[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[H.A.S.C. No. 112-98]

UPDATE ON ACCOUNTABILITY AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY

__________

JOINT HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

meeting jointly with

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

of the

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

HEARING HELD

FEBRUARY 3, 2012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-936 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
TOM ROONEY, Florida MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
JOE HECK, Nevada DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa
ALLEN B. WEST, Florida NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
John Chapla, Professional Staff Member
Paul Lewis, Professional Staff Member
Jim Weiss, Staff Assistant

------

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia, Chairman
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MO BROOKS, Alabama ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
TODD YOUNG, Indiana MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania
TOM ROONEY, Florida COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
Michele Pearce, Professional Staff Member
Paul Lewis, Professional Staff Member
Arthur Milikh, Staff Assistant

C O N T E N T S

----------

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2012

Page

Hearing:

Friday, February 3, 2012, Update on Accountability at Arlington
National Cemetery.............................................. 1

Appendix:

Friday, February 3, 2012......................................... 25
----------

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2012
UPDATE ON ACCOUNTABILITY AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESSMr. Cooper said he
had no statement

Cooper, Hon. Jim, a Representative from Tennessee, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations...........0 deg.
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel..................... 2
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................. 1
Wittman, Hon. Rob, a Representative from Virginia, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations................... 3

WITNESSES

Condon, Kathryn A., Executive Director, Arlington National
Cemetery....................................................... 10
Lepore, Brian J., Director, Defense Capabilities and Management,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 8
Martin, Belva M., Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 6
Vangjel, LTG Peter M., USA, Inspector General, Office of the
Secretary of the Army.......................................... 4

APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

Condon, Kathryn A............................................ 77
Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 32
Martin, Belva M., joint with Brian J. Lepore................. 55
Vangjel, LTG Peter M......................................... 36
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 29
Wittman, Hon. Rob............................................ 34

Documents Submitted for the Record:

[There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.]
UPDATE ON ACCOUNTABILITY AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY

----------

House of Representatives, Committee on Armed
Services, Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
Meeting Jointly with the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, Washington, DC,
Friday, February 3, 2012.

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 11:51 a.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson
(chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

Mr. Wilson. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you
for being here today. Today the Military Personnel Subcommittee
and the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee continue
their oversight of actions to improve the operation and
sustainment of the Arlington National Cemetery, a national
shrine which indicates our sincere appreciation of service
members, military families, and veterans.
The testimony today is based on reports directed by the
Congress and delivered in December by the Army and the
Government Accounting Office. In general, both reports reflect
substantial improvement in a number of areas of management and
contracting execution. That progress reflects not only the
personal commitment of our former colleague Secretary John
McHugh, but also the professionalism and commitment of Ms.
Kathryn Condon, the Executive Director of the Army National
Cemeteries Program, and Mr. Patrick Hallinan, the
Superintendent of Arlington Cemetery.
As I look at the issues that still must need to be
addressed, these two appear to rise above all the rest: First,
what is the corrective action and funding that will be required
to resolve the nearly 14,000 critical deficiencies cited in the
Arlington grave accountability effort? And second, should the
Department of Veterans Affairs assume responsibility for
Arlington National Cemetery and the cemetery at the Soldiers'
Home here in the District of Columbia?
Before I introduce our witnesses, let me recognize in turn
Representative Susan Davis, the ranking member of the Military
Personnel Subcommittee; and Chairman Rob Wittman of the
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee; and Mr. Jim Cooper,
the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee, for any opening remarks they might wish to make.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 29.]

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
hearing today.
General Vangjel, I wanted to welcome you. I understand you
recently took over from General McCoy as the Army inspector
general.
Ms. Martin and Mr. Lepore, I look forward to hearing the
Government Accountability Office [GAO] assessment of the Army's
efforts with respect to Arlington.
And, Ms. Condon, welcome back. We have had a chance to see
each other quite a bit, and I really appreciate your efforts.
Arlington National Cemetery, as we all know, is one of the
most hallowed grounds of this Nation, and we must hold it to
the highest standards of performance. Members of the
Subcommittee on Military Personnel in conjunction with the
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee are interested in the
actions taken by the Army to improve its accountability of
Arlington National Cemetery since our hearing in September.
Ms. Condon, I recognize the hard work you and Mr. Hallinan
have done to turn around the cemetery, and I know that you
could not have done it alone. There are probably a number of
people that should be acknowledged for their efforts that could
not all be recognized here today.
But I do believe that there is still more to be done to
ensure that we maintain and build upon the achievements that
have been made, and to ensure, above all, accountability of
those who were involved in the missteps at Arlington National
Cemetery.
Ms. Martin and Mr. Lepore, I am interested in learning from
the GAO what issues and concerns should the committee be aware
of as the Army works to develop a strategic plan for Arlington.
What signs, if any, should we be tracking as the Army moves
forward on its efforts to continue to improve Arlington? And I
would also like to hear your thoughts on what concerns we
should be aware of if there is an effort to transfer the
management of Arlington from the Army to the Veterans
Administration.
General Vangjel, I would be interested in the IG's
perspective on Arlington and what can be done to build upon the
improvements that have recently been made.
Thank you all for being here. This is an important issue
and one that touches all who serve our Nation in uniform.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 32.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ranking Member.
And Chairman Wittman.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA,
CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Wittman. Panel members, welcome. I want to thank my co-
chair, Chairman Joe Wilson, and our ranking members, Jim Cooper
and Susan Davis, for their steadfast commitment and their focus
on this extraordinarily important issue. It has been an honor
to work with you over the months, and we look forward as we
continue along this journey of making sure that collectively we
all do what is necessary to make sure Arlington maintains its
rightful place in honoring this Nation's heroes.
I would also like to extend a very warm welcome to General
Vangjel. Thank you so much for your leadership and for your
oversight of Arlington. We know it is a new challenge for you,
but one that you are ready and up to the task.
Ms. Condon, I want to thank you and your team, who have met
with us on a monthly basis to keep us apprised of progress. We
appreciate your dedication. We know it has been a long, arduous
journey, with more steps to come. I would like to also
highlight my appreciation for what you do in total for the
Army, what you have done through your career, and what you have
done to this point. Army leadership has done a lot to change
the culture and climate at Arlington.
And I also want to thank Secretary McHugh. He is a person
of steadfast devotion on getting this issue solved. He is
certainly a man of his word. He said early on that this was
going to be his focus. I admire him for that focus, for his
commitment, for his dedication to making sure that Arlington
again goes back to its rightful place in honoring this Nation's
heroes. So I want to thank the Secretary for that.
This was an organization that was characterized by
deficiencies and mismanagement that has since been transformed
into a stable, functioning, and professional organization that
is finally setting a new standard for how we care for our
fallen heroes.
Mr. Brian Lepore and Ms. Belva Martin, thank you for
coming. We appreciate your efforts there at the GAO. And we
know, as always, the GAO does an excellent job, and we
appreciate your service.
We are here today for two very important reasons: First, to
figure out what progress has been made with respect to
accountability issues at Arlington, and to determine what
challenges remain that need to be addressed moving forward.
I have said many times how important it is to me personally
that we work to achieve 100 percent accountability, and the
Army has done a great job with helping us get there with the
Gravesite Accountability Task Force. Validating almost 200,000
gravesites was difficult and challenging, but you, your staff,
and the Old Guard got it done.
However, I do remain concerned about a number of issues.
First, the lack of accountability with respect to former
officials for their misconduct. It is my understanding that no
criminal action has been taken, and that investigations are
ongoing and open. I find this very, very difficult to believe
and unacceptable, and I will continue to follow this very
closely.
Second, despite the great amount of time that has elapsed
since initial allegations came to light, management and
contracting issues persist at Arlington. To highlight just a
few, I am concerned about the GAO's findings regarding the lack
of a strategic plan, the lack of IT [information technology]
organizational architecture, which call into question whether
we are effectively and efficiently spending taxpayers' dollars
at the cemetery when millions of dollars have already been
spent. I hope this panel will address these issues. And I also
hope you will tell us what progress has been made and what you
believe we will find in finally trying to resolve these
remaining matters.
We cannot close the door on this terrible chapter at
Arlington until all of these issues are resolved. We owe it to
our Nation's heroes who have sacrificed their lives on our
behalf, and continue to make this a top priority, and as you
have done in the past, we need to get this done. And we owe it
to our future generations of heroes who deserve the honor of
being buried here and knowing that Arlington is again assuming
its rightful place as the hallmark of honoring this Nation's
heroes.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the
Appendix on page 34.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And Mr. Cooper.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM COOPER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
TENNESSEE, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
INVESTIGATIONS deg.

Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening
statement.
Mr. Wilson. And at this time we will proceed with our
witnesses. The order would be Lieutenant General Peter M.
Vangjel, the Inspector General of the U.S. Army. Next would be
Ms. Belva Martin, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management
Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and third we would
have Mr. Brian J. Lepore, Director of Defense Capabilities and
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and fourth
and finally, we would have Ms. Kathryn Condon, who is the
Executive Director of the Army's National Cemeteries Program.
And so, General, thank you for beginning.

STATEMENT OF LTG PETER M. VANGJEL, USA, INSPECTOR GENERAL,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

General Vangjel. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis,
Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member Cooper, and distinguished
members of the subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you today, and thank you for your oversight and
support over the past 18 months. It has made a difference at
Arlington National Cemetery.
Since assuming the duties of the Army Inspector General in
November, I have reviewed our previous inspections, met with
the Executive Director and her team and other stakeholders who
have been involved in correcting the deficiencies found at
Arlington. I think to fully appreciate the progress that has
been made, one only has to review the 2010 IG report, which
identified 61 deficiencies, among them being a deplorable
organizational climate, archaic recordkeeping and automation
systems, uncontrolled contracting and budgeting processes, and
significant problems with gravesite accountability.
In contrast, you may recall from General McCoy's testimony
that the 2011 IG report identified no deficiencies, and noted
significant progress at the cemetery largely due to the course
set by the Secretary of the Army's Directive 2010-04, the
efforts of the Executive Director and her team, and the support
from the Department of the Army's staff. In short, the
mismanagement reported to you in the June 2010 IG report has
been relegated to the past, and Arlington is beginning to
transition from successful crisis management to sustained
excellence.
Allow me to just share a few specifics. The previous
insular environment that contributed to mismanagement and
substandard performance at Arlington has improved
significantly. The Executive Director has established a
positive work environment, emphasizing cooperation,
collaboration, and coordination. Workforce surveys taken as
part of the 2011 inspection did reflect steadily improving
morale, unity, and organizational effectiveness.
The cemetery now possesses a functional information
technology infrastructure, supported by a service agreement
with the Army's Information Technology Agency. Arlington has
leveraged the Agency's Consolidated Customer Service Center to
more effectively monitor and respond to customer calls, which
is increasing customer service. A new computer application for
digitizing burial records has been critical in establishing the
accountability baseline for each gravesite and inurnment niche.
In the contracting arena, new acquisitions are subjected to
rigorous analysis, pre-award compliance checks, and contract
packet reviews for quality assurance. While we still noted some
deficiencies and errors within contracts, the number was
significantly less than 2010, mostly administrative in
documentation.
Arlington now works closely with the Office of the
Administrative Assistant and the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Financial Management to ensure improved oversight of
the cemetery's budget formulation and execution. The transition
to the General Fund Enterprise Business System has provided
full visibility and transparency of cemetery expenditures.
Finally, with respect to improvements, the Executive
Director has recently published a campaign plan which includes
major efforts to complete gravesite accountability, complete
the documentation of policies and procedures, and addresses
long-term expansion of the cemetery. It assigns
responsibilities for these and other tasks as well, with
metrics and timelines to measure progress.
While these developments are encouraging, there is still
much more work to do. The 2011 Army IG inspection report
provided 53 recommendations for continued improvement at
Arlington. I will highlight a few required key actions.
First of all, Arlington's leadership and the Army must
finish updating relevant policies and regulations. Further, the
Arlington leadership must complete the documentation and
validation of internal oversight processes and controls. The
recent work to establish the gravesite accountability baseline
must continue to resolve the nearly 47,000 cases that remain.
The Executive Director must coordinate with the Army staff
to establish and document enduring external oversight processes
to prevent the recurrence of past shortcomings.
The Department of the Army must also finalize and implement
enduring jurisdictional, organizational, and support
relationships of the Army National Cemeteries Program.
As we look to our inspection this summer, we intend to
conduct assessments in several areas: first of all, compliance
with Army Directive 2010-04; progress in addressing the
recommendations from our 2011 report; compliance with the
Executive Director's campaign plan; the gravesite
accountability process validation; and we are collaborating
with the Army Audit Agency, the VA, and the United States Army
Force Management Support Agency for their participation as well
in this year's inspection.
In conclusion, Arlington remains a priority for the
Secretary and for the Army. The significant progress observed
by the Army IG validates the Secretary's approach to creating
the processes, systems and management that we found to be
lacking at Arlington in 2010. This strategy, executed according
to the Executive Director's campaign plan, with the support of
the Army, the Defense Department, other Federal agencies, and
Congress, has set the conditions for continued improvement and
ultimately sustained excellence.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify today.
I look forward to answering your questions and working with the
committees in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of General Vangjel can be found in
the Appendix on page 36.]
Mr. Wilson. General, thank you very much.
And Ms. Belva Martin.

STATEMENT OF BELVA M. MARTIN, DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION AND
SOURCING MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Ms. Martin. Chairmen Wilson and Wittman, Ranking Members
Davis and Cooper, members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you to discuss GAO's work at
Arlington.
Our reviews found that Arlington has taken significant
actions to address its problems, and that the path forward, as
you stated, Chairman Wilson, is for Arlington to sustain
progress through improved management and oversight. My
colleague Mr. Lepore will discuss GAO's work on management
issues.
On the contracting side, GAO identified 56 active contracts
over $100,000 that supported cemetery operations, construction
and facility maintenance, and new efforts to enhance IT systems
for the automation of burial operations. Arlington does not
have its own contracting authority, but relies on relationships
with contracting offices to award and manage its contracts.
These contracting authorities obligated roughly $35.2 million
in support of the 56 contracts that were included in our
review.
And as the IG has noted, the Army has taken a number of
positive steps since June 2010 at different levels to provide
for more effective management and oversight of contracts,
including improving contracting policies and practices,
establishing new support relationships, formalizing policies
and procedures, and increasing the use of dedicated contracting
staff to manage and improve its acquisitions.
However, GAO found three areas at Arlington where
additional improvements are needed: first, maintaining complete
data on contracts; second, defining responsibilities for
contracting support; and third, determining contract staffing
needs. I will briefly summarize key findings in these three
areas.
First, with respect to maintaining complete data, when we
did our review, we were able to pull together information on
Arlington contracts from various sources, including support
organizations, but there were shortcomings with each of these
sources. To be able to identify, track, and ensure the
effective management and oversight of its contracts, Arlington
leadership needs complete data on all contracts.
Second, with respect to support relationships, the Army has
taken a number of steps to better align Arlington contract
support with the expertise of its partners. For example,
Arlington has agreements with the Army Information Technology
Agency, ITA, and the Army Analytics Group to help manage its IT
infrastructure. While these agreements spell out the services
that ITA will provide to Arlington, and performance metrics
against which ITA will be measured--these are all very positive
steps--these agreements do not specifically address ITA's
contract management roles and responsibilities in support of
Arlington's requirements. Although officials told us that they
were aware of their roles and responsibilities, the question
is, what happens when personnel changes? Going forward,
sustained attention on the part of Arlington and its partners
will be important to ensure that contracts of all types and
risk levels are managed effectively.
Third, with respect to dedicated contract staffing
arrangements, three contract specialist positions have been
identified for Arlington, but have not been filled. Arlington
is presently receiving support from Fort Belvoir's contracting
office in the form of 10 positions, 5 funded by Arlington and 5
by Fort Belvoir. Arlington officials have identified the need
for a more senior contracting specialist and are developing
plans to fill this new position in fiscal year 2013.
In closing, the success of the Army's efforts to improve
contracting and management at the cemetery will depend on
management's sustained attention and efforts to
institutionalize positive steps taken to date. Accordingly, we
made a number of recommendations in our December 2011 report to
improve contract management and oversight in the three areas
where we found shortcomings. For the most part, DOD agreed with
our findings and that there is a need to take actions, and
provided timeframes for doing so. We will continue to monitor
their progress.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this
concludes my short statement. I will be happy to answer
questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Ms. Martin and Mr. Lepore
can be found in the Appendix on page 55.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Ms. Martin.
We now have Mr. Brian Lepore.

STATEMENT OF BRIAN J. LEPORE, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CAPABILITIES
AND MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Mr. Lepore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, Chairman Wittman,
and Ranking Member Cooper, and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
present our findings from our review of oversight and
management of Arlington National Cemetery.
As you know, we issued our report on the management and
oversight of Arlington on December 15 of last year. My
testimony is based on our report, and I will make two points
today. First, I will discuss the policies and procedures that
the current leadership team at Arlington has put into place to
begin to address the deficiencies that became apparent, and I
will identify some of our recommendations to help assist in
that endeavor. And secondly, I will discuss some factors that
could potentially affect the feasibility and advisability of
transferring Arlington from the Army to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, the VA.
Here is the bottom line: I think it is fair to say the
current leadership team at Arlington has taken many positive
steps at the cemetery to address the deficiencies and make
improvements. The Army has made progress in a range of areas,
including chain-of-custody procedures, to ensure a proper
accountability over remains, better providing information
assurance, and improving procedures to address inquiries from
the families and the public. However, we believe some steps are
still needed to ensure that these changes are institutionalized
and will prove lasting for the long term, long after the
spotlight has faded. Therefore, we have made recommendations in
six areas.
First, we believe they should complete the enterprise
architecture to guide new investments in information technology
to ensure the investments are aligned with the future
operational requirements; second, an updated workforce plan to
ensure the workforce is properly sized and trained; third, an
internal assessment program to gauge how the cemetery is doing,
and making any improvements that may be warranted; fourth,
improving coordination with the cemetery's operational
partners, the Military District of Washington, the military
honor guards, and Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall to ensure, for
example, that scheduling conflicts are avoided and the right
honor guards are available when needed; fifth, a strategic plan
or campaign plan with expected outcomes, performance metrics,
and milestones; and sixth, written policies explaining how to
assist the families when such assistance is warranted.
The cemetery leadership has generally concurred with our
recommendations and has begun to implement them. We are
encouraged by this.
Now my final point: the question of the feasibility and
advisability of transferring Arlington from the Army to the VA.
It is certainly feasible. As you know, Congress transferred
more than 80 national cemeteries managed by the Army to the VA
in the 1970s. However, several factors could affect the
advisability of this. Such a change can have potential costs
and benefits challenges. It can lead to certain transition
challenges, and can affect the characteristics that make
Arlington unique among our national cemeteries. Thus, it may be
premature to change jurisdiction right now since the Army has
significantly improved its management of Arlington.
Here are some of the specific challenges that could arise
in a jurisdictional change. First, simply identifying the goals
of the transfer.
Second, the Army and the VA have their own staff,
processes, and systems to determine burial eligibility, and
scheduling and managing burials. As an example, Arlington has
more restrictive eligibility for in-ground burials than the VA.
Third, Arlington's appropriations structure is different
than the VA's, and should you make a jurisdictional change, the
Congress may wish to review that and determine what is the
right course of action.
Fourth, Arlington provides military funeral honors, but the
VA does not.
Fifth, Arlington hosts many special ceremonies every year,
some involving the President and visiting heads of state.
And sixth, Arlington is one of the most visited tourist
destinations in Washington, hosting over 4 million visitors a
year.
Finally, we do think opportunities exist for the Army and
the VA to collaborate more for the mutual benefit of both
organizations, but, most importantly, for the benefit of our
Active-Duty service members, our veterans, and their families.
Here are some examples. VA has staff dedicated to
establishing eligibility for burial in their cemeteries and a
central scheduling center that could assist Arlington.
Conversely, VA officials are examining whether geographic
information system or global positioning system technology
should be used in their cemeteries, but the Army already does
this and could conceivably provide assistance to the VA. Since
no formal mechanism exists yet to identify collaboration
opportunities, we recommended that the two departments
establish one, and they agreed.
In conclusion, we believe the Army has worked through the
crisis and taken steps to put Arlington National Cemetery on a
sustainable path to ensure effective cemetery operations. Our
recommendations are offered in the spirit of assisting that
process along so that we never have to come before you again to
have this conversation.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks, and I
would be happy to answer any questions that you or the other
members of the subcommittee may have.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Lepore and Ms. Martin
can be found in the Appendix on page 55.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Director Lepore. And I want to thank
Director Martin. Both of you were very helpful. And I even
appreciated your final comment that you didn't want to have to
come back. Truly, you are helping make that possible. So thank
you.
The Arlington Executive Director Ms. Kathryn Condon.

STATEMENT OF KATHRYN A. CONDON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARLINGTON
NATIONAL CEMETERY

Ms. Condon. Chairman Wilson, Chairman Wittman, and
distinguished members of both subcommittees, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the progress
that we have made at Arlington National Cemetery. As both of
the chairmen and Ranking Member Davis and Cooper both know from
our monthly updates, there still is a lot of work left that we
have to do at Arlington, but the Army and the entire cemetery
are prepared to address the challenges that remain. But today,
significant progress has been made, progress as a result of our
concerted focus on establishing repeatable standards, measures,
and operating procedures that emphasize safety, proficiency,
professionalism, and accountability.
The implementation of state-of-the-art technology now makes
the hallowed grounds of Arlington one of the most
technologically advanced cemeteries in the country, a different
perspective than 19 months ago, when the cemetery lacked fiscal
stewardship; was a paper-based operation using a typewriter and
having only one fax machine; when calls were not answered; and
the workforce was not properly manned, trained, or equipped.
But practicing sound fiscal stewardship and displaying
transparency of cemetery operations is paramount in our effort
to restore the faith, trust, and honor our veterans and their
families so rightfully deserve.
A formal chain-of-custody process has been implemented to
maintain positive, verifiable control of remains throughout
both the interment and inurnment process at the cemetery. And
we have reviewed years of financial records and recovered
funds, $26.8 million to be exact, funds that were fully used to
fully fund, as you know, Chairman Wittman, the construction of
the ninth columbarium and to make the necessary improvements to
years of backlogs of maintenance and repair. You have my
commitment that we will continue to examine prior-year funding
records to see if there are more dollars that can be recovered
to put back into Arlington.
In the accountability report recently submitted to this
Congress, we have examined and photographed 259,978 gravesites,
markers, and niches. The Accountability Task Force compiled
those photos and coupled them with our existing records, and
for the first time we now have consolidated 147 years of
cemetery records, records that were created from logbook
entries, our paper-based records of interment and grave cards
that we used to have in our interment scheduling base but are
no longer there, and the automated records that we did have,
and we now have them into a single, accountable database.
Since the submission of the report, the total validated
gravesites without any burial discrepancies in evidence is now
212,674, and we are working diligently to continue to close the
remaining 18 percent of the cases to bring our efforts on
accountability to closure.
The creation of the single, complete, verifiable database
will soon allow families and other stakeholders with Internet
access to search and produce a picture of each and every marker
in the cemetery, and to review that with publicly available
information pertaining to each gravesite. They can do this on
our state-of-the-art Web site and soon-to-be smartphone
application that we will be launching to the public.
In the area of contracting, we have made significant
progress in contract management, transforming our contracting
activities to position the Army National Cemetery's program for
long-term sustainment. The Army has resourced our contracting
support and oversight, adding skilled acquisition support
personnel to support my staff, and properly training the
workforce involved in the acquisition process.
In order to orchestrate the many activities required to
effectively run Arlington, we have developed the Army National
Cemeteries Campaign Plan, which codifies in one strategic
document the long-term vision for the operation of the cemetery
at both Arlington and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home. It is
the vehicle that the superintendent Pat Hallinan and I will use
to ensure that we do achieve our future vision for the
cemetery. It incorporates the significant guidance, support,
and recommendations we have received from Secretary McHugh,
from the GAO, from the Army inspector general, from the Army
Audit Agency, from the Northern Virginia Technology Council,
and from distinguished Members of Congress, in particular
members of this committee.
Coupled with the campaign plan, we are developing our
Enterprise Architecture and Technology Acquisition Roadmap,
which will serve as our IT blueprint and ensure our IT
investments are effectively and efficiently meeting the needs
of the organization well into the future.
In conclusion, I personally wish to thank both committees
again for your leadership and monthly guidance as we restore
honor and dignity to Arlington National Cemetery. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Condon can be found in the
Appendix on page 77.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And at this time we will proceed to questions from each
member of both of the subcommittees, and we will be on a strict
5-minute rule. This will be upheld by Mr. John Chapla, who is a
professional staff member of the Armed Services Committee and
above reproach. He is very good about keeping the 5-minute
rule, including with both chairmen.
And at this time I would like to ask Ms. Condon, first of
all, it is exciting, and I hope people do hear the good news
that you can access records now by the Internet. As a person
who has a direct family member there, it means a lot to me as a
citizen of our country and also as a Member of Congress.
In your report you have identified that more than 57,000
grave discrepancies still have to be resolved. I would like you
to focus on what the most serious are, and particularly the
14,000 critical discrepancies. What is the corrective action
timeline and funding required to address the critical
deficiencies?
Ms. Condon. Mr. Chairman, in our accountability what we
have done is we started the process with business rules. And
one of our business rules, to match the photo that the Old
Guard took of each and every gravesite and niche, was that we
had to match that with at least two records. Most of those
14,000 discrepancies, which are really not discrepancies per
se, means that we didn't have two records; we only had one
record. We are finding that from the Civil War we only had one
document, which was the document in the handwritten transcribed
logbook.
But what our Accountability Task Force did, and they ended
at the 22nd of December, but we now have 45 analysts. Most of
them are temporary employees, who have dedicated themselves to
looking at the Social Security Death Index, to look at census
data, to look at military records, to go on Ancestry.com to
make sure that we could find another record so that we could
validate the information that we have on the gravesite and
headstone. And that incorporates most of what that 14,000 is.
Mr. Wilson. Well, that is very creative, and I am delighted
to hear that.
Additionally, there have been press reports that $12
million of what were previously appropriated funds could not be
found. And then you have indicated that you have recovered
$26.8 million. Could you tell us how the recovery was done,
whether there are any other unobligated funds still to be
found? And how is this situation of unobligated funds to be
prevented in the future?
Ms. Condon. Well, sir, I can first start by talking how the
$12 million came about.
On page 15 of Ms. Martin's GAO report on contracting, they
cited a 2010 Army audit that said that $15 million was--of
unliquidated obligations was recovered. So if you take the
total of the amount that we have found and subtract the $15
million, you get $12 million that they said was unaccounted
for.
Sir, that was not unaccounted for. We recovered all of that
$26.8 million, because the IG reports, the Army audit reports,
and the GAO reports were all snapshots in time. And that data,
you know, we were continuing to recover those funds. How did
the staff? My resource management staff has been working
meticulously to look at each and every contract to make sure
that we close out those contracts and recover funds, and to
also look at each and every MIPR [Military Interdepartmental
Purchase Request], which is when you give money out to an
organization to provide support, to make sure that we close out
and bring back those dollars. That is how we were able to
recoup the $26 million that we found.
Mr. Wilson. I want to congratulate you. I can't imagine
recovering that much money. So I am very, very pleased.
For everyone, and it can be very brief since my time is
brief, should the Department of Veterans Affairs assume
responsibility for Arlington National Cemetery and the cemetery
at the Soldiers' Home here in the District of Columbia? And we
will begin this time with General Vangjel.
General Vangjel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that we need to take a good look at this and a more
detailed look. I concur with what the GAO has brought up
already. As I take a look at it, I think, though, that right
now the Army should keep it. And the bottom line is
collaboration is probably better at this point, at least for
the next few years, and then we will take another look. And we
will do whatever the President and Congress want us to do.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
Ms. Martin. I will defer to my colleague.
Mr. Lepore. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As we noted in our report,
given the progress the Army has made, and given the potential
short-term costs of actually doing a transfer, it seemed to us
that it might be more prudent to give the Army a chance to see
if they can complete their progress and bring this through to a
successful conclusion. And you will have a pretty good idea how
they do when General Vangjel and his team come back in later
this year. So it seemed to us that right now making that
decision might be a little premature.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
And Ms. Condon.
Ms. Condon. Chairman Wilson, I am not going to answer this
parochially. My job was to put in place, to fix Arlington for
our veterans and their loved ones. The decision on where
Arlington is placed, all I can tell you, sir, is if it is
transferred, you will have a fixed, much improved Arlington.
Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you all. And we now proceed to the
ranking member, Susan Davis of San Diego, California.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
To you, General Vangjel, if you were to give Arlington a
grade right now, what would that be?
General Vangjel. I have had a chance to go down and
essentially talk to some people, and I have looked at some past
reports. I haven't had a chance to look at it in depth like I
am going to do this summer with the inspection team as we go
down. What I can say is that being deployed for the past 2
years, as I heard what was going on at Arlington, I would have
to give them a zero with what I heard. I have to be honest with
you, because it is just not something--it was inconceivable
that that was happening, because what I saw was there were very
respectful ceremonies. It seemed to be going well.
I will say, though, that looking at the progress that has
been made, and, as I say, I go back and look at the reports
that the Department of the Army IG has done, there have been
two now, there has been significant progress. So if you are
asking me to put it on a number scale, ma'am, that would be
difficult for me to do at this point because I don't usually
give tens. So I would have to say that they are probably
around--they are better than five.
Mrs. Davis. Of what you know, and certainly from the
testimony today, one of the things I kept hearing was about
staffing issues and making sure that the issues around that are
really sustained so that no matter who is there, you know, that
those issues are addressed. Is that one that would certainly
improve their grade, or is there anything else that really
stands out to you from all that has been said?
General Vangjel. In 2010, we identified the fact that they
just--the staff wasn't robust enough to be able to do the jobs
that they were being asked to do, particularly from an
oversight function. We recommended that the Army Force
Management Support Agency and the United States Army Manpower
Analysis Agency come down, take a look. They did. They made
recommendations. And the Secretary of the Army authorized an
increase of about 63 personnel, I believe. And Ms. Condon has
been hiring folks. I don't believe she has got them all yet. I
defer to her for the actual status.
In my mind, it is the documentation of SOPs [standard
operating procedures], internal process controls. If I had to
say what really in my mind influences the score, if you will,
the service to the families is remarkable. They are doing a
good job with that. Ceremonies have always been done well. In
fact, in one circumstance you could argue that the fact that
they were done well caused a lack of oversight in some other
areas. There was an assumption that everything was okay. And as
you take a look at that, though, I think at the end of the day,
it really is about establishing, documenting, and routinizing
these processes that they have made so much progress with so
far. But it is all about making sure that the SOPs match
execution right now. That is where we are at.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Martin, you mentioned in your testimony the need for
contracting specialists and certainly for senior staffers as
well. And I am just wondering what do you think is a reasonable
timeframe to--if we look back 6 months from--or look forward 6
months from now, should those issues be addressed by then, or
should it be 3 months, a year? What is reasonable to assume
that a lot of these areas have been addressed?
Ms. Martin. Well, Congresswoman, I would certainly have to
defer to the leadership at Arlington. To her credit, Ms. Condon
has identified the need for a more senior contracting
specialist, and she has taken some steps to get that in 2013.
My understanding is there is a process to do that. So she has
already put the steps in place.
The fact that she is getting the support that she needs
from Fort Belvoir at the present time is certainly a positive.
But our point would be that at some point if there is another
urgent need within the Army, that support may not be there for
Arlington. So as we have been saying, that it is important,
again, to put the policies, procedures, have the right people
in place in order to sustain. So sustainment, again, is the
key. But Ms. Condon has certainly, and her team have certainly
taken the steps to identify what she needs, and to hopefully
bring those people on board.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Condon, what do you think is a reasonable timeframe to
come back and be sure that, you know--6 months? Is that
reasonable? Or 3 months?
Ms. Condon. Six months is fair. Ma'am, we are currently in
the process of hiring that senior contracting professional to
be personally on my staff. The reason why I am very comfortable
with the agreement we have now with the Army Contracting
Command, with having them provide our contracting support,
because that means that we have trained acquisition
professionals who are in the acquisition chain, so that I will
make sure that they have the right training, the right
credentials, the right levels of certification, and the right
warrants. Because Arlington really isn't that large of an
organization to have a large contracting structure embedded in
our TDA [Table of Distribution and Allowances]. So if I have
the one senior professional on the staff personally and then
reach back to the Contracting Command for support, I think that
will satisfy the contracting oversight and requirements that we
will need at the cemetery.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Davis.
And we proceed now to Chairman Rob Wittman of Virginia.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Martin, I want to begin with you. I find it interesting
in the report you speak about contract management and
deficiencies there at Arlington with contract management.
Specifically in the area of IT, it appears as though about $5
million spent in IT contracts that appear to be wasteful and
haven't produced any results. And on page 9 of the report, you
have said that the IT contract management system is not guided
by a modernization blueprint, and that it is duplicative,
poorly integrated, and unnecessarily costly to maintain.
From that standpoint, what did your review uncover in
specific terms about why you believe that was occurring, as
well as what are the current efforts to overcome those
deficiencies? Where are they in this modernization effort to
make sure there is not duplication and that systems aren't
unduly costly to maintain those efforts?
Ms. Martin. Thank you, Chairman, for the question. And it
actually spans both of the reports. The external reviews found
that the over $5 million that had been spent to try to
modernize the IT systems really didn't get us very much. And
there were a number of reasons, starting from some basic stuff
like the people who were executing the contracts were not
properly trained and did not have the right experience. And Ms.
Condon kind of referred to the importance of doing that up-
front planning for contracts.
And a couple of the systems really did not get us very much
in terms of trying to modernize. As a part of the mandate, we
were required to look at five particular systems that were
called out, and what we found is that two of these systems are
active, and those two are the interment scheduling system and
the geographic information system. That is the one that Ms.
Condon and my colleague referred to to be able to use GPS to do
the mapping, et cetera. One system is in use, the BOSS [Burial
Operations Scheduling System] system. And that is a VA system.
So it is not really an Arlington contract, but Arlington does
use that system to order the headstones and the grave markers,
but there is no payment to VA under that contract. And then the
last two, the interment management system and the total
cemetery management system, are the ones that we basically got
nothing for in terms of the moneys that were spent.
So there were a number of reasons in terms of, you know,
the contracts not having the specific, again, oversight, the
deliverables not being very clear, documentation, planning,
oversight. So it spanned the gamut in terms of things that you
would not want to do for contracts. And so in the oversight and
management report, we made some specific recommendations in
terms of having an architecture, and Mr. Lepore can talk a bit
more about that.
Mr. Lepore. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The point that my colleague
Ms. Martin is making is we had made the point in our report
that the cemetery staff took some very reasonable initial steps
to deal with sort of immediate deficiencies, ensuring you have
got a good firewall, and virus protection, and some pretty
fundamental stuff, probably the things that needed to be done
urgently. Very reasonable steps.
Our point then was as the cemetery staff begins to
transition to putting the organization on a long-term
sustainable path, having a good plan that ties the future
operational environment back to the technology investments will
be needed, or what we call an enterprise architecture, would be
an important step to make sure that for the long term the
cemetery is on a sustainable path. They have begun that process
and expect to complete it later this year.
Mr. Wittman. Let me follow up on that long-term sustainable
path. You also point out in the report that there is a lack of
a strategic plan. It seems like to me an organization can't get
to where it needs to be without a clear vision that is stated
in the strategic plan. Can you tell me where you believe the
deficiencies lie as far as not having that plan, what that
means, and really where the organization there at Arlington
needs to go with that plan?
Mr. Lepore. Yes, I would be happy to. When we did the work,
there wasn't a plan at that time. It turns out that the
cemetery was working on one. Just a couple of weeks ago really
we saw for the first time the Army's campaign plan as they call
it, which is--that is their jargon, okay, good enough. And
among the kinds of things we look for in a strategic plan are
goals and objectives, where are you trying to take the
organization; performance metrics so you have some way of
knowing did I get there or not; and milestones that sort of
force you--as sort of a forcing action to help you get there;
and then a process to go back and look at yourself and figure
out, did I get where I need to go?
We just saw the campaign plan for the first time a couple
of weeks ago. Ms. Condon and her staff were gracious enough to
share it with us. So we haven't had a chance to fully review it
yet since we just got it, but I can tell you it does seem to
have the basic fundamentals that we would look for in such a
plan.
Mr. Wittman. Very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Wittman.
And we now proceed to Ranking Member Jim Cooper of
Tennessee.
Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The title of this hearing is an ``Update on Accountability
at Arlington National Cemetery.'' I am worried that we are
hearing a whole lot more about accounting and bureaucracy than
we are hearing about accountability.
When I talk to folks back home, they think accountability
means that somebody was in charge, and they had to account for
what they did or did not do while they were in charge, and we
are not hearing much about that. And to refresh everybody's
memory, in July and August of 2009, the newspaper, the
Washington Post, discovered irregularities at the cemetery. I
think it was June 2010, almost a year later, that the Secretary
of the Army responded. We have had a hearing in 2011. Now it is
2012. We are years into this, and to my knowledge not one
person, either military or civilian, has been punished in any
way for one of the worst scandals in the 150-year history of
Arlington National Cemetery.
Now, as this was going on, we have learned from the news
media that the Air Force has apparently improperly disposed of
the remains, the ashes, of over 200 airmen and women. To my
knowledge, there has been no accountability there either. Now,
that is a newer scandal. But what is going on here?
And I love your new systems. And I think accountants are
great, and I love software, and accurate recordkeeping is
great. But we must remember this is a core function of the U.S.
military, and has been since the founding of the services.
There is no more premier location than Arlington, and no
reprimand, no punishment, no accountability. We haven't even,
in this hearing at least, identified the folks to be held
accountable. And I love looking forward, and I love optimism,
and I do think great progress has been made by the current
folks. But how do I look folks in the eye back home and say
there has been accountability?
When you talk about whether it should be an Army or a VA
facility, who in the Army was in charge? And this is way beyond
the realm of the GAO and folks like that, and you are excellent
witnesses, and I appreciate the limits on your supervision, but
this hearing is about accountability at Arlington, and the best
I can tell, there is none, at least in terms of holding the
wrongdoers accountable.
So what are we going to do about this? This is years into
the investigation. Members of Congress that run for office
hoping to hold investigative hearings on cemetery
accountability, presumably this will be handled responsibly.
But I am getting tired of waiting years into the investigation.
Now, I want to be fair to all involved, but this is years that
have passed. Is it going to take 3 years to find out what
happened to the ashes of the airmen that were apparently dumped
in a dumpster? What is going on here?
So I hope that these committees will not be part of any
sweeping under the rug, any whitewash. But as the years click
by, shouldn't there be not just an accounting, but
accountability?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I did not take an
opening statement. I did not want to stress the committee here.
But I think we have more work to do in this area.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much for your inquiries, which
certainly need to be addressed.
At this time we have Mr. Conaway.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cooper is a hard act
to follow.
I am a CPA, and I am trying to figure out the recordkeeping
process, which I do think is core to some of the stuff that
went on. The report went through an era-based model where the
various eras, and starting in 1999, there is something called
the BOSS system that is, I guess, a VA cemetery system. And did
you have anybody look at kind of the state of the art for--I
mean, there are people who control cemeteries and burials, you
know, all over the United States, and there is a full industry
of that that does it. There is nothing unique about handling
remains and burying folks to the military. We honor those folks
a little bit more than the general. So help me understand what
the current BOSS system is versus a system you would normally
find in a relatively modern cemetery operation.
Ms. Condon. Congressman Conaway, the BOSS system is the
Veterans Affairs system, their Burial Operations Scheduling
System that the VA----
Mr. Conaway. Which is just scheduling.
Ms. Condon. It does scheduling. And it also is the system
that the gravestones, the markers, are ordered from. So that is
how Arlington uses the BOSS system.
Mr. Conaway. All right. So it is not--well----
Ms. Condon. It is a scheduling system that VA uses.
Mr. Conaway. What is ISS?
Ms. Condon. Interment Scheduling System was the scheduling
system that Arlington--it was something that I inherited on
June 10, and that is the scheduling system that we use at
Arlington to schedule our services. The difference between that
and the BOSS system is the variables for a burial at Arlington
are somewhat different. It is because you are coordinating the
chapels and all the services and so forth. But, Congressman
Conaway, we are working with VA on the interface between the
two systems that are required.
Mr. Conaway. If BOSS is just scheduling, why do you need
two?
Ms. Condon. It is the system that you--we don't need two.
The bottom line is we need a scheduling system. But more than
that, we just need accountable data. So it doesn't matter what
system you use there to schedule a service, it is all about the
data.
Mr. Conaway. Okay. So services are being held at Arlington
today. Help us understand what the records look like for a
particular service. And is it a combination of handwritten
records, or is it all automated? It is all captured
electronically? Or what is the current state of affairs?
Ms. Condon. Sir, I am very proud to state for those members
of the committee who have actually been to Arlington and
actually saw the paper records and the Kardex machine, our
interment scheduling branch right now does not have one paper
record in it. Everything is digital. All of the records now are
digital.
Mr. Conaway. I understand scheduling, but somewhere in your
records you keep track of who is buried where.
Ms. Condon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Conaway. There are services being held today. And so
those long-term records--once the services are done, the
scheduling to make sure that the honor guard was there and
everything got taken care of, going forward, though, we need to
keep track of who is buried where. What does that data set look
like?
Ms. Condon. That data set, sir, follows the exact data that
we reported in the December 22 report to this Congress. This
way forward, we will have a photo of the front and back of
every gravesite and niche, and electronically attached to that
will be all of the records pertaining to that service. That is
how we are accounting for each and every burial not only for
the report that we did to Congress, but from this day forward.
So our employees, now when a headstone is set, take the photo
of the front and back of that headstone and attach that
digitally to the records.
Mr. Conaway. And the record is all electronic.
Ms. Condon. The record is all electronic.
Mr. Conaway. So this is a little crude. Maintaining the
inventory of folks who are buried where, that is fully
electronic now for all new interments?
Ms. Condon. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Conaway. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Conaway.
We proceed to Mr. Critz of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Critz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to get my
arms around this. Mr. Lepore, you said that in the 1970s at
some point, jurisdictional responsibility for--is it every
other national, or any other veterans cemetery was transferred
to the VA?
Mr. Lepore. The Army at that time managed 82 national
cemeteries, and under the 1973 National Cemeteries Act, those
cemeteries transferred to the Department of what was then just
the VA, now the Department of Veterans Affairs, except for two.
Arlington did not transfer, and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home
National Cemetery here in Washington did not transfer. The Army
retained those.
Mr. Critz. Okay. Is there any trouble like we are
experiencing at Arlington at any of these other cemeteries?
Mr. Lepore. We have not audited anybody beyond the
activities at Arlington, so I really can't say. I certainly
have seen some press accounts, but we have not--our audit was
focused on Arlington.
Mr. Critz. Prior to what was reported, what is that, almost
4 years ago, had there ever been an audit of Arlington's
recordkeeping prior?
Mr. Lepore. I am not aware of one by GAO. I do not know
whether the inspector general had ever done one, but we had
not, to my knowledge.
Mr. Critz. Was Arlington's, we will call it for lack of a
better term, management required to report, at the end of
fiscal years or at any point, back to the Army budgetary
processes, anything that had happened during the year?
Mr. Lepore. I am not aware of that, but Ms. Condon may be
in a better position to answer that than I am.
Ms. Condon. Sir, Arlington, the management of Arlington,
you know, as you do your research has to report to the
Department of the Army.
Mr. Critz. So, but it is just gross numbers, we had this
many ceremonies, not specifics?
Ms. Condon. It would be from a resource standpoint----
Mr. Critz. Right.
Ms. Condon [continuing]. It would be the resources required
to run the cemetery.
Mr. Critz. Going through the gravesite accountability study
findings, you know, obviously, this is a complex issue. As you
read through subsections that--you know, sections within, and
then subsections within, if they are not clearly marked, there
are going to be issues.
Do we have any recollection of anywhere before 2008, any
report where we have some issues because we are finding
sections that have people in them that aren't supposed to have
them, or we are finding grave markers that have no people
there? Is there anything prior to this 2008 sort of disaster?
I guess the question would be: How long have you folks been
involved in this other than just since we started this process?
Ms. Condon. Well, sir, I can start with that one. My first
day was on June 10, 2010, when Secretary McHugh created the
executive director position--Mr. Cooper--to be accountable for
the management and the operation of Arlington.
Mr. Critz. So everyone is just pretty much just since 2008.
And, sir, you just came on board very recently.
General Vangjel. Personally, yes, sir, but I do know that
there were operational assessments that were conducted at
Arlington Cemetery based on my document research that I did as
I have come on the job, 1996, 1997, 1998, by the Military
District of Washington, because they had, in fact, had
oversight responsibility at that time.
Mr. Critz. And nothing was reported in any of those
reports?
General Vangjel. Nothing that had to do with any kind of
mismarked graves or accountability of graves was reported
during that particular time, no, sir.
Mr. Critz. Since the digital system came on in 1999, is
there any documentation of issues of mismarked graves since
1999 forward? Maybe in your audit report, is there anything?
Now, prior to 1999, obviously, we have some issues because of
paper records, and, you know, hopefully there are cemeteries
across the country that have existed prior, but notwithstanding
that, anything since 1999 when we went digital where there has
been an issue?
Mr. Lepore. We did not attempt to go back that far, and let
me tell you, Congressman, the reason we didn't. The Gravesite
Accountability Task Force was in the process of reviewing all
350,000 or so records. There are some differences on what the
actual number is, as it turns out, but they were in the process
of reviewing every record, and so it didn't seem very fruitful
for us to do that work since we already had an organization
doing that, and, as you know, the Gravesite Accountability Task
Force report was just issued late December, I believe it was.
Mr. Critz. Right. Right.
Well, you know, I am new to the committee, but obviously, I
am listening to Mr. Cooper because we are talking about
accountability, and we have--these issues should have come up
long before. I am sure that someone knew this. This just didn't
pop up since 2008, and it is interesting to me that we have no
players that have been identified as having gross mismanagement
of that, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Critz.
We proceed to Mr. Coffman of Colorado.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, all of
you, for your testimony and for your service to our country.
My concern as a Marine Corps combat veteran is specific to
the remains of those who have been lost particularly in
Afghanistan, or Iraq, and certainly anyone lost in combat. And
I can remember being in Iraq that there was extraordinary care
and respect paid to those that have--that fell on the
battlefield. And where I see the breakdown, whether it is with
the Air Force at Dover, or the Army at Arlington, is the fact
that you have civilian personnel, whether by the Army or by the
Air Force, that, number one, come from a different culture
where that respect may or may not be there, but it is not
necessarily shared, but, more importantly, are not subject to
the Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ].
When there is a violation of a regulation, it is, in
effect, a lawful order, and uniform military personnel can be
prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, where
civilian personnel are not accountable to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice for the violation of the same regulation. And
I really think that if anything comes out of these hearings,
that the chain of custody for those who have fallen in battle,
that chain of custody for the remains of those who have fallen
must be by uniformed military personnel only. And because that
is what is most upsetting about this is that we are in this
discussion saying, oh, things are getting better; oh, things
are changing. Let me tell you this: If this all were handled--
and I understand support services, and so I am narrowly
defining something that I really think ought to be changed in
respect for those who have fallen on the battlefield--that I
just don't believe we would be in this situation right now,
having had a career between the United States Army and the
Marine Corps. We are in the kind of discussions that we have
had about the kind of dereliction of duty that has befallen
Arlington, and Dover--I know Dover is not a part of this
discussion today--but I simply don't believe we would be here
today if we were doing that.
Now, I understand there is a broader question, and we are
talking about retired military personnel. We are talking about
dependents. We are talking about other things. But if there is
anything that as a combat veteran that I believe must come out
of these hearings, it is, again, that only U.S.--uniformed U.S.
military personnel handle the remains of those who have fallen
in battle. And I open it up if anybody would like to comment on
that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Coffman, and you raise
a really good point about the UCMJ.
We proceed to Mr. Runyan, of New Jersey.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I somewhat agree with what my colleague Mr. Coffman has
kind of said. I think we all agree, we kind of have our arms
around this. But we have to put teeth to it.
We talk about accountability, and I have had the fortunate
opportunity to actually chair the VA Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorials, so I obviously have dual jurisdiction
here. And we are beginning, obviously, with Sam Houston
Cemetery, experiencing some of these same pitfalls that we have
here at Arlington, unfortunately. Again, the word
``accountability'' comes up time and time again. And if there
are no teeth to anything we are doing, actions have
consequences. No one has the fear of a consequence coming down;
whether it is through contracting, whether it is through your
predecessor. How do we do this? Do we do it through the
contractor? Do we have to do it through legislation, through
this committee?
I mean, obviously, my colleague Mr. Coffman has a
legitimate pathway to address that issue, but I think there are
multiple factors that have to be in there. But we have to hold
the people accountable. At the root of it, I think most of
these problems go away. And I think also, and I think as we are
moving forward, Ms. Condon, with how our--our plan, and I know
you are still building the roadmap of ``you can take this
manual and hand it to your predecessor.'' I know we are
building that, but to have those teeth in those procedures
also, and, throughout the process of gaining the information
and the pitfalls that you are finding from your predecessor, to
make sure that all of that information is in there.
Because it truly is a disgrace what we have done to this
cemetery and, frankly, to what I am finding in the VA. And I
know, being briefed by the VA people, that you guys are working
very closely together because you have a lot of similar
problems and to share those experiences. And I hope we can work
together on that aspect because I know how a lot of this--how a
lot of this works: This is my problem; that is their problem.
No. It is the American people's problem. It is our soldiers. It
is our taxpayers at the end of the day. And there are people
that need to be held accountable, and I think that as a
committee we have to find a way to do that.
And I applaud you all for your efforts here, but there are
a lot of things that it hurts. It hurts people every day when
these loved ones call up and say, I don't know if my loved one
is buried where you say they are buried. And there are some of
them that we can't even prove. It is heartbreaking to have to
go through that kind of stuff.
So I know we have our arms around it. I think we truly, and
I will say it again, sink our teeth into it and make sure that
this never happens again. And I thank you all for your
testimony, and, Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much for your heartfelt
comments, Mr. Runyan, and at this time, unless there is any
further question, we shall again thank the witnesses for being
here, thank you for making a difference. Again, Arlington, the
shrine of our country, the respect that we have for our service
members, military families, veterans, this is so important.
And I would like now to proceed to Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would like to
thank the witnesses.
I think there are a couple of things here that all of us on
the committee would like to know today. I think Mr. Cooper
brings up a great point on accountability, and about past
actions, current investigations. I think all of us feel like a
sufficient amount of time has passed where those investigations
should have reached their conclusion. There should be findings,
and there should be actions. So I think I know that our
committee would expect from you, General Vangjel, and from you,
Ms. Condon, some indication about where that is.
And I realize it may not be under your direct jurisdiction.
I realize it is probably internal investigations within the
Army, but I am sure that you can pass on to the Army leadership
there that I think both of our committees would like a
definitive answer as to where that goes on. And I realize Mr.
Cooper's frustration, because at our last meeting, at our last
hearing, the same questions were asked about when we could
expect findings and actions. And as Mr. Cooper pointed out,
they spent a long time, and I think all of us think it is very
reasonable that a conclusion should have been reached by this
particular point in time.
So I hope that that comes back to both of our committees so
we understand where things are. I think that is an
extraordinarily important question. We talked about some of the
nuts and bolts today. That is one of those efforts hanging out
there that I think leaves us all in a very uncomfortable
position. I thank Mr. Cooper for bringing it up. I know it is a
difficult, but a very, very important issue for this, and we
look forward to hearing something definitive back from the Army
as to where that is. And----
Mr. Wilson. I believe, excuse me, General Vangjel wanted to
comment on that.
General Vangjel. Yes, Congressman, if I could, please. As
we went through the investigation for what we have with the two
outstanding issues, the urns and gravesite reservations in
particular, as we move forward, we look at violations of policy
guidance. If it is criminal, we hand it over to the Criminal
Investigation Division [CID]. They have completed their
investigations with the Department of Justice now. So that is
the decision, and that is what we are told in the Army, they
are making the determination on prosecution. So what we will do
is we will do the best we can to get information from them, and
we can provide that to the committee. But ultimately, right
now, it is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice
[DOJ].
Mr. Wittman. I think that would be great. If you could let
us know when CID passed it over to the Justice Department, and
who it is there so these committees can communicate with the
Justice Department to get from them an idea about timeframe.
General Vangjel. Absolutely, Congressman, I will do.
Mr. Wilson. Thanks. I look forward to working with Chairman
Wittman and our ranking members, too, in regard to possible CID
and DOJ officials to come and let us know what the status is,
because this would be beyond your purview, but there should be
accountability, and we can't proceed without it.
General Vangjel. Yeah.
Mr. Wittman. And I think, too, another thing to take from
today that I ask all of you to consider, I think the suggestion
that the leadership chain include somebody in uniform to make
sure the Uniform Code of Military Justice is something that
reigns, that is something that is a very, very significant
suggestion, one that, as strategic planning and organization
plans are looked at, that--I mean, it is something that garners
your serious consideration. I want to thank Mr. Coffman for
bringing that up.
Mr. Wilson. Any further? If not, we shall be adjourned.
Thank you, again, everyone, for being here today.
[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
?

=======================================================================

A P P E N D I X

February 3, 2012

=======================================================================

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

February 3, 2012

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.003

.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2936.063