U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

60–934 CC WASHINGTON : 1999

H.R. 1599, THE YEAR 2000 COMPLIANCE

ASSISTANCE ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 1599

TO AMEND THE FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

ACT OF 1949 TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO THE YEAR 2000 COMPUTER CONVERSION BY

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THROUGH FEDERAL SUPPLY

SCHEDULES

JUNE 23, 1999

Serial No. 106–46

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

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

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

JIM TURNER, Texas

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

J. RUSSELL GEORGE, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

MATT RYAN, Senior Policy Advisor

GRANT NEWMAN, Staff Assistant

MARK STEPHENSON, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 23, 1999 ............................................................................... 1

Text of H.R. 1599 .............................................................................................. 3

Statement of:

Giles, Glenn, managing director, Keane Federal Systems, Inc.; and Nancy

Peters, vice president, Sales and Marketing, CACI, Inc ........................... 86

Willemssen, Joel C., Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems, Accounting and Information Management Division, General Accounting

Office; Frank P. Pugliese, Commissioner, Federal Supply Service, General Services Administration; and Gary Lambert, chief executive officer,

National Association of State Procurement Officials ................................. 51

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Davis, Hon. Thomas M., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Virginia, prepared statement of .............................................................. 11

Giles, Glenn, managing director, Keane Federal Systems, Inc., prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 89

Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California:

Information concerning a survey ............................................................. 29

Letter dated June 22, 1999 ...................................................................... 23

Letter dated June 23, 1999 ...................................................................... 21

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

Prepared statement of Mr. Nold .............................................................. 25

Lambert, Gary, chief executive officer, National Association of State Procurement Officials, prepared statement of ................................................. 78

Peters, Nancy, vice president, Sales and Marketing, CACI, Inc., prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 98

Turner, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 18

Willemssen, Joel C., Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems, Accounting and Information Management Division, General Accounting

Office, prepared statement of ....................................................................... 53

(1)

H.R. 1599, THE YEAR 2000 COMPLIANCE

ASSISTANCE ACT

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room

2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Horn, Biggert, Davis and Ose.

Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and chief counsel;

Randy Kaplan, counsel; Matt Ryan, senior policy advisor; Matthew

Ebert, policy advisor; Bonnie Heald, director of communications;

Grant Newman, staff assistant; Paul Wicker, Justin Schleuter, and

John Phillips, interns; Michelle Ash and Faith Weiss, minority

counsels; Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff member;

Earley Green, minority staff assistant; and Patricia Jones, minority

congressional fellow.

Mr. HORN. Sorry about the hearing delay. OK. So we will begin

the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and

Technology. A quorum is present.

Only 191 days remain until we greet the new millennium, its expectations and enormous challenges. Last week, on behalf of the

Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and

Technology, I released our eighth report card on the year 2000

within 24 agencies and departments in the executive branch of the

Federal Government.

Based on our analysis of the agencies’ self-reported data, we gave

the executive branch an overall B-minus. That is progress. We had

given them F’s, we had given them D’s, we had given them Cpluses, and now they’re at the B-minus category. The agencies have

made remarkable progress, frankly, in the last 6 months.

At the same time, the subcommittee has begun to examine 43

Federal programs that affect millions of Americans, such as Social

Security, Air Traffic Control, and Medicare. The President’s Office

of Management and Budget identified these Federal programs as

high impact. When it comes to year-2000 computer readiness, they

may also be considered as high risk.

Although Federal computers may be fully prepared for the global

glitch by the January 1st deadline, 10 of those 43 programs are administered and delivered by State governments. In addition, each

program involves a large number of public and private sector partVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:48 Mar 27, 2001 Jkt 066368 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\60934 pfrm11 PsN: 60934
2

ners, from vendors and suppliers to county and municipal governments.

The fact is that several of these high-impact programs, including

Medicaid, Food Stamps and Child Nutrition, are not scheduled to

be ready until December, leaving little, if any, time to correct unforeseen problems.

The year 2000 problem dates back, as we know, to the mid-1960’s

when programmers were desperate for space and these huge dinosaurs that filled the whole room such as this and somebody had the

bright idea, instead of 1967, let’s just put in 67 and drop the 19.

And, obviously, when you get to the year 2000 and you do that, you

have zeros in the 67 area, and the computer might well think it

is back to McKinley in the 1900’s.

Today, we will discuss H.R. 1599, the Year 2000 Compliance Assistance Act, proposed by our colleague, Representative Tom Davis

of Virginia. The legislation would amend the Federal Property and

Administrative Services Act of 1949, giving temporary authority to

the General Services Administration to allow State and local governments to purchase year 2000-related projects and services from

Federal supply schedules. The participation of these governmental

entities and the information technology suppliers is voluntary.

Our goal today is to discuss how the proposed legislation would

allow the Federal Government to help its essential business partners—State and local governments—prepare their computers for

the year 2000.

We will examine whether the bill would provide the States and

localities with another tool in their efforts to prepare for the year

2000.

I welcome our witnesses, and I am delighted to have the author

of the bill, who has been an excellent member of this committee,

Mr. Davis of Virginia, for opening remarks on this legislation.

[The text of H.R. 1599 and the prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follow:]

3

4

5

6

7

8

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first convey to you

how impressed I am by your work and leadership.

Mr. Chairman, over the past 4 years, we have tried to ensure

that our Nation is ready for the year 2000. For this reason, I am

pleased that we are here today to hold this hearing on H.R. 1599,

the Year 2000 Compliance Assistance Act. This bill is critical to addressing the very unique circumstances brought on by the year

2000, circumstances that exist only once every thousand years, by

providing our State and local governments with the necessary assistance for achieving year 2000 compliance.

As a former local government official and high technology executive, I recognize the tremendous burden placed on State and local

governments as they work to ensure that their mission critical systems are ready for the new millennium.

Over the past 4 years, under the persistent urging of the chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. Horn, and Representative Connie

Morella of Maryland, the Federal Government has sluggishly

moved toward readying most Federal mission-critical systems for

the year 2000 conversion. However, many are now just beginning

to turn their attention to the condition of State and local government mission-critical systems that are critical to the seamless delivery of essential services at all levels of government.

As John Koskinen, the chair of the President’s Council of Year

2000 Conversion, has emphasized, we should all be concerned

about the ability of some State and local systems to interface with

year 2000 compliant Federal systems. There are approximately 160

different State systems that interface with the Federal Government. These systems include the delivery of vital services such as

Medicaid, unemployment insurance and child nutrition aid programs.

Many State and local governments have been unwilling to let the

Federal Government or the private sector know the progress of

their Y2K work for fear of lost public confidence and/or fear of the

potentially negative effect on their bond rating. This reluctance

makes it exceptionally difficult for us to judge our true readiness

for January 1st, 2000.

At the Federal level, we should do all we can to help State and

local governments that lack the resources and expertise to tackle

Y2K problem. As the latest report card from this subcommittee indicates, the Federal Government and its mission-critical systems

are rapidly reaching compliance or are already compliant. It is time

to make the valuable resources and expertise of the IT firms included on the FSF/FTS schedules available to State and local governments.

As the former chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, I understand all too well the countless number of local government services the citizens take for granted on a daily basis. If

a county is not prepared for the year 2000, it is quite possible that

the school bus won’t be there to pick the kids up at the end of the

winter break or that the locally controlled stoplights will not be

operational.

Oftentimes, the technical expertise necessary to correct the Y2K

problem may not be readily available to State or local governments.

Access to the GSA schedule will give State and local governments

9

access to the companies and products that can address these problems. Many officials from State and local governments are not

aware of the scope of the problem either.

Different computer systems must be tested together in order to

see whether or not they can interface on January 1st, 2000. It is

not just the local fire station’s computer system but its ability to

communicate with neighboring jurisdictions, the local police department and so on. Critical information must still be transmitted from

computer system to computer system in every level of government.

In the metropolitan D.C. area we have seen a stark contrast in

the resources available to State and local governments and the

readiness of local governments. For instance, on June 15th, 1999,

Fairfax County in northern Virginia tested their Y2K readiness in

best case and worst case scenarios successfully. Clearly, this is a

local government that is comfortably prepared to deliver local services on January 1, 2000. However, just a short distance away, the

District of Columbia is still struggling with Y2K compliance as they

work to find out the status of many of their computer systems.

A General Accounting Office report on the status of D.C.’s Y2K

conversion efforts reported that our Nation’s Capital was at significant risk of not being able to effectively ensure public safety, collect

revenue, educate students and provide health care services.

In my role as chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of

Columbia, I have had the opportunity to watch our Nation’s Capital struggle to address its Y2K situation. Despite the Herculean efforts on the part of the District’s chief technology officer, strong private sector support and substantial Federal resources, it appears

that the one thing that cannot be controlled during D.C.’s year

2000 compliance efforts is time. Many States and localities are simply running out of time.

Unfortunately, I believe that a substantial number of States, cities, towns, and villages across the country are in similar situations

as our Capital City.

According to 1992 census statistics, it’s estimated that there are

84,000 local governments operating throughout the United States.

Our State and local governments are responsible for management

or delivery of essential services such as fire and police services, airports, transit systems, and court and criminal justice systems. Are

we at the Federal level prepared to say that we are unwilling or

unable to provide all of the tools at our disposal to State and local

governments to deliver these services?

That is why I introduced the Year 2000 Compliance Assistance

Act. This legislation is a voluntary program where the Federal

Government will allow State and local governments to purchase

year 2000 conversion-related information technology products and

services off GSA’s IT multiple award schedules. Under this emergency authority, State and local governments will have one more

option in the fight against time to procure year 2000 compliance

assistance in a cost-effective and timely manner. I believe that during this period of moving governmental responsibilities back to the

States and localities the Federal Government has a unique opportunity to provide procurement assistance to State and local governments to ensure nationwide year 2000 compliance and contingency

preparation.

10

The authority under this legislation is limited to the unique nature of the year 2000 computer bug, and I want to underscore that

this legislation is intended for the unique nature of the year 2000

computer bug. It doesn’t include drug companies, fire stations, fire

equipment or anything else. There is no intent to do that here, no

underlying intent to do that. We are trying to solve a once-in-athousand-year problem.

The authority would expire on December 31, 2002; and, frankly,

after looking at the letter today from—Mr. Chairman—— Mr. HORN. Lee.

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. The White House, we are willing to make

that much sooner schedule if that will accommodate some of the

critics. This can only be used by State and local governments for

procurement necessitated by the year 2000 computer problem. I

don’t consider this legislation the first step on any pathway toward

cooperative purchasing, and I welcome any constructive comments

to alleviate any lingering concerns on that front. I have long been

a proponent of working toward forging reasonable compromises

that allow us to accomplish our end goal and will gladly work with

those who have concerns about H.R. 1599. I want to stress that

this is a unique legislation to address a unique circumstance.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this timely hearing on this bill, and I look forward to the testimony from our two

panels on this critically important legislation.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas M. Davis follows:]

11

12

13

14

15

16

Mr. HORN. I now yield enough time for an opening statement to

the vice chairman of the committee—subcommittee, Mrs. Biggert,

the Representative from Illinois.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to participate in the hearing today about the Year 2000 Compliance Assistance Act, and I commend the gentleman from Virginia.

I believe that, largely because of congressional attention, our

Federal agencies will be ready for the year 2000 date change. But

will our Nation’s State and local communities have the necessary

technology to partner with the Federal Government in service delivery? Many of the programs that our constituents rely upon are

administered by our State. So it’s not enough for the Federal Government to be ready. Our States also must help to provide seamless delivery of key programs such as Medicare and nutrition services.

I am pleased to be from a State, Illinois, that has reported 98

percent of Y2K renovations completed. However, some States may

not be so far along. The Y2K computer date change will affect

every business, consumer, local government, and school.

This July, we will hold a hearing in my home District to determine the Y2K progress made in our community. At our hearing,

local gas stations, grocery stores, banks and utilities will testify to

their computer capacity. So we must all work together to find solutions to the Y2K problem.

I look forward to hearing today how Mr. Davis’ legislation will

assist the States in preparing for year 2000, for as we all know,

the year 2000 won’t wait.

Thank you.

Mr. HORN. Thank you.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing

on H.R. 1599, the Year 2000 Compliance Assistance Act, which presents a possible approach to helping State and local governments

with Y2K readiness. As this subcommittee has observed, the Federal Government is making progress in ensuring that its missioncritical computer systems are Y2K compliant. However, many State

and local governments have not made as much headway in their

efforts.

Numerous State and local governments began their Y2K readiness efforts significantly later than the Federal Government, and

as a result, we are just now hearing about potential Y2K problems

at the local level. For example, last week in Los Angeles, the testing of a septic system caused sewage overflows that resulted in the

closing of a city park for several days. I am pleased that testing

is occurring. It is certainly preferable to experience these small test

failures now rather than confront whole system failures in the year

2000. However, the results of this test do illustrate the magnitude

of the work that remains at the State and local levels.

In addition to State and local problems with regard to personal

computers, elevators, telephone switches, and the breakdown of

computer-aided dispatch operations, the Federal Government could

also suffer from the impact of Y2K failures at the State and local

government level because of the frequent information exchanges

between local and Federal computer systems. The Federal Government sends and receives data from the States in support of many

17

social service programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food

stamps, and unemployment insurance.

The Federal Government will not be able to deliver critical social

services if data exchanges with State governments are not Y2Kcompliant. According to John Koskinen with the President’s Council on Year 2000 Conversion, approximately 165 Federal interfaces

with State systems have been identified. And according to the Office of Management and Budget [OMB], as of May 27, 1999, Federal agencies report that 75 percent of Federal/State data exchanges are Y2K-compliant.

There is no question that we need to have State and local governments Y2K compliant, and we know that compliance efforts will

place a burden on State and local budgets. H.R. 1599 would offer

assistance by permitting State and local governments to purchase

computers and other information technology off of the Federal supply schedules. Due to the volume of purchasing done by the Federal

Government, these schedules generally have very good prices, so

we might actually be helping State and local governments quite a

bit.

In closing, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses as to

how the Year 2000 Compliance Assistance Act, or any other resource or tool that we may be able to provide, can assist State and

local governments meet their goals for Y2K preparation and compliance.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Turner follows:]

18

19

20

Mr. HORN. Let me put in the record some communications we

have received, without objection.

One is from the Baxter firm, a developer and manufacturer of

medical products. They are opposed to the Federal cooperative purchasing concept in this legislation, and a letter has come here to

the chairman dated June 23rd. It will be put in the record without

objection.

[The letter referred to follows:]

21

22

Mr. HORN. We have a communication from the Acting Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget.

Their concern is that they would recommend H.R. 1599 be amended to provide the authorities strictly to address critical Y2K needs

and to be available only through June 2000, a period of time during

which such purchases would be directly related to Y2K readiness.

And this correspondence was signed by Deidre A. Lee, the Acting

Deputy Director for Management. We put it in the record at this

point without objection.

[The letter referred to follows:]

23

24

Mr. HORN. The testimony of Mr. John J. Nold, the Director, Office of Information Services for the State of Delaware. He favors

the proposed legislation of Mr. Davis, and without objection that

will go into the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nold follows:]

25

26

27

28

Mr. HORN. We also have two very interesting documents from

the National Association of Counties. One is the Y2K Survey of

America’s Counties, and the other is a statement for the record.

And the National Association of Counties favors the Davis legislation. Without objection, all of that is in the record at this point.

[The information referred to follows:]

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

Mr. HORN. We now will go to panel one, and I think most of you

know the routine. We swear in all witnesses in this investigating

committee, and we would like you to summarize your statement as

best you can. The statements automatically become a part of the

record and to be printed when I introduce you. And so if you gentlemen will rise and stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. HORN. All three witnesses have affirmed, the clerk will note.

We will begin with Joel Willemssen, the Director for Civil Agencies Information Systems, Accounting and Information Management Division of the General Accounting Office. Mr. Willemssen

has been our principal witness in almost every one of these hearings and usually starts out with a fine statement; and we keep him

usually till the end to get back into it in terms of the dialog and

discussion, if you don’t mind.

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HORN. So go ahead.

STATEMENTS OF JOEL C. WILLEMSSEN, DIRECTOR, CIVIL

AGENCIES INFORMATION SYSTEMS, ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT DIVISION, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; FRANK P. PUGLIESE, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL

SUPPLY SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION;

AND GARY LAMBERT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE PROCUREMENT OFFICIALS

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman, Congresswoman. Thank you for inviting GAO to testify today.

As requested, I will briefly summarize our statement on the Y2K

readiness of State and local governments and on H.R. 1599.

Available information on the year 2000 readiness of State and

local governments indicates that much work remains. For example,

according to recent information on States reported to the National

Association of State Information Resource Executives, about 18

States had completed implementing less than 75 percent of their

mission-critical systems. Further, while all States responding said

they were engaged in contingency planning, 14 reported their deadlines for this as October or later.

State audit organizations have also identified significant Y2K

concerns in areas such as testing, embedded systems and contingency planning. Recent reports have also highlighted Y2K issues at

the local government level. For example, a March 1999, National

League of Cities poll of over 400 representatives found that almost

70 stated that they would finish 75 percent or less of their systems

by January 1, 2000.

Another area of risk is represented by Federal human services

programs administered by States, programs such as Medicaid, food

stamps, unemployment insurance, and child support enforcement.

Of the 43 high-impact programs identified by OMB, 10 are Stateadministered Federal programs. OMB reported data on the systems

supporting these programs show that numerous States are not

planning to be ready until close to the end of the year. Specifically,

a large number of State systems are not due to be compliant until

the last quarter of 1999. Further, this is based on data that predominantly has not been independently verified.

52

To provide an additional option to State and local governments

to address Y2K, especially for those entities facing major risks,

Congressman Davis has introduced H.R. 1599, a bill enabling State

and local governments to use the GSA schedule to address Y2K.

Although State and local governments have in the past expressed

interest in having access to GSA’s schedules, the extent to which

they would use it is somewhat uncertain. Factors that could limit

use include lack of authority in laws or ordinances, in State or local

purchasing preferences and possibly higher prices on the schedule

for some items. By contrast, States and localities could benefit to

the extent they could acquire needed information technology products and services at lower prices, more quickly and with less administrative burden.

In particular, access to the information technology schedule

would provide States with an additional tool for obtaining essential

Y2K help. Such access may be especially appealing to those entities

not planning to be compliant until close to the end of the year.

In addition, another consideration of the bill is the effect on businesses of opening the schedule. Those that would choose to participate could benefit from increased market exposure and sales and

lower administrative costs. Conversely, some businesses that are

not on the schedule could lose business to those that are on the

schedule.

Nevertheless, the Congress should balance concerns such as

those against the extraordinary circumstances facing the Nation

because of Y2K.

Further, some of the concerns may be reduced by the limited nature of the bill and by GSA publishing implementation plans showing how the bill would be implemented. At the same time, to be

most useful, this bill will need to be implemented expeditiously because of the very limited time remaining until the turn of the century.

That concludes a summary of my statement, and after the panel

is through, I will be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you.

Mr. HORN. Well, thank you for that usual, very thorough statement.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Willemssen follows:]

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

Mr. HORN. The next witness is Frank P—and I don’t quite know

the pronunciation. I apologize.

Mr. PUGLIESE. Pugliese, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HORN. Pugliese, OK—Commissioner, Federal Supply Service,

General Services Administration. Mr. Pugliese.

Mr. PUGLIESE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the

subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

I don’t have a formal statement. In fact, we worked late into the

night trying to work out some appropriate language and were unable to do that. So what I would like to do is, without sounding like

a plug for the schedules program, which I am a big proponent of,

I will be happy to answer whatever questions that come up as a

result of the later testimony, and I can certainly get into lots of

nitty-gritty on the program and what I feel we can achieve with it.

GAO’s testimony is to the point. Time is of the essence. This will

certainly be a vehicle that allows us to expedite this process.

Mr. HORN. So we really need to ask you a few questions to get

your views on the record?

Mr. PUGLIESE. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HORN. Have you had a chance to read the Davis bill?

Mr. LAMBERT. Yes, sir.

Mr. HORN. Can you comply with that should the Congress approve it?

Mr. PUGLIESE. I think the Davis bill will go a long way in achieving and accomplishing what we need to do, which is quick response

to a very serious problem. It also will allow you to get to 1,800 companies who have already negotiated contracts with us.

I would like to step back for a second. And there always is some

concern about what does this do from a pricing standpoint. The

beauty of the schedule program, the way it currently is structured,

is if our price is not good, get a better price, negotiate with the vendor, establish a BPA or, in fact, say, you guys are not a good deal;

I’m walking away. I think that’s the beauty of that program, and

it’s the beauty of this current legislation. The way it’s being proposed, it is voluntary on both parts.

Mr. HORN. Has legislation similar to this ever been passed, do

you know?

Mr. PUGLIESE. Never.

Mr. HORN. In terms of the 50 years of the GSA?

Mr. PUGLIESE. Never. It always comes close, Mr. Chairman, but

never quite makes it.

Mr. HORN. Well, this is focused in on a very narrow thing and

a very narrow time period. You noted the statement I read from

Ms. Lee of OMB. Would you concur with her in terms of——

Mr. PUGLIESE. Yes, I read the statement early this morning, and

I believe it’s a reasonable statement, and certainly this is an issue

that does become a hot button for certain industries, even though

they are in fact excluded and there is no intention to include them.

I think it is a very reasonable approach.

Mr. HORN. Now, where do you keep these different products

throughout the Nation? You’ve got various regional facilities.

Mr. PUGLIESE. We—I guess, the other beauty of the schedules

program is I’m not really keeping anything anywhere. It’s between

a buyer and a seller, and the seller would be a commercial partner

75

of ours, and, as I say, there are 1,800 firms; 78 percent of those

are small businesses, for those folks who like to say it’s only the

big boys that play with us; 78 percent of those 1,800 are small

business concerns; 450 of those 1,800 are small disadvantaged concerns. So this is not just the big boys playing in this game, and it

is truly a commercial transaction.

You as a customer make your selection, negotiate your best deal

and deal with the commercial partner who can deliver, whether it’s

hardware, software, integration services. So it is strictly a commercial transaction once we have done our work which has already

been done.

Mr. HORN. I have fairly strong feelings in this area, and that is

my worry about a small businessperson who has a franchise in a

particular community, let’s say, it’s the county seat, the State capitol and, quote, a Wal-Mart type operation comes in, drives them

out. And I have seen this with Home Depot which came into my

end of Long Beach, drove two wonderful hardware stores that had

been there for 50 years out of business. Then they moved to another city. So we have no hardware stores. And what kind of worry

is that to GSA?

Mr. PUGLIESE. What we have generally—it is a concern because

the core of our program, as I said, is 17 percent small business concerns. What we see generally when we look across the landscape,

though, is—I mean, local purchase normally is local purchase.

State and local governments try to deal with local folks.

When you look at our schedules program what you will see as

you look across the landscape is almost every person, every company, every State is represented because they are in locales all

around the country. I mean, if you deal with a CACI or an IBM

or a smaller group, they are usually not just in one place; and, in

fact, even if they are located here in D.C., they have staff who are

going to go to where they need to go.

What you are seeing right now also is State and local governments, aside from not being able to use the schedules program,

have been fairly creative and have actually formed co-ops to do

similar kinds of things when they see what they can get.

Mr. HORN. This is off the record.

[Discussion held off the record.]

Mr. HORN. Would you have any other comments on the legislation?

Mr. PUGLIESE. I just believe it is—time is of the essence, and if

we are going to move forward, we should probably move forward

and allow State and local governments to get the benefit.

Mr. HORN. OK. I don’t want to shortchange you without a Member here, Mr. Lambert, so we are going to be in recess till Mr.

Davis comes back, and then he can pick up on you, and then we

will have a dialog. By that time I will have come back. So we are

in recess until Mr. Davis returns.

[Recess.]

Mr. DAVIS [presiding]. Now, we will come back to Mr. Lambert.

Mr. LAMBERT. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee on Government

Management, Information, and Technology, thank you for inviting

me to testify before the subcommittee this morning. I’m here to

76

speak in favor of H.R. 1599, the Year 2000 Compliance Assistance

Act.

For several years now State and local governments have been

working diligently to ensure that the systems that we use will

function properly on and after January 1, 2000. Despite all of this

hard work and diligence from dedicated government workers and

their contractors, they are still faced with the fact that more work

and assistance from our work force and our colleagues in the private sector is needed if we are going to be successful at all levels

of government.

We are working against the clock, and we need to provide State

and local government officials, procurement professionals, and chief

information officers with all of the tools available in the public sector. What we need is cross boundary and cross-jurisdictional cooperation and coordination. We cannot afford to spend time bidding

for and developing contracts that replicate those that may already

be in place at the Federal level or available in sister States. What

State and local government needs is easy access to all public sector

contracts that offer Y2K solutions. By enabling State and local government more tools to tackle the Y2K problem head on, our

chances for success on January 1, 2000, will increase significantly,

particularly at the local level where several small communities continue to struggle with this problem at this late date in 1999.

I applaud the efforts of Congressman Davis of Virginia for championing this bill, but I contend that without rapid passage and enactment of the bill, his efforts will be for naught. Throughout State

and local governments today, people are running out of time to address the problems of Y2K, and the longer it takes to pass H.R.

1599 the less likely it will be that there will be an opportunity to

utilize the Federal supply schedules to solve this problem.

Also, I submit that Congress and the General Services Administration must do their part to guarantee State and local government

easy access to the schedules and not complicate the administrative

process by requiring a myriad of bureaucratic registration, ordering, reporting and/or auditing requirement.

Failure to apply the KISS principle—keep it simple and stupid—

will be as harmful to this effort as not passing the legislation.

For NASPO, National Association of State Procurement Officials,

to be in a position to fully support this legislation, we must be able

to demonstrate to our members and to the local government purchasing professionals, who in many instances are our customers,

that there is value in the use of these schedules for Y2K. This

means that use of the schedules must be as easy, or easier, than

the use of our current contract at the State and local levels. There

must also be a willingness on the part of scheduled vendors to

work cooperatively with State and local government once we make

a decision to explore using the services available to us on the

schedules.

Without the easy access to the schedules by State and local government and without a willingness from vendors on the schedules

to enthusiastically take on State and local government business,

this legislation, if enacted, will not live up to the expectation of

NASPO, its members and the customers we serve.

77

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee; and on behalf of the National Association of State Procurement Officials, we look forward to working with you and other

members of the subcommittee to successfully implement H.R. 1599.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lambert follows:]

78

79

80

Mr. DAVIS. Let me say at the start that the criticism I’ve heard

of this legislation doesn’t go to what this legislation does. I think

everyone recognizes that Y2K is a critical problem, and for many

State and local governments in particular where they’re bound

under different procurement rules, sometimes it’s lengthy. You

have to go under State code and everything else. You don’t know

where to get this. This becomes and will become over the next— particularly September, October, November, December, panic will

set in; and they will want to know where they can get answers and

where they can get it very quickly.

And I don’t think anyone really objects to what this legislation

is trying to do, but the concerns are where else does this go? Is this

the camel’s nose under the tent? And I think the opposition—in

fact, drug companies, pharmaceutical companies that are opposing

this, I can’t believe they wouldn’t want State and local governments to be Y2K compliant. Why in the world would they not want

that or do everything they could?

So we are going to try to do what we can to assuage them and

let them know this is a once-every-thousand-year type of episode,

but we think, frankly, that the Federal Government is doing some

other extraordinary things to assist State and local governments

with Y2K, and this falls along those lines rather than being the

camel’s nose inside the tent for cooperative purchasing. And I’m a

little suspect because I have been a strong supporter of that, and

we fought that battle, and we lost it last year in a conference report.

That’s not what this is about, though. That’s why we have narrowly tailored this, and we don’t want that fear of where this might

go to be the enemy of what otherwise I think everyone agrees is

a pretty good bill. And if the administration has concerns about

this, I’m again a little nervous because they wanted the full-blown,

cooperative purchasing and fought hard for it a year ago, and now

they want this bill tailored, very narrowly focused, and I guess

they’re all over the place. But we will work with them. I mean,

that’s the legislative sausage-making that goes through here.

What we have to do is sit down and accommodate a lot of different interests that sometimes change their minds and roll back

and forth. But if we don’t get there, it’s going to be very difficult

for some little village out there or State or locality that has to get

an answer to be able to get it and coordinate it in an appropriate

fashion. And I don’t want something to go wrong in Bullfrog Corner, West Virginia, or wherever on a Y2K and not knowing that we

didn’t do everything we could here at the Federal level to try to assist these localities and that someone is hurt because we didn’t do

everything that we could, and that’s really what the motivation of

this is.

And I think, from the thrust of your comments, this is something

that can work very, very well, and it may make a difference in

some people’s lives if we can pass it, and it may—and we want to

do it in a way where we are not setting some outstanding precedent that’s going to be cited down the road. And I will just say for

myself, I’m not going to cite this as a precedent if these issues come

back. I just want this to pass because I, along with Chairman

Horn, Mrs. Morella and others who have been on the cutting edge

81

of this Y2K, we want as minimal disruption as we can of services

from all levels of government on January 1, 2000.

Let me just ask a few questions.

Mr. Pugliese, in dollar amounts, how much does the Federal Government procure each year in computer systems, software, hardware?

Mr. PUGLIESE. Total government is probably doing—we have

seen a couple of estimates, anywhere from $30 to $70 billion. Our

piece of that is probably $8 to $10 billion goes through schedules.

Mr. DAVIS. And growing, isn’t it?

Mr. PUGLIESE. And growing.

Mr. DAVIS. And the schedules just work really well in terms—I

mean, what I see around town is with the procurement reforms

we’ve made and the growth of the schedule, the only losers are

really the protest lawyers, of which I used to be one.

Mr. PUGLIESE. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS. That’s why I’m here now.

Mr. PUGLIESE. That’s correct. And the schedule program, when

Federal supply took it over on the IT side of it only, because we

do schedules for other things, like furniture and other commodities,

was about a little more than a billion, and it will probably finish

this year at about $10 billion. Services in all fashions are all growing, aside from IT services also.

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Thank you very much. And I think no one is in

disagreement with the fact that State and local governments that

are encountering acquisition problems getting procurement—in

fact, some of them are still waking up, and we will see this in the

next panel, still waking up to the fact that there is a problem. This

Y2K problem is tough.

My wife is a physician out in Fairfax, a gynecologist, and she and her two partners had to pay $25,000, which is a lot of money for

a small practice like that, operating under managed care and seeing what’s happened to her income, just to get Y2K compliant in

their own offices.

So this is, you know, something people would rather not spend

money on. As an elected official, you get no credit for spending

money on Y2K because nobody’s life is improved, you aren’t adding

any value. What you are doing is, you’re cutting losses. You’re trying to make sure something bad doesn’t happen, and when you

have these budgets out there that are already tight to begin, these

State and local governments, spending money, you just get no credit. So many governments have been very late to come to the table

on this. This is a time-sensitive problem.

Let me ask you, there are products, aren’t there, windowing and

some other issues, that can give you short-term solutions sometimes when you’re backed against the wall that can be used in

some circumstances?

Mr. PUGLIESE. Yes, there are some short-term products, but I

think more appropriately what we are looking at here, obviously,

is the correct fix in a timely fashion, which hopefully this legislation will allow State and local governments—and I think we need

to also be careful that State and local governments do have enough

protective devices. If they are concerned about their local firms,

there are some requirements and remedies on the State and local

82

governments that they would be prohibited probably from using,

but there’s enough here to let folks get to where they need with a

solution quickly.

Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask Mr. Willemssen, according to GAO, how

close do you think that State governments are in reaching the Y2K

compliance with the mission-critical systems that have to interface

with the Federal Government? Is there any way of estimating that

or is the data just so sketchy in terms of what’s available to you?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. The best data we’ve seen is for those 10 Stateadministered Federal programs such as Medicaid, food stamps,

child support enforcement; and that data for the most part has not

been independently verified and validated. What the data shows is

a tremendous variance among States and even in some cases within States. Several States, and several programs have taken the

lead and been aggressively dealing with Y2K for several years. On

the other hand, the data indicates that there are States and programs that aren’t planning to resolve their Y2K issues until the

last quarter of 1999 and that’s the State’s estimates.

As you know, as well—— Mr. DAVIS. There is some risk in that, isn’t there?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. As you know, IT projects historically run late.

So to the extent that those kind of organizations can have other

available tools accessible to them to make sure they get the job

done on time, I think that will be to everyone’s benefit.

Mr. DAVIS. And my observations have been that you—governments always tend to undertake the problems for a lot of reasons.

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Correct.

Mr. DAVIS. Also, Mr. Willemssen, is the noncompliance by State

and local governments hindering the ability of the Federal Government to reach Y2K compliance?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Yes, because of the massive amount of data exchanges that Federal agencies and State governments in particular

have, that can be a hindrance.

And in particular, again on these State-administered programs

which are considered Federal programs but administered at the

State level, it’s particularly important that those systems are compliant. We are looking at hundreds of those systems and so the risk

that some of them will not be compliant is there. I think the States

and the Federal Government have to use all available avenues and

tools that are out there to try to get done in time.

Mr. DAVIS. So let me understand, the Federal Government can

do—can have its programs clean as a whistle, fixed, Y2K compliant, every terminal, everything’s fine, and yet people who are the

beneficiaries of some kind of Federal aid that’s funneled through

the State or whatever can get hurt because the State government

may not be compliant and may not have—for whatever reason?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Correct, and even two different entities may,

looking at just themselves, be compliant but if one entity has expanded their date fields and another one has windowed and they

haven’t dealt with the data exchange or tried to exchange the data

properly, all of that good work by the individual entities may go

for naught because they haven’t dealt with that exchange.

Mr. DAVIS. So the interconnectivity really—if the Federal Government wants to become compliant, we have to do everything we

83

can to make sure the State and local governments and even the

private sector we interconnect with are compliant?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Correct.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Lambert, will the ability to shop off the GSA

schedule for Y2K products provide States with more timely access

to necessary tools, do you think, to bring these systems into compliance?

Mr. LAMBERT. I think it will. I think it provides a wonderful opportunity for those States particularly that are behind right now to

gain access to a whole series—1,800 companies is not a small number of companies—to gain access to get those solutions. And as you

step it down into the villages and the smaller communities, the

fixes may not be difficult, but the procurement process may be

more difficult than the fix in opening the schedule up, and giving

access is going to provide that opportunity to perhaps get back up

to speed or at least get back on schedule, so that, come January

1, 2000, those small town halls or whatnot may only have a few

PCs and a server will be compliant as opposed to losing all of their

data potentially and not being able to recreate the records because

they don’t have the skills.

Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask this. If this legislation doesn’t pass, and

I’m a small town and I want to get Y2K compliant and it’s October

and I’m bumping up against the edges and, oh, my goodness, we

need to fix this, what’s preventing me from getting a schedule,

opening up and just calling some of those vendors and cutting my

own deal?

Mr. LAMBERT. It’s really going to depend on what the local laws

say. In some cases, there may be an emergency provision in the

laws that will allow them to do that. In other cases, it may be a

question of whether or not you call someone off of that schedule

and say, well, I can’t really work because the legislation didn’t pass

with you off of the schedule so we are going to have to think about

this and——

Mr. DAVIS. With this legislation, we basically allow State and—

many State and local governments who couldn’t do that to be able

to buy off and waive the usual procurement?

Mr. LAMBERT. Correct, and it also provides an affirmative statement that this is something that you can do, as limited as the

timeframe may be, but it is something that you can do to solve a

very critical problem for your constituents within that community.

Mr. DAVIS. Any liability to the Federal Government by opening

up these schedules? A State or local government decides to buy off

the schedule, the vendor that they pick botches the job, somebody

is injured, and they say, well, gee, the Federal Government recommended these people, they put them on the schedule.

Mr. LAMBERT. That’s going to be hard to say. It depends on how

the schedules are worded and what the liability conditions are

there.

Mr. DAVIS. But as a general rule?

Mr. LAMBERT. As a general rule, a botched job is a botched job,

and you are going to go after whoever made that mistake.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Pugliese.

Mr. PUGLIESE. Let me try to take a stab at that, Congressman.

84

A botched job is a botched job, that’s correct, but at least when

you’re under the schedules program, you have the immediate recovery of saying, let me go back to that 1,800 and figure out how to

get this botched job fixed, No. 1 priority, which is what you want

to do; and, second, let me have recourse against my commercial

partner, which you would have in any case in any contract.

Mr. DAVIS. So you don’t really—the Federal Government’s exposure on this——

Mr. PUGLIESE. In the normal government parlance, what you

would have had to do is start your procurement process all over

again and select somebody hopefully who could successfully complete, whereas in this process you move to your next x number of

folks you’d like to consider, you make your choice, and you still

can’t recover for damages.

Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask Mr. Lambert this from the State procurement office. Do you think this would be widely used by State and

local governments or do you think it would not be if this were

passed?

Mr. LAMBERT. I think the potential is there for it to be widely

used.

It’s really going to be a timing matter. If we get into late summer, there may not be a reasonable number of local governments

that are going to be able to wait that long for this to happen in

order to take advantage of it and maybe far enough down another

road that it will be too late to turn back or there will be some concerns about whether or not they should stop in the middle of a

process now in order to take advantage of the schedules. So timing

is very, very important right now.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, let me ask you this, and I’ll ask all of you, what

do you bet January 2nd, 2000—I think that’s a Monday, I’m not

sure of what the date is—when they open up, things have gone bad

over the weekend, they find they’ve got a problem, this schedule

could still help them even if—when you find you have a problem

after January 1, right?

Mr. LAMBERT. That’s very true, on the back end. And also, if I

may, the OMB date of June 2000 may be a bit too shortsighted.

From the standpoint of—if you have that major a problem come

January 2nd, you may be spending enormous amounts of time trying to, A, recreate the records before you can actually solve the

problem or doing both, and 6 months may not be a broad enough

window to get all of that work completed. So it may be a question

of interpretation of what does June 2000 mean. Does June 2000

mean that you cannot engage a service after June 2000 or does it

mean that all services must be completed and all products must be

installed by June 2000 for that Y2K fix?

Mr. DAVIS. You know, that’s an excellent point. I think from our

perspective the question is, are we trying to fix a problem or is

there another agenda? And there’s nothing wrong with having

other agendas. I mean, I think if you’re sitting there as a pharmaceutical and you’re very nervous about the expansion of this, that’s

not a bad agenda. I understand that. But we want to work with

that because the goal of this legislation is to solve the problem

without creating other problems.

85

And I just want to tell you that I know Mr. Horn and myself and

others feel the same way, we want to get this Y2K problem resolved to the best ability we are able. If something goes wrong, we

don’t want it at our doorsteps that we didn’t do everything we

could to make this—and we will work with anybody to try to draft

this legislation I think in a way that solves our problem and solves

their problems or concerns about it as well. I think the chairman

would agree with me.

Mr. LAMBERT. I have no issue with just focusing this on Y2K. My

real concern is just making sure that if we are doing this to solve

the Y2K problem that we give that amount of time that’s necessary

to do that problem solving.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. HORN [presiding]. Before you leave that question, could I just

ask Mr. Willemssen if you would like to put a GAO figure on that?

We now have the author in 2002, we have Ms. Lee, June 2000.

What does GAO think after they looked at the complexities

throughout the Nation?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. I’ll give you my estimate not from a procurement or legal perspective but more from a Y2K remediation perspective. To be safe, you would probably want to look at early 2001,

especially to the extent that there’s a large amount of windowing

done. You also increase the possibility of problems down the line,

but you may want to go one more calendar year rollover just for

added assurance of any additional problems that may occur. I don’t

know that you’d have to go to December 31st of that year, but—— Mr. DAVIS. That’s an excellent point. I think what you are saying

is you may want to use the schedule to get a short-term solution,

but then the permanent ones, when it comes along, you want to

keep it open.

And let me just say, again, I think we want to have discussions

with OMB, and we want to keep everyone here in the loop. We are

trying to solve a problem. We are doing everything we can to solve

the problem before it becomes a problem, and if you look at that

as the goal and everybody understands that is the limited goal,

there is no hidden agenda, I think we can get this done.

If more people are concerned about protecting their own industries long term from some precedent or something like that, it becomes more difficult to resolve. But I sincerely mean this when I

say we are just trying to solve a problem at this point, and we are

doing everything we can so that on January 1, 2000, citizens across

this country at all levels of the government are going to have minimal disruption in their lives, and hopefully no one will get hurt.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. HORN. Well, thank you for that line of questioning. Let me

just throw in one or two others.

Do the State and local governments currently have access to information about products and services on the Federal supply schedule?

Mr. PUGLIESE. Mr. Chairman, yes, they do, from the standpoint

of this issue has been swirling around Washington, DC, as long as

I have been in Washington, DC. So they are very familiar with

schedules. So they are very familiar with schedules. They are very

familiar with the companies that are on the schedule; and most of

86

them, because they cannot do cooperative purchasing, in some

cases they have basically approached companies and used the

scheduled price as the starting point for their own negotiations.

That is, my benchmark is this schedule price. Can you do better?

Will you do better? So, yes, they are very familiar with what’s

available on the schedule.

Mr. HORN. How many State GSAs are there? I know there’s a

very active one in California that used to love to bill back everything so they could go to the legislature and say we cost you nothing.

Mr. PUGLIESE. We actually—we were fairly proactive actually

with the State of California GSA, because they looked at our electronic commerce site and also the fact that we have not used paper

invoices in 10 years in Federal supply, and California still does a

tremendous amount of paper invoicing and purchase orders. So

there are 50 of them. Everybody recreates or reinvents the wheel

in a little bit different form or fashion.

Mr. HORN. Any comment on that, Mr. Lambert, in terms of the

use of the GSA schedule in terms of negotiation?

Mr. LAMBERT. It’s used effectively throughout most of the country. There are some States where the laws are pretty restricted,

but there are not that many. There are probably 10 where low bid

rules, and you must do a low bid procurement every time, but other

than that, people do use the GSA schedule as a benchmark and to

a minimum. It is not a negotiating tool.

Mr. HORN. Any further questions on our side, Mr. Ose?

Mr. OSE. No, sir.

Mr. HORN. OK. With that, we will move to panel two; and we

thank all of you gentlemen on panel one.

And, Mr. Willemssen, if you would like to sit through panel two,

please join us.

So we have Mr. Giles and Ms. Peters.

OK. If you would stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. HORN. The clerk will note that both witnesses have affirmed.

Mr. HORN. We will begin with Mr. Giles, who is the managing

director of Keane Federal Systems, Inc.

Welcome.

STATEMENTS OF GLENN GILES, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KEANE

FEDERAL SYSTEMS, INC.; AND NANCY PETERS, VICE PRESIDENT, SALES AND MARKETING, CACI, INC.

Mr. GILES. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee. Thank you for this opportunity to give you an industry

perspective on H.R. 1599, the Year 2000 Compliance Assistance

Act.

I’m Glenn Giles, a managing director in Keane, Inc., and I am

responsible for Keane’s public sector’s subsidiary. Keane’s a $1.1

billion software services company headquartered in Boston, with

operations throughout the United States, Canada and the United

Kingdom. Keane’s 12,000 employees help organizations plan, build

and manage applications software. Our clients include Fortune

1000 companies, Federal, State and local agencies and health care

organizations.

87

In this .com age of the Internet, the market drivers are convenience, speed, selection, and price. These drivers are not new to the

consumer marketplace, and they are no different for our government clients as they acquire goods and services to benefit American

taxpayers.

As we approach the new millennium, these drivers have become

more and more important to the civil servants who oversee and implement Y2K solutions. For the last 5 years, Keane has provided

Y2K services in virtually every industry of the United States, eventually becoming the U.S. leader in Y2K services. We have planned,

analyzed, fixed, tested, verified and validated thousands of systems, both for the commercial and government sectors. Many of

these systems would have failed had it not been for timely access

to affordable, high-quality Y2K services.

Y2K solutions need to be formulated and acquired very quickly

now. There is no time to waste. Year 2000 transactions for many

State and local governments begin, if they haven’t already, in 7

days, on July 1, 1999, as they enter their fiscal year 2000. Others

will enter their fiscal year 2000 over the next 6 months. We should

soon begin seeing the successes and failures of government Y2K efforts in a very graphic way as the year progresses.

Access to the GSA schedule will allow State and local governments who haven’t been able to make significant headway on their

Y2K problems the ability to make up lost time, potentially. For

those who have made significant progress, it will allow them to access Y2K capabilities to quickly solve problems that suddenly and

unexpectedly appear, probably at the worst possible time.

The competitive procurement process takes time. If State or local

governments are in the early stages of developing procurements for

Y2K remediation, they are in trouble. Alternatively, these government organizations could use the GSA schedule and avoid the precious administration time, cost and resources that they don’t have

at this late stage in the game.

Service to the citizen has no less urgency and priority than customer service in a commercial setting. When the check isn’t in the

mail or it is in the mail and the mail room tracking system doesn’t

work and can’t find it, or it is sent and it’s too much or it’s too little, citizens suffer. When a Y2K problem occurs or must be avoided,

quick access to appropriate vendors must be an absolute given, not

a question mark.

Convenience goes hand in hand with speed. The potential for

quick response from contracted services is of little value if the front

end process to gain contract access is made laborious and confusing

by Federal restrictions and paperwork. GSA must keep its process

simple for its potential State and local buyers just as it has for its

Federal customer base.

An enormous amount of money has been spent by U.S. industry

and public sectors on their Y2K problems. Most of these funds have

come from ‘‘out of hide’’ and, therefore, have caused impacts on new

technology priorities, postponed new systems initiatives and created much pressure on IT budgets. Y2K compliance expenditures,

for the most part, were not investments in upgraded capabilities or

functionality. We simply restored broken systems to a working

state.

88

Since Y2K expenditures are predominantly viewed as maintenance expenses rather than capability enhancing investments,

funding efforts to achieve compliance have been especially painful.

Y2K funds are diminishing from many State and local agencies, so

it is vital that we enable access to economical, competitive services

through vehicles such as the GSA schedule.

Finally, passage of the Year 2000 Compliance Assistance Act will

allow selection options by State and local governments of seasoned

corporate veterans having extensive experience in the unique and

not-so-unique Y2K problems encountered in government computer

systems.

The key issue at stake is allowing the State and local governments to decide for themselves. I don’t advocate that the use of the

GSA’s schedules be made any more or any less attractive to potential non-Federal users, only that they be made available for the

asking.

Mr. Chairman, as a result of my experience as a manager of both

Federal and State contracts, I can without any reservation whatsoever encourage this committee and this Congress to pass H.R.

1599. Allowing the States to use the GSA schedule for Y2K addresses the critical need for speed, convenience, price, and selection. This legislation is in the best interest of our taxpayers, our

citizens and our economy.

Thank you.

Mr. HORN. We thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Giles follows:]

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

Mr. HORN. And Ms. Peters is the sales and marketing vice president, and do we—how do we pronounce this? What does C–A–C– I stand for?

Ms. PETERS. Well, it doesn’t stand for anything any longer. It

once was a computer company name, but it is C–A–C–I—or CACI

as someone referred to it.

Mr. HORN. As in army and uniforms?

Ms. PETERS. Not exactly. A unique spelling.

Mr. HORN. Were these the partners’ initials or what?

Ms. PETERS. No. It was a computer—California Analysis and

Computer Institute. That was—— Mr. HORN. I see.

Ms. PETERS. That was 37 years ago.

Mr. HORN. OK. Now, I have that little bit of history in my head.

Ms. PETERS. Valuable information.

Mr. HORN. Well, I always like to know.

Ms. PETERS. The company did start in California.

Mr. HORN. Where did it start there? Do you know? Was it in Silicon Valley?

Ms. PETERS. Silicon Valley didn’t exist then. It was another valley.

Mr. HORN. OK. We have lots of valleys.

Ms. PETERS. Yeah.

Mr. HORN. OK. Ms. Peters, it’s all yours. Try to summarize it if

you can. Take your time.

Ms. PETERS. Yes. Good morning, Chairman Horn and members

of the subcommittee. I’m pleased to appear here today on behalf of

CACI, a systems integration company located in northern Virginia,

and ITAA, the Information Technology Association of America, to

express our support for H.R. 1599, the Year 2000 Compliance Assistance Act. Congressman Davis, as you know, is the chief sponsor

of this legislation, with several cosponsors.

I commend the chairman and the subcommittee for holding this

hearing and urge you to support the bill which will allow State and

local governments to acquire needed Y2K products and services.

With only 191 days left, time is of the essence.

In addition, not all of the systems used by these entities will be

Y2K compliant by January 1st. Many of them were not deemed

mission-critical but will need to be remediated during the year

2000. Since the bill’s provisions will be extended at a yet to be determined date, perhaps this provides sufficient time for all systems

to be converted.

A key question is, why are the schedules so attractive? That’s because they work. They work quickly. The Federal procurement

process has been greatly streamlined and has been extensively

used by Federal agencies for some time now, and there are services

on the schedules from a variety of companies that address the entire Y2K process from assessment through mediation and all the

way through IV and V and contingency planning.

As this committee knows so well, in dealing with the year 2000,

speed is a good thing and delay is the enemy. Federal agencies

have been able to gain rapid access to a variety of service providers

such as CACI through the schedules, and these ordering processes

have often been completed within a number of days. The ease of

97

purchase of these vital services is one of the reasons that State and

local governments need to have this access. One of the most appealing features of the schedules is that they are contracts with the

Federal Government with negotiated terms and conditions already

in place. This includes negotiated labor ratings for services and

products, which have the guarantee of preferred customer status.

Another advantage to State and local government in gaining access to our Federal business partners is that it opens the door to

service providers who have supported the Federal Government for

2 years or more. This gives them the added assurance that the

companies on the schedules have successfully met their Federal

customers’ needs and have experience in providing Y2K products

and services with skilled employees who understand public sector

systems.

In the case of CACI, we’ve been providing Y2K support for Federal agencies for more than 2 years, primarily through the schedules. We’ve also provided Y2K services to State and local governments through some State contracts, often established when the

Congress repealed the cooperative purchasing provision.

In addition to my experience with Federal, State and local governments, I serve as the Chair of the ITAA Year 2000 Task Group.

I have been a member since its formation in 1995, and we have repeatedly been concerned that some State, but especially local, governments are lagging in their Y2K preparedness. Study after study

has indicated that some local governments have barely started

their remediation and have no contingency plans in place.

It’s high time for these localities to cut to the chase and be able

to cut through red tape. We can help them by enacting H.R. 1599.

It would give governments immediate access to hundreds of companies, as I learned today, 1,800 companies, large and small, on the

schedule. This is an invaluable resource. There are, it’s true, some

States, cities and counties that are leaders in Y2K conversion, but

there are many more lagging behind private sector and the Federal

Government, and they could greatly benefit from access to these

services.

The Y2K problem is unique, not even a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, and it requires bold and innovative solutions by Congress to

pass such a bill. In many cases, Y2K problems are going to be felt

most heavily at the local level. It’s the local governments’ success

that will make a difference.

Mr. Chairman, I know you are partial to Y2K report cards. As

a former teacher myself, I suggest you give Representative Davis

and his cosponsors an A for this innovative legislation. I would also

give high marks to every Member of Congress who can understand

that the Nation’s business continuity in this unprecedented situation means a break from business as usual. Let’s get on with getting it done.

I will be glad to respond to any questions you have.

Mr. HORN. Well, thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Peters follows:]

98

99

100

101

Mr. HORN. Now, do you have—how does the system work with

your firm? Do you have franchises or do they operate all over the

United States on their own?

Ms. PETERS. We have offices all over the country, about 80

around the country.

Mr. HORN. So you don’t really—some of your adaptation in working on Y2K things are not left with local people that might have

other firms work through them?

Ms. PETERS. Sometimes they do. Certainly, with the work we are

doing in Ohio and Virginia, we have subcontractors working for us

and companies that are subcontracting to us who are local firms.

Mr. HORN. Would you essentially be—if this legislation passed,

in your adaptation mission, you would buy off that schedule, I take

it? Is that how it works with you?

Ms. PETERS. I don’t understand your question.

Mr. HORN. Well, if you have got people that are helping solve the

Y2K problem of various firms around the country and at these governments, nongovernment, you go in and do most of that work to

make sure they are 2000 compliant, right?

Ms. PETERS. Yes, uh-huh.

Mr. HORN. OK. And you sometimes contract with local firms to

use your method and approach and all that?

Ms. PETERS. Right.

Mr. HORN. OK. That—and leading up to that, do any of the local

firms object to you going off and doing that? I realize it’s far different than a manufacturer.

Ms. PETERS. Right.

Mr. HORN. But they might want to do it themselves, and could

they, if they are under contract to you? You’d be doing all that, I

assume.

Ms. PETERS. We wouldn’t be preventing them from doing other

work.

Mr. HORN. So they could do—well, on your contract, could they

go draw on the GSA schedule to fulfill your contract that you want

them to do?

Ms. PETERS. Are you suggesting that they would do the work

through our contract but without us?

Mr. HORN. Yeah—no. They could use you for the advice—— Ms. PETERS. Oh, certainly.

Mr. HORN [continuing]. And the consultant work. I’m talking

about getting the software or maybe even hardware.

Ms. PETERS. Oh, absolutely. They could do that.

Mr. HORN. OK. So you could both access the GSA schedule essentially?

Ms. PETERS. Right.

Mr. HORN. And that wouldn’t be a problem for the people with

whom you contract if they are regulars and not just a one-shot affair?

Ms. PETERS. Yeah, as long as we have a subcontract in place

with them, that would not be a problem.

Mr. HORN. OK. Because I think one of the things we are interested in is, on the software in particular, if that’s a franchise or if

they are trying to put it everywhere in America, I realize that

might be their best approach, but let’s say there’s some franchise,

102

certain computing approaches, programs, so forth, and I’m just interested in, is there a feedback coming on those? And maybe your

experience would tell us that, Mr. Giles.

Mr. GILES. Yeah, I think there’s—— Mr. HORN. If there’s a feedback, do you get any? Do they say,

hey, what are you doing?

Mr. GILES. Just to further comment on what Ms. Peters said,

typically, the tools come along and are deployed by people, and

CACI and Keane are predominantly focused on services that utilize

tools. The tools are commodities. It’s our methodologies and our

management that really ensure the Y2K solutions. So it would be

unlikely that we would totally franchise or totally subcontract a

year 2000 engagement to a subcontractor, even if they were going

through our GSA schedule simply because the liabilities are too

high, and we want to ensure that the benefits of all of our corporate knowledge were going to be put into play for any particular

engagement.

Mr. HORN. Now, your firm meets a lot of people, has acted and

is asked to do certain things in a lot of different States. How would

you sum up where the States are in America at this point on the

Y2K compliance? And you don’t have to name the States, but which

ones are successes in a way? And if you want to name them, fine,

and there are others that aren’t successes, where do you think the

mistakes were made by some States in how they organized to get

the job done?

Mr. GILES. I think just as the Federal Government has its A’s

and its F’s, within each State agency there are A’s and F’s, except

they don’t for the most part have anybody giving them report

cards. So their intention isn’t focused as well in many of the States.

Keane is located in 26 States around the country, and we are

doing State and local business in probably 20 States or so. I would

have to say that States that I’m personally involved in run across

the gamut, not only from State to State but within States. We have

found that States that are more dependent upon financial information seem to have gotten the message early on, started working

more quickly. Those that aren’t as financial information centered

have waited a long time to get started because the urgency just

didn’t seem to be there at the beginning.

The States that we are finding that have been more successful

are the ones that had a well-crafted plan laid out at the very beginning and an organized approach to making sure that most or all

of their agencies are adhering to a standard methodology or standard approaches.

Mr. HORN. Where those success stories are, was that because the

Governor was very active or the Governor’s department of finance

or department of organization and management?

Mr. GILES. Yeah, I would say that whenever there is executive

leadership and administration leadership on these issues we have

encountered a lot more success. Whenever there’s leadership at the

top, there’s always a natural ability to get things done more quickly, more focused.

In other agencies or other States, I’ve found that the States that

thought they were going to wait for a silver bullet to come along

were the ones that were fooled. We have not encountered a silver

103

bullet. The tools are enabling devices, but they are not the end-all

solutions. The States that have depended on silver bullets coming

along are going to have to resort to the pick and shovel method,

and that’s where I believe the GSA schedule can help the most.

Ms. PETERS. May I comment?

Mr. HORN. Sure.

Ms. PETERS. Of the States that I think are in pretty good shape,

and I will just stick my neck out and name a few, certainly Washington, Oregon, California to some extent, Maryland and Virginia,

New York, Ohio, those were all States that put into place some sort

of procurement vehicle for Y2K service and products, but they did

it 2 or 3 years ago, and it took in some cases many months to get

that vehicle in place. I think about the shortest turnaround I know

about with a State was something like 3 months.

The point of this legislation is to give people access now to a

schedule that’s in place. States don’t have time to develop some

sort of procurement vehicle now, and for that reason we need to

give them a vehicle that’s easy to use and available because the

time is gone for putting those in place.

Mr. HORN. Do any of you have any estimate from your own pricing system where—how much you would save if the products that

GSA has a bargaining with were used by you as part of your adaptation and implementation process? Would you say 5 percent or 2

percent or what are we talking about here in real money?

Mr. GILES. There are economies of scale. There are quite a few

States that have so-called convenience contracts that are somewhat

similar to the GSA schedule, a lot of vendors that they can select

from fairly easily. For the most part, those convenience contracts

have as their basis pricing from GSA’s schedule. The States are

aware of GSA’s schedule contracts, and they use them often as a

basis for that. In those States that have tracked their pricing to the

GSA schedules, unless we negotiated a discount independently,

they would probably not save a lot of money, but they would indeed

some time perhaps.

In other States, we would probably be able to save them money,

5 percent, 10 percent I think is probably an outside number. It

would have to be on a case-by-case basis, though.

Mr. HORN. Now, we have a lot of people in the country saying

they can really help firms, adapt them. They are bringing people

that know COBAL out of retirement and so forth. What’s your impression? Are most of these legitimate or are some just saying they

can do it and when the chips are down nothing much has changed?

Mr. GILES. One of the things that Keane has maintained all

along, and I believe our other competitors in Y2K services area, is

Y2K is a management problem more than it is anything else. It is

difficult to bring a tool based or a commodity based solution into

place and make it successful. And many of the companies that

want to sell a COBAL body or a silver bullet solution that’s not

surrounded with a management and a methodology approach are

not successful because they are not looking comprehensively at the

problem with a comprehensive solution. So we have not had a lot

of success in relying on those sorts of firms. In some cases, we will

subcontract to them and bring them into the overarching solution,

the management techniques and methods that we have.

104

Mr. HORN. We have been preaching that management point since

April 1996, so I’m glad that’s followed out. I think it’s pretty obvious that chaos sort of reigns when you don’t have decent management.

Mr. GILES. Indeed.

Mr. HORN. Now, has Keane worked for any of the Federal executive departments and agencies or have you been mostly working

with the States?

Mr. GILES. No. States. Our private or public sector business is

about 15 percent or $175 to $200 million of our revenues per year.

I would say approximately a third to a half of that is in the Federal

sector. We have done a lot of Y2K business across the analysis to

independent verification, validation and everything in between for

at least 12 to 15 agencies.

Mr. HORN. Now, how does that happen? Does somebody come to

you because you’ve got a reputation in the area or do you talk to

who with an agency and does GSA route in or do you just deal directly with the particular agency or department? How does it work?

Mr. GILES. Five years ago we knocked on a lot of doors that

didn’t open up because no one wanted to talk about the year 2000

in the Federal Government. That’s when our commercial sector

really started paying attention to the year 2000. I would say several years ago agencies started listening, and a year or two ago,

agencies started calling us up to either begin remediation for them

but recently to perform independent verification, validation services on efforts that have already been under way. So we’ve kind of

matured through this process as the market has and vice versa.

Many agencies are using our GSA schedule for these services. Others are using their own IT IQ contracts for us to provide them services.

Mr. HORN. In your testimony you said, ‘‘funding documentation

requirements and the local procurement statutes will test the effectiveness of the GSA scheduled solution.’’ Can you explain what you

meant by this and how the local procurement laws and regulations

would affect the ability of State and local governments to procure

off the Federal supply schedules?

Mr. GILES. I have found that even within the Federal Government, whenever an agency is using somebody’s else’s contract vehicle, whether it’s a GSA schedule or whether it’s an IT IQ contract,

GIWAC or what have you, there is always an education, orientation and negotiation process that goes on within the buying agency’s procuring shop. They tend to want to do things in-house. They

tend to want to stand behind whatever their particular agency’s

regulation—acquisition regulations are; and sometimes there is a

lag, if you will, to overcome that.

I believe—and particularly when it comes to the whole funding

document and funding process, how do you transfer funds? How do

you get the right signatures within these procurement shops and

contracts groups and through their legal counsel to expedite the

process? I don’t think it will be any less daunting a test than in

the State and local agencies, particularly because they are dealing

with an entirely different government entity.

105

Mr. HORN. Ms. Peters, has your experience with CACI been

about the same as Mr. Giles where 3 or 4 years ago you didn’t have

any open doors and awareness came and then panic came and——

Ms. PETERS. Right, right.

Mr. HORN [continuing]. Et cetera? Is that the way your situation

has gone?

Ms. PETERS. Yes. I would say that about half of our Y2K business is with Federal agencies and the other half with State and

local governments. In a number of cases, Federal customers have

already been our customers and have called us up and said, can

you help? Sometimes we get calls from people. Often they will call

and say, I need Y2K support. Do you have a GSA schedule? Because they know if we have a GSA schedule that, in fact, we can

probably get something in place and get work started within a matter of days because GSA doesn’t have to intervene. We just have

to verify through our schedule number that we, in fact, have a contract in place with the Federal Government, and it’s a matter of

agreeing on labor categories which are already set and kinds of

services and products, if they are relevant, and then we move forward, and so it can be a very simple and very expedient process.

It’s a matter of being willing to trust that process.

I certainly have some instances with Federal agencies where we

set out to do some Y2K work through an internal vehicle or a

GIWAC of some kind. In one case, it took 6 months to get the work

started.

Mr. HORN. Now, is that because of their procurement system in

this particular area?

Ms. PETERS. Right, it was the internal agency’s procurement system.

Mr. HORN. Did they have a chief information officer?

Ms. PETERS. Yes.

Mr. HORN. Was that a helpful position to bang heads?

Ms. PETERS. Not in that particular situation. It has been in others.

Mr. HORN. Yeah. I was wondering because, during this 4 years,

shall we say, since 1996 up, you’ve got more and more chief information officers, and they’re better and better in many cases than

it was before 1996. So I just wondered how helpful they could be.

They’re supposed to report directly to the Secretary or the Deputy

Secretary, and unless they are just sloughed aside somewhere and

somebody says, ‘‘oh, yeah, we’ve got one of those. Where is he or

she?’’

Ms. PETERS. I think as the visibility of the CIO has increased

and they have gained in authority that they’ve been able to be

much more effective.

Mr. HORN. Good.

Ms. PETERS. And certainly can make some differences. But we

also have agencies who have normally dealt with us through their

own vehicles who have gone to the GSA because it’s easier and, in

some cases, less expensive.

Mr. HORN. Yeah. Well, that’s always interesting.

You heard some dates passed around here. Mr. Davis has 2002.

The OMB, Ms. Lee speaking as Deputy Director for Management,

106

says it ought to end in June 2000; and the GAO has a view on it

also, as we heard from Mr. Willemssen.

By the way, Mr. Willemssen, if you have some sum-up things

here, I’d like you at the table, and feel free to get into this one because this is one of the last two or three questions.

So, do you have any feeling on how long that authority should

last for the schedule?

Ms. PETERS. I think June 2000 is unrealistic in terms of organizations being done. We’ve been focusing and talking about missioncritical systems for some time now because those are, obviously,

the ones that have to be dealt with first. But in most organizations,

mission-critical systems can comprise as little as 10 percent of the

whole organization systems, and while there are some systems that

will fade away, they won’t work and nobody will notice, it won’t be

90 percent of the systems that will fade away. So it seems to me

one of the things we really have to deal with after the year 2000

begins is all of the nonmission-critical systems or the mission-enabling or mission-essential systems that will also have to be fixed

and dealt with, and I think you need at least a year, and that’s

probably pushing it.

Mr. GILES. I would agree. June 2000 will only allow some of the

temporary fixes that people have put in place to cross over the year

2000 boundary to fail.

My concern would be these band-aids that have been put on

some of these systems that would fail after June 2000 which would

cause the fire drill that would require some new or some easy access to contract vehicles after everybody’s guard’s let down because

January 1st has already gone, we create some problems. I would

advocate that we at least let it go into the first quarter of calendar

year 2001, because you get a full-year cycle, you’ve cleared out

everybody’s fiscal year boundaries, and you’ve got some postmortem assessment time after that year boundary has been crossed

to determine what your procurement actions and your responses

need to be.

Mr. HORN. Some of these agencies that reflect some of our 13 appropriations subcommittees are obviously going to be seeking longoverdue upgrades in their equipment, and that could last, as you

suggest, I think through 2001 and maybe even 2002, given the

budget cycle and how much you can do in a particular year. Do you

think that needs an even longer extension than Mr. Davis wanted

in his bill? Should it be 2003 or what?

Mr. GILES. That’s going to be conditional. I mean, we are predicting here, and there’s one thing that I found out about year 2000

problems, you don’t predict anything very well with them. They

crop up where you don’t expect them.

I would think that a reasonable procurement cycle to allow the

procurement for any particular year 2000 fix with hardware and

software be allowed to gestate. I don’t know that needs to be until

the year 2002, but what I am suggesting is, the systems that we’ve

dealt with, I think the preponderance of them would be—would

show their stripes, whether they are Y2K compliant after a fullyear cycle.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Willemssen, any additions you’d like to make?

107

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. One related comment in this area is that there

can actually be Y2K problems that occur that aren’t actually noticed for many, many months afterwards, especially in financial-oriented systems, where a problem may have happened but has not

been picked up until many months later by senior management,

and when they start investigating, they uncover the full exposure

of what that problem is. So that also points to the need to have

this—the deadline beyond June 2000.

Mr. HORN. Well, I thank you for that, and I thank you and the

previous panels. We obviously want to help State and local governments in their efforts to ready their computers for the year 2000,

and this bill, while it’s limited in scope, clearly does target that significant problem. As the legislative process continues, we must also

remain mindful of the bill’s impact on the businesses and vendors

who are supplying year 2000 products and services.

I want to insert in the record at the beginning, after Mrs. Biggert

as vice chairman, please put the opening statement of the ranking

member of the Democratic side, Mr. James Turner, the gentleman

from Texas, and that will be put in as read.

I now want to thank the subcommittee staff for the hard work

they’ve done on such short notice. Mr. J. Russell George is the

third one in on my left and against the wall, the staff director and

chief counsel. Randy Kaplan is over here with the flag backing him

up, is the counsel; and Matt Ryan at the other end is the senior

policy advisor.

The one that did the most to set up this particular hearing is to

my immediate left, Patricia Jones. She’s a professional staff member and congressional fellow, which is a great program.

I happened to be in it in 1958–1959, so I’m well aware of it. You

weren’t born in 1958–1959, I don’t think, but that was the fourth

year of the program; and it’s a good program run by the American

Political Science Association to turn around the attitudes of the

profession of political science; and we did it, and that’s—so it was

all Presidential executive oriented, and every great political scientist was working for Roosevelt in the Second World War.

This program has resulted in probably 400 books that have come

out of it of the fellows in the program. And she is on loan from the

National Security Agency [NSA], and we are delighted to have her

with us. And we wish you would educate all your colleagues in the

executive branch when you go back there, but smile a lot when you

do that because they won’t believe you, that we work hard.

And Bonnie Heald, our director of communications, is over there,

second in from Mr. Ryan; and Grant Newman, our clerk. There he

is. And we’ve got a few interns—Paul Wicker. Is Paul around? He’s

down there working. You know what interns—they slave all summer. Justin Schlueter is the other intern and Lauren Leftin, intern.

On the other side, we have Faith Weiss as minority counsel;

Earley Green as minority staff assistant.

And our official reporter for this hearing, Melinda Walker.

Melinda, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

With that, this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ