<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:61205.wais]
THE YEAR 2000 COMPUTER PROBLEM IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY
of the
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 15, 1999
__________
Committee on Government Reform
Serial No. 106-54
Committee on Science
Serial No. 106-52
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and the
Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform
______
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho (Independent)
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology
STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois JIM TURNER, Texas
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GREG WALDEN, Oregon MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
DOUG OSE, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. Russell George, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Matthew Ryan, Senior Policy Director
Bonnie Heald, Communications Director/Professional Staff Member
Chip Ahlswede, Clerk
Trey Henderson, Minority Counsel
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., (R-Wisconsin), Chairman
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York RALPH M. HALL, Texas, RMM**
LAMAR SMITH, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JOE BARTON, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
NICK SMITH, Michigan ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan* SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas
DAVE WELDON, Florida DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois NICK LAMPSON, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
KEVIN BRADY, Texas MARK UDALL, Colorado
MERRILL COOK, Utah DAVID WU, Oregon
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
Washington MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
GARY G. MILLER, California VACANCY
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South
Carolina
JACK METCALF, Washington
Subcommittee on Technology
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland, Chairwoman
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan**
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota* DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois MARK UDALL, Colorado
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DAVID WU, Oregon
KEVIN BRADY, Texas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MERRILL COOK, Utah MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin BART GORDON, Tennessee
STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
GARY G. MILLER, California
Ex Officio
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., RALPH M. HALL, Texas+
Wisconsin+
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 15, 1999............................... 1
Statement of:
Jhirad, David, Senior Advisor, Multilateral and Bilateral
Affairs, Department of Energy.............................. 16
O'Keefe, John, Special Representative for the year 2000,
Department of State........................................ 7
Wander, Elyse, senior vice president for planning and public
affairs, Travel Industry Association of America............ 16
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 3
Jhirad, David, Senior Advisor, Multilateral and Bilateral
Affairs, Department of Energy, information concerning Y2K.. 35
O'Keefe, John, Special Representative for the year 2000,
Department of State, prepared statement of................. 10
Wander, Elyse, senior vice president for planning and public
affairs, Travel Industry Association of America, prepared
statement of............................................... 19
THE YEAR 2000 COMPUTER PROBLEM IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999
House of Representatives, Committee on Government
Reform, Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology, joint with the
Committee on Science, Subcommittee on
Technology,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m.,
in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn
(chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology) presiding.
Present from the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology: Representatives Horn, Biggert,
Turner, Ose, and Walden.
Present from the Subcommittee on Technology: Representative
Morella.
Staff present from the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information, and Technology: Russell George, staff
director; Matthew Ryan, senior policy director; Chip Ahlswede,
clerk; Bonnie Heald, communications director and professional
staff member; P.J. Caceres and Deborah Oppenheim, interns; and
Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant.
Staff present from the Subcommittee on Technology: Jeff
Grove, staff director; Ben Wu, professional staff member; Joe
Sullivan, staff assistant; Trey Henderson, minority counsel;
Michael Quear, professional staff member; and Marty Ralston,
staff assistant.
Mr. Horn. This joint hearing of the House Subcommittee on
Government Management, Information, and Technology and the
Committee on Science's Subcommittee on Technology will come to
order.
Over the past several years, these subcommittees have been
prodding the Federal departments and agencies in the executive
branch to prepare their computer systems for the year 2000. In
only 107 days, these systems will be ready for action. The job
is unquestionably difficult. The time is running short and the
job is not done.
Millions of Americans are awaiting the coming millennium as
a time for celebrations. Airlines have begun offering
millennium vacation specials. Families are beginning to plan
how and where they will usher in the historic new year.
We learned at our hearing with the Federal Aviation
Administration last week that 35 countries have not yet
provided information on their airport and airline readiness.
This is of great concern. American travelers must have adequate
information on destinations that may be vulnerable to
widespread failures due to the year 2000 date change, whatever
and wherever it is, whether it is domestic or international.
Yesterday, the Department of State released consular
information sheets for nearly 200 countries and territories. We
received this information in the evening. Our staff and the
staff of the General Accounting Office quickly reviewed a
sample of information on 30 countries. In some instances, the
information was disturbing.
We found that many countries, including Brazil, China, and
Egypt are at risk of serious year 2000 failures such as the
loss of electricity, health care, and telecommunications.
We found that India faces problems with its ports, as well
as its electric power.
Japan's health care programs, for example, are lagging
behind other sectors of the Nation's economy, and the same is
true about the United States.
In addition, we found that several countries face potential
banking and financial failures, despite the industry's best
efforts to overcome this unique and worldwide computer
challenge.
We are not here today to take countries to task for their
poor performance in solving their year 2000 computer problems.
Rather, we want to provide the traveling public with
information on the potential problems that could occur abroad.
I am delighted with the panel we have this morning, and I
think it is important to note that citizens must make prudent,
informed decisions on when and where to travel over the
upcoming holiday season. To do so, however, requires that the
Federal Government provide timely and reliable information.
Mr. Ose raised the question the other day when the FAA
administrator was here that people make their travel plans now
and in October. They don't wait until Christmas and the
holidays in December.
I now yield for an opening statement to the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Turner.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.002
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to join you
and Chairwoman Morella today to assess the progress the State
Department and others have made in combatting the potential
international impact of the Y2K problem.
As we all know, Y2K rollover is a global problem, not just
a domestic issue, and, since we live in an interdependent
world, lagging Y2K preparations in other countries can affect
the safety of U.S. citizens abroad, as well as our national
political, economic, and security interests.
While the United States has taken the lead in preparation,
we certainly cannot merely afford to hope that the rest of the
world is ready, too.
To this end, I understand the State Department is actively
engaged in a Y2K policy formulation with 16 Federal departments
and agencies through the Y2K International Interagency Working
Group, which seeks to preserve regional, political, strategic,
military stability; safeguard our economic interests and
military bases abroad to ensure operational readiness; protect
our citizens abroad; and assess other countries' needs for
external assistance in overcoming possible Y2K problems.
Special efforts have been made to help these countries
identify Y2K vulnerabilities and to ensure effective
contingency planning.
Overall, significant progress has been made on Y2K
remediation and contingency planning worldwide; however, much
remains to be done.
Yesterday, the State Department released new consular
information sheets which informed the American public of
potential hazards to their health and safety occasioned by Y2K
problems abroad.
Today we will learn how these warnings are prepared, what
they mean, and what remains to be done to safeguard our
interests.
Because the protection of U.S. citizens traveling and
working abroad is the highest priority, we need to provide the
public with our very best assessments of Y2K preparedness
abroad so they can make responsible choices.
I look forward to the testimony today, and I again
compliment the chairman and Chairwoman Morella for their focus
on this very critical issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Well, I thank you for your very good opening
statement.
I now yield to the co-chairman of the task force on the
year 2000, and the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Technology
of the House Committee on Science, Mrs. Morella, the
gentlewoman from Maryland.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Chairman Horn.
I must say you do commence the meetings right on time, and
I appreciate that, and thank you for your leadership, also, in
crafting the plan for today's hearing. I think it is very
important.
As we move ever so closer to the January 1, 2000, deadline,
the American people are demonstrating an increased desire to
make their own determinations about the year 2000 computer
problem impact upon their lives.
Americans want to be individually empowered to choose their
own course of action by being provided with as much Y2K
information as possible. That's why I'm very pleased that the
State Department has begun preparing country-by-country
advisories to warn Americans living or traveling overseas about
possible failures related to the year 2000 technology problem.
Since the warnings detail how visiting Americans could be
affected by power outages, water shortages, and other
potentially serious Y2K problems in 194 countries, they give
Americans, to the greatest extent possible, the best indication
of where and what they should be doing as we usher in the new
millennium.
These reports will allow one to travel to various parts of
the globe with confidence, even though there have previously
been complaints about the difficulty in collecting adequate
data from foreign governments about possible computer failures.
I'm pleased that this important hearing on Y2K impact of
international travel is being held this morning. And, although
I must leave shortly to the House floor for consideration of my
bill authorizing aviation research and development, including
safety, I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished
panel on this important issue, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Well, we thank you and we wish you well and
success on the floor. Everybody has been a little tired last
night when it worked at midnight, but good luck.
I now yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert,
who is the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information, and Technology.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have no opening statement. I look forward to hearing from
the witnesses.
Mr. Horn. We thank you.
And as to the witnesses, just let me explain the procedure.
I know some of you have been before us before.
We'd like you to summarize your statement, and at least 10
minutes we'll give you for that. We've got a lot of comfort
space this morning, since you're our only panel, and we want
you to make your case as best you can, and that's very helpful
to all of us.
Sometimes the testimony comes in pretty late in the evening
and it's hard for all Members to get through it, but the staff
stay up all night and they've gone through it. So we're glad to
see you.
As you know, the other thing with this subcommittee is it
is a subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Reform,
and therefore all witnesses are sworn in as to their testimony,
so if the three of you and anybody that is going to advise you
during this hearing would stand up and raise your right hands,
we'll give you the oath.
We have five people assisting the witnesses and three
witnesses.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Horn. We will assume you are now all confirmed and can
speak with the truth.
We're going to do this in the order in which they are on
the agenda, and the first will be Mr. John O'Keefe, the special
representative for the year 2000 for the Department of State.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN O'KEEFE, SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE YEAR
2000, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. O'Keefe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Chairwoman, and members of the
committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf
of the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Management on
the Y2K phenomenon and the implications for international
travel.
The Department of State takes very seriously its
responsibility to inform U.S. citizens traveling or residing
abroad of potential hazards to their safety.
In my testimony today, I will discuss some of our efforts
to assess international Y2K readiness as we approach the
millennium. In particular, I will review the process we used to
develop Y2K data for our revised consular information sheets
released on September 14th to the public. I will also report on
the results of the September 9, 1999 test of our millennium
rollover reporting plan conducted last week.
Our consular information program, including public
announcements and publications and dissemination of consular
information sheets, has long served as the Department's primary
means of alerting the public to potential problems they may
encounter in different countries. It stands to reason,
therefore, that we use this program to inform Americans of
potential Y2K disruptions abroad.
In January of this year, we began our effort to educate the
traveling American public about the potential for year 2000
related disruptions abroad. The Department issued a worldwide
year 2000 public announcement. This January, public
announcements alerted traveling Americans to the Y2K
phenomenon, in general, and its potential to disrupt travel.
We issued a followup public announcement in July. The July
public announcement dealt with personal preparedness and
apprised the public of measures we are taking at our embassies
and consulates.
Parallel to these announcements, the Department asked our
missions abroad in January to engage their host country
counterparts and other local experts to determine Y2K readiness
in countries' key sectors, such as energy, emergency services
and telecommunications, and to report their findings.
In June, we combined the information from our posts with
data obtained from public sources and from U.S. Government
agencies to form a national Y2K consular information sheet
paragraph for each country citing the country's overall
preparedness for Y2K and its risk of potential disruptions.
Our missions then shared the findings and the national
paragraphs with host governments, explaining our responsibility
to apprise U.S. citizens of potential dangers to their safety.
After receiving feedback from host governments and
assessing additional information, we drafted our final country-
specific Y2K assessments. They were, again, presented to host
governments, many of whom took the Y2K issue more seriously in
light of our findings.
The assessments were also included in our updated consular
information sheets.
Yesterday, September 14th, the Department issued updated
consular information sheets for every country in the world.
Each revised consular information sheet contains a section
assessing general Y2K risks and preparedness in a specific
country.
Our fundamental purpose for releasing this information is
to apprise U.S. citizens of potential disruption they may
experience due to the Y2K phenomenon and allow Americans to be
better prepared and to make informed personal decisions about
travel on or about January 1, 2000.
The statements in the consular information sheets represent
our best judgment on potential problems for U.S. citizens
living and traveling abroad. It is not a score card. Please
understand that no one can predict with certainty what will
occur on or after January 1st. The information was gathered
from a number of open and confidential sources. If you would
like more-detailed information on how we came to these
judgments, I would be pleased to provide a classified briefing
on that process.
In addition to these standard tools of the consular
information program, we have raised Y2K awareness with the U.S.
public through an outreach program, including speakers, media
interviews, and publications.
Our embassies, consulates, and U.S. regional passport
agencies have supplemented these efforts with town meetings and
newsletters.
The Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs will
continue to provide the traveling public with updated, global
Y2K status assessments on its home page at http://
travel.state.gov. This site also contains Y2K-related links to
Websites of other U.S. Government agencies, international
organizations, and foreign governments, as well as non-
governmental organizations such as the Red Cross, the
GartnerGroup, and Global 2000.
A key factor influencing our ability to support Americans
abroad is the receipt of timely reporting from our overseas
hosts.
Last week, on September 9th, the Department tested its
ability to gather, analyze, and disseminate global Y2K
information in a timely and accurate manner. This test of the
Department's millennium rollover reporting plan represented the
most comprehensive worldwide Y2K reporting exercise within the
U.S. Government.
Because it was thought the digits 9/9/99 might cause minor
computer malfunctions, September 9th represented a good
opportunity to test our system's analytical capabilities and
reporting processes.
Beginning at 4 p.m., Washington time on September 8th, 163
posts transmitted reports via a Web-based application and by
cable to the State Department Information Y2K Center. Within
the center, a monitoring group analyzed the raw data to produce
status reports. The reporting mechanism focused on the local
status of host country critical sectors, power, transportation,
finance, water and waste water, emergency services, and
telecommunications.
The reporting was timely, the processing swift. Our
worldwide reporting found no serious September 9, 1999
problems. The mechanism for managing the information flow
functioned well, though not perfectly.
We will take lessons learned from the exercise to fine-tune
our data-gathering process. This exercise provided a foundation
upon which the Department can build to prepare for the January
turnover.
We will continue to coordinate our efforts with the
Information Coordinating Center of the President's Council on
Y2K and other U.S. Government agencies engaged in similar
tracking of year 2000 events.
This test also supplemented the work we have already done
on contingency planning for our missions worldwide and the
remediation in business continuity work our chief information
officer has completed for the Department's mission-critical
systems.
In summary, I believe our missions abroad and agencies here
have done an extraordinary job in raising awareness among
governments of many nations and in working with them to prepare
for the millennium. Our own house is largely in order. We stand
ready to continue our day-to-day operations during the rollover
here in Washington and at our embassies abroad. A Y2K task
force will be on duty, backup communication systems in place,
and the means of reporting events and of receiving instructions
tested and functioning.
We continue to work with other nations in preparing,
testing, and coordinating.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak to the subcommittee today. I will be
happy to answer questions the Members may have.
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much. We appreciate that
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Keefe follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.008
Mr. Horn. Our next witness is Dr. David Jhirad, the senior
advisor, multilateral and bilateral affairs for the Department
of Energy.
Dr. Jhirad.
STATEMENT OF DAVID JHIRAD, SENIOR ADVISOR, MULTILATERAL AND
BILATERAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Jhirad. Thank you very much, Chairman Horn and
Chairwoman Morella, members of the committee.
As the Department discussed with your staff earlier, we are
here to answer any and all questions about the status of the
energy and electricity sectors worldwide in our position in
supporting the State Department and the International Working
Group on Y2K in the government.
We do not have a formal statement at this time, but the
Department would like to volunteer to make a statement for the
record available after the hearing, but we certainly are here
to answer any of the Members' questions about the energy and
electricity sectors and how their vulnerability might affect
other infrastructure areas.
So I'm really here as a resource person to support my
colleagues at the Department of State and to support your
committee, and we will submit a formal statement for the record
if you so wish.
Mr. Horn. Well, thank you very much. Actually, the question
and answer dialog is what we prefer, so that's fine with us.
We now move to Ms. Elyse Wander, who is the senior vice
president for planning and public affairs, Travel Industry
Association of America.
Ms. Wander.
STATEMENT OF ELYSE WANDER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR PLANNING
AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, TRAVEL INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Ms. Wander. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman, members of the
committee, good morning. My name is Elyse Wander. I'm the
senior vice president, planning and public affairs, for the
Travel Industry Association of America, more commonly known as
TIA.
TIA is a nonprofit association representing all components
of the $502 billion U.S. travel industry. Our mission is to
promote and facilitate increased travel to and within the
United States.
I'm here to testify on the year 2000 computer problem as it
relates to travel. Y2K is of great concern to the travel and
tourism industry. I want to assure the members of the committee
that the safety and security of domestic travelers and
international visitors to the United States is the top priority
of the U.S. travel industry today and in year 2000 and beyond.
TIA just yesterday announced a new program aimed at
marketing and promoting the United States as the premier travel
destination in the world. We hope the emphasis the U.S. travel
industry has placed on Y2K readiness will reassure
international travelers that the United States will be a safe
and secure destination this millennium holiday and beyond.
I would like to take a few moments to share with you the
results of a recently concluded survey that shows U.S.
travelers believe the industry has done a good job to ensure
the Y2K problem will not affect travel in the United States
this millennium holiday.
TIA conducted a survey of 1,500 U.S. adults. The results of
the survey have not yet been published. That will happen later
this month, so I have a preview for you.
The findings will show that 24 percent of U.S. adult
travelers are very or somewhat likely to travel for this New
Year's holiday. Many plan to travel by car, and many will stay
in a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast.
Three out of five New Year's travelers plan to use their
personal vehicle.
A third of New Year's travelers plan to travel by airplane.
Interestingly, those planning to travel by car have a
greater fear that Y2K-related problems will affect their travel
than those planning to travel by plane over the new year.
These statistics may suggest that municipal governments and
State governments, State transportation departments, need to do
a better job of communicating that U.S. communities are
prepared for the millennium holiday travelers.
The survey statistics also indicate that the airline
industry is doing a good job in keeping the public informed of
its progress and Y2K readiness.
The airlines have invested a lot of money and manpower to
ensure their industry is compliant, and they've also done a
great job in issuing periodic reports on their status, one as
recently as last week.
Let's talk for a moment about travel agents, because they
are the consumer's preferred means for making airline
reservations and obtaining information about air fares and
schedules.
More than 100,000 travel agencies that book around 80
percent of all world travel depend on the computer reservation
system companies, or CRS companies. The good news that we've
obtained is that neither the large CRS companies nor any major
airlines have reporting significant problems with the year 2000
rollover that they conducted earlier this year.
Now for a word or two on the lodging industry.
Of likely New Year's travelers, 44 percent intend to stay
at a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast, according to the
results of the TIA survey. The American Hotel and Motel
Association [AHMA], has prepared a Y2K compliance guide for its
members. AHMA has also provided the public and its members with
links to Y2K status of products and computer systems, so we see
a trend here of the work being accomplished and the consumers
being informed about where things stand.
TIA's survey shows that 61 percent of those surveyed said
they're not at all likely to travel for the New Year holiday;
however, only 5 percent claim fear of potential Y2K problems as
a reason for not traveling. And, of all those surveyed, only 7
percent felt that Y2K would cause major problems for travelers
over the New Year's holiday weekend. Two-fifths of respondents
felt that Y2K would cause some minor problems for New Year's
travelers, while another one-fourth felt Y2K would not cause
any problems for travelers.
So what does all this tell us? The survey results show that
U.S. travelers believe the travel industry in the United States
has done a good job in preparing for January 1, 2000, and the
industry has effectively communicated that the United States
will be a marvelous place to usher in the new millennium.
The confidence of our survey's respondents reflects in
great part on the hard work and dedication of this committee. I
want to assure the members of the committee that we will remain
vigilant on this issue, just as I am sure members of the
committee will continue to work toward our common goal of
safety and security of United States and worldwide citizens.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify before
you today. I'd be happy to supplement my testimony with answers
to any questions you may have.
Mr. Horn. Well, we thank you. That's a very helpful
statement, and we're delighted that you have those surveys to
show us.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wander follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.013
Mr. Horn. We are now going to begin the round of questions.
Each Member will be limited to 5 minutes, and we'll have a
second round or a third or a fourth, but that way it spreads it
to everybody on both sides of the aisle.
So I'll first yield to the co-chairman of the task force,
the gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Morella.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad I was here
to hear the testimony, since the Defense conference report was
coming up before the FAA research and development bill, and I
find it to be very valuable, because we have been very
concerned about overseas travelers and very concerned about the
power industry and energy power grids, and we've been very
concerned about the travel agencies and what you say to people
when they come for booking for flights, as well as hotel
reservations.
I'm looking at the chart, and, of course, I can remember
hearing that, for instance, Polish Airlines said they weren't
going to fly at all. Remember when China Airlines said they
were going to put all their executives and their government
people in the air? I thought, ``What a way to have a coup in a
country.'' And now to see these reports, I'm curious, Mr.
O'Keefe, what was the process that the State Department used to
collect the data?
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes, Madam Chairwoman, we used the information
from, as I mentioned, all sources that were available to us.
The first cut was last November/December, when we had a
list of specific questions we asked our embassies to address to
the host government. At the same time, there were other
agencies in government which were also doing analysis on Y2K.
As we moved into June, we've taken all the information that
our embassies have provided, combined that with other agency
information, and especially with open source information--
Global 2000, GartnerGroup, those other organizations that were
providing information--as well as international organizations,
and distilled it into paragraphs and presented it to the host
government.
There were two points to this. One is that our primary
responsibility is to the safety of U.S. citizens who are living
or traveling abroad. We must protect those citizens.
There are two ways to do it. One is, of course, to advise
them of potential hazards, which we have done. The other is to
work with host governments to make sure that those hazards are
diminished as much as possible, and that consultation with
governments was as much to get the feedback as to get some
action on their part in terms of transparency, contingency
planning, and things like that.
So, basically, we looked everywhere we could for the
information--governments around the world, other sources, our
own agencies around town.
Mrs. Morella. A major reliance was the self-reporting,
though, wasn't it?
Mr. O'Keefe. The self-reporting by?
Mrs. Morella. Reporting by the countries.
Mr. O'Keefe. No, ma'am. I would say that that was----
Mrs. Morella. Was there verification? Maybe you----
Mr. O'Keefe. I would say verification. So, for example, if
one of our embassies was asking questions about--to the host
government about particular sectors, they were also instructed
to check with the American Chamber of Commerce and with other
organizations that would rely on various sectors.
So, again, for example, if you ask the telecommunications
industry what they thought about the power industry, you would
get one kind of answer, and that would be different both from
the Government and what the power industry, itself, might tell
you, so there was a lot of cross checking.
Mrs. Morella. When you found that there was a discrepancy
with regard to the sources that you used, as compared to what
the governments had said, how did you handle that? Did you just
put it down as your report or did you in some way get back to
them and say this is what this is going to mean in terms of
liabilities or consequences, or we want to help? Was there a
followup?
Mr. O'Keefe. If there was a discrepancy between what we
found and what the host government found, our first
responsibility was, of course, to our citizens, and so for
discrepancies ultimately we would rely on our own sources of
information. And we did have assistance from other agencies in
government in helping us sort out all these mounds of
information.
Mrs. Morella. You expect they are going to be changing the
information that you have from the countries? Will you be
updating at a certain point? Do you have a deadline?
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes, ma'am. We will be continuously updating
it, and there are some events that are coming up over the next
few months. Mr. Jhirad probably can give you more detail, but
there is an International Energy Agency Contingency Planning
Conference coming up in October, which will cover Eastern
Europe and Western Europe, and I believe that there will be a
lot of good data that will come out of that that will help with
informing the United States public.
Mrs. Morella. Dr. Jhirad, your area is the one--one of the
areas where we have the greatest amount of concern,
particularly when we know what is happening or not happening in
Russia or the Ukraine.
Have you worked with IAEA of the United Nations,
International Atomic--has that been part of the work you've
done?
Mr. Jhirad. Yes. We've worked both with the International
Energy Agency in Paris, which is the 24 members of the OECD and
includes all of the advanced industrial countries, as well as
with the IAEA on specifically nuclear reactor issues. And, with
the IAEA, we have sponsored a series of regional conferences on
the state of readiness, remediation, and contingency planning
in the major regions of the world.
We are now moving from the information exchange and
diagnostic phase to a much more hard-edged contingency planning
phase, and, in fact, we will be having, in--well, about a month
from now, in Prague, a meeting with some of the grid operators
and power plant operators in Russia, Ukraine, Eastern and
Central Europe, because, quite clearly, our concern is about
these inter-connected power grids, about the gas transport from
Russia into Western Europe, particularly Italy, and also there
is the issue of transit countries, like Ukraine, which is quite
vulnerable to Y2K breakdowns in the electric power sector.
So these workshops hopefully will give us a little more
ground truth about precisely what contingency plans have been
made.
I would just offer that when we had a workshop in Russia in
early July, that very little evidence was presented of either
testing or contingency planning, so there was cause for
concern, and we are now moving to the stage of having the
outcome of this meeting be what specific contingencies could
occur, what will be the magnitude, what will be the duration,
what kind of area will it affect, and what are the backup
plans. Is there diesel backup to run the power stations? Is
there backup to run the telecommunication systems? Those are
the kinds of things that we'd like to get out of this next
series of workshops.
Mrs. Morella. Keep us posted.
Ms. Wander, sorry I didn't get to you.
I just want to mention to the chairman and the members of
the subcommittee, I think we are one of the few legislative
bodies that has been so much involved with Y2K, because, as
I've traveled to other countries, they don't know what we're
talking about, quite frankly, very hazy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much.
I now yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner, the
ranking member. Five minutes for questioning.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Jhirad, I would like to ask you to describe for us,
just by way of background--we always hear a lot of talk about
failure in the energy sector, power grids failing. Educate us a
little bit about the reason for potential failures. What is
actually going on in the power grids that may create problems
and give us a sense of what we should be worried about or what
we are worried about?
Mr. Jhirad. There are two things we should be worried about
with power grids. One major area of vulnerability is what is
known as the supervisory control and data acquisition systems,
the SCDA systems, which take information from the individual
power plants into a kind of central control system--these are
essentially the central nervous systems of the power grids--and
are then able to dispatch the power plants in a certain order.
So this is really the control function for the whole power
grid that we are concerned about, both with respect to
computers in them that have embedded chips that might not be
Y2K compliant, as well as the software.
If those systems fail, then the grid will have to be
manually operated. People will have to get on the phone or
radio communication and give instructions to power plant
operators about how they should operate the plant, so there is
a manual backup provision provided there is a
telecommunications system.
If the telecom system goes down because there isn't power
to run it and there is no backup diesel fuel, then even manual
backup becomes tough.
So, one area of concern in a power grid is that central
control system that dispatches the power plants.
The second area refers to the relationship between nuclear
plants and the grid. Most nuclear plants are programmed to shut
down if there is a variation in the grid voltage or the grid
frequency, and, sensing a variation, they will shut down, and
once they shut down they will de-link from the grid and you
will lose even more power, so that an initial blackout or
brownout could be amplified and could be made worse by a plant
shutting down.
The danger that there might be a serious nuclear accident
is considered very minimal. In fact, more the concern is the
plant shutting down because the grid is unstable.
So those are the two key areas in power grids to watch very
carefully.
Mr. Turner. So you have no serious concern about any
nuclear disaster at a power plant because of failure of the
computer system?
Mr. Jhirad. That's the evidence that we're getting, that we
should not be concerned about a serious power plant accident.
The real concern is whether those power plants can be
operated with either diesel fuel, because those power plants
will still need to have their cooling systems operate, because
they're constantly producing heat, so it will be important to
have enough supplies of diesel fuels, for example, in Russia
and Ukraine to run the plants should they disconnect.
But that's the concern more than the probability of a
serious reactor accident.
Mr. Turner. For a country that is not prepared, does not
have contingency plans to operate--address either of the
problems you mentioned. I guess the result could be a brownout
or a blackout that would last for an extended period of time?
Mr. Jhirad. That's correct, Congressman Turner. The length
of the blackout, of course, is uncertain, and how long they
could last--they would have to bring in auxiliary supplies of
fuel--this could range anything from a few hours to a few days,
and it could be scattered geographically.
But one of the things that we're trying to get a handle on
in these meetings between now and December is precisely what is
the worst credible case that could happen, how long would the
blackout be, and over what region. That's the kind of
information we haven't really received yet.
Mr. Turner. Are there other potential Y2K problems or
potential disruptions that may occur in the energy sector other
than the electrical grids failing? Do we have other types of
problems relating to energy?
Mr. Jhirad. Yes. There are two other sectors, one is gas
and the gas network. Many of the gas transmission systems are
run with compressors that use power from the power grids. Some
of them generate their own power. But if a power grid goes
down, there's a chance that the compressors that pump the gas
will not work and the gas will not be pumped.
Now, in the case of gas, there is storage. Many countries
have several days of storage of gas. Germany has 3 months of
storage. So it's not as critical. Electricity is more critical
because it is a just-in-time industry; gases have some buffers
in the system.
The third area which we are well equipped to deal with is
the oil market, and, again, the probability of any significant
disruption--and this is from all the information we get from
our own industry and from State oil companies--is considered
very minimal. Again, there is plenty of oil in private
inventories, in strategic petroleum reserves, in tankers on the
high seas, so, again, it is an industry with a lot of buffers
in it, so if there were any Y2K-related glitches or disruption,
the industry feels that measures are available to handle it,
but the risk of disruption is considered pretty low.
Mr. Turner. We had been told a few weeks ago that there may
be a problem with international shipping that could disrupt the
movement of oil tankers. Are you familiar with that potential
problem?
Mr. Jhirad. Yes, we are, even though we have not been
intimately involved with that aspect of it, but certainly
members of the Department have been working with the Coast
Guard, which has the lead in doing port readiness exercises in
the United States, and hopefully some of the major oil
exporters would adopt those same exercises.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
Mr. Horn. I now yield 5 minutes for questioning to the vice
chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology, Mrs. Biggert, the gentlewoman from
Illinois.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing.
Mr. O'Keefe, what means are you using to communicate with
American citizens abroad, and what contingency plans are there
in case the regular telecommunications are disrupted?
I'm thinking not only of those that live abroad, but let's
say somebody is traveling over there and there is a glitch.
Would you have a way to reach them?
Mr. O'Keefe. It is a very serious problem. The normal means
obviously is the Website that we have and the 800 number that
citizens can call in and get information.
Each embassy has been required to develop a contingency
plan, both for its operation and the American citizen services
section, so they have a warden system which tends to be a
telephone tree kind of warden system, often using faxes to
hotels.
We've asked that they take a look at that warden system and
their means of communication to other citizens and look for
backup means of doing it.
If, in fact, as Dr. Jhirad said, you have a power problem,
you are probably going to have a telecommunications problem
eventually, and, in going over this alternative means,
obviously, in a city you can courier the information around to
the hotels.
For those citizens who are spread out in the countryside,
there are ham radio operators, and taking a look at that, and
there are--which is actually more effective--cooperation with
the host government in providing use of their emergency radio
nets to transmit.
The other means we have, of course, is Voice of America,
and so people who have transistor radios can pick that up, and
often people who are sort of way out in the boondocks will have
that alternate means of communication.
Mrs. Biggert. Well, would you expect that--what would you
tell them if there is a power outage? What kinds of things
would be suggestions for what to do?
Mr. O'Keefe. Well, the warden network would be activated if
there is risk to U.S. citizens and if we felt that U.S.
citizens should leave the country, and the information would be
dependent on conditions in the country.
But, for example, if, in fact, we found conditions had
deteriorated, that we were recommending that U.S. citizens
depart the country, there would be information about sites
where they could go to get the transportation to move out of
the country.
We work very closely with--obviously, with the military on
some of these kinds of evacuations, or with commercial
carriers.
Mrs. Biggert. I think probably one of the most frustrating
things about traveling is waiting and not knowing how long you
are going to have to wait. So I would imagine that if
communication could be improved--they're working on the power
and it probably will be restored within 3 days or something
would be helpful. Would that be the kind of communication that
would also be made?
Mr. O'Keefe. I think that would be appropriate. If there
is--hopefully, would be that kind of predictability to it.
Mrs. Biggert. Is there an international sector that
represents the greatest potential for failure? Maybe you could
answer that or maybe Dr. Jhirad would know.
Mr. O'Keefe. Well, I do--as we walk through these issues,
the sector that always looks most vulnerable is the power
generation distribution system, just because of the--it tends
to be more technological. Even in a country that doesn't have a
lot of technology, it's one sector that does tend to have a
certain amount into it as the telecommunications, but I would
say Dr. Jhirad has the toughest sector, and I'm glad he's here.
Mrs. Biggert. OK. Ms. Wander, you said that 24 percent of
American citizens are planning on traveling during this period
of time. Do you have a breakdown about how many are planning
international travel?
Ms. Wander. No, I don't, Congresswoman. Consistent with
TIA's mission, we are interested in bringing visitors to the
United States and pay little attention to the outbound volumes.
Mrs. Biggert. I would suppose that the other factor in that
would be to know if travel has decreased, even though people
might say that they're not concerned about Y2K, if more people
are staying home this year, that would be a factor or not.
Ms. Wander. I can speak domestically, and we've taken a
look at advanced bookings, both for the holiday season and
early into the first part of year 2000, and they look about--
depending on the segment, they look about the same as they were
for this year, and in some cases slightly above, so so far we
are not seeing a dropoff.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. We thank you.
And now I turn to the gentleman that started all of this
last week when he asked a question about the travel plans for
the individuals not waiting until December or January, but the
one's that plan now, and that's why this hearing has resulted,
and, of course, we started with Mr. Ose's questions to the FAA
administrator, so I'm now delighted to recognize for 5 minutes
the gentleman from California, Mr. Ose, for questioning.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just an aside for my colleague from Illinois, the typical
amount of cancellations over the New Year's holiday for
domestic travel headed outward is about 10 percent, and right
now preliminary indications are that the cancellations are
running at about a 20 percent level, so it's about twice the
normal level.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for sharing with us the
list of the 35 countries who have not responded to our
circular, but I want to followup, more interestingly, on the
information sheets that were provided this morning.
I don't mean to be--I don't mean to diminish the travel we
get from other countries, but, as I look at a map, I'm
particularly concerned about countries with whom we do a lot of
business or a lot of travel, and I start with Canada and
Mexico.
Travel to Canada, according to this report, looks to be a
low risk, which would be on page three, and Mexico--I saw it
here a moment ago--on page nine appears to also be a low risk.
Is that consistent with the understanding that each of you
have?
Mr. O'Keefe. Mr. Congressman, yes, sir, that is consistent,
and I would say, in particular, with Canada and Mexico we have
both bilateral and trilateral activities that go on all the
time. In fact, with Canada there are 11 sectors that meet on a
regular basis to do joint contingency planning and also to
share information on how they've gone about preparing for the
millennium. And with Mexico, largely the same situation.
Dr. Jhirad mentioned the port exercises that the Coast
Guard had conducted. The Mexicans joined the Coast Guard in New
Orleans for the oil exercise, and that's just one example.
There's been a lot of work, as I understand, between United
States Customs and Mexican Customs because of the great amount
of material that transits the California border, Texas,
Arizona, and New Mexico.
And so it is probably--because they're our neighbors, they
are two countries where the dialog has been early and often. We
started that last December.
Mr. Ose. Let me jump shift then to trading partners with
whom we have a very great amount of commerce--for instance,
Japan and Germany and the growing trade we have, for instance,
with China. Japan and Germany are highly industrialized and,
according to the report, have made significant progress, but,
for instance, China remains somewhat problematic at this point.
Can you provide any input on that?
Mr. O'Keefe. Well, just in general, APEC has finished its
leaders' meeting last week in New Zealand, and in the closing
statement it was agreed that all the APEC countries, including
China, would adopt a 100-day program on preparedness for Y2K
and regional contingency planning.
The Chinese, as well as other APEC countries, have joined
in an activity which is a tool kit which identifies cross-
border dependencies that might be affected by Y2K. It could be
strategic minerals like petroleum, or it could be connected
power grids. And the Chinese are participating, as well as the
Japanese.
Again, for Japan and Germany there's a G8 Contingency
Planning Conference next week in Berlin, and part of that
conference is a workshop on contingency planning, obviously.
The Japanese are leading the energy sector, and Dr. Jhirad has
been in contact with his Japanese colleagues on this.
The United States is doing transportation, Canada is doing
telecommunications, and the U.K. is doing federal and regional
government.
But, as part of that overall activity, we'll be working
with our fellow G8 members to take a very close look at what
next steps and additional steps we all need to take.
Mr. Ose. Well, let me go back then to the People's Republic
of China.
This report here on the Consular information sheets
indicates that ``there may be a risk of disruption in the key
sectors of finance, telecommunications, medical services, and
in the electric power and infrastructure systems outside of the
coastal cities.'' That's a fairly large problem area, if you
will, and I am most attuned to the consequences.
We do have a lot of, for instance, recreational travel
there. We have a burgeoning commercial sector with China. I'm
not sure what we're going to be able to accomplish in 100 days,
if you will. Maybe China is different than some of the western
countries.
Mr. O'Keefe. In terms of remediation, 100 days isn't a lot
of time. In terms of contingency planning, that is a fairly
substantial amount of time, especially in a country where, in
terms of human resources, the number of people you can throw at
a problem is very substantial.
And also I think--and I'm no expert in this, but I believe
the level of technology varies region by region.
You also--and not just China, but any country, one has to
try to think about not simply disruption, but how long a
disruption has to go on before it really affects United States
national interest.
So if, in fact--this is for travelers, and travelers really
need to know if they are going to be without power for 24 hours
or they can't get money from an ATM machine or the local bank
has a currency shortage for several days. That does not mean
that U.S. national interest and trade would necessarily be
affected.
If the lights go out for 24 hours, let's say in Beijing,
that doesn't affect United States national interest and it
probably will not affect the Chinese economy.
The hard part about this, frankly, is it is hard to tell
what the duration is going to be, and our objective, just as
you have pointed out, is to work with countries on joint
contingency planning and in trying to make sure that these
problems are mitigated as much as possible.
And, again, the Chinese did join the Coast Guard in Oakland
for the test in Oakland, and they have indicated that they
would like to have further cooperation with port operations, so
we're seeing them step out and working with us.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Thank you.
Before I turn to Mr. Walden to begin the second round, I
want to exercise my own 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Keefe, I'm just curious. We've taken a look at the
Website of the United Kingdom and their travel advisories, and,
for example, the State Department reports--you report that, in
terms of Ukraine, they may be unprepared for Y2K. However, the
United Kingdom, in its Website, tells its citizens, ``not to
travel in the Ukraine.''
Are we afraid to issue strong warnings about that, or does
the United Kingdom not really have the picture and we do, or do
we not have the picture?
Mr. O'Keefe. Mr. Chairman, I'm glad you swore in Mr.
Herbert, who is sitting behind me, because he is here to take
the hardest questions, and so----
Mr. Horn. OK.
Mr. O'Keefe. But before I turn to Mr. Herbert, who can go
over the travel warning piece, you heard earlier about the
conference on the electric power grid that's going to occur in
October. The Ukraine is joining in that, and I think we are
going to have much better information at that point.
So, while our judgments and the U.K.'s judgments differ
slightly in terms of specific information about traveling to a
place, we will be updating that information as we move along.
But if you will allow me, I will turn to Mr. Herbert.
Mr. Horn. Please go ahead, and then I'd like Dr. Jhirad to
get into this.
Welcome, Mr. Herbert.
Mr. Herbert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We were aware that the U.K. had a slightly different view
than we did on the Ukraine. I think our consular information
sheet does indicate the potential for failures in a number of
sectors in the Ukraine. We just didn't determine at this point
that a travel warning was quite yet justified.
We do do a travel warning on any country where we do feel
it would be unsafe for Americans to go to. As of yesterday,
when we released this, we weren't convinced that it was timely
to say, ``Do not go to Ukraine at this time.'' But certainly we
are aware of the British concerns and our own concerns, and if
we reach the same conclusion we will certainly issue a travel
warning.
We do these routinely throughout the year whenever a
situation develops in a country in which we feel it is unsafe
for American citizens to be there, and we will certainly do
that on the Ukraine or any other country between now and
January 1st where it is determined that it would be unsafe to
be there.
Mr. Horn. Well, I guess we're safe when the Ukrainian
caucus delegates from this House meet with the Kiev Parliament,
and that's the end of November, so I guess we're safe at this
point.
Let me ask the gentleman from the Energy Department, in
terms of looking at nuclear reactors, which has been a major
interest to this subcommittee, in terms of the relationships
between the ones in Ukraine and the ones in Russia, is there
any problem at all in terms of the grid? And is that grid
between Ukraine and Russia fairly traditional in the sense of
what we have in the United States between Canada, the United
States, and various regions within the United States? I'm just
curious about that.
Mr. Jhirad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, until about December of last year, Ukraine was buying
power from Russia. They have a grid connection. The Russians
are not selling them any power right now because they weren't
paying for it, so that grid is not really functioning in
anything remotely like the United States/Canadian situation
right now. The second point you raised--but that's an important
point if Ukraine has power problems, the possibility of getting
power from Russia.
The second issue you raised is the one of serious concern,
which is that Ukraine already has a lot of power outages. It
has very little excess capacity. Unreliability is occurring all
the time. So they don't have any margin, any reserve margin,
any cushion if one of their nuclear plants has to be taken out
of the grid.
The U.S. Government is currently funding a team of utility
experts from the Southern California Edison Co. and from
Pacific Northwest Labs to do a solid assessment of what the
problems are in the electric power grid in Ukraine and what the
contingencies could be in terms of real numbers--how long, how
serious, and so forth.
Mr. Horn. In the judgments made by the Department of
Energy, is there any relationship and interaction between
Energy and our own Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or is this
strictly done within the Department of Energy?
Mr. Jhirad. There has been a lot of interaction with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission on this. The Department of
Energy, with funds from USAID, has a program to train reactor
operators in Ukraine in some of the mission-critical systems
and how to remediate them, and so there has been quite a lot of
interaction with the NRC on that.
Mr. Horn. Is there--well, have people from the Department
of Energy looked at some of the reactors that still exist in
Ukraine and in Russia? Now, as I'm told, there's a different
type of reactor normally than what we have in the United
States--let's say in Illinois. Is that true, there's a
difference here?
Mr. Jhirad. Yes, it's true. And we have looked at that and,
in fact, one of our national labs has produced a report on
that, which we would be very happy to provide the committee.
Mr. Horn. Well, we'd be delighted, and at this point in the
record we'll put it.
The reason I raised that, just to finish that question, is
I don't know--I'll have to ask Mr. George, the staff director,
if I've still not received an answer from the NRC on our
questions----
[Question asked of staff off the record.]
Mr. Horn. We have an answer now. Well, the issue with us
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was that they said,
``Well, we're only going to look at 10 percent of the U.S.
reactors,'' and we said, ``How about looking at 100 percent?''
Then we got into a conversation about how our reactors are
different and you don't have to worry about them and don't
worry about what goes on in Europe and so forth. So I'm just
curious where the Energy Department stands. Do we have a total
audit of our own reactors, or do we just let them do 10 percent
of it?
Mr. Jhirad. On the domestic reactor situation, Mr.
Chairman, I'd have to get back to you on that.
Mr. Horn. OK. Well, I'd be interested to know if there is a
position you have on when you're auditing what's going on in a
particular reactor and how much that is done by the Department,
as opposed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mr. Jhirad. I can get back to you in writing on that.
Mr. Horn. Fine.
Mr. Jhirad. I know that it's largely an NRC responsibility.
Mr. Horn. We'll save a space in the record, without
objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61205.023
Mr. Horn. We now start the second round, and that's the
gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden.
Do you have some questions?
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this point I do not
have any questions.
Mr. Horn. We'll now yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Turner, to start the second round. He's got to make up for a
few absences on his side.
Mr. Turner. That's true. Mr. Chairman, I have to go to the
floor, so you'll have to excuse me.
Mr. Horn. OK. Are they voting? Let me know.
Mr. Turner. Well, shortly they will be.
Mr. Horn. Yes. OK. I thank the gentleman.
I now ask the co-chairman of the task force, the
gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Morella, for further
questioning. She did leave.
Then we'll go to Mrs. Biggert, second round, 5 minutes.
Mrs. Biggert. I'm still here.
Ms. Wander, you said that your trade industry association
represents all segments of the U.S. travel and tourism
industry. Is there any segment of the industry that you're
concerned about due to Y2K problems?
Ms. Wander. Based on the inquiries we've made of our
members, frankly, no, there's none that we're worried about,
but we're very aware of the fact that our industry depends on
so many others, as I think this morning's discussion has
evidenced.
I would point out, though, that since the survey statistics
indicate that most travel plans are predicated on the use of
the automobile, our concern lies at the local level around stop
lights, automated bridges, electricity availability, and the
like. So we would hope that the efforts at the local level are
underway and turn out to be successful.
Mrs. Biggert. Let's say there is a problem if someone is
traveling--and it could be by plane, it could be by train, or
it could be by airlines, and somebody is going from Los Angeles
to New York, or vice versa, and there is a Y2K failure in the
town, the place that they're going to. Is there a way to--who
is going out and disseminating that information to people? How
will they find out? Is there--the airlines or the airports,
or----
Ms. Wander. I would imagine that each of the affected
segments--and we hope there are none, but it may happen--would
follow two courses of action. One would be to take advantage of
all media available--their Websites, television, radio, and the
like--to alert travelers that there is a problem, and then
there's the immediate difficulty that a traveler who is caught
in the middle of a problem faces, and what we know about our
industry's plans suggests that they would be fully staffed.
There's very little leave that is going to be allowed for, that
they will try to accommodate individual-by-individual to
alleviate the problems that might be encountered.
Mrs. Biggert. Well, it seems in the international travel we
do have the State Department and consulates that will be
notifying people. Is there anything that the travel industry,
itself, would be involved in? They're the ones that have sold
the tickets, or whatever, have planned the trip.
Ms. Wander. It falls fundamentally, in my view, to the
industry to take those steps to inform travelers. There is no
national tourism office. There is no longer a U.S. Travel and
Tourism Administration, unhappily. So the industry recognizes
that we will need to be the ones to take care of our passengers
and our travelers.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
Mr. O'Keefe, in one of the areas that I think is very
popular for travel, particularly at this time to get out of the
cold weather, is the Caribbean. Is this an area that is of
concern as far as travel there? Are most of the countries ready
for Y2K, according to--I know, like, St. Lucia, they say they
are somewhat prepared to deal with the Y2K problem, or St.
Vincent and the Grenadines. Would you recommend--and then
certainly St. Kitts and Nevis, which are still rebuilding from
the hurricane. Is this an area that is recommended for travel
at this time?
Mr. O'Keefe. Well, the travel--the consular information
sheets have sort of country-by-country, and so individual
travelers should take a look and make a judgment based on that
information.
In terms of overall regional preparedness, I would say that
there is a U.S. Information Agency and State Department-
sponsored gathering of Y2K coordinators for the Caribbean in
Miami next week just to go over this same--this very issue,
where we will--again, it is an information gathering and also
information giving kind of activity.
Perhaps Mr. Herbert, who is the managing director of the
Office of Overseas Citizens Services in our Consular Affairs
Bureau could add to that.
Mr. Herbert. I would just comment that I think we have a
greater concern about areas that will be involved in a winter
situation than we do in the Caribbean. Obviously,
inconveniences in the Caribbean are one thing, lack of heat in
a cold climate is something else. So I'm somewhat reassured
that the people in the Caribbean will be perhaps
inconvenienced, but not in a serious way.
Mrs. Biggert. So it might be better to go sailing than
skiing over the vacation.
I guess the problem to me probably would be the travel,
too, which is usually the most difficult to that area, but once
you get there how you get back might be the--would you say that
that might be more of a major problem?
Mr. Herbert. I think in all of this that being able to go
and come is a significant portion of the whole picture, no
matter where you are. If it is cold and you are not adequately
heated, you'd want to get on a plane and leave. But I'll leave
that to the Department of Transportation, FAA, to address that,
which they are doing separately.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. We thank you.
Let me just get on the record, for the average American
citizen that is going to do travel anywhere, you have an 800
number at the Department of State. How do they know where to
access that? Is it in their friendly local telephone book under
Federal agencies, or how many beeps have you got into your 800
line?
Mr. Herbert. Our primary point of contact with the public
is our Website, and we get 300,000 hits a day on there. We have
an 800 number. In times of crisis it's announced on CNN, et
cetera, if you need information. So if we get into a crisis
mode on Y2K, we will certainly have an 800 number. Normally, we
have lots of calls into our office in the course of a day, lots
of people checking out our Website.
Mr. Horn. Can you give us the 800 number now, for those of
us that occasionally travel?
Mr. Herbert. It's only activated when the crisis occurs,
and it is one that is assigned to us. I don't know what it
would be at this time. I'm sorry.
Mr. Horn. So the average citizen really has no way to know
unless it is a crisis, and they are usually military crises.
I've been in countries when that has happened, and----
Mr. Herbert. We have a standard number for emergencies that
people use all the time. That is 202-647-5225. That is into my
office, the Office of Overseas Citizens Services.
In terms of----
Mr. Horn. Is that the 300,000 calls a day that come into
your office?
Mr. Herbert. The 300,000 are hits on our Website.
Mr. Horn. Yes, on the Website.
Mr. Herbert. Right.
Mr. Horn. OK. What's the Website number?
Mr. Herbert. It's http://travel.state.gov. And our Website
has links to several hundred other Y2K-related Websites, also,
so that a person who comes to our site can access all kinds of
information on Y2K from a multiple number of sources.
Mr. Horn. Well, one of the things that interested me was
your consular information sheets, which provide a very good
snapshot, I think, of the country's readiness.
In the case of Italy, we know from the public record of
newspapers, people traveling there, so forth, that here we have
a major industrial democracy and they've often been reported as
being terribly behind in their year 2000 efforts. However, your
information sheets report that Italy's risks are somewhat
minimal.
To the contrary, the United Kingdom has been very
forthcoming in reporting its year 2000 readiness; yet, if you
read the United Kingdom's report, you could be led to believe
that the United kingdom poses a greater travel risk than Italy.
So what is the citizen who taps into these Websites--what
is to be made of it all, including the United States, by the
way, why, since the United Kingdom also says about us that if
there are--there might be disruptions in the United States--and
these aren't political ones. It's the water supply, small
airports, and small health facilities.
So that's their picture of us, which we probably ought to
say, Ms. Wander, have we got any lessening of travel between
the United Kingdom and the United States?
Ms. Wander. Any less?
Mr. Horn. Yes. I mean, they're saying if you turn into
their Website, apparently they say we've got a problem, several
problems--water supply, small airports, and small health
facilities. Do you agree with that in the State Department
about the U.S. situation? Should people not come here or what?
Or is that just off base?
Mr. Herbert. Our office doesn't--our office has the rest of
the world, not the United States.
Mr. Horn. I know.
Mr. Herbert. We couldn't assess on people coming here. They
don't look to use for that information. I'm sorry.
Mr. Horn. So what about it?
Ms. Wander. We are not seeing lessening of advanced
bookings, at least in terms of people's plans right now from
the U.K.
Mr. Horn. Yes. Well, I'm interested in the State
Department's foreign operations, where they're looking at
countries other than the United States. What's the best way to
get that to your travel agents, to travel coordinators, travel
planners? How do you do that? And is the State Department doing
that? How do you access that? We're finding difficulty even
finding the number for the 800 situation. We'll get that, I
hope, before the end of the day.
But what do you do? The average citizen says, ``Hey, I'm
traveling. I'm spending my $2,000 and I don't want to be in a
situation where I'm like young students waiting for a lesser
price on the plane and jamming an airport or having some coup
take place.'' That I understand and everybody does. They can
read about that on CNN. But what would you advise State
Department to tell? And how do you get the message to your
people?
Ms. Wander. I'm speculating here just a little bit, but, by
way of suggestion, you know, increasingly Americans are doing a
lot of their own research and a lot of their own bookings for
their travel plans. Travel agents are taking on a different
role. They're not going to disappear from the face of the
earth, but a different role.
What we find is that it's the Internet, the Internet, the
Internet, and what is going to be necessary in times of crisis
or any time that we, as a Nation, need to put out a warning is
that we need to be able to communicate with people
electronically, because that's where they're looking for the
information for travel plans.
Mr. Horn. Well, we have an 800 number for Social Security,
for example. There's about a 7-minute wait, but we check all
these because when they come in as witnesses they always say
the wonderful things they're all doing.
Now, it sounds like, with a 202 number, the State
Department does not have an 800 number. Is that incorrect or
what?
Mr. Herbert. We do not have a full-time 800 number, that's
correct, in the Bureau of Consular Affairs for assistance.
Mr. Horn. Yes. Well, wouldn't it be a good idea for the
State Department to easily provide information when people want
it? And why don't you have an 800 number? I don't know what it
costs, but they ought to ask the Appropriations Committee.
They're up here for everything else. They might as well get an
800 number for the U.S. citizens that are paying the bills.
So what do you think? Are you going to go home and get an
800 number?
Mr. Herbert. Well, I'll certainly raise it, sir.
Mr. Horn. Thank you.
Mr. Herbert. I can promise you that.
Let me point out, though, in everyone's passport, all
Americans who have a passport, the number that I mentioned
before, 5225, is in there as the point of contact, and they can
get access to all of our information there, recorded
information, if they want to hear it. The same consular
information sheets are available. We have auto-fax. So there is
a point of contact.
Mr. Horn. So it's that 202-647-5225 number?
Mr. Herbert. That's correct.
Mr. Horn. OK. Well, that's a start, but it would be nice,
since the taxpayers are paying all your bills, it would be nice
if you had an 800 number to thank them and give them real
access through real data, because the problem here is you have
rumors around, and I know you confront that daily in all of
your lives here, but the way to get at rumors is to get the
truth out there and have people be able to access it.
So I would hope that that's one of the things that we'll do
in all agencies. I don't know where Energy is on that, whether
you need an information flow. But, given the events of recent
months, it might be a good idea. Indeed, it might be a good
idea if every agency had their own 800 number so people could
be better informed.
And, since this is the subcommittee that has to do with the
Freedom of Information Act, we feel very strongly on releasing
information and not just locking it up for the scholars to
write about 20 years from now or 50 years from now.
So let me just ask you about the American Airlines
situation. They announced recently that they will not operate a
full schedule on New Year's Eve, but insisted that reduced
demand, not year 2000, was the reason. And I'm just curious, in
terms of the travel industry, Ms. Wander, what can you tell us
about New Year's Eve generally in this country. Is it pretty
low? What do you know about it?
Ms. Wander. I can't comment, because I don't have any
information relative to American's recent statement, nor do I
have access to the proprietary information of any of the
companies, but, in our discussions--and we stay pretty close to
our members on this about what are--what the advanced bookings
show--they would not at this point show a dropoff for this
point in the year----
Mr. Horn. Right.
Ms. Wander [continuing]. Vis-a-vis last year.
Mr. Horn. Generally, what's your feeling as to when people
ordinarily, if they were on a January 1st millennium-type
vacation or something, when would they basically go about
thinking of making an order on that and putting cash up or your
credit card or whatever?
Ms. Wander. Unless it is a mega trip, we're finding that
people are booking, in general, closer and closer to the dates
of departure. Thirty days out would be very typical for most
trips. I would imagine that for something having to do with the
millennium, where there are a lot of trips--cruises and the
like--that are already sold out, that anyone today who still is
thinking about doing something better act within the next 30 to
45 days if they really want to take the trip that they want to
have. Waiting 30 days out will, I think, cause them to be
disappointed for the millennium.
Mr. Horn. I just wonder if Mr. Ose or Mr. Walden have some
comments on that, because you're all the ones that started
this, so go ahead.
Mr. Ose. Well, I'm happy to get in the middle of a fight
with you.
I do have some concerns about that. I have siblings who use
the Internet to book their stuff. They are very focused on
price and they negotiate--I mean, they take six stops to get to
their ultimate destination, so I'm aware of the shrinking of
the advance planning portion of travel.
One of the things that you just mentioned having to do with
the cruise ships was of particular interest to me. I don't know
how it is from a statistical standpoint, but anecdotally I
would say that there's probably more Americans on cruise ships
than there are any other nationality.
From the travel industry's standpoint, my first question
would have to do with the perception or the reality of the
travel industry's readiness for Y2K. I mean, if you've got a
big boat out on the water, are you prepared? And then,
secondarily, I want to go back to--I'm sorry, Mr.----
Mr. Herbert. Kevin Herbert.
Mr. Ose [continuing]. Herbert, and I want to--is this up on
your Website? Is this information--this is the consular
information sheets, so----
Mr. Herbert. Consular information sheets are up on the
Website.
Mr. Ose. How often are--while she's getting the answer, how
often are these updated?
Mr. Herbert. Periodically through--any time there is a
change, we insert the change. Sometimes we have a couple of
small changes and we put them in at once. This is the first
time we've done them all at one time.
There is not a day during the year when they are all
changed. This is a unique experience in that we added Y2K and
reissued all of them.
Mr. Ose. You reissued all the advisories.
Mr. Herbert. They were reissued as of yesterday. Right. And
they all contain for the first time specific Y2K language for
each country.
Mr. Ose. Right. And these are on your Website?
Mr. Herbert. Yes. The consular information sheets are on
the Website, yes.
Mr. Ose. As far as the updating, I mean, is it a reactive
thing, or is it something that you look at in anticipation of
needing to update information periodically?
Mr. Herbert. Well, any time a situation changes in a given
country that's of concern to the traveling American public, we
will add it to the consular information sheet. Sometimes
there's a minor change, some immigration formality changes in
some way that we want to change, or road conditions, we have a
report of a certain area that perhaps is not safe. We will add
that.
Sometimes you have a couple of weeks go by before you have
a few things and you put in there and revise it, but anything
that's urgent or important we can do immediately by a public
announcement, or we revise the consular information sheets.
Mr. Ose. So on a case-by-case basis the level of urgency is
determined? I mean, obviously an earthquake is far more urgent
than, you know, a stop sign has been knocked down kind of
thing.
Mr. Herbert. If we had an earthquake, we'd put out a public
announcement immediately to warn people that there is a given
circumstance in this country that's occurring now, and that
will be a public announcement lasting a week or a month or 2
months or what have you.
If we had an incident where someone was robbed in a certain
area or murdered, and then the next week there was another, and
2 weeks later was another, we would then revise the consular
information sheet to say that this particular area in this
country seems to be an unsafe area for Americans and to avoid
it.
Of course, every day we get reports of acts like this all
over the world. It's when we see a trend or an area to specify
that we would put it in the consular information sheet.
Mr. Ose. Of particular--the reason I'm bringing this up, of
particular concern to me is the timeliness of that information,
because your State Department is going to hear about these
issues far sooner than it will be in the general media, and all
of us up here have a very distinct responsibility. We
understand who our masters are, if you will, and I want to make
sure that we get that information out in a very timely fashion,
so I am particularly pleased again to see these on the Website.
Now, Ms. Wander, I want to go back to the cruise ship----
Mr. Horn. Would the gentleman yield for a 15-second
interjection?
Mr. Ose. Certainly.
Mr. Horn. On his very point, as I remember in TWA 800, the
embassy had posted on its bulletin board that you should not
really use that flight if you are embassy personnel, but the
average citizen who was over there that went on board, they
didn't have that information. So the question really is, when
people are in a foreign country and moving on U.S. aircraft, in
this case, how are we going to get that message out? Should
people simply check with every embassy, and would they give
them that? Or would they just withhold it for their own
personnel and not the taxpayers?
Mr. Herbert. I think you're referring to the PanAm 103
crash, sir.
Mr. Horn. Was it?
Mr. Herbert. Yes, sir. Since that time, the no double
standard policy has been adopted 100 percent. If we ever have
information on a threat to Americans abroad, official or
otherwise, we immediately make that known through a travel
advisory--a travel warning, sorry, a public announcement.
That incident that you're describing I don't believe could
ever happen again, sir.
Mr. Ose. I would just like to follow on to the chairman's
fundamental point, and that is that there is a threat to
Americans, if there is a chance that they are vulnerable or
exposed, it is my objective to get that information out in the
public domain.
Now let me go back to--no, I'm not going to go back. Mr.
Chairman, my time has expired, and I was over time last time.
Mr. Horn. Go ahead.
Mr. Ose. Are you sure?
Mr. Horn. Yes.
Mr. Ose. All right. I want to go back to the cruise ship
thing. These are large pieces of equipment floating in the open
seas. Their captains are maneuvering among sand bars and reefs
and islands and what have you. If they are in the Caribbean,
for instance, or if the South Pacific, the travel industry's
perspective, what information can you share with us as to the
readiness of this industry as it relates to the embedded chips
that they use to run the equipment, so to speak?
Ms. Wander. I can share only, Congressman, the anecdotal
information that we've collected from our member companies.
They believe that they are ready. We won't find any information
about Y2K, by the way, on their trade association's Website. We
looked as recently as last evening. There was nothing on it. So
they are not--we can't say that they're doing a good job of
communicating to the consumer, but they do have, again, strong
advance bookings. Of those who are planning to travel over the
millennium weekend, 7 percent at least are cruising. That's
always a strong season for that business, and that will amount
to over 2 million U.S. citizens who will be cruising.
Mr. Ose. 2 billion?
Ms. Wander. 2 million. Over 2 million. I can only tell you,
though, that, in terms of their readiness, anecdotally, based
on their representations to us, they believe they will be
ready.
Mr. Ose. All right, so if I might finalize, then, the
airlines, the domestic airlines, U.S. domestic airlines, are
well prepared; the cruise industry is well prepared; we have
anecdotal information that there are, at least in the airlines,
some disparity in bookings this year versus last, even though
the cruise ship industry is still strong; we have a place where
we can go and get official Government information on the status
in various countries; and we have a list of the 35 countries
that haven't yet responded to our circular request as to the
status that they will enjoy accordingly.
Now, my final question--Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your
benevolence--these 35 States that have not responded, what's
being done to followup and actually encourage them to respond?
Mr. O'Keefe. The FAA has written an instruction to our
embassies to go to the host governments to say, ``Please
respond to this.'' Clearly, it is in their self interest to
respond, because if they stay on the list then they will feel
the effects in terms of not simply tourism but business
travelers being reluctant to come to those countries.
Mr. Ose. Actually, this list is only a circular. It does
not speak to whether or not--let's not mistake this list as
saying these people--the people that aren't on this list are
fully compliant or fully prepared.
Mr. O'Keefe. Right.
Mr. Ose. Let's not make that mistake. This is just a list
of people who haven't responded.
Mr. O'Keefe. That's right. I think it is to the ICAO self-
assessment request, and that yes, there have been a number of
countries that have responded. It doesn't mean that those who
have responded are compliant or it doesn't answer the question
of safety, which I think the FAA will take up toward the end of
this month, but, nevertheless, if, in fact, a country hasn't
responded, that sends a message, as well.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. You are quite welcome. A good list of questions.
Let me ask Mr. O'Keefe, you've looked at all these sheets
that have been put out now by the consulars. What's the worst
case in the world we have on our hands in terms of Y2K, if you
look at all those sheets? What's the worst case?
Mr. O'Keefe. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, it
wasn't a score card and we didn't really rank order, but I
would describe conditions that might prevail in countries that
are experiencing winter, and I would say that, in terms of high
risk, what Dr. Jhirad pointed out, we have countries in eastern
Europe with fragile electric power distribution systems who
will be in the grip of an eastern European winter, and I think
that tends to be a high-risk kind of situation.
Mr. Horn. Well, I agree with you. We've used that example
on a number of hearings, and I'd just like to ask Dr. Jhirad,
you have the gas coming from Russia into eastern Europe,
central Europe, to some degree, and that's what is going to
keep people warm, and if it doesn't come they are going to be
freezing. To what degree does the Department of Energy share
that assessment? And are there any plans with some of those
countries, in terms of other types of heat or energy that can
be utilized, because January 1st is a high point for freezing.
I've been in Moscow on that day and I well know what the cold
is like.
Mr. Jhirad. Mr. Chairman, the results of the next meeting
with the Russians, Ukrainians, and central Europeans will be
quite critical, because we will get to the heart of this
question of what are the contingency plans if the gas flows
into central and even western Europe are interrupted because
of, say, a power failure that affects the compressors. How long
will that last and what are the contingency plans to keep
people warm when that happens?
And I think that's exactly the kind of information we will
get at this meeting, and we will clearly make that public as
soon as we have it.
Mr. Horn. Well, we have been told, just in general, when we
got into this a number of months ago, that there are real
problems--and I'm not saying this is the Russian gas problem,
but when you're dealing with petroleum and gas and et cetera,
different types of energy like that, you have microchips that
are often in the pipeline system, that are in the refiner's
ship--not refiner's ship, but the petroleum-carrying ship, and
also in the refinery. And I just wondered to what degree that
seems to be a problem, and are they worried about the microchip
aspect of it and how that could go awry.
Mr. Jhirad. Mr. Chairman, does your question refer to the
situation again in western Europe, or----
Mr. Horn. Well, you can refer it. I just wonder is there
any other situation like that in the world, and in terms of
just what a computer might do if it misfires and it goes in one
direction versus the one somebody thought it was going. And I
don't know to what degree we've been able to help people with
expertise of the Department of Energy, so that's what I'm
fishing for, I guess.
Mr. Jhirad. Yes. When--in the series of workshops that
we've had with the International Energy Agency, when we've been
asked for specific technical information on how to fix embedded
chips, say in refineries or in pipelines, what we have done is
put them in touch with industry groups here who are working
those issues, whether it is the American Petroleum Institute or
the Edison Electric Institute, who are knowledgeable about
mission-critical systems, how to fix them, and contingency
plans.
So in the Department of Energy, on that we've really played
more of a catalytic role, getting those countries in touch with
the people who are fixing the problems.
Mr. Horn. Any comments any of you would like to make after
hearing this dialog and discussion before you leave? Mr.
O'Keefe.
Mr. O'Keefe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank you and other Members for allowing us
to appear today, and I would stress once again, especially for
Congressman Ose, that the Department of State has as its
primary responsibility protection of U.S. citizens, and those
citizens are our masters, as well, so we know exactly why your
concern is there and we do share that concern.
Thank you for your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, about our 800
number.
Mr. Horn. Thank you. I'll be glad to help get you the money
for that.
All right. Dr. Jhirad.
Mr. Jhirad. Yes. I would like to thank you again, Mr.
Chairman, very much, for giving us a chance to answer your
questions. We certainly feel that our clients out there are the
American public, and we take very much to heart your statement
that any valuable information should be shared immediately so
that they can make their own decisions, and we will follow that
and we will also raise the issue of an 800 number in the
Department.
Mr. Horn. Good.
Ms. Wander, any comments finally?
Ms. Wander. I'd echo my fellow panelists' gratitude for
your convening the hearing this morning and allowing us the
opportunity to let you know where things stand in our industry
and to again reiterate for the committee the intention of both
the Travel Industry Association of America and its component
members to remain vigilant on this issue and not lose sight of
the ultimate goal, which is security and safety for travelers
in the United States and worldwide.
Thank you again.
Mr. Horn. Let me ask you, the various travel groups--and
I'm part of the Travel Caucus up here, which is just about
everybody--when they go hold a dinner, I think they've got to
get the biggest hall in town. But do you, that represent pieces
of the travel and convention industry, do you meet in
Washington and share ideas to see if everybody is sort of
moving in the same direction, or do they have a piece of
information nobody ever dreamed that they have and is useful to
questions like the ones that have been raised this morning?
Ms. Wander. There are meetings held. This is an industry
that loves meetings, because it promotes travel.
Mr. Horn. Right.
Ms. Wander. Meetings----
Mr. Horn. But just to get from K Street to L Street maybe
is all we're asking.
Ms. Wander. We hold meetings all over the United States. In
fact, next month, beginning on October 20th, we will hold our
marketing outlook forum, where all of the segments come
together and report in on what's happening and what they see
for the upcoming year, and there are a number of events, not
quite of that magnitude, but like those which we hold in cities
that our members sponsor. So we do stay on top of it, as well
as on the telephone and the computer and so forth.
Mr. Horn. Maybe you can tell our friends in the mother
country of the United Kingdom that they don't have to worry
about our water supply, our small airports, and small health
facilities, whatever they meant by that. Anyhow, that's what's
on their Website.
I want to thank you all for coming, and I now want to thank
the staff. Staff director for Government Management,
Information, and Technology is Mr. George, who is standing
against the wall so he can take in the whole room; and the
gentleman on my left, your right, is the one that prepared this
hearing, Matt Ryan, the senior policy director for the
subcommittee; Bonnie Heald is the next one against the wall,
communications director and professional staff member; and Chip
Ahlswede is the one that moves microphones and makes sure the
place works, so he's the chief clerk; and then Mr. Caceres, an
intern; and Deborah Oppenheim is another intern with us. And
for Mrs. Morella's committee, Technology Subcommittee of
Science, we have Jeff Grove, the staff director; and Ben Wu,
professional staff member; and Joe Sullivan; staff assistant;
and for Mr. Turner's staff, the democratic staff, we have Trey
Henderson, minority counsel; Jean Gosa, staff assistant; and
the Technology Subcommittee Group would have also Michael
Quear, the professional staff member; Marty Ralston, the staff
assistant; and our court reporter this morning is Mark McCarty.
We thank you all for coming. You've all done a fine job,
and this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
-