[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.]