[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GETTING NOWHERE: DOD'S FAILURE TO
REPLACE THE DEFENSE TRAVEL SYSTEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBERSECURITY, INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, AND GOVERNMENT INNOVATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 26, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-53
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-023 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida Jimmy Gomez, California
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lisa McClain, Michigan Greg Casar, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina Dan Goldman, New York
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Vacancy
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Raj Bharwani, Senior Professional Staff Member
Lauren Lombardo, Senior Policy Analyst
Peter Warren, Senior Advisor
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government
Innovation
Nancy Mace, South Carolina, Chairwoman
William Timmons, South Carolina Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Ranking Minority Member
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Ro Khanna, California
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nick Langworthy, New York Jimmy Gomez, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Vacancy Vacancy
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 26, 2023.................................... 1
Witnesses
----------
Mr. Jeffrey Register, Director, Defense Human Resources Activity,
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel &
Readiness
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Ms. Elizabeth Field, Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement................................................... 7
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. Register; submitted by Rep.
Mace.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Register; submitted by Rep.
Connolly.
* Questions for the Record: to Ms. Field; submitted by Rep.
Mace.
* Questions for the Record: to Ms. Field; submitted by Rep.
Connolly.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
GETTING NOWHERE: DOD'S FAILURE TO
REPLACE THE DEFENSE TRAVEL SYSTEM
----------
Wednesday, July 26, 2023
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government
Innovation
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m.,
2154 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nancy Mace [Chairwoman
of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Mace, Timmons, Connolly, Khanna,
and Mfume.
Ms. Mace. Good afternoon, you all. The Subcommittee on
Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government
Innovation will now come to order. I apologize for my delay. I
learned at the Citadel if you are on time, you are late, and I
was very late today, so I apologize, Mr. Connolly. But welcome,
everyone, and thanks for your patience today.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time, and I recognize myself for the purpose of making an
opening statement.
Good afternoon, and welcome to this hearing of the
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and
Government Innovation. We are here today to get answers and
accountability concerning the most recent IT acquisition
failure at the Defense Department. It is not a major weapons
system contract we are talking about. This is a garden-variety
travel booking system upgrade, and that is exactly what makes
this failure so disturbing.
As DoD acquisition expert, Bill Greenwalt, of the American
Enterprise Institute recently wrote, and I quote, ``The
Department's inability to bring online something as mundane as
a workable tool for business travel does not bode well for its
other efforts at accessing commercial technology and providers
for military solutions. In artificial intelligence, data
analytics, and a host of other areas, DoD is light years behind
the commercial market. How can anyone expect the companies that
make these technologies to do business with the Pentagon when
it cannot even adopt a relatively simple piece of software?''
After years of planning, DoD was, up until a few months
ago, on course to finally replace its decades-old legacy travel
system with a modern software-as-a-service solution reflecting
commercial best practices. DoD's travel-related expenses, which
chiefly fund temporary duty travel for civilian and military
personnel, amounted last year alone to $8 billion. But hundreds
of millions of those dollars were wasted on improper payments.
Additional dollars were wasted implementing manual workarounds
the system requires. These are funds diverted every year from
the agency's warfighting mission.
The annual cash bleed and user frustration under the
existing system is so bad that DoD used it to justify the
issuance, in 2021, of a noncompetitive, sole-source contract
for a replacement system. It was that important to exit their
travel system as soon as possible.
Last October, DoD Under Secretary for Personnel and
Readiness, Gil Cisneros, instructed all DoD components that
they were to move to the new travel system, and that course was
affirmed when the agency's budget proposal was issued this past
March. But just 2 months later, that all changed. In May, Under
Secretary Cisneros issued a new memo that pulled the plug on
the whole project and told all components to stick with or
return to the old system.
Since then, in media comments and briefings with Committee
staff, DoD has offered a variety of excuses for scrapping the
effort to replace its archaic travel system. To put it
politely, the excuses are lame, and they do not add up.
That is why I invited Under Secretary Cisneros to
personally come here today and tell us what went wrong. Mr.
Cisneros is not here, however, so why is that? DoD never
indicated Mr. Cisneros is unavailable. Instead, the agency
officials decided to put forward one of Mr. Cisneros'
subordinates, who they deemed better able to answer our
questions. It is not clear how they arrived at that decision.
Two weeks ago, there was a Joint Subcommittee hearing held
in this very room concerning DoD's failed financial audit. One
of the witnesses was John Tenaglia, who is the Senior
Procurement Executive at DoD, who approved the sole-sourcing of
the new travel system contract. I asked Mr. Tenaglia who was
responsible for the recent cancellation of that contract, and
he said--you can check the tape on this--he said, ``That is
under the purview of the Under Secretary of Personnel and
Readiness.'' That is Mr. Cisneros, who is not here today.
So, that is who we invited to testify. That is who did not
show up. So, they sent his subordinate. That sounds to me like
an attempt really to dodge accountability, and the American
people, that is not what they ask us to do up here. Even when
we make mistakes, we need the people who are responsible to
come up here to answer our questions so we can avoid such
mistakes in the future. But that is not what is going to happen
today.
So, Mr. Register, for your sake, I do not want to hear you
say today that you cannot answer our questions because they are
above your pay grade. I am going to lose it if that happens.
So, with that I am going to yield to the Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee, Mr. Connolly. You are on deck.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I join you
in believing Mr. Cisneros should be here. The executive branch
has a responsibility to be accountable to the legislative
branch, and if this is his aegis, if this is his lane, in terms
of managerial responsibility, he needs to be here and
accountable to the American people, here at the people's house
in Congress.
I want to begin by applauding President Biden's historic
nomination, since we are talking about DoD, of Admiral Lisa
Franchetti, to serve as the Chief of Naval Operations, the
highest-ranking officer of the United States Navy. Admiral
Franchetti has a tremendous amount of experience at sea and at
shore, including numerous high-level policy and administrative
positions. If confirmed, Admiral Franchetti would be the first
woman to be a Pentagon service chief and the first female
member of the Chiefs of Staff.
Unfortunately, Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville has
created a national security vulnerability by actively
obstructing all--all--pending promotions, for generals and
admirals in the U.S. armed forces, to limit women
servicemembers' access to reproductive health. The Senator's
blockade is affecting more than 250 leaders waiting for
promotion, and their families, including those of Admiral
Franchetti.
The Pentagon rightly implemented new policies to
effectively acknowledge the reality of the military's evolving
makeup, but Senate Republicans shamelessly hijacked that
nomination process and threatened our country's national
security to forward their agenda.
According to the Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, and I
quote, ``This indefinite hold harms America's national security
and hinders the Pentagon's normal operation. The United States
military relies on the deep experience and the strategic
expertise of our senior military leaders. The longer that this
hold persists, the greater the risk that the U.S. military runs
in every theater, every domain, and every service.''
Furthermore, 2 weeks ago, Republicans here voted, almost
unanimously, to pass an amendment in the NDAA that
unequivocally limits servicemembers' access to abortion
services. It is particularly disingenuous for Republicans to
demand that military leadership fix the recruitment problem
while simultaneously trying to force the Pentagon to enforce
draconian policies that compromise women's reproductive
autonomy, deny medical care for transgendered troops, and
eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives
specifically created to improve that recruitment.
To quote the former senior advisor to the Secretary of
Defense, Bishop Garrison, ``When the military gets recruits
from diverse backgrounds there will be more innovative thought,
more innovative solutions to incredibly complex and complicated
problems that are facing the national security apparatus
today.'' And a lack of innovative thought is exactly why DoD
has failed to replace its antiquated and much maligned travel
management system, related also, I might add, to its IT
platforms.
In 2017, the Department began the effort to replace its
legacy travel system, which has been plagued by high levels of
improper payments. Eventually, DoD selected Concur Technologies
to develop a prototype of a new travel management system. Based
on the information available to us, it appears that the initial
prototype and trial phase of DoD's new travel system showed
promise. In fact, in 2021, after the prototype was, quote,
``deemed successful,'' unquote, DoD awarded Concur a 7-year,
sole-source contract to implement a commercial software-as-a-
service program known as MyTravel.
Last fall, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness issued a memorandum mandating the use of the new
system. But at the last minute, DoD pulled back. A few weeks
ago, DoD rescinded the memo mandating the use of MyTravel and
canceled the sole-source contract for the buildout of the
system. In short, DoD hired a contractor who delivered a
functional product, but because the individual military
services failed to uphold the commitments they previously had
made to alter their financial management infrastructure--which
is, as the Chair indicated at our last hearing, a mess, with
over 400 individual financial management systems in the
Pentagon. What could go wrong with that?--the new tool thus
remained incompatible with their multiplicity system.
It is unbelievable that DoD continues to use the financial
management infrastructure that was criticized, as I said in our
last hearing, which contains more than 400 unique financial
systems, operating across 10,000 disaggregated data management
systems and 4,700 data warehouses.
While auditability is an important priority, DoD's focus on
compliance with legal auditing requirements does not address
the issues caused by the antiquated IT and travel systems.
Until IT systems are modernized, which is why I fully support a
hearing on the FITARA scorecard so that we can continue to
press for updates and modernization investments. Passing an
audit will not just be difficult, but impossible.
And if we pan back, we also see DoD has a history of
resistance against basic oversight despite being given a litany
of exemptions from fundamental management requirements and
possessing the largest single budget in human history.
For example, we appreciate Mr. John Sherman coming to our
Subcommittee last year to testify on Federal Information
Technology Acquisition Reform Act, FITARA, I helped co-author,
to improve agency's management of IT resources and drive best
practices. However, it is concerning that DoD is exempted from
certain provisions within that law and is still only achieving
a C on the scorecard.
As a reminder, these grades are not scarlet letters, but
they do emphasize the need for agencies to take IT
modernization seriously, and today's subject at today's hearing
is illustrative of that. Furthermore, DoD must meet its mission
to protect national security without sacrificing commonsense,
good governance practices. DoD must justify the exemptions they
want to retain through demonstrated responsible outcomes. You
cannot have it both ways.
DoD spends billions and billions of taxpayer dollars every
year for which they need to account. This fundamental activity,
the basics of clean bookkeeping, will not occur unless DoD can
first meet integral, good governance management standards that
lay the building blocks for serving this Nation effectively.
Among those fundamentals is replacing ineffective legacy IT
systems with up-to-date, contemporary, nimble systems that
concurrently reduce fraud and enhance customer service.
Congress must get this nearly decade-long effort to modernize
DoD's travel system back on track to address the agency's
hundreds of millions of dollars of improper payments every year
or continue to risk not only travel convenience but military
readiness.
I yield back.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
I am pleased today to introduce our witnesses for today's
hearing, and also my teenage kids just walked in and wanted to
say hi, and recognize I am waving at the teenagers in the
audience, not at our witnesses. So, pardon me, but this is
their first time seeing a hearing and seeing their mom chairing
a hearing. So, I am kind of stoked. Mom is stoked about them
being here, although they are embarrassed.
Our first witness today is Mr. Jeffrey Register, Director
of the Defense Human Resources Activity, reporting to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Our second
witness is Ms. Elizabeth Field, Director of Defense
Capabilities and Management, U.S. Government Accountability
Office, or GAO. Welcome, everyone. I welcome you two. We are
pleased to have you this afternoon.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses, if you will
please stand and raise your right hands.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Register. I do.
Ms. Field. I do.
Ms. Mace. Thank you. Let the record show that the witnesses
all answered in the affirmative, and Miles and Ellie, this is
where it gets real.
Today, we appreciate all of you being here today and look
forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we
have read your written statements and they will appear in full
in the hearing record. Please limit your oral statements to 5
minutes. As a reminder, please press the button on the
microphone in front of you so that it is on, and the Members
can hear you.
When you begin to speak, a light in front of you will turn
green. After 4 minutes the light will turn yellow, and when the
red light comes on your 5 minutes has expired, and we would ask
that you please wrap it up.
Today, first I want to recognize Mr. Register for your
opening statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY REGISTER
DIRECTOR, DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS
Mr. Register. Chairwoman Mace, Ranking Member Connolly, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you for this oversight hearing on
the Department's decision to not exercise the next contract
option period for MyTravel. Our path to improve DoD's travel
systems has been long, but despite the challenges, the
Department remains committed to travel modernization in support
of our work force. The Department decided not to exercise the
next contract option, recognizing it was the fiscally
responsible way forward when faced with the challenges that I
will outline today. Rest assured, the Defense Travel System,
DTS, is fully capable of meeting DoD's travel mission.
The Department faced significant challenges in the
continued implementation of MyTravel which ultimately led to
the decision not to exercise the next option period. That
decision was made for two reasons: unexpectedly low use of
MyTravel and the Department's prioritization of passing a
``clean audit'' over Enterprise Resource Planning, or ERP,
financial management systems integration. In 2019, the services
originally committed to integrate their ERP systems between
September 2021 and January 2023. However, there were continued
delays due to the shift in other Service ERP systems
priorities, primarily supporting audit remediation, which led
to extending the timeline to accommodate those delays.
Unlike DTS, MyTravel was intended to be a travel system
that leveraged the financial management capabilities of the
ERPs which meant the services needed to add more features to
their ERPs before shifting to MyTravel. DTS allows Department
components to be fully audit-compliant without needing the
services to further invest in their ERPs. We eventually reached
a point where we could not accommodate any more delays, and
given that we still lacked firm commitments from the services
on the timeline for ERP integration, we could not continue with
the contract due to the cost to the Department.
Despite the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness's mandatory use directive for onboarded defense
agencies, a robust training program, onboarding support, and
executive-level engagement, usage of the system lagged behind
estimated and contracted transaction volumes. The low adoption
rate for onboarded organizations coupled with a slower than
anticipated return to travel after COVID-19 restrictions were
lifted, resulted in less than 12 percent system usage as of the
end of April 2023.
While our decision may appear abrupt, the Department has
been discussing the challenges and potential courses of action
for MyTravel for some time prior to the announcement. Although
the program made significant advances, continued implementation
of MyTravel is no longer in the best interests of the
Department.
The most fiscally sound way forward was to not exercise the
next contract option period. This was determined after
consulting with the offices of the Under Secretaries for
Personnel and Readiness, Comptroller, and Acquisition and
Sustainment. Without the commitments from the military
departments and the travel transaction volumes they were
expected to provide, it was not prudent or fiscally responsible
to proceed with a $44 million contract option for a system
being poorly utilized.
Going forward, my organization will lead a collaborative
analysis to review lessons learned from MyTravel and other
factors to determine the best approach going forward. That will
include functional, technical, and acquisition strategies to
best meet the Department's needs while exercising sound
financial stewardship. MyTravel was intended to be a cost
savings for the Department, but that has not been the case.
Until our analysis is complete, DoD will continue to utilize
DTS, which is already used for the majority of Department's
temporary duty travel and has been significantly improved to
include many of the cost-saving features originally envisioned
for MyTravel.
As I previously said, DTS fully supports audit readiness
requirements. It is also compliant with all DoD cybersecurity
requirements and its customer satisfaction ratings are greater
than 80 percent.
In closing, Madam Chairwoman, I thank you, the Ranking
Member, and the Members of this Subcommittee for your
outstanding and continuing support of the men and women who
proudly wear the uniform in defense of our great Nation.
I look forward to your questions.
Ms. Mace. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Field to begin her
opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH FIELD
DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Field. Chairwoman Mace, Ranking Member Connolly, and
Members and staff of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to participate in today's hearing on DoD's decision
to discontinue its move to the new MyTravel system.
I want to be clear from the outset that GAO, the
nonpartisan, fact-based investigative arm of Congress, has not
had the opportunity to conduct an audit on the MyTravel system
or the circumstances surrounding its termination. In fact, it
is probably fair to say that today we have more questions than
we do answers.
That said, I would like to offer my observations on three
things that we do know.
First, we know that DoD has long held concerns about the
Department's legacy travel system, known as DTS. As DoD stated
in 2021, DTS suffered from poor usability, low customer
satisfaction, and improper payments of travel entitlements.
Some of these problems were evident early on. In a series of
audit reports that GAO issued between 2005 and 2009, we
identified significant system deficiencies with DTS, such as
inaccurate displays of flight and airfare information and
weaknesses in controls designed to detect and deter travel that
did not comply with DoD regulations. GAO made 14
recommendations to DoD to address these problems, most of which
DoD implemented.
More recently, in 2019, we found that DoD needed to do more
to avoid improper payments in its travel pay program. As you
know, improper payments include those made in the wrong amount
or that should not have been made.
While many of the problems we identified with improper
payments related to user error, some had to do with the system
itself. For example, at the time of our audit, a tool that DoD
had developed within DTC to automatically review vouchers and
look for possible improper payments did not flag all types of
voucher errors, such as those that had been submitted without
required receipts. We made five recommendations in our 2019
report, and to DoD's credit it moved quickly to implement them.
Nonetheless, DoD officials continued to have concerns about
DTS. As recently as late 2022, DoD officials instructed
organizations throughout the defense enterprise to phaseout DTS
and move to the new MyTravel system, citing it as an industry-
leading product.
The second thing we know is that cross-cutting agency
reform is hard, especially at an agency as large and complex as
the Department of Defense. DoD's multiyear, multimillion-dollar
effort to replace DTS is just one example of unsuccessful
attempts Department officials have made to roll out new
enterprise-wide systems or to fundamentally change how the
Department does business. In 2005, GAO added DoD's approach to
business transformation to its High-Risk List because the
Department had not taken the necessary steps to achieve and
sustain business reform on a broad, strategic, department-wide,
and integrated basis.
Creating a new enterprise-wide IT system for DoD is a
particularly challenging endeavor, given the many weaknesses in
the Department's operating environment. DoD has hundreds of IT
and financial management systems, some of them created as far
back as the 1960's, and many of them not designed to be
auditable. As GAO reported in 2000, DoD does not have a clear
picture of its systems' environment, nor does it have a well-
defined roadmap with performance measures, targets, and
timeframes for modernizing its countless IT systems.
GAO has also reported that DoD does not have adequate
guidance to ensure that any new IT systems only move into
development if the Department can document that they meet
certain requirements, such as any unique interface
requirements.
Without making a judgment as to whether DoD should have
adopted the new MyTravel system, I would suggest that this
experience may offer some insight into business transformation
more broadly at the Department, which brings me to my third and
final point.
Through decades of careful research and audit work, GAO has
identified traits of successful and unsuccessful reform
efforts, and based on that work developed a set of key
questions that can be used to assess reform efforts, questions
such as to what extent has the agency established clear
outcome-oriented goals and performance measures for the
proposed reforms, and is there a dedicated implementation team
that has the capacity, including staffing and resources, to
manage the reform process.
These questions may sound simple, and to a certain extent
they are, but so often we find that unsuccessful reform efforts
missed the mark in at least one of these areas. I offer them as
a resource for both Congress and DoD in examining the MyTravel
case. Perhaps some of the answers will become evident through
today's hearing.
Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to
your questions.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Ms. Field, and I would now like to
recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
As I said in my opening remarks, many of us are frustrated
by the lack of accountability, the lack of transparency
concerning what happened here. It is a bipartisan frustration.
And, in fact, I think this failure to adopt a new travel system
stems from a lack of management accountability within DoD. And
compared to the civilian world, we envision our military as a
clear hierarchy in which orders are handed down and then
carried out. The lines of authority seem blurred when it comes
to DoD business operations. I think it is very obvious here.
The primary reason Under Secretary Cisneros pulled the plug
on adoption of the new travel system in May was that too few
DoD components were prepared to use it because they had not
finished the necessary financial management system integration
work. Is that correct, Mr. Register? Yes or no.
Mr. Register. That is correct.
Ms. Mace. OK. I want to know how that happened. So, they
knew this program was coming and yet seemingly did not do
anything to prepare. Under what authority did Under Secretary
Cisneros issue his October memo instructing DoD components to
adopt MyTravel?
Mr. Register. I cannot speak to the authorities of the
Under Secretary. I will have to take that one for the record.
Ms. Mace. Right, which is why we actually asked him to be
here, and now you are here, and now you are telling me it is
above your pay grade. So, like why are you here if you cannot--
I mean, this is literally the first question, and you cannot
answer it.
Mr. Register. I am here to represent the Department when it
comes to the decisions related to the contract and the decision
not to----
Ms. Mace. Was the Under Secretary delegated to that
authority by the Secretary of Defense?
Mr. Register. I will have to take that for the record,
Chairwoman.
Ms. Mace. That is the second question that you cannot
answer today.
So, why do you think component heads did not prioritize the
adoption of the new system? Why did that happen?
Mr. Register. Madam Chairwoman, the audit remediation
requirements in pursuit of the overall audit readiness impacted
the services' ability to integrate into the MyTravel platform.
Ms. Mace. OK. So, tell me in English, what does that mean?
Nobody understands what you just said.
Mr. Register. Madam Chairwoman, so----
Ms. Mace. I do not think this is funny. Like, I really do
not. Now you are laughing at me. You are coming up here and you
cannot even answer two of the first three questions, and you
are now giving me some B.S. answer. I do not understand it. How
much money was wasted on this?
Mr. Register. Madam Chairwoman, I do not view the
investment that was made in MyTravel as being a waste of money.
As the Department has been trying to innovate in this travel
space, we are taking----
Ms. Mace. Who decided that the best course of action in May
was to cancel the contract?
Mr. Register. That was a coordinated decision within the
Department in coordination----
Ms. Mace. Who decided that?
Mr. Register. The Under Secretary of Personnel and
Readiness, in coordination with the Comptroller and Acquisition
and Sustainment.
Ms. Mace. Do you know how they came to that decision?
Mr. Register. It was based on the information that the
program put forward and where we stood in terms of courses of
action in terms of where to take MyTravel going forward within
this fiscal year.
Ms. Mace. So, DoD justified that a sole-source contract for
a new system just a few years ago by arguing that it was
wasting a lot of money? They actually said that, under the
existing system? In fact, there is a document that we have
here. This is a document that is a justification for the sole-
source contract. It is pretty redacted when you start it, and I
do not really know why it is redacted. In fact, on page 4, the
second paragraph, the first line, ``The DoD has incurred
``blank'' in costs to modernize travel.'' They could not even
tell us how much was spent to modernize travel either.
Ms. Field, I have about a minute left so since my first
witness cannot answer really any relevant questions or answer
them very well, my last few questions are for you. It seems
like this project was moving along well for a few years before
it went off the rails. Was there a change at some point in how
the travel system replacement project was managed within DoD
that contributed to the failure?
Ms. Field. There was a change. Specifically, the reform
effort to create the MyTravel program had been run out of a
cross-functional team that was overseen by the First Deputy,
Chief Management Officer, and then the Chief Management Officer
and the Reform Management Group. When those units were
disbanded, when the Chief Management Officer position went
away, there was a clear disruption in leadership for this
effort. The extent to which that is one of the factors behind
the demise of MyTravel I do not know, but it certainly would
bear----
Ms. Mace. Is there anyone in charge of managing business
functions across the DoD?
Ms. Field. Well, certainly the Chief Information Officer
has a key role to play in managing business systems, but as of
right now there are three chairs that sort of co-chair the
Defense Business Council.
Ms. Mace. OK. Thank you, and I yield back. Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
In October 2022, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, Gilbert Cisneros, who is not here,
issued a memorandum mandating--mandating--the use of MyTravel
as, quote, ``the single official travel system,'' unquote, and
instructing all DoD organizations that are not currently
integrated with MyTravel to, quote, ``develop an interface with
that system.''
Seven months later, that instruction was rescinded. Mr.
Register, why?
Mr. Register. Ranking Member, that memo was rescinded
because we were not getting the travel volume that we were
attempting to get under the current contract, so a decision was
then made that based on the low volume, low usage to date, and
the low forecasted usage, given that we did not have a timeline
for the services to integrate, that is what led to the business
decision to not exercise the $44 million contract option.
Mr. Connolly. So, travel had declined in DoD.
Mr. Register. Ranking Member, no, not travel at writ large.
It was limited use of the MyTravel capability.
Mr. Connolly. But he had instructed that they were to use
MyTravel.
Mr. Register. That was the mandate for the fourth estate,
the defense agencies and activities, was to utilize MyTravel.
That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. So, you are saying people disregarded that
instruction, and because of that, the Pentagon decided rather
than enforce the memo from the man charged with the
responsibility, they would rescind his instruction. That is how
we are going to deal with saluting and obeying orders in the
Pentagon, at least when it comes to travel.
Mr. Register. Ranking Member, I do not necessarily agree
with that statement. The MyTravel capability was not fully
ready for all forms of travel. We were trying to build as much
travel volume as possible since it was a subscription contract,
the number of trips on the contract. But as we found out, at
least through this last fiscal year, the agencies and
activities preferred to travel within DTS, both from a
usability standpoint and because DTS better supported audit
readiness requirements.
Mr. Connolly. Somebody gave a sole-source contract for
MyTravel, right?
Mr. Register. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. Presumably, when you do that, award the
contract, you have made a qualitative decision that that is the
capability we need, and you have made a decision, we have to
replace the capability we currently have for various
inadequacies and weakness. Is that correct?
Mr. Register. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. So, I understand maybe a memo that is not a
recission, but we are going to delay a little bit the
implementation because of travel volume and for everyone to get
with the program, but to rescind it is essentially to put up
the white and flag and say we are not going to proceed anymore
and keep on doing what you are doing in the old system. Would
that be a fair interpretation of what happened?
Mr. Register. Ranking Member, not exactly. Since the
approach that the Department has taken with MyTravel from the
outset has been an innovative, agile, cost-savings approach
from the get-go, so as that production contract was let there
was still development that was required. It was an agile
development process. Given that the services could not get the
ERPs integrated in time got us to this juncture this Fiscal
Year where it made no business sense to continue and wait for
that and exercise that next contract option, that it was just
fiscally irresponsible.
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Field, is that the analysis of GAO? Is
that what happened?
Ms. Field. Well, again, we have not done an audit and I
have limited information, but I would offer just a few
thoughts. The first is that when you think about the bulk of
travel that happens at the Department it is by the services.
They are the biggest components. So, if the services do not
agree to make adjustments to their systems to connect to
MyTravel, of course you do not have the volume of travel that
you need to make the investment worthwhile.
Mr. Connolly. Let me interrupt you there. The Under
Secretary of Defense, civilian control, said, ``This is the
system. You will use it.'' What do you mean, services get to--
what is that, odd referendum?
Ms. Field. So, we have seen, on more than one occasion, and
this is just the latest, incidents in which the Department, at
the OSD level, wants to reform a business operation enterprise-
wide, and the services do not agree, and the reform efforts
fail.
Mr. Connolly. Madam Chair, my time is up, but I certainly
am prepared to join with you in insisting Mr. Cisneros come
back for a subsequent hearing to account for this story.
Ms. Mace. Or else.
Mr. Connolly. Well, we are nicer than that, but----
Ms. Mace. I am not. I am not. Not today.
Mr. Connolly. No peaches for him.
Ms. Mace. No peaches for him, but maybe Mr. Timmons can be
a little bit nicer than us today. But thank you.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am going to try to be productive with my 5 minutes. I am
one of six Members of Congress that also serves in the Guard or
the Reserves, out of 535. I actually have drill in August. I am
currently CAC-ed in, and I am on the DTS website. I have
personally had really, really bad experience with DTS. I have
multiple times had to use my own resources to get to trainings,
because flights were canceled.
And I have been texting with a number of people that I
serve with in the South Carolina National Guard, and it is
interesting because while I hate DTS, they actually think it is
OK. The platform is OK. The issue is the manner in which the
approvals are necessary to actually authorize the travel. So, I
book my flight, and I get an authorization, and it does not get
approved because probably three, four, or five people actually
have to sign off on it. And that is a challenge because, one, I
am in the Guard, and not everybody is active.
So, I guess my first question, do you have any data about
the disparity between the approval ratings for DTS between
active versus the Guard and Reserve components? Mr. Register,
would you have any thoughts, even anecdotal?
Mr. Register. I do not have any anecdotal references
between the two. I can certainly understand, knowing----
Mr. Timmons. If you do not use it on a regular basis----
Mr. Register. Exactly.
Mr. Timmons [continuing]. If you use it every 6 months,
that can become a problem, and you do not know who to hound to
make sure that they grant your approval.
Now I will say this, and I think it might give some of my
colleagues some color to the challenge. MyTravel apparently was
just horrific. I mean, it just did not work, and it was not
functional. I guess the idea was to try to streamline all of
these issues and provide some new technology to address this
challenge, but it just did not work. And I would imagine that
it seemed like a really good idea, and once they started
implementing it everybody said, ``This just does not work.''
So, I do believe that our former colleague, Mr. Cisneros,
should come and chat with us about this, but I have a feeling
that is what he is going to say. He is going to say, ``It
seemed like a good idea at the time, and we tried to fix it,
and we realized that the solution that we thought was the
solution was actually way worse than the previous one.''
So, I guess, you know, I use Uber Eats a lot, and when he
arrives at my door, I get a message saying, ``The food has
arrived. Come get it.'' I mean, theoretically, the biggest
challenge with DTS is the lack of real-time communication
between the individual, the servicemember, and the approval
authorities. I am assuming it is at least one, two, three, or
four, depending on the individual's rank.
Is there a way that you could add some sort of a
notification component to DTS to streamline that process?
Because it seems the biggest challenge is, one, people do not
know how to use it--that is me. I do not know how to use it. I
rely on other people for that. But two, it is the approval
process. Is there a way to address that?
Mr. Register. There are some system abilities to address
that. In some regard, our hands are tied, so to speak, based on
the Federal requirements of travel approval. So, there needs to
be that accountability built into the system for audit purposes
and that sort of thing. But I think DTS, quite honestly, has
improved in the past three to 5 years, to help streamline that
to some degree----
Mr. Timmons. And I will say this. I was commissioned June
10 of 2018, so I have been in 5 years now, and not until about,
I do not know, 18 to 24 months ago I could not even get on my
email or access any of the Air Force portals unless I was on
base, using a particular computer. And even on base it was
hard. So, we have made huge strides. The fact that I am able to
use a MacBook Pro has made my life drastically easier.
And, you know, I think one thing that we need to think
about when we are looking at this, there is a dollar component
of it. The biggest problem is you are going to be giving a
servicemember money that they are not owed, because when you
figure that out later, they do not have that money, or often
times they do not have that. So, we can look at it from that
perspective.
But I guess the other thing, and I think the bigger problem
is we need to address--I mean, I hate to even use this--it is a
mental health issue for servicemembers. When you are sitting
here trying to manage something that is not within your control
that really should be easier, it really drives you up the wall.
And I have had more frustrations trying to manage DTS than I
care to talk about. But I do think that the Pentagon is trying
to move it in the right direction, trying to improve, and I
guess we can try to help them in that endeavor.
Thank you for being here, and with that, Madam Chair, I
yield back.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Timmons. I will now recognize Mr.
Mfume for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to
thank you for holding this hearing and share with you my
expression of frustration also. I, for the life of me, just
cannot understand why persons who are duly appointed refuse to
show up at congressional hearings to discuss very important
facts and details about the operation they are overseeing. I
mean, that just makes no sense whatsoever. And there really is
no explanation for it. I mean, this is how we get to subpoenas.
You know, you invite, they do not show up. You invite again.
They do not show up. And then, all of a sudden, there is an
effort within the Committee to subpoena someone. It is not
because we want to do it. This is the only way we can talk to
people.
Mr. Register, I am not here to blame you because you are
just carrying out the duty of a person who is above you. But it
is frustrating, I can tell you that. And I do not even know
that I have any questions because my questions will not be able
to get answered. The Chair has just proven that. So, my
frustration is sort of overflowing here.
I do have one question, though, for you, Ms. Field. Are you
aware of Asif Khan at GAO?
Ms. Field. Mr. Asif Khan from our Financial Management and
Assurance team, yes.
Mr. Mfume. Yes. He was kind enough to come here a couple of
weeks ago. We did a joint hearing. And Mr. Asif Khan is the
Director of Financial Management and Assurance at GAO. This was
a joint hearing that we held on the DoD, and Mr. Khan
highlighted the fact that there are over 400 systems in DoD.
And when asked by the gentlewoman from South Carolina how many
of those systems work, he said none of them, which just shocked
me, and I think both sides of this Committee hearing room. None
of them. Four hundred.
Then he went on to say that since 1995, DoD has been on a
risk list. In other words, every year they pose a substantial
risk in terms of their auditing and their financial management,
and they get cited for it. But they were here asking that we
sign off, again, on the appropriations bill so that they might
be able to continue their work.
Four hundred financial systems. They do not communicate
with each other. He said they do not have any controls, and so
the information is not passed from one system to another,
including the system that we are talking about here today, and
that is this whole matter of travel and everything that might
be related to it.
I am just flabbergasted. And Madam Chair, I would support
whatever effort you and the Ranking Member should come up with
to make sure that this does not happen. This is an affront to a
democratic process, and I am sure it is an affront to men and
women all over the country who are watching this and are saying
to themselves, also, I cannot believe what you say because I
see what you do. And then since you do not do anything, like
show up at a duly called meeting, what you say, Mr. Cisneros,
does not matter at all.
Let me go one step further, and while I am at it, I want to
reiterate what the Ranking Member said regarding the problem
that we are having from the other body, which is how we refer
to the Senate, with the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Tuberville,
who has continued to hold up hundreds of DoD appointments,
putting our Nation at risk in a number of different ways, and
creating a situation through this boycott to confirm people
that is, in my estimation, just as damaging. And I want to
mention that even though that is not the subject of this
hearing because it is doing equal damage, I am sure.
So, I thank you both for doing your duty, for showing up,
but I hope, Mr. Register, you take the word back, if it is not
being taken back already, that there is near unanimity in this
Committee for a better approach to our invitations to join and
to give information to the American public.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Mfume. Not only an affront but
offensive and thank you for your comments. We agree with you.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Khanna for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your
leadership. I just want to echo my colleagues' comments that it
is unacceptable for the Honorable Gilbert Cisneros not to be
here. Especially someone who has served in Congress should
understand that they need to be here. And look, I worked at the
Commerce Department. You know, the Under Secretary can show up.
It is not the Secretary. I was a Deputy Assistant Secretary,
and the Under Secretary has enough time to come to a
congressional hearing. It is not like we are asking Secretary
Austin to come.
And this issue is a concern. I mean, I have been outspoken
about some of the fraud and abuse and waste in the Department
of Defense, and this is one of the areas where there needs to
be accountability. And to not be here answering questions
really is not a good look. So, I would urge you to take this
back to the Under Secretary, and I believe there is going to be
bipartisan cooperation to have him come here whenever this will
be convened again.
You know, this is one of the challenges with all of this.
It exposes the technology gap in the Department of Defense. I
mean, the idea that the Department of Defense still excludes
many of its IT systems from FITARA is a real issue, and I would
like to get your thoughts on that. And I would also like to get
your thoughts, with Chair Mace last week we introduced the
SEARCH Act, H.R. 4793, that would require agencies to use
modern technology, like AI, large language models, to improve
government search functions, to make information easily
accessible to the American public.
Would implementing LLMs and modern AI technology help
improve DoD websites, as this bill would specifically require
the usage and implementation of AI and LLMs? Would it help
improve, potentially, the travel system and MyTravel? Ms.
Field?
Ms. Field. I think the issues with DoD's business systems
are so vast, frankly, that what we need first, as the
Department considers AI or any other technologies, are two
things. One is a clear business enterprise roadmap, so that
Department officials know what systems they are going to
modernize, which legacy systems they are going to get rid of,
how they are going to do it, when they are going to do it. And
they need an updated, federated business enterprise
architecture, something that the Department initially told us,
at GAO, they would have by the end of last year. We do not have
it, and we do not have a timeline for receiving it either.
Mr. Khanna. I agree with that, but certainly you would
agree that having modern AI technology, in general, for DoD
functions would be a good thing.
Ms. Field. I think modernizing across the board to include
AI certainly is a function that could show promise for the
Department, yes.
Mr. Khanna. Mr. Register?
Mr. Register. I agree with that premise, and as it relates
to MyTravel, I think we have proven that modern technology can
be utilized, and a software-as-a-service capability does have
promise. We just need to prioritize our financial integration
and really dig into whether certain commercial offerings,
subscription offerings, for example, at a firm, fixed price,
are in the best interest of the government.
Mr. Khanna. I appreciate both of your answers. I have
enjoyed working with Chair Mace in the past on trying to
modernize our government. In the last Congress, we did things
with preparing the government for quantum. I am honored to be
working with her on the SEARCH Act of AI.
But I also just want to echo that I support her efforts to
hold accountability of the DoD travel system and will be
working with her to make sure that we have the appropriate
folks here to answer the questions.
With that I yield back.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Khanna, and in closing I want to
thank our panelists again for their testimony today. I want to
thank Mr. Khanna, too, for your leadership as well. We work
together a lot. You do not see that a lot up here, but I
appreciate your bipartisanship on this Committee, as always.
And in closing, I need to say something to you, Mr.
Register, about this hearing today. On June 30, I wrote to
Under Secretary Cisneros requesting documents that are relevant
to this hearing. Specifically, I requested the unredacted
version of this document of the Defense Travel Modernization
Justification documentation and approval of the sole-source
contract awarded to SAP to Concur. And in case the Department
is confused, this is a document that I want in unredacted
format that I just showed you, and I showed it earlier a couple
of times. I asked to have it by July 14. Today is July 26. We
are 12 days past the deadline, and I still have not received
the document.
I would like it by the end of the week. Will you commit
today to getting me this document, unredacted, for the
Oversight Committee, by the end of the week?
Mr. Register. Madam Chairwoman, the Department is
continuing to review your request.
Ms. Mace. How long does it take the DoD to review a
document, a five-page document, and whether or not they can
deliver it unredacted? How long does that process take?
Mr. Register. Madam Chairwoman, the Department is
continuing to review your request.
Ms. Mace. Your answers are such bullshit. Like I really,
like, take that back to Under Secretary Cisneros, that the next
time we have this hearing, he better show up. I am just sick
and tired of the bullshit, like truly. You know, you could not
deliver the document, and you are sitting here smirking at me,
like this is some freaking joke to you. This is not funny. You
guys waste billions of dollars every single year. You are
coming here mocking us. We have questions that you cannot
answer. You guys cannot deliver a simple document.
Your time is up. You do not get to speak, and this is my
Committee, so turn your microphone off.
But you cannot deliver the documents, you cannot deliver
the witness, and you cannot deliver the answers. And you are
just sitting there, smirking, with your smug look on your face,
laughing at us, and you think that this is respectful of the
institution, the institution of Congress, the institution of
men and women who put on the uniform every single day and put
their lives on the line. You come here and you act like this.
It is an insult to the American people.
So, I would suggest that you get a little professionalism
and respect for all of us up here, Republican and Democrat, and
next time you show up, show up with answers and show up with
the witness that we asked for.
So, with that, and without objection, all Members will have
5 legislative days within which to submit materials, to submit
any additional written questions for the witnesses. They can do
that. They will be forwarded to the witnesses for their
response.
If there is no further business, and there is not, without
objection, because this hearing is absolutely over, we stand
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]