GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Government Management, 

Information and Technology, Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

10 a.m.

Wednesday,

June 23, 1999

YEAR 2000 COMPUTING 

CHALLENGE

Delivery of Key Benefits 

Hinges on States’ 

Achieving Compliance

Statement of Joel C. Willemssen

Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems

Accounting and Information Management Division

GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-99-221

Page 1 GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-99-221

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting us to participate in today's hearing on the Year 2000 

challenge facing state and local governments and on H.R. 1599, a bill that 

would authorize state and local governments to purchase information 

technology through the federal government to address the Year 2000 

problem. Just as the federal government faces significant Year 2000 risks, 

so too do state and local governments. If the Year 2000 problem is not 

properly addressed, for example, (1) food stamps and other types of 

payments may not be made or could be made for incorrect amounts, 

(2) date-dependent signal timing patterns could be incorrectly 

implemented at highway intersections, with safety severely compromised, 

and (3) prisoner release or parole eligibility determinations may be 

adversely affected.

As requested, today I will (1) highlight the reported Year 2000 readiness of 

state and local governments and actions taken by the President’s Council 

on Year 2000 Conversion1

 in this area, (2) discuss the readiness and federal 

activities associated with state-administered federal programs, and 

(3) offer our observations on H.R. 1599, the Year 2000 Compliance 

Assistance Act.

Year 2000 Risks of 

State and Local 

Governments

Available information on the Year 2000 readiness of state and local 

governments indicates that much work remains. The successful 

completion of the Year 2000 efforts of these governments is essential, since 

they perform critical functions in areas such as public safety and benefits 

payments. 

According to information on state Year 2000 activities reported to the 

National Association of State Information Resource Executives as of 

1

The President tasked the Chair of the President’s Council on Year 2000 Conversion with (1) overseeing 

the activities of agencies, (2) acting as chief spokesperson in national and international forums, 

(3) providing policy coordination of executive branch activities with state, local, and tribal 

governments, and (4) promoting appropriate federal roles with respect to private-sector activities.

Letr
Page 2 GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-99-221

June 17, 1999,2 states3 reported having thousands of mission-critical 

systems.4 With respect to completing the implementation phase for these 

systems, 

• 5 states5

 reported that they had completed between 25 and 49 percent,

• 13 states6

 reported completing between 50 and 74 percent, and

• 30 states7

 reported completing 75 percent or more.8

All of the states responding to the National Association of State 

Information Resource Executives survey reported that they are actively 

engaged in internal and external contingency planning and that they had 

established target dates for the completion of these plans; 14 (28 percent) 

reported the deadline as October 1999 or later.

State audit organizations have also identified significant Year 2000 

concerns. In January 1999, the National State Auditors Association 

reported on the results of its mid-1998 survey of Year2000 compliance 

among states.9

 This report stated that for the 12 state audit organizations 

that provided Year 2000-related reports, concerns had been raised in areas 

such as planning, testing, embedded systems, business continuity and 

contingency planning, and the adequacy of resources to address the 

problem.

2

Individual states submit periodic updates to the National Association of State Information Resource 

Executives. For the June 17 report, over half of the states submitted their data in May and June 1999. 

The oldest data were provided on March 4 and the most recent data on June 16. All but three states 

responded to the survey.

3

In the context of the National Association of State Information Resource Executives survey, the term 

“states” includes the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

4

The National Association of State Information Resource Executives defined mission-critical systems as 

those that a state had identified as priorities for prompt remediation.

5

Three states reported on their mission-critical systems, one state reported on its processes, and one 

reported on its functions.

6

Eleven states reported on their mission-critical systems, one reported on all systems, and one reported 

on projects. 

7

Twenty-five states reported on their mission-critical systems, two states reported on their applications, 

one reported on its “priority business activities”, one reported on its “critical compliance units”, and 

one reported on all systems.

8

Of the states that responded to the survey, two did not respond to this question.

9

Year 2000: State Compliance Efforts (National State Auditors Association, January 1999). 

Letr
Page 3 GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-99-221

We identified additional products by 14 state-level audit organizations and 

Guam that discussed the Year 2000 problem and that had been issued since 

October 1, 1998. Several of these state-level audit organizations noted that 

progress had been made. However, the audit organizations also expressed 

concerns that were consistent with those reported by the National State 

Auditors Association. For example:

• In December 1998 the Vermont State Auditor reported10 that the state 

Chief Information Officer did not have a comprehensive control list of 

the state’s information technology systems. Accordingly, the audit office 

stated that, even if all mission-critical state systems were checked, these 

systems could be endangered by information technology components 

that had not been checked or by linkages with the state’s external 

electronic partners.

• In April 1999, New York’s Division of Management Audit and State 

Financial Services reported that state agencies did not adequately 

control the critical process of testing remediated systems.11 Further, 

most agencies were in the early stages of addressing potential problems 

related to data exchanges and embedded systems and none had 

completed substantive work on contingency planning. The New York 

audit office subsequently issued seven reports on 13 of the state’s 

mission-critical and high-priority systems that included concerns about 

contingency planning and testing.

• In February 1999, the California State Auditor reported12 that key 

agencies responsible for emergency services, corrections, and water 

resources, among other areas, had not fully addressed embedded 

technology-related threats. Regarding emergency services, the 

California report stated that if remediation of the embedded technology 

in its networks were not completed, the Office of Emergency Services 

might have to rely on cumbersome manual processes, significantly 

increasing response time to disasters.

10Vermont State Auditor’s Report on State Government’s Year 2000 Preparedness (Y2K Compliance) for 

the Period Ending November 1, 1998 (Office of the State Auditor, December 31, 1998).

11New York’s Preparation for the Year 2000: A Second Look (Office of the State Comptroller, Division of 

Management Audit and State Financial Services, Report 98-S-21, April 5, 1999).

12Year 2000 Computer Problem: The State’s Agencies Are Progressing Toward Compliance but Key 

Steps Remain Incomplete (California State Auditor, February 18, 1999).
Page 4 GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-99-221

• In March 1999, Oregon’s Audits Division reported13 that 11 of the 

12 state agencies reviewed did not have business continuity plans 

addressing potential Year 2000 problems for their core business 

functions.

• In March 1999, North Carolina’s State Auditor reported14 that resource 

restrictions had limited the state’s Year 2000 Project Office’s ability to 

verify data reported by state agencies. 

It is also critical that local government systems be ready for the change of 

century since critical functions involving, for example, public safety and 

traffic management, are performed at the local level. Recent reports on 

local governments have highlighted Year 2000 concerns. For example:

• The National League of Cities conducted a poll during its annual 

conference in March 1999 that included over 400 responses. The poll 

found that (1) 340 respondents stated that over 75 percent of their cities’ 

critical systems would be Year 2000 compliant by January 1, 2000, 

(2) 35 stated that 51 to 75 percent would be compliant, (3) 16 stated that 

25 to 50 percent would be compliant, and (4) 16 stated that less than 

25 percent would be compliant. Moreover, 34 percent of respondents 

had contingency plans, 46 percent stated that they were in the process 

of developing plans, 12 percent stated that plans would be developed, 

and 8 percent said they did not intend to develop contingency plans. 

• In January 1999, the United States Conference of Mayors reported on 

the results of its survey of 220 cities. It found that (1) 97 percent had 

citywide plans to address Year 2000 issues, (2) 22 percent had repaired 

or replaced less than half of their systems, and (3) 45 percent had 

completed less than half of their testing.

The National Association of Counties has announced that it plans to release 

later today the results of its latest survey of 500 counties, which should 

provide additional information on the readiness of local governments.

Of critical importance to the nation are services essential to the safety and 

well-being of individuals across the country, namely 9-1-1 systems and law 

enforcement. For the most part, responsibility for ensuring continuity of 

13Department of Administrative Services Year 2000 Statewide Project Office Review (Secretary of State, 

Audits Division, State of Oregon Report No. 99-05, March 16, 1999). 

14Department of Commerce, Information Technology Services Year 2000 Project Office (Office of the 

State Auditor, State of North Carolina, March 18, 1999).
Page 5 GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-99-221

service for 9-1-1 calls and law enforcement resides with thousands of state 

and local jurisdictions. On April 29, we testified that not enough was known 

about the status of either 9-1-1 systems or of state and local law 

enforcement activities to conclude about either’s ability during the 

transition to the year 2000 to meet the public safety and well-being needs of 

local communities across the nation.15 While the federal government 

planned additional actions to determine the status of these areas, we stated 

that the President’s Council on Year 2000 Conversion should use such 

information to identify specific risks and develop appropriate strategies 

and contingency plans to respond to those risks.

Recognizing the seriousness of the Year 2000 risks facing state and local 

governments, the President’s Council on Year 2000 Conversion has 

developed initiatives to address the Year 2000 readiness of state and local 

governments. For example: 

• The Council established working groups on state and local governments 

and tribal governments. 

• Officials from the Council participate in monthly multistate conference 

calls.

• In July 1998 and March 1999, the Council partnered with the National 

Governors’ Association to convene Year 2000 summits with state and 

U.S. territory Year 2000 coordinators. 

• On May 24, the Council announced a nationwide campaign to promote 

“Y2K Community Conversations” to support and encourage efforts of 

government officials, business leaders, and interested citizens to share 

information on their progress. To support this initiative, the Council has 

developed and is distributing a toolkit that provides examples of which 

sectors should be represented in these events and the issues that should 

be addressed.

State-Administered 

Federal Human 

Services Programs Are 

at Risk 

Among the critical functions performed by states are the administration of 

federal human services programs. As we reported in November 1998, many 

systems that support state-administered federal human services programs 

were at risk and much work remained to ensure that services would 

continue.16 In February of this year, we testified that while some progress 

15Year 2000 Computing Challenge: Status of Emergency and State and Local Law Enforcement Systems 

Is Still Unknown (GAO/T-AIMD-99-163, April 29, 1999). 

16Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Readiness of State Automated Systems to Support Federal Welfare 

Programs (GAO/AIMD-99-28, November 6, 1998). 
Page 6 GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-99-221

had been achieved, many states’ systems were not scheduled to become 

compliant until the last half of 1999.17 Accordingly, we concluded that given 

these risks, business continuity and contingency planning was even more 

important in ensuring continuity of program operations and benefits in the 

event of systems failures. 

Subsequent to our November 1998 report, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) directed federal oversight agencies to include the status of 

selected state human services systems in their quarterly reports. 

Specifically, in January 1999, OMB requested that the agencies describe 

actions to help ensure that federally supported, state-run programs will be 

able to provide services and benefits. OMB further asked that agencies 

report the date when each state’s systems will be Year 2000 compliant. 

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the information gathered by the Departments of 

Agriculture and Health and Human Services, respectively, on the 

compliance status of state-level organizations. The information indicates 

that a number of states do not plan to complete their Year 2000 efforts until 

the last quarter of 1999.

Table 1: Reported State-Level Readiness for Federally Supported Programs—

Department of Agriculture, May 1999

a

Unknown indicates the state did not provide a date or the date was unknown.

Note: This table contains readiness information from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, 

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Source: Department of Agriculture.

17Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Readiness of State Automated Systems That Support Federal Human 

Services Programs (GAO/T-AIMD-99-91, February 24, 1999). 

Program Compliant

Apr.-

June

JulySept.Oct.-

Dec. Unknowna

Food Stamps 25 12 14 3 0

Child Nutrition 29 9 10 4 2

Women, Infants, and Children 33 11 7 3 0
Page 7 GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-99-221

Table 2: Reported State-Level Readiness for Federally Supported Programs—

Department of Health and Human Services, January 1999

a

In many cases, the report indicated a date instead of whether the state was compliant. We assumed 

that states reporting completion dates in 1998 or earlier were compliant.

b

Unknown indicates that according to OMB, the data reported by the states were unclear or that no 

information was reported by the agency.

c

N/A indicates that the states or territories reported that the data requested were not applicable to 

them.

Note: This table contains readiness information from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, 

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Source: Progress on Year 2000 Conversion: 9th Quarterly Report (OMB, issued on June 15, 1999).

In addition, in June 1999, OMB reported that as of March 31, 1999, 27 states’ 

unemployment insurance systems were compliant, 11 planned to be 

completed between April and June 1999, 10 planned to be completed 

between July and September, and 5 planned to be completed between 

October and December.

Agencies Are Addressing 

Year 2000 Issues of 

State-Administered 

Programs

On March 26, 1999, OMB issued a memorandum to federal agencies 

designating lead agencies for the government’s 42 high-impact programs. 

(OMB later added a 43rd high-impact program.) About a quarter of the 

federal government’s programs designated as high impact by OMB are 

state-administered, such as Food Stamps and Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families.

Program Complianta

Jan.-

Mar.

Apr.-

June

JulySept.Oct.-

Dec. Unknownb N/Ac

Child Care 24 5 5 8 2 6 4

Child Support 

Enforcement 15 4 13 8 8 6 0

Child Welfare 20 5 9 11 3 5 1

Low Income Housing 

Energy Assistance 

Program 10 0 3 7 1 32 1

Medicaid — Integrated 

Eligibility System 20 0 15 15 4 0 0

Medicaid — Management 

Information System 17 0 19 14 4 0 0

Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families 19 3 12 15 1 4 0
Page 8 GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-99-221

For each program, the lead agency was charged with identifying to OMB 

the partners integral to program delivery; taking a leadership role in 

convening those partners; assuring that each partner has an adequate Year 

2000 plan and, if not, helping each partner without one; and developing a 

plan to ensure that the program will operate effectively. According to OMB, 

such a plan might include testing data exchanges across partners, 

developing complementary business continuity and contingency plans, 

sharing key information on readiness with other partners and the public, 

and taking other steps necessary to ensure that the program will work. 

OMB directed the lead agencies to provide a schedule and milestones of 

key activities in the plan by April 15. OMB also asked agencies to provide 

monthly progress reports.

In response to the March memorandum regarding the high-impact 

programs, the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, 

and Labor reported on various actions that they are taking or plan to take 

to help ensure the Year 2000 compliance of their state-administered 

programs. For example:

• The Department of Agriculture reported in May 1999 that its Food and 

Nutrition Service requested that states provide their contingency plans 

and had contracted for technical support services to review these plans, 

as needed, and to assist in its oversight of other state Year 2000 

activities.

• The Department of Health and Human Services reported that its 

Administration for Children and Families and Health Care Financing 

Administration had contracted for on-site assessments of state partners, 

which will include reviews of business continuity and contingency 

plans.

• The Department of Labor reported that states are required to submit a 

certification of Year 2000 compliance for their benefit and tax systems 

along with an independent verification and validation report. In 

addition, Labor required that state agencies prepare business continuity 

and contingency plans, which will be reviewed by Labor officials. 

Further, the department plans to design and develop a prototype 

PC-based system to be used in the event that a state’s unemployment 

insurance system is unusable due to a Year 2000-induced problem.

An example of the benefits that federal/state partnerships can provide is 

illustrated by the Department of Labor’s unemployment services program. 

In September 1998, we reported that many State Employment Security 

Agencies were at risk of failure as early as January 1999 and urged the 
Page 9 GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-99-221

Department of Labor to initiate the development of realistic contingency 

plans to ensure continuity of core business processes in the event of Year 

2000-induced failures.18 Just last month, we testified that four state 

agencies systems could have failed if systems in those states had not been 

programmed with an emergency patch in December 1998. This patch was 

developed by several of the state agencies and promoted to other state 

agencies by the Department of Labor. 19

The important services that state and local governments provide to the 

nation’s citizens warrant actions such as these to help states ensure that 

critical human services will be successfully transitioned to the next 

century. Indeed, additional actions may be needed to provide further 

assurance that disruptions will be minimized.

Observations on H.R. 

1599, the Year 2000 

Compliance Assistance 

Act

To provide an additional option to state and local governments in their Year 

2000 efforts, on April 28 1999, Congressman Thomas M. Davis introduced 

H.R. 1599, the Year 2000 Compliance Assistance Act. This bill, if enacted, 

would amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 

to authorize state and local governments to purchase information 

technology related to Year 2000 conversion through specific federal supply 

schedules. In particular, it states that

• the General Services Administration (GSA) may allow state and local 

governments to use federal supply schedules for automated data 

processing equipment (including firmware), software, supplies, support 

equipment, and services (as contained in federal supply classification 

code group 70) related to the Year 2000 computer conversion;

• participation by firms that sell through the federal supply schedule shall 

be voluntary with respect to a sale to the state or local governments; and

• the authority provided would expire on December 31, 2002.

Cooperative Purchasing 

Previously Authorized, 

Suspended, and Repealed

GSA’s Federal Supply Service negotiates and awards contracts for 

information technology products and services as well as other goods and 

services available through the federal supply schedules. Federal agencies 

18Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Progress Made at Department of Labor, But Key Systems at Risk

(GAO/T-AIMD-98-303, September 17, 1998).

19Year 2000 Computing Challenge: Labor Has Progressed But Selected Systems Remain at Risk

(GAO/T-AIMD-99-179, May 12, 1999). 
Page 10 GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-99-221

order products and services directly from vendors on a schedule and pay 

the vendors directly. In fiscal year 1998, there were about 140 federal 

supply schedules and sales totaled $8.1 billion. GSA reported that about 

three-quarters of the contracts awarded under the program were to small 

businesses.

Under the cooperative purchasing program authorized by section 1555 of 

the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, the Administrator of GSA 

was permitted to allow state and local governments, the government of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and Indian tribal governments to purchase 

items available through federal supply schedules. Participation by vendors 

was to be voluntary. Subsequent concerns were raised about the 

purchasing program from several industries that because of either their 

market structure or other factors, they would be subject to adverse effects 

from cooperative purchasing. As a result, in 1996 the Congress suspended 

GSA’s authority for this program. The Congress also required that we assess 

the effects cooperative purchasing may have on state, local, tribal, Puerto 

Rican, and federal governments and on industry, including small businesses 

and local dealers. Our subsequent February 1997 report20 found the 

following.

• Cooperative purchasing would not be likely to adversely affect the 

federal government if GSA would exclude schedules from the program 

when adverse effects are indicated. At that time, information technology 

services were not available on the schedule. Today, both information 

technology goods and services are available. Whether cooperative 

purchasing would have positive effects on the federal government 

depends largely on whether increased use of the schedules by state and 

local governments would lead to lower prices and reduced 

administrative charges by GSA. It is unclear whether either of these 

would occur.

• The potential effects of the cooperative purchasing program were likely 

to vary among state, local, and the Puerto Rican governments. Some of 

these governments may experience benefits such as cost savings and a 

reduction in the time to procure items. However, several factors such as 

state or local laws, ordinances, or policies that direct how or where 

state or local purchases can be made could limit the extent of these 

benefits.

20Cooperative Purchasing: Effects Are Likely to Vary Among Governments and Businesses

(GAO/GGD-97-33, February 10, 1997).
Page 11 GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-99-221

• The potential effects of the cooperative purchasing program on industry, 

including small businesses and dealers, were also likely to vary, 

although sufficient data were not available to conclusively predict these 

effects. Some businesses expected to benefit from increased sales or 

reduced administrative costs, while others expected to lose sales or 

have lower profits. Still other businesses did not believe that they would 

be affected by the program. Most of the concerns that businesses 

expressed about significant adverse effects involved only a few GSA 

schedules, such as fire-fighting vehicles, airline services, and 

construction and highway maintenance equipment.

• Cooperative purchasings’ effect on all parties also depends on how GSA 

implements the program and, at the time of our review, GSA’s 

implementation plan was still evolving. Details such as whether federal 

or state prompt payment provisions would apply and controls against 

program abuse were uncertain. To address these issues, we 

recommended that GSA develop a detailed implementation plan, 

including how GSA intended to evaluate the program, so that the 

Congress and others would know how GSA intended the program to 

work. GSA concurred with this recommendation.

In late 1997, the Congress repealed the part of the Federal Acquisition 

Streamlining Act of 1994 which permitted GSA to allow state and local 

governments to use the federal supply schedules.21 However, in certain 

cases, the Congress has allowed use of the schedules program beyond 

federal agencies. For example, in 1993, the Congress authorized state and 

local law enforcement agencies involved in counter-drug activities to use 

the schedules program.22

Potential Benefits of 

Allowing State and Local 

Governments to Use the 

Information Technology 

Schedule

GSA’s information technology schedule offers a variety of goods and 

services that could prove helpful to state and local governments, such as 

business continuity and contingency planning services. As of June 18, 1999, 

GSA’s schedule 70 (information technology) listed 1,818 vendors, of which 

291 were specifically designated as “vendors who have millennium 

conversion (Y2K) products and/or services.” According to GSA, about 

76 percent (220) of the vendors that provided Year 2000 products and 

services were small businesses.

21Public Law 105-61, October 10, 1997. 

22Public Law 103-160, November 30, 1993. 
Page 12 GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-99-221

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 

uncertain. Factors that could limit state and local government use of the 

schedule include, in some instances, lack of authority in their laws or 

ordinances, in-state or local purchasing preferences, and possibly higher 

prices on the schedule for some items. On the other hand, state and local 

governments could benefit to the extent that they could acquire needed 

information technology goods and services at lower prices more quickly, 

and/or with less administrative burden than they otherwise could.

In particular, access to the information technology schedule would provide 

states with an additional tool for obtaining essential Year 2000-related 

products and services. Such tools may be especially welcomed by states 

and localities that do not plan to have essential programs Year 2000 

compliant until the last quarter of the year and are, therefore, at greater risk 

of service disruption. Still, this bill would be most useful if implemented 

expeditiously because of the limited time remaining until the change of 

century. If implemented expeditiously, states could still have time to use 

the federal supply schedule to obtain help in areas such as the development 

of business continuity and contingency plans.

Another consideration is the effect of opening the information technology 

schedule on businesses. Those that would choose to participate could 

benefit from increased market exposure and sales and lower administrative 

costs to the extent that they would not have to prepare separate bid 

proposals for state and local governments for purchases through the 

schedule. This could also benefit the federal government should 

participating vendors lower their prices for the schedule items due to the 

higher sales volume and lower administrative burden. The federal 

government would also benefit from the 1 percent administrative fee 

charged for schedule purchases to cover GSA’s administrative expenses.

On the other hand, some businesses that are not schedule vendors that 

supply information technology goods and services to state and local 

governments could lose some or all of this business to schedule vendors. 

The extent that this would happen and the effects it would have on the 

vendors are uncertain. However, information technology firms were not 

included among the groups that raised major concerns about the 

cooperative purchasing program.
Page 13 GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-99-221

Notwithstanding the concerns raised by vendors, the Congress should 

balance these issues against the extraordinary circumstances facing the 

nation because of the Year 2000 problem. The bill would provide state and 

local governments with an additional option that could assist them in 

completing key Year 2000 tasks in time. Moreover, some of these concerns 

may be reduced by the limited nature of the bill and because vendor and 

state and local government participation would be voluntary. Some 

concerns may also be reduced if GSA were to publish implementation plans 

describing how the bill would be implemented, including a provision for 

monitoring the implementation so that any significant adverse effects could 

be promptly identified and mitigated.

In summary, much work remains at the state and local levels to ensure that 

major service disruptions do not occur. In particular, several states do not 

plan to have their systems that support state-administered federal 

programs Year 2000 compliant until the last quarter of 1999. Federal 

agencies are working with their state partners to obtain readiness 

information and evaluate key activities such as business continuity and 

contingency plans. Nevertheless, some state completion dates are so close 

to the turn of the century that the risk of disruption to their programs is 

substantially increased, especially if schedule delays occur or if 

unexpected problems arise. Accordingly, creative solutions such as 

allowing state and local governments access to federal supply schedules 

for Year 2000 purposes, as called for by H.R. 1599, may well be warranted.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to respond to 

any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may have at 

this time.

Contacts and 

Acknowledgments

For information about this testimony, please contact Joel Willemssen at 

(202) 512-6253 or by e-mail at willemssenj.aimd@gao.gov. For information 

regarding the federal supply schedules, please contact Bernard L. Ungar at 

(202) 512-4232 or by email at ungarb.ggd@gao.gov. Individuals making key 

contributions to this testimony included Margaret Davis, Michael Fruitman, 

Linda Lambert, Marcia McWreath, and Glenn Spiegel.

(511769) Letr
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the 

following address, accompanied by a check or money order made 

out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary, VISA and 

MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at: 

http://www.gao.gov
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00