<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:60888.wais]
WILL TRANSPORTATION AND THE FAA BE READY FOR THE YEAR 2000?
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY
of the
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 15, 1999
__________
Committee on Government Reform
Serial No. 106-43
Committee on Science
Serial No. 106-46
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and the
Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
60-888 CC WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon ------ ------
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California (Independent)
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology
STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois JIM TURNER, Texas
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GREG WALDEN, Oregon MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
DOUG OSE, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. Russell George, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Matt Ryan, Senior Policy Director
Mason Alinger, Clerk
Faith Weiss, Minority Counsel
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., (R-Wisconsin), Chairman
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California,
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RMM**
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
DANA ROHRABACHER, California JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOE BARTON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana
KEN CALVERT, California JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
NICK SMITH, Michigan EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan* ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
DAVE WELDON, Florida LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHRIS CANNON, Utah SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas
KEVIN BRADY, Texas DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
MERRILL COOK, Utah BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., NICK LAMPSON, Texas
Washington JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma MARK UDALL, Colorado
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin DAVID WU, Oregon
STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
GARY G. MILLER, California MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois VACANCY
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South VACANCY
Carolina
JACK METCALF, Washington
Subcommittee on Technology
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland, Chairwoman
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan**
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota* DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois MARK UDALL, Colorado
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DAVID WU, Oregon
KEVIN BRADY, Texas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MERRILL COOK, Utah MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin BART GORDON, Tennessee
STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California TIM ROEMER, Indiana
GARY G. MILLER, California
Ex Officio
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California+
Wisconsin+
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 15, 1999................................... 1
Statement of:
Willemssen, Joel C., Director, Civil Agencies Information
Systems, General Accounting Office; Mortimer L. Downey,
Deputy Secretary, Department of Transportation; Jane F.
Garvey, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration; and
Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, Department of
Transportation............................................. 8
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Downey, Mortimer L., Deputy Secretary, Department of
Transportation, prepared statement of...................... 33
Garvey, Jane F., Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration, prepared statement of...................... 39
Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 3
Mead, Kenneth M., Inspector General, Department of
Transportation:
Letter dated May 20, 1999................................ 79
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Turner, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas, prepared statement of............................ 6
Willemssen, Joel C., Director, Civil Agencies Information
Systems, General Accounting Office, prepared statement of.. 10
WILL TRANSPORTATION AND THE FAA BE READY FOR THE YEAR 2000?
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1999
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on
Government Management, Information, and
Technology of the Committee on Government
Reform, joint with the Subcommittee on
Technology of the Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn
(chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology) presiding.
Present: Representatives Horn and Morella.
Staff present from the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information, and Technology: J. Russell George,
staff director and chief counsel; Matt Ryan, senior policy
director; Bonnie Heald, director of communications; Mason
Alinger, clerk; Faith Weiss, minority counsel, Committee on
Government Reform; and Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant,
Committee on Government Reform.
Staff present from the Subcommittee on Technology: Jeff
Grove, staff director; Ben Wu, professional staff member; and
Joe Sullivan, clerk.
Mr. Horn. A quorum being present, I call this joint hearing
of the House Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology, and Subcommittee on Technology to
order.
Each year more than 500 million passengers board airplanes.
Most of them are secure in the knowledge that they will reach
their destination safely and reasonably on time. They depend on
the intricate computers that keep the network of communications
and mechanical systems running--whether the year is 1999 or
2000.
But that's only one part of the Nation's vital
transportation infrastructure. The railroads are an equally
integral part of the travel and commerce that support everyday
life in America.
Each year, thousands of lumbering freight trains move
across the Nation's network of rail lines, carrying millions of
tons of goods and raw materials. These are the items that keep
our store shelves filled and our factories open. The railroads
remain one of the most vital links to the continued prosperity
of this country.
The port of Long Beach, which is in my district, is the
busiest container port in the United States, sixth busiest in
the world. In 1997, nearly 60 million metric tons of cargo
moved through the port, everything from petroleum, iron, and
steel, to electronics, toys, and motor vehicles. Fifty percent
of these imports are moved by train to cities in the Midwest
and East.
We must make sure that neither of these vital networks
falls victim to the year 2000 computer problem.
The challenge, often called the ``Millennium Bug'' or
simply ``Y2K,'' dates back to the 1960's and 1970's when
computers were bulky in size but small in memory. To conserve
limited space, or memory, programmers began designating the
year by using two digits rather than four. The year 1967, for
example, appears as ``67.'' The first two digits are assumed to
be ``19.''
Unless corrected, these data-sensitive computer systems and
microchips, embedded in countless mechanical devices, may
misinterpret the two zeros in 2000 as 1900. The fear is that
this confusion may cause the systems to generate erroneous
information, corrupt other systems, or possibly shut down.
In February the Department of Transportation, which is
responsible for overseeing the Nation's air and rail lines as
well as Federal highways and waterways, reported that only 53
percent of its mission-critical computer systems are year 2000
compliant.
At the same time, the Federal Aviation Administration,
which oversees air safety and operates the Nation's vital air
traffic control system, reported that only 60 percent of its
mission-critical systems were ready for January 1, 2000.
The FAA has said it cannot meet President Clinton's March
31st deadline to be 100 percent compliant. But will the agency
be able to meet its own self-imposed deadline of June 30, 1999?
To its credit, the FAA has historically maintained one of
the finest safety records in the world, and we have no doubt
that everyone at this agency is working extremely hard to
retain that highly regarded status.
We are here today to learn how the enormous year 2000
challenge is being met--in the air, on the ground, and on the
Nation's waterways.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.001
Mr. Horn. I welcome today's witnesses and look forward to
their testimony. We have a good part of the leadership of the
Department of Transportation, with Deputy Secretary Mortimer
Downey, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
Jane Garvey.
We will start with our first witness, which is the
representative of the General Accounting Office which is the
Congress's programmatic and fiscal auditor. We try to send them
into every agency. And so we welcome Joel Willemssen, Director,
Civil Agencies Information Systems, GAO, part of the
legislative branch, and Mr. Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General,
Department of Transportation.
As you all know, we swear in all witnesses before this
subcommittee, and I would ask you if some of your assistants
are going to contribute to the dialog, I would just as soon
swear in everybody now. That is what I did with the Department
of Defense on another subject, and that saves me giving oaths.
So if all will stand up, please raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Horn. I note that there are roughly 10 or 11 that
affirmed that oath.
And so we will begin with Mr. Willemssen----
Mrs. Morella. Would you like me to make an opening
statement?
Mr. Horn. Sure. I didn't see you come in.
Mrs. Morella. I am so small.
Mr. Horn. The distinguished co-chairman of the working
group, task force, on the House side, but more important,
chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology of the House
Committee on Science.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
here as chairman of the House Science Committee's Technology
Subcommittee. I am pleased to join the Committee on Government
Reform's Government Management, Information, and Technology
Subcommittee in this important hearing to explore the impact of
the year 2000 computer problem upon critical components of our
Nation's transportation system.
Our transportation system consists of many interlocking
components, supported by a complicated aviation infrastructure
and 5.5 million miles of public roads, rail track, waterways
and pipelines. Over the years, advanced technologies and
computers have been implemented by the transportation sector to
improve efficiency.
Inadvertently, its reliance on technology also exposes the
transportation sector to significant Y2K risks. Clearly
transportation and the movement of people and goods is
absolutely vital to our Nation. We simply cannot afford to
allow the mobility of our society to be disrupted by the
millennium bug.
The Office of Management and Budget, the General Accounting
Office and the Inspector General, as well as the Congress, have
been very critical of the Department of Transportation's Y2K
efforts to date. Most of the criticism is due to the fact that
the Department and the FAA did not begin to seriously address
the extent of the year 2000 problem until February 1998, much
too late.
For its part, I must say that the Federal Aviation
Administration under the leadership of Administrator Jane
Garvey has been very forthright in recognizing its mistakes of
the past. I am pleased to commend Administrator Garvey and the
agency for the remarkable progress it has made in the last
year. However, the job is not finished. There is still much
work to do.
Currently the FAA has implemented Y2K changes in roughly
one-third of its air traffic control systems at its field
sites. The remaining two-thirds are more complex and have to be
installed at 3,000 different locations over the next 3 months.
In addition to making sure that their own internal systems
work, the FAA has also got to coordinate its efforts with
airports, international organizations and other Federal
agencies.
There is still much to do and a very short amount of time
to ensure that the right Y2K solutions are put into place.
While I have confidence in their leadership, I am convinced
that it is critical for the Department and the FAA to work
proactively with all transportation stakeholders in the
development of contingency plans that ensure that the
transportation of people, goods and services are not
significantly impaired on January 1, 2000 and beyond.
So I am pleased that today we have a very distinguished
panel of witnesses before us. I look forward to their comments,
their recommendations. The fact that this is the fourth hearing
we have held on transportation and year 2000 underscores its
importance to our subcommittees and to our Nation. We all share
the same goal of a seamless transition to the year 2000. The
American people expect no less.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much, and without objection, the
opening statement of the ranking minority member, Mr. Turner of
Texas, will be put in the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Turner follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.003
Mr. Horn. We now begin with our first witness, Mr. Joel
Willemssen, the Director of Civil Agencies Information Systems
of the General Accounting Office. Mr. Willemssen.
STATEMENTS OF JOEL C. WILLEMSSEN, DIRECTOR, CIVIL AGENCIES
INFORMATION SYSTEMS, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; MORTIMER L.
DOWNEY, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; JANE F.
GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; AND
KENNETH M. MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Willemssen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairwoman
Morella, and thank you for inviting GAO to testify today on
DOT's Y2K readiness. As requested, I will briefly summarize our
statement and in particular focus on the Y2K readiness of the
Federal Aviation Administration.
Over the past year FAA has made tremendous progress on Y2K.
After a very slow start, FAA now has a strong management
structure, an overall Y2K strategy, detailed standards and
guidance, schedules and milestones for key activities, and a
draft business continuity and contingency plan. Despite this
progress, FAA still has a long way to go. Trying to play catch-
up after such a slow start, especially given the complexity of
FAA's systems and environment, is an enormous undertaking.
For example, many of FAA's mission-critical systems are not
due to be implemented until after OMB's deadline this month.
Several of these are among FAA's most critical systems. FAA
also faces the challenge of making sure that validation of
systems is sufficient and complete. In reviewing reports and
test documentation for a sample of six mission-critical air
traffic systems, we found that validation of three was
supported. However, we found one other system's testing to be
insufficient, and two systems lacked supporting documentation
to determine whether testing was adequate.
For example, for the automated radar terminal or ARTS-IIIA,
system which provides aircraft position and flight plan
information to controllers, FAA's validation may have been
premature. This system continues to rely on a 1960's vintage
computer. Home computers available today have 250 times the
memory of this computer.
Ten years ago we reported on the flight safety risks
associated with this old computer and recommended to FAA that
it pursue alternatives to replace the system. However, this
computer is still used by air traffic controllers at over 50
locations. In looking at this system for Y2K compliance, we
found shortcomings in the analysis of the software, testing,
and the contractors' determination of compliance.
FAA faces other challenges. It still needs to deploy about
75 systems to hundreds of air traffic facilities. Concurrently
rolling out numerous system changes to multiple sites will be
time-consuming and resource-intensive, and FAA has acknowledged
that schedules are tight--with no room for delay.
Data exchanges represent another major challenge for FAA.
It reports more than 1,000 in its inventory and more than 100
requiring modification, and we are continuing to review FAA's
progress in this area. In-depth testing of multiple systems
that have individually been deemed compliant is another key
activity. FAA has made progress on this since our last
testimony and now has developed detailed end-to-end test plans
that we are continuing to review.
In addition to the risks of its internal systems, FAA is
also at risk that external systems will fail. For example, we
recently reported on airports' efforts to address Y2K. Of the
234 airports responding to our surveys, about one-third
reported that they would complete their preparations by June
30th. The other two-thirds planned on a later completion date
or did not have an estimated completion date, and half of these
did not have contingency plans for any of their core business
functions.
Because of the risk of system failures, whether from
internal systems or reliance on external partners and
suppliers, FAA needs a comprehensive business continuity and
contingency plan to help ensure continuing operations. FAA has
drafted such a plan and intends to release four more iterations
of this plan throughout the year.
That concludes a summary of my statement, and I would be
pleased to address any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Willemssen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.024
Mr. Horn. We thank you very much for that very succinct
statement. We are going through all of the witnesses first, and
then we will have questions for all panelists.
I am delighted to present now the Deputy Secretary for the
Department of Transportation, Mortimer L. Downey. Welcome.
Mr. Downey. Thank you, Chairman Horn and Chairwoman
Morella, for this opportunity to report on DOT's efforts to
resolve the Y2K problem. I have a longer written statement
which I would like to submit for the record.
Mr. Horn. Automatically, all statements are put in the
record the minute I mention your name.
Mr. Downey. I am here today fully confident that all DOT's
vital computer systems will effectively make the transition on
January 1, 2000. I am sure most of you realize that OMB has
classified DOT as an agency that is making limited progress,
and that congressional evaluations have continually ranked us
at the low end of government.
While I understand how these determinations are made, they
should not be taken as showing any lack of effort or
commitment. Indeed, extraordinary effort is being applied to
this challenge by many dedicated DOT employees, including Ms.
Garvey and her staff and the IG's office, whose seal of
approval goes on before any of our reports go out. We also
appreciate the role of GAO, the questions that they raise as
well as the model plans they have to guide our efforts.
As of last Friday, March 12th, 64 percent of the
Department's 607 mission-critical systems were Y2K compliant,
as compared with our February report of 53 percent. And since
this rate of progress is not linear, I should note that 85
percent are projected to be compliant by March 31st.
The FAA projects completion of its work by the schedule
that they had set, which is the end of June 1999, and they have
met their other goals to date. At that time, the end of June,
approximately 99 percent of the Department's systems will be
compliant.
Those systems projected to be completed after June belong
to the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has scheduled
completion of its final system, the Valdez, Alaska Vessel
Traffic System, for October 1999. Due to complicated logistics
and the weather conditions in Alaska, it is not possible to
accelerate this project any further.
I will continue to work closely with all of our DOT
Administrators to ensure the success of our remediation
efforts, but even with confidence that we have that our goals
will be reached, we are preparing and will continue to refine
comprehensive business continuity and contingency plans for
each of our administrations to ensure that vital services will
continue to operate; whatever the cause might be for any system
failure.
With respect to the broader challenges, we have
aggressively reached out to our transportation partners,
domestic and international, in all modes, land, sea and air,
and will be happy to comment on those today. There has been a
productive exchange of information which will continue, and we
will inform this committee and the public of any potential
areas of concern.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the commitment
that Secretary Slater and I have to ensuring that all DOT
systems will operate properly before, during and after the
millennium change, and we will keep you advised of our progress
over the coming weeks and months.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Downey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.027
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
We will now move to Ms. Garvey, a very distinguished
Administrator in the past and currently, the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much, Chairman Horn and
Chairwoman Morella. It is a pleasure to be here this morning to
address the Y2K efforts of the FAA.
Let me say at the outset that we have made tremendous
progress, and I appreciate the General Accounting Office's
comments in particular. We have made tremendous progress since
I first appeared before this committee in February 1998. Since
that time we have worked virtually around the clock to ensure
that our skies would be safe and that air traffic will be as
efficient as possible come midnight December 31st.
Within the past year, we have caught up with much of the
rest of the Federal Government, and I believe we may have
surpassed the expectations of many people. I realize that you,
Mr. Chairman, and many members of this committee have some
concerns, and I hope that I can answer some of those concerns
today.
Currently the agency is in the validation phase, during
which all repaired systems must be tested to ensure that all of
the work accomplished during the renovation phase is complete,
is correct, and is consistent. As of February 28th, we
validated almost 80 percent of our mission-critical systems. We
fully expect to complete validation for 100 percent of all of
our systems by March 31st. That figure is for mission-critical
and non-mission-critical.
Our validation process includes an independent verification
and validation review by an outside contractor, as well as some
very helpful work from the IG's office. It also includes
comprehensive end-to-end tests which test the
interrelationships of our systems and whether the individual
fixes will actually work together as a whole. In particular, we
will be conducting an end-to-end test of FAA's operational
facilities in Denver, CO on April 10th.
As you know, after a system has been validated, it
progresses to the implementation phase for key site testing and
deployment. We have scheduled implementation to be completed,
as the Deputy Secretary said, by June 30, 1999. Let me also
stress while we will complete implementation by June 30th, we
will continue to test and retest our systems for as long as
possible and as rigorously as we can to make absolutely sure
that we are prepared.
Let me briefly mention our agency's contingency plan. The
key to a successful contingency plan is involvement, we know,
of our labor partners. Last October, the FAA briefed
representatives from several unions on our contingency plan.
That was followed by a series of workshops and meetings from
October to December, resulting in a draft version of the
contingency plan.
As GAO has testified, the first version of that plan will
be released on April 15th. We will continue to review that plan
and to revise it as needed. We are working very closely with
our labor unions on that issue. It is important, we think, to
have a good contingency plan facility-by-facility. We see the
development of the contingency plan as an evolutionary process.
Within the aviation industry, we have sponsored several
``Industry Days,'' which bring together key stakeholders from
all sectors of the aviation industry. In addition, at the
request of the President's Council on Y2K Conversion, we
established an aviation industry Y2K steering group and a FAA
outreach team. The purpose of this effort is to identify the
issues, to develop a coordinated approach to solutions and,
finally, to avoid duplication of effort.
The steering committee is chaired by the FAA and membership
includes leaders from a number of industry trade organizations.
The committee meets biweekly and is responsible for keeping
industry and government executives informed of the status of
the Y2K effort.
Airport readiness is another area of our outreach. I know
this is a concern to members of the committee, given the GAO's
recent report on airport readiness. GAO has appropriately
raised some concerns in this area. I want you to know that the
FAA is doing everything within our regulatory powers and even
beyond to help airports achieve Y2K compliance.
We are focused first and foremost on those elements that
have the greatest effect on airport safety and security. We
have provided a list of commonly used airfield equipment that
use computers or embedded microchips. We have set criteria for
verifying Y2K readiness of airport equipment, and we have
detailed a 10-person FAA team to monitor progress by airport
operators. The FAA wants to ensure, in fact we must ensure,
that the airports achieve compliance with our safety
regulations even if they cannot be fully Y2K compliant.
Internationally, our work encompasses several efforts. Last
April, the FAA issued a Y2K International Project Plan,
outlining an effective strategy of cooperation and coordination
with our international partners. We are working very closely
with the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO], and
the International Air Transport Association. An FAA employee
has been assigned to work full-time with ICAO in their
Montreal, Canada office to offer guidance and support for their
Y2K coordination efforts. Both the Deputy Secretary and I had
an opportunity on individual occasions to be briefed in
Montreal over the last 2 weeks.
Last September, I represented the FAA at the ICAO general
assembly in Montreal, where the United States sponsored two
resolutions. Both resolutions, I am pleased to say, were
accepted. One directs the ICAO Secretary General to develop and
publish standard Y2K assessment criteria. That was completed
and issued at the end of January. The second resolution urges
States to submit to ICAO the status of their Y2K readiness.
That information must be reported to ICAO by June 30, 1999.
FAA has also initiated informal working groups with
different international entities to solve common Y2K problems.
We know that cooperation between Canada, Mexico and the United
States is critical to ensure that the North American air
transportation system does not suffer malfunctions on January
1st. Our three countries have agreed to share information on
national efforts regarding air navigation systems.
Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while I am very
proud of the progress that we have made to date, we are not
overconfident. We continue to work diligently on our own Y2K
challenges while supporting the efforts of the aviation
industry as best as possible.
We have overcome many obstacles to get where we are today,
but we know that many challenges lie ahead. I continue to
remind the Y2K team that we have got to stay the course, that
each benchmark, each inch mark, if you will, is critical. Each
milestone is critical.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be
happy to answer any questions with my colleagues. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Garvey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.037
Mr. Horn. Thank you. That is a very succinct statement
also.
We are now honored to have with us the Inspector General of
the Department of Transportation, Kenneth Mead. Are we still in
the 20th year of Inspectors General, or did that finish with
1998? This is a vital resource in our government. Proceed.
Mr. Mead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman.
First, a little over a year ago we testified before the
same subcommittees. Our report then was not at all encouraging.
We testified that FAA was then 7 months behind schedule in
assessing the scope of their Y2K problems, let alone repairing
the problems. There were serious questions whether the HOST
computer used to control high altitude air traffic, would even
make it to the year 2000, and FAA's schedule for fixing its
computers was literally the 11th hour, or November of this
year, leaving no cushion.
We made a series of recommendations at that hearing. Chief
among them was establishing strong central management and
moving up completion milestones to June 1999. FAA responded,
Mr. Chairman, and responded well to all these recommendations.
Looking back, that February seems to me to mark a turning
point. Commitment, leadership by the Secretary, the Deputy
Secretary, the FAA Administrator, Mr. Koskinen and others,
including oversight of this committee and GAO, have resulted
unambiguously in a great deal of progress.
Overall, we have a much higher level of confidence today
than we did a year ago that DOT mission-critical systems, such
as air traffic control will indeed be Y2K compliant, and that
there will be sufficient room in the schedule to address
computer interface problems that may develop. However, the job
is not nearly done. We can't let up; there is still much to do.
Here is where matters stand.
DOT has 607 mission-critical systems. About 300 were OK to
begin with; 309 had Y2K problems that had to be fixed. All but
five of these have been, fixed, but this does not mean the fix
has been installed at all field facilities which have a
particular system.
DOT, as has been noted, will not meet OMB's March 31
milestone to have all systems compliant, and compliant means
not only fixed but tested and installed in all locations. DOT
expects to be 85 percent compliant by March 31st, 99 percent by
June, and finished by late October.
FAA and the Coast Guard have 90 of the 91 systems that
won't be compliant by March 31st. I would like to move to the
display chart that each of you have to explain more fully what
this means.
First, our numbers are as of February 28th. We had to have
a cutoff to validate, but this is a moving target. Things have
changed even since then. The 85 percent compliant figure on
March 31st that you will hear about applies to the total
universe of the 607 DOT mission-critical systems, which include
systems not needing fixes. But let's focus for a moment on the
309 systems for which repairs were required.
First, all of the 151 FAA systems--I don't know if your
eyes are good enough to read that, Mr. Chairman, mine aren't--
but for FAA, all of the 151 systems which had to be fixed are
fixed. Most have been tested.
The same is true for over 90 percent of the Coast Guard's
systems that had to be fixed. The Coast Guard has the five
systems that as of February 28th needed to be fixed, and only
two of its 66 systems which require repairs have been fixed,
tested and installed at all field locations. The Coast Guard
bears watching, but we are certain that they are up to the
task.
Third, the 16 FAA tested systems reflects at least one of
each mission-critical system has been repaired and tested. Once
tested, FAA installs the fix at all air traffic facilities in
the field. There are multiple units of the same computer system
throughout the United States.
In other words, the same repair or fix that was made to the
computer system in the laboratory must now be made at air
traffic facilities throughout the United States. That is the
real challenge, Mr. Chairman, for both FAA and the Coast Guard,
to install the fix in the field and make sure it works.
To illustrate, as shown in red on that chart, for the 65
air traffic systems that needed to be repaired, one-third have
been fixed, tested, and installed throughout the country. That
means the fixes for the remaining 44 air traffic systems have
to be installed at field locations between now and the end of
June. That equates to several thousand locations.
For the Coast Guard, 64 of 66 system fixes must now be
deployed to afloat or shore activities by the end of June.
Also, we are paying special attention to the validation
numbers, which is testing the fix. We found a need for FAA to
be a bit more disciplined in providing support for the test
results, and I think Mr. Willemssen has already alluded to
that.
I point these out not to detract, Mr. Chairman, in any way
from the progress that has been made, but rather to illustrate
the scope and importance of the remaining work.
Second, with the short time remaining, DOT has to finalize
workable contingency plans. We are concerned that FAA's two
major unions, the controllers and maintenance technicians,
still need to play an active role in the composition of these
plans. These are the people who have to continue operations if
unexpected failures occur.
Third, moving to the industry, DOT, Coast Guard, Transit,
and FAA, have done a good job of injecting a high level of Y2K
awareness. Can more be done? Absolutely. Our sense of industry
readiness in the aviation area is that major passenger and
cargo carriers are managing Y2K preparation quite well.
But we think, and I am speaking here only for the Office of
Inspector General, that they should certify for the Department
by November 1, large and small alike, that their systems are
Y2K compliant. The Federal Transit Administration is requiring
this of transit authority. We think that the FAA should require
that as well. We have to make certifications to the Secretary,
and the Secretary in turn to the Office of Management and
Budget. I don't see any persuasive reason why regulated
entities which carry passengers and cargo should not do
likewise.
GAO has already touched on airports, and I won't.
Fourth, the international arena is one of continued
concern. DOT has been working with various international
organizations. Although awareness has increased greatly, there
are at this hour far too many unknowns in other parts of the
globe. We believe it is time to develop a policy as to whether
U.S. carriers or U.S. code-share flights will be allowed to fly
to countries that are not known to be Y2K compliant.
Finally, I would like to close with the point that we in
the Office of Inspector General stand ready to help in any way
that we can. We found at all levels of the Department,
regardless of the operating administration, an openness and
support for the oversight and checking, and responsiveness to
the recommendations that we have made.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mead follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.046
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much. My co-chairman and I will be
alternating and questioning for about 5 minutes each until we
get through all 200 questions that we have prepared here. Don't
worry, it is only 190.
Let me ask the Secretary a couple of things here.
Do you concur that those are accurate figures as far as you
see? Those are generally developed by your people, and the IG
has gone in to look at it and I would ask Mr. Mead, are you
pretty sure those figures are sound?
Mr. Mead. Yes, sir, as of the end of February. Mr. Downey
alluded to some more recent figures that we haven't validated
yet, and that is why I was not sourcing those.
Mr. Horn. February 12th was of course the quarterly report
and that is what we based our judgment on. Is there anything
new that wasn't in this chart of the Inspector General?
Mr. Downey. We issue a monthly report to the OMB that was
validated by the Inspector General. That is the report that
would bring us up to 57 percent. The 64 percent was our
informal review as of Friday, and before you get a monthly
report at the end of this month it will also be validated by
the IG, but that is the one that we expect to be at 85 percent.
Mr. Horn. Besides seeing how rapidly an agency is
implementing the testing and getting full compliance, we had
four other criteria which the Department of Transportation was
simply, ``in progress,'' whether it was 1 percent progress or
200 percent progress we don't know. On the contingency plan, it
was in progress. What is the contingency plan of the Department
of Transportation?
Mr. Downey. There will be about a dozen separate
contingency plans, one for each of the major administrations.
By the end of this month I think most of them will be complete
in draft. Some of them will be issued in final. All of them
will continue to be worked on right up to the end of the year
as we work with other partners, because there will be
contingency plans not only for things that should be within our
control but for contingencies that will be beyond our control.
Mr. Horn. Can you give me one example of one system that
you have a contingency plan for?
Mr. Downey. We have a full published contingency plan for
the Federal Railroad Administration. It covers the internal
systems of FRA. It also covers our work with the industry on
safety related matters for the industry. We can provide that to
you.
Mr. Horn. What is the particular system you have that is
the contingency? Is it another system in another agency or
what?
Mr. Downey. Well, for example, in Federal Rail one of the
major systems is managing our Federal inspection activities. We
can fall back to do it by paper and pencil, but we want to be
sure that the business functions can continue.
Mr. Horn. Have people in the Federal Railway
Administration, have they been checking on microchips and what
it might mean to their signaling?
Mr. Downey. Yes. Throughout the industry we have worked
with the railroads, large and small, and have found that signal
systems, locomotives, crossing gates and all of the other
safety-related equipment within the industry should perform
well. While there are numerous microchips, they are all event-
sensitive and not date-sensitive, and so we should see those
systems working.
The thing that the industry is continuing to work on, and
we are monitoring their progress, is the interrelated systems
they have for managing freight cars and managing the flow of
traffic. Those have to work not only within each railroad but
across the entire industry. The American Association of
Railroads has taken the lead on that, and is working with each
of the major carriers to be sure that their systems will work
together. The current report we have from them is that they are
about 85 percent complete with the implementation and expect to
meet a June 30th deadline.
Mr. Horn. Besides completion, our second criteria on the
February 12th reports was the degree to which your
telecommunications system would be able to serve the computers
on this. Is that true?
Mr. Downey. We are including those telecommunication
systems which are under our own control, such as FAA and Coast
Guard systems, as part of our modernization and implementation
efforts. We have to work with the telecommunication carriers
where we are involved in using commercial systems. We are
continuing to work with them, along with FCC and the General
Services Administration, to be sure that those systems will be
working.
Mr. Horn. So you have your own internal systems and
switches, that if say Bell Atlantic or whatever it is goes
under because of some computer glitch in their switch, you have
your own way of communicating with your people?
Mr. Downey. In some cases, and in some cases they are
directly linked through the commercial system, and in that case
we have a risk in problems with the commercial system. That is
one of the reasons for having our contingency plan. Should an
issue beyond our control, as a Bell Atlantic or MCI switch
fail, we have to have alternate means. Typically that means
having alternate routings for the data flow.
Mr. Horn. Those of us that were around when President
Kennedy was assassinated recall that everybody picked up the
phone to talk to their loved ones or whatever it was, and the
switches just broke down. Have we looked at that situation and
the disaster area since? In California it will be an earthquake
or something.
Mr. Downey. That is something that, working through the Y2K
Council with John Koskinen, the Telecommunications Working
Group is involved in that discussion. There are priority uses
and priority users, and I think we will have an ability to be
sure that the priority uses will be met. We cannot assure that
every person in America will have a dial tone on their phone,
but I think the safety-sensitive activities will be met.
Mr. Horn. Our third criteria was embedded systems. To what
degree are you getting into those systems and seeing what these
little microchips will do?
Mr. Downey. We are working that not only through the things
through our own controls but through the industry. We have
worked with aviation. Aviation is an easier one to work with
because FAA maintains configuration control on all aircraft and
really can tell us where there are chips, and they have found
the areas where changes need to be made.
We are concerned in the maritime area because there are
thousands of ships out there and they are all unique, and at a
later point I can tell you internationally what we are doing on
that. We held a conference in London recently.
We have checked out the transit systems, and we are now
surveying the auto industry, who have told us informally there
are no chips in our automobiles that we should worry about; but
we would like to get a more formal response from them that says
no individual automobile will go out of control because of a
chip.
Mr. Horn. That is good to know. I have a 1988 Mercury and I
love it, and I bought it strictly because of that dashboard,
and something has gone wrong already because a third of it
doesn't show anything, but that is OK. Just keep after them.
Just one last question on this. External data exchange,
that was our further criteria. What have you got to do on that?
Mr. Downey. We are working through our external data
exchange. The FAA is most critical, with interchanges with the
industry and with the Weather Service. My recollection is of
about 1,000 areas of interchange, there were roughly 100 that
might have problems and something like half of those have now
been corrected, but we are working through all of our
interchanges.
Other areas that are important, maybe not safety-sensitive
but important, are our flow of funds to the States for all of
our grant programs. The States are very anxious to be sure that
those payment flows can be made, and we will be working end-to-
end tests with them as well.
Mr. Horn. I am delighted to yield 6 minutes to Mrs.
Morella.
Mrs. Morella. I must say this is a situation where I see
very honest criticism of the system, with GAO, Inspector
General, with our Deputy Secretary of DOT and our Administrator
of FAA, criticism and cooperation, too. I think it is probably
a singular exemplary example that could be followed,
particularly because as we look at FAA it started, as we have
all mentioned, so very, very late.
Ms. Garvey, I would like to ask you to give us your
response. Will FAA be ready by June 30th with contingency
plans?
Ms. Garvey. Yes, Congresswoman, we will be ready with a
contingency plan. Our first version is going to be issued April
15th and it contains two volumes. But again, those plans are
going to be revised. We expect a second one to come out this
summer, and then a third one in the fall, and the whole premise
is that we will continue to work it.
I think one of the issues--and I might add, by the way,
that I think the involvement of the unions to date, and I
absolutely hear what Mr. Mead says, that that must continue and
we must involve them again and again, but I think the
involvement to date has made the plan a better plan. And I
expect that we will continue to work it facility-by-facility so
that we are prepared. I want to publicly commend both Mr.
McNally and Mr. Fanfalone for their personal involvement. It
really has involved the highest levels of the union.
Mrs. Morella. That is another element of the partnership
that I commend, and I am so pleased that you are all working
together cooperatively. I am glad to hear about the fact that
you also believe that you will meet that deadline.
I want to ask a question about the fact that you plan to
conduct a lot of end-to-end tests in the coming weeks. When
will the FAA interface with foreign air traffic control
organizations as part of an end-to-end test?
Ms. Garvey. Congresswoman, we have begun some of that
testing now, particularly with Canada. NAV Canada has been a
very active partner with us in conducting those tests. We have
some more tests scheduled this month, around March 23rd, and we
have a trilateral scheduled in May to talk with Canada and
Mexico about the very issue of testing.
We are continuing to work with a number of other
international partners on testing through the spring and early
summer. I can give you exactly what that schedule includes, but
it includes a number of countries in Latin America as well as,
of course, Mexico and Canada and European countries as well. I
would be happy to follow up on that, with specific schedules.
Mrs. Morella. And just expanding that question just a bit
more, what steps will the FAA take to ensure that U.S. air
carriers or U.S. code-share flights will only fly to countries
that are proven to be Y2K compliant?
And then I am going to ask if Mr. Willemssen and Mr. Mead
would also comment on the questions that I have asked. Maybe
Mr. Downey would like to, too.
Ms. Garvey. The code-sharing, I may defer to the Deputy
Secretary.
Just to emphasize the work that we are doing with ICAO, we
expect that the information that we all have internationally on
June 30th is going to be very critical. I was briefed in
Montreal on Friday, and I was pleased to see the work that ICAO
and IATA were able to do to date, but we have some very hard
decisions post June 30th, together with the State Department,
with the industry, once we I think fully understand what the
situation is. We will have some difficult decisions. But I am
pleased with the information that is coming in and pleased with
the forthrightness that really I think all of the countries
have approached this issue.
Mr. Downey. If I can followup on the code-share issue,
which is an economic issue, we will be looking at that same
information and, together with State, make two levels of public
information available. One would be travel advisories with
respect to foreign countries, and this would not only be with
respect to their aviation systems but generally the state of
play in those countries.
With respect to U.S. carrier or code-shares where U.S.
tickets are being used on a foreign airline, I believe we will
look at safety as the issue, not necessarily Y2K compliance but
assurance of safety, as we do today. We do not allow U.S.
carriers to fly into any circumstance where we believe the air
travel system is unsafe, and this would be one consideration as
part of that.
Mrs. Morella. How do you check the safety and compliance of
international carriers? Do you rely on what they tell you?
Mr. Downey. We do two things. We get information from the
carriers. We put a lot of reliance on our review and ICAO's
review of the certifying authority in the local country. We
want to be sure that if country X certifies its carriers and
airports as safe, that they actually have a good regime for
doing that. We publish our evaluations of those regimes, and we
take with considerable doubt any statement that comes from a
country whose certification regime is less than adequate.
Mrs. Morella. Do you feel some countries will be closed,
their airports, thinking of Indonesia, some countries of that
nature, their airports will be closed?
Mr. Downey. We will know better after July, when we get the
information from ICAO, and before September, and we have the
full opportunity to evaluate it.
Mrs. Morella. Mr. Willemssen and Mr. Mead, do you have any
comments to the series of questions?
Mr. Willemssen. In terms of contingency plans, we think
that FAA has made very good progress in this area. They have
put together an initial framework. I think their strategy of
going forward with additional iterations makes sense,
especially as they get more detail on the exact nature of the
contingencies that they want to activate. There has been very
good progress in that area.
Likewise in the end-to-end testing area that you mentioned,
they have got some good guidance put together and some good
strategies for testing the most critical air traffic systems.
We are going to continue evaluating to make sure that as much
thorough testing is done as possible on those most essential
air traffic systems.
Mrs. Morella. Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. Just two comments. I would agree with Mr.
Willemssen. I would underscore, though, that with respect to
the business continuity plans I think we need to pay special
attention, as the Administrator I am certain is, to the
involvement of both the maintenance technician union and the
controllers, because at the individual system level if they
need to use manual procedures, you definitely want their
concurrence, and I am sure that they will have it.
Second, on the code-sharing, the more we look at this, I
think the public disclosure or advisories may not be sufficient
and that we will need policy concerning whether U.S. airlines
and the code-share airlines should be flying in certain foreign
airspace. We will know a lot more by June about the readiness
level of foreign countries.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Thank you. Just for the record, when you hear the
word ``ICAO'' it is not a boxer knocking somebody out. It is
the International Civil Aviation Organization, which if I
remember goes back to the League of Nations and it was
inherited by the United Nations. That is where most people can
get together and battle things out on international policy, and
it is a very worthwhile organization.
Let me ask a few questions in which I also want to involve
the IG and the GAO. The FAA has established June 30th to have
its computer system be ready to go. Do you think the FAA will
make the June 30 deadline? Mr. Mead, will they?
Mr. Mead. Yes, I do. I would not be surprised if there are
some last minute testing issues that may extend it a bit past
that day, but that is why FAA moved this milestone up from
November to June, to allow that cushion for unexpected
problems.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Willemssen.
Mr. Willemssen. I think it will be extremely difficult to
meet that date with the kind of thoroughness of testing that we
would expect on individual systems.
Mr. Horn. Well, if they won't, why won't they make the
deadline? What are the factors that affect that?
Mr. Willemssen. The major factor affecting that is so many
systems to implement at so many locations. Late last week the
FAA program manager estimated to us that he had about 4,500
events between now and the end of June. Each event means one
system at one location. Multiply that by 4,500 in a little over
3 months, and have it all go the way that it is supposed to
go--with that many systems and that many locations--will be
extremely difficult to do. If FAA can pull it off, great. We
hope that they can. However, I am not sure that they can with
the thoroughness of testing that we will be looking for.
Mr. Mead. I would rather, Mr. Chairman, if we see in our
monitoring of validation that Mr. Downey alluded to disclosures
on the cutting of corners on testing, I would rather see
implementation slip by 2 or 3 weeks rather than come up with a
nice rosy report and later have to back off of it.
Mr. Horn. I think everybody up here shares that view, also.
Let's do it right. Are those in the regional centers or in the
actual airports that these events take place?
Mr. Willemssen. A range of facilities from en route centers
to terminal radar approach control facilities to automated
flight service stations. We counted up the different types of
facilities and came up with a number of 654 different types of
facilities, some with maybe one system, some with multiple
systems. That is a huge challenge for any organization to have
to deal with in a little over 3 months.
Mr. Horn. Ms. Garvey.
Ms. Garvey. First of all, let me say we do not minimize the
challenge ahead of us. It is a big challenge, but I really do
think that we have it laid out in such a methodical and
thoughtful way that will allow us to meet that challenge.
There are 100 events per sector. There are 33 sectors. We
have the best technicians in the world, who know this system
and have grown up with this system. In addition, we have 250
specialists also assigned to it. So while it is an enormous
challenge, we have it laid out by sector in such a way that it
can be met, we think. But I would certainly agree and restate
what the Inspector General said: We want to make sure that the
testing is accurate and valid, and we welcome the involvement
of both the GAO and the Inspector General in that effort.
Mr. Horn. Any other comments to be made on this? In other
words, you all agree if it is slippage of a few weeks, don't
worry about it as long as we get the job done.
Mr. Downey. None of us will stop worrying until the job is
done.
Mr. Horn. One of the first strategies in finding out how a
system will perform through the year 2000 date change is to
contact the vendor of the key components to determine if the
vendor will certify that their products are Y2K compliant. FAA
did not do this on the so-called ARTS-IIIA hardware. Now, why
didn't we do this?
Ms. Garvey. Mr. Chairman, we had some very intensive
testing done with Lockheed Martin, and also actually with the
firm that originally put together the ARTS-IIIA, and we have
had lengthy discussions with GAO as recently as Friday. We
think that the testing and validation is solid and good and we
expect to get a letter today from Lockheed Martin to that
effect. But we also agree if GAO has some concerns, Lockheed
Martin has said that they will be happy to run the testing
again so we can all have a level of comfort that we need. So we
stand by the testing, and Lockheed Martin has done the
validation, but we are happy to run it again if that would
help.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Willemssen, how do you feel about this?
Mr. Willemssen. To the extent that the contractor in this
case can provide a certification that this particular piece of
hardware, manufactured more than 30 years ago, is indeed Y2K
compliant, that will give the Federal Aviation Administration a
greater level of assurance that issues will not come up.
In terms of the software, there does need to be some
additional testing done. The report that has been done thus far
by the contractor indicates that the year is represented by two
digits, not four. There are some Y2K ramifications possible,
and we would like to see more thorough testing of the radar
tracking function in particular to make sure that this issue
doesn't surface.
Again, one thing to keep in mind here, you vary the level
of testing depending on the criticality of the system. This
system is absolutely essential. It provides flight information
and identification information to controllers, and therefore we
think the bar needs to be pretty high.
Mr. Horn. Well, does it also have to be earlier? As I look
at the data from our own staff, these systems support critical
FAA functions, as you noted, include aircraft surveillance and
weather data processing, yet 12 of these systems will be among
the last of the FAA systems to be completed. Is that a problem?
Mr. Willemssen. Well, it is something that we wanted to
point out in the statement in terms of making sure that FAA
focuses, as I testified in August, on the most critical air
traffic systems, and to make sure that the thoroughness of
testing is especially focused on those particular systems. So
it is noted that they are later in the process but again, as
mentioned a few minutes ago, to the extent that it takes even a
little longer than the current milestones to make sure that
they are thoroughly tested, we would support that.
Mr. Horn. Any other comments?
Ms. Garvey. Just to reiterate, Lockheed Martin is very
comfortable with it, but we would be happy to continue those
discussions and further testing if necessary.
Mr. Horn. Mrs. Morella.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to first of all pick up on the contingency plan
concept. Ms. Garvey, if Mr. Willemssen's suggestions that
contingency plans could be in a little difficulty with regard
to meeting the deadline, which contingency plans, for which
particular sector? Can you be specific?
Ms. Garvey. There are about six systems that are critical,
including the ARTS-IIIA, as GAO has testified. In addition,
HOST, for example, is very, very important to us as well. So we
would focus on those particular systems that are really
critical to the working of the system, the heart and soul of
the system.
For example, HOST, if HOST fails, we have a backup system
that would come into place and ultimately, if we are concerned
enough, we would increase the separation or slow up the traffic
to some degree. So those are the kinds of contingency plans,
but you can look at a system like HOST, see what the backup
system is and see what the backup is to that, with the ultimate
being separation or further separation of the aircraft, actual
delays if we need to.
Mrs. Morella. Mr. Willemssen, you want to comment on that?
Mr. Willemssen. I would. Again, we have been very
supportive of the focus that FAA has had on the contingency
planning over the last several months. They have focused from a
business function perspective--that is, to look at it from end-
to-end. For example, in the surveillance of aircraft, one would
focus on making sure that they are still appropriately
separated and looking at the various things that could
potentially go wrong, and if those events realize themselves,
what kind of backup they would have in place. And I think they
are moving in that direction. They have a good draft in hand
that is ready to be fleshed out with some more details.
Mrs. Morella. I see this as really very, very important
because of the ``house of cards'' concept. One thing is
connected to another. If one topples, the whole situation could
be chaotic, and I guess you would agree with that.
Mr. Willemsen. Yes.
Mrs. Morella. It was just the other day I talked to some
members. There was a conference here in the travel industry,
and actually they did a reservation check and they found--it
was in February, early February they found that their
reservation system came through without a hitch for
reservations, you know, January 2000 and beyond. However, they
are obviously concerned about whether or not they will be able
to fulfill these reservation contracts with their clients.
So I guess I would ask you, in terms of the connections,
what about luggage systems at airports? Are you overseeing the
airports' alternative power sources, I mean, the electric
generators? What about, you know, other terminal systems? Would
you like to comment on some of those specifics?
Ms. Garvey. Let me make a brief comment about that. From
our perspective, from the FAA's perspective, we are focused on
those systems that are related to safety and security. Airfield
lighting, for example, is absolutely critical as are the
condition of the fire trucks, and whether they are actually
ready and Y2K compliant.
That is really our focus. It is those elements that are
part of the part 139 certification processes that airports need
to go through. However, I will say that as we have the joint
discussions every other week with industry, many of those other
issues are coming up, and I know that ACI and AAAE and even ATA
are spending a good deal of time with the airport operators on
some of those issues. But really our critical issue is the
safety and security element of it.
Mrs. Morella. Would the rest of you agree? Would you, Mr.
Willemssen?
Mr. Willemsen. I think that is the appropriate focus.
Again, since there is so much to do and limited time to do it,
you have to focus on those important areas.
Mr. Downey. We are comfortable the FAA should put their
focus on the safety side, but we are also working with the
industry because if some of these other systems fail, it could
have a significant effect on the movement of commerce. We don't
want to see serious delays there, but it is safety first and
then the other issues. We are concerned that some of the
airports have not really looked at all the things they need to
look at.
Mrs. Morella. So there are a number of entities that need
to be looked at, that are not within your purview because they
don't involve safety, but they certainly could involve
inconvenience at a minimum, you know, minimally, and as others
should be looking at. I am wondering about the cruise industry,
Secretary Downey. Is there any checking on whether or not the
cruise ships are Y2K compliant?
Mr. Downey. Coast Guard has been working with all of the
elements of the maritime industry, and had a very successful
conference in London earlier this month at which a code of good
practice was agreed to by the industry. We believe it will be
endorsed by the International Maritime Organization, which
usually takes many years to get things agreed to. I think in
this case they are going to speed up their process. This will
allow the Coast Guard to have a quick checklist of any ship
entering U.S. waters and determine quickly what they have done
and what they have not done, and under our regime of port
control, we could bar ships that are not ready for the year
2000.
Mrs. Morella. The Coast Guard is the one who has the
responsibility to deal with those vessels.
Mr. Downey. The Coast Guard has the ability to deal with
that in U.S. waters. We are looking at it internationally
because it is an international issue.
Mrs. Morella. Absolutely. Right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. On that very point, some have told us, looking at
it on a worldwide basis, that microchips are in the refineries,
they are in the ships, they are in the unloading and everything
else. To what degree is the Department of Transportation
concerned that we can't get a gasoline, a petroleum and oil
supply into this country?
Mr. Downey. We are working with the pipeline industry and
the tanker industry and the refineries to assure that there
will be a continuity of supply. The question of chips is a
concern. We have pretty much ruled out the problem with respect
to the pipelines.
They have done complete checking. The issue with the ships
is a lot more difficult than with aircraft because there is not
the kind of tight configuration control. This is why we were so
pleased to get the major elements of the industry together, to
turn the problem over to them with a clear checklist of what
they have to do. We now will know whether tankers, for
example--and InterTankO, the trade association, was part of
this agreement--will now have a set of steps that each operator
can go through and that we can followup on to see if in fact
they have been done.
We cannot completely rule out the problem yet, especially
in ports all around the world. The cargo cranes, for example,
we heard when we met with Mexico a few weeks ago that they have
been checking in their ports. They found half the cranes are OK
but they haven't been able to verify the other half as well. So
Coast Guard will be ready, as they always are, to deal with any
emergencies that are generated and to be sure that we can
maintain an adequate flow of critical materials.
Mr. Horn. The Department of Defense has a cooperative
relationship with Russia in terms of having our officers in
their air defense commands, their officers in ours. Russia
provides most of the energy supply, at least gas, coming out of
Russia into Eastern Europe and part of Central Europe. This
whole thing, if something goes awry, is at winter season.
To what degree is the Department of Transportation offering
to help Russia if they have problems? Now, it is primarily a
pipeline going there. Maybe we are not worried about pipelines,
I gather, but has any exchange been done between this country
and Russia?
Mr. Downey. Not formally, yet, but I believe there will be
discussions at the very senior levels, and certainly the
Department will be ready to be part of any team that is
provided to Russia.
Mr. Horn. I think that is a good idea because if that
system goes out of whack, you are going to have millions of
Europeans freezing. They just won't have the supply for the
heat.
Let me ask Mr. Willemssen, the Federal Aviation
Administration has contracted with a firm, and I don't know if
there is a name for it, it is SAIC. What does that stand for,
pray tell? Another acronym in Washington.
Mr. Willemssen. That is how most of us refer to it, SAIC.
Mr. Horn. Is it SI-AC or what?
Mr. Willemssen. Just SAIC.
Mr. Horn. SAIC. OK. To perform independent verification and
validation activities. In your opinion, are they performing
both verification and validation?
Mr. Willemsen. I think it is an excellent step that FAA
took, to get such a contractor into the system on this effort.
One of the areas that they may want to consider is having SAIC
or another similar contractor also perform work for them in
addition to double-checking, so to speak, on the documentation
and paperwork behind certifications. They also may want to go a
bit further and have another independent source rerun some of
the tests to see if indeed the same results come out of those
tests as the original tests that were done. That is especially
true for those systems that are most essential to the air
traffic control system. Again, it is not necessary for all
systems.
Mr. Horn. What are the potential consequences of not
independently validating the system test?
Mr. Willemsen. Well, one thing an independent test gives
you is added insurance, especially if that independent tester
has a mentality that ``We are going to try to find problems
here'' as opposed to, ``Well, let's try to check this box and
go on to the next step.'' You really need mentality with the
organization that is doing the independent tests, in order to
have some pretty rigorous test scripts that can identify
potential issues that could surface themselves, if not on
Janaury 1, 2000, on some of the other critical dates. So I
think that is an important consideration for FAA to keep in
mind.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Mead, in your February memorandum you noted
the President's Council on the Year 2000 Conversion identified
computer security as a potential concern due to the magnitude
of year 2000 renovation work that is being performed. So I
guess the obvious question is, how vulnerable are the
Department's computer systems to security threats? And is the
FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, particularly vulnerable?
Mr. Mead. I think it is fair to say that FAA as well as
other parts of the Department need to step up their efforts in
the computer security area, and it is a very formidable
undertaking. I know DOT is not the only agency in government
facing this issue, but internally it is something FAA and Coast
Guard face, particularly these operational agencies.
Mr. Horn. Is there one administration within the Department
of Transportation that is particularly vulnerable? Or are they
all equally vulnerable? Looks like the Railway Administration,
for example, doesn't have as many problems as we might have
thought they would have.
Mr. Mead. We attempted payroll penetrability a couple years
ago. The system was so old it was difficult to penetrate.
Mr. Horn. You were trying to give Inspectors General an
increase in pay, or what?
Mr. Mead. That would be acceptable, too, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Somebody's 17-year-old high school student
penetrated it, right?
Mr. Mead. Frankly, even though FAA and the Coast Guard are
both operational agencies and have to take care of people's
lives as part of their daily mission, it is also true that the
Federal Highway Administration dispenses, large amounts of
money, and so computer security is an equal concern across the
board at DOT.
Mr. Downey. Mr. Chairman, if I could add a bit on that, the
Y2K Council has been working very closely with the Critical
Infrastructure Assurance Office which is part of the National
Security Council, and we really view Y2K as a dress rehearsal
for what we have to do on computer security not just in the
government but across all of industry. It is an important area
and we have learned a lot in the last year about what we need
to do.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Mead triggered in my brain the magic words,
like Groucho Marx, the Federal Highway Administration. I am
told back in either 1987 or 1989 a very able programmer laid it
all out for him and said we ought to be doing this just like
Social Security did in 1989, and the old boy network just gave
no credence to a woman programmer, which is nonsense.
And what I want to know now is, in 1987-1989 the Secretary
never had a chance to talk about that issue. There was no
management system within Transportation to get that idea
percolating to the top so he could talk or she could talk, as
the case may be.
Do any of you in these different administrations, Rail and
Coast Guard and Federal Aviation, have a problem? And I would
think the FAA Administrator at that time would have nodded his
head, ``Yes, sounds like we'd have a problem.'' It didn't get
there. I guess I would ask the question, have the management
lines within the Department of Transportation shaped up from
those days?
Mr. Downey. I think one of the things that will help in
that regard is the creation of the Chief Information Officer
position within the Department and equivalent positions. One
has just been hired at the FAA. And that crosscutting network
of individuals who have shared concerns, whether it is the CFO
on finance or the Chief Information Officer or other comparable
activities, do get us more of the sharing of activities.
We also try to work better among the Administrators, to be
sure that the line activities are also well coordinated. We
have a concept now called ``One DOT.'' When someone learns
something like that, sharing it is viewed as a very important
activity within the Department.
Mr. Horn. So nothing like this would happen again?
Mr. Downey. I would hope not.
Mr. Horn. Well, we all hope that but the problem is, is
there a mechanism to get tough questions up to the top?
Let me see. Ms. Garvey, the Department of Transportation's
Chief Information Officer has issued guidance cautioning that
the year 2000 windowing technique, which is only a temporary
fix, could result in slower system performance. What kind of
fixes are the Department and FAA using to ensure that its
systems are Y2K ready?
Ms. Garvey. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, you mean the----
Mr. Horn. Well, as I understand it from what staff have
said from looking around, Transportation's Chief Information
Officer has issued guidance concerning the so-called windowing
technique, which is only a temporary fix, and it could result
in slower system performance. Well, if it is a fix, is that
going to help the Department and the FAA in the long run to
really make sure you have done the job?
Ms. Garvey. I think from our perspective, I may have to
turn to staff for this, but what we are trying to do is
renovate the systems that we have in place.
Are you familiar with that? Let me turn to Mr. Long.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Long, just identify yourself and give us the
answer.
Mr. Long. I am Raymond Long. I am the Director of the FAA's
year 2000 project. The FAA is using a windowing technique on
our existing legacy, older systems. On all of the new systems
that are being deployed into the FAA, we are requiring that
those contracts be modified to show four digit date expansion.
The only place for using windowing is in our legacy, older
systems. We have not tested for system degradation as we are
doing the window technique. It has not been a problem up until
now because the air traffic control system does not use the
date like your microcomputers or your other systems. It is
something we can include in our post-implementation activity if
we felt we needed to.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Willemssen, do you have any comment on this?
Mr. Willemsen. Windowing is a commonly accepted technique,
especially as time grows short and there is not enough time to
expand all the date fields. The biggest issue that I would be
concerned about, rather than a performance issue, is one of
data exchanges because if a particular system has been windowed
and is staying with two digits, and if that particular data is
sent to another organization and they are expecting full
expansion, and if the relationships and bridges have not been
worked out, you risk having some degraded data going into
another system. Windowing is a generally accepted technique but
like all techniques, it has its risks.
Mr. Mead. In our February comfort letter to the Secretary
and Deputy Secretary on this matter, we indicated that tests on
performance issues should be more robust.
Mr. Horn. OK. Mrs. Morella, 8 minutes, since I ran over.
Equity is what we engage in.
Mrs. Morella. You're so precise. Thank you.
Secretary Downey, I represent Montgomery County, MD, and
Montgomery County, MD, has been recognized nationally for its
advanced transportation management system and other
technologies that are used for transportation. I wondered what
you are doing to work with a jurisdiction like that,
particularly in terms of assisting other localities and
jurisdictions with regard to what's been done and what can be
done?
Mr. Downey. Montgomery County has in fact been one of our
poster children for good practice and good progress. We held a
workshop in January at the Transportation Research Board, which
is the get-together that has thousands of people from highway
and transit management around the country. We got all of the
entities together that have concerns about Y2K and we asked
Gordon Ayogi, who is running the emergency center in Montgomery
County to take everyone through what, in fact, they have done,
and it was very helpful for us.
The Intelligent Transportation Society of America [ITSA],
has been our partner in reaching out to traffic control,
traffic information, and other computer-based systems around
the country, and we think things are in pretty good shape in
that area, but we appreciate the help from Montgomery County in
sharing their experience.
Mrs. Morella. Excellent. Glad you are utilizing that with
other jurisdictions.
I guess I would ask this question of maybe Mr. Mead, and
Mr. Willemssen may want to comment, maybe Ms. Garvey. Actually,
most completed and planned tests of the air traffic control
systems have been done at the FAA's tech center. In the past,
has the FAA experienced problems installing tech center
solutions out in the field? Ms. Garvey, you may want to comment
on it also.
Mr. Mead. In some instances, and you'll note in our
statement that we make a point, as a cautionary note, that
testing in the laboratory can sometimes be different when you
go into the real world. One reason for that, particularly for
the FAA, is throughout the National Airspaces system, the FAA
has made local adaptations to their software systems, and for
that reason, occasionally when you install something that works
in the laboratory, it may not work in the field because of
local adaptation. This particular factor is one that
contributes to the great challenge remaining in the next 3
months.
Mrs. Morella. Mr. Willemssen, you want to comment.
Mr. Willemsen. I would concur with the Inspector General's
comments. That is not to say that the technical center testing
has necessarily been deficient, but it is to be expected that
once you go with live operational testing, that you will come
up with some issues that weren't fully identified or considered
in the laboratory.
Ms. Garvey. I think that is absolutely correct, and that is
why the Denver test, which really is a live site, is going to
be so important. And again, we very carefully laid it out step-
by-step. It is going to be very carefully monitored. Obviously
it is 2 a.m., so traffic will be less, but we expect that that
will be very useful, very similar to what Wall Street did a
couple of weeks ago in testing some of their systems. We think
this is going to be a critical and important test, and we are
looking forward to it.
Mrs. Morella. Did you say April was when you were going out
to Colorado?
Ms. Garvey. April 10th, yes.
Mrs. Morella. I think we all agree that this is an area
that is fraught with challenges and problems. Let me ask you,
first of all, would you be doing any other testing after
Denver?
Ms. Garvey. That is the one that is scheduled right now. I
think a lot will depend on what we learn from that test. We
don't have any other similar tests like that. We have lots of
tests planned at the tech center but for live tests, that is it
for right now.
Mrs. Morella. You may want to do that.
Ms. Garvey. Oh, yes. And of course at each center as it is
implemented will be tests, as the Deputy Secretary reminds me.
Mrs. Morella. I also note that a report I think is going to
be forthcoming, I want to ask you about it, of what are the six
most populous sites in terms of an assessment or appraisal of
them, like Canada, Bahamas. Would you comment on that?
Ms. Garvey. There are six countries where about 60 percent
of the Americans travel. We are working very, very closely with
each one of those. Knowing that that is such a high percentage,
we are working very closely with those.
In fact, either the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary or I
have met with them at some point during the last year, and in
each case we will be developing a very coordinated work plan
for dealing with some of the issues, the travel issues that we
have. Not surprisingly, we are probably a little further along
with Mexico and Canada. We have a trilateral meeting, as I
mentioned, in May, and that will be discussed there.
But Joe Morgan, who leads our international effort, has
worked very closely with these counties, went to Mexico and
spent a good deal of time working on a plan together with them.
As I mentioned earlier, we are doing the testing this month
with Canada. We will follow it up with Mexico, and the other
countries as well.
But that was the first critical issue that we looked at. We
said, where is it? As everyone has suggested, the international
presents some real challenges, so the first thing we said, are
there areas where we really need to focus some efforts? Looking
at those six countries where so many people travel seemed to be
very important.
Mrs. Morella. It is interesting that 60 percent travel
there.
Mr. Downey. We also had, under the auspices of the Y2K
Council, a meeting a few weeks ago with Canada and Mexico on
all of the systems, power, travel systems, railroads, police,
anything in which there is exchange across the border, and I
think we have a very good working relationship with those two
countries.
Mrs. Morella. What have you learned so far?
Mr. Downey. We have learned some interesting things.
Mexico, for example, has done I think a much more careful
measure of how they are assessing their progress. They have a
weighted average that really gives credit to how much work has
been done leading up to the completion of a system so that they
really know at any given time, I think better than we do, where
they are on the whole process.
And of course there are--you know, there are always
surprises that pop up. There is useful information exchanged
about what are you hearing, what are the rumors in your
country, and it turns out to be similar to the rumors in our
country, but these kinds of discussions country-to-country and
industry-to-industry are very helpful.
We had one the other day for all industries that lead to
getting coal to the power plants. The power plants are clearly
critical but they won't work if coal doesn't get there. So we
had the mining industry, the barge and the railroad industry
all in one room at one time. The biggest issue for the mines
was elevators. They are now comfortable their elevators are
going to work, for the same reason that elevators will be
working in buildings.
Mrs. Morella. Any kind of dangerous issues that came up so
far?
Mr. Downey. None yet. Nothing that sort of a light bulb
went off and where we said we better take critical action.
Mrs. Morella. Very good.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Thank you. Let me just ask Mr. Downey, I have
forgotten what year you joined the Department of Transportation
as Deputy Secretary.
Mr. Downey. Most recently as Deputy Secretary in 1993,
although I was in the Department in the 1970's.
Mr. Horn. Well, you'll remember that in 1993-1994 you had
that operation--I forgot, was it in Germantown or somewhere out
there--were working on a new radar system. Maybe you don't want
to remember it.
Mr. Downey. I try to forget that.
Mr. Horn. It started before you, so you don't have to worry
about it.
Mr. Downey. We shut that one down, but it was a good
example of bad management.
Mr. Horn. I knew that as I walked into the room. The $4
billion was dumped. IRS did the same thing. Now, all I am
asking about is not to rehash that dog but to--is that HOST a
successor to that, or are you underway on some other type of
successor?
Mr. Downey. HOST is a piece of that and it is an
interesting piece. Once we made the decision that a single
contract with a single contractor for unlimited funds and
unlimited time was not the way to proceed, working with the
FAA, and largely these were FAA decisions, we broke the system
down into a number of pieces: the display system radar at the
major en route centers, which is now moving well; the system at
the terminals, which is in reasonable shape although it has
some problems; and then the HOST, which is the heart of the
computer capacity at the centers.
At the time, 1992-1993, it was thought that the HOST could
be put at the far end of this process as we did each piece, but
when we came to look at Y2K issues, and similar to the question
you raised earlier, the manufacturer was unable to certify this
equipment. We said, whoa, it is time to accelerate that as part
of the modernization process, but also as a backstop for Y2K.
Having it as a separate module as opposed to part of this
overall process allowed us to break out a separate contract,
move that ahead.
It is going very well. In fact--was it Friday--Thursday the
Administrator and the Secretary were up in New York to dedicate
the first HOST, and several of them are now in business and
operating regularly as part of the air traffic control system.
All of them should be in place by the end of the year. If they
are not, there are backup strategies to be sure they will be
Y2K compliant. But breaking that massive project into a series
of manageable pieces was the right thing to do, and it is
working for us here as it is in the modernization effort.
Mr. Horn. So HOST is 2000 compliant?
Mr. Downey. HOST will be 2000 compliant. How many centers
is it now functioning? In 10 centers it is working today in a
Y2K compliant mode.
Mr. Horn. And it would have to work in how many centers
between now and January?
Mr. Downey. Ten more have to be installed.
Mr. Horn. So it is a total of 20?
Mr. Downey. Total of 20.
Mr. Horn. What is this project costing, just for curiosity?
Ms. Garvey. In total, I would have to get the number for
you, Mr. Chairman, but it is certainly far less than the number
you talked about earlier.
Mr. Horn. Less than $4 billion. But you were right to pull
the plug. This was long before Ms. Garvey came to bring order
out of chaos.
Mr. Mead. $172 million.
Mr. Horn. How much?
Mr. Mead. $172 million.
Mr. Horn. $172 million is the HOST 10. How about the next
10?
Mr. Mead. $172 million for the whole job.
Mr. Horn. For the whole job?
Mr. Mead. Yes. I think it is important to note that last
time we testified before this subcommittee, we had run out of
spare parts, but if FAA cannot replace all 20 HOST computers in
this year, they'll have enough cannibalized HOSTs to generate
spare parts.
Mr. Horn. They'll no longer have to use Post-Its on the
windows of the control tower?
Mr. Mead. No.
Mr. Horn. That is reassuring to me, because I am carrying
my own Post-Its in case they needed it in L.A.
Do you have any thoughts in the end, unless you have more
questions?
Mrs. Morella. I will just ask another question, and then
I'm going to ask them if there is anything they'd like us to
know as we conclude this particular hearing and before we get
the final report.
Actually, I guess GAO, to begin with FAA identified 26 air
traffic systems as posing the greatest risk to the national
airspace system that may not be operational through the year
2000, and these systems are going to be among the last FAA
systems to be completed. And I guess the question is, why would
the most at-risk systems be left for last, and why wouldn't--
why aren't they scheduled for completion earlier?
Mr. Willemsen. I think among the reasons for that is often
they are the most challenging systems to fully validate and
implement at a number of facilities throughout the country. So
I don't know that it necessarily was a conscious decision on
their part. That is, we have no evidence that FAA said, ``Well,
these are the most critical so we will wait till the end.''
On the contrary, the evidence we saw, as one might expect,
was that those systems are among the most difficult to
implement and therefore, everything else being equal, will take
longer. But I think your point is a very good one, that FAA has
to still focus on priorities, and we have to make sure that
those most essential systems are dealt with not only timely
but, as I have mentioned earlier, thoroughly. Also, someone
must aggressively seek out to identify any and all problems
that may occur, and there must be enough time left in the
remainder of this year to address those problems.
Mrs. Morella. Mr. Mead, would you agree? Do you think that
because they would take longer and be more critical, that they
should be looked at earlier? I moved up on the timetable.
Mr. Mead. In an ideal world, yes. These are probably the
most complex of all the undertakings and because of the late
start, that had a cascading effect throughout the schedule. So
in an ideal world, I wish it had already been done. I am sure
everybody does.
Mrs. Morella. Do you have a gnawing concern about it?
Mr. Mead. No, I think FAA has a sensible plan. I know it is
a compressed schedule, but I have confidence in FAA's year 2000
management. They set their mind to it. I think they can get it
done.
Mrs. Morella. I think the FAA has been working very
diligently, and as I have mentioned before and you mentioned in
your opening statement, Ms. Garvey, working around the clock.
It is such a tremendous system and so connected in so many
ways.
Secretary Downey, also on another transportation issue, how
about Metro? What are you doing to sort of coordinate what's
happening, to make sure that the public transit systems are
going to be compliant?
Mr. Downey. We have worked with the public transportation
systems around the country. We had a conference in Houston just
a few weeks ago to compare notes and to share information. We
have also asked, under Federal Transit Authority's general
authority to regulate the funding that flows to these entities,
to get that funding they have to be technically proficient, and
we have set Y2K compliance or comparable safety levels as part
of that proficiency. We have asked the boards of each public
transit agency in the country to certify to us by the end of
June that they are compliant or tell us what their alternate
plans are.
So we look forward to hearing from Metro on that. I know
that they work closely on this issue. I have talked with Dick
White about it. I know they are having some trouble as we speak
with their computer systems, but that shows that they are very
much focused on making that system work and work safely.
Mr. Mead. Mrs. Morella, I would like to just submit for the
record, if it would be permissible, the letter from
Administrator Linton of the Federal Transit Administration
asking for all transit properties to certify their compliance
before the year 2000 because this is a comparable
recommendation we are making to FAA.
Mr. Horn. Without objection, that will be put in the record
at this point.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60888.054
Mrs. Morella. Are you finding that they are having--I mean
transit systems, not just Metro, and I am going to specifically
ask you about what our Metro here in Washington is doing in
terms of its compliance, but in general are these public
transit systems encountering problems with funding because they
get some of it from States and localities?
Mr. Downey. Having been in the public transit business most
of my life, I would say public transit systems are always
having problems with funding, but in this case most of them
have put the Y2K compliance issue at the top of their list. We
helped in that respect by giving clear guidance that any and
all Federal funds that they receive may be used for this
purpose, simplifying the process to get planning approvals, and
also giving approval for simplified procurement where it was
needed to use the funds effectively.
We don't think that that should be a problem. We think
getting focused on it, working through the issue of how their
rail equipment or bus equipment may differ from anybody else's
bus or rail equipment, it is what they have to do. The large
transit agencies around the country I think are working very
hard at this. They are all in town this week. Both the
Administrator and I will be speaking with them this afternoon,
and this will be on my list in terms of what we expect them to
be doing.
Mrs. Morella. You tell them that Congress feels the same
way, too, and the Washington--I mean the Nation's Capital
system should be a leader. Are they a leader?
Mr. Downey. They are a leader in working on this.
Mrs. Morella. I just want to--I want to thank you from my
point of view for answering so honestly, not only answering our
questions and being here, but the work that you have done
preparatory to that and how all along you have worked so very
well with Congress. We wish you well.
And Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent
that Mr. Barcia, the ranking member of the Technology
Subcommittee, that his statement and statements of any other
members of our two subcommittees be included in the record.
Mr. Horn. Without objection, they will be put after Mr.
Turner at the beginning of the hearing record.
I want to thank all of the four witnesses. You have been
very helpful to us.
First I want to thank, before I close this, the staff that
put this hearing together: J. Russell George, the staff
director and chief counsel in the corner down there, of the
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology; Matt Ryan, the senior policy director specifically
responsible for this hearing, right behind me; Bonnie Heald,
professional staff member, director of communications,
immensely helpful; Mason Alinger, our clerk who has been very
helpful. And for Mrs. Morella's Subcommittee on Technology of
the House Science Committee, Jeff Grove, the staff director on
Technology, we thank him and Joe Sullivan, the clerk, and Ben
Wu, the professional staff member. And our friends on the other
side of the aisle, Faith Weiss, the counsel, and Jean Gosa, the
clerk, and Mike Quear, the professional staff member, and Marty
Ralston, the clerk, have worked and done a very helpful job.
And we thank our court reporters, as usual, Doreen Dotzler and
Laurie Harris. It takes a lot of people to prepare the hearing
and permit us to have questions that are so interesting to you.
Let me now thank those that are here, and say that I think
this testimony of yours has been very compelling, and it has
shown that Transportation and the Federal Aviation
Administration will continue to be industrious and vigilant in
order to solve this problem, and we appreciate that burst of
energy that will be needed to get around the course and win the
game.
The Department of Transportation and the FAA provide vital
services to our country. Our citizens and our economy depend on
the safe and expedient transportation of both personal and
business travel, goods and services, and I am concerned we have
a lot of work to do. I have got a lot of faith in the people
before us, that it will be done, and that you'll need the
continued collaboration of Departmental officials, the airline
industry, the airports themselves to ensure that the system is
ready by January 1, 2000.
I appreciate the Secretary's and the Administrator's
reinvigorated leadership to solve some of these technology
challenges, and I think a lot of work still remains to satisfy
all of us. And we will know, won't we, on January 1st when you
are flying and I am flying? Just don't bump into my plane when
we go across America. And I have told you, before be very nice
to the controllers for the week before we board those planes.
And our oversight activities will continue on this agency
as well as all others. Later in the week we are going to hear
from the Federal Aviation Administration's other hat and our
other hat, the financial management practices, which have
nothing to do with Y2K except ``Where's the money?'' as
somebody said, and can you put a balance sheet out. So Mr.
Willemssen will be back and we will be back.
So I thank you all for your helpfulness on this, and we
wish you well in the months ahead. With that, the hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
-