Year 2000 Computing Crisis: USDA Faces Tremendous Challenges in Ensuring
That Vital Public Services Are Not Disrupted (Testimony, 05/14/98,
GAO/T-AIMD-98-167).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed its views on what
additional actions must be taken to reduce the nation's year 2000 risks,
focusing on: (1) an overview of the potential impact of the century
change on the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) mission; (2) how the
department is structured to address the crisis; (3) how much work
remains to be completed; (4) the efforts of ten of USDA's component
agencies and the department as a whole; and (5) the year 2000 status at
the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) and the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC).

GAO noted that: (1) the public faces the risk that critical services
could be severely disrupted by the year 2000 computing crisis; (2) the
federal government is extremely vulnerable to year 2000 problems due to
its widespread dependence on computer systems to process financial
transactions, deliver vital public services, and carry out its
operations; (3) USDA's Chief Information Officer is responsible for
leading USDA's preparation for the year 2000 date change and ensuring
that all critical USDA information systems are year 2000 compliant and
operational; (4) direct accountability for assessing, renovating,
validating, and implementing systems conversion, however, rests with
USDA's 31 component agencies, which include staff offices; (5) USDA's
component agencies have a great deal of work still to be accomplished in
the next 19 months in making its mission-critical systems ready for the
year 2000; (6) although agencies should have completed the assessment
phase of year 2000 readiness last summer, critical assessment tasks for
many USDA agencies remain unfinished; (7) the component agencies judged
systems to be mission-critical in an inconsistent manner; (8) the
oversight provided by the USDA's Year 2000 Program Office has been
limited to monthly meetings with component agency executive sponsors,
regularly scheduled meetings on topics such as telecommunications and
reviews of monthly status reports, and written guidance on awareness and
assessment; (9) FCA regulates, and performs periodic examinations of,
the entities that make up the Farm Credit System; (10) FCA has not
called for the regulated institutions to develop business continuity and
contingency plans unless certain deadlines are not met or service
providers and software vendors have not provided adequate information
about their year 2000 readiness, or where the provider or vendor
solutions do not appear viable; (11) although CFTC has not yet reviewed
the year 2000 readiness of the self-regulatory organization (SRO) member
institutions, it has worked with the SRO audit organization; and (12)
while CFTC has taken some action to address the effect the year 2000
will have on the futures and options markets, the potential major
disruption that the year 2000 could hold for these markets suggests that
the commission should take a strong leadership role in providing
reasonable assurance that the futures and options markets will be year
2000 compliant in time.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-AIMD-98-167
     TITLE:  Year 2000 Computing Crisis: USDA Faces Tremendous 
             Challenges in Ensuring That Vital Public Services Are Not
             Disrupted
      DATE:  05/14/98
   SUBJECT:  Systems conversions
             Computer software verification and validation
             Information resources management
             Strategic information systems planning
             Information systems
             Agency missions
             Regulatory agencies
             Data integrity
             Financial institutions
IDENTIFIER:  Farm Credit System
             FNS National Integrated Quality Control System
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. 
Senate

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
9 a.m.
Thursday,
May 14, 1998

YEAR 2000 COMPUTING CRISIS - USDA
FACES TREMENDOUS CHALLENGES IN
ENSURING THAT VITAL PUBLIC
SERVICES ARE NOT DISRUPTED

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

GAO/T-AIMD-98-167

GAO/AIMD-98-167T


(511452)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AMS -
  APHIS -
  ARS -
  CFTC -
  CIO -
  DFAS -
  DLA -
  DOD -
  FAA -
  FCA -
  FNS -
  FSA -
  FSIS -
  GIPSA -
  IRS -
  LSSC -
  NASS -
  NFC -
  NITC -
  NRC -
  OMB -
  RMA -
  SEC -
  SRO -
  SSG -
  USDA -
  VBA -
  Y2K -

============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

We are pleased to be here today to discuss the computing challenges
that the upcoming change of century poses to virtually all major
organizations, public and private, including government programs
vital to Americans, such as those of the Department of Agriculture
(USDA).  As the world's most advanced and most dependent user of
information technology, the United States possesses close to half of
all computer capacity and 60 percent of Internet assets.\1 As a
result, the coming century change presents a particularly sweeping
and urgent challenge for entities in this country.\2

For this reason, we have designated the Year 2000 computing problem
as a high-risk area\3 for the federal government, and have published
guidance\4 to help organizations successfully address the issue. 
Since early 1997 we have issued over 35 products detailing specific
findings and recommendations related to the Year 2000 readiness of a
wide range of federal agencies.\5

The common theme of these reports has been that serious
vulnerabilities remain in addressing the federal government's Year
2000 readiness and that much more action is needed to ensure that
federal agencies satisfactorily mitigate Year 2000 risks to avoid
debilitating consequences.  Key economic sectors of the nation are
also vulnerable.  These include state and local governments;
telecommunications; banking and finance; health, safety, and
emergency services; transportation; utilities; and manufacturing and
small business.  While actions by government and industry are
underway throughout the nation, the creation of the President's
Council on Year 2000 Conversion represents an opportunity to
orchestrate the leadership and public/private partnerships essential
to confronting the unprecedented information technology challenge
that our nation faces. 

This morning we bring a message of urgency relating to the Department
of Agriculture (USDA):  its progress to date indicates that it will
have a great deal of difficulty in correcting, testing, and
implementing its automated information systems to work beyond
1999--that is, to become what is called Year 2000 compliant--in time. 
This could have serious implications for the many vital public health
and safety and economic activities that its systems support. 
Constituencies nationwide could be affected--farmers, consumers, even
schools. 

At your request, my testimony today will briefly outline our views on
what additional actions must be taken to reduce the nation's Year
2000 risks overall; I will then discuss our assessment of USDA's Year
2000 program.  My statement on USDA will include (1) an overview of
the potential impact of the century change on USDA's mission, (2) how
the department is structured to address the crisis, (3) how much work
remains to be completed, and (4) the current efforts of 10 of USDA's
component agencies and the department as a whole.  In addition, I
will provide observations on the Year 2000 status at two other
organizations, the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) and the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). 

To prepare for this testimony, we used our Year 2000 readiness guide
to perform an initial assessment of USDA's departmentwide Year 2000
strategy.\6 We also discussed USDA's strategy with its Chief
Information Officer, Year 2000 Program Executive, and staff in the
Year 2000 Program Office.  We used the guide to assess the following
10 USDA component agencies:  the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS); Agricultural Research Service (ARS); Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS); Farm Service Agency (FSA); Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS); Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS);
Forest Service; Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration (GIPSA); National Agricultural Statistical Service
(NASS); and the Risk Management Agency (RMA). 

We reviewed applicable Year 2000 documentation of these component
agencies and interviewed Year 2000 personnel.  In addition, we used
the guide to assess the Year 2000 programs of FCA's and CFTC's
internal systems.  Finally, we reviewed FCA's and CFTC's actions to
ensure the Year 2000 readiness of the industries that they regulate. 
We provided USDA, FCA, and CFTC with the facts outlined in this
testimony, and they were in general agreement with them.  FCA and
CFTC offered technical corrections which we incorporated into the
testimony. 


--------------------
\1 Critical Foundations:  Protecting America's Infrastructures
(President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection,
October 1997). 

\2 For the past several decades, automated information systems have
typically represented the year using two digits rather than four in
order to conserve electronic data storage space and reduce operating
costs.  In this format, however, 2000 is indistinguishable from 1900
because both are represented only as 00.  As a result, if not
modified, computer systems or applications that use dates or perform
date- or time-sensitive calculations may generate incorrect results
beyond 1999. 

\3 High-Risk Series:  Information Management and Technology
(GAO/HR-97-9, February 1997). 

\4 Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  An Assessment Guide
(GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, September 1997) and Year 2000 Computing Crisis: 
Business Continuity and Contingency Planning (GAO/AIMD-10.1.19, March
1998 [exposure draft]). 

\5 A listing of our publications is included as an attachment to this
statement. 

\6 GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, September 1997.  This guide details the key
tasks to be completed within each of the five phases of a Year 2000
program:  awareness, assessment, renovation, validation, and
implementation. 


   RISK OF YEAR 2000 DISRUPTIONS
   REQUIRES LEADERSHIP
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

The public faces the risk that critical services could be severely
disrupted by the Year 2000 computing crisis.  Financial transactions
could be delayed, airline flights grounded, and national defense
affected.  The many interdependencies that exist among the levels of
governments and within key economic sectors of our nation could cause
a single failure to have wide-ranging repercussions.  While managers
in the government and the private sector are acting to mitigate these
risks, a significant amount of work remains. 

The federal government is extremely vulnerable to Year 2000 problems
due to its widespread dependence on computer systems to process
financial transactions, deliver vital public services, and carry out
its operations.  This challenge is made more difficult by the age and
poor documentation of many of the government's existing systems, and
its lackluster track record in modernizing systems to deliver
expected improvements and meet promised deadlines. 

Year 2000-related problems have already occurred.  For example, an
automated Defense Logistics Agency system erroneously deactivated
90,000 inventoried items as the result of an incorrect date
calculation.  According to the agency, if the problem had not been
corrected (which took 400 work hours), the impact would have
seriously hampered its mission to deliver materiel in a timely
manner.\7

Our reviews of federal agency Year 2000 programs have found uneven
progress, and our reports contain numerous recommendations, which the
agencies have almost universally agreed to implement.  Among them are
the need to establish priorities, solidify data exchange agreements,
and develop contingency plans. 

One of the largest, and largely unknown, risks relates to the global
nature of the problem.  With the advent of electronic communication
and international commerce, the United States and the rest of the
world have become critically dependent on computers.  However, with
this electronic dependence and massive exchanging of data comes
increasing risk that uncorrected Year 2000 problems in other
countries will adversely affect the United States.  And there are
indications of Year 2000 readiness problems internationally.  In
September 1997 the Gartner Group, a private research firm
acknowledged for its expertise in Year 2000 computing issues,
surveyed 2,400 companies in 17 countries and concluded that "[t]hirty
percent of all companies have not started dealing with the year 2000
problem."\8


--------------------
\7 Defense Computers:  Issues Confronting DLA in Addressing Year 2000
Problems (GAO/AIMD-97-106, August 12, 1997). 

\8 Year 2000-World Status (Gartner Group, Document #M-100-037,
November 25, 1997). 


      ADDITIONAL ACTIONS MUST BE
      TAKEN TO REDUCE NATION'S
      YEAR 2000 RISKS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1.1

As 2000 approaches, the scope of the risks that the century change
could bring has become more clear, and the federal government's
actions have intensified.  This past February, an executive order was
issued establishing the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion. 
The Council Chair is to oversee federal agency Year 2000 efforts as
well as be the spokesman in national and international forums,
coordinate with state and local governments, promote appropriate
federal roles with respect to private sector activities, and report
to the President on a quarterly basis. 

As we testified in March,\9 there are a number of actions we believe
the Council must take to avert this crisis.  In a report issued last
month, we detailed specific recommendations.\10

The following summarizes a few of the key areas in which we recommend
action. 

  -- Because departments and agencies have taken longer than we and
     others have recommended to assess the readiness of their
     systems, it is unlikely that they will be able to renovate and
     fully test all mission-critical systems by January 1, 2000. 
     Consequently, setting priorities is essential, with the focus
     being on systems most critical to health and safety, financial
     well being of individuals, national security, and the economy. 

  -- Agencies must start business continuity and contingency planning
     now to safeguard their ability to deliver a minimum acceptable
     level of services in the event of Year 2000-induced failures. 
     In March we issued an exposure draft of a guide providing
     information on business continuity and contingency planning
     issues common to most large enterprises; the Office of
     Management and Budget (OMB) recently adopted this guide as a
     model for federal agencies.\11 Agencies developing such plans
     only for systems currently behind schedule, however, are not
     addressing the need to ensure business continuity in the event
     of unforeseen failures.  Further, such plans should not be
     limited to the risks posed by the Year 2000-induced failures of
     internal information systems, but must include the potential
     Year 2000 failures of others, including business partners and
     infrastructure service providers (e.g., power, water,
     transportation, and voice and data telecommunications). 

  -- OMB's assessment of the current status of federal Year 2000
     progress is predominantly based on agency reports that have not
     been consistently verified or independently reviewed.  Without
     such independent reviews, OMB and the President's Council on
     Year 2000 Conversion have little assurance that they are
     receiving accurate information.  Accordingly, agencies must have
     independent verification strategies involving inspectors general
     or other independent organizations. 

  -- As a nation, we do not know where we stand overall with regard
     to Year 2000 risks and readiness.  No nationwide
     assessment--including the private and public sectors--has been
     undertaken to gauge this.  In partnership with the private
     sector and state and local governments, the President's Council
     could orchestrate such an assessment. 


--------------------
\9 Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Strong Leadership and Effective
Public/Private Cooperation Needed to Avoid Major Disruptions
(GAO/T-AIMD-98-101, March 18, 1998). 

\10 Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Potential For Widespread Disruption
Calls For Strong Leadership and Partnerships (GAO/AIMD-98-85, April
30, 1998). 

\11 GAO/AIMD-10.1.19, March 1998 [exposure draft]. 


   YEAR 2000 IMPACT ON USDA
   PROGRAMS COULD BE SEVERE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

If the systems that support USDA's various programs cannot operate
reliably into the next century, it would not take long for the
effects to be felt.  USDA's systems support many vital public health
and safety and economic activities and, if not properly fixed,
tested, and implemented, severe consequences could result, such as
the following. 

  -- Payments to schools, farmers, and others in rural communities
     could be delayed or incorrectly computed. 

  -- The economy could be adversely affected if information critical
     to crop and livestock providers and investors is unreliable,
     late, or unavailable. 

  -- The import and export of foodstuffs could be delayed, thus
     increasing the likelihood that they will not reach their
     intended destinations before their spoilage dates. 

  -- Food distribution to schools and others could be stopped or
     delayed. 

  -- Public health and safety could be at risk if equipment used in
     USDA's many laboratories to detect bacteria, diseases, and
     unwholesome foods is not compliant. 


   USDA'S APPROACH RELIES ON
   COMPONENT AGENCIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

USDA's Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for leading the
department's preparation for the Year 2000 date change and ensuring
that all critical USDA information systems are Year 2000 compliant
and operational.  In October 1997 USDA's CIO established the Year
2000 Program Office under the direction of a Year 2000 Program
Executive.  This office is responsible for providing oversight and
guidance for the department's Year 2000 program, and serves as USDA's
liaison with other government entities on the Year 2000 issue, such
as the CIO Council.\12

Direct accountability for assessing, renovating, validating, and
implementing systems conversion, however, rests with USDA's 31
component agencies, which include staff offices.  The Secretary of
Agriculture has required each component agency administrator to
appoint an executive sponsor specifically accountable for Year 2000
issues, establish technical and program teams, ensure that an action
plan is developed, and certify that critical agency systems are
reflected in Year 2000 implementation plans. 


--------------------
\12 The CIO Council is comprised of CIOs and Deputy CIOs from 28
large federal departments and agencies, 2 CIOs from small federal
agencies, agency representatives from OMB, and the Chairs of the
Government Information Technology Services Board and Information
Technology Resources Board. 


   COMPONENT AGENCIES HAVE A
   TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF REMAINING
   WORK
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

USDA's component agencies have a great deal of work still to be
accomplished in the next 19 months in making its mission-critical
systems ready for the year 2000.  As figure 1 indicates, for the 10
component agencies in our review, 250 mission-critical systems were
initially assessed as compliant.  As of this month 132 have been
reported as repaired or replaced, while work remains to be completed
on 596 mission-critical systems.\13 Looked at another way, about 80
percent of the work remains for these component agency systems. 

   Figure 1:  Reported Year 2000
   Conversion Status of Ten
   Component Agencies'
   Mission-Critical Systems, May
   1998

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  USDA.  We did not independently verify this information. 

In addition, about 42 percent of the reported 596 mission-critical
systems awaiting action are to be replaced.  This is cause for some
concern, as replacement systems are often a high risk because federal
agencies, and USDA in particular, have a long history of difficulty
in delivering planned systems on time.  Further, some USDA
replacement systems are already scheduled to miss the March 1999
implementation deadline established by OMB and are at risk of not
being compliant on January 1, 2000.  For example: 

  -- AMS' planned replacement of its Marketing News Information
     System--which provides critical market information to producers,
     processors, and distributors of agricultural commodities
     throughout the United States--is currently not scheduled to be
     implemented until August 1999.  Further adding to the risk of
     this tight schedule is the fact that AMS is currently not
     working on this and three other replacement systems (which are
     scheduled to be implemented in September 1999), pending approval
     by the CIO to do so. 

  -- Although ARS plans to replace its existing Nutrient Data Bank
     System, it does not yet have a contract in place to develop it. 
     Concerned that it may not meet USDA's March 1999 deadline, ARS
     now plans to develop a contingency plan. 

  -- In April 1998 Forest Service decided to delay agencywide
     implementation of the Foundation Financial Information System\14
     until October 1, 1999, because of significant unresolved issues
     related to its capabilities.\15 Forest Service has not yet
     decided what to do about the over 20 existing applications that
     are scheduled to be replaced by the Foundation Financial
     Information System. 

In addition to these risks, we identified two agencies that were
inaccurately reporting the number of compliant systems.  GIPSA and
RMA reported 1 and 14 systems, respectively, as compliant, even
though these systems were under development or were planned.  The
GIPSA Year 2000 Executive Sponsor stated that the GIPSA system was
reported as compliant because the system is replacing a manual
process.  According to the RMA Year 2000 Program Manager, RMA systems
were reported as compliant because they were being developed as
compliant.  We do not agree with GIPSA and RMA.  It is misleading to
list systems as compliant when work is still to be completed.  USDA's
Year 2000 Program Executive stated that he agreed that these systems
should not be listed as compliant. 

At the same time that USDA is facing an enormous challenge to
replace, repair, and retire its mission-critical systems, component
agencies are beginning to report losses of information technology
staff.  While USDA has not performed a departmentwide assessment of
its Year 2000 technology staffing needs and losses, several component
agencies have recently expressed concern that the loss of staff will
affect their ability to complete their Year 2000 programs.  For
example, FSA stated that it had lost 28 of 403 (7 percent) of its
information technology staff between October 1997 and April 1998, and
Forest Service officials said that they lost 12 information
technology staff in the past 5 months.  Moreover, in its May 1998
report, Forest Service reported losing contractors to better paying
positions.  The CIO has taken some action, such as obtaining a waiver
from the Office of Personnel Management that allows USDA to rehire
former federal personnel without financial penalty.  However,
according to USDA, this rehiring authority does not cover USDA
employees who left the agency under the department's specific buyout
authority. 

USDA will incur substantial costs to implement its Year 2000 program. 
It has estimated its Year 2000 costs at $118 million (as of February
1998).  However, this estimate does not include all Year 2000-related
costs, such as (1) FNS' share of repairing or replacing the state
systems that are used to implement its programs and (2) the cost to
renovate or replace telecommunications or vulnerable systems (which
USDA defines as embedded systems such as laboratory equipment and
facility systems).  At the request of the Year 2000 Program Office,
some component agencies started reporting these cost estimates and
USDA intends to incorporate the costs to renovate or replace
telecommunications and vulnerable systems in its next quarterly
report to OMB, due May 15, 1998. 


--------------------
\13 USDA's last quarterly report to OMB, submitted in February 1998,
stated that the department as a whole had 1,319 mission-critical
systems, of which 539 were compliant, 261 were to be replaced, 372
were to be repaired, and 147 were to be retired.  USDA's next
quarterly report is due May 15, 1998. 

\14 USDA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer has overall
responsibility for implementing this system USDA-wide.  The Office of
the Chief Financial Officer shares responsibility with the Forest
Service for implementing the system at this component agency. 

\15 Our report, Forest Service:  Status of Progress Toward Financial
Accountability (GAO/AIMD-98-84, February 27, 1998) details some of
these problems. 


   MAJOR WEAKNESSES IN COMPONENT
   AGENCY EFFORTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

Although agencies should have completed the assessment phase of Year
2000 readiness last summer, critical assessment tasks for many USDA
agencies remain unfinished.  Even some basic tasks, such as
inventorying systems, have not yet been completed.  For example,
while some of the component agencies in our review reported having
completed inventories of telecommunications and vulnerable systems,
most have not.  USDA expects these inventories to be completed this
July. 

Table 1 identifies key tasks that should be done during the
assessment or renovation phases, yet remain incomplete in many cases. 



                                     Table 1
                     
                      Reported Status of Component Agencies'
                        Completion of Critical Assessment/
                                 Renovation Tasks

          Detailed                            Test or           Contingency/
USDA      project           Actual costs      validation        continuity plans
agency    tracking          tracked           strategy          intended
--------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------
AMS       No                Some              Planned           Planning to
                                                                develop system-
                                                                related
                                                                contingency
                                                                plans

APHIS     Yes               Some              Draft             Planning to
                                                                develop system-
                                                                related
                                                                contingency
                                                                plans

ARS       No                Some              Planned           Planning to
                                                                develop system-
                                                                related
                                                                contingency
                                                                plans

FNS       Yes               Yes               Yes               If system is
                                                                behind schedule

Forest    Some              Some              Draft             If system is
Service                                                         behind schedule

FSA       Yes               Yes               Yes               One system-
                                                                related plan
                                                                completed

FSIS      No                No                Planned           If system is
                                                                behind schedule

GIPSA     Yes               Some              Planned           Planning to
                                                                develop system-
                                                                related
                                                                contingency
                                                                plans

NASS      No                Yes               No                Draft

RMA       No                Some              No                Planning to
                                                                develop system-
                                                                related
                                                                contingency
                                                                plans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis based on USDA data. 

According to our Year 2000 readiness guide,\16 agencies should track
their renovation and replacement efforts and use project metrics to
manage costs and schedules.  Although all of the component agencies
we reviewed performed some form of project tracking, many of the
component agencies' Year 2000 program offices did not track baseline
to actual completion dates for project milestones, or track the
percentage of milestone completion.  Also, Forest Service currently
performs detailed tracking for only its major applications but plans
to perform such tracking for all of its applications in the future. 
Moreover, while three component agencies tracked actual costs, one
did not, and others tracked some costs but not others, such as
contractor costs but not staffing. 

As expressed in our Year 2000 readiness guide, the scope of a
component agency's testing and validation requires careful planning;
accordingly, overall testing and validation strategies should
initially be developed during the assessment phase.  However, eight
of the ten component agencies in our review lacked such strategies;
only FNS and FSA had them.  Moreover, in some agencies--such as NASS
and FSIS--only the programmers who made the changes or developed the
systems determined the scope of the tests to be completed.  In
addition, while FNS had a testing strategy, it planned to implement
this strategy only for about half of its mission-critical systems; it
lacks a testing strategy for the other mission-critical systems. 
According to an FNS official, the other systems will be tested
through a combination of the responsible contractor or FNS staff who
made the change and user acceptance testing.  One of these systems is
vital to ensuring that schools and other entities are reimbursed for
providing food services to children and adults. 

In reviewing the test documentation of systems that were repaired or
replaced at FNS and FSA to determine whether their testing strategies
were followed for the three systems that these agencies reported as
Year 2000 compliant, we found mixed results. 

  -- The FNS system, called the National Integrated Quality Control
     System--used by state welfare agencies to perform
     federally-mandated quality control functions--was not one of the
     systems covered by FNS' test strategy, and we were unable to
     verify whether the system was indeed Year 2000 compliant.  The
     system was replaced by a contractor who conducted limited Year
     2000 testing; neither FNS nor the contractor had developed test
     plans for the system.  Further, while FNS utilized its regional
     offices and nine states for acceptance testing, it did not
     provide instructions on what to test, and had no documentation
     concerning exactly what was tested.  As a result, FNS officials
     did not know whether the testing included any Year 2000 test
     scenarios. 

  -- Two FSA mission-critical systems had more positive results. 
     Written test plans existed, the testing was carried out by an
     independent organization, and test result documentation showed
     that sufficient testing had been performed to determine that the
     system was Year 2000 compliant. 

Turning to business continuity and contingency planning, most of the
component agencies intended to develop contingency plans only for
specific systems or only if the systems were likely to miss the USDA
March 1999 deadline for compliance.  Agencies that develop
contingency plans only for systems currently behind schedule,
however, are not addressing the need to ensure the continuity of a
minimal level of core business operations in the event of unforeseen
failures.  As a result, when unpredicted failures occur, agencies
will not have well-defined responses and may not have enough time to
develop and test effective contingency plans.  Contingency plans
should be formulated to respond to two types of failures:  those that
can be predicted (e.g., system renovations that are already far
behind schedule) and those that are unforeseen (e.g., a system that
fails despite having been certified as Year 2000 compliant or a
system that cannot be corrected by January 1, 2000, despite appearing
to be on schedule today). 

Moreover, contingency plans that focus only on agency systems are
inadequate.  Federal agencies depend on data provided by their
business partners as well as on services provided by the public
infrastructure (e.g., power, water, transportation, and voice and
data telecommunications).  One weak link anywhere in the chain of
critical dependencies can cause major disruptions to business
operations.  Given these interdependencies, it is imperative that
contingency plans be developed for all critical core business
processes and supporting systems, regardless of whether these systems
are owned by the agency.  NASS was the only component agency in our
review that had drafted a plan to address the agency's options in the
event that Year 2000-induced failures do not enable it to use its
normal processes to develop and issue its January 2000 statistical
reports.  NASS intends to finalize this plan in the fall of 1998. 


--------------------
\16 GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, September 1997. 


   MORE EFFECTIVE DEPARTMENTAL
   LEADERSHIP REQUIRED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

Given the enormous potential risk, USDA has determined that the Year
2000 crisis is its top information technology priority.  It has not,
however, translated that sentiment into effective action.  The
department's role has remained limited--a condition that cannot
continue if sufficient progress is to be achieved. 


      USDA HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ITS
      HIGHEST PRIORITY SYSTEMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6.1

Just as federal departments and agencies establish their own
priorities among mission-critical systems, we have recommended that
the government as a whole determine national priorities.\17
Similarly, it is important for the Secretary of Agriculture to know,
as time dwindles, which mission-critical systems are USDA's highest
priorities.  However, USDA's CIO stated that the department has not
set Year 2000 priorities.  Priority setting has, rather, been left to
the individual component agencies, which determined which systems are
mission-critical. 

The component agencies judged systems to be mission-critical in an
inconsistent manner.  For example, while Forest Service tells us that
it has 17 mission-critical systems, it has reported to the department
that it has 423 mission-critical systems.\18 This is because Forest
Service reported applications and not systems.  Forest Service
reports applications rather than systems because it tracks its system
migration and Year 2000 project at the application level.  Further,
not all of these applications are critical.  For example, a January
1998 Forest Service analysis of the applications that it plans to
repair indicated that only 48 of 137 are critical applications. 

Another example of USDA's inconsistent reporting is provided by
USDA's two data centers, the National Information Technology Center
(NITC) and the National Finance Center (NFC).  NITC reported as
mission-critical the systems that support its infrastructure (e.g.,
operating systems and utilities), while NFC reported its application
systems but not the systems that support its infrastructure. 

We further found that the department's Year 2000 Program Office and
most of the component agencies lacked a key piece of information
necessary for setting such priorities:  the system's failure date. 
This is the first date that a system will fail to recognize and
process dates correctly. 


--------------------
\17 GAO/AIMD-98-85, April 30, 1998. 

\18 Forest Service reported an additional 59 mission-critical systems
that we did not include because the agency had retired them. 


      THE YEAR 2000 PROGRAM OFFICE
      HAS PERFORMED LIMITED
      OVERSIGHT
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6.2

The oversight provided by the Year 2000 Program Office has been
limited to monthly meetings with component agency executive sponsors,
regularly scheduled meetings on topics such as telecommunications and
reviews of monthly status reports, and written guidance on awareness
and assessment.  In lieu of developing additional written guidance,
the Year 2000 Program Executive stated that he told the component
agencies to use our readiness guide.\19

Further, the program office maintains no up-to-date portfolio of
components' mission-critical systems, and has performed only limited
analysis of what it does have.  For example, in November 1997, the
Program Office collected information on the (1) planned completion
date of the awareness, assessment, renovation, validation, and
implementation dates of systems to be renovated; (2) implementation
dates of replacement systems; and (3) planned dates for systems to be
retired.  This information was updated in February 1998.  However,
the Year 2000 Program Office did not compare the November 1997 and
February 1998 data to determine whether there were any changes that
needed to be reviewed.  Further, many of the dates in the February
1998 inventory were questionable.  For example: 

  -- In 39 cases, the validation date was before the renovation date. 

  -- In 40 cases, there were no dates for renovation and/or
     validation. 

  -- In 233 cases, the renovation date equaled the validation date. 

To assist the Year 2000 Program Office in identifying and selecting
appropriate courses of action, on April 29, 1998, the program office
awarded a contract for a review of its plans, documentation, and
products.  Among other items, the contractor is to review whether
mission-critical systems have been appropriately identified, Year
2000 time frames are realistic, appropriate test plans are being
developed and implemented, and the Year 2000 program office is
appropriately staffed.  In addition, the contractor is to identify
Year 2000 testing methodologies and risks, and risk mitigation
strategies.  These deliverables are expected in about a month. 


--------------------
\19 GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, September 1997. 


   OBSERVATIONS ON THE FARM CREDIT
   ADMINISTRATION AND THE
   COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
   COMMISSION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:7

At your request, Mr.  Chairman, we also reviewed the Year 2000
readiness of the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) and the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), two independent agencies that
regulate, respectively, the Farm Credit System and the futures and
options industry.  FCA and CFTC are concerned not only with the Year
2000 compliance of their internal systems, but also with those of the
institutions they regulate.  These organizations are heavily
dependent on information technology, and Year 2000-induced failures
on the part of the industries that FCA and CFTC regulate could have
repercussions for the financial services industry and the national
economy. 


      THE FARM CREDIT
      ADMINISTRATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:7.1

FCA regulates, and performs periodic examinations of, the entities
that make up the Farm Credit System.  The Farm Credit System consists
of a network of banks, associations, cooperatives, and other related
entities that make short, intermediate, and long-term loans.  In
addition, FCA oversees the system's fiscal arm that markets its debt
securities and the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation that
provides a secondary market for mortgage loans secured by agriculture
real estate and rural housing.  Its risks associated with the century
change are similar to those of other financial institutions:  errors
in interest calculation and amortization schedules.  In addition, the
Year 2000 problem may expose the institutions and data centers to
financial liability and loss of customer confidence. 

With respect to their internal systems, FCA identified 25
mission-critical systems of which FCA considers 17 compliant.  Of the
8 considered by FCA to be noncompliant systems, 6 are being repaired,
1 is being replaced, and 1 is being retired.  Two of the systems
being repaired are the responsibility of other entities, USDA's
National Finance Center's payroll processing system and the
Department of the Treasury's electronic payment system.  FCA does not
have a written test or validation strategy for any of its internal
systems.  At the conclusion of our review, FCA officials told us that
they plan to develop a written test strategy by the end of this
month. 

To address the Year 2000 readiness of its regulated institutions, FCA
has (1) had its institutions provide responses to a Year 2000
questionnaire, (2) conducted reviews of institutions' Year 2000
programs during its examinations, and (3) issued informational
memoranda to the institutions.  For example, in November 1997,
December 1997, and March 1998, FCA asked its regulated institutions
to complete Year 2000 questionnaires.  Additionally, in November
1997, FCA issued Year 2000 examination procedures for its examiners. 
As of March 30, 1998, FCA reported completing 58 safety and soundness
examinations that included a review of the institutions' Year 2000
programs.  In addition, 15 examinations were in process and 85 were
planned through the end of fiscal year 1998.  According to FCA, it
will perform targeted Year 2000 examinations by December 30, 1998,
for institutions that are not scheduled for a safety and soundness
examination in fiscal year 1998. 

Both the questionnaire and the examination procedures were based on
the guidelines developed by the Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council.\20 We have previously reported\21 that the
Council's guidance and procedures were not designed to collect all
the data needed to determine where (i.e., in which phases) the
institutions are in the Year 2000 correction process.  FCA plans to
issue this June a more detailed questionnaire requesting more
specific information on renovation, testing, and validation.  In
addition, on March 31, 1998, FCA issued new examination procedures
that superseded those of November 1997. 

FCA has assessed the risks that each of its institutions face based
on the responses to the questionnaire, as well as the knowledge of
its examiners.  Each institution was placed in one of three risk
categories--low, moderate, or critical.  As of March 31, 1998, 70
institutions were in the low risk category in that the institutions
met FCA's guidelines; 71 were classified as at moderate risk, where
some key actions have not been completed or were not consistent with
FCA guidelines; and 74 were classified as critical, where actions
have not been taken in key areas and there is an increased risk that
the institution will not be prepared for the year 2000. 

The informational memoranda that FCA has issued to the institutions
that it regulates covered issues such as testing and establishing a
due-diligence process to determine the Year 2000 readiness of service
providers and software vendors.  However, FCA has not called for the
regulated institutions to develop business continuity and contingency
plans unless certain deadlines are not met or service providers and
software vendors have not provided adequate information about their
Year 2000 readiness, or where the provider or vendor solutions do not
appear to be viable.  As I stated earlier, business continuity and
contingency plans should be formulated to respond to those types of
failures that can be predicted (e.g., system renovations that are
already far behind schedule) and those that are unforeseen (e.g., a
system that fails despite having been certified as Year 2000
compliant or a system that cannot be corrected by January 1, 2000,
despite appearing to be on schedule today).  In response to our
review, FCA officials stated that they would issue an information
memorandum by the end of May requiring institutions to develop
business continuity and contingency plans for all core business
processes. 


--------------------
\20 This organization is made up of the following federal regulators: 
the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, the
National Credit Union Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, and the Office of Thrift Supervision. 

\21 Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Federal Regulatory Efforts to Ensure
Financial Institution Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant
(GAO/T-AIMD-98-116, March 24, 1998). 


      COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
      COMMISSION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:7.2

CFTC's mission is to protect market participants from manipulation,
fraud, and abusive trade practices, related to the sale of commodity
futures and options and to foster open, competitive, and financially
sound commodity futures and options markets.  CFTC works in
conjunction with self-regulatory organizations (SRO), such as the
commodity exchanges and independent clearinghouses to regulate these
markets.  All companies and individuals handling customer funds or
providing trading advice must register with the Commission and be a
member of at least one of these organizations.  SROs audit their
member institutions, and CFTC regularly reviews SROs' audit
activities.  The SROs and member institutions are, not surprisingly,
very reliant on information technology, with many interdependencies
among them; these include foreign firms and exchanges as well.  Major
Year 2000 failures could easily, then, have worldwide economic
repercussions. 

CFTC reports having two mission-critical systems, which it states it
repaired to be Year 2000 compliant in 1993 and 1994.  It has also
inventoried and assessed its external data exchanges,
telecommunications, and personal computers; it plans to upgrade its
personal computers and network servers next month and replace
noncompliant equipment and a noncompliant network operating system by
March 1999. 

Regarding CFTC's oversight of SROs, on March 18, 1998, CFTC sent a
letter to all exchanges and independent clearinghouses requesting
information on the Year 2000 readiness status of SRO, SRO's member
firms, and floor brokers and floor traders.  In particular, CFTC
requested information on (1) contingency plans, both with regard to
processes that cannot be made compliant in the necessary time frame
and for instances in which, despite the best plans, procedures
developed to address the Year 2000 problem do not work, (2) whether
and how SRO can ensure full participation in the Year 2000 testing
being planned by the Futures Industry Association,\22 and (3) SRO's
authority under its own rules to intervene and, if necessary,
restrict or terminate the member's business, and what procedures
would apply.  CFTC asked SROs to provide the information by May 15,
1998.  CFTC has a coordinator for external Year 2000 activities who
will evaluate SRO responses with assistance from CFTC's Office of
Information Resources Management, which is in charge of CFTC's
internal systems, and CFTC's audit and evaluation group. 

Although CFTC has not yet reviewed the Year 2000 readiness of the SRO
member institutions, it has worked with the SRO audit organization,
the Joint Audit Committee.\23

The members of this committee have requested that the registrants for
which they are responsible fill out questionnaires on their Year 2000
progress.  According to CFTC's Chief Accountant, CFTC's auditors will
(1) confirm that the SRO auditors had sent the questionnaires to its
members, (2) determine whether SRO auditors had reviewed the
questionnaires for completeness and unusual items, and (3) determine
whether SRO auditors had followed up on any exceptions found. 
However, because CFTC does not have any electronic data processing
auditors, it may have difficulty assessing the SRO's Year 2000 audit
activities. 

CFTC also issued advisory notices, in November 1997 and April 1998,
and has participated in meetings with the Futures Industry
Association.  The advisory notices asked the SROs to report on their
Year 2000 programs, asked the SRO auditors to include a Year 2000
readiness inquiry to their inspections, set disclosure requirements
for institutions with Year 2000 problems, and strongly encouraged
registrants to share information with SROs and membership
organizations. 

While CFTC has taken some action to address the effect the year 2000
will have on the futures and options markets, the potential major
disruption that the year 2000 could hold for these markets suggests
that the commission should take a strong leadership role in providing
reasonable assurance that the futures and options markets will be
Year 2000 compliant in time. 


--------------------
\22 The Futures Industry Association plans to hold a series of
industry tests beginning in June 1998 and continuing through the
first quarter of 1999. 

\23 This committee is a representative committee of U.S.  futures
exchanges and regulatory organizations. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:7.3

In conclusion, the change of century will present many difficult
challenges in information technology and in ensuring the continuity
of business operations, and has the potential to cause serious
disruption to the nation and to government entities on which the
public depends, including the Department of Agriculture.  These risks
can be mitigated and disruptions minimized with proper attention and
management.  However, much work remains at USDA and its agencies to
address these risks and ensure continuity of mission-critical
business operations.  Continued congressional oversight through
hearings such as this can help ensure that this attention is
sustained and that appropriate actions are taken to address this
crisis. 

Mr.  Chairman, this completes my statement.  I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or other members of the Committee
may have at this time. 


GAO REPORTS AND TESTIMONY
ADDRESSING THE YEAR 2000 CRISIS
=========================================================== Appendix 1

Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Continuing Risks of Disruption to Social
Security, Medicare, and Treasury Programs (GAO/T-AIMD-98-161, May 7,
1998). 

IRS' Year 2000 Efforts:  Status and Risks (GAO/T-GGD-98-123, May 7,
1998). 

Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Potential For Widespread Disruption
Calls For Strong Leadership and Partnerships (GAO/AIMD-98-85, April
30, 1998). 

Defense Computers:  Year 2000 Computer Problems Threaten DOD
Operations (GAO/AIMD-98-72, April 30, 1998). 

Department of the Interior:  Year 2000 Computing Crisis Presents Risk
of Disruption to Key Operations (GAO/T-AIMD-98-149, April 22, 1998). 

Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Business Continuity and Contingency
Planning (GAO/AIMD-10.1.19, Exposure Draft, March 1998). 

Tax Administration:  IRS' Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request and Fiscal
Year 1998 Filing Season (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-98-114, March 31, 1998). 

Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Strong Leadership Needed to Avoid
Disruption of Essential Services (GAO/T-AIMD-98-117, March 24, 1998). 

Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Office of Thrift Supervision's Efforts
to Ensure Thrift Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-102,
March 18, 1998). 

Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Strong Leadership and Effective
Public/Private Cooperation Needed to Avoid Major Disruptions
(GAO/T-AIMD-98-101, March 18, 1998). 

Post-Hearing Questions on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's
Year 2000 (Y2K) Preparedness (AIMD-98-108R, March 18, 1998). 

SEC Year 2000 Report:  Future Reports Could Provide More Detailed
Information (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-51, March 6, 1998). 

Year 2000 Readiness:  NRC's Proposed Approach Regarding Nuclear
Powerplants (GAO/AIMD-98-90R, March 6, 1998). 

Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's
Efforts to Ensure Bank Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant
(GAO/T-AIMD-98-73, February 10, 1998). 

Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  FAA Must Act Quickly to Prevent Systems
Failures (GAO/T-AIMD-98-63, February 4, 1998). 

FAA Computer Systems:  Limited Progress on Year 2000 Issue Increases
Risk Dramatically (GAO/AIMD-98-45, January 30, 1998). 

Defense Computers:  Air Force Needs to Strengthen Year 2000 Oversight
(GAO/AIMD-98-35, January 16, 1998). 

Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Actions Needed to Address Credit Union
Systems' Year 2000 Problem (GAO/AIMD-98-48, January 7, 1998). 

Veterans Health Administration Facility Systems:  Some Progress Made
In Ensuring Year 2000 Compliance, But Challenges Remain
(GAO/AIMD-98-31R, November 7, 1997). 

Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  National Credit Union Administration's
Efforts to Ensure Credit Union Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant
(GAO/T-AIMD-98-20, October 22, 1997). 

Social Security Administration:  Significant Progress Made in Year
2000 Effort, But Key Risks Remain (GAO/AIMD-98-6, October 22, 1997). 

Defense Computers:  Technical Support Is Key to Naval Supply Year
2000 Success (GAO/AIMD-98-7R, October 21, 1997). 

Defense Computers:  LSSC Needs to Confront Significant Year 2000
Issues (GAO/AIMD-97-149, September 26, 1997). 

Veterans Affairs Computer Systems:  Action Underway Yet Much Work
Remains To Resolve Year 2000 Crisis (GAO/T-AIMD-97-174, September 25,
1997). 

Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Success Depends Upon Strong Management
and Structured Approach (GAO/T-AIMD-97-173, September 25, 1997). 

Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  An Assessment Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.14,
September 1997). 

Defense Computers:  SSG Needs to Sustain Year 2000 Progress
(GAO/AIMD-97-120R, August 19, 1997). 

Defense Computers:  Improvements to DOD Systems Inventory Needed for
Year 2000 Effort (GAO/AIMD-97-112, August 13, 1997). 

Defense Computers:  Issues Confronting DLA in Addressing Year 2000
Problems (GAO/AIMD-97-106, August 12, 1997). 

Defense Computers:  DFAS Faces Challenges in Solving the Year 2000
Problem (GAO/AIMD-97-117, August 11, 1997). 

Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Time is Running Out for Federal Agencies
to Prepare for the New Millennium (GAO/T-AIMD-97-129, July 10, 1997). 

Veterans Benefits Computer Systems:  Uninterrupted Delivery of
Benefits Depends on Timely Correction of Year-2000 Problems
(GAO/T-AIMD-97-114, June 26, 1997). 

Veterans Benefits Computers Systems:  Risks of VBA's Year-2000
Efforts (GAO/AIMD-97-79, May 30, 1997). 

Medicare Transaction System:  Success Depends Upon Correcting
Critical Managerial and Technical Weaknesses (GAO/AIMD-97-78, May 16,
1997). 

Medicare Transaction System:  Serious Managerial and Technical
Weaknesses Threaten Modernization (GAO/T-AIMD-97-91, May 16, 1997). 

Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Risk of Serious Disruption to Essential
Government Functions Calls for Agency Action Now (GAO/T-AIMD-97-52,
February 27, 1997). 

Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Strong Leadership Today Needed To
Prevent Future Disruption of Government Services (GAO/T-AIMD-97-51,
February 24, 1997). 

High-Risk Series:  Information Management and Technology
(GAO/HR-97-9, February 1997). 

*** End of document. ***