GovernmentExecutive.com

House lawmakers and Veterans Affairs Department officials sparred Thursday over the department's information technology budget for fiscal 2007.

President Bush is seeking $1.26 billion for IT operations at the department next year. That would cover non-payroll costs associated with IT projects in various areas, including health care and cyber security.

VA Deputy Secretary Gordon Mansfield said at a House Veterans' Affairs subcommittee hearing that budget cuts in fiscal 2006 have forced the department to put a "strategic pause" on its development and infrastructure plans that will continue in fiscal 2007.

He told the committee last fall that the department adopted a "federated" management model that empowered its chief information office with line-item budget control. VA Secretary James Nicholson on Oct. 19 last year approved the concept and charged the department's chief information officer with developing an interim model.

But House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Buyer, R-Ind., who attended Thursday's subcommittee hearing, said he is still frustrated that the federated model is inconsistent with recommendations made by House lawmakers and hired experts.

"I don't even know where you're going," Buyer told Mansfield. "I don't even know what 'federated' means."

Mansfield defended the department's decision to move away from the "centralized model" recommended by the committee and the Gartner consulting firm, which was hired by department CIO Robert McFarland after he took his post in 2004.

When asked by Buyer if he agreed with the architecture of the federated model, McFarland said he would welcome any change from the department's existing IT system.

VA Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Michael Bilirakis, R-Fla., said he is concerned that it is unclear whether the department is making any progress toward implementing the federated plan. He asked Mansfield to report back within a week with a detailed summary of the department's activity since it adopted the plan last fall.

Bilirakis also asked Mansfield to candidly give his opinion about whether the committee is trying to impose contentious policy on the department. Mansfield said he thinks lawmakers are on the right track, and he wants to avoid disputes between the department and Congress.

But Buyer said it is clear that the department and the committee think differently, and he warned that the conflict could get worse. "I think our oversight at this point should only intensify," he said.

COMMENTS

• It isn't unusual for "Buyer" to fail to understand where anything is going. He is the most sorry individual who ever served as chairman of this committee. He isn't for the vet; he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is also the one who refused to allow (initially) any heads of the vets organizations to speak before the committee; thus ending what had been a practice for years. He is also the one who wants to change the definition of "veteran" to apply only to those who served in combat. Charlie Posted March 2, 2006 9:49 PM
• I have a very close family member that formerly worked for the Air Force and now works for the Coast Guard. The routers, ATMs, and wiring diagrams within the lifelines are atrocious, and the network-centric info-sharing between vessels is questionable at best. We went through the same thing twelve years ago, and with the teamwork of SPAWAR, CNO-N6 and the CINCLANT and CINCPAC fleets, we began to bring the Navy up to speed. It is imperative we support the Coast Guard do the same. They are the first responders to threats to our shores; give them the tools to do their job! Gayle Hamblin Posted March 3, 2006 7:59 AM