[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 144 (Monday, October 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12399-S12400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




USDA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REFORM AND YEAR-2000 COMPLIANCE ACT OF 1998

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
agriculture committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 
2116 and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2116) to clarify and enhance the authorities of 
     the Chief Information Officer of the Department of 
     Agriculture.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3818

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Senator Lugar has a substitute amendment 
at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for Mr. Lugar, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3818.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 2116, the 
USDA Information Technology Reform and Year-200 Compliance Act of 1998. 
This legislation aims to centralize all year 2000 computer conversion 
and other information technology acquisition and management activities 
within the Office of the Chief Information Officer of the Department of 
Agriculture. Centralization is the most efficient way to manage the 
complex task of ensuring that all critical computer functions at the 
department are operational on January 1, 2000. It is also a wiser and 
more effective way to construct an information technology 
infrastructure to enable USDA's hundreds of computer systems to 
interoperate, which unfortunately they cannot now do.
  The Department of Agriculture is charged with enormous 
responsibilities and its year 2000 readiness is crucial. It has a 
diverse portfolio of over 200 Federal programs throughout the Nation 
and the world. The department delivers about $80 billion in programs. 
It is the fourth largest Federal agency, with approximately 30 agencies 
and offices. The department is responsible for the safety of our food 
supply, nutrition programs that serve the poor, young and old, and the 
protection of our natural resources. Since 40 percent of the non-tax 
debt owed to the Federal Government is owed to USDA, the department has 
a responsibility to ensure the financial soundness of taxpayers' 
investments.
  The centralized approach to the year 2000 issue at USDA led to a lack 
of focus on departmental priorities. This approach resulted in a lack 
of guidance, oversight and the development of contingency plans. 
Responsibility for keeping the mission-critical information technology 
functioning should clearly rest with the Chief Information Officer. I 
am pleased that Secretary of Agriculture Glickman has pledged his 
personal commitment to the success of year 2000 compliance and has made 
it one of the highest priorities for USDA.
  The General Accounting Office has long chronicled USDA's history of 
problems in managing its information technology investments. In August 
1993, USDA received authority to spend up to $2.6 billion on a project 
called Info Share. The goal of Info Share was to improve operations and 
delivery of services by reengineering business processes and developing 
integrated information systems. In August 1994, GAO warned that the 
acquisition of information technology without business process 
reenginering would be problematic. Ineffective planning and management 
resulted in USDA's wasting $100 million on Info Share before it was 
ultimately disbanded.
  An August 1998 GAO report warned that USDA's ongoing effort to 
modernize information technology at its field service centers, faces 
significant risks. The department could spend more than $3 billion on 
the project by 2011. The report revealed that USDA has not completed a 
comprehensive plan for the modernization and lacks the project 
management structure needed to manage a project of this magnitude. 
Specifically, USDA has not assigned a senior-level official with 
overall responsibility, authority and accountability for managing and 
coordinating the project to ensure it is completed on time and within 
budget.
  In March of this year before a House agriculture subcommittee and 
again in May before the Senate Agriculture Committee, GAO testified in 
support of strong Chief Information Officer leadership at USDA. The 
Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996, the Clinger-Cohen 
Act, seeks to strengthen executive leadership in information management 
and institute sound capital investment decision-making to maximize the 
return on information systems. Consistent with provisions of that act, 
more accountability and responsibility and responsibility over the 
substantial investments the department makes in information technology 
were recommended by the GAO. The GAO also noted major weaknesses in 
USDA's component agency efforts and testified that mitigating the risk 
of year 2000 disruptions requires leadership.
  Last year, I introduced S. 805, a bill to reform the information 
technology systems of the Department of Agriculture. It gave the Chief 
Information

[[Page S12400]]

Officer control over the planning, development and acquisition of 
information technology at the department. Introduction of that bill 
prompted some coordination of information technology among the 
department's agencies and offices. This revised legislation, which 
includes input from the administration, is now needed to strengthen 
that coordination and ensure that centralized information technology 
management continues in the future.
  This legislation requires that the Chief Information Officer manage 
the design and implementation of an information technology architecture 
based on strategic business plans to maximize the effectiveness and 
efficiency of USDA's program activities. Included in the bill is 
authority for the Chief Information Officer to approve expenditures 
over $200,000 for information resources and for year 2000 compliance 
purposes, except for minor acquisitions. To accomplish these purposes, 
the bill requires the secretary to transfer up to 10 percent of each 
agency's information technology budget to the Chief Information 
Officer's control.
  The bill makes the Chief Information Officer responsible for ensuring 
that the information technology architecture facilitates a flexible 
common computing environment for the field service centers based on 
integrated program delivery and provides maximum data sharing with USDA 
customers and other federal and state agencies, which is expected to 
result in significant reductions in operating costs.
  The bill requires the Chief Information Officer to address the year 
2000 computing crisis throughout USDA agencies, between USDA and other 
Federal, State, and local agencies and between USDA and private and 
international partners.
  Mr. President, this is a bill whose time has come. Unfortunately, 
USDA's problems in managing information technology are not unusual 
among government agencies, according to the General Accounting Office. 
I commend the attention of my colleagues to this bill designed to 
address a portion of the information resource management problems of 
the Federal Government and ask for their support of it.
  Mr. BOND. I rise to engage the chairman of the committee in a 
colloquy to clarify a provision of the bill. Mr. Chairman, Section 8 of 
S. 2116 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer up to 10 
percent of the information technology or information resource 
management funds from each office or agency to the account of the Chief 
Information Officer. Some of my constituents have expressed concern 
that this transfer of funds may cause a reduction in the number of 
employees in an office or agency. A scenario has been brought forth 
where an office or agency finds it necessary to reduce the number of 
its employees, using a variety of methods, to facilitate the transfer 
of funds. Would the chairman address this point?
  Mr. LUGAR. At no point during deliberations with the Department of 
Agriculture was it ever envisioned the transfer of information 
technology funds would cause reductions in force or furloughs. In fact, 
great care was taken early in the process to exclude salaries and 
expenses and intergovernmental payments from the calculations used to 
determine the amount necessary to adequately fund the development of an 
information technology architecture. This legislation does not 
authorize reductions in force or furloughs. The information technology 
architecture includes telecommunications, service center 
implementation, and site licenses for computer software and hardware. 
As introduced, the bill required a transfer of 5 percent of the 
information technology funds from each office and agency to the Chief 
Information Officer. Five percent of those funds represented 
approximately $40 million. Further negotiations with the department 
resulted in a revision in the bill that permits the Secretary to 
transfer up to 10 percent of the information technology funds. This 
amendment gives the Secretary the flexibility he requested to adjust 
transfers commensurate with the information technology architecture 
needs of each office and agency. This transfer authority terminates on 
September 30, 2003. I hope this addresses the Senator's concerns.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chairman for the clarification.
  Mr. CONRAD. I also rise to engage the chairman of the committee in a 
colloquy to clarify the provision of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I 
appreciate your response to the question from the Senator from 
Missouri. Workforce reductions at Farm Service Agency as well as other 
agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture have impacted the 
quality of services provided. Employees of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture have expressed concern that fund transfers authorized by 
Section 8 of S. 2116 would be made from an agency's Salary and Expenses 
budgets and could result in additional workforce reductions. Given the 
increasing workload at Farm Service Agency field offices in many 
States, I feel that it is vital that this concern be addressed. Mr. 
Chairman, is it your intention that fund transfers will be made in a 
manner which does not jeopardize funds available for salaries?
  Mr. LUGAR. As I noted in my earlier remarks, that is my intention. It 
is my hope that the Secretary will avoid such actions. If, however, the 
Secretary considers a reduction-in-force or furloughs, I expect that he 
will first consult the committee before going forward with such 
actions.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chairman for his helpful remarks.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3818) was agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be 
read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the 
appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 2116), as amended, was considered read the third time 
and passed.

                          ____________________