. What does that have to do with the Y2K program? Is that vandalism oriented security system or actually--
Mr. HEYMAN. Well, it's a security system to make sure that people are not entering portions of the Smithsonian where they are not supposed to enter. It is a security system especially necessary at night to assure that there haven't been any incursions into our buildings or other facilities. It is a security system which x-rays packages that come in. It's many different things.
But it is a security system which seeks to protect the health, the safety of people who work and who visit the Smithsonian and also the items, the treasures, that the Smithsonian holds, to make sure that they are not stolen or damaged.
Page 216 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mr. KIM. Well you mentioned that you are enjoying this low insurance premium. If you do anything about the Y2K program, insurance premiums will go up?
Mr. HEYMAN. Well, our problem with our security system with the electronic portion of our security system is not mainly a Y2K problem. It's a problem that occasionally it doesn't function in some areas of some museums. But we have a monitoring system that tells us immediately if it is not functioning. If it isn't, then we send Smithsonian Institutional police officers to that location and then we have got technicians who know how to repair it.
What I would like to do and what the Smithsonian would like to do is to revamp that whole electronic portion of the security system. We are working presently with the Corps of Engineers in putting together a plan for how to do that. If the budget requests that we have made survive the conference, the Interior conference presently, we will have the first portion of the appropriation that's necessary to begin that conversion.
But I must say that I am not very worried about the problem in terms of the safety of our materials because we really can cover with individual police officers whenever we have to. But once we get a really well-functioning electronics system, we will not need as many police officers as we presently need to create those assurances.
Mr. KIM. Thank you.
Mr. Hantman, how much money have you spent so far to address this Y2K problem?
Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the dollars that we have invested at this point in time have been invested over the past several years as part of normal appropriations. Similar to what GSA has done, as we replaced equipment, it has been Y2K compliant. I can check and see if there are specific amounts that relate to that, but again, most of it has been in the normal path of business.
Page 217 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mr. KIM. Thank you. Mr. Colvin, I want to move on fast because other members, I'm sure they are anxious to ask questions too. Is Senate bill 2392 that information, Y2K Information Readiness Disclosure Act which passed both Houses, both bodies, what is your position on this?
Mr. COLVIN. BOMA's position has been that we support that bill in its final form. We feel that by bringing to bear the information, that making it not a tort to furnish information in good faith and based on reliable information that we fully support that. We believe that it will enhance the ability to transfer information between manufacturers and users by holding them harmless in certain instances. We feel that is an essential and vital part to resolving the Y2K problem before the end of next year. It is essential that we have that ability to exchange information freely and openly without creating liability in an unlikely manner.
I would like to mention the question was addressed concerning Government buildings. If a commercial building or a privately owned building is not Y2K compliant, the response of GSA, could they terminate the lease, I am sure that they could. However, having been a host to GSA some years back, I can assure that committee that every responsible property owner would make every effort to ensure that one of his best tenants was certainly accommodated in this situation. GSA has always been a favorite tenant of everyone that I know in the property management business.
Mr. KIM. Thank you. At this time, the Chair recognizes Mr. Traficant, the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, before I proceed, I would like to recognize a woman who is now the assistant sectary of the Smithsonian, Connie Newman, a very good friend, close friend of Eleanor Holmes Norton, and the fine job that she has done on the D.C. Financial Control Board. The Congress appreciates your efforts. I would like to let you know that.
Page 218 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
I have a couple questions here. One real quick yes or no, I guess so we can get on with BOMA. Are your associates aware that non-compliance could result in termination?
Mr. COLVIN. Yes, in a word. Mr. Traficant, we have learned that we read every contract, every word of every contract before we sign it and understand fully our liabilities. It is the desire of every responsible building owner or manager to accommodate his tenants in the best way that he possibly can because after all, we have only one thing to sell, and that's building space. If it is not occupied, we are losing money. We like to work on the barter system. We have something that they want, and they have something that we want.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Reclaiming my time, I understand all that. I just wanted to emphatically make a point that in this whole Y2K issue, I think everybody believes that because of the significance and the landmark administrative functions that must be interrupted that there may be some leeway, there may be some second looks, there may be some accommodations. I think what the Congress is trying to do and make everybody who has a contract aware that there is a necessary time deadline and that there will be and should be certain non-compliance provisions that are placed in. So I appreciate that. I know that your association has done a good job in monitoring your associates contracts. It's good to hear that the contract process established, Mr. Barram, is so meticulously scrutinized and adhered to.
With that, I have a couple questions for I guess every panelist. We don't have a whole lot of time to go over this. I would like some brief answers, if we could. This mission critical systems within the agency, just briefly, how many real mission-critical systems are there and how does the agency define, more importantly, those mission-critical systems? I guess we'll start with you, Mr. Barram.
Mr. BARRAM. Thank you. We have 58. We define them as those systems that the absence of which we could not function as an agency.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Heyman?
Page 219 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mr. HEYMAN. We have I have just counted them up, 11. For the same reasons we have denominated them critical.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Hantman?
Mr. HANTMAN. We have got many categories of mission-criticals since we basically function as an office building, as a museum and all. Anything that keeps people from doing their business is mission-critical to us. So all of them are very important, sir.
Mr. COLVIN. Generally speaking our tenants define their mission-critical items and respond to those once we have assured that the transportation systems and the heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and security and lighting systems operate.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Another one. You know, this isn't the sexiest of questioning here, but I think it's time you have to get down to some of the practicalities. There are telephone systems, elevators with computer chips, copying machines, fire alarms, security systems, power sources, all of these systems necessary to run the Government. Just briefly, what is the status of compliance with these very important systems to provide the services that are needed to dispatch your duties?
Mr. Barram?
Mr. BARRAM. Our goal is to be compliant by January 1999 inside of GSA. Our telecommunications we're working with industry because we have long distance and local networks that deliver calls. For building operations, we're doing surveys, notifying lessors. We have a data base of over 10,000 pieces of equipment by manufacturer. We are renovating in those two instances, which is about three percent where we know Y2K will cause problems.
What we have been finding is that about 97 percent are compliant, and we're working on the other three percent.
Page 220 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mr. HEYMAN. Of the 11 I mentioned, two we're still working on, nine are compliant. The two that we are still working on I think we plan to be done by this coming summer.
Mr. HANTMAN. In each case, year 2000 compliance for the electronic components that have embedded chips have either been confirmed by the manufacturer or we have established a program to bring them into compliance in the first half of next year.
Mr. COLVIN. Seventy five percent of the embedded systems in buildings are not date sensitive. Of the remaining 25 percent, approximately three to five percent in our experience are found to be non-compliant, which pretty much reflects Mr. Barram's experience.
Mr. TRAFICANT. With that, let me go right to Mr. Hantman on a question. You mentioned PEPCO, for example. Let me pose just for a brief answer the prospect that hypothetical situation that, for example, PEPCO is not Y2K compliant. What do you do? How do you function?
Mr. HANTMAN. PEPCO, again, has this grid system that they are working on with eight other companies. They have very redundant systems at this point in time. Once again, we raised those same questions yesterday with the president of PEPCO. There's a very minor chance that he says anything will be going wrong.
We have emergency generators that relate to elevator service, emergency lighting in all of our buildings. Basically we do not have power backup for us to be able to have business as usual if we do not have PEPCO service coming in. But in terms of life safety and emergency systems, we are covered by our own emergency generators.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Heyman, climate control very important in the museum industry. What about that aspect?
Mr. HEYMAN. We are relying on the assurances that we have gotten from PEPCO.
Page 221 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mr. TRAFICANT. Assurances or insurances?
Mr. HEYMAN. Assurances.
Mr. TRAFICANT. How accurate is that information, and who verifies it?
Mr. HEYMAN. Well, Rick, do you want to say something about that?
Mr. RICE. We have had discussions, most of our conversations with PEPCO have been in the energy conservation and other areas. But they have assured us that they are working and that we will have uninterrupted power. We too have emergency generators for short-term, for life safety and other systems.
Mr. TRAFICANT. In concluding my testimony, there's two things. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that any questions I have not asked on my list be submitted to this panel and they number one, respond in writing.
Mr. KIM. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. TRAFICANT. And number two, most specifically the question is to all of them, if they would highlight how do you verify accuracy of information relative to compliance on all of your systems? I would like that submitted in writing and ask unanimous consent for that.
Mr. KIM. Without objection.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. KIM. At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin or the gentleman from California, Mr. Horn.
Mr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Traficant has asked most of the questions I would have asked, so we have saved a lot of time. Let me just pursue a few of them though.
Page 222 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
First, I want to congratulate you, Mr. Colvin, your group, Building Owners and Managers Association International has put out some fine material. In the report of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, which will be out in another week, showing this trail from April 1996 up, we have used a lot of your material in the appendices. We hope the American people will take advantage of some of your checklists. So we thank you for what you have done.
Mr. Hantman, I have great respect for the office you hold. I remember coming and greeting you when you had just been sworn in. That's I guess the oldest office in Washington, D.C. besides that of the President. So it has a great tradition. I just want to say I'll get to some of the Y2K later, but by chance maybe, you have taken down these double doors that we have to fly through around here. I hope you never put them back because it has been wonderful to move toward those moving cars without having to have glass doors shoved in your face and everything else. Just leave it open. I figured that was one of your great decisions. I want to make sure it stays that way. Because when we move, we want to move. Mr. Traficant is always behind us pushing anyhow.
[Laughter.]
Mr. HORN. Now on the power situation, you mentioned in your answer to Mr. Traficant you had auxiliary power. How many days can you exist on that auxiliary power?
Mr. HANTMAN. We're talking about hours, sir. We're not talking about days. This is just emergency so that people can get out of elevators, that there is enough lighting at locations that allow people to egress buildings. There is no emergency power to keep buildings in full operation.
Mr. HORN. Yes. I think we have got a major problem here. Very frankly, the Capitol ought to be self-sufficient and be able to survive any mess that surrounds it. There is no question that there is going to be some power problems. I have held hearings in six cities over the recess. One of my worries is the embedded chip bit that controls the power distribution in many, be it nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, whatever it is, that that's something we really need to remedy up here then. I would hope you would go to the relevant Appropriations Committee and to Mr. Thomas on the Legislative Oversight Committee and say hey folks, we have got to do better than we can. Emergency rooms in hospitals face exactly what you are talking about. There we have tremendous embedded chip problems in most of the hospitals of the country, and the emergency rooms in particular. But I think on the auxiliary power, you have got to have more than a few hours around here.
Page 223 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mr. HANTMAN. We have submitted a report relative to the possibility of a co-generation plant. Our plant is an aging facility and with the EPA criteria eliminating coal burning, things like this, we really need to address our major power plant issues right now, not only with respect to chilled water and steam, but possibly the power as well. This is an issue that the Congress needs to address.
Mr. HORN. Let me ask Mr. Barram this question. I think it happened, as I mentioned, to you before the hearing began. If we asked GSA to make sure that software bought by the Federal Government was 2000 compliant and that hardware was 2000 compliant, now is GSA doing that?
Mr. BARRAM. Yes. We are. I want to look into it a little bit more based on your question, but for example, when you as a customer, if you get up on GSA advantage and you select a product, when that product comes up, it tells you whether it's Y2K compliant. There is a logo. I think it's that Y2K logo in blue, this one here that is Shereen is holding up. I believe it is also true--that's true for software and hardware when you buy them on GSA advantage I'm pretty sure. I don't know whether we have anything actually stuck on a piece of equipment, but we'll check on that.
But when customers have to--suppliers have to say that their products are Y2K compliant or not in the information that our customers use to buy them. So we are providing that good housekeeping seal of approval. The contracts require that, that we're signing with these suppliers.
Mr. HORN. In the last quarterly report to OMB and to our subcommittee, we gave a lot of F's and a lot of D's. That partly was because we had asked the question what is your contingency plan if something goes down. The contingency plan is going to be tremendously dependent on the telephone system. Now I happen to live a two minute walk from my office in the Canon House Office Building. I have been without telephone service from Bell Atlantic four times now with absolutely no service for as long as three weeks. They say oh gee, it's the switch. Well, that doesn't exactly hearten--
Page 224 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mr. BARRAM. At where you live?
Mr. HORN. Yes. In Hill House, two blocks from here. No telephone service. Now that is going to happen all over the place. I don't have much faith in the telephone service. I guess I would ask you what is your contingency plan if all of the rest goes kaplooey, be it embedded chips or whatever it is.
Mr. BARRAM. Well, you know, as you know, we use America's telecommunications industry to provide telephone service to our Federal customers. There is some discussion about a Federal system, but I don't think that is ever going to get there. So I don't think there is a simple answer to the question because that is such a catastrophic notion. It's not just the Federal Government that would be hurt. It would be the whole economy, which would be disastrous of course. So I am convinced--that I have much more faith I think than you do in our industry partners. We also, but for those parts of the Government that are critical at a moment on January 1, and in the time it takes to gather the systems back, we have other mechanisms, radio, to communicate.
Mr. HORN. Well have you ever done a mock emergency and pretend and put some programs in to see if it can cross the date line? Because I'll tell you, Lubbock, Texas just did it. They did it at night. They sprung it. They told everybody there was going to be that emergency sometime. It happened. They learned a lot from that. You might want to talk to Lubbock, Texas.
Mr. BARRAM. Sure. We have done a number of tests. We're in the middle of doing tests to see what happens when you artificially change the date to January 1 or fool around with that leap year date. For example, in I forget which, whether it was the Anderson building that you don't want to be in in Long Beach because the rent is so high--
Mr. HORN. I saved $50,000 by not paying rent.
Mr. BARRAM. I knew I shouldn't bring that up.
Page 225 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mr. HORN. I baptism all GSA Administrators with that story. You're not the first.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BARRAM. I know, but I guess the--I forget which building it was, we have done some tests in buildings, for example, when you tell an elevator that it's February 29, the year 2000, which it doesn't expect because it's one of those other dates, it just ignored it and thought it was March 1 and went on about its business.
The real question on those things are we have got to be really smart about what events and what systems take down critical functions and which just stop working and we work around them for a minute or an hour or a day until we figure it out. That's I think the biggest challenge we have in this whole subject in our system. Internationally it's a different story, I think we have much more complicated and I think more scary prospects.
Mr. HORN. Now you have been at GSA either as Deputy Administrator or Administrator for about what, six years now?
Mr. BARRAM. I have been at GSA two-and-a-half. I was at Commerce before.
Mr. HORN. Oh, that's right.
Mr. BARRAM. So I have been in Washington five years.
Mr. HORN. Has any exercise ever occurred in the Executive Branch on using telephones, using radio, all the rest, pretending there is an emergency, and see what happens?
Mr. BARRAM. I don't know. I'll be surprised if it hasn't. I don't know whether--
Mr. HORN. As Administrator, I am sure they would have told you. But I will tell you what will happen when I've done it on a campus that I headed. In the first place, the radios don't work because of the most of the spectrum is on the east coast. So you can't even relate in L.A., which has 81 cities in Los Angeles County, 10 million people in the county. The police departments can't talk to each other because all the spectrum was on the east coast. Now they are slowly fixing that, but that is what you need to go through here to know what is going to happen. I don't see, I mean in the first place, the administration procrastinated on this for three years. Finally did something in February when we had asked the President years before, put somebody in charge. He did, Mr. Koskinen, a very fine man. But he is playing catch-up. We all are playing catch-up. The question is, will these systems be inter-operable and work because if alluded stuff comes into your system from somebody that hasn't cleaned it up, like Financial Management Service, you have got a problem. Your silence on the telephones means a lot to me. I can tell what silence means. It means we have got trouble.
Page 226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
So all I can say is I hope the administration starts doing a few exercises, and not just assume because somebody told them that it's going to work. Being lied to by computer salesmen is only equal to being lied to by used car salesmen. I learned that many years ago. So I have absolutely no faith in what a computer company tells me. I have never known one thing where it's been on time, for example. I have never seen a corporate CEO that has even been able to tell us they have been on time. I know university CEOs, they are never on time. They promise it. It doesn't happen. That disturbs me on what we are dealing with.
Mr. BARRAM. Can I amend my silence a little bit and say that our Federal Technology Service, where our telecommunications are is developing extensive contingency plans. So we are asking that question that you are asking. We'll have a contingency plan, even though I may say to you I have more faith than you might in the telecommunications system. We are developing a contingency plan in case.
Mr. HORN. Yes. Well, my last question would simply be do some experiments. The FAA is a good example. Last year they had a problem in their radar system. They put the stuff in the laboratory, thought they had fixed it. They put it back in the tower. It was absolute chaos. It didn't work. They had to relate to it in terms of a real operational situation. That is all I am asking. If you are going to get into this business, let's pretend that it's a real operation and make it act like that and see if the systems work.
Well, I thank you and wish you good luck.
Mr. BARRAM. Thank you. I'm sure we'll be continuing to talk about this.
Mr. KIM. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. At this time, the Chair recognizes Mrs. Norton, the gentlelady from the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask each of you a question about security or perhaps the worst thing that could happen with the Y2K problem would involve security of the institutions for which each of you is responsible.
Page 227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
I should preface what I am going to say by indicating my concern at how the Government in all of its parts is going at security. That I just think we are really in the stone age, perhaps the industrial age, of thinking through how to manage security when there is a new technology, a new threat, a new terrorist threat of a kind unheard of, unrecognized in this country. So the most we can think to do, for example, to name a particularly primitive example, when Pennsylvania Avenue--when the tragic Oklahoma City bombing takes place, they say okay, close down the avenue. No understanding of how to handle security when you are in a complicated city, an urban setting. That is where the Federal Government is going to be located for the duration. So I am very concerned about the industrial age approach to 21st century security problems. All around I see the kind of approach to security that I would have expected in 1950, you know, if there was going to be a bomb thrown some place. Obviously it gives me less confidence in whatever is going to happen on Y2K.
I do think that the notion of a visitors' center, and I have introduced a bill for a visitors' center, is an example of thinking outside the box. We of course have been thinking in the Capitol, doing a lot of the old thinking, you know, where can we put a barrier here, where can we put a stone wall there. But I don't blame that really on you, and I don't blame the Smithsonian for not having a 21st century approach to dealing with the security of people who come into your institutions. I know what Mr. Barram faces with the diversity of institutions he is responsible for.
My own sense is that unless we get a kind of, for lack of a better metaphor, Los Alamos approach to how to secure complicated urban environments against terrorism. That is the people whose only job it is to think at the highest level of analysis and knowledge about an entirely new problem, that we will leave it to bureaucrats to kind of muddle along and do the best way they can until something blows up in their faces.
So my question is not essentially addressed to you. I think in this Congress we have not faced the nature of the enemy. Closing down streets, labeling streets level I to IV, saying we are going to take the parking meters out on one side. Of course that means that the people on the other side are in danger. I mean that kind of pedestrian thinking about a new threat that we have never faced before is very troubling to me. It's troubling to me as I sit in this building, which is a high level target.
Page 228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Short of the Congress authorizing the kind of real investigation it will take to bring our security efforts into the next century, while we are waiting for that, I would like to ask each of you what your best efforts are at securing the facilities for which you are responsible.
Mr. COLVIN. Let me start if I may, since I am not representing the Government or any agency thereof. I read an article not long ago which is entirely unrelated to this problem, but which gives some very good advice. All of us must have, must have written contingency plans and must take the position that the worst could happen. When you assume that, you begin to step down in levels of technology.
If your microprocessor system is broken down, how do you then--what replaced--what did you replace when you got that microtechnology? You drop down a level of technology. You continue to reduce your levels of technology until you reach an attainable level. That attainable level may be the Pinkerton's Guard, the Burns Guard, a commercial guard service. In the case of the Federal Government, it might be additional Federal protective officers. But as your technology fails, you seek a level of technology which is sustainable and manageable until that point at which you can restore your highest level of technology. But it requires an excellent contingency plan.
Mr. HANTMAN. As you pointed out, Congresswoman, the issue of a visitors' center is one thing that I too share is a very important component of an integrated security system up here on Capitol Hill. The concept of greeting with grace and respect some 95 percent of the visitors that we have a distance from the Capitol itself, and being able to have them go through whatever security magnetometers we need to have them go through safely and in an area where they can in fact learn about what the Legislative Branch of our Government is all about, what the history of our country is all about, and what they are going to be seeing when they take a tour of the Capitol is very important. So I certainly concur with you that that does think out of the box. That is something that is a win-win situation, I think for everybody.
Page 229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
As far as objectionable security measures, clearly one of the issues that we brought to Congress and did get an emergency appropriation for is to remove the jersey barriers and the concrete planters that we have all around and replace them with more respectable cast iron bollards that can serve the same purpose of perimeter security. Also retained the open nature of Capitol Hill. This is the people's building. All the buildings that we work in, all of the House office buildings, the Senate office buildings, the Library of Congress, are all meant to be accessed by the public.
What that really means though is that our first line of defense becomes the officers. The increase in manpower that's been requested by the Capitol Police Board really addresses that. The type of electronic devices that support these clearly could have electronic failures down the line, but since we're not putting up a fence as the White House has at this point in time, and there is no plan to close streets as well, the concept is that if we have a visitors' center, we move most of our visitors out. We check them and they are greeted that way. Those people who come to the doors still need to be met by our uniformed security guards, our police force, and have enough adequate protection over there for us to assure that those folks who are entering our buildings are there to see their Congress people and do the business of the people or to tour. So there is no 100 percent solution. There are components that come into an integrated program that we really need to work on. That is in fact what the Capitol Police Board is trying to do.
Mr. HEYMAN. Well I really don't have to add very much to that. You are in an enormous dilemma in a museum with respect to controlling access. In some of our museums that are heavily visited, take Air and Space as an example, if we ever had to put people through magnometers, et cetera, we would cut down the numbers of people who go to those museums enormously.
I personally only see two things that we can do that are helpful. One is really constant surveillance by the guards who are in our museums, and continued training and sensitivity with respect to what they are looking for. We will run into trouble sometimes because we'll hassle people who should not have been hassled in an exuberance to protect. But I think we have to rely a lot on people.
Page 230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
The other thing that I would really like to do is in some of the more critical areas that might be terrorist targets, I would really like to get parking away from those areas because I just went by Air and Space one night. There was a truck parked right there. I had absolutely no idea why it was there. It really worried me a lot because it would seem to me that the Air and Space Museum would be a target for a truck bomb.
Ms. NORTON. Let me stop and add but there are no magnometers as you go into these buildings.
Mr. HEYMAN. Pardon?
Ms. NORTON. There are no magnometers.
Mr. HEYMAN. There are none.
Ms. NORTON. So this is what I mean. Now you were bothered by a truck, but anybody could walk in the building, leave a bomb in the bathroom, and all of you all are gone.
Mr. HEYMAN. I think they are very tough choices. I have really thought about that one. At least I personally have conclude that I would rather take the risk than putting everybody through magnometers. That might be a wrong decision--
Ms. NORTON. No. It's probably not a wrong decision, but it does illustrate my point.
Mr. HEYMAN. I think your point is a good one.
Ms. NORTON. There is no reason to believe that the truck is a greater danger than individuals walking in with whatever they are carrying with them and blowing the joint up. Our approach is to look at the last catastrophe and assume it's going to be the next one, where I presume terrorists are smarter than that.
Mr. Barram?
Mr. BARRAM. Nobody understands the dilemma better than you do. We have--and I think we are going to have to have a congressional and administration very high level look at this or we are always going to live on this dilemma with no real good answers.
Page 231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
We have done some things that are somewhere between old thinking and where you just talked about, like our building by building security plans. They are at least better than just blanket the same everywhere. We have at a hearing last week where both of you at least were here, we talked about the things we are thinking about with our FPS, which provide physical security to our buildings and the changes that we are working on in terms of cross training and sharing information and resources. Those are steps along the way.
But until we are willing to and able to address the issue at the level that you just described, we are going to have this kind of conversation.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Would the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. NORTON. I'll of course yield to the gentleman.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I would just like to say the subcommittee is undertaking a reform bill for the Federal Protective Services, one of the most important pieces of legislation this entire committee probably will address this year. Now though the Smithsonian is not protected by the FPS, it also raises some questions as to maybe perhaps how the FPS may be more widely used and should be considered. But that legislation is very important. It speaks to some of the issues you bring forward, because all the technology in the world is not going to protect these buildings.
Ms. NORTON. And of course Mr. Hantman has testified that he is depending on people rather than magnometers.
One more question, if I could, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for Mr. Hantman. You yourself have in your own way indicated that mission-critical involves anything that keeps people from doing their jobs. You are of course aware that you have had pretty stormy labor management relations since coming to the job, that the Y2K problem is a matter not only of systems but of people. I would like to ask you about the problem that has surfaced about the reduction in the staff, particularly that clean the buildings at night and the deep demoralization in your shop, where people feel they are getting more work and you are not filling positions, although your budget has not been cut. Then I would also like to ask you where you are on the Equal Pay Act suit that was brought almost as you walked in the door.
Page 232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mr. HANTMAN. With respect to the last issue, Congresswoman, the council, our council and the Council for AFSME, Local 23, our meeting with judges under the direction of the Compliance Act, the Compliance Board in fact is holding hearings on that. We are totally open in terms of what we are talking about. I am hoping for a resolution of that fairly soon.
Ms. NORTON. Are you trying to mediate and settle this case?
Mr. HANTMAN. We are trying to bring facts and bring issues to the table that we can all agree on and that we can understand what the realities are.
Ms. NORTON. So you are contesting the case even though they show that there is a dollar difference between what men and women are paid who do the same or similar work. I mean you are continuing to context the suit then? You are not trying to settle the suit.
Mr. HANTMAN. We are not contesting the suit. What we are trying to do is have impartial outside fact-finding in terms of the job descriptions, to come in and whether it's the--
Ms. NORTON. That's known as contesting the suit, Mr. Hantman.
Okay. Would you then move on? Because I am telling you, your shop is one of the most demoralized shops I have ever had knowledge of. It's located right here. It could have an effect upon our security.
Let me ask you about the problem with the night laborers whose numbers have been cut while the work remains the same.
Mr. HANTMAN. Yes. We are doing benchmarking with the outside world in terms of Federal as well as private sector to take a look at the work load that normally should be appropriate for this type of function. We are going to be looking at how that measures against the productivity that we have internally and trying where it's inappropriately been cut back, to support that, and take a look at what kind of staffing levels we really need to have on the Congress.
Page 233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Ms. NORTON. Have you been meeting with your union concerning what you just described?
Mr. HANTMAN. With whom, please?
Ms. NORTON. Your union.
Mr. HANTMAN. Two weeks ago we had a meeting with the union on this, yes. We have a person specifically dedicated full-time to working with the union and talking about these issues.
Ms. NORTON. Finally, just let me urge you that with respect to the outstanding lawsuit, most--I am a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Almost none of these cases were allowed to go on and on. In our system of justice, there's usually something to be said on one side and something to be said on the other side. You will pay a terrible price if you do not find a way, given the time you have been here already, to bring this suit to some kind of resolution, even if it isn't the exact victory that you might desire. Let me say also I am very concerned about the night laborers, about the laborers in the day as well. If you are in fact doing a study design to see whether or not the staff levels, their productivity, and what should be required is on line, then I would urge you to hasten that work as well so that you can bring your labor relations up to the point where any new architect would want them to be.
Mr. HANTMAN. Congresswoman, I fully agree with you. There is no desire on my part whatsoever to prolong this. I would like to have it resolved in a fair and equitable manner.
Mr. KIM. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired. At this time, the Chair recognizes Mr. Horn for an additional 30 more seconds.
Mr. HORN. I just want to say to Mr. Barram, I agree with Mr. Traficant. I think the Federal Protective Service is an outstanding group. A few years ago when we had a series of death threats, threats of destroying our district office and everything else, there was only one Federal service that was awake and would help us. It was the Federal Protective Service. They did an absolutely superb job. So I think you can be proud of the group in Southern California. They are stretched thin over hundreds of miles in the case of California. There just weren't that many at that time. Now maybe that has been beefed up. But I think you can feel very good about that.
Page 234 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KIM. Thank you. At this time--
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will you yield a quick question pursuant to Mr. Horn's analysis there to Mr. Barram?
Although it's not on the Y2K problem, just briefly. One of the major issues of the FPS reform bill and the only area of contention from what I see, is the PBS opposing to a change in jurisdictional structure of the FPS becoming its own authority, that instead of being under and reporting to the PBS director, would report directly to the Administrator of GSA. Congress believes that is a very important move. The Justice Department in some of their studies had even recommended it. What is your position at this point, if you could?
Mr. BARRAM. I think it should stay under PBS.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Why?
Mr. BARRAM. Because we are protecting buildings. That's where our--GSA has three major parts. We do buildings, supplies, telecommunications and technology. The Federal Protective Service is going to be spending all of its time working on things that are building-oriented.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Not to belabor it, and I'm going to get on with the committee's business here, but is not the major function of PBS real estate? Is not their first priority real estate, sir? Yes or no?
Mr. BARRAM. I'm sorry?
Mr. TRAFICANT. Isn't their first responsibility real estate?
Mr. BARRAM. No--it is one of their more important responsibilities, clearly. Real estate is their most important responsibility. Protecting the people in the buildings is a very important responsibility inside of that overall responsibility, it seems to me.
Page 235 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mr. TRAFICANT. One last question. The PBS director, the FPS director here is the former chief of Montgomery County. If the sheriff of Montgomery County had a problem, would he call a mayor, an administrative assistant or would he call the police chief?
Mr. BARRAM. Someone in Montgomery County? The police chief.
Mr. KIM. Thank you. At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, the Aviation Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure that none of you regard yourselves as Y2K experts, but I'm also sure that you have either beforehand or in preparation for your testimony here today read a lot about this problem. And I'm just curious.
One week ago, today, we had a hearing on this as it relates to aviation and there were two Y2K experts who gave us a general overview of this entire problem. Both very, very intelligent men. One recommended that we go back to the year 1972 because it--the days matched entirely the year 2000 and he thought it would take potentially several years to straighten out all of this.
The other man was much more pessimistic and predicted that at places around the country, not entirely the whole country, but he said at places, major brownouts, possibly even riots in some cities. I'm sure you've read in preparation for your testimony that some people--and it seems to be a minority--but that some people are predicting sort of doomsday type problems.
And yet, all of you seem to say and you've given me the impression--and I'm happy to hear this--that you feel that this is just going to be a minor type--absent the horrendous expense, disregarding that for a moment--that this is just going to be a minor type problem or there are going to be minor glitches or minor inconveniences that won't last very long. Is that accurate, Mr. Barram? We'll start with you.
Mr. BARRAM. In the last month and the half, I have listened to two extremely intelligent and knowledgeable people on this subject, one of whom predicts an amazing international catastrophe and another who thinks that we are way, way overconcerned about this and that even the embedded chip issue isn't as big an issue as people think because he says most of them and most of the pieces of equipment with an embedded chip that has a problem will just simply fail and sit down quietly.
Page 236 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Now, I think the issue and the problem is somewhere in between and I think we have a very significant leadership and management challenge here of being prudent in how we spend money to solve a problem that we'll never fully understand until January 1, 2000. And what--we have to be prudent. We have to be smart. We have to be very careful about what systems are really critical and we have to be honest in how we share information and what we've tested.
As I said earlier, I believe we have the intent and the energy and the intelligence and knowledge in this country to do a good job, and in the Government as well. I worry much more internationally. We are dramatically farther ahead. And what I worry about, frankly, is that we're going to have to do some things to help other countries. So we better--one of the reasons for getting ahead of the game now is so you can have a little energy left when you have to help others.
In our case, we have our own systems which we believe we are on top of. We are working very hard, having BOMA as a partner is terrific because we want to have all the buildings that we're responsible, that we're paying attention to those in smart ways. So if I've given you the impression that it's a potentially small problem, I don't mean to. I'm trying to be calm and rational about the things that we're doing to stay on top of it. I think we are ahead of--I think we are on top of the issues.
Mr. DUNCAN. Do any of the other panelists wish to comment?
Mr. HEYMAN. Well, I really know much more about what's going to happen inside the Smithsonian than I do what's going to happen outside. I'm pretty confident about the inside. One of the things that I've learned in this hearing is that I think we have to start to think about what happens if other systems fail, upon which we depend. And I think we'll start to think--
Mr. DUNCAN. That's one thing I've read. I've read--in fact, Senator Bennett had a column in the Wall Street Journal a week ago yesterday and he said that one of the main problems was going to be that CEOs were preparing their own companies, but the big problem is going to be that everyone, and I assume all of you, deal with so many hundreds or thousands of other companies or suppliers, big and small, that the problem's going to be with your suppliers or with the companies that aren't doing as well as you're doing.
Page 237 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
And, last week at our hearing, we heard, for instance, from the Air Transport Association that all of the major airlines were in good shape, but they weren't sure about all their suppliers. And, in addition, they had surveyed 81 airports and they found that 35 percent of those airports had no Y2K plan whatsoever and that another I think 30 percent were way behind.
Are you satisfied that--are all of you satisfied that all of your suppliers and people that you're dealing with have--are doing what they need to be doing?
Mr. BARRAM. Let me comment quickly. We have a web page that lists 10,000 pieces of equipment that lists the ones that are compliant, which is the big list, and the many fewer that are non-compliant. List the company providing it, the model number, and a description of whether this is an old--just some word, just a paragraph or two telling you why is this non-compliant and what you should do about it. And then, the last column says how many dollars it would take to fix it. In some cases it's zero. In some cases it's $25,000 to replace it or something or maybe more in some very few cases.
We are working very hard with our suppliers. We are trying to identify every piece of equipment we can that--so we know what we're up against. And we're trying to share this--and we want to share this information with anybody. It's a public web page. Anybody can look at it. I would give you the letters, but you would find them very uninteresting to write down.
Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. Mr. Hantman, did I understand you correctly that said that you had some coal-burning capacity, but that the EPA would not let you use it or something to that effect?
Mr. HANTMAN. The Capitol power plant supplies chilled water and steam to the Capitol complex for all of its air conditioning and heating needs. It used to, some 20 years ago, have the ability to generate electricity itself. It no longer has that capability.
Page 238 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
We have submitted a plan for a possible cogeneration plant that would do both the steam, the chilled water, and power with possibly an outside partner. This is under consideration. This was submitted a number of months ago to the Congress as a possible alternative to where we're going, because, basically, our existing generators for chilled water and for steam do, in fact, burn coal primarily. And we have a large coal pile.
EPA standards are being strengthened. And, therefore, within--by the year 2003, I think we've got a--we'll have had to transfer our generating capacity to oil, to, basically, to gas. So this is something that the Congress has not acted on yet, but there are recommendations before the Congress that look at cogeneration possibilities going forward.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I hope the EPA will be a little more flexible in light of this--of the potential problems that we face here. And I'm like Mr. Traficant and Mr. Horn and some others. I think potentially the biggest problem of all and something that we should all be asking about or talking about or trying to do what we can to see that the power is not interrupted. Because everything we all do is so dependent on our power supplies. And so that--I think that should be a big, big concern for all of us.
Mr. Colvin, you wanted to say something.
Mr. COLVIN. Yes. There are two instances that I can relate to specifically. One, BOMA, within 2 years, bought 35 brand-new, desktop PCs which we decided to test for Y2K compliance. The first several were fine. The assumption would be that all 35 were fine. 33 were. 35 were not--excuse me, the other 2 were not. They had chips from a different manufacturer.
In my particular area--I'm from Birmingham, Alabama, we are served by the largest investor-owned power generator in the United States, the Southern Company. Recently in our local newspapers, we had a long series of Y2K articles. I know that the Southern Company, and I can't quote you the dollars and cents, but Southern Company has devoted major resources throughout their power grid to ensure that they are able to deliver energy in a timely fashion on January 1, 2000.
Page 239 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
So BOMA's position is that we need to have a good contingency plan and, in the words of Senator Bennett, we need to have that best contingency plan that you never use. That's our hope and ambition. We do not think the sky is going to fall. We do believe that there may, indeed, be some problems. But those problems will be manageable if they are undertaken with a good contingency plan and a lot of forethought.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KIM. The gentleman's time has expired. Before we take a recess, I'd like to just take a brief comment, just a question for Mr. Barram. It's still puzzling me that you have a 600 to 700 buildings--no, 7,600 buildings--
Mr. BARRAM. 8,600.
Mr. KIM. It's going to cost you a $9 million, but OMB requested $5.5 billion for this Y2K problem. Can you give us later, just rough estimate. Where is this cost coming from?
Mr. BARRAM. We have 8,600 buildings. The number that you're referring to is the overall amount of money that the administration has estimated, $5.4 billion and $3.25 billion in the supplemental. That's for replacing all kinds of systems. I'm assuming that includes the FAA systems and Defense systems and all kinds of things.
What I'm talking about--I talked about in my million--$9.7 million was the specific Y2K fixes in GSA or under GSA's control. That's a much--obviously a tiny fraction of that overall amount of money that it will cost the Federal Government.
Mr. KIM. Any other questions from the members. I see none. Well, thank you, ladies and gentlemen. That concludes the public buildings portion of Y2K hearing. We'll next turn our attention to our Nation's surface transportation infrastructure problem. Before continuing, we'll take a short recess.
[Recess.]
Page 240 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. [presiding] The subcommittee will resume. And I'd like to ask panel number two to move to the witness table. We'll now turn our attention to issues under the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. And first we will hear from a panel of pipeline experts.
There are over 1.4 million miles of natural gas and oil pipelines crisscrossing the United States. For the most part, they go unnoticed, providing safe, quiet, and efficient transmission of oil and natural gas. Located underground or in sparsely populated areas, many pipelines rely on automated systems to monitor and regulate the pressure and flow.
A Y2K-related pipeline failure could cut off our supply of crude oil, making it impossible to provide the gasoline and diesel fuel we need to drive our economy. Without properly working pipelines, some areas might not get the natural gas they need to keep their families warm. In a worst-case scenario, pipeline failure could result in severe environmental damage or even the loss of human life.
After we hear from this panel, our final panel will address highway-related problems. Many of our Nation's roads depend on intelligent transportation systems to operate smoothly and efficiently. Some fear that January 1, 2000 may paralyze traffic and increase safety risks to the public. Timed signals may no longer be timed. Reversal lanes may reverse by themselves and electronic passes may not permit passage. Metropolitan areas are at particular risk since they often depend on ITS to change traffic patterns and increase road capacity during peak travel times. Unfortunately every traffic control system's different and it's not clear how each device will respond at midnight, January 1, 2000.
I look forward to hearing from these panels and hope that they can provide some assurance to the public that these problems will be addressed in time for the new millennium. And I'd like to turn to the senior minority member, Mr. Rahall, for any comments he might make.
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening statement, except to once again commend you and Chairman Shuster for conducting these hearings. I note that on the panel we're now about to hear from on pipelines, our first witness is Mr. Steven Van Beek, the Eeputy Administrator of RSPA. I understand this is your first--your maiden voyage before Congress and testifying before a committee. So we welcome you.
Page 241 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Might just by way of biographical background mention that, Mr. Van Beek, since joining RSPA in February of 1998 has played a key role in shaping RSPA's new strategic plan, research, and technology strategies, emergency preparedness and response activities, and new regulations for the pipeline and hazardous materials safety program. As Deputy Administrator, as a member of the Secretary's Management Council, where he's taken a special interest in facilitating DOT efforts at strengthening ties with minority serving institutions, including colleges and universities.
He received his doctorate and master's in government and foreign affairs from the University of Virginia. His Bachelor of Arts degree is from the University of California, Santa Barbara. He's a member of Phi Beta Phi, National Honor Society, and several professional organizations.
We welcome you to the subcommittee this morning as well as Mrs. Hirning.
Mr. PETRI. As you both know, your full statements will be made a part of the record and we invite you to take about five minutes to summarize your remarks.
Mr. Van Beek.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN VAN BECK, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY KATHLEEN HIRNING, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION; ANNE WILMS, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, SONAT, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, AND ROBERT DARWIN, EQUILON PIPELINE COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
Mr. VAN BEEK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the year 2000 computer problem. I am Steven Van Beek, Deputy Administrator at the Research and Special Programs Administration, Department of Transportation.
Page 242 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
RSPA, as we're known, has jurisdiction over the Federal pipeline safety program. Y2K is an issue that we take very seriously and that RSPA's addressing, both within the agency and among the regulated community, including pipelines. While I will be happy to respond to any questions concerning RSPA's internal systems, which are ahead of the latest guidelines, my testimony today will focus upon RSPA's pipeline safety program.
The year 2000 problem has the potential to cause serious disruptions in the transportation of oil and gas and other goods and services. Computers and software are used in almost every aspect of the transportation system, including transportation operations and all of the industries that support those operations, such as electric power and telecommunications. Moreover, a significant amount of infrastructure built in the last 30 years contain embedded systems that may not function correctly on January 1, 2000.
The scope and breadth of the potential problem requires that industry take the lead in identifying, testing, and repairing any computers, software, or embedded systems that may not be year 2000 compliant. This requires a comprehensive program in which companies examine their own systems to ensure Y2K compliance. One barrier industry has decided to meet personally, and others in RSPA, to address the problem has been the fear of inciting lawsuits by disclosing difficulties with systems. The passage of S. 2392, the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act should encourage industry to provide and gather information from associations and government agencies.
Although industry must take the lead in identifying and repairing any year 2000 problems, government must take the lead in ensuring that all parties are working together to address the issues. Government, and in particular OPS and RSPA, must raise public awareness, coordinate information on potential issues and solutions, and ensure that companies are actively addressing all identified problems.
In our discussion with industry association and specific companies, RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety has identified year 2000 issues with a variety of components and control systems. Pipeline operations are dependent upon SCADA, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition systems which contained embedded processors and remote sensing devices. Many SCADA systems also append a date to information received, adding a potential failure point.
Page 243 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
These vulnerabilities are clear to many operators and progress is being made. RSPA will carefully monitor industry progress and the backup systems already in place that will allow pipelines to continue to operate safely, whatever the eventuality.
RSPA's outreach strategy is to work directly with the natural gas and liquid pipeline industry and collaboratively with the President's Council on Y2K Conversion to address and other potential issues. We have stressed the need for year 2000 preparedness with a variety of industry associations. We have also met with a number of individual pipeline companies. We serve on the council's Energy Sector Oil and Gas Work Group, which is chaired by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission represented here today. This work group is developing a focused, coordinated effort between Federal agencies and industry associations that will prevent redundant efforts and ensure that all companies in the oil and gas sectors are reached.
We keep RSPA's State partners informed through periodic mailings and participation in national and regional meetings. For example, recently we sent an advisory bulletin to industry and our State pipeline safety partners that described the potential impact on pipeline systems, outlined the work group's strategy and identified industry and government contacts for companies needing advice.
Working with the industry, RSPA participated in a comprehensive industry survey to address company prioritizations of mission-critical systems, online testing, supply chain coordination, communications, infrastructure support, and contingency planning. Although some concerns remain, RSPA is cautiously optimistic about the results of the survey. Findings were presented at a public meeting held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on September 18, 1998, and are also available on the President's Council web page. And I'll let the FERC representative today discuss the survey in a little more detail.
While survey results are arriving, the working groups are already urging associations and companies to accelerate their timetables that were made evident in the responses to the survey. You will be hearing from industry today in more detail about their activities regarding year 2000.
Page 244 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
In conclusion, the year 2000 problem is a serious issue that requires leadership and cooperation among government agencies and the private sectors if we're going to solve it. We are closely working with industry to identify and assess the potential problems and I particularly look forward to working with this committee and others in Congress in the months ahead. And I'm, of course, pleased to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Van Beek follows:]
********** INSERT **********
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much.
Our second panelist is Kathleen Hirning, the Chief Information Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Ms. Hirning.
Ms. HIRNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I am the Chief Information Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I commend you for holding a hearing on this critical issue and appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about the state of year 2000 readiness in the oil and gas sector. We have been working closely with the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion and have served as a lead Federal agency for Oil and Gas Sector Working Group.
The working group is composed of a group of Federal agencies and 25 industry associations and growing. The oil and natural gas industry is complex and made up of a lot of sectors which must work together to deliver oil and natural gas across the Nation. The oil and gas industry has come together on this collaborative effort due to the interconnectedness of our infrastructure, sectors are dependent on one another, as well as their suppliers. Consequently, the need for cooperation and collaboration between government and industry across this entire industry is vital.
This working group has developed an industrywide survey and website to display survey results and information relating to Y2K readiness. Results of the initial survey represented in a public conference held at the Commission this past September 18, as has already been mentioned. Respondents to this survey represent, by volume, they account for about two-thirds of oil and gas consumption. Over 70 percent of the respondents were smaller companies. Although smaller companies outnumber large companies in responses for this survey, collectively, smaller companies account for a small volume of oil and gas consumption.
Page 245 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
While there is the impression from anecdotal information that small companies are not paying attention to problems--Y2K problems, the oil and gas survey results indicate that many are working diligently towards achieving Y2K readiness. I bring that up because that was a concern of ours when we did the survey, was to make sure that we monitored the smaller producers and pipelines and distributors.
The survey asks companies if their Y2K plans include prioritization of hardware, software, and embedded systems, according to mission-critical functions. Eighty-five percent of those respondents included prioritization in their plans. Over three-quarters of the plans include, number one, testing; number two, supply team coordination with other companies, local emergency organizations, local governments, and other organizations that impact mission-critical functions. Also include supporting infrastructures, such as facilities, emergency response systems, and vehicle fueling.
Survey results indicate that the industry is in the process of fixing problems and has begun developing contingency plans with the primary focus on operations. About a third of the respondents who provided a date indicated that they expect their contingency plans to be ready by the end of this year, three-quarters by June 1999, and all by December 1999.
At the September 18th conference, industry representatives emphasized the value of continued cooperation with the Federal Government. They stressed the need for the Oil and Gas Sector Working Group to take a step towards creating a more formal joint program with both telecommunications and electric industries, which are crucial components that support the functioning of this sector, primarily because of their reliance on the electric sector, on oil, gas to generate power. The industry also relies on the transportation sector from rail to truck to ship and are concerned with how this sector is doing. They also expressed a need to reach out to States and internationally as the large companies, in particular, are multinational. This is an area where the Council can facilitate dialogue and coordination.
Page 246 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
This first survey gives us an important benchmark from which to start. We are making progress. We still have a long way to go. It is critical to continue to increase the level of cooperation and information sharing and to be as transparent as we can with the public. We must acknowledge that not every single system will be ready in time, but we must also inform the public that contingency plans are being made to address these concerns.
The survey results provide an important baseline from which to monitor future progress towards readiness from quarterly surveys. Results from the next survey will only provide a measure of progress--excuse me--results from the next survey will not only provide a measure of progress towards measurement, but will also provide a tool to validate the results of the initial survey. Survey results will also point out vulnerabilities, help the working group assess where to focus its efforts.
The industry representatives concede there is still a lot of work that must be done before January 1, year 2000. However, they expressed a note of cautious optimism that survey results indicate that the industry, in general, is where it should be in order to achieve readiness well in time for the new millennium. Nevertheless, they are committed to expand the number of survey respondents and work to share information.
[The statement of Ms. Hirning follows:]
********** INSERT **********
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Our next panelist is Ms. Anne Wilms, who is chief information officer of Sonat. She is here on behalf of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. I invite you to summarize your remarks in five minutes and your full statement will be made a part of the record.
Ms. WILMS. Again, my name is Anne Wilms and I'm chief information officer for Sonat, Inc. and I'm here to represent the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. Just a little background on Sonat. We have an interest in almost 14,000 miles of interstate pipeline. We are an independent producer of oil and gas and we also are a marketer of both gas and electric power. And, as an actual industry person and having primary responsibility for year 2K issue at Sonat, I'm here not only to represent the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, but also to give you some assurance that we, as a company, have taken exhaustive measures to ensure that we are, indeed, year 2000 compliant.
Page 247 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
And INGAA early this year, prior to FERC conducting their more comprehensive survey, undertook a survey to evaluate where all the interstate pipelines in the company were as it--in the country, as it relates to where their position was, in relation to the year 2K problem. It was a voluntary survey. We had a 75 percent response to that survey.
And, as a result, we basically--and it was pretty similar in all the pipelines--categorized the problem into four areas of priority, number one being safety, we wanted to ensure that nobody was going to get hurt as a result of the year 2K impact. Second was that we would actually be able to deliver gas to the marketplace. Third was being able to account for and measure gas delivered. And fourth were our back office systems which are our HR systems, human resources, et cetera.
As it relates to safety, this committee itself has been instrumental in ensuring that the base infrastructure of the pipeline industry ensures safety and that, worst-case scenario, that we would basically be able to manually operate the pipeline. And, as Mr. Van Beek has testified, we are critically dependent on SCADA systems, which are supervisory, control, and data-acquisition systems which basically control the flow of gas and it's fully automated, but we can also, if we have a failure in that area, turn those systems off and manually operate the pipeline.
What I'd like to do is basically talk about what Sonat is doing, because it's very representative of what all these--the other companies are doing. And we address the issue in looking at it from what are our absolute critical systems, SCADA being one of those systems. And, in looking at that, what we are doing is we are looking at every single device on the pipeline. We're testing that device. We're also, before we even test it, we seek vendor compliance. If the vendor says it's compliant, we are not only assuming that it's compliant, we are also doing on-site testing. And then, third, even after we've tested it and we've assured compliance, we are developing contingency plans to ensure that, in case of a failure, that we can have either manual overrides of the system or that we have a secondary backup.
Page 248 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
When we talk about the accounting for the flow of gas, our primary systems, which we depend on, are those systems which our customers actually log on, nominate gas, and then we confirm the actual flow of gas. We testing those systems. And, again, not only are we testing those systems, but we are developing contingency plans in case of failure.
And I think you've heard a lot about this through many of the other testimonies this morning. One of the things that we're critically dependent on is external providers of services. About 10 percent of what we is internally controlled. About 90 percent is supplied by external providers of service, such as the electric companies and the communications companies, et cetera. And FERC, I think, is being absolutely instrumental in helping us get all those industries working together as a group to assure that we have backup plans in place and that those critical outside sources are also doing their due diligence ensuring that they are year 2000 compliant.
[The statement of Ms. Wilms follows:]
********** INSERT **********
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much.
Our final panelist is Mr. Robert Darwin from Equilon Pipeline Company, who is appearing on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute. You are very welcome.
Mr. DARWIN. Thank you. Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the pipeline industry's computer-readiness for the year 2000. I am Robert Darwin of Equilon Pipeline Company and I'm here today to represent the American Petroleum Institute and the Association of Oil Pipelines. The American Petroleum Institute, API, is a trade association of more than 400 members involved in all aspects of the oil and natural gas business. The Association of Oil Pipelines, AOPL, is a trade association of common carrier oil pipelines whose members transport over 800--or over 80 percent of the crude oil and petroleum products that travel by pipeline in the United States.
Page 249 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
As you've already heard, API and AOPL joined with other industry associations to sponsor a comprehensive survey of the oil and gas industry's computer-readiness for the year 2000. The survey was sent to more than 800 companies representing the supply of more than two-thirds of America's oil and gas consumption. The respondents included 57 pipeline companies responsible for some 70 percent of the crude oil and petroleum products delivered by pipeline. As reported, when we presented the survey data to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on September 18th, all respondents to the survey were confident that they will have resolved all computer problems by the time the new century arrives.
We will repeat the survey each quarter between now and the year 2000 so we'll know if that assessment changes. Our goal is to resolve any problems without compromising either the environment, the safety of our workers, or the community surrounding our facilities. Our preparations for the year 2000 are a natural extension of our industry's already extensive contingency planning. Oil and gas pipelines have long used sophisticated computer systems, many of which are custom-built. For the most part, the people who design and maintain those systems are a regular part of our staff. So they have a vested interest in ensuring they run smoothly.
We do use embedded processors for remote communications monitoring and control. These devices are commonly known as remote terminal units and programmable logic controllers. Since the late 1970s, we've also used embedded processors to regulate the rate of flow in pipelines, to operate alarms, to gauge liquid levels in our systems, and in the smart sensors that indicate temperature and pressure of our products in our pipelines.
We were extremely conservative in the initial design and rollout of these devices. We did not rely on date clocks for control and monitoring. We did not use magnetic storage for embedded processors. We did not use low-cost but relatively unreliable dynamic ram semiconductor memory. Instead, our embedded processors were designed to operate in ambient industrial conditions. They were designed to validate control actions on several levels before execution. Battery backup ensures uninterrupted power flow to the control systems. The software running our embedded processors is commonly known as firmware, meaning that it is not easily defeated.
Page 250 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Our people responsible for our embedded processors and other computer systems alerted us to the Y2K problem very early on. For some time now, we've been identifying and addressing potential problems. We are replacing equipment, rewriting computer programs, testing components of our system, and developing contingency plans. We are testing rollover to the year 2000; testing leap years; and testing access to historical data. We are also installing controls built around failsafe components and strategies. In short, we have already done many of the things the rest of industry is just now starting to address the Y2K problems.
As entrepreneurs, oil pipeline companies have an enormous interest in maintaining safe and reliable service. We do not want our pipelines shut down by events within our control. Our efforts to prepare for year 2000 have been aimed at ensuring that shutdowns will not occur and oil supplies will be available as needed.
Our assessment of the greatest risk to the oil and gas pipelines of the U.S. indicates that we are most vulnerable to failures in the support infrastructures, in particular, failure in communications and electric energy would severely impact our industry. A failure in communications can be worked through for a short period of time by physically manning each one of our operating sites. A failure of the supply of electric energy will immediately stop all liquid pipelines and most gas pipeline movements.
Can we absolutely guarantee no problems? The answer is, of course, no. No one knows the future and something can always go wrong. But our preparedness does mean that we can deal with any internal problems if and when they occur. Because we employ so many redundant control systems, the chances of a national pipeline system shutdown, due to an internal Y2K problem or anything else, are extremely small. But, assuming it did happen, it is highly unlikely that oil would escape from any pipeline. The bottom line is that if a problem does occur, no matter how unlikely, the industry will be ready and able to deal with it.
[The statement of Mr. Darwin follows:]
Page 251 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
********** INSERT **********
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Rahall.
Mr. RAHALL. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. All right. I just have one or two questions and they're pretty basic. And maybe, Ms. Wilms, Mr. Darwin, you might be able to help me with it, most of all. Isn't there--in the gas area, wouldn't there be a big problem beyond the pipeline getting into households? Or is that something that--
Ms. WILMS. Yes.
Mr. PETRI. Maybe even in stoves and other things. I suppose that might not be catastrophic just in the household. Would miss out on a meal, but--
Ms. WILMS. Unfortunately, you know, January 1, in some areas, is pretty cold, so it is pretty critical that we get gas to households. Fortunately, when you look at the local distribution side of the business--and we're working with that side of the business and FERC is helping us with that--their not as automated as the interstate pipelines are. They don't depend on embedded chips and technology to actually slow gas so they have a lesser issue as it relates to technology.
But even in that, we are working with our major customers, which include all the LDCs and even the smaller customers like the municipal. I'm working with them to look at their readiness as well as is FERC in the collaborative effort and looking at the industry as a whole to make sure that, you know, both the producers on the API and the interstate pipelines and then the downstream of the agencies can ensure that the end customer receives gas.
Mr. PETRI. Is there a kind of a line of equipment or chips or programs, after a certain date you can be pretty sure or 100 percent sure, are compliant and then a gray area and then those before, say 1986 or some such period, are just all bad?
Page 252 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Ms. WILMS. I can only answer that question--and we can get you a written response to that--but from our perspective, in looking at the systems that we have, we are physically testing every single device that has an embedded chip that is date-dependent. And ensuring that that, indeed, works and if it doesn't we will replace that device.
But downstream, my understanding is--and maybe you can answer the question better than I--that it is not as much of an issue because they do not have date-dependent chips to actually, physically operate the pipeline.
[The information follows:]
********** COMMITTEE INSERT **********
Mr. VAN BEEK. Yes, that's mostly true. And let me emphasize that, through our State program, we do listen and talk about the LDC local distribution company and municipality issue with folks and a lot of their concerns have surrounded the same sort of issues that have the big companies. And that is the support industries of electric utilities and telecommunications and one advantage of working with the localities is that a lot of times these utilities and the pipeline responsibilities are in the hands of the same folks. And so you get out and you talk to one and they have all three industries kind of discussion of that ready for you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all very much for your testimony and we hope that all goes well.
The final panel today is comprised of leaders in the service transportation area. And the kick-off witness will be a person who is very experienced and a senior member of the Federal Highway Administration, someone I've had the opportunity to eat with and work with on a number of projects, Ms. Gloria Jeff, who is the Deputy Administrator at the Federal Highway Administration. And she is accompanied by Dennis Judycki. And as soon as people can make their way up, we will start with Ms. Jeff.
Page 253 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
STATEMENT OF GLORIA JEFF, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY DENNIS JUDYCKI; KATHY HOFTSTEDT, YEAR 2000 PROJECT MANAGER, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; GORDON AOYAGI, CHAIR, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GROUP, MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT, AND DON EVANS, RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Ms. JEFF. Good morning, Congressman. It's good to see you again. You have received a copy of our written testimony. And let me try and shorten things up by just going with a much shorter oral statement.
It's our pleasure to indeed testify today before you about FHWA's efforts to assure that, on January 1, 2000, our Nation's highway system is not only safe, but it will also be functional. We are attempting to achieve this under the leadership of President Clinton and Secretary Slater within the realm of safety, which is our number one transportation priority. We are working with our partners in government and industry. Our goals is that there will be safe, functional surface transportation in place on January 1, 2000. Based on our efforts today, we are confident that we will have a safe system and that all efforts will have been successful in assuring the achievement of Y2000 compliance.
Until September of 1997--and I'm sorry that Representative Horn is not here; he recognized Federal Highway for the fact that we got started very early in our efforts to assure that our internal systems were year 2000 compliant. The Federal Highway continues to work and make great headway in ensuring that all nine of our mission-critical systems have been assessed, modified, and we are currently in the process of testing them.
Meanwhile we are also forming new and expanding existing partnerships. We are using the Federal highway and U.S. Department of Transportation websites, as well as our headquarters personnel, our field personnel, software and technology, to provide technical assistance in three essential areas. The first is intelligent transportation systems. The second is traffic control systems. And then, finally, activities associated with financial, and human resource acquisition, and program implementation to non-Federal operators and managers.
Page 254 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
In the area of intelligent transportation systems, FHWA has developed a very active outreach program. We are working with groups such as the National Association of Working Groups for Intelligent Transportation Systems and Public Technology Incorporated to provide focused outreach to local governments, to make sure that they too are focusing on this critical area. The Public Technology Incorporated entity was commissioned and has prepared a basic primer, copies of which we will be providing to the members in which we talk about running out of time: Intelligent Transportation Systems and the New Millennium.
[The information follows:]
********** COMMITTEE INSERT **********
Ms. JEFF. This is intended to be a mechanism by which locals will begin to see, in the era of intelligent transportation systems, the kind of actions that they need to take and the fact that the year 2000 is, indeed, an essential year and one that needs to be addressed, looking at their software and their technological capabilities. We also have a new ITS cooperative deployment network and its website is indicated in my written statement and has a forum for discussion of year 2000 issues, as well as case study information.
The Federal Highway also took the lead in the one DOT effort associated with conducting a national ITS year 2000 summit in this past July. The summit was intended to move the focus from simply making people aware of the fact that there is a year 2000 problem to one of looking at what kind of collaborative and collective action could be taken. It was cosponsored, in addition to DOT, by some 22 major national professional and industrial organizations who have agreed to partner with U.S. DOT on this matter.
We brought together over 180 State, local, and industry leaders to look at what the assessment issues were and what kind of collaborative actions could be taken. The groups included entities like the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the American Public Transportation Association, the American Association Port Authorities, the National Private Truck Council, and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. This last group, Mr. Chairman, is a group that actually produces the technology that we use in a lot of our surface transportation systems.
Page 255 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
The summit's participants shared progress reports on where they were in their own efforts and exchanged information on success strategies that could be employed by others. In addition, another output from that particular meeting was the production of another document which we provided to the committee members which is Steps For Action. It's intended to focus on, again, the non-Federal participants in the process so that they will have an organizing tool by which they can begin the process of mapping, assessing, implementing, and taking corrective actions to address Y2K problems within their own mission-critical systems.
[The information follows:]
********** COMMITTEE INSERT **********
Ms. JEFF. In addition to the summit, we also, in the area of ITS, have established an electronic forum on the Internet, within the context of the Federal Highway website so that there's an ability to share information. And it's a two-way dialogue, so that it's not just dial-in and take a look at the information there, but you can ask questions and engage others in a chat-box fora about these sets of activities. We also are utilizing the U.S. DOT's outreach action program to--action team, rather, to assure that there is communication not only in the Highway mode, but among the others as well.
Skipping ahead to the traffic control systems. These are critical systems. These are the mechanisms by which we manage traffic. And we are going to--we are partnering with State DOTs and local units of government to make absolutely sure that those are in compliance.
I want to skip ahead to resource acquisition. I see the gavel and so I'm going to whip right along. To focus on this whole area of not just making sure they're got information, but how do they pay for it and how do they find the resources to make it happen. And we have gone through and looked at the eligibility requirements for Federal aid as well as motor carrier assistance and aggressively working with States, metropolitan planning organizations to ensure, one, that they know what resources are available and, two, how they can streamline the process so that they can take advantage of the dollars that are available in T21, in the traditional categories.
Page 256 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that Secretary Slater and Administrator Wykle have emphasized the need to fix the Y2K problem to assure that we have a safe and functional transportation system. And, under their leadership, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that, when January 1, the year 2000, comes into place, that there will be a safe and functional system. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Jeff follows:]
********** INSERT **********
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
We turn now to, I think, a representative of one of the State departments of transportation that the Federal people are working with to tell us about what's happening in Minnesota, so far as the year 2000 project is concerned, Ms. Kathy Hoftstedt. Welcome.
Ms. HOFTSTEDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to submit testimony regarding the year 2000 readiness of the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Mn/DOT views year 2000 as a business, rather than a technical, issue. Our approach to addressing year 2000 issues is one of business continuation planning. Mn/DOT's greatest exposure appears to be in determining the year 2000 progress of its suppliers and business partners. Five potential areas of vulnerability for Mn/DOT are public utilities, trucking industry, railroads, U.S. DOT, and cities and counties.
In August 1998, Mn/DOT sent out a survey to 945 of its most critical suppliers to have them confirm their year 2000 readiness. To date, 70 percent have not responded to the survey. In addition, the Minnesota Department of Public Service surveyed 317 electric, natural gas, telecommunications, and pipeline utilities doing business in Minnesota. 50 percent of the respondents said they did not have a year 2000 project team in place to examine the effect year 2000 will have on their company.
Page 257 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
The Department of Public Service anticipates there could be isolated power outages outside of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. The larger power-generating plants have more built-in redundancy and tend to be owned by larger companies with more resource to resolve year 2000 issues. Smaller, city-owned utilities do not have the resources to identify and address year 2000 issues. To date, it has not been determined if there are problems with the substations located in smaller communities.
The Minnesota trucking industry's year 2000 readiness is also unclear. The Minnesota Trucking Association is beginning to become aware of the need to inventory and assess its routing and dispatching systems for year 2000 issues.
A third area of concern is the year 2000 readiness of railroads. Coordination between power companies, traffic signal controllers, and railroad grade crossing signals is essential for safe transportation of both trains and the motoring public. In February 1998, Mn/DOT communicated with 22 railroads to determine the status of their year 2000 effort. To date, Mn/DOT has received three responses. At this time, Mn/DOT is not sure of the direction the Federal Railroad Administration has given the railroads to begin testing equipment for year 2000 readiness.
The fourth area of concern is the year 2000 progress of the U.S. Department of Transportation, particularly the Federal Highway Administration. Mn/DOT depends on systems within the FHWA for funding and approval of projects.
Finally, Mn/DOT is greatly concerned as to the progress of cities and counties. In August, 1998, Governor Carlson sent out an urgency letter and year 2000 readiness survey to over 9,000 officials of school districts, townships, cities, and counties. To date, 30 percent have responded to the survey. The majority of the respondents are aware of year 2000 issues. Over half of the counties that responded have year 2000 project teams in place, but few cities or counties have project plans. Because of the liability issues associated with the year 2000, Mn/DOT continually is being challenged to ensure that products and services that purchases are year 2000 compliant while maintaining quality vendors.
Page 258 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mn/DOT is finding, as time progresses, that the year 2000 issue is filled with complexities and interdependencies. To ensure that we have addressed all of our issues and to help our business partners address theirs in a timely manner, it is essential that organizations are able to share test results and technical fixes. Passing of the Good Samaritan Act will facilitate that sharing. A Federal clearinghouse for this information would also help organizations to expedite their search for this information.
I have included in the more detailed report that I have given you Mn/DOT's status of its transportation infrastructure as far as intelligent information systems are concerned. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Hoftstedt follows:]
********** INSERT **********
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Our final panelist is Mr. Gordon Aoyagi, who is the chair of the Emergency Management Group, Montgomery County Government. And he's accompanied by Don Evans, Research Information Systems. Sir.
Mr. AOYAGI. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. We certainly want to thank this committee and certainly our congresswoman, Connie Morella, for the community as well as congressional leadership in dealing with the year 2000 issue: Will we get there on time?
The year 2000 issue is not just a technology problem. It is a business management problem of enormous proportions that must be addressed at the highest levels. It competes for precious resources and threatens the delivery of local government services.
Local government is a direct provider of services. It has three times more employees and its information technology is two times larger than the Federal Government. Imagine that IT systems at Federal installations are fully functional in the year 2000, but if the Federal employees cannot get there from here or when they get there they had no basic services, we will have failed in our mission. Clearly, a Federal and local government partnership is required.
Page 259 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Montgomery County, Maryland, has a population of about 840,000 and an annual operating budget of about $2 billion. We are one of three counties with a AAA bond rating from all three rating agencies, who have indicated that our Y2K program is a model for other local governments. Much of this approach is contained in the Year 2000 Best Practices manual that is currently being distributed by our Council Of Government. The county has a total of about 204 systems, with 43 percent well on their way towards remediation; 25 percent are complete or are awaiting certification. We've appropriated about $35 million to date and examples of our Y2K program management approach is contained in our testimony.
Our program has four phases: system compliance, business continuity, contingency planning, and community awareness and outreach. We expect to complete most of our system compliance by December of 1998 and plan to use 1999 for testing and contingency planning. Because of the uncertainties related to embedded chips and institutional electronic interrelatedness, emergency management planning is being initiated. The county will conduct an emergency management exercise in December, 1998 to test our readiness as well as our ability to respond to disruptions or failures of critical systems.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments will then test their regional readiness later in the spring of 1999. We hope that the lessons learned will be useful to other local governments in the Nation.
This background provides context to our Y2K transportation and infrastructure in the county. Our county has 3,100 center-line miles of State, local, and interstate road. Our transportation service is provided by Ride-On, Metrorail, Metrobus, and the Maryland MARC commuter rail. Other transportation services are provided by regional and private entities. The county also operates a regional airport and utilizes about 430 buildings. Water and sewer involves about 5,000 miles of water and sewer lines. There are also 19 Federal regulatory agencies located in the county.
Page 260 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Our transportation and infrastructure are interrelated and complex. Our county has an integrated, highly automated transportation management system with real-time traffic and transit information provided to the public via the Internet and cable TV. We expect that the county's transportation infrastructure will be year 2000 ready. Our 60 traffic cameras, our 790 traffic devices, our control systems, and our automated transportation management center have all been inspected and are currently being remediated. Electronic fueling, fleet management, and inventory are also being remediated.
Having done this much in Y2K, we're very concerned about embedded systems and that represents a real strain on local government. Local governments may not be able to provide additional Y2K funding for local transit systems because of the press for our own local resources.
We have recommended four Federal key roles in our testimony. We applaud the recent passage of the Y2K immunizing legislation to get better information on business continuity. Included in our proposal was a request to provide $7 million immediately to the National Capitol Planning Region, of which $5 million is for WMATA's Y2K funding gap. Another $1.5 billion is for a FEMA-like seed funding for local governments to develop their own Y2K contingency plans.
The extent of Y2K is still unknown. Many local governments are faced with scarce resources. Federal, State, and local government leadership are essential. Thank you for your attention.
[The statement of Mr. Aoyagi follows:]
********** INSERT **********
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, sir. Mr. Rahall.
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand we have another maiden voyage to this subcommittee this morning in Gloria Jeff's first testimony before us. In looking at her bio, I notice that she certainly comes to the Federal Highway Administration with an excellent background in research and resources and information. It has helped improve the quality of our national highway system in this country and our intermodal connectors.
Page 261 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. She's a regular, though, in this hearing room. This is not her first appearance.
Mr. RAHALL. Yes. Yes. That's true. Yes. I have noticed her presence here quite a few times.
Mr. PETRI. She was helping Mr. Slater a number of times.
Mr. RAHALL. Yes. And that she's been most effective in negotiations between FHWA, FTA, and the South African Department of Transportation. She has also been most instrumental in developing President Clinton's welfare-to-work initiatives that was part of NESTEA. So I do commend her and say that Secretary Slater and as well as current Administrator Kenneth Wykle have an excellent person to back him up. Welcome.
Ms. JEFF. Thank you, Representative Rahall.
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Gloria. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. I have a--maybe Mr. Aoyagi, because you did point out in your testimony that State and local government has twice the scale of the Federal Government in the United States and is much more fragmented and, therefore, could be a--while it might not destroy things across the United States the way it might if it were a systemic problem that's not addressed, could make things pretty miserable in a particular county or community if things go wrong. And you seem as though, in your testimony, you're pretty far along in working through the basics of your system; hope to done by December of this year and then spend next year doing contingency planning and figuring out how to adapt.
If, outside your system, have problems, could you describe at all--or Mr. Evans who is accompanying you--sort of how you are going about checking out your system and if you did find things that needed correcting and what would have happened had you not corrected them? Just give--bring to life a little bit about what it is we're talking about.
Mr. AOYAGI. Certainly. And thank you for that opportunity. Our approach was to be a multi-agency approach in Montgomery County. And that was to have all seven of our semi-independent local agencies coordinate all their Y2K efforts. So you can imagine, as we looked at public education systems versus a 911 system, how does one triage that.
Page 262 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
But, through the efforts of Mr. Evans and his office, a format was developed that quantified various mission-imperative versus mission-essential and other medium-risk systems. As we triaged that, then we allocated annual appropriations for the remediation of that effort.
What would have happened--well, what did we find? In many cases, we found a code to be--certainly the double-digit, as opposed to the four-digit. And had that system continued we would have been in a continuous loop and not been able to perform a critical function. We are finding, for example, in our E-911 system, very complex interrelationships with other municipalities in terms of reciprocal agreements and services related to electronic communication devices. In the simple thing of health care, we found that some of our life pack systems, which are carried by our emergency medical technicians, that the embedded chip needed to be upgraded to ensure that defibrillation equipment is available.
So it ran the full gamut of potential failures. And we're fortunate that we had the foresight and the commitment of our political leadership to provide the money to address it.
Mr. PETRI. So you're indicating that, had you done nothing and then someone, for example, had a emergency medical problem, and the crew might have shown up and the equipment wouldn't have worked and that person could have died as a result.
Mr. AOYAGI. We believe so, that there would have been a failure because of the embedded chip and in the case of a life pack, very critical piece of medical equipment, we would not have been able to fully respond in a timely manner and thus place that person in jeopardy.
Mr. PETRI. Has Minnesota made plans--you regulate or interact with, hopefully--maybe regulate is a little too strong--but do a lot of business with the trucking and the rail industry. Are you dependent in sort of regulating on their being in compliance? That is to say, you have weight--you check all things about trucks and look at their records. If they're not--if somehow their equipment doesn't work right, what will happen? I mean, will they be in violation in Minnesota when they're pulled over in a--don't you check? I mean, they have recorders on trucks to make sure that drivers not--
Page 263 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 5
Ms. HOFTSTEDT Overweight or overdimensional.
Mr. PETRI. Yes. Yes. So now comes 2000 and you are all in compliance and you're pulling people over to just check out their records and it's all a mess in many cases. So what will you do? Will you cite them? Or, say, well, come back; we'll let you go right now? Or haven't you thought about that?
Ms. HOFTSTEDT. I think where we would come in there is we do regulate them as far as overweight and overdimensional. What is imperative is that our scales are accurate to ensure that we are weighing them correctly. We do provide them with permits for being overweight or overdimensional. But as far as their records, most of their records are maintained in a log by hand, so there wouldn't--that's how we would check what they've done.
Where their problem comes in is their routing and their dispatching systems internally within their own company. So that's why we're working with the trucking industry to try and bring some kind of awareness there so that they will look at their own internal systems so that when year 2000 comes along, they will not have a problem with routing and dispatching trucks throughout Minnesota and throughout the country.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all very much for coming here and helping to draw attention of the public and transportation, pipeline sectors, other sectors to the scope of this problem. And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.]
Next Hearing Segment(5)