“An Update on DoD’s Struggling Background Check System”
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Thank you very much, chairman Sessions, and good morning to all of our witnesses. I wanna thank you, Mister Sessions, for your partnership on this issue and a lot of other issues that have come before this committee that really require a bipartisan approach. You've been very clear in that regard, and it has been clear, I think, also to the full committee and to others who've watched us over the last couple of years. Again, my thanks to the witnesses. When it comes to national security, I think we all can agree that partisanship stops at the water's edge.
At least that's what I was taught long ago. And it's important to underscore that, because our goal is straightforward. Deliver a background check system that keeps the United States of America safe. That also gets qualified people to work without delay, and continuously verifies that they deserve and have earned our trust. America, in my opinion, cannot hope to maintain our technological advantage in the national security space if we make the best engineers, scientists, linguists, analysts, and others spend months, if not years, sometimes, in limbo before they can serve.
And if we can't clear people, we can't complete our missions. It's very simple. The National Background Investigation Services or NBIS program was launched, as we all know, to replace the outdated, cumbersome legacy systems, to reduce backlogs, and to harden cybersecurity. However, successful implementation is still far from a reality, and the current plan is for technical capabilities in fiscal year 2027, full implementation in 2028, and continued rigorous oversight if necessary to get us across the finish line. Now since 2017, the government has spent about $2,400,000,000 on EnBIS and legacy sustainment to keep outdated systems up and running.
That is an awful lot of money. $2,400,000,000. And the department projects that about another 2,200,000,000 is needed to finish the job. So we're far off the mark of where we had hoped to be. It's an enormous amount of money for the government to spend on anything and have so very little to show for it.
I understand that this project reached a state of disarray, and that after 8 years of implementation, it had to return to a planning phase to restructure the entire acquisition strategy. This has left contractors in my district and districts all across the country stuck with unclear instructions and increased costs as they juggle various systems. In a region where roughly 9% of jobs require a security clearance, this really is not a small problem. It is a huge problem. It is a direct hit to workers and employers in my city of Baltimore and cities, towns, and hamlets all over this country east to west.
They depend on a functioning clearance system to be able to do their jobs. And so the consequences do not stop with my district or the chairman's district. This is chaos, and in many respects, it's also come with system outages that have stopped work on ground operations and have caused things to come to a halt all over the globe. These are more than just teachable moments, I hope, and these issues have real mission impacts. So here are a few points I'd like to hone in on and make sure are on the record today.
First, we need an ongoing sense of vigilance on this project. Otherwise, we'll be right here a year from now, treading water. The DCSA team has provided quarterly plans and gives a quarterly report to the industry. We need that in an ongoing fashion. But I pledge that we here in Congress are not going to get bored or look the other way, and we won't settle for surface-level check-the-box compliance exercises.
And I think many of you who have followed the work of this committee know that that's the case. We're gonna be and continue to be very dogged about trying to bring about change here. We'll make sure that the goals of Envis implementation are quantifiable and that they are very clear. We will be monitoring progress toward each milestone, and we will do that quarter by quarter. Secondly, we must ensure that transparent costs to taxpayers are just that transparent.
And so that taxpayers can trust Embass and trust also that the cost that they are paying, since it's more than doubled what was previously expected, will be looked at and looked over. I think all of us here agree, whether you're on this panel or in the audience, that we owe it to the American people to hold the department accountable for overruns and to prevent such gross mismanagement moving forward, both for the remaining steps of implementation and for future projects. Finally, I expect that real results from real people will be coming soon. We need to know that we are seeing measurable work and progress in bringing down the backlogs. We can't just trust that things are getting better, and we will not let up until we get GAO's seal of approval and can see for ourselves that the prospective employees are on the jobs as fast as possible.
I'm gonna repeat what the chairman just said, and that is that the last DCSA director, David Kattler, announced his retirement, as you heard, from his role in July. I cannot help but wonder how we are still sitting here seven months later, and we still don't have even a nominee for DCSA. Today, we have a director of Defense Intelligence and Security Agency before us overseeing DCSA. That's just one of the many duties, mister Overval, that you have. We appreciate your work, and we expect that you will keep Enbus on track as the acting director.
But it seems like that's a full-time job to me. And so I ask for the following clear, on the record commitments from the department. One, name a permanent DCSA director, and the plan for getting a qualified candidate into the position as soon as possible. Two, a full cost profile that ties dollars spent on Inbus to the effectiveness of personnel security reform, and three, a commitment to ongoing quarterly briefings about Envist's progress toward its stated milestones. And if any of those milestones slip, I would expect, and I'm sure the chairman would also, that the department will notify this subcommittee in writing within five business days, regarding the cause, the impact, and what the recovery plan is.
People in this country expect stewardship of their money, and they expect trust and trustworthy persons in and around the government to carry that out. And they expect the department and a trusted workforce onboarded without delay will become a reality very soon. They expect transparency when things go right and when they go wrong. That is the spirit of this hearing. There will also be transparency in measuring the progress or the lack thereof.
So if we do our jobs here, all of us, those of us who have sworn an oath and have the privilege of representing congressional districts and those of you who are working for the agency or other agencies, will turn plans into demonstrable results and turn intent into real and lasting impact. That's the spirit of this hearing today. I wanna thank again Chairman Sessions for being as dogged as he is in making sure that as a team we work together to bring about real and lasting change. Otherwise, we have really just failed our jobs and failed our mission. And, mister chairman, I would yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I know that the people who are witnesses today and have been a part of this for quite some time do recognize that you and I are attempting along with this subcommittee on a bipartisan basis to move a decision making and authority. And I concur completely with your comments that this hearing today will be the beginning of that, that increasingly upbeat tempo will be required on both sides. Without objection, I would allow and have Congressman Walkinshaw of Virginia, a very kind gentleman who's asked to be waived on to the subcommittee for the purpose of questioning the witnesses at today's subcommittee hearing. We welcome him to this subcommittee hearing.
Also, just to be nice and fair because she's my dear friend from the last couple hundred years, we welcome the distinguished chairman of the rules committee, also a member of this subcommittee. My dear friend, Virginia Fox. Virginia, welcome today. I'm delighted that you're here.
Speaker 1
Oh, well, you didn't make that, Virginia. For those of you who know, I have told Virginia for the last 20 years or so. Every day, I love you, Virginia. And, Virginia, I love you, and thank you. Too.
Yes. I'm pleased to welcome our witnesses for today. Mister Justin Overbaugh is currently serving as both the acting director of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency as well as the deputy undersecretary for defense for intelligence and security. In this important role as acting DCSA director, he's responsible for leading efforts to protect Americans' trusted workforce, trusted workspaces, and classified information. And, he has a daytime job and a nighttime job, obviously, because this is, Mr. Infume noted, a heavy lift, and we appreciate him, his professionalism, and taking time to be with us today.
Then we also welcome Alyssa Sizz, who serves as the director in defense capabilities and management team at GAO. In her role at the government accounting office, she oversees reviews on the personnel security clearance process, artificial intelligence, intelligence infrastructure, and DoD's approach to business transmissions, among other topics. And we have found her testimony, professionalism, and reliability to not only want to work with this subcommittee, but in the professional attribute that is related to her agency, and we welcome her. So thank you very much. I look forward to if I could have both of you stand and raise your right hand, for the purpose of administering the oath to the witnesses pursuant to committee rule nine g.
The witnesses that stand before us raise their right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God. Let the record reflect that both the witnesses answered the infirmity. Thank you very much, and you may take your seat. We are now going to move to recognizing the witnesses, and we appreciate you being here.
You're not new to this. You know that we've got a yellow light, a green light, red light. I would ask, as I always do, for the gentleman to understand that we would like our witnesses to give us the information that is necessary. And I am not going to stick to necessarily if I've been a rule, if either side goes over. But we are here today to get to the bottom of this because I think that this will be a hearing that whoever you hire will want to know how serious this is, and we'll want to know that it's been vetted not only by GAO, but the importance to each of these members that are here.
And so we're not gonna cut you off. We want you to give full testimony, full hearing, full articulation on the matter, and I'm delighted that you're here. The gentleman, Mr. Overbaugh, is now recognized.
Speaker 4
Good morning, Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Mfume, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is an honor and a privilege to represent the over 13,000 civilians, service members, and contractors of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency. I was appointed acting director of DCSA on 11/19/2025, with a clear mandate from the undersecretary of war for intelligence and security, the honorable Bradley Hansel, to ensure DCSA finally delivers the critical security capabilities our nation requires. I understand this committee has received testimony from previous leaders suggesting the agency was largely on track.
Respectfully, that assessment was too optimistic. The truth is DCSA has been an agency in the midst of an identity crisis. After it was cobbled together from disparate programs, DCSA never truly self-actualized or forged a unified culture. I contend that this foundational issue has directly contributed to the significant challenges in delivering both Trusted Workforce 2.0 and the National Background Investigation Services Program on time and on budget. It is my assessment that previous agency leadership, in an effort to establish a brand, focused more on marketing than on delivering value and allowing the value to speak for itself.
The agency's original purpose became blurred, drifting towards an intelligence-focused entity rather than embracing its vital security mission. Instead of focusing on executing its most important functions with excellence, the agency attempted to accumulate more missions, to the point that it failed to achieve its core purpose. Altogether, the lack of a viable vision, clear expectations, and leadership accountability from past department oversight allowed DCSA to fail. Undersecretary Hansel dismissed DCSA leadership because the transformation required here cannot be incremental. It must be complete and total.
He had little confidence that the leadership he inherited would have been successful in leading the change from a sclerotic, compliance-based bureaucracy to a customer-centric, business-oriented entity the Department of War and the nation need DCSA to be. While the undersecretary continues his search to select a new director with the optimal mix of private sector, technology, and government experience, he directed me and the interim DCSA leadership team to steer toward a business model that mirrors Secretary Heggsess' approach of eliminating bureaucratic processes in favor of speed and innovation. In my short time as acting director, I have found what I expected, a dedicated, talented and innovative workforce, unfortunately shackled by burdensome processes designed not to empower them, but to maintain the status quo, and sustain layers of management. Our focus now is on unleashing their potential. To that end, we are designing the agency for purpose, moving it from a cumbersome bureaucracy to an agile organization that can serve as a model for the rest of the government.
At DCSA, we will build a workforce of the future founded on a culture of meritocracy, efficiency, creativity, empowerment, and accountability that enables timely, risk-informed decisions. DCSA's struggles to deliver MMBIS and implement Trusted Workforce 2.0 are but symptoms of the deeper cultural problems I have outlined. These two efforts are not merely programs. They are the backbone of our national security personnel vetting enterprise. Their delivery is non-negotiable.
While the government accountability office rightly noted recent progress on the MBS program's cost and schedule estimates, we must be honest that this progress is fragile. Without the cultural and structural reforms we are now implementing, technical gains alone will not secure success. Absent this transformation and a refocus on its core mission, DCSA would surely continue to fail to meet its targets for embassy development and deployment. We look forward to partnering with GAO to give us an objective look at the agency, as we continue to make reforms. Undersecretary Hansel and I share as a top priority the delivery and development of INBUS by fiscal year 2028.
He and I are aided in this task by the Undersecretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Honorable Mike Duffy, who has designated MBIS as an acquisition category 1 special interest program, subjecting it to the highest level of scrutiny. At DCSA, we are overhauling our governance, acquisition strategy, and partnership with industry to ensure every decision serves the core mission. Through the trusted workforce implementation group, we work to validate the policy requirements and make sure that they are mature through the executive agents and are translated into real-world capabilities delivered by Embass. These goals are to get people to work faster, eliminate waste, optimize risk management, and improve the experience for our government customers. While the full transition to Trusted Workforce 2.0 and Inbus will be complete by FY 2028, we are accelerating the development of key capabilities now, including adjudicative improvements for public trust cases, expanded use of interim secret clearances, and broader application of vetting services features.
Even with a renewed vision, this will not be easy. MBIS is a massive undertaking intended to replace deeply entrenched legacy systems across the federal government. Getting this right is as important as getting it done quickly. DCSA now has the appropriate oversight, a clear mandate for change, and a leadership team committed to transparency within the department, with partners in the interagency, industry, and other stakeholders, and with you here in Congress. The exceptional team at DCSA is the driving force that will make this transformation possible.
My commitment to you is that I will continue to foster a culture of innovation and accountability that empowers them, and that I will maintain oversight in my role as deputy undersecretary for intelligence and security. We appreciate Congress' engagement on this critical issue and look forward to demonstrating through our actions and results that DCSA is on a new and better path. Thank you, and I look forward to addressing your questions.
Speaker 5
Chairman Sessions, ranking member Fume, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify again on GEO's work on personal vetting, specifically the National Background Investigation Services System, or NBIS for short. As you know, the U. S. Government relies on over 4,000,000 personnel with security clearances to protect our nation.
Personnel vetting helps ensure a trusted workforce, but the government has struggled with managing this process for years. This issue has been on GAO's high-risk list since 2018, due in part to challenges with IT systems. Reform is urgently needed. The federal government is taking too long to grant security clearances to essential personnel. For example, it takes over 200 days to grant a top secret clearance.
This is 80% longer than the government's goal. As you know, after a massive cybersecurity breach of OPM systems in 2015, the President tasked the DoD with building a new IT system to manage personal vetting. The department began developing in 2016. My statement today focuses on the department's progress with Inbus and what actions are still needed to ensure its success and achieve personnel vetting reform. First, the good news.
DCSA has made progress in addressing our recommendations. It now has a reliable cost estimate for Inbus for the first time ever. A reliable estimate should help the program better manage expenses, avoid unexpected increases, and promote transparency. However, the government is years late in delivering Inbus. This failure happened in part because DCSA had not developed a reliable schedule for the system as we had first recommended several years ago.
DoD had originally planned for InBis to be fully functional in 2019, and has changed its deadline several times since then. In 2024, DCSA paused InBis development while it drafted a recovery plan. Just last summer, the department began development again. DCSA now projects it will finish Inbus development in 2027 or FY 2028, according to DCSA's statement. This is nearly a decade after its original goal.
The latest NBIS schedule shows some improvements in key areas. But overall, we find that it is still not reliable, putting NBIS at risk of further delays. Notably, DCSA has not done a risk analysis, and thus cannot determine where slippage is most likely to occur. Without implementing this best practice, it cannot effectively target actions to milestones that are most at risk. We are making new recommendations in our written statement today for DCSA to address these and other deficiencies.
Having a reliable schedule is a basic program management principle. We agree with Mr. Overbaugh. DCSA needs to get this right, given the program's history of missed milestones. Further, while DCSA has a reliable cost estimate for InvisNow, delays have caused the price tag to balloon.
The department has already spent at least $2,400,000,000 developing new Inbus systems and maintaining OPM's legacy systems. It now projects spending an additional $2,200,000,000 to finish Invis, bringing the total cost to the taxpayer to about $4,600,000,000. This is a 100% increase over DCSA's previous projections. Finally, strong and sustained leadership is critically important, especially with high-risk government programs like this one. When I last testified, Inbus had been failing. Since then, DCSA has taken some important actions to try to get things on track, but shortcomings still persist.
This is at a time when DCSA does not have a permanent director, and the time it takes to get a security clearance continues to far exceed goals. Strong leadership and oversight, like the important work this subcommittee is doing, are essential for the program to continue to make improvements and ultimately deliver what it has promised. Simply put, personnel vetting reform has the potential to better protect our country, but it must be in place for this to happen. Mister chairman, mister ranking members, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Detailed information about what needs to be accomplished, I think, is very clear from your constant reports, and I appreciate that. We now move to our members, and I will move to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina, the gentlewoman, the chairwoman of the rules committee, Miss Fox.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No one put in my notes that I should be very concerned about this, but I am, along with all of you. What our witnesses have said today is very, very troubling. But let me say, last fall, the subcommittee was supposed to hear from DCSA director Kattler shortly before he left federal service. While I appreciate Mister Overbaugh's attendance here today as acting director, I'm disappointed there's still no permanent replacement for director Kettler.
As Miss Schiz just said, steady leadership is important for continuity and accountability. The National Background Investigation Service needs to become operational. Having a permanent director at NCSA would send a strong message that the DoD is serious about the issue. Can you elaborate, Mr.? Overbaugh, on how delays in the implementation of MBAs impact other federal agencies that rely on timely clearances.
Speaker 4
Representative Fox, I can. It's very clear to me that the entire federal government and all the agencies and partners that rely on DCSA to deliver trusted workforce 2.0 are impacted when employees cannot get to work in a timely and efficient manner.
Speaker 3
Well, as a follow-up, based on DCSA's recent review of Nimbus implementation, what actions are you and others taking to get it back on track? We've just heard it's going to cost an additional $2,200,000,000 and be delayed to 2027, 2028. What in the world are you doing?
Speaker 4
That's the exact question that I asked, Representative Fox, when I took over the agency in November. I can tell you that the team that our teammates at DCSA have done a fantastic job on establishing the technology required within this to ensure that we can get to trusted workforce 2.0. What the agency had failed to do, however, in the past was match emerging requirements, the business or the mission side, if you will, with that technology. As a result of that identified failure, the trusted workforce integration group was stood up. That brought together our technology specialists along with our operations and mission side.
Together, they produced over the last couple months a key set of milestones that we can use to judge DCSA's performance on delivering trusted workforce 2.0 moving forward. And those milestones are laid out in the PAC principle, the Performance Accountability Council's FY 26 implementation strategy. Now this is a great step forward, and it gives us something that we can sync our teams into to hold ourselves accountable for progress. It's not complete. We need to do more here.
We need to use these milestones to break down almost a complete work breakdown structure. So we're then able to identify the things that our GAO partners have told us are critically important, namely, critical paths and the identification of risks. That is forthcoming. We're looking forward to producing that document in March, April time frame, and would certainly look forward in future interactions with this body to share the work that we've done there.
Speaker 3
And the chairman mentioned the issue of transparency and the need for that. Are you committing that the reports and the progress are all going to be transparent?
Speaker 3
Thank you. Miss Schiss, in the committee's 2024 hearing, you raised concerns about cybersecurity privacy protections. Has DCSA taken concrete steps to mitigate those risks? And have you seen evidence these steps are effective?
Speaker 5
Yes. DCSA has taken swift action to address our recommendations. At the time of our last hearing, we put out a report with 13 recommendations, mostly focused on the management of cybersecurity, making sure that there's current guidance and effective oversight. The previous DCSA director, Director Kattler, made it a priority to implement all of those recommendations within one year, which is very fast for a GAO report to have all recommendations closed in one year. So we think that that's a very positive effort.
DCSA does need to remain very vigilant on this. This is the whole reason that the department has responsibility for personnel vetting because of that cybersecurity breach in 2015 that compromised, as the chairman mentioned, data on over 22,000,000 federal employees and contractors. We do have work that's not available in the public setting to discuss. Looking more specifically at NBIS and testing of cybersecurity controls, and issued a recent report in December on that, which we have discussed with DCSA. But we are confident that they are taking it seriously.
Yes.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, and thank you, mister chairman, for recognizing me. Yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back her time. Thank you very much. The gentleman, Mister Mphimis, recognized.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna yield to the gentleman from Virginia, mister Walkinshaw, who has waved on to the committee, and I'll pick up with my questions at a similar point in the hearing. Mr Walkinshaw.
Speaker 6
Thank you. I thank the ranking member, and mister chairman, thank you for having me today and to our witnesses for being here. Mister Overbaugh, as you laid out in your testimony,
Speaker 6
Many responsibilities in your role as deputy undersecretary for intelligence and security. I know that in your role, you serve as acting director of the DCSA. As we're discussing today, you oversee the DIA, NGA, the NRO, the NSA. You serve as an adviser to the undersecretary of defense on intelligence-related matters. And given all of that, I guess my question for you is, well, why should the committee and the American people have confidence that you can manage this multibillion-dollar critical modernization while performing your many other duties, including safeguarding our nation's secrets from adversaries, ensuring proper vetting of individuals with access to classified information, and, as I noted, acting as an adviser to the undersecretary.
Speaker 4
Representative Walkinshaw, I appreciate that question very much. And the short answer is I'm surrounded by a fantastic group of teammates who are assisting me in this endeavor. I have, down at DCSA as acting deputy director, Miss Tara Jones, who also comes from our office at the Undersecretary of War for Intelligence and Security. In addition, we have the acting chief of staff, Colonel Brooke Carr. Our team, down there, and they're down there on a permanent basis to assist and lead that, assist me in leading that organization.
And I have fantastic teammates as well, up in my office in the Pentagon. And so, while I understand from an external perspective, it looks like we are stretched thin. And in all honesty, there are times when it feels like it. But I'll tell you that the passion that we have as a group of teammates to get this task right energizes all of us and the entire team. And quite honestly, it's an honor and a blessing to be able to do this.
Speaker 6
Thank you. In a recent 01/22/2026 briefing with committee staff here. I think it's accurate that you said you intended to eliminate what you've called inefficiencies within DCSA, and suggested, and you can correct me if this is wrong, that you felt there's a need to eliminate positions at the agency. So, are you planning to reduce the workforce at DCSA? And if so, how will you ensure that those cuts to the workforce don't further derail this critical modernization?
Speaker 4
I think DCSA faces a challenge representative that the entire government faces, and quite frankly, our society, writ large, faces, and that is the impact that technology is having and is going to have on the way that we work moving forward. DCSA faces this dynamic quite acutely with our responsibility to implement MBIS and trusted workforce 2.0. I can't say at this time exactly what the workforce of the future at DCSA looks like, but I know that we have an obligation to empower our teammates to ensure that they can be as effective as humanly possible in the future of work.
Speaker 6
So you don't have any immediate plans to reduce the workforce in the short or medium term?
Speaker 4
Quite the contrary, Representative Walkinshaw. We are constantly looking at the DCSA organization and determining where we can find efficiencies. I have no implementable plans at this time, but it is something that we will be looking at moving forward.
Speaker 6
Okay. One of the things I understand this committee has asked for previously is an organizational chart for your staffing and any proposed changes. Is that something you can commit to providing us?
Speaker 4
I would absolutely be happy to provide that to you once we have a clear understanding of the direction that we think we need to go in.
Speaker 6
Okay. Thank you. Mister Obabab, DCSA's job, as you know, is to vet cleared personnel and ultimately ensure the protection of classified U.S. government information. It is a cornerstone of our national security. I appreciate the passion that you have for the work and that your teammates have.
I think I share the concerns on the dais here that the mandate is far too large and critical to function indefinitely under an acting director, no matter how passionate. We need a director focused on its counterintelligence mission who has the skills and bandwidth. I don't question that you have the skills. I question whether you have the bandwidth to keep this project moving forward. I hope you can commit to providing this committee with a hiring plan and criteria for a new director promptly.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen yields back his time. Thank you very much. I've been approached by several members who plan to be in attendance today. I would move next to the gentleman, Mister Infume, for any time he would choose.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, let me just be redundant for a quick second. Inbus and the Inbus project is, as you've heard repeatedly today, 10 years behind schedule and already billions and billions over budget. So I'd like to know, and by the way, this keeps me up at night because America's secrets are at risk the longer we don't do what we ought to do here. And the Russians and the Chinese who can tune into C SPAN whenever they want to be assured that we're behind.
We'll look at what we're doing and year after year get emboldened because we are so transparent about why and when we expect to have this completed. So, mister Overbaugh, when you look as you have been doing since November when you came on board at cost overruns, which ones are the most apparent to you?
Speaker 4
Representative, or excuse me, ranking member MFUME. To me, most alerting is the overall amount of money that we've spent so far writ large, the 2,400,000,000, and not delivering the capabilities that we promised over time to the American people. There are many details within that. The failure to, as I mentioned earlier, match up the operations and business side with the technical side. There are redundancies and inefficiencies there.
But I think that number overall, the $2,400,000 correction, 1,000,000,000 is inexcusable. And one of the things that drives me and the team on a daily basis is to fix the things in the past that we have not done well, so that we can deliver for the American people.
Speaker 2
Do you think your predecessor felt the same way, was driven the same way?
Speaker 4
I won't speak to the intent or what was going on inside, the minds or hearts of any of my predecessors. I know that the organization today sits ready, and they are excited about delivering for the American people.
Speaker 2
Well, I understand it, and I appreciate it. But you have to realize what it's like to sit here year after year and be told the same thing, that it's getting better, the organization understands, we've got the right path, we're gonna be transparent. And in that process, contractor after contractor is billing the United States government for services that I assume are never fully completed, within that caveat saying we couldn't do this, we won't do this, or we need more money for that. That is very disturbing, and it's not your fault. I'm just giving you the history of how we got to this point and why it is so very disturbing to us.
You've heard the term fat rats. Well, a lot of them making out with a lot of money and not providing the kind of service that they are being contracted for and paid for. And missus, if I could just ask you the same question, why are there some identifiable cost overruns that repeatedly, year after year, GAO looks at, identifies, and points out?
Speaker 5
Yes. In fact, our previous analysis showed that DCSA did not have a reliable cost estimate for INBUS. It was not accurate. It was not comprehensive. It was not credible, and it was not well documented.
So we can't tell you where the problems were. It was across the entire estimate. It could not be relied upon for planning. Now they have taken important steps, including conducting an independent cost estimate, to get a better handle on costs. So we're at a better place now.
That estimate needs to be updated annually. And so I advise the subcommittee to stay on top of DCSA as we will to make sure that that is updated annually with actual costs. But they are better positioned now. Unfortunately, and if I can kind of veer off a little bit, earlier on in the program, I think one of the key shortcomings was a lack of oversight, right? So DCSA was really policing itself in its actions.
No one broader in the department was taking a look at what DCSA was doing as Invis was going off the rails. There were some steps put in place for INS, where Mr. Oberbaugh is from, to be now the program sponsor, and then even hire within the department, to have milestone decision authority. There were some other mechanisms put in place, the requirements board, for example, that's supposed to meet quarterly, some other reporting requirements. Where we do still have concerns is some of these oversight mechanisms are great that they're in place, but we're not actually seeing them working as they're supposed to work.
So that requirements board that I just mentioned is supposed to meet quarterly. We think it met last Friday, but before then had only met in June, right? So maybe once a year. So it's good to put those mechanisms in place, but you have to exercise the oversight as well. So that's something that we'll be taking a look at as the program moves on, making sure that oversight is actually working.
Speaker 2
And what would GAO immediately recommend be done, as you look at where we are in this process, notwithstanding the things you just mentioned?
Speaker 5
Right. I think we've been on record for years that you really can't plan effectively without having a reliable schedule for the NBS program. Milestones have shifted for years. We're a decade-long program now. Costs have increased 100%.
We still don't have a reliable schedule. So it's great that we're marrying up policy with milestones, but our recent analysis showed that almost half, 46% of milestones in the trusted workforce 2.0 strategy that are Inbus related have slipped over the past nine months, 46% because of Inbus delays. Right? So that's something that has got to be addressed right away. We have new recommendations kind of to target what needs to be done for a schedule.
And it's great that Mr. Oberbaugh is very focused on this. But this is something that we've been talking about for years. We talked about it at the last hearing as well. Without getting this in place, the program still is at risk of slippage going forward and then increased cost to the taxpayer.
Speaker 2
And, mister Oval, I know you've been there since November, but do you have some semblance of a schedule, a sketch, an outline? Are you talking directly to GAO to figure out how and when that ought to be completed?
Speaker 4
Ranking member Infume, the schedule has yet to be developed, and that's one of the great things that we've discovered through our partnership with GAO. And as a reminder, as we dig down into the milestones that the Twig recently established, we will be producing the schedule. That's the document that I hope to bring back to this body in the March and April time frame. I do wanna push back on one thing that you said earlier. You mentioned that it's not my fault.
I just wanna give you the confidence, sir. As I'm acting director, everything that this organization does or fails to do is now my responsibility. We do take on the fact that the previous failures are now our responsibility, and we own them. And that's part of the cultural change that we're trying to instantiate at DCSA.
Speaker 2
Well, that's good to know, it's good to hear. But it really wasn't your fault, because you were not there. But I commend you for owning them. So are you saying to the chairman and members of the committee that by late March or early April, this schedule will be in place, and we can call another hearing and talk about it?
Speaker 4
What our team is attempting to produce by March, April time frame is a business operationalization synchronization schedule. That is our attempt to get at the critical paths and the risks that GAO has rightly pointed out that we continue to lack. Once we have that established, I'm happy to bring that product back. We have as a goal to establish that by the March and April time frame.
Speaker 2
And just one other question. Are you interacting with GAO to make sure that what you produce is exactly what they have identified?
Speaker 4
We will be moving forward. I had the opportunity to meet Mrs. So the other day, in preparation for this hearing, we agreed that we would interact quarterly on a quarterly basis moving forward. And we look forward to them helping us provide an objective look at our organization as we try to implement the change. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Well, move to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee. You're recognized.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the things I like about your chairmanship and your work with our ranking member, I always dig his line of questioning. And sometimes, like myself, it takes me a little longer than 5 minutes, and I appreciate you allowing us to do that.
Speaker 1
Gentleman is recognized, and the gentleman does understand from his experience in dealing with Mister Infume and myself. I would like for you to take the time that is necessary to express yourself as well as our witnesses to get everything out, and the gentleman is now recognized.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ma'am, your last name is Sizz. Is that how you pronounce it?
Speaker 7
Alright. Well, British. Nobody gets that right either. I was on some show this weekend. I said it's Birch like the tree and like I just ate breakfast, and they all laughed.
And my wife got on me and said no. It's not bruschette. It's birch. It's burchette. It's burchette.
You know? I mean, they can never get it right. So, anyway, thank you. Since 2024, how has the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, the DCSA, progressed in addressing the NBIS high-risk areas like cybersecurity, and what issues remain?
Speaker 5
So since 2024, DCSA has made significant progress in addressing cybersecurity issues within this. We had issued a report in 2024 really focused on the management and lack of management attention on cybersecurity. We made 13 recommendations at that time. The DCSA leadership took swift action and implemented all of those recommendations. Said. Did
Speaker 5
They implemented all 13 recommendations from our 2024 report on cybersecurity, yes.
Speaker 5
Right. So we were very concerned that there was just a lack of management oversight of cybersecurity in general. They were using outdated guidance. They were not. There were issues with privacy controls. There were folks that didn't have the necessary training to use the system.
So those were some issues that we pointed out. And they did take immediate action, addressed all of those recommendations in a very fast time frame for addressing GAO recommendations. As I mentioned earlier, we do have a nonpublic report that we did produce in December on cybersecurity, looking at testing of cybersecurity controls. So it is a topic that we stay on. We know DCSA is taking it seriously, but the entire reason that the department has responsibility for the IT system was because of the cybersecurity breach in 2015 of OPM systems.
So it's critical.
Speaker 5
Right. The Office of Personnel Management had previously had responsibility for personnel vetting; that moved after the cybersecurity breach.
Speaker 7
Well, thank you, ma'am. When I get back to the office, I'm going to ask some of my young people exactly what you just told me. So, thank you. Sir, let me ask you a question, and your name is Overbal. I believe I can get that one right.
Thank you, brother. Since you were appointed, what steps have you taken to address the cultural issues identified that I think you made in your opening statement.
Speaker 4
Representative Burchett, thank you for the opportunity to chat with you today. There have been a couple of things that we've done from a cultural perspective. The first thing was we looked at leadership across the organization, and we identified where we had individuals who were stymieing progress because they were too comfortable with the status quo, and we made some changes in that regard. Second thing that we've done is myself and Ms. Jones has traveled to a number of the different locations where our DCSA colleagues and teammates reside.
We have over 163 different locations across the United States, and we've begun to hear from folks who work on the front line across our agency about the types of things that we can do at a leadership level to change the culture. Ultimately, the steps that we're taking are designed towards transforming it from a reactive to a proactive organization, from a risk-based or, correction, from a fear-based culture to one that looks for opportunities to continue to shore up security for the American people.
Speaker 7
This is not in my notes, but it jogged a memory of encrypted messages. You know, I'm always, oh, they can't get into this. It's encrypted. And then there's some kid in a garage in Southern California who's figured out how to do it in about 15 minutes. Is there anything truly encrypted in your opinion?
Speaker 4
Representative Birchit, we could go into greater detail on that particular topic, but not necessarily in this forum. And I would want to bring back to you from my role in INS correction a more fulsome picture on that, perhaps in a closed setting.
Speaker 7
Can I ask one more question, Mr? Chairman? I'll run over just a minute. Thank you, brother. What do you think is your all's plan on getting everything on track for the next three years?
Do you have a plan? I mean, I don't want you to disclose any secrets, but do you feel like you can obtain those objectives?
Speaker 4
Yes, I do believe that we can obtain objectives, and the plan relies on a couple of parts. First, going back to what our GAO colleagues have talked to us about. We will and we must get our hands around a detailed schedule that enables the agency itself to hold itself accountable, and for our oversight partners to hold us accountable. That is nonnegotiable. We will achieve that in the coming months.
And I very much look forward to coming back, either as acting director or in my role, in my oversight role in INS, to report to you and your colleagues about the progress that we've made there. In addition, though, we do have to change the culture of the organization, like I talked about earlier. We have to be adaptable. We have to be flexible, and we have to take on an attitude that our primary responsibility is to provide decision makers with risk informed information so that they can make assessments about the trustworthiness of their workforce.
Speaker 7
Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you again for letting me go over. I wish more committees would allow us to do this because, and I appreciate the relationship that you have with the ranking member because I think more committees could probably fashion a little bit more of their attitude towards us lower level members if they'd follow your two leads. So thank you all.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman from Tennessee and will tell him that Mr. Infume and I intend to maintain this relationship for the benefit of not only members, but also the American people.
Speaker 7
Mister chairman, I would also like to say, I tend to like mister more than I like you, and I just wanna say that for the record. Keep that off the record, though.
Speaker 1
The gentleman is not recognized for more time. In fact, Tim, it is with great respect that you offer that feedback because mister Infume, in my opinion, is an outstanding example of collegiality and something which I think, as mister Burchard noticed, is desperately in need here on a regular basis. And so, thank you very much. I'll now yield myself to such time as I may consume. The opportunity to have both of you here with what I consider to be outstanding or sterling insight and ability to accept, as I say, you're accepting the role, mister, overball, and the responsibility and the good things and the bad things.
Missus, part of what we're talking about today, we don't always get down to brass tacks. But what Mister Overbal has spoken about is his analysis, which I do accept, appreciate, and respect, about how professional they are, about their ability to do their work. He did, suggest that there are some things that still need more tinkering with, more reliability. Do you get into those management personnel type things of frailties, of outcomes that he spoke about?
Speaker 5
I would say that the progress within this is very recent, and so it is fragile. Sustained leadership attention is critical for the program to continue to make the improvements that it has done recently, and then continue to implement the recommendations that GAO has made for several years, to have a schedule to make sure the oversight mechanisms are in place to marry up those milestones with trusted workforce 2.0. We're not seeing continued slippage down the road.
Speaker 5
So it's important to not take, you know, to this is great that there is some progress, but I would agree with mister Overbaugh. It's recent, and it is fragile. We don't have the leadership and oversight mechanisms in place.
Speaker 1
Mister Overbaugh, the discussions without naming names, but do you find that there are people within the organization who are not interested in its success in mastering the time frames, in allowing slippage that they were seemingly happy with their performance that you've described. Why did this even slip for months? And were those people spoken to realistically or simply exited from the organization?
Speaker 4
Chairman Sessions, I would tell you that 99.9% of the workforce today is absolutely passionate and capable of the task that we have in front of us. I did find some individuals who embodied a culture of wanting to maintain the status quo. Where we find those individuals, we will take the opportunity to give them a chance to serve in another capacity. But for DCSA moving forward, we need a team that is 100% dedicated to the mission, that understands that we have a critical mission and that we achieve that mission through the hard earned dollars of the American taxpayer.
Speaker 1
Okay. Let's stay on this pathway, please. You mentioned that you have offices, different people in 160 some different locations. Do you have metrics on them, and are they part of the slippage? Or are we talking about systems that they enter data into that then talk to people looking for more, back and forth, to then agree to that and then move?
Is it system oriented, or do you have a metric that determined it was people also?
Speaker 4
One of the things I recognize that we need at DCSA is a way to visualize the performance of our entire organization succinctly and clearly. We don't have that today. That's one of the things that I'm working on internally in the organization to be able to see, for example, from cradle to grave how our investigative processes are going. We have some of that picture right now, and the team does a very good job of providing that data, but we can do much better. It will enable us to find those areas in the funnel where we have clogs or where we have obstacles that, as leaders, we can first identify how we can remove those obstacles for our teammates.
And if it ends up being a personal challenge, we can address that as well.
Speaker 1
The delay of your 160 different offices. You seemingly would have an idea that you have a problem or don't have a problem or can set a standard that seemingly could be established rather quickly if that is the issue. Once again, it's hard for me to know if that is the issue, people-oriented responses, decision making, moving things along, or whether it's correspondingly in the processes or systems that then do not effectively provide the information to decision making. Miss Sis, will you answer that?
Speaker 5
Our work has found that it has mostly been in the lack of basic program management principles. Again, not having a reliable schedule for the program. We do know that DCSA has taken some efforts even before Mr. Overbaugh.
Speaker 1
So you're worried about headquarters' decision-making for fixing the systems that people operate within. I was asking him, and we'll get here, the people who do the work, and then that process, is it then the systems that are causing the delays? And so I wanna then focus on the 160 offices that you're evaluating, and yet the systems or tools by which they have to operate, whether where are the issues that you found? And there could be some of both, but this is where then I wanna come to missus and say, have and GAO has a broader viewpoint than just this organization on how to effectively deal with management systems and structures and try and work with them to find how to update which comes first, which vendor comes first, which system needs updating, which system needs new standards or procedures. So let me go back and have you both feel free.
Once again, we're trying to get to the bottom of this. You went out and visited some offices, and you had an opportunity which is very professionally oriented and good. What did you find out there?
Speaker 4
I found both, mister chairman, quite frankly. I found a dedicated workforce, but one that suffered from lack of our technology integration and one that also, unfortunately, at some later areas in management was too oriented towards the status quo. That's why the recommendations that the GAO has made to us about tools like the critical path and the risk schedule are so important, because metrics will drive behavior within the organization. Once we have that clearer picture, once we have those metrics, we're going to be able to drive that cultural, behavioral change in a much more effective manner. The short answer to your question, mister chairman, was I found both.
Speaker 1
Okay. So in other words, when you take on a particular issue, subject, a person, and you've got a request that may have been sitting there for a long time, you have then identified that we need certain data, certain information, processing of their form, verifying the data and information, touching base where an investigator will move forward, getting that investigator's recommendation, looking at feedback that others provided, and then sifting through that, and then placing that into some sort of system where that is then vetted properly. That is people-oriented. No. No.
It's really a system too because if you got a system problem, they're not able to effectively do that. Is that what you also have, a system problem?
Speaker 1
You put your data in something that would be reviewed by, you decide how many, but several people. It's not just a one-person process. You've got an investigator that goes out, and they put in their data and information. Is that a problem of getting the data and information? We're dissecting this now in the subcommittee.
Is that a problem? Because it seems like that may be part of your daytime job.
Speaker 4
Yes, Chairman Sessions. And what I would say is that's the problem that you're highlighting is the exact reason why we are why it's so important that we get InBIS online so that we're able to achieve the goals laid out in trusted workforce two point zero. As it stands right now, from a system standpoint, we're using old and antiquated technology, I think, from the eighties in order to do the task of personnel vetting.
Speaker 1
And we hear that, and that's 2 and a half billion dollars, and then they need to update it or make it work 2 and a half billion. My point is, are you looking for the director to cut through that and say, we're going to do this until we get that done ten years? I'm worried about the 10 years. I mean, you may not have what you're asking for ten more years. And I'm asking you, how are we going to do that?
And then look at Miss Sizz, say, doesn't the GAO, I think the answer is yes. Doesn't the GAO have some recommendation of which one of these systems may need to spend, I don't know what it is, 600,000,000? I don't know what it is to update it to make something happen if not a relationship that you've identified to get data quicker and faster, even though it's not the Embass delivery. It's an interim step. Somebody's gotta do that.
We cannot wait 10 years. Mister Mfume and I will not wait 10 years.
Speaker 1
Will you? That answer is no. I know you're very, glib at understanding and nimble at understanding this, but I still have not heard back. Okay. We got a problem here.
We know we've got to fix that. We got good people, but this system, this one right here, has to be updated for these other factors to work. And then miss is to be able to say, yes. Think that's right. That we've got to do this.
This one first, this one second, this one third over the next year to better the lot where we are. That's what I'm looking for. I think that's what mister Infume and I are looking for, not, well, we're gonna wait 10 years. Well, we've got good people, but we got a system problem. What the heck are we doing to work together to say we're going to update this one thing, which is material to the work that's gotta be done.
I don't want something out there done. I want something in here. I've, unfortunately, been around enough in life where I have had to wait on computer systems, but we did understand when that was gonna happen. So get ready for this next round when you're back. I wanna know what systems.
I don't need to know the vendor. I don't you need to do a follow-up chart, but that you have taken the five or four most critical systems, and they are online. You are with standards and procedures and an understanding about what they're supposed to do, and go get that darn thing done. I mean, we're not looking at paint drying, and we're not going to do that. So, and likewise, I don't think Mister Infume and I want to manage your job, either one of you.
We want to provide oversight. We wanna make sure, as you talked about, and one of the best things you said today was we gotta get a person with the bandwidth. The bandwidth not to sit back and say, I can't get my job done because my boss is always gone. Clear lines of authority, delegation of authority, clear lines of responsibility, timeframes that are professionally established to be met, not to slip. And I just think that this has gotta be done.
Miss Sis, can you make sense of what I've said?
Speaker 1
You have the desire and ability to understand the systems that if he talked to you or you know where they are, what the problem is, and provided feedback to them to say, we think this system is the first that needs to be updated. Not waiting for Embassy. This is a backlog or a clog or a bottleneck in the system. Do you think you have that level of detail?
Speaker 5
So those are what the recommendations we've made in our written statement go toward the sequencing of the sequencing. Right? And that's that was our whole point here, that the Invis program has focused on an agile program, very focused on near-term gains, that they're not looking at if a milestone slips here, what is the effect of it down the road. Right? So that's what Mister Overbaugh, I believe, wants, that visibility, and talked about having that visibility for him at the leadership level too, so he can take action.
But he doesn't have that information right now because the NBIS program does not have a schedule set up to be able to sequence those events, to be able to identify risks, and then to be able to take action.
Speaker 1
Then how can we say it's gonna be done in 10 years? Can you say you've got a schedule of 10 years yet if you don't have that schedule?
Speaker 4
Well, Chairman Sessions, we don't have 10 years. We have a couple years, and we are charged with delivering trusted workforce 2.0 by fiscal year 2028.
Speaker 4
And I'm quite confident that we can. To address what I think, one of the things that you're talking about is this. Aside from Invis, in our current procedures, do we have the ability to generate trust decisions for our workforce? And the answer to that question is yes, we can. We are operating with legacy systems, but we do have dedicated professional teammates who have experience with those systems and all the associated bolt ons that go with it to provide those trust decisions.
We're not where we want to be. And as we implement and integrate Inbus, the team is looking at continual improvements that we can make to the process.
Speaker 1
So would that be against the 80% model that Miss Sis spoke about? The 80% model, you are 80% inefficient, is the way I took her comments.
Speaker 5
Right. It's the time for granting top secret clearances is 80% longer than the government school.
Speaker 4
Yes. Yes, mister chairman. And that is a concern that we've had, and I am encouraged by the work that DCSA has done to get down the investigative backlog to a number that is more acceptable. I think we spoke the other day on the fact it's about 100 thousand now.
Speaker 4
Did. Team thinks that it can get to about 70,000 as part of a normal workflow process. But we're also looking at things like the better that we get on the investigative side, we have to make sure that we're not overburdening the folks that do the adjudication. There are interoperabilities and relationships between those two tasks that will impact one another. So I am absolutely focused on the concerns that you're raising.
And, again, why I would go back to the fact that I recognize that the progress that we've made is exceptionally fragile, and we're gonna have to stay laser-focused on this. I agree. We can't wait another 10 years. We've already spent way too much of the American taxpayers' dollars on this problem, and we are committed to delivering this capability by FY 2028.
Speaker 1
It would be appropriate for me to recognize that both of you are, as I've said in the past, very professional, very inward looking, and attempting to focus on these things. I wanna put you in a position, however, that adds a little bit of fuel to the fire about decision making that you and the department have to make. And you and I spent a little bit of time on that about some of the intricacies, some of the problems of marrying up who will take the job, who's got the background. I will just say to you that something's got to happen there. We want the next person as you have openly said, I'll accept the responsibility.
And I think that's magnanimous. I'm delighted, as opposed to not, my problem, but time clicks on. This committee will not be frustrated. Mister Mfume and I are not frustrated. We wanna hear progress that's on both sides, and that is that the GAO has a responsibility as our arm to look at this.
I just simply think that there are things that he and I need to get into to see the incremental progress, that we're gonna need to see that the decision making that was done did better itself over some small period of time. And it could be the things that you've delineated. You have delineated, look, we've been out and talked to people. We had a problem with some personnel that were satisfied with not moving the ball forward. We have made decisions.
We are least of all, I think, about being nice to people but getting results. And I think mister Nfume and I do recognize there's always room for someone else to move or if you've got a problem to move them somewhere else. And for them to take that as a lesson, a learning opportunity, perhaps they're better positioned to do something different. But not to get in the way, and not when you've accepted responsibility. I expect you to be able to have the bandwidth to pull that off, notwithstanding a myriad of federal laws, okay, employment laws. One last point that I would like to ask.
Do you have a handle on your people, meaning the people in this organization, some 13,000 of them reporting to work by the president's directive in January '25.
Speaker 1
So do you believe that you report, which you're required to do, report to office management and budget that your employees are back at work?
Speaker 4
Yes. As far as I know now, Mr. Chairman, that's true. And if, if I'm misspeaking, I'll okay.
Speaker 1
You're entitled to revise that. But if you would please go back and double-check that. In some areas of the government, we still have a larger number of people, and it's dragging down the organization's ability to effectively meet its goals too.
Speaker 2
Chairman, yes. I've got a question, I guess, that just always pops up when we are talking about this agency. And, there's an old saying that goes, the harder I go, the behind I get, which was the way people used to characterize frustration. Just spinning wheel. And thinking about that, mister Overbaugh, I wanted to ask you, are you aware if the secretary has sent from on high a directive all the way down to the thousands of people that work for you and all that are on your level?
But he wants in place a permanent director of defense, counterintelligence, and security agencies. Talking about Secretary Hegseth.
Speaker 4
Ranking member, if you may, I can assure you that through the leadership of Secretary Hegseth and my boss, Mister Hansel, the selection for a permanent DCSA director is a top priority.
Speaker 2
Right. But has he sent that word down to the many minions and ranks below him as a directive from his office as secretary that you may be aware of?
Speaker 4
I'm not aware of that communication, but I do know that Mister Hansel views this as one of his top priorities, and he has been looking for the right person to ensure that the progress that we've made continues forward. So.
Speaker 2
Let me ask you another question because of my frustration with the department at times. Are you aware the department has failed 7 or 8 straight audits? I am. So that's very troubling to me, and I'm sure it's troubling to the chairman of this committee, because we just don't understand that. Seven or eight straight audits year after year, with a budget that shrinks any other budget that's out there.
And, one of the things that I try to do in dissecting that, and GAO was very helpful, I wanted to know what were the components that sort of led to that. And what we learned was that there was not a problem with the Marine Corps. They, for the last three or four years, had figured it out, gotten it done. And it wasn't a knock against the army, the air force, or anyone else. But we asked through GAO, what was the single most important feature that caused the Marine to do what others had not been able to do?
And the answer was that there was an order on high from a commandant straight to everybody below him. This is a priority. Get it done. And they got it done. So I asked the question about the secretary because I think if there was a directive from on high straight down that says this is a priority, get it done, it would get done.
Now you can't respond to that because you're not the secretary, and casually and not so casually, we've always said to him that this committee is wide open to receive him at any time, that he'd like to come by and talk about that or anything else. And I just wanna reaffirm that that's the case today. But in the absence, in my opinion, of a clear directive from the secretary that this is not only a priority, but I want to get it done, I think we are kind of treading water. And one month turns into the next, and the seasons change, and the years change. And here we are now, aside from eight straight audits that have been failed.
Here we are now 100% over budget, years beyond where we should be. So that's not for your ears to God. It's for the secretary's ears to God. But I hope that he will understand why this is so very important and why, in this case, he's the man, as they say. He can get this done.
There's nothing that the United States government cannot do. I honestly have always believed that. And I don't know to what extent beyond you people have gone to him and said, this is an ex, this is exposure here. This is not good. H-Straight audits, 100% over cost, 10 years behind schedule.
So I wanna thank you for your work, previous to November and your work since November. And thank you also for wanting to own some of the issues that predated you. But as I said before, at somebody else's ownership, we will be looking at you from November on, obviously, and hoping and wishing that things change, which is why I was particularly encouraged to hear the GAO say that there have been some improvements, and there's some things on track and for us to talk about a schedule and trying to get something before this committee again in March or April. And I wanna wish you well. My sense is that we'll be having this discussion again when the chair decides to call us together again, and maybe incrementally we can designate or pinpoint some sort of progress.
Speaker 2
Miss, thank you also. I really wanna thank the GAO. I don't wanna call you the police, but you have done a great job of policing agencies throughout the government. And I'm gonna be heartened by your words, as I said a moment ago, that you have seen some improvements here, and we've got to make sure that every time we meet, we can say that. And I really hope, mister secretary, if you're listening, that you would contact the chair of this committee, myself.
We'd love to talk with you, not to sling arrows, but to try to figure out how do we put our finger in the dike to stop this amount of money going out and creating a security situation for the United States and its people and agents all over the globe that none of us want, and none of us want to see come to pass. So, mister chairman, you've been very generous. As the gentleman from Tennessee said earlier, he's gonna like you more than he likes me. It's just a matter of time. But, thank you.
Speaker 1
I have a little bit of time on my side, I want to thank the gentleman. If I could say that one of the things that temporarily disturbed us is we did not hear back a letter that we sent to the secretary. I did not see a response. And members of congress that come from subcommittees like ours where we attempt to approach things on a bipartisan basis to keep it level, to keep it professional, would be appreciated that when we send a letter to hearing something back. And I find it in a way that mister Infume has been gracious about that.
I don't write letters for the Department of War. I write letters to them. And I think that if there's one thing that you or the chief of staff, Mister Hewitt's here, would take back to some bit of people, it is when we get a letter, we should respond back professionally or at least respond back. We don't tend to be too bad. We do wait to find out.
It may take seven more months or ten more months, but that letter was sent with good intent. And for us to maintain a professional standard of business that mister Infume insists on, and I do too, I think that open communication extends also beyond you, sir. I wanna thank our witnesses for being here today. I wanna thank the time, your staff. I wanna thank our staff.
We have spent a good bit of time on this issue, and as mister Mfume said, we're not going away. I wanna thank everyone for being here today. I want to move to my state where I've got to. In closing, I want to thank our witnesses. There's a five-day there it is.
So with that said, without objection, all members have five legislative days to submit materials and additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be forwarded to our witnesses if there's no further business, without objection. Subscribe when he stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.