[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TECHNOLOGY MODERNIZATION FUND:
REWRITING OUR IT LEGACY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 25, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-83
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available at: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-669 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Michael Cloud, Texas
Ro Khanna, California Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Pete Sessions, Texas
Katie Porter, California Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Cori Bush, Missouri Andy Biggs, Arizona
Shontel M. Brown, Ohio Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Scott Franklin, Florida
Peter Welch, Vermont Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Pat Fallon, Texas
Georgia Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Byron Donalds, Florida
Jackie Speier, California Vacancy
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Russell Anello, Staff Director
Wendy Ginsberg, Subcommittee on Government Operations Staff Director
Amy Stratton, Deputy Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Government Operations
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia, Chairman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Jody B. Hice, Georgia Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Andy Biggs, Arizona
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachsetts Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Ro Khanna, California Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
Katie Porter, California
Shontel M. Brown, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 25, 2022..................................... 1
Witnesses
Gary Washington, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Oral Statement................................................... 10
David Hinchman, Acting Director, Information Technology and
Cybersecurity, Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement................................................... 12
Raylene Yung, Technology Modernization Fund Executive Director,
U.S. General Services Administration
Oral Statement................................................... 13
Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document
Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Washington; submitted by
Chairman Connolly.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Hinchman; submitted by
Chairman Connolly.
* Questions for the Record: to Ms. Yung; submitted by Chairman
Connolly.
The documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
TECHNOLOGY MODERNIZATION FUND:
REWRITING OUR IT LEGACY
----------
Wednesday, May 25, 2022
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Subcommittee on Government Operations
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m.,
2154 Rayburn House Office Building, and via Zoom; the Hon.
Gerald Connolly (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Connolly, Norton, Davis, Sarbanes,
Lawrence, Lynch, Raskin, Khanna, Porter, Brown, Biggs, Keller,
Clyde, Mace, LaTurner, and Herrell.
Also present: Representative Hoyer.
Mr. Connolly. The hearing will come to order. I welcome
everyone to this hearing which seeks to explore ways to make
the Technology Modernization Fund more effective and helpful to
agencies in need of modernized IT.
Before we begin the hearing, the chair recognizes the
distinguished majority leader for a statement, Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, first I very much appreciate you
allowing me to participate in this hearing. But as I was
reading my testimony this morning in my office, I wanted to
make a statement, because this is the first public hearing I
have been to since the tragedy in Uvalde.
At Sandy Hook 20 children lost their lives, and six adults.
In Parkland, multiple teens lost their lives as well as
teachers. In Uvalde, 19 children and two adults.
Chris Murphy, Mr. Chairman, on the Senate floor yesterday
pleaded with his colleagues to work with us to find a way to
pass laws that make this less likely. We all know we cannot
pass laws to make it impossible or never happen again. But
certainly we have a responsibility to the people of this
country, to our constituents, the children, the parents,
whether they lose their lives in a grocery store in the state
of New York or in a small town not too far from San Antonio.
They deserve our attention and response to try, to the extent
we can, prevent things happening like this.
How many more times will our Senate Republican colleagues
express outrage at horrific shootings like the one today in
Uvalde, Texas, and then sadly block meaningful bipartisan
background check legislation, supported by 9 out of 10
Americans? And most responsible gun owners support that
legislation as well.
How many more times, how many senseless, tragic deaths must
occur until we abandon moments of silence and substitute
lifesaving action? How many children will we lose to high-
capacity guns and hate and evil mass killers before we act?
Mr. Chairman, we need to be the agents of God to answer the
prayers of the grieving. Prayers are important. I believe in
prayer. But I also believe that God's work here on Earth, as
John Kennedy said, must be our own, because God works through
us. We, who have been given great responsibility and authority
by our neighbors and have been elected to Congress must
respond, as I said, to those grieving now in Texas, and who
grieved in New York, and who grieved in Parkland, and who
grieved in Sandy Hook, and who have grieved in too many
countless incidents like the one we have sadly seen yesterday.
We need to see an America that does not have more mass killings
than any other nation.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say that because we ought to not
allow anybody to think that we have not forgotten and focused
on these tragedies, and that we will respond, and that, as
Chris Murphy, Senator Murphy, who represents Parkland, pleaded,
he was not actually on bended knee, but he said he would be on
bended knee, plead for responsible action. Prayers and moment
of silence are appropriate, but they are not enough.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the distinguished majority leader and
I join him in his thoughts and sentiments. I recall I was
chairman of Fairfax County when the Virginia Tech massacre
occurred, and at that point that had been, that was the largest
gun massacre in American history. Unfortunately, it no longer
holds that record.
In the next week, in my county, we buried six young people,
and I still am in touch with the families of the victims. And
we try to make meaning out of this horror. We tried to turn the
terrible sorrow into productive action. But the loss is
irredeemable. There is no replacement for that loss, even with
action and advocacy.
At some point the madness must end in America, and action
must be taken.
My daughter is in Australia. I talked to her last night
about this massacre in Texas, and Australia had a string of
massacres as well, but they did something we have not done,
which was to take action. And they have seen a plummet in gun
violence and deaths by gun and mass shootings in Australia.
There is efficacy in action. There is continued madness in
inaction.
I thank the distinguished majority leader for joining us
this morning. Our parliamentarians tell me that we need to make
sure you are legit this morning, even though I think you are.
So, without objection we reaffirm what we already did, which is
to waive the distinguished majority leader onto the
subcommittee for the purpose of participation this morning.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
And I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Legacy IT systems, systems that are outdated or
unsupported, plague our Federal agencies. These systems prevent
the Federal Government from effectively providing small
businesses the financial and technical support they need. They
hamper the ability of veterans to access their benefits and
delay the Internal Revenue Service from getting millions of
Americans their tax refunds.
Each year, the Federal Government spends more than $100
billion on information technology and cyber-related
investments. Unfortunately, 80 percent of that funding is
dedicated just to maintaining aging systems. These relic IT
systems present exorbitant maintenance costs, vulnerable
cybersecurity postures, and unacceptable encounters for
customers seeking assistance from Federal agencies.
Increasingly, many of them use language that is no longer
taught in technology courses in campuses around the United
States.
Years of inspector general and Government Accountability
Office reports find that many Federal agencies IT modernization
projects are at risk of failure, cost overruns, schedule
slippages, and sometimes they lack disciplines and effective
management and program oversight and governance. So, Congress
is faced with aging Federal IT across the government and a
suspect track record on projects designed to modernize that IT.
That is why, in 2017, I worked with my Republican
counterparts to establish the Technology Modernization Fund, a
fund engineered to reimagine and transform the way Federal
agencies invest in modern, nimble technology. We sought to
reimagine how government could and should deliver services to
the American people.
The TMF offers agencies an opportunity to secure and
consistent and flexible funding stream, enabling once
impossible multiyear investments in sweeping, complex, and
transformative IT projects. The TMF is designed to provide
agencies assistance in their modernization efforts, quote, ``At
every stage of the proposal development process, from initial
concept development to final award,'' unquote, providing
technical acquisition and financial assistance and oversight
throughout project execution.
This subcommittee is the locus of IT oversight in the U.S.
Congress, and today we seek to make sure that the tool Congress
created five years ago to assist agencies to build systems that
deliver vital government services is, in fact, working.
Additionally, it is roughly one year since we secured a
historic $1 billion investment in the TMF. Today we want to
check and make sure that TMF's leadership is seizing on that
opportunity to restore trust in government by making Federal IT
systems work for customers. We must guarantee that TMF enables
quicker, more secure, and more efficient service delivery to
individuals, families, and businesses.
Since the Technology Modernization Fund's inception, the
program has funded 23 projects across 14 Federal agencies. Out
of those 23, only two experience schedule delays, and not a
single project resulted in a cost overrun.
For example, after the Department of Labor digitized its
labor certification process, the agency was able to issue 176
percent more agricultural labor certifications and 109 percent
non-agricultural labor certifications, allowing small
businesses to hire essential temporary employees to meet the
demands of the market throughout the pandemic. In addition,
these investments built IT that facilitated immediate digital
access to those certifications so that farmers and other
employers could avoid costly trips they formerly had to take to
sign and mail documents.
If properly planned for and scoped, all TMF investments
share this promise of reducing costs, improving security, and
facilitating better engagements with the individuals who rely
on us.
Monday's announcement of a $9.1 million TMF award to the
National Archives and Records Administration is another example
of the promise of this technology. That funding comes after
months of bipartisan oversight work to reduce a years-long
backlog of paper-based records that veterans need to
demonstrate their eligibility for disability, pension, and
other benefits. In fact, Mr. Hice, our ranking member, and I
worked together, sending a letter with many of our colleagues
that made the National Archives aware of this opportunity for
funding.
I look forward to continuing oversight in that award and to
make sure NARA gets this right and that our veterans receive
the services they have so richly earned.
Mr. Washington, a witness here today, and CIO of the
Department of Agriculture also received a TMF investment on
Monday for supply chain risk response. I look forward to
hearing more about that project from him later in the hearing.
Congratulations, Mr. Washington, on what marks the fourth TMF
project you secured for your agency.
TMF is one tool that agencies can use to fund IT
modernization outside of the annual appropriation process, and
the program is proving incredibly successful, so successful, in
fact, that demand is wildly outpacing resources. As we will
hear from our witnesses today, the board has received 130
proposals from 60 agencies and agency components, totaling more
than $2.5 billion. Agencies want to get it right, and Congress
ought to provide them with the resources and support to help
them because it is an investment with a payoff.
As part of our oversight work today we also want to examine
ways to improve the operations of the TMF. We want to hear more
from GSA about how it will prioritize which projects to fund
and how they determine the repayment requirements for each of
those projects.
We also have heard concerns from agencies and other
stakeholders that TMF can sometimes be slow to examine and fund
proposals, causing delays for critical projects. If you look at
the screen you will see a bar graph of TMF appropriations and
funding allocations. The two-toned bar with the diagonal line
shows that despite an influx of funding and a year's worth of
time, the fund still has $756 million yet to be awarded.
We know that administrators have made efforts to expand the
work force and support teams, but we are still hearing
frustrations about the length of time it takes to get TMF
funding to agency recipients. Because of these delays, Congress
did not provide the TMF with additional funding in the 2022
omnibus appropriations bill, pointing to the money still not
obligated or spent.
During this hearing, I hope to better understand how we can
improve the funding application process and streamline it and
what additional resources and authorities the TMF Board and
Program Management Office might need to help that along.
I am proud to have played a part in securing a
revolutionary $1 billion investment in the TMF through the
American Rescue Plan in March of last year. I also support
President Biden's 2023 budget request for an additional $300
million. These investments will not be enough, over time, given
the heavy demand that we face.
I know that everyone on the dais is interested and
committed to ensuring that we have a 21st century Federal
Government that is fully equipped with up-to-date IT that is
secure, on behalf of our constituents, and I intend to press
Congress and Federal agencies to keep doing just that.
With that I recognize Mr. Biggs, sitting in for the
distinguished ranking member, for his opening statement. Mr.
Biggs.
[Pause.]
Mr. Connolly. I think you are on mute, Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. I was, and that was my best statement so far in
his hearing.
Mr. Connolly. And let the record show I did try to make
sure you remained aware of the fact that you were mute.
Mr. Biggs. I appreciate that. Thanks, Mr. Connolly. Thanks
for holding this hearing.
I hope you will allow me just a brief moment, as you did to
the majority leader and yourself, with regard to a matter that
is not on our agenda today, and that is with the shooting that
took place yesterday in Uvalde.
In my mind it is more than a tragedy. This is the result of
a violent, evil person with malice in his heart, and who
reportedly wanted to kill his own family members. This is
something that we all look at with horror. We all look at it
with self-reflection. We all look at it with measured thoughts
and ideas. I would hope that I am not hearing people try to
politicize this thing at this point. That debate can take place
at a more appropriate time, at a more appropriate location, and
in a different setting, perhaps, a different hearing.
But nonetheless, we deal with this. Our thoughts and
prayers do go out to those who were harmed. Our gratitude goes
to the first responders who went in and charged and attacked,
trying to save lives. These are things that happened that need
to be resolved. No one likes them, we all abhor them, and we
all condemn them, and I hope that instead of politicizing this
we actually raise our tone and our dialog to look at the
societal causes that may perpetuate these types of evil acts.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I want to move now to talk about the
Government Technology Act and the subject of today's hearing.
The original purpose, or the intention of this looks like
it was that the TMF find modernization projects, create
savings, and that agencies use those savings to pay the TMF
back so that additional projects could get funded. And if
agencies want to fund other types of projects that they move
through the appropriations process. So, what we see is OMB
sometimes looks like they are taking a completely different
direction from the initial intention here.
The Modernizing Government Technology Act, the legislation
that created the TMF, attempts to address three problems: one,
many Federal information technology systems are outdated; two,
there is insufficient progress modernizing them; and three, the
Federal budget process is ill-suited to the rapid change of IT
needs and technological solutions.
Last month's subcommittee hearing on the IRS gave two prime
examples of how these problems persist. The IRS is still using
a paper-based system to process certain tax returns which has
led to unacceptable delays that have harmed millions of
taxpayers. In addition, we have heard discussion of the IRS's
customer account data engine project, which began in 1999, and
has experienced numerous delays and still has no end in sight.
The TMF was heralded as a step forward for IT
modernization. It set up an alternative to the existing Federal
budget process to allow specific focus on and for
responsiveness to IT modernization needs. In concept, the TMF
was set up to be an efficient cycle. It would fund projects to
retire aging systems which are expensive to operate and
maintain, and then the savings realized by those agencies by
retiring those systems would be used to reimburse the TMF and
allow for additional IT modernization projects.
But that does not seem to be happening. A small number of
project awards have been made, and of those it is unclear where
any have documented savings at all. It is also unclear whether
IT modernization as it pertains to retiring legacy systems is
the primary focus of the TMF today, and it ought to be.
Committee Republicans are pleased to see the recent
announcement that TMF funding would go toward the National
Archives and Records Administration's effort to digitize
veterans' records. That equates to retiring a legacy, paper-
based system. While the law does give latitude in the projects
eligible for funding, recent awards exhibited a focus on other
priorities such as customer experience and cybersecurity. It is
not that those projects are not important, but they do point to
a shift away from the savings-based model intended in the law.
In addition, the MGT statute required agencies to reverse
TMF awards at a rate adequate to maintain solvency of the TMF.
It also required a fee to cover operations expenses of the TMF.
But in its May 2021 guidance regarding the funds provided for
the TMF in the American Rescue Plan, OMB announced it would
relax reimbursements requirements requiring partial or even
minimal repayments. Not only did reimbursement requirements
facilitate additional IT projects, they also required agencies
to carefully consider the projects they submitted for TMF
dollars. By reducing reimbursements on a widespread basis,
these benefits will be lost.
For this subcommittee to perform oversight, we need access
to the written agreements between agencies and the Technology
Modernization Board to include reimbursement requirements,
schedules, and status. In fact, these agreements should be
publicly available. Taken together, the lack of savings,
reduced reimbursements, and the types of project awards point
to a TMF that is altogether different from what the law
intended and what the law requires.
This subcommittee needs to understand whether the Biden
administration intends for the TMF to be a slush fund for IT
priorities. We also need to understand why the TMF model has
not worked well up to this point, or if it is even viable for
making a significant impact on Federal IT modernization needs.
Are reimbursements being required, and if so, are agencies
making their payments, fully and timely?
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. I think
it is an important topic, and I look forward to further
discussion today and the testimony of the witnesses, and I
yield back.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Biggs.
The chair now happily recognizes the distinguished majority
leader for any statement he may wish to make. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say at
the outset I agree with many of the things that Mr. Biggs has
said, and I think it shows that we need to think about this in
a thoughtful way and a way that was intended and is still
intended to operate. And I want to congratulate Chairman
Connolly for his leadership on this issue.
This is not a sexy issue. We do not have thousands of press
people here covering this. No television is covering this.
Because it sort of like do we need to fix the roof this year or
wait 2 or 3 years to do it? But it is a critically important
and substantive issue, I think as Mr. Biggs pointed out and
agrees with, for us to get the kind of modernization speed and
resources that we need to make sure that we are not undermined
by our technology but served by our technology.
So, I thank you very much and I thank Ms. Young and Mr.
Washington and Mr. Hinchman for being here with us.
Five years ago, Democrats and Republicans came together to
enact the Modernizing Government Technology Act. That
legislation included a bill I had introduced and worked on with
then President Obama that first proposed the Technology
Modernization Fund. It was a model from the private sector,
from then-Federal CIO, chief information officer, Tony Scott,
who had used it successfully at Microsoft.
So, this is not a government solution. This was a solution
that was brought to us from one of the most successful
companies in the world to be applied so that we could stay
current with our technology. It represented a new way to create
urgency, expertise, and funding to modern Federal technology.
Republicans were in the majority then and I commend them
for working with me, with the Administration, with the late
Chairman Elijah Cummings, with Chairman Connolly, with
Representatives Kelly and Khanna, with other Democrats to get
it done. We worked closely with Leader McCarthy. The leader and
I were partners in this effort, Mr. Connolly, as you will
recall, because we both worked with you, and, of course, we
worked with Representative Chaffetz, and, of course, very
importantly, Congressman Hurd.
Congressman Hurd played a particularly important role in
pursuing this important issue, and I was pleased to work with
him on it. That is how Congress ought to be, both parties
working together to get things done. As I said, I think the
ranking member or the representative of the ranking member gave
a thoughtful statement on what some of the challenges are, what
some of the problems are, and what we ought to be doing.
We all recognize the importance of upgrading outdated
technology systems across the Federal Government. We understood
that Federal agencies cannot effectively serve the American
people using 20th century technology, period. Such systems are
costly, break down often, and are more vulnerable to cyber
threats from Russia and from other adversaries. So, this is a
national security issue as well as it is an efficiency issue.
The Technology Modernization Fund that our legislation
authorized was designed to be effective at funding big,
systemic upgrades, not just small fixes. Now, five years later,
that fund is up and running, capitalized with more than $1
billion that is already being put to use for the purposes it
was intended. The fund has already supported, as has been
pointed out, 23 projects at 14 different Federal agencies.
These include upgrading the technology at the southwest border,
rolling out zero-trust cybersecurity at numerous agencies,
migrating numerous systems to the cloud, and digitizing
veterans' records.
However, 60 agencies have applied with proposals for over
130 projects, which would require more than $2.5 billion in
funding. We cannot afford, as a Nation, as a government, to
ignore this need for greater cybersecurity, greater efficiency,
and greater ability to deliver for the people.
I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that this subcommittee remains
focused on addressing the technology modernization needs of our
government. I am not surprised that Congressman Connolly is in
the leadership of this effort. He has run a very large, complex
government in our country, and as a result understands how
critically important this is to serving the people, to saving
dollars, and to making sure that we are secure.
As you look today at the work of the Technology
Modernization Fund, I hope you will ask two critical questions.
First, how can we improve on its work through oversight,
guidance, and perhaps targeted reforms that could help the fund
be as effective and successful as possible? I think that is
what Mr. Biggs was referring to and certainly Congressman
Connolly has been in the leadership of attempting to do.
Second, how can we ensure that it has the capitalization it
requires to fulfill its mission of upgrading critical systems
across our whole government and not just a handful of agencies?
I am an appropriator. I served on the Appropriations
Committee for 23 years. I understand the concern that
appropriators have about having annual appropriations so they
can apply oversight to the use of the taxpayers' dollars.
Having said that, however, what we have found is the
appropriation process is too slow to respond in a way that we
need to respond, and if the private sector responded as slowly
as we did, they too would be out of date with their technology.
That was the whole purpose of the Obama Administration Mr.
Scott proposed. When we first proposed the fund in 2016, then-
Federal CIO Tony Scott, as I just said, told us that he thought
it needed at least $3 billion to upgrade the most critical
systems across the government. At that level he was confident
we could recoup significant future cost savings and then
revolve to continue supporting modernization projects across
the Federal Government. And then revolve. This was intended to
be, and continues, I think, to be a revolving fund where you
have a corpus, a capital that is available for immediate draw-
down, and through the appropriation process over time be
reimbursed from the agency that used it, so that it would
always be available with a significant corpus of funds for
investment in the short term, which would be funded in the
longer term. That may sound like a lot of money, $3 billion,
and it is.
By the way, the Biden administration, in its first budget
to the Congress, asked for $9 billion, which would have been
the kind of trust fund that you would have needed that could
revolve and be replenished. For context, though, the Federal
Government is estimated to spend roughly $90 billion per year
on technology, ten times the figure asked for, and 90 times
what has been given. Much of that, however, is spent
maintaining the status quo, that $90 billion, maintaining the
status quo.
I was the chairman, Mr. Chairman, of the Treasury Postal
Subcommittee Appropriations Committee when we put billions of
dollars into IRS modernization, and we did not get it right.
This is designed to try to get it right.
We were fortunate to get $1 billion, as the chairman has
pointed out. I have talked about the appropriation process. In
conclusion, I would hope we can explore ways to capitalize the
fund fully, as intended, through annual appropriations and
possibly future direct appropriations like we did in the
American Rescue Plan, Mr. Chairman--and you were in the
leadership of that, and I thank you very much for that--or
potentially new funding models like agency contributions for
shared services.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses
here today, especially TMF Executive Director Raylene Yung from
the General Services Administration. I want to thank GSA
Administrator Robin Carnahan for her focus on this issue. I
have talked to her on the phone, as I think Ms. Yung knows, and
in person, in my office, about the importance of this project,
and her focus on this project, we are advantaged by the fact
that we have a GSA administrator who understands the importance
of this modernization effort.
I hope this subcommittee will continue to shine a light and
keep a watchful eye on the critical work of the fund and join
the chorus of voices urging an increase in its capitalization
in Fiscal Year 2023 and beyond. This is not a partisan issue.
This is an issue of whether or not we are going to be able to
serve the people in the 21st century with a government that is
transparent, efficient, and has cost savings built into it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connolly. I want to thank the majority leader. Gosh,
you are a regular participant in this subcommittee's work, and
I think we need to make you an honorary, permanently waived
member, despite what the parliamentarian says. But I really do
thank you for it because, you know, it is interesting, if a
website goes down with an important program it is headline
news. If there is a major data breach in the Federal
Government, headline news. But God forbid there be a single
member of the press at a hearing to discuss legislation and
programs designed to avert that.
I know the attention span is limited in Washington, but it
does say volumes about the lack of detailed interest in trying
to actually come to bipartisan solutions to make things work.
And IT has to work, and as you indicated, Mr. Hoyer, this
subcommittee has a long history of bipartisanship.
I mean, Darrell Issa and I wrote FITARA, 6, 7 years ago
now. You know, Mr. Hurd collaborated with myself and Robin
Kelly on all kinds of things. Mr. Meadows and I collaborated on
FedRAMP and all kinds of IT solutions legislatively, and Mr.
Hice has worked with us, as the ranking member now of the
subcommittee on a number of IT initiatives as well. You know,
it can be done, and as you said, Mr. Hoyer, this is not a
partisan issue, and must never become one or we are lost.
So, this is definitely common ground full of promise, and I
thank you so much for your leadership, and especially for
getting it about the Technology Modernization Fund. As you will
recall, not once but twice it was zeroed out, zeroed out, and
we had to fight, and with your leadership we were successful in
restoring $1 billion. But it would have been zero, which I
think would have been catastrophic as we move forward in a
pandemic and in a post-pandemic world to try to recover.
So, your leadership means so much and thank you so much for
being here today.
I would now like to introduce our witnesses. Our first
witness for today is the Chief Information Officer of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Mr. Gary Washington. Our next
witness will be the Acting Director of Information Technology
and Cybersecurity for GAO, Mr. David Hinchman. And finally, we
will have the Executive Director of the Technology
Modernization Fund, about which we have been talking, Ms.
Raylene Yung.
And the witnesses, if you would all please stand and raise
your right hand. It is our practice to swear in witnesses
before this committee and subcommittee.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Ms. Yung. I do.
Mr. Washington. I do.
Mr. Hinchman. I do.
Mr. Connolly. Let the record show that the witnesses have
answered in the affirmative. Thank you so much. Without
objection, your full written statements will be made a part of
the record.
With that, Mr. Washington, you are recognized for five
minutes of testimony. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF GARY WASHINGTON, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Washington. Thank you, Chairman Connolly, Ranking
Member Hice, and members of the subcommittee for the
opportunity to update you today on the United States Department
of Agriculture's use of the Technology Modernization Fund. I
would also like to thank you for your ongoing support and
commitment to improve information technology management and
funding across the Federal Government.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture touches the lives of
every American through its mission to provide leadership on
agriculture, food, natural resources, rural infrastructure,
nutrition, and related issues through fact-based, data-driven,
and customer-focused decisions. It is critical that we have the
technology infrastructure to support all of these efforts.
Central to that goal is focusing on enterprise-based
approaches to management and decisionmaking and the cost
savings and efficiencies that result. With a work force of
about 100,000 employees managing a $200 billion per year
budget, USDA works to ensure a modern and efficient
organization that delivers programs with integrity and
efficiency. It also does this through cohesive and strategic
decisions and implementation of programs to minimize shallow
approaches.
The USDA annual IT budget has been $2.5 billion to $2.8
billion over the last three years, with a projection of over $3
billion for Fiscal Year 2024. As we continue to meet the
complex, day-to-day requirements, work to strengthen our
cybersecurity needs to address new and emerging threats to the
Department's systems and customer information, as well as
respond to unfunded tasks such as those covered under Executive
Order 14028, which include implementation of zero-trust
requirements, we rely on other sources such as the TMF to
continue with our IT mission requirements and mandates. This
has allowed us to plan and implement critical efforts such as
our capital planning enterprise architecture, data analytics,
and geospatial efforts, which have been underfunded.
OCIO has worked to increase the consistency in IT functions
and services of the Department which has resulted in
consolidation of end user and data center services for the
Department. USDA has been the recipient of four TMF
investments, and we are appreciative of the opportunity to talk
about them today.
The farmers.gov project, awarded in 2018 for $10 million,
was intended to update and modernize the conservation and
financial assistance and payment operations at the Farm Service
Agency and Natural Resources Conservation Service, to improve
the services through portal. The scope of the project was
updated in August 2020, after the agency determined that
additional process re-engineering would be required prior to
further development of the technology solution for common
enrollment processes for the two agencies, so $6 million of the
investment money was returned to the TMF.
While the project developed tools to help reduce manual
data entry and develop a proof of concept for the system, the
project was closed out prior to implementation in May 2021,
because we found the project not ready for further development,
as we first needed to harmonize policies and data and effect
process changes prior to applying the technology. The repayment
is in process, and the final two repayment transfers are on
track to be paid to GSA for $1.9 million will occur in Fiscal
Year 2022 and 2023, respectively.
The Infrastructure Optimization/Watershed project awarded
in 2018 for $500,000 enabled Farm Production and Conservation
to complete the migration of its Enterprise Watershed Program
application to commercial cloud, complete its authority to
operate and release the application to production on time. The
cloud migration enables more effective response for local
communities to respond to natural disaster strikes such as
those from flooding and soil erosion. The tools enable a more
rapid processing and declaration of a local watershed emergency
and thus accelerate government response and reduce the response
time of Federal Government in watershed events driven by
floods, fires, and windstorms. Repayment for this project has
been completed.
The Specialty Crops System Modernization project was
awarded in 2019 for $8 million and is intended to accelerate
the modernization of Agricultural Marketing Service Specialty
Crops Program billing, inspection, and certificate generation
and issuance processes that support the inspection of 10.7
billion pounds of processed fruit and vegetable products and
49.9 billion pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables.
USDA was recently informed that our Supply Chain Risk
Management project, and we look forward to speaking to anyone
on this further investment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connolly. Unbelievable. You had two more seconds.
Excellent. Thank you so much, Mr. Washington.
Mr. Hinchman, you are recognized for your five minutes of
testimony. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF DAVID HINCHMAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Hinchman. Thank you, sir. Chairman Connolly,
Congressman Biggs, Majority Leader Hoyer, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting GAO to discuss our work
reviewing the Technology Modernization Fund, also known as the
TMF.
The Federal Government now spends over $1 billion annually
on IT and cyber investments and about 80 percent of that money
is used to maintain increasingly costly and aging legacy IT
systems. The TMF represents a unique funding approach to
improve, retire, or replace these burdensome systems while also
providing agencies with a nontraditional funding source to
address emergency cyber needs.
To that end, the fund has awarded 23 projects with over
$400 million, including this week's awards to the Department of
Agriculture and the National Archives. In making these awards
the TMF has provided assistance to agencies that are addressing
IT challenges ranging from outdated email systems to
infrastructure modernization to state-of-the-art cybersecurity
deployments.
When the MGT Act created the TMF it established the
requirement the GAO review the fund every two years. GAO
published our first review in 2019, and our second in December
2021. Today I would like to briefly summarize the findings of
our reports including the recommendations we made to improve
the quality of agency proposals and improve the administration
of the fund.
In our latest report we noted that the scope of the TMF has
evolved over time. As originally envisioned, the fund targeted
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal IT
systems, especially the aging legacy systems that I previously
mentioned. But with last year's $1 billion appropriation from
the American Rescue Plan Act the TMF broadened its focus to
prioritize projects that address immediate cybersecurity gaps,
improve the public's access to services, and modernize agency
assets.
We also reported that in addition to its change in focus
the TMF changed its reward reimbursement requirements. For
awards made through August 2021, a full reimbursement of the
award amount was required. However, beginning with awards made
in September 2021, the fund allowed agencies to apply for
either partial or minimal reimbursement of their awards.
Our reporting has also detailed concerns about the quality
of agency proposals and whether these proposals have adequately
captured their plans' scopes of work. To apply for a TMF award,
agencies are required to submit cost estimates and we are
required to review those estimates, based on cost estimating
best practices. To date, we have reviewed the 11 awards made
through August 2021. However, our analysis of the 11 awards
found that 10 of the cost estimates were not reliable.
Further analysis of these 11 awards found that 9 of the 11
projects had not yet realized any of their planned cost savings
and a number of these projects decreased their scope post-
award. Although changes to IT projects can be expected, it is
concerning to see such significant changes to the awarded
projects' original plans. This calls into question the extent
to which agencies have thoroughly planned and mapped out their
objectives prior to applying for TMF funding.
Our findings raise important questions about the proposal
process and whether agencies are submitting realistic and
achievable plans. Since our most recent report, the TMF has
made an additional 12 awards, totaling more than $340 million.
The increased amount of the fund's latest awards highlights the
importance of basing award decisions on thorough and complete
proposal information.
To help address these challenges we believe that GSA should
implement our recommendation to provide detailed guidance to
agencies on how to complete their cost estimates. We also
encourage the stakeholders in the TMF proposal review process
to increase their scrutiny of agency proposals and work
together to ensure the reward or recipients will deliver the
greatest possible value.
In summary, with the current balance of about $750 million
available in the fund it is critical that OMB and GSA continue
to work with agencies to improve the quality of TMF proposals
in order to get the most return on future investment. By
continuing to strengthen agency applications and by ensuring
that these proposals adequately capture plans' scope and cost,
OMB and GSA can better position TMF as a valuable tool for
addressing critical IT, cyber, and modernization needs across
the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, and 29 seconds to go. You are a
pro. Thank you, Mr. Hinchman.
And Ms. Yung, I understand this is your first hearing,
ever, to testify, so we promise to approach you gingerly and
make it a positive experience. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF RAYLENE YUNG, TECHNOLOGY MODERNIZATION FUND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Yung. Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member Hice,
Congressman Biggs, and members of the subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity today to testify on the Technology
Modernization Fund, an innovative investment program that plays
a key role in transforming the way we deliver simple, seamless,
and secure services to the American people.
My name is Raylene Yung, and I serve as the Executive
Director of the TMF Program Management Office at the General
Services Administration. I would like to thank the committee
for your vision and continued support for the TMF and to
acknowledge the TMF Board, the Office of Management and Budget,
and its Office of the Federal Chief Information Officer as well
as the chief information officer community for being our
partners in this exciting and important work.
Getting technology right is critical to securing our
Nation, delivering public services, and building trust with the
American people. It is more important than ever to invest
smartly and nimbly in modernization and to make sure our
technology actually works the way we need it to.
Unfortunately, it has been difficult to successfully
modernize Federal technology at scale. Many teams are managing
outdated legacy systems and may lack the tools and expertise to
respond to unexpected demands or to course correct if things go
wrong.
To address this, the TMF was specifically designed to
overcome many of these institutional challenges that can cause
modernization efforts to fail. First of all, TMF investments go
far beyond just funding. We act as strategic partners, working
with agencies side by side to provide support and subject
matter expertise in areas ranging from cybersecurity to
procurement. In addition, every investment is reviewed
carefully, quarterly, by the TMF Board to keep projects on
track.
Second, we take an agile, incremental approach so that we
can deliver at the speed of need. Every investment is tied to
the completion of specific milestones. This shows us key
results at every step of the way rather than just all at the
end, improving the overall success rates of projects. As our
administration at GSA says, we want to see demos, not just
memos.
Finally, the TMF has a broad view of technology needs
across the Federal Government. This is crucial for seeing
similarities across proposals, uncovering what is working best,
and connecting agencies to shared resources, and for achieving
economies of scale for taxpayers.
And our approach is already delivering results. For
example, in 2019, an investment helped the Department of Labor
convert an outdated, paper-based certification process to a
digital one, saving nearly $2 million a year and eliminating
user pain points, especially for farmers and employers who
previously had to sign and mail documents. This certification
helps ensure the integrity of temporary work visa programs by
requiring information on worker recruitment and other
components that help protect both U.S. and foreign workers.
This investment also doubled the number of certifications the
Department can now issue each day, crucial for supporting our
farm work, tradecrafts, and hospitality industries.
I am happy to talk about our more recent projects as well,
such as the investment we announced just this week to help
veterans and many others get quicker online access to records
that were previously paper-based and stuck in large backlogs.
Last year, the TMF received a billion dollars from the
American Rescue Plan, and we saw a huge demand with over 130
proposals from 60 agencies and components, totaling over $2.5
billion. The investments we have already made represent the
Administration's strong comment to both bolstering security and
improving the public's interactions with government. Among
other things, these investments will help protect the data of
100 million students and borrowers, enhance the security of
hundreds of facilities, and streamline how millions of veterans
can securely access their benefits.
We aim to allocate the remaining ARP funds this year, and
we are collaborating and aligning across government to maximize
our impact, whether we are building cybersecurity systems that
assume zero trust or making smart upgrades to improve the
customer experience.
Thank you for the time today to share more about the TMF, a
critical, long-term approach for ensuring that our Federal
Government successfully uses technology to deliver for people
every day. The President's 2023 budget request for $300 million
builds on this success. We ask for your support for this
request to continue delivering the experience that taxpayers
expect and deserve in the 21st century.
Thank you for the time today.
Mr. Connolly. Are you sure this is your first? You had
three seconds left. That is incredible. Thank you so much. I
really appreciate the testimony.
We are going to go into a round of questioning, and the
chair recognizes the distinguished Congresswoman from the
District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for her five minutes of
questioning. Welcome, Congresswoman Norton.
Ms. Norton. I thank my distinguished friend for recognizing
me. I noted, Mr. Hinchman, that a GAO report calculated that
the top 10 most critical Federal IT legacy systems in need of
modernization cost around $337 million per year, collectively,
to maintain. That is a staggering figure for just 10 IT
systems.
Mr. Hinchman, why are these systems so expensive?
Mr. Hinchman. Congresswoman, we do have a sensitive version
of our report that I could discuss in greater detail behind
closed doors. However, those systems, generally stated, tend to
be significant information systems that conduct mission-
critical activities for the various agencies. Those 10 systems
are spread across, I believe, 8 or 9 agencies, and forgive me
for not knowing the number exactly. And I could describe in
greater detail, behind closed doors, about what those specific
systems do and why they cost so much.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate getting that briefing.
Last year, Jason Gray, who is the Chief Information Officer
of the Department of Education, testified before this
subcommittee. He shared that his work force formerly had to
wait 20 minutes every morning for their laptops to boot up.
After a massive IT infrastructure modernization effort they cut
the average boot-up time to less than one minute. He testified
that the purchase was, and I am quoting, ``a return on
investment of more than 1,500 hours of previously lost
productivity per day.'' In addition, the agency's cloud storage
consolidation project resulted in more than 20 million in
savings over a five-year period.
Mr. Washington, your agency secured Technology
Modernization Fund investments in a few projects including the
Farmers.gov portal. Did the Farmers.gov project reduce
financial or time costs to taxpayers, and if so, how?
Mr. Washington. Congresswoman, Farmers.gov did cut costs
for the American taxpayer and time. How so? By the fact that
farmers contacted USDA and wanted to have a more modern
experience online and had the option of going to the service
centers, visiting service centers, or engaging USDA through a
digital experience, and we provided that opportunity for them.
Now farmers have an opportunity to go online versus going to
the service center to get information about the Farm Service
Agency and other agencies within the Department of Agriculture
and make transactions with the Farm Production and Conservation
Service online, improving their experience and giving them some
time efficiencies as well.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Yung, can you briefly discuss other
Technology Modernization Fund projects that reduced or avoided
government spending?
Ms. Yung. Absolutely. We have actually covered a few
examples today, but I will go into some more detail. One really
exciting investment is the recent one we have announced in the
National Archives, where they will be taking a very costly,
paper-based process that has led to millions of veterans
waiting to get their records and access benefits they deserve
and moving all of that into an online system.
I actually do want to speak to one other dimension of not
just cost savings to the Federal Government or even to the
agency that takes on the TMF investment but the fact that we
also look at reducing costs to other groups. So, using that
example of the NARA investment, we see a cost saving in time
and costs for the other agencies that also request records from
NARA and to the regular people, the veterans themselves that
were spending time and energy mailing and waiting for these
paper-based forms to be processed.
So, I just wanted to share that I think something that is
really unique to look at our TMF investments is that cost
savings can come in many different ways.
Another great example I will share is our investment in
Login.gov will enable the Department of Veterans Affairs to
greatly streamline the way they enable veterans to access their
benefits, and earlier estimates show that the savings that the
VA will save after completing this consolidation will number in
the hundreds of millions of dollars, which alone would pay off
the investment in Login.gov from the TMF.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time
has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Keller, for his five minutes of questioning. Mr. Keller.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for taking time to be with us today.
As data management continues to be driven by technological
advancement, we should ensure our government is keeping pace
with necessary changes and improvements. The Technology
Modernization Fund, or the TMF, was enacted, as we know, in
2017, the initiative to bolster agency efficiency and
cybersecurity.
However, we are 4 1/2 years after it was signed into law. I
think it is time we conducted proper oversight on the fund
itself and ensure we monitor how effective the TMF has been
toward modernizing IT systems.
Ms. Yung, according to a 2019 report by the Government
Accountability Office, the TMF Program Management Office did
not provide written guidance for developing the cost estimates
in a manner consistent with the Federal requirements outlined
in GAO's best practices. That was outlined in GAO's best
practices and we did not get the guidance. Since that report
was issued what change or improvement has the TMF board made to
increase transparency and provide clear, accurate reporting?
Ms. Yung. Thank you for the question, and I just want to
start by saying we greatly appreciate the support that the GAO
provides through their reporting and helping the TMF improve
and become a better program.
So, to answer that specific question the GAO issues some
really amazing guides on cost estimation and savings that help
agencies provide better estimates. Since that report came out,
we not only kind of read and digested all the results very
carefully but we have made a number of improvements to the way
that we communicate with our agencies and the public.
So, specifically, we now provide written guidance on our
website and in every kickoff kind of email and package that
send to new investments that point directly to GAO's detailed,
12-step guide to cost estimation. We also remind agencies of
this guidance and meet with them quarterly to hear the latest
on cost savings and cost reduction and are excited to kind of
see the results of those improvements in the coming months.
Mr. Keller. So, basically you would be able to provide a
report of how the changes have impacted positively, you know,
what is happening within the agencies?
Ms. Yung. So, I will acknowledge that many of our
investments are still early so the work is just beginning in
many cases, but I would be happy to followup with you and your
staff offline to share whatever information we can that might
be helpful.
Mr. Keller. OK. I appreciate that. You know, and we have
talked a lot about the veterans' access to record at the NPRC,
and our office has been pushing for two years to get the
process streamlined and have the accountability and the speed,
you know, eliminating the backlog for the NPRC so our veterans
can get the service they have earned and deserve.
The General Services Administration recently announced
funding from the TMF would be used to modernize its
recordkeeping and document access systems. Will there be
additional lags in the records backlog while this new system is
implemented?
Ms. Yung. I would definitely like to refer to the
colleagues at the National Archives to speak to the detailed
specifics of their projects, given that we are just kicking off
the investment this week. That said, I will say the backlog is
a problem that, as you mentioned, has existed for multiple
years, and the focus of the TMF investment is on bringing
online this new process that will be much more efficient and
have a much better experience for veterans.
Mr. Keller. I appreciate that because I know we had a
meeting on that before and some different things, and they
brought up some issues they had with records that were
destroyed in a fire, and that fire took place many years ago. I
am just hopeful that they will be more responsive and make sure
that they do not create any more of a backlog as we implement
these things.
I thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the gentleman, and I have also
experienced some of that backlog because of that fire you
reference holding up medals and other awards for veterans who
have earned them, so I thank you for bringing that to our
attention in this hearing.
The chair now recognizes the distinguished, extraordinary
gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Subcommittee
on National Security, Mr. Lynch. Welcome, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you once
again for holding this hearing.
I do want to say, at the outset, that I associate myself
with your remarks at the beginning of this hearing regarding
the massacre in Uvalde, Texas. I do not think it is politics
when legislators, like ourselves, discuss ways to protect the
people that we represent and the people of our country. So, I
do not think you were being political in any respect. It is our
collective responsibility, I think, to debate those laws and
consider ways that we might prevent what happened yesterday
from ever happening again. So, I will leave that alone.
So, Ms. Yung or any of the other witnesses, I know that we
were fully engaged in the Log4j vulnerability. I know that
seems like 10 years ago, but it was so pervasive and affected
so many of our systems, and that code vulnerability was, again,
so widespread. I just was wondering if either the fund or--I
know that CISA had engaged in a public-private effort to patch
that vulnerability and to move forward, and I was just
wondering if any of you have been involved in that effort and
if you could report on the progress that we have made.
Ms. Yung. I am actually happy to also refer to my
colleague, CIO Washington, in case there is something specific
at an agency that may be more applicable. But I would love to
share a bit about cybersecurity and how the TMF thinks about
it.
Cybersecurity is a top priority for the fund. We are lucky
to have some cybersecurity experts such as Chris DeRusha, the
Federal Chief Information Security Officer, and Matt Hartman,
the Deputy Executive Assistant Director, at CISA, of
Cybersecurity, that serve on our board. And so we regularly are
engaging with the latest cybersecurity priorities and thinking
about how to support the agencies that we invest in.
We also have a working group of subject matter experts in
cybersecurity that are ensuring that the latest guidance and
priorities are being factored into everything that we do.
So, I just want to emphasize that.
Mr. Lynch. Ms. Yung, if you do not have anything that is
responsive to my question then I would rather not burn my time,
if you do not mind.
Ms. Yung. OK.
Mr. Lynch. I appreciate the landscape assessment but that
is not what I asked. You know, we had a very serious
vulnerability and I was just wondering if we had cleaned that
up, and it does not sound like there are any witnesses that
could speak to that.
So, let me ask you, so it is the general assessment--and,
you know, I chair that subcommittee on national security--there
are some thoughts that Russia has not really retaliated against
us with the full force of their cyber forces, and there is some
concern that their zero-day vulnerabilities are so serious that
they do not feel they need to deploy them yet but that they
hold them in reserve. Is there any sense within your groups
that that may be the case?
Mr. Connolly. Steve, were you directing that to any
particular witness?
Mr. Lynch. Yes, all of them. All of them.
Mr. Connolly. All right. Mr. Hinchman, why don't you start?
Mr. Hinchman. Sure. Thank you. GAO tends to come in after
the fact, Congressman. We tend to be requested by Congress to
review incidents after they happen. We recently----
Mr. Lynch. Yes, so why don't we speak to Log4j then? That
happened a while ago and people have been working on that for a
long time, and I am just concerned about have we made any
progress on that.
Mr. Hinchman. Yes, sir. I do not believe we have been
requested to review that yet, but I can go back and check and
get back to you for the record.
Mr. Lynch. OK. That troubles me greatly.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the gentleman.
The extraordinary gentlelady from Ohio is now recognized,
Ms. Brown, for her five minutes. Welcome.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding
this hearing, and thank you to all the witnesses for joining us
today.
Congress has provided the Technology Modernization Fund a
little under $1.2 billion through the annual appropriations
process and the American Rescue Plan. Now that sounds like a
lot of money but, Mr. Hinchman, how much money does the Federal
Government spend on Federal IT each year, and do you think $1
billion is enough to shore up all Federal Government IT
modernization opportunities, and if not, why?
Mr. Hinchman. The Federal Government spends, unclassified
budgets, approximately $100 billion every year. Of that,
approximately 80 percent, or $80 billion, are spent on
operating and maintaining existing systems.
The current $1 billion in the apportion, while it could
make a noticeable difference in agencies' modernization
efforts, is not enough, quite frankly. With 24 major government
agencies, all of which have their own need, modernization
needs, that is a small drop in the bucket compared to what
would probably be required.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. During its lifetime, the Technology
Modernization Fund experienced a change in its repayment
structure and a large influx of funding. Mr. Washington, you
have submitted multiple projects for fund consideration and the
fund has approved four of them. How has your experience with
the Technology Modernization Fund changed as the program
evolved?
Mr. Washington. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
My experience with the Technology Modernization Fund has been
great. OMB and GSA, specifically, have been great partners in
the fund. They have been very informative and assisted us
through the entire process. So, the only change that I would
submit in terms of the customer experience would be the length
of time, which has an impact on the scope and impacts the cost
estimates. But outside of that we have had a great experience
with the Technology Modernization Fund.
Ms. Brown. Thank you very much.
Clerk, I believe we have a chart. Thank you so much.
By May 2020, 60 agencies submitted 130 proposals to the
Technology Modernization Fund board totaling more than $2.5
billion in requests. Despite the overwhelming demand and need
for IT modernization throughout the Federal Government the fund
has more than $756 million yet to be awarded. Some agencies
have criticized the program for being too slow to get money out
the door.
Ms. Yung, from the board's perspective how did loosening
the repayment requirements affect your ability to fund
projects, and Mr. Hinchman, after her, what reforms might help
get award money to agencies more efficiently while ensuring
projects retain quality control?
Ms. Yung. Thank you for the question. I just want to kind
of address the note you mentioned about the balance. You know,
the goal of TMF is really to maximize the impact of technology
for the American public. It is not really about investing as
fast as possible. It is about balancing speed with the quality
of the work and the probability of success for the investment,
and ultimately the impact of those investments.
So, I do want to share that in the past eight months the
TMF has received and reviewed more proposal and made more
investments than in the previous 3 1/2 years combined. So,
because of that unprecedented demand that you mentioned we have
really had to kind of change the way that we operate. It is a
very different story to look through and carefully review 130
proposals and ensure that in the end we are being responsible
stewards of taxpayer dollars.
But I am excited to share that we have really improved our
operations and we are actually on track to invest the remaining
balance of the American Rescue Plan dollars this year and to do
so thoughtfully in, I think, what are going to be very exciting
investments.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Hinchman, you can answer part 2 of Ms.
Brown's question.
Mr. Hinchman. Absolutely. From the GAO perspective there
are a couple of things that come to mind. One is our
outstanding recommendation on providing explicit guidance to
agencies about how to complete their cost estimates so that the
proposals that they submit are as strong as possible. We
appreciate OMB and GSA's efforts in the past to address our
outstanding recommendations, but we think that there is a
little bit more that we could offer agencies so that they
understand how this process works and how it navigates.
And to that end I think, also, that we could be a little
more transparent with agencies so that they know how the
process works, what is going to happen, what the timeline is
going to look like, and what they can expect.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has
expired. I look forward to continuing to conduct oversight of
taxpayer dollars to ensure these are spent wisely. Thanks
again.
Mr. Connolly. And we thank you. You are one of the most
faithful members of this subcommittee. We really appreciate it,
Ms. Brown.
And let the record show we have been joined by the
distinguished vice chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Porter of
California, and I see Mr. Khanna of California has also joined
us. I know it is early in California.
The chair will now recognize himself for five minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Yung, what is your understanding of why Congress
created TMF? Why do we need it? Spending $100 billion-plus a
year on IT, isn't that enough? Why do you need more?
Ms. Yung. I think just to reflect a few things that have
already been said. You know, we have this tremendous amount of
investment happening annually, but it is not being successful.
Over 80 percent is for the maintenance of existing systems, and
that is not good fit for today's world. I would say the world
is changing rapidly when it comes to technology. We know the
demand for great technology is not only increasing over time
but I think as people, our bar for how we expect technology to
work for us is also rising steadily. So, if you are able to
order groceries on your phone and yet you have to print and
mail out forms to access benefits, that gulf is incredibly wide
and only growing.
So, I think these are a lot of reasons why I think the TMF
reflects this opportunity to do something different, to show
what is truly possible with technology and to demonstrate just
a more effective way to modernize.
One last thing I will say is, you know, we talk a lot about
updating government technology, bringing legacy systems and
making them up to date. But I will just say that coming from
the private sector we want to go past making technology just up
to date. If you think of large-scale software platforms that
power private sector companies, technology is not just up to
date. It is updated daily. It is responsive and it is
responsive to people's changing needs.
Mr. Connolly. So, help us understand. I mean, I mentioned
in my opening statement that while we did provide $1 billion,
that went from zero to $1 billion so we felt good about that,
but it was $1 billion also compared to the $8 billion President
Biden wanted for TMF out of a $9 billion IT request, special
request. And you have got $2.5 billion or so in requests for
projects and you only have $1 billion to give out.
So, how are you prioritizing, just in general. You do not
have to give us, you know, project award criteria, but how in
the world do you sort that through given that demand, and what
is that demand telling you?
Ms. Yung. I just want to come back to, I think, the
ultimate intention here is how do we maximize the impact to the
American public. So, we look at different ways that these
investments can better serve the people. So, what is the
urgency of the problem? What is the direct impact that it has
on, you know, applying for benefits and serving people well?
I think the other thing to share about what we would do
with more, a lot of times we talk about recovering from issues,
recovering from breaches, and what I might call reactive
remediation of problems. I think what we can do with more
investment is move to a proactive model, so not just saying
hey, we have this large backlog that we need to clear. Instead
we can look and say, what are the systems that are at risk of
generating backlogs the next time something goes wrong and
getting ahead of that and being proactive in improving our
technology and making it work better.
Mr. Connolly. I would hope that given the fact we do not
have all the money in the world, and we do not even have all
the money we had wanted, that one of the things we look at is,
is this additive? In other words, without this funding you
would not do it, because you can't, or given everything you are
dealing with you probably wouldn't get around to it. This moves
it up in the timeline and it allows us to get it done, in
addition to all the other criteria you mentioned. Is that a
factor?
Ms. Yung. Absolutely, and actually to give a great example,
a project that is nearing completion right now, taken on by the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, that actually shared
that without TMF funding they would have been managing these
decades-old mainframe systems and maybe slowly improving them
year after year, but really just maintaining them. But with the
TMF investment they are able to prioritize and do a single
effort to kind of get rid of those legacy systems once and for
all, and I don't think that would have happened without the TMF
investment.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much, and I am going to give Mr.
Hinchman the last word. But let me just say, by the way, a
preface. As somebody who co-wrote the bill creating TMF I can
tell you what was in our mind, all of us, Republican and
Democrat, which was that you need a catalytic fund. You need
something to catalyze managers to act. It is a big risk if you
are trying to replace legacy systems. It is a huge financial
commitment and it is usually multiyear.
And so, you know, the average lifespan of a political
manager in the Federal Government is 18 to 24 months, right?
So, when I look at that kind of short horizon, where do I put
my chips? What do I want? Am I really willing to risk all of
this--and, by the way, it might go south--and not even live
politically to see it, because I am gone?
And so we felt that given the fact that, as you pointed out
in your testimony, Mr. Hinchman, 80 percent of that $100 we
spend every year is already spoken for just to maintain, it
does not leave as much money as people may think to undertake a
whole new replacement system and all the risks and time that
entails. And so maybe you would like to comment on that, from
GAO's perspective of why we created TMF, how you see it
evolving, and addressing what I just said in terms of what
managers in the Federal Government face given those legacy
systems and the money is already largely spoken for.
Mr. Hinchman. Sure. I think my first thought would be that
the budget process, the standard budget process as it currently
exists is not IT's friend. IT moves too quickly. Emergent cyber
needs make themselves known that need to be addressed, and you
cannot wait the two-plus years that you might need to
otherwise.
Innovative approaches like the TMF provide a way to help IT
get around obstacles like that. It does not mean that for a
major, large, massive system investment we should not go
through the regular appropriations process. I think that makes
sense. But when you have a small, for instance, NARA's attempt
to move into electronic this paper-driven system this seems
like a great opportunity for TMF to become available, to help
these agencies get these quick wins that make very significant,
noticeable differences in how an agency provides its citizen
services, which is, at the end of the day, why we are here.
And I think that looking at how the TMF has moved so far it
certainly has provided those opportunities for agencies, and I
think we heard it that they might not otherwise be able to
approach these problems.
Now as an auditor I am always going to be a little cautious
that we want to make sure we are directing the funds to the
right places, that the agencies have come to us with as solid a
business case as possible so that we know the money is being
targeted the right way. And that is just kind of the auditor-
ness--we always want to be careful. And as an auditor at GAO,
we always argue for as much transparency as possible so that an
outsider can know that these funds are being well spent and
directed to good places, but also maybe even have an
understanding of why some investments were not picked. But I
think and then also understanding what the agency plans to do
with that as well as perhaps a better view than what is
available now as to what progress they are making with those
invested funds.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. No, I think that is absolutely
right. In fact, frankly, we need this partnership because we
need TMF to put points on the scoreboard so that we can broaden
the case for why we have to make these investments.
And Mr. Washington, I saw you shaking your head a little
while ago in agreement in terms of sort of how the rationale
for TMF was applying to your agency, USDA, with the four
projects you talked about in your testimony.
Mr. Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The TMF is
extremely important to USDA. As you know, we service foresters,
ranchers, farmers, economists, statisticians, nutrition
services, animal and plant health, so we desperately have an
appetite for modernization. And as Mr. Hinchman stated, the
appropriations process is not conducive to rapidly supporting
modernization efforts, and our focus in USDA, quite frankly, is
to improve our service delivery to our customers and be a more
customer-centric organization and be data-driven. And we plan
on using the TMF to accomplish just that.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much.
In closing I want to thank our panelists for their remarks.
I want to commend all my colleagues for participating in this
important conversation.
With that, and without objection, all members will have
five legislative days within which to submit extraneous
materials and to submit additional written questions for the
witnesses through and to the chair, which will be forwarded to
the witnesses for hopefully their expeditious responses.
And I want to again thank you all for participating here
today. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]