c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> attention, this is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact. your documentary should answer this year's question. your message to the president -- what issue is most important to you or your community? whether you are passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories, studentcam is your platform to share your message with the world. with 100,000 dollars in prizes including a grand prize of $5,000, this is your opportunity not only to make an impact but also to be rewarded for your creativity and hard work. enter your submissions today. scan the code or visit

studentcam.org for all the tas on how to enter. the dead is january 20, 2025. >> up next, a look at efforts to modernize technology within the veterans affairs department. during the hearing, lawmakers and officials from the v.a. also discussed the agency's 25 budget and benefits for veterans. this is an hour and a half. >> good morning during the last

two years. the v.a. is an organization of nearly half a million people that served 9 million veterans and their family members using thousands of i.t. systems and has a total budget of roughly 370 billion dollars a year. making it the second largest agency, only surpassed by the dod. the scale of the i.t. systems are massive and presents a lot of challenges. the department has repeatedly attempted to address these challenges with megaprojects that spanned years or even decades and cost billions of dollars. this strategy simply has not worked well. all six of the v.a.'s multibillion-dollar i.t. projects have either -- or collapse altogether. this should come as no surprise.

i challenge our witnesses to point to any i.t. project anywhere with a budget this large that has been successful. we spent many hours in the subcommittee discussing v.a.'s three magic -- megaprojects that are racking up schedule delays. electronic health record modernization has spent nearly $10 billion already and would cost more than 37 billion dollars to implement according to the institute for defense analysis. the true cost across the v.a. is higher than that as it does not include the enormous and additional staffing requirements where the loss in productivity. v.a. and oracle are on the cusp of resuming the rollout but there is no end in sight. after six years, financial management business transformation has only installed a momentum system in a few small corners of the v.a. and its cost estimate has more than doubled to 5.8 billion

dollars according to the ida. finally, the digital g.i. bill has missed its original 2024 completion date and its final price tag will likely double as well. not only have these systems gone past schedules and budgets, they are also struggling to live up to the users expectations. however, there are signs that the v.a.'s leaders are learning to take different approaches. secretary mcdonagh had the good sense to pull the plug on a system after it went so poorly. the second supply chain effort has been on indefinite hold since the subcommittee exposed its poorly defined objectives and more than $9 billion lifecycle cost estimate. finally, the secretary and their teams came to their senses before moving forward with a nearly $1 billion human capital management modernization contract. i am glad to see some of the v.a. resist the contractors

expensive promises and the temptation to use major i.t. projects to build their bureaucratic empires. megaprojects sound good in theory but in reality, they are always overdue, overbudget, and that is unacceptable for veterans and for taxpayers. at a time when the v.a. has come to us with more than a $6 billion budget deficit, the department literally cannot afford to operate this way anymore. megaprojects are also incompatible with the best practices that took hold in the software industry more than a decade ago. i'm talking about agile, incremental development, small-scale deployment, testing by real users, and component-based architecture. we are going to hear about successful use of these practices from our panel of independent experts and hopefully from our v.a. witnesses as well. have also seen some encouraging examples when the v.a. succeeded

in implementing or solving problems with smaller systems. v.a..gov was riddled with bugs, causing submissions to disappear, and i still question how long it took for the departments to tell us everything but his office was able to get to the root of the cause and the problems early quickly. there is also the 18 month ordeal to get the program integrity tool to process claims data correctly. but the system is small enough that they were eventually able to figure it out. he and his team recognized the limitations in the large outdated management system and they have been proactively segmenting it and modernizing it in individual parts. as with most things in government, the larger a project gets, the harder it is to mileage -- to manage, and the less likely it is to ever deliver useful capability. on the other hand, smaller

efforts deliver early and often and they can survive the technical challenges along the way. as we close out this congress and prepared to transition to a new administration with new v.a. leadership, i want to emphasize these lessons learned. we need to build up similar ea that is more responsive to the veterans needs. i look forward to our witnesses testimony today to help us do that. with that, i yield to the ranking member for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you so much our witnesses to her being here today. over the course of the 118th congress, this subcommittee held 20 hearings examining the i.t. modernization efforts of the department of veterans affairs. it is clear to me that most of the programs that were reviewed to suffer from the same issues. core requirements development, poor contract management, and an over reliance on contractors to determine what is possible versus what the department

identifies as its needs. i'm also concerned that the department is taking on too much. instead of attempting to modernize everything all at once, they should be thinking strategically and delivering one or two successful projects before moving on to the other. i worry that business let i.t. projects are part of the problem. it seems to me that oit's role in many of these projects is not sufficient to keep the project on track from the very beginning, causing monumental downstream effects. this lack of involvement, whether intentional or otherwise, contributes to the poor requirements development which in turn leads to the significant contract overreaches we have seen in projects like the digital g.i. bill and the supply chain modernization. all for v.a. to realize they are not getting what they -- what they need out of the product. i also have major issues with the way i.t. is budgeted at v.a.

i.t. is frequently the sacrificial lamb when it comes to funding for the mission. while this is not unique, we cannot allow this to continue as more and more veterans become eligible for care and benefits v.a., budget constraints require cuts in other places. it cannot continue to be one of those places. this is the reason that v.a. is operating on an i.t. infrastructure that is well past its service life in many places and much of the software the v.a. uses is obsolete. we hear a lot of talk about government inefficiency and fixing it starts by ensuring that employees have the best tools to do their job, which starts with fully funding the office of information and technology. point blank, v.a. needs to do a better job of ensuring that its i.t. budget supports v.a. employees and veterans. i look forward to hearing the witnesses testimony. before i yield, there's a few people i would -- that we unfortunately are saying farewell to. this will be the last subcommittee hearing for the

assistant secretary, one of my favorite chairman, and the republican subcommittee staff, who has been excellent. he has been with us -- with the subcommittee since its inception and has been a valuable partner in our efforts to ensure that v.a. and its employees have reliable and modern tools to provide world-class care and benefits to our nation's veterans. his insight and thoroughness will be missed and i wish him the best of luck in his next chapter. also, as in this way, with a changing of administration, we will be losing an assistant secretary. i know you and i have not always seen eye-to-eye but i have appreciated your hard work over the last past three years. i would also like to save the best for last, which is wishing the chairman well wishes as this will be his last hearing with the subcommittee. there are few places in this body as bipartisan as the

subcommittee we have been on and i thank chairman for being one of those people working with me so openly and i wish you the best. thank you so much. i yield back. >> thank you very much for those kind words and appreciation from everybody, really. i will now introduce the witnesses on our first panel. miss carol harris is the director of information technology acquisition management at the government accountability office. she is the executive director of the center at georgetown university. she has previously served in the u.s. digital service and finally, mr. reynolds is the nonresident senior fellow for congressional modernization with the foundation for american innovation. he previously served as senior technology advisor at gsa and in top technology roles in the house of representatives. if you put all please rise and

raise your right hands, please. do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect all the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. you are now recognized for five minutes to deliver your opening statement on behalf of gao. >> thank you. mr. chairman, ranking member mccormick, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to testify today on the i.t. modernization challenges and lessons learned. i also want to take a moment to think your outstanding committee staff and also wish best wishes as well. as requested, i will briefly summarize our prior work on the department's efforts to acquire and manage its i.t. as well as our work on critical factors leading to successful i.t. outcomes. as you know, the use of i.t. is crucial to helping v.a. effectively serve our nation's

veterans and the departments investment in i.t. is substantial. over the past two years, v.a. has obligated over $21 billion for a range of i.t. products and systems and services. unfortunately, the departments management of its i.t. modernization efforts continues to be high-risk. this morning, i will highlight two key points. first, we have made a total of 20 recommendations in recent reports to improve the i.t. acquisitions and management and while v.a. has concurred, none have been implemented thus far. these recommendations address health care, financial management systems, i.t. governance, and i.t. procurement . v.a. has faced long-standing challenges in its efforts to deploy modern i.t. solutions in two critical areas. its health and information system as well as its financial and acquisition management systems. after three unsuccessful attempts between 2001 and 2017 to modernize its health information system, v.a. is now on its fourth attempt, known as

the hrm. in 2023, v.a. announced it was halting further deployments and instead prioritizing aching improvements at the five sites using the system. at that time, about 79% of users struggling disagreed that the system enabled quality care. in our 2023 report, we made 10 recommendations to v.a. in areas such as user satisfaction, system trouble reports, and change management. similarly in 2016, v.a. established its initiative, third attempt to replace aging financial and acquisition systems with one integrated system. in 2021, we reported that full implementation of the new system was not expected until 2027 at a 10 year life cycle cost of nearly $3 billion. as of july 24, full implementation was moved to 2030 and lifecycle cost escalated to $7.7 billion. our two reports made a total of

three merrick -- three recommendations on cost and schedule estimating in its efforts to manage risks. if v.a. implements these 13 recommendations along with the other seven we have made in the areas of i.t. governance, software licenses, and cloud computing, the department will be in a stronger position to course correct. now to my final point, v.a. should consider all available opportunities to ensure that its i.t. investments are acquired in the most effective manner possible. we have previously reported on nine critical factors that have led to successful i.t. acquisitions across the federal government. these factors include ensuring end-users and stakeholders are involved in the development of requirements and in the testing of system functionality. in the government and contractor staff are stable and consistent among other things. these factors are common sense. they are also easier said than done. all too often, we have found the absence of these factors or the partial implementation of them to be the

root causes of cost, schedule, and performance issues on troubled or failed i.t. programs. another set of leading practices applicable here is the use of iterative development for complex i.t. acquisitions. leading companies use this approach to develop complex i.t. products that are relevant and responsive to their users needs. development breaks monolithic i.t. projects into more manageable pieces so that you are delivering system functionality within weeks or months versus years. the critical factors and leading practices serve as the basis for many of our current recommendations to help improve federal i.t. management. as such, v.a. can rely on them to help achieve successful i.t. acquisitions. moving forward in the two areas i noted, it will be critical for v.a. to fully implement recommendations as soon as possible. doing so will position the department to effectively deliver the systems and i.t. operations that need -- that mission needs. that concludes my statement. i look forward to addressing

your questions. >> thank you very much. the written statement of miss harris will be entered into the hearing record. you are now recognized for five minutes to deliver your opening statement on behalf of the center. >> thank, chair rosen dale, ranking member mccormick, and english members for the opportunity to testify today. it is my honor to share insights from my perspective as the executive director at georgetown university as well as from my past experience in senior policy delivery roles in the white house office of science and technology, policy. for more than a decade, the beck center led projects that have positively impacted within 260 2 million people across the united states among working alongside governments to build a future with more economic to guilty -- mobility for all. we are a network, research hub, advocate for policymaking in the modern age, and training ground

for tomorrow's innovators. technology modernization is essential to our work. the system's veterans rely on to connect to benefits, parents use to access childcare, and seniors need to utilize -- must be designed with user needs in mind. yet federal technology projects often fall short, played by rigid approaches that prioritize process over outcomes. these failures diminish public trust, waste taxpayer money, frustrate agency front-line workers, and prevent people from accessing services when they need them the most. when agencies attempt to modernize, they often purchase static software, treating it like any other commodity like computers or cars. one time purchases that simply work upon acquisition. the software must continuously evolve to keep up with changing policies, security demands, and customer needs. technology modernization is a continual process of addressing unmet needs, not a one-time effort. too often, federal modernization

projects are built in silos and outsourced to vendors who require a high cost, multiyear contract. overseen by agency projectften managers who may not be technologists themselves, making it more challenging to identify technical fixes when projects go off track. some agencies can and have shifted from this static project management model to what we call a product model that empowers internal agency services teams with full ownership of project development and avoids the one-size-fits-all solutions in favor of modular development that meets the needs of real people. the product model championed by my friend and colleague, jennifer, starts with a small nimble team conducting discovery with the people who use the services to deeply understand their needs in the service delivery challenges the software answer solve. by identifying high-risk elements early such as whether data integration will actually

function effectively, the product team can test and address critical components before investing significant resources in a full scale solution. our recent example of the product model in action is the development of the direct file tool for the internal revenue service. the 2024 pilate ultimately served within 140 thousand people with 90% of users raiding the tool as excellent or above average. to achieve this, the irs empowered their internal team with the right expertise from a starting with a limited scope in eligibility, developed the tool with deep user research and tested with a small number of users. the first test was just one person. then they fixed what did not work, tested again, the user tested again, and then tested further. this process saved users time, money, and resulted in high rates of satisfaction. what is more, the operational costs to the irs to develop, test, and launch the file, including cloud computing and user authentication were just

$2.4 million probably because the u.s. digital service team was deployed at no cost to the irs. simply put, agency product of element teams are uniquely positioned to identify and address operational barriers. this streamlines processes, reduces administered of burdens, and paves the way for more successful product deployments. to ensure federal agencies including the department of veterans affairs can fully realize the benefits of the product model for technology modernization, i propose four recommendations outlined in my written testimony that congress can work on but perhaps the most important recommendation is to ensure that agencies streamline hiring processes to efficiently recruit and onboard digital service talent who can implement the product model backed by a flexible, multiyear investments that support a people centered iterative approach to delivering effective digital services. by adopting these recommendations, congress can ensure agencies like the v.a. are equipped with the tools, resources, and flexibility needed to deliver modern services that are focused on the

end-user. parents, veterans, seniors that meet the evolving needs of the american people. >> thank you. the writstt wi be entered into the hearing record. you are now recognized for five minutes to deliver your opening statement on behalf of the foundation for american innovation. >> thank you. ranking member and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. as mentioned, i am with the foundation for american innovation but previously spent considerable time here at the house in 1995 to modernize a wide range of legacy and dysfunctional software. i have extensive experience in technology modernization that i am not at v.a. or i.t. health expert so that meet delineate that.

when we think about technology at the v.a., it should empower the staff to provide better care without limiting the ability of doctors and medical professionals to problem solve. i want to briefly focus on three issues that i think would improve the outcomes at v.a. v.a. leadership challenges, improving the electronic health record modernization implementation, identifying options to better address future challenges in financial management and supply chain. i think that the next secretary should define several organizational objectives for technology modernization and place those objectives in each executive's performance plan to

help create a more unified focus from v.a. leadership agencywide. the second issue that they should address is the tenure of the cio. he had the best possible tenure given transitioning from an important private sector career with conflict of interest, cetera, so his three year term is not as long as that is going to be. the next administration should take steps to ensure that the cio has a tenure of at least five years for some other process. to accomplish that. when you look at the record of the electronic health record modernization project, it would appear to me as an outside

observer that the processes vary step-wise. the implementation in chicago was the first with a community care center in the process of moving patients from the care center to clinical care and back again had been worked out in the legacy software and was not an issue in the implementation. to avoid repeated discovery as this project is implemented across v.a., i would recommend the deployment plan look at how to operationalize all of the functionality to discover what it is across all the centers and the fact there are 130 instances of the legacy system abroad, divergence across facilities, and you cannot discover that one

at a time. the methods previously discussed are appropriate to do that. but a key milestone i think is reaching the point where all of that functionality is running successfully in at least one facility, so it is not a hypothetical and not pretty powerpoint slides. looking at the supply chain issue briefly, it sounds like in these repeated failures, these monolithic projects, one thing i would note is that the problem of failing to deliver creates a negative feedback loop. it causes a last train leaving the station phenomena where everyone loads every capability and complexity like this is

their one chance in 10 or 20 years to get their requirements into the system. that has to be fought with a more agile and incremental approach. to the degree the initiative will be broken down into seven or 10 pieces, i think that is good progress. but the committee should ensure each of those pieces, the first pieces implemented -- peace is implemented and it is not another way to describe a monumental approach. i would conclude my remarks and look forward to your questions. >> very good. thank you so much. his written statement will be entered into the hearing record so we have the full statement. we are now going to proceed to questioning. i will recognize myself for five minutes. ok, ms. overmann, good morning again, thank you for again for

being here. can you think of a multibillion-dollar i.t. project a federal agency has ever completed on time and on budget, or completed it at all? >> [indiscernible] i did get a heads up this would be a question. i did find a successful project or to. it is interesting because i think it reinforces the point you made in your opening remarks . it was a cloud migration the department of defense managed. it is an $8.9 billion 10-year time project to migrate to the cloud. i think the reason this reinforces what we are talking about is twofold. one is that cloud infrastructure is functionally infrastructure. it is something you can acquire and deploy. it is not something aimed at

meeting specific end-user needs. that has been a successful implementation. it was interesting because they way they -- the way they rolled that out in may of 2023 was to roll it out to 11,000 users to start. for some agencies, that might feel like a large amount. for dod, that was a small starting point so they did follow that model of testing with a small group of users and then rolling it out over time. outside of those type of cloud migrations which i believe provide things like secure data storage, access to different development tools, and different crm management, i was unable to find a single large-scale i.t. project along the lines of what you are describing with the v.a. that have been successful on time and on budget. >> thank you. mr. schweickhardt, can you think of one? >> i could not, mr. chairman.

>> thank you very much. this harris, what is it about the i.t. megaprojects that makes them so risky and prone to failure? >> when you take that waterfall monolithic approach, you are designing and developing the system and when you deploy five to seven years out, that is when you realize it is not going to meet the mission need. you have already sunk in at that point hundreds of millions and possibly billions of dollars and you are just set up to fail. it is just too much risk for these agencies to take on to go with that kind of project. >> very good. ms. overmann, you have been an out of -- advocate for a product model approach that makes agencies responsible for the outcome. what are some examples of the product model and the project model so the public can understand the difference of what we are talking about? >> absolutely.

i do think the examples you provided of some of these six v.a. systems are very good examples of the challenges with that approach. i am going to give a couple of positive examples of the product model. i mentioned the irs direct file. >> the first time we have heard them mentioned in a favorable manner. [laughter] >> purely from a software development and deployment standpoint, it was quite effective. i want to point to another project i think has another component of why this kind of approach can be quite useful which was the covid test.org website launched in the midst of the covid pandemic. covid tests were extremely difficult to find at the time. covidtest.org was developed jointly by u.s. digital service, hhs, and the u.s. postal service. they developed the tool in three weeks and used existing

infrastructure. there were a few key components that went into why this program is so successful. they designed with users in mind and made the application online as lightweight as possible so they did not try to pile on data collection. they did not try to do identity proofing. they made a very simple form that took less than a minute to fill out. on the backend, they worked with vendors who had demonstrated success in handling high load input. while the front end was very simple, the backend was designed to handle high volumes of applications. on the first day, one million people applied and the system was able to bear that load. i think that combination of thoughtful design, working successfully with vendors, and having a product vision known by the implementers is what made that project successful. >> very good. i'm going to yield back and recognize representative kennedy for five minutes of questions. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, chairman.

thank you all for your testimony. thank you for your service to our country. ms. harris, in your testimony, you talk about the v.a.'s budget. i do feel the budget to -- is sufficient to support the i.t. needs and modernization efforts? >> i have not's come to the full i.t. budget to give you the full response but what i can say is when we look at the critical success factors -- i have not scrubbed the full i.t. budget to give you the full response. it is very important for these programs to have sufficient funding. i do think that in combination with other tools like having a working capital fund with money the cio can use over multiple years at his or her discretion is very important to give them flexibility.

at the same time, accountability is also critically important. the last thing we want is for agencies to have the slush funds. we have open recommendations to ba.2 improve their cost and schedule the meeting capabilities. so when they come out with these programs, we want those cost estimates to be liable, comprehensive, and credible. that is critically important so we have those recommendations for v.a. to improve that so when they come out with a budget request, the underlying programs have reliable estimates. >> thank you. as far as the v.a.-i.t. acquisition efforts go, what are the biggest steps the v.a. can take to improve? >> breaking down these large programs into smaller more manageable pieces is a huge thing. that will definitely set them up for success. i agree with the panelists that having end users involved in

that process early and often, especially for testing, is vital. we have seen success cases where agencies have built test labs where they bring in the users and they are working on prototypes and testing in real time early and often. that is also a great predictor of success. >> thank you. to your knowledge, is there a single office or official responsible for tracking open recommendations related to the bas i.t. modern -- to the v.a.'s i.t. modernization efforts? >> i think a single point of accountability would greatly improve the track record closing out our recommendations. >> where should the entity fall within the department would you say? >> i would have to take that

back for the record. i am not quite sure where it would fall but someone that has direct reporting lines to the secretary or deputy secretary so they have that substantial backing behind them to ensure these recommendations get implemented effectively and efficiently, i think that would be a good thing. >> thank you. in regard to the indicated risks associated with the lack of complaints, what do you think the v.a.'s biggest weaknesses are with the lack of compliance? what's with regards to fitara -- >> with regards to fitara, one of the things is for the cio to approve all contracts going through the department. based on our recent work in that area, it looked like roughly 39% of the i.t. contracts were going under the radar. he was not in a position to even

be aware of those contracts. having automated processes that ensure those contracts hit his desk first so he can review it and make a determination whether or not they are merited to move forward would be a good thing. we have a recommendation relative to that. >> as far as the v.a. addressing these concerns and compliance, what is your suggestion? >> again, we have 20 open recommendations. they should expediently implement those 20. >> i will yield. i will come back. >> thank you very much. miss overmann, why are they v.a. megaprojects stuck in the project model and what problems does that create? >> based on my experience at the

white house working on delivering implementation, i think the key problem is what has been indicated by my fellow panelists which is this model of starting by trying to project over extensive timelines what the ultimate end product is, all of its functionality, gathering those requirements, handing them off to a vendor, and then hoping five to 10 years down the line what is implement it or provided back -- implemented or provided back actually works. i think there are a couple of fundamental challenges with that. if you think 10 years back, cell for example, how much have cell phones changed in 10 years? how much have user needs changed over time? the fundamental approach of the waterfall megaproject is destined to fail even if a vendor perfectly implements all the requirements. i appreciate ms. harris'

extensive expertise in this space. i think a key component of making the be a successful is the -- the v.a. more successful, having these product development teams to oversee these projects so there is a single owner or a team well-versed in agency mission and goals in these processes that own the vision and managed vendors on a faster and more modular timeline is the key to success to solving these problems. but thank you. ms. harris, are the megaproject incompatible with some of your best practices? what i am trying to find out is, where do we have these conflicts coming in? with your recommended best practices major products, -- megaprojects, the way they are developing that. >> they are entirely in conflict with best processes in the

private space and public sector. we want these large projects to be broken down into smaller pieces. a large part of that is the lack of having users, the end users involved in the process early and often so that when they are generating requirements, prioritizing those requirements, that the end users are involved in that. but also being able to prioritize is critically important because the last thing we want is to have everyone throwing on their wish list of items. as long as it is prioritized and we have gotten buy-in from the end users, that is when agencies are able to break these large projects into smaller pieces and deliver quickly. >> very good. mr. schweickhardt, the v.a. knows how to design i.t. systems in an agile, modular way. we have seen them. it is not a technical problem anymore. what are the cultural and managerial obstacles preventing them from doing it more often?

>> i think two things, mr. chairman. one, the legacy projects that have been running, the approach has not gone back and taken lessons learned to approve the dutch improve, update how they deal with legend -- to improve and update how they deal with legacy projects. my outside impression, because projects have not delivered in a timely fashion, there is that tendency to load everything in. i think one of the things -- >> when you say the trust issue, break that down for me. from the people responsible for developing? >> from the end users. from the employees. >> ok. we are not going to get another

delivery for an extended time, so let's go ahead and add everything, all of our requests on right now? >> that is right. there is burnout. now we are on the fourth try were nothing happens, so why should i really participate as i am busy because this try is probably going to fail as well, so why do i need to get it all? that is a management and culture challenge. i think the other challenge is the build once, use many, to say we will build this and it has to be user input, but everyone needs to take it. and secondly, the phrase from my cio colleague at tsa, minimal viable product is a shorthand to say build just enough for it to be useful, get it into people's hands. but they need to do it enough so that people believe it will work. they have to build that trust. >> very good.

thank you very much. i now yield back to representative kennedy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. harris, back to you. as ranking member shiftless mccormick indicated in her opening, we are concerned about the modernization efforts. do you have an opinion on how effective the modernization is versus oit led? >> across the federal government, i have seen a mix of arrangements. i have seen moderate success in both areas. i think the critical key is for both to work in close collaboration so those requirements are being flushed out appropriately and there is adequate engagement. that is the key rather than who is leading the effort.

>> do you think oit should have a bigger role in modernization efforts? >> i think oit should be involved as early as possible in an effort led from the v.h.a. or vba very involved in the acquisition phases so they understand and get users involved before we are even talking about contracts so that requirements are adequately defined. i think oit has a better understanding of what best practices our in i.t. acquisition so they should be involved. >> thank you. miss overmann, in your testimony, you identified failing to conduct deep user research. as a risk to successful

technology modernization. i associate this with the v.a. failure to do comprehensive development. how do you think an agency like v.a. could or should improve upon this? >> i think you are hearing a lot of agreement on the need for user research. it has to be in combination with small starts. start small, build a viable product, test it with users. there is a hidden benefit to this as well that has not been emphasized yet. this will make for more successful longer-term development. it also early surfaces if something is not viable. you can stop the projects that are not going to work before they get several years and millions of dollars in. it is important to indicate their two users we need to test for, the end users but also the agency staff because the agency staff, how frustrating it must

be for people serving veterans to have to deal with clunky software, over and over, repeated trainings, unsuccessful implementations getting in the way of what they are trying to provide. i cannot imagine everyone is not frustrated by the current status. starting small, the implications of being successful are much less impactful on funding. >> thank you. you also indicated you had thoughts on the budgeting and appropriations process. and how they should be changed. can you expand on that? >> sure. the thing you will hear from me repeatedly is how important it is to have david jewell -- digital service expertise in the government. ms. harris has mentioned how valuable it would be to have oit involved. if they do not have adequate staff capacity, it will be difficult for them to be involved in the number of contracts the v.a. manages and should be working on.

i think the other thing that has been mentioned is the flexible multiyear funding to ensure that as these projects and products are developed over time that they are not slowed by year-to-year money challenges. i think those are the two key things. i think the other benefit of modular development is you will have a much more consistent spend over time as opposed to getting huge spikes around large projects where you think you are making a one time investment, but as we have seen, there is a big dump of money to start, it does not work, there is another dump of money, etc. we believe the product model approach is more effective for agencies as well. >> very good, thank you. >> miss overmann, you have worked with a lot of federal agencies. which ones do this well and what

kind of cultures and management structures do they have? >> it is interesting. i work with the u.s. digital service. i think you sds -- usds is the best example i can think of. the reason is a lot of agencies do not have the internal capacity and often times what we would see is the teams would get called in when a crisis point had been hit. i seek a lot of agencies struggle with this. we are seeing a growing number of digital services teams evolve. i believe dod is further along. i think dhs is further along and having enough digital service capacity to do these things on their own without having to rely on external support. i think the interesting thing about dhs is not only do they have a lot of very good internal technology expertise, they also have a very large customer experience office. we have seen those two things in

combination, engineering expertise, plus customer engagement expanse, to be a potent model. >> more like the private sector does. >> exactly. >> they focus on customer service. >> yes. >> very good, thank you. how do agencies get in trouble when they buy commercial off-the-shelf software, as the v.a. has done with the cgi momentum financial s ystems? >> i feel like a broken record. if you start with end-users from the beginning, it is possible a commercial off-the-shelf system could work but you have to be careful understanding what the systems are offering and does it fit with what you are trying to solve for. there are some downsides regardless of the fit. it really only works if the agency is capable of adjusting its process and workflow to meet the system.

two, in a lot of these systems, you end up paying for functionality you do not need because you are buying the full package as opposed to having a customized response. generally speaking, what i have seen is you do not want to be absolute about anything. there are certainly use cases where having that system might be the fastest and easiest way to solve for problems. however, if you are dealing with what a lot of agencies deal with which is a user base that is not common in the private sector or not fully met by private sector technology and unique customization, that is where the product model becomes very helpful because you have the internal experts who can guide a number of different vendors towards meeting the actual and needs. if there is any customization at all, you do not want to go with cots. the other challenge is a lot of contracts mean you do not have access to the code so you cannot modernize it yourself.

even if it is fit for purpose at the time of acquisition, five years down the road you are stuck with a system you cannot change. >> very good, thank you. do you think the record modernization program reflects an agile or modular approach? >> i am not sure it reflect any of those. i think the challenge is how to create an incremental or modular approach. if i could touch back on one of your comments in your opening statement underinvestment in infrastructure, we talk about modular approach but we need the plumbing or architecture so these different pieces can be solved easily, so that door frames are a standard size so you can buy a different door. with where they are with this system, with the electronic

health records modernization system, can they fully validate the requirements with small groups of users? you know, a test lab would be helpful. in my mind, the key milestone is they got all of the functionality implemented once which means the other centers can come and look at it and say this is what we are going to go do. we are not going to mess around every time we come to another center and say, oh, we need to change this because i like vanilla instead of chocolate ice cream. but they have actually done enough exploration and validation and demonstration in the real world, this really works and we can roll it out rapidly to the remaining centers. >> makes sense. as a matter of fact, i am sure you all can go back to the statements i made going back as long as three years ago.

we want to have a fully functional system at one facility before we start rolling it out in others. i have used my time. we are finished with this panel? ok. this panel is excused from the witness table. i want to thank you all so much for coming in today and taking the time to answer questions for the committee. i'm going to go ahead and switch out the next panel. i'm going to introduce the next panel as everybody is switching up so that we can utilize this time as efficiently as possible. i would like to now welcome the witnesses on our second panel to the witness table. from the department of veterans affairs, we have the assistant secretary for information and technology, the chief information officer, mr. kurt delbene. good to see you again. we also have mr. robert griffin and mrs. cherri waters at the

office of information and technology. when we are all situated, just like every meeting, we have you see it, now we will ask you to stand again and please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to provide is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect all witnesses have answered in the affirmative. mr. delbene, you are recognized for five binance for your opening statement. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify on the critical mission to pivot to build a world-class i.t. organization to support the critical work at the department of veterans affairs.

i am accompanied by two of my executive directors. over the past three years, oit has transitioned from a traditional i.t. approach to a modern organization patterned after high tech audit development practices. this aligns with our responsibility in delivering a broad range of products and services to stakeholders and veterans. while we have made much progress, much work remains to be done. the ongoing support of congress will be critical. driven by our vision led approach and clear roadmaps, oit sets a reliability standard of 99% across all critical systems and and services. we have also made significant steps towards creating a flatter organizational structure empowering teams to take ownership. this transmission fosters a more agile environment, allows for more efficient resource allocation, and improves our

responsiveness to needs of stakeholders, thereby enhancing the overall veteran experience. additionally oit hasn't hands transparency in spending, with a clear list of prioritization. this aligns to provide management and oversight of i.t. resources. this ensures every dollar spent benefits veterans through improved services and support services. we have made significant strides in our major eight programs -- major i.t. programs -- digital experience, electronic health records, financial management, and education benefits. the most critical technical priority is cybersecurity. we have refocused the team from merely executing cyber as a policy and compliance exercise, to a risk-based approach. we have embraced a zero trust strategy, achieving over 95% enforcement multifactor

authentication, encryption at rest and encryption in transit. a cornerstone of our efforts in supporting streamline claims processing for veterans. in 2024 alone, processing 90% of the claims with established timelines showcasing our commitment to creating a user centric platform that empowers veterans. to our efforts to improve the veteran's digital experience, oit has successfully launched the mobile application downloaded 2.8 million times, and is actively used by 1.2 million veterans each month. we have also supported millions of monthly business to va.gov, ensuring customers receive the same information regardless of how and where they interact with the v.a. the initiative has undergone a thorough reset since early 2020 three, focusing on integrating user feedback into systems design. we are planning a restart of deployment efforts in 2025 ensuring that our electronic health records system meets the

needs of our veterans and v.a. staff. we have modernized financial management processes across the v.a., enhancing our ability to manage our resources effectively. as of november 2024, we have successfully completed multiple phases of the initiative resulting in a more agile financial management system. our work on the g.i. bill has resulted in technical advancements that ensure timely and accurate delivery of payments and benefits information for enrolled veterans. this initiative subdivides our effort to reliability and delivering essential services. while we celebrate these successes, challenges also lie ahead as we continue our modernization efforts. enhancing the technical skills of our workforce is vital in adapting to evolving cyber security threats. oit must also navigate the complexities of modernizing supply chain and hr systems. our effort in modernizing these supply chain management systems

have made slow progress and we are committed to leveraging a more deliberate and incremental approach. likewise, hr modernization needs sustained investment beyond the current implementation. the enterprise human capital management modernization efforts aimed to enhance the employee and user experience while ensuring information transparency. continued investment in oit's major initiatives is essential to building progress we have made over the past three years. these initiatives are crucial to fulfilling our mission to provide secure and effective i.t. services to support veteran care. above all, we in i.t. must continue to hone our craft, focusing on a clear vision, developing comprehensive roadmaps, and being relentlessly focused on the operational excellence. investing in our people, our greatest asset, is key. we have made great strides, but the work must continue into and beyond the next administration. chairman rosendale, ranking member cherfilus-mccormick, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to provide this testimony.

our journey to become the best i.t. organization continues. i extend my deepest appreciation to the subcommittee for your oversight, your attention, and unwavering support of our nation's veterans. i look forward to your questions. rep. rosendale: thank you very much, mr. delbene. the written statement will be entered into the hearing record. we will now proceed with questioning and i recognize representative kennedy for five minutes. rep. kennedy: thank you, chairman. mr. delbene, and other panelists, thank you for being here, and for your service to the country. i have serious concerns about the size of the v.a.'s fiscal year 2025 i.t budget. and i understand you do, as well. it is clear to me the budget is not just going to keep the lights on, it is going to severely curtail many of the department's modernization efforts. do you believe that the funding for next year's levels are sufficient? mr. delbene: thank you for the question.

i do not. as i have talked about in the past, the budget is down in a significant way from the previous budget of 2024, but even a flat budget in this environment of growing security threat, need for monetization you talk about, that would not be sufficient. so, some of the key highlights i would probably flag is development is down 99.2% in funding. staffing services are up 5%, but much of that is covered by a pay increase so the actual net increase, the head count is zero essentially. modernization efforts down 66.5% over 2024. one critical area is readiness program, off 65% through the current budget. that is the rollout on a sustained basis of new pc's, new network infrastructure, etc.

fmbt program is down 63%. enhancements down 87.7%. across the board, what you find with this budget is we are focused on sustaining what we have and not being able to move forward critical programs. it's a very challenging budget. rep. kennedy: so it is a maintenance budget. so, what are the short-term and long-term impacts of this so-called maintenance budget? mr. delbene: on a positive front, as i have talked about with our one to end prioritization, focusing on execution, we are figuring out how to make it work. but there is a few things that i would call out. while we have a 20% increase in cybersecurity investment, the transformation to a zero trust architecture, which i firmly believe in, is an expensive operation. omb put out a pretty comprehensive roadmap that they asked us to follow in terms of our implementation. we also have to make very difficult decisions about which programs to invest in

modernization of. i would also say because of the good work going on in the pact act concerning more veterans, the headcount levels have increased in the administration. that means we have to pay for more pc's coming do more customer support. as a result, we are short in the field on the number of people we need to actually support folks. we are coming from a legacy of very good customer support. our user satisfaction in the field is very, very good. i worry that those numbers will come down as we are spread more thin. rep. kennedy: thank you. if you have the ability, what would you do to restructure the oit budget? mr. delbene: i think it just needs to be at a higher level. there is the opportunity to have money that goes over multiple years. however, i should point out, the common theme in this hearing of incremental, what i call big

bang development, i fully agree with that. what it means is not if the budget were larger, we would have super large expenditures in either programs, it would mean we would have an adequate investment across modernizations, a broad set of modernizations that we would do an incremental approach. so that kind of sustained budget at that kind of, the whole notion of an mbp followed by an investment on a year-to-year basis, getting us to a point where all the systems are what we call evergreen, which means you are always doing an incremental amount of improvement every year. that is how i would like to see the budget follow that structure as well. rep. kennedy: i will come back for more questioning. i yield back. rep. rosendale: thank you. mr. delbene, good to see you again. thanks for coming before us. v.a. started developing the veterans management system in 2013 to digitize the paper-based claims process. the system was a disappointment for many years, but in 2022, you

changed your strategy and the vbms has notably improved. explain how and why the v.a. changed its strategy with vbms. mr. delbene: thank you for the question. i am proud of the work that has been done there. i will pass it to robert orifici who leads that program, but a couple of things i want to highlight first. when i came on board, kind of a focus around operational excellence, we looked at the uptime of the system and made changes in terms of our scalability to make sure that it would just not fall over as the demand was continuing to increase. we have gotten vbms to the point where it is a highly reliable, high uptime system, which i think is the first key. the second key is going to this notion of creating a target platform for the modernization where you want to go and then incrementally getting us there.

we have this new program called bip. we want to move everything there but you don't do it at one time. you do it incrementally. rob, you want to take it from there? mr. orifici: sure, thank you for that question. in 2022 and earlier, we could only release a version of vbms once a quarter because it was so large, so many pieces needed to be tested, gone through, and then fixed as the bugs were found. and it didn't make sense to continue in this model in which we had to wait so long to get a release of vbms out. we looked at the very strategies we could take before releasing vbms faster and good and capabilities into the field, testing individual parts without having to rework the entire system. that led to the modular process we are now taking with vbms today. we can work in smaller modules. the parts make up the whole. we can deploy right now. right now we are deploying functionality every two weeks and we have a very ready, agile system to make sure they have the functionality they need.

rep. rosendale: very good. thank you so much. mr. delbene, in 2023, the v.a. was soliciting proposals for a $900 million project to replace its human capital management systems. you recently abandoned this idea and now you are considering a modernized in-place strategy. why did you decide against the megaproject, and what is your strategy now? mr. delbene: i think there are two aspects to that. the first is the austerity environment that we find ourselves in. we are not going to be able to go out for a very large bid to move the entire hr system to a new platform. i do think moving to a new platform is important. the current system is an on premises system. all of the major vendors are moving to a cloud-based platform. i should note the contract, if you look at it, actually had the notion of minimal viable product in it. it basically said we will create a pilot, you will do just the atomic functions necessary. we would only pay for that milestone.

but with fiscal austerity as it is, we are moving to a model that says we want to find, similar to how we are doing with vbms, find that new platform we want to move to, and it will be a cloud-based platform, figure out how to take a small modicum of functionality from the , i think of it as process flow, recruit to your off board at the end of your career, take a slice of that, figure out how to move that to a modern platform, and then figure out how to move the other pieces over time. that will change the notion of funding as well to be a very incremental thing over time, and we will come to you in the future once we have figured out the strategy of like, this is how much we will need in each year to do that continuous modernization. rep. rosendale: very good. thank you, mr. delbene. earlier this year, the v.a. was planning another mega project to consolidate 63 supply chain systems at a cost of over $9 billion. why did you decide not to move with this project, and how is the current strategy better? tell us the improvements on that.

mr. delbene: yeah, so, early on, dimples was the target environment. because it was being used by the dod, also felt that sharing catalog of inventory elements would be a good synergy across those two organizations. i think we lacked a clear understanding of what the gaps in the systems are today from an end-user perspective, and what an incremental approach may look like to improving our supply chains approach. and i think we are stepping back and looking at that now. but let me pass it to cherri waters, who has been involved in that project. ms. waters: thank you very much for that question. i'm actually really excited to tell you about what we are doing in the supply chain initiative. very much like we heard about from our first panel, we are having a very end-user-focused approach and we are doing an iterative strategy.

we recently brought a group together and we looked at what are the most challenging problems that we want to resolve with this system. then we had teams take them back and evaluate all of those top 24 that were identified, from a people, process, and technology perspective. and by looking at it in that way, it helps us begin to prioritize how we get quick wins so that we can deliver a minimally viable product, improve on products that we already have in place, and work with our partners to improve processes at the same time. rep. rosendale: very good, thank you. i will yield back. i recognize representative kennedy. rep. kennedy: thank you, chairman. mr. delbene, i'm concerned the v.a. has a shadow i.t., or an i.t. modernization happening outside of the office of information and technology. what authority do you as the cio have over these business-led i.t. efforts?

mr. delbene: i share the concern there, and we have worked closely with the administrations to come into a better partnership there. the authority i have, the leverage points we have really tried to drive around the authority to operate process which says if you are going to be on the network, we have to review specifically from a cybersecurity perspective, but we can broaden that approach as well. and then fitara review as well. and i think the points that were made around whether everything goes through the fitara process is a really good one. i think the gao work there was good to survey projects, to see how many do and don't. we've been working within our office of strategic sourcing in oit to put processes in place to make sure more and more goes through the fitara process. i'm a big fan of the fitara process because it gives us the ability to review everything as it comes about. at the same time, the capabilities to do the technical review of these projects is not

strong within the administrations. and i think they would recognize that as well. we have reached out to those groups and said, look, we want to play a bigger role in doing a the technical oversight of those projects. in most cases there is a receptivity there. the work in particular in the g.i. bill has been good. where we said, hey, let us get more involved, let us review the release plans, make sure that they make sense, that we do that iteratively as we move along. but there is more for us to do. shadow i.t., we call it business-led i.t., is a big concern. rep. kennedy: and, how would you restructure these efforts going forward? and how do you think it would improve the v.a.'s success? mr. delbene: one of the things we're doing -- y biggest concern overall bar none is cybersecurity. the sacredness of the data we hold is held in trust, and we have to make sure that we don't get a breach.

so the first thing we are pushing for is our policy 6500 requires that people purchase software that is cybersecurity. and we are holding people accountable to that. that means you need technical resources on your program, even if it is a business-led i.t. program, to actually assure cybersecurity. it is our goal to review that. it is not our responsibility to ensure the development that you went through is a secure one. the second thing we are doing is, and we are doing this at a pilot level right now, is we are engaging in drafting an operational agreement with the administrations that says not just in cybersecurity but operations as well, we will do this, you will do that. and we will work together in these areas and in this way. we did a lot of this in the commercial sector when we had the windows team working with the office team, delivering things together. we basically have to come to a

common operating model that says these are your responsibilities, these are ours, and this is how we work together. my first approach there, which has been very iterative, has been just to clarify by virtue of a memo and a policy what the responsibilities are, but we quickly found it is much more complicated in a back-and-forth thing, so this operating agreement principle i think will work better. rep. kennedy: thank you. i yield back. rep. rosendale: thank you very much. mr. delbene, in your testimony, and even in the questioning, you described taking an incremental approach instead of pursuing a big bang solution. why should big bang solutions be avoided? mr. delbene: the whole notion that you can determine exactly the cost of a program, the precise requirements for a program of a large size from the beginning, is just very fraught. once we get involved in a project, things evolve in terms of the requirements, new requirements emerge.

and the technical complexity of the project invariably increases. and so this notion of building a minimum viable product that you can build upon and build success upon success, it basically allows you to hone what you think you are going to deliver more broadly, but it also builds on success from people's minds as well. they see it roll out, they see the initial difficulties, they see it getting better, and they start getting excited about the project as well. and i completely agree with the sentiment of the first panel, that there are very few successes where a big bang approach has been taken. this is true in the commercial sector, as well. rep. rosendale: you have had the unique experience of operating on both sides. mr. delbene: we have had our share of big bangs on the commercial side as well. rep. rosendale: mr. delbene, clearly learned some lessons in vbms, hr, moving toward a more agile, less risky approach.

where else are you implementing this? mr. delbene: ironically, where we are ending up in the ehrm program is an incremental approach. if you look retrospectively, we have established six locations where it is today. with the pause, we are resetting to get it right. hindsight is 20/20, but you probably should have done that from the beginning. so the scope of the project from the beginning should have been this first pod, and then you would broaden it beyond that. i think it's the model we are using everywhere. even if fmbt in a sense -- i mean, it's been talked about as big bang. it is not really. it is get the blueprint of the financial transformation right, start with some of the core offices, and add vba. and now the thing that we are going to have to do in the future, which we are just doing with the central offices in the first central office first, is

the rollout to the business. and that will be complex. but i don't think it is completely accurate to say that it was a big bang project. and the other thing i would say is the nature of erp projects in general, which is what that program is, it is a big commitment. there is no way to absorb half an erp transformation. i did part of my transformation at my previous role at microsoft. there we were consolidating 34 different erp systems into a single global system. but the target was one single large global system. you just need to do it in an incremental fashion. rep. rosendale: very good. mr. delbene, six years into the fmbt and ehrm systems, is it too late to change them wholesale to make them more agile? mr. delbene: as i said with fmbt, i actually think it is pretty agile.

the challenge there is it going to be an expensive program. it is an essential program. every successful organization has a strong financial management system. and as has been noted, ours is 30 years old. it is time to do fmbt, but it is going to be an arduous process to get it done. i think it is important to go -- in the approach we have taken, i think the next thing they are going to do is take a particular visn and use a willing visn that is excited about the project and getting that right. they are focused on process transformation that has to happen in concert with the actual rollout. so that when i think is going to work, but it is going to take time. on the ehrm, as i said, we just need to get the criteria are right, get the situation right, where we are, which is what we are working on. after that appropriate time, we will do the planning to move to another set of visns and locations. and again, cause, get that right. i think there are good signs

there, too. i think the level of deployment we have done has been good, received well, and that's a good sign. but that is going to be hard work, too. rep. rosendale: level head, additional staff available to them to give them that support, which again, when we start to look at the total cost, that has really been a big part of the problem. we don't have just the overrun in the program itself, but the incredible additional staffing requirements that have been necessary to try and even implement this system. so, when will we start seeing the results from some of these changes? mr. delbene: well, i think we are already seeing some of those. so, for instance, in fmbt, the success of the project so far has been good, and the up time of the system has been strong, as well. so i think in many ways, fmbt, although a very large project which is not easy to do, has been fairly successful. we are seeing on the ehrm side

greater stability and uptime of the oracle system. they are meeting the requirements around uptime, on free time, and user responsiveness as well, so those are good signs. the harder work there, and this is ironic to say when technology is so hard, are the process aspects of that. getting the system to meet the processes. i think this was spoken to before, there is a lot of diversity in the processes even across the visns. another thing that is going to lead to success is standardization within ehrm. that has been a big part of the work, as well. i think as the secretary said, you should expect to hear from us about a restart within the fiscal year 2025. rep. rosendale: mr. delbene, why is it so difficult for large government agencies and the v.a. in particular to implement these mega projects successfully? mr. delbene: that's a very good question. i think mega projects are

difficult to do any time. i think it is probably the industry minimizes the complexities involved. we go out and ask for a new system, which probably we should say we only want the m.v.p. people on the industry side say we have got the solution for you, it will solve all of your problems. and that probably sets the expectations of folks too high in terms of the simplicity of doing it. i think cost estimates are part of the problem, that they tend to underestimate the cost. you know, to your earlier question about have you ever seen a program that didn't overrun costs? part of that may be as you get into complexity, things get harder and more expensive. but part of it is the underestimate of the cost from the beginning. so lifecycle estimates, cost estimates almost invariably increase over time as more is known. i think it is tempting to say,

oh, this seems easier than it is. you just have to be very wary. these are very, very complex projects that have deep infusion into how the organization works, and that is not always thought about. if i may, the final thing i would say is we need deeper technical expertise within our i.t. organizations, so that -- i have seen a lot of bad programs in my life. and so i constantly wary. amgreat leaders like i am with today are constantly wary of these challenges that come up. and we need more of that. rep. rosendale: so, from my view, it seems, quite frankly, like bad legislation. you take a piece of legislation and you continue to pile everything on it because everybody thinks it is the last opportunity to get a bill passed. and what you end up with is a really big, ugly, unworkable piece of legislation. that is the problem with this city, quite frankly.

and so, using that in relation to software, if people think this is the opportunity that we have to fix, and everybody starts trying to throw their piece into there as well, and it becomes just an unmanageable great, big mess. instead of listening to the experts saying, we will take a component of this, we will get this, we will make sure we have that right, then we will take the next piece and build upon that. mr. delbene, you inherited ehrm and fmbt and all the other mega projects along with decisions that were made before you arrive, which stinks but is the nature of the beast. if you could go back in time and start over with one of them, how many of those would you design, or started differently? mr. delbene: the critical question on ehrm as we have discussed in this subcommittee is modernization of system versus building up a new system. there are real values of building from a commercial

system but it is a very difficult debate that you could have debates on both sides of it. and there have been failed attempts to modernize vista. this whole notion of getting vista into an incremental modernization where it is evergreen is, had i gone back, that would have been the leading candidate on the improving vista side. i was not involved in the evaluation. there are only a few commercial vendors that the v.a. could have gone with on the cots side of things, so i don't have that much visibility into how that selection was made. but there are real merits of going to a commercial product as we have done. i think we are over the hump now, and those merits outweigh the whole re-litigating this question of modernizing vista. we do need to continue to modernize vista because it will be with us for quite some time still. but given where we are at, i would have, certainly now, i

would have continued with the rollout of oracle. >> they took the right approach. the one thing that is interesting is the system makes sense because there needs to be a system for the government. >> i'm glad were getting our arms wrapped around these. we can build a bridge to europe.

developers will tell you they can do that but how many challenges and what is the cost? we have urged your successor to be skeptical and hopefully stay on the same path that we put together here making efforts incrementally. everybody is done? closing remarks, i think the witnesses, potential benefits of modernizing are undeniable with the right strategy, we will

deliver benefits, but if the leaders keep repeating the failed ways of the past they will burn through money to be left with dysfunction and doing nothing to improve services. we laid out the subcommittees position for how the v.a. should be approaching modernization, not mega projects, they just don't work and they suck billions of dollars into contractors pockets, the bills will cost the v.a. $27 billion more than what was planned, no

organization should operate that way, this is not just our opinion, we know that when a project is set in motion it is very difficult to restructure and i appreciate them pointing out that the best thing can be to cancel. our witnesses also understand this. we discussed supply chain and they've wisely stepped back and reassessed requirements and efforts in smaller pieces and we've seen the v.a. converting to a modern system, as long as

they continue megaprojects we will see overspending. no project should be too big to fail when it is failing because it is too big. i would like to thank bill, staff, everyone who is behind this, representative mccormick for all the information, secretary, i've enjoyed working with them and the v.a. and all of us working together to identify the problems we are facing and make steps toward resolving big issues which plagued the v.a. for years.

i will tell you it's been my honor to work with you and serve on this committee. i ask unanimous consent to extend remarks. without objection, the hearing is adjourned. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your view of

washington live and on demand. hearings from congress, white house events, courts, campaigns and more. stay current with washington journal and find information for c-span and c-span radio app. c-span now is available on the apple store and google play or visit our website. c-span now, your front row seat to washington any time and anywhere. >> democracy, it's not just an idea, it's a process interested,

democracy in real time, this is c-span. democracy, unfiltered. >> attention students, it is time to make your voice heard, studentcam documentary contest is here to inspire change, raise awareness and make an impact, answering your message to the president, what is most important to you. politics, the environment, community stories, this is your platform to share with the world including a grand prize of $5,000, make an impact and be