[Senate Hearing 111-1008]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1008
MISMANAGEMENT OF CONTRACTS AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 29, 2010
__________
Available via http://www.fdsys.gov
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-406 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON TESTER, Montana LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Joyce Ward, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
Margaret Daum, Staff Director
Molly Wilkinson, Minority Staff Director
Kelsey Stroud, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator McCaskill............................................ 1
Senator Brown................................................ 3
Senator Collins.............................................. 5
Senator Tester............................................... 6
Prepared statements:
Senator McCaskill............................................ 55
Senator Brown................................................ 59
Senator Collins.............................................. 62
WITNESSES
Thursday, July 29, 2010
John C. Metzler, Jr., Former Superintendent, Arlington National
Cemetery....................................................... 7
Thurman Higginbotham, Former Deputy Superintendent, Arlington
National Cemetery.............................................. 9
Edward M. Harrington, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Procurement), Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)........................ 35
Claudia L. Tornblom, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Management and Budget), Office of the Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Civil Works)......................................... 37
Kathryn A. Condon, Executive Director, Army National Cemeteries
Program, U.S. Army............................................. 38
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Condon, Kathryn:
Testimony.................................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 86
Harrington, Edward M.:
Testimony.................................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Higginbotham, Thurman:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Metzler, John C., Jr.:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Tornblom, Claudia:
Testimony.................................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 79
APPENDIX
Additional prepared statements submitted for the Record by:
Clarence Hill, National Commander, The American Legion....... 92
Military Officers Association of America (MOAA).............. 97
Rick Jones, NAUS Legislative Director, The National
Association for Uniformed Services......................... 102
Reserve Officers Association (ROA)........................... 106
Joseph E. Davis, Director of Public Affairs, Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the United States.......................... 110
The Retired Enlisted Association............................. 112
Memorandum referenced by Senator McCaskill................... 116
MISMANAGEMENT OF CONTRACTS AT
ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claire
McCaskill, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators McCaskill, Carper, Tester, Brown, and
Collins (ex officio).
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL
Senator McCaskill. This hearing will now come to order.
This is a hearing on Arlington National Cemetery and the
problems that we have at Arlington National Cemetery.
Arlington National Cemetery is the Nation's most sacred
burial ground for veterans and their families, a national
shrine, and an emblem of the courage and sacrifice of so many
throughout our Nation's history. Over the last year, I have
learned of shocking stories about Arlington--bodies
accidentally buried in the same graves, unmarked and mismarked
graves, urns of cremated remains being found where they
shouldn't be, the heartbreaking tragedy of families who cannot
trust the Cemetery to tell them where their loved ones are
buried.
In June, the U.S. Army Inspector General released a report
finding major flaws in the operation of Arlington National
Cemetery. The Army Inspector General found hundreds of mistakes
associated with graves and substantiated many of the reports
that had previously appeared in the media. The Army Inspector
General found that the failure to implement an effective
automated system to manage burials at the Cemetery contributed
to these mistakes. The Army Inspector General also found that
the contracts awarded to acquire components of the proposed
system for the Cemetery failed to comply with applicable
Federal, Defense, and Army regulations.
Senator Brown and I called today's hearings to examine how
contract mismanagement at Arlington National Cemetery resulted
in this scandal. My staff has prepared a memorandum\1\
summarizing what we have learned from our investigation. I ask
for unanimous consent that the memo and the documents it cites
be made part of the hearing record. Without objection, those
will be entered into the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The memorandum referenced by Senator McCaskill appears in the
appendix on page 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 10 years ago, the Army began the development of a
new system to automate the management of burial operations at
Arlington National Cemetery. From the beginning, the
acquisition process was plagued with problems.
One problem was that the Cemetery and Army officials
decided to create a new system instead of using or modifying
the system that was already being used by the Department of
Veterans Affairs. This system, called BOSS, was developed by
government employees and cost about $2.4 million in total,
including the costs of automating more than 2.2 million burial
records, and it works.
Instead, the Cemetery asked the Army Center for Contracting
Excellence and the Army Corps of Engineers to award a series of
contracts to develop their own system called the Total Cemetery
Management System (TCMS). The Cemetery has spent somewhere
between $5.5 and $8 million--and, by the way, it is a problem
we don't know exactly how much--on this TCMS program, and
today, Arlington National Cemetery still does not have a system
that can accurately track graves and manage burial operations.
One reason for this was the lack of management and
oversight. The Army contracting officials who were responsible
for these contracts awarded sole source contracts without
ensuring that the contractors were even able to do the work.
They failed to make sure the government was paying a fair
price.
In addition, the responsible officials outside the Cemetery
failed to conduct even the most basic oversight. Officials
within the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, who
have been responsible for the Cemetery's budget for the last
decade, merely reviewed the materials submitted by the Cemetery
to Congress regarding TCMS. They did not see the red flags.
They did not ask any additional questions that would have
helped bring these problems to light much earlier.
We have also learned that there has been no review of
Arlington National Cemetery for the last decade, no review of
the contracts. And what is even more appalling to me, as a
former State Auditor, no one has performed any audits
whatsoever.
And now we know that the problems with the graves at
Arlington may be far more extensive than previously
acknowledged. At a conservative estimate, 4,900 to 6,600 graves
may be unmarked, improperly marked, or mislabeled on the
Cemetery's maps.
We are here today because we owe our veterans better. We
owe their families much more. We owe more to the Americans who
expect their government not to fritter away their money on
wasteful contracts. And the people who let this happen, whether
it was ignorance, incompetence, or denial, must be held
accountable.
This week, after hearing from all of the different
veterans' organizations, the American Legion, Reserve Officers
Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), all of them have
participated by submitting information for this hearing.
Although this is the Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight,
what is most important is to get this right for all of the
veterans and their families who have sacrificed so much for our
country.
In their statement, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, one of
the Nation's largest and oldest veterans' associations, which
also happens to be based in Kansas City, wrote the following.
``What occurred at Arlington is a national disgrace, yet the
VFW hopes it will serve as a wake-up call. The failure at
Arlington National Cemetery was allowed to occur by a hands-off
attitude by those more senior in the chain of command who may
have regarded their oversight responsibility more as an
additional duty than a primary mission.''
I hope today's hearing is a very loud, very clear wake-up
call to everyone involved. And let me say that there are so
many men and women who work at Arlington National Cemetery and
who volunteer there, the Old Guard, thousands of people who do
the right thing every day, day in and day out, and their work
should not be diminished by this hearing. We should lift them
up and thank them for every effort they make to make sure that
every burial is dignified and patriotic in a way that our
Nation expects.
I think at the end of today's hearing we will know much
more about what happened and why. What we won't know at the end
of this hearing is how quickly we can fix it and how we can
repair the hole in the heart of so many families across this
Nation that are now going to wonder, is this really the
gravesite of my loved one? Is this really where they are
buried? Until we get this fixed, and until we can stand tall
with our shoulders back and say we have fixed the problems at
Arlington National Cemetery, no one who has responsibility for
this in the Army should rest, and we are going to make sure in
this Subcommittee that we stay on this until we are confident
that all the problems have been fixed.
We are going to take time this morning for opening
statements, not just from the Ranking Member, but from any
other Members who are here, and so at this time I will turn the
microphone over to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee,
Senator Brown.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BROWN
Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Today, as Ranking
Member of this Subcommittee, I would like to first of all start
out by thanking you for once again bringing to attention
something of great importance not only to me personally, but to
our country and the families of our men and women that are
serving.
As President Clinton stated in his 1993 Memorial Day
remarks at Arlington National Cemetery, ``The inscription on
the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier says that he is, and I quote,
`Known only to God.' But that is only partly true. While the
soldier's name is known only to God, we know a lot about him.
We know he served his country, honored his community and
family, and died for the cause of freedom.''
As a 30-year member of the Massachusetts Army National
Guard, I understand some of the sacrifices that the men and
women in our Armed Services have made, and my respect for those
who have made the ultimate sacrifices is clearly unparalleled.
We are all entrusted with the solemn obligation to ensure
that our heroes buried at Arlington National Cemetery receive
the utmost dignity and respect that this country can offer, and
today, I intend to focus on how the caretakers of our national
shrine were allowed to violate our Nation's sacred trust. It is
my intent to not only determine the causes of these astonishing
management and oversight lapses, but also to look forward and
identify real solutions.
The problems uncovered at Arlington National Cemetery have
made national headlines and have tarnished the sacred trust
with military families that we have. The well-publicized burial
problems, including the misidentifying of grave sites, losing
remains, double burials, and failure to notify families of any
problems have eroded the confidence the families of our fallen
heroes have that their loved ones' remains will be respected.
And evidence from the Army Inspector General investigation
report that one set of cremated remains was improperly disposed
of and reburied as unknown is particularly wrong, as a loved
one's remains are essentially lost forever.
My service in the National Guard has taught me the
importance of an effective command and control structure, and
today, I intend to examine who in the Department of the Army
was responsible for the oversight of the Cemetery and why these
problems were allowed to develop and remain uncorrected for
many years.
My understanding is that the Army has been aware of the
management issue since 1997, when the Military District of
Washington IG inspected the Cemetery. The Army audit report is
clear that the management entrusted at Arlington National
Cemetery failed to properly execute their duties. Cemetery
management failed to address one of the primary causes of the
burial problems, the reliance on an inaccurate Cemetery map. In
only three of 70 sections of the Cemetery, 211 discrepancies
were identified between the map and the gravesites. In an age
where geolocation software is available for free on our mobile
phones, with all of the United States Army's vast resources
available, it is truly incomprehensible to me that we are
unable to accurately depict a map on merely 600 acres of land
in the heart of our Nation's Capital.
And to address this problem, Cemetery management attempted
to automate the effort, but unfortunately for the families and
descendants of the American taxpayers, the automation efforts
have improved little for the millions of dollars spent. After 7
years of effort, over 35 IT contracts totaling approximately
$10 million, the Cemetery still uses a system implemented in
2003 that is inefficient and has significant functional
limitations.
We intend to examine in today's hearing why the Cemetery's
acquisitions and efforts were so futile and where the
taxpayers' money went and how can we get it back, and once
again, more importantly, how do we solve the problem so it
doesn't happen and continue to happen.
Unfortunately, I don't have a great deal of confidence that
the Army or anyone else knows the full extent of the burial
problems, but I do know that we can't tolerate these problems
any longer. Arlington represents to the world and our country
the value we place on our veterans in life and in death and the
Army must restore the solemn trust that America's heroes
deserve, and we expect no less.
Madam Chairman, thank you for the time and thank you once
again for bringing this to everyone's attention.
Senator McCaskill. Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me begin by
thanking you and the Ranking Member for your leadership in
investigating this very important issue.
Nearly every American can picture the peaceful rolling
green hills dotted with row upon row of bleached white
headstones. This iconic image of Arlington National Cemetery is
close to our hearts, for we know that the landscape reflects
the thousands of lives given in service to this great country.
Although established in 1864, this Cemetery includes the
remains of veterans from every one of America's wars, from the
American Revolution through the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.
This place, then, has long been regarded as America's hallowed
ground.
Privates are buried there, as are Presidents. The Tomb of
the Unknown Soldier honors unidentified warriors from past
wars. Sailors who died when the U.S.S. Maine was sunk in Havana
in 1898 are memorialized there. Our collective history is read
in this Cemetery, carved in stones that recite the names of
veterans from the birth of our Nation to today's War Against
Terrorism.
We expect the utmost honor and dignity to be given to those
buried at Arlington. Tragically, we now know that this most
basic of expectations was neglected. Gross mismanagement of
these sanctified grounds has tarnished the sacred trust and
shaken many military families.
We learned this heartbreaking truth on June 10, when the
Army Inspector General released a special report on the
operational and contracting deficiencies at Arlington National
Cemetery. The findings were appalling. Investigators found
unmarked graves, gravesites misidentified on Cemetery maps, and
at least four burial urns that had been unearthed and their
contents discarded.
The Cemetery had not been inspected or audited for more
than a decade, an unbelievable lapse of oversight. The Army has
admitted that it lacked a single point of responsibility and
accountability for the operations and oversight of the
Cemetery. That admission is a first step, but the families,
fellow service members, and friends of our fallen heroes must
have their trust restored. Right now, that bond is broken.
The IG's report documents further mismanagement of the
Cemetery and an utter lack of Army oversight spanning many
years. The Army IG made 76 findings and 101 recommendations,
some of which were the very same deficiencies from a 1997 IG
inspection of the Cemetery. Let me repeat that. The Army was
alerted to some of these problems 13 years ago, yet nothing was
done to make things right.
A main cause of the burial problems was the ill-advised
reliance on an inaccurate map of the burial plots. In just
three of the 70 sections of the Cemetery, more than 200
discrepancies have been identified between the map and the
gravesites. To correct these discrepancies, in May 2002, the
Cemetery management embarked on an ambitious project to update
the mapping operation, but this goal was never met.
Despite more than 35 IT contracts totaling more than $5.5
million, the Cemetery continues to use manual records and an
electronic tracking system set up in 2003. There are many
reasons for this tremendous waste of taxpayer funds, but a
primary culprit in derailing the automation efforts can be
traced to a lack of effective contract oversight.
Through this hearing, it is our intent not only to
determine the causes of these disturbing and painful lapses,
but also to identify solutions and to establish a time table
for urgent action. We must take aggressive steps to remove this
tarnish from our national landmark and to renew the promises
made to our military families and to the American people.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Senator Collins. Senator
Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you
for having this hearing. It is an understatement to say it is
truly unfortunate we even have to be here today.
When you talk about burying our loved ones, it is a pretty
basic act that has gone on since the beginning of mankind. When
you talk about burying our war heroes and the people who served
this country so well in a place as Arlington National Cemetery,
I can tell you from my perspective, this is not only totally
unacceptable, it is a black eye that, quite frankly, needs to
be dealt with in a way to make things right as soon as
possible.
Whether it is a lack of information technology, whether it
is a lack of contracting oversight, I hope we get some insight
into that today. But what has happened here, I am going to be
interested to hear what the excuses are, because I can't figure
it out in my head. This isn't like putting a man on the moon.
There is nothing really mystifying about burying our loved ones
and keeping track of them and making sure that the ones are in
the grave that are supposed to be there.
Here is the upshot. The upshot of this is I have a lady who
works for me, does my natural resource work in the State of
Montana. She happens to be out here. She was actually raised
out in this neck of the woods and her father was buried in
Arlington Cemetery a couple years ago. Her mom is still alive.
She is out here this week. She called up her mother and she
said, ``I think I am going to go over and visit Dad's grave in
Arlington,'' to which her mother's response was, ``Do we really
know if he is in that grave?'' This is a true story. That is
the upshot of this.
Madam Chairman, we have Mr. Metzler here today. I believe
that is correct. I don't know if we have Mr. Higginbotham here
today or not. I certainly hope so. But hopefully, we will get
some sort of understanding of what went on here and some
solutions on how to fix what I think is a problem that should
have never, ever--we should not be here today. This should
never, ever, ever have happened.
So thank you for holding the hearing, Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Our first panel, if you would join us at the witness table,
our first panel is John C. Metzler and Thurman Higginbotham. We
will do seven-minute rounds of questions. After this panel, we
have a second panel of officials that will testify.
It is the custom of this Subcommittee that we have our
witnesses sworn in, and so if you all would stand and I will
administer the oath.
Do you swear that the testimony that you will give before
the Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Metzler. I do.
Mr. Higginbotham. I do.
Senator McCaskill. Mr. Metzler is the former
Superintendent--thank you, gentlemen. You may be seated.
John Metzler is the former Superintendent of Arlington
National Cemetery and Thurman Higginbotham is the former Deputy
Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery. We will defer to
you all for your opening statements.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN C. METZLER, JR., \1\ FORMER SUPERINTENDENT,
ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
Mr. Metzler. Good morning, Madam Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee. As the Subcommittee is well aware, I was the
Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery for the last 19
years. Prior to Arlington, I had 17 years' experience with the
Department of Veterans Affairs in their Cemetery system. I also
served 6 years of earlier government service, including one
tour of active duty in the Army with one tour in Vietnam as a
helicopter crew chief with the First Aviation Brigade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Metzler appears in the appendix
on page 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over my 42 years of service to our Nation, my respect,
admiration, and gratitude to our men and women in uniform and
their families has only increased. I hold them in the highest
regards. Personally, it pains me that our team at Arlington did
not perform all aspects of its mission to the highest standard
required.
As a senior government official in charge of the Cemetery,
I accept full responsibility for all of my actions and for the
actions of my team, and I want to express my sincere regrets to
any family who may have--these failures may have caused them
pain.
As you evaluate these issues, it is important to fully
appreciate the complexity and breadth of the operation at
Arlington National Cemetery. They are unique and extraordinary.
This complexity and breadth has only increased during my
tenure. Of the more than 330,000 burials at Arlington National
Cemetery which have taken place over the last 146 years,
110,000, one-third of them, took place during my tenure. There
are only two or three large private or Department of Veterans
Affairs Cemeteries in the world that have the complexity and
the comparable volume of funerals that Arlington does each
year, 6,000 or 7,000.
None of these cemeteries, however, required the attention
for ceremonial coordination and support that is routine at
Arlington Cemetery. None of these cemeteries have 3,000 non-
burial ceremonies that are conducted regularly at Arlington.
None of these cemeteries have records that go back over 100
years. And finally, none of these cemeteries have over four
million visitors who tour the grounds each year.
Activity at this level is sensitive and important and
requires constant and exceptional attention for action. There
are no time-outs or do-overs.
Funeral services continue to be a vital--and are conducted,
excuse me, in all circumstances. We conducted services at
Arlington Cemetery on September 11, 2001 and the day after.
During this recent record snowfall in which the Federal
Government was closed for four consecutive days, Arlington
Cemetery continued with its burial schedule.
It is undisputed that the overwhelming majority of the
funerals at Arlington National Cemetery have been completed
successfully, without error, and to the complete satisfaction
of the families. I do not highlight this point to excuse any
possible findings that may have occurred. I understand that
each burial service at the Cemetery must be conducted as close
as possible to zero defect every time. I understand that the
complete burial--excuse me. I understand that completing that
burial is a significant event for each family involved. There
has been an enormous amount of good that has been accomplished
for tens of thousands of families and each time the funerals
were conducted correctly at Arlington.
I know the Army is working hard to correct the IG's finding
and that the Cemetery will improve its operation.
During the last 19 years that I was the Superintendent, we
did not receive the funding that was needed and the dedicated
staff of the Cemetery was reduced by 35 percent, from 145 when
I arrived to 95 today. Of these 95, approximately 35 people are
performing administrative tasks. Those staffing losses were to
be offset by increased opportunities for outsourcing of private
contracts. As experience has shown, however, that approach does
not always result in the most efficient or effective solution.
There are no substitutes to having dedicated staff in the
important areas such as government technology and contracting,
none of which I had during my tenure. Further, issues can be
minimized and eliminated with both funding and staffing
requirements to do this important work.
In any event, I know the Army is committed to doing
whatever it takes to make things right now and in the future.
As difficult as it is for me to conclude my lengthy Federal
service under these circumstances, I will always value the
opportunity I had to be Superintendent of Arlington National
Cemetery, and I am prepared to answer your questions as best I
can. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. I want to tell you, Mr. Metzler, how
much we appreciate you being here today. I am sure this is not
a pleasant experience for you and it means a great deal that
you are here and that you are standing and willing to answer
questions. On behalf of the Subcommittee and the Subcommittee
staff, we appreciate it very much.
Mr. Metzler. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. Mr. Higginbotham, do you have an opening
statement?
TESTIMONY OF THURMAN HIGGINBOTHAM, FORMER DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT, ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
Mr. Higginbotham. No, ma'am, I do not. After consultation
with counsel, I will assert my Fifth Amendment rights to any
and all questions that the Subcommittee may ask.
Senator McCaskill. I appreciate the fact that you are
asserting your right, but procedurally, it will be necessary
for us to ask you some questions and you to assert that
privilege in response to those questions in order for us to
make the record that is appropriate going forward. So we will
be asking you some questions and you will then have to decide
as those questions are asked if you wish to assert the right.
If you do assert the right repeatedly, a few times, then we
will make the necessary steps in the record to reflect that you
have done so.
Mr. Higginbotham. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. Do you have any questions, Mr.
Higginbotham, in that regard?
Mr. Higginbotham. No, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. Then we will begin questioning, and let
us start with you, Mr. Metzler. Let us be clear. How long were
you an employee at the Cemetery?
Mr. Metzler. I was an employee there for 19 years and 6
months.
Senator McCaskill. And on what date did you retire?
Mr. Metzler. July 2, 2010.
Senator McCaskill. Who did you report to in the Army? Who
was your boss?
Mr. Metzler. My direct report was the Commanding General of
the Military District of Washington.
Senator McCaskill. All right. And was there any other
report you had, other than the Commander of the District of
Columbia?
Mr. Metzler. Yes, ma'am. I reported to the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works on budget and policy
issues, and to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs on eligibility issues and exceptions to
policy, and to the Chief of Media on any media-related issues.
Senator McCaskill. OK. And who reported to you at Arlington
National Cemetery?
Mr. Metzler. The Deputy Superintendent, the Historian, my
secretary, and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO).
Senator McCaskill. OK. So you had your secretary, you had
the Deputy, you had the Historian, and who was the other?
Mr. Metzler. The Chief Financial Officer.
Senator McCaskill. The CFO, OK.
Mr. Higginbotham, how long were you an employee at the
Cemetery?
Mr. Higginbotham. After consultation with counsel, I will
assert my Fifth Amendment--I can answer? Oh. You can ask the
question again, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. How long were you an employee with the
Arlington National Cemetery?
Mr. Higginbotham. I started at Arlington in July 1965 and
had a break in service to attend mortuary school and I returned
to the Cemetery in 1977.
Senator McCaskill. And when did you become the Cemetery's
Deputy Superintendent?
Mr. Higginbotham. Nineteen-ninety--1990, I believe it was.
Yes.
Senator McCaskill. And what date did you retire?
Mr. Higginbotham. July 3.
Senator McCaskill. Mr. Higginbotham, what were your
responsibilities as Deputy Superintendent?
Mr. Higginbotham. Well, I was an assistant to the
Superintendent in his responsibilities.
Senator McCaskill. And so did you take your direction
directly from him?
Mr. Higginbotham. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. Were there things that you did
independently of his direction?
Mr. Higginbotham. I had decision making for supervisors
that worked for me, yes.
Senator McCaskill. Who reported to you at the Cemetery? How
many direct reports did you have?
Mr. Higginbotham. Well, we had three divisions that
reported to me, Facilities, Administrative, and Operations.
Senator McCaskill. Mr. Higginbotham, it is pretty obvious
if you read the record that you and Mr. Metzler just didn't get
along. Is that a correct statement? Would you argue with that
statement?
Mr. Higginbotham. Not in my opinion.
Senator McCaskill. You did not get along?
Mr. Higginbotham. Yes--no, we did get along.
Senator McCaskill. You did get along?
Mr. Higginbotham. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. So the fact that there was a report that
was done as early as 1997 saying that there was real--in fact,
1994, I believe, even after you had been Deputy only for a few
years, two different times, there was an assessment of what was
going on in Arlington and in both instances they said that
there was a great difficulty between the two of you, that you
did not have a good working relationship, that morale was low
because of it, and, in fact, you were counseled. The record
says you were counseled as it relates to your ability to work
with Mr. Metzler. Is that not accurate?
Mr. Higginbotham. Partially. I think if we go back to when
Mr. Metzler arrived at Arlington in, I believe it was 1991, I
was already the Acting Superintendent because the prior
Superintendent had quadruple bypass surgery and he decided to
retire. I applied for the job as Superintendent. I was told
that I was not eligible for the position because I was 22 days
short of time in grade, to move, the 1 year in grade at the
lower grade.
I think coming in, a new individual, I had no animosity
toward Mr. Metzler whatsoever. He was new to Arlington,
although, he had lived there years ago. His management style
was new to me. I had worked under a previous Superintendent and
we both had the same feeling about Arlington to do the right
thing. We were like a corporation. He had 51 percent and I had
49. So any decisions we made were ultimately his decisions. But
I don't feel that report accurately reflected. I think it was
more of the staff perception that we didn't get along.
Senator McCaskill. All right. Before my time runs out on
the first round, I want to establish something for the record
before we go any further. Mr. Metzler, what was the first date
that you knew that there were problems with the location of
burial remains at Arlington National Cemetery?
Mr. Metzler. With the IG report, ma'am?
Senator McCaskill. No. I want to know, when was the first
date--forget about all the reports, I want to know that day
when you are in your office and you receive information and you
have a sinking sensation that you may have a problem about
where bodies are buried at Arlington National Cemetery. What
year did that occur?
Mr. Metzler. I never had that problem.
Senator McCaskill. So you are saying that you never had any
inkling that there could be an issue with the location of
remains at Arlington National Cemetery until June of this year?
Mr. Metzler. Until the IG's report. Anytime an individual,
anytime a family member, anytime an employee brought an issue
to my attention in this regards, we looked at it immediately.
We stopped what we were doing and we went out to the field and
we validated anyone's concerns.
Senator McCaskill. Wait a minute. So you are saying that
when there was an issue, you went out and you saw that there
was a concern, or you found that it was not valid, the concern
was not valid?
Mr. Metzler. I found that either the concern was not valid
or there was an explanation that went along with it. There
would be oftentimes where family members--no, let me restate
that. From time to time, family members would contact the
Cemetery and tell us they could not find their loved one and we
would find out that they were in the wrong burial section or
that they had referenced a tree or some other permanent
structure in the Cemetery and that structure either had been
removed or they were just in the wrong location. So we would go
out with them and we would show them how to find their loved
one's grave. That was a problem in any cemetery that expands
and continues to grow. People pick up landmarks and don't use
the numbering system on the back of the headstones.
Senator McCaskill. But you are saying that until the IG's
report came out in June, you had never been made aware of an
instance where a headstone was marked wrong, a body was
mislocated, an urn was found buried in the same location as
other remains, that there were more than one body in one grave,
that an urn had been----
Mr. Metzler. Well, I----
Senator McCaskill [continuing]. That you never had any
inclination that----
Mr. Metzler. No. I did have inclinations of those on a one-
to-one basis. But every time one was brought to our attention,
we corrected those issues, whatever that issue was, and we
annotated the records to fix the problem.
Senator McCaskill. OK. So you knew there were problems. You
are just saying that as they came along, you fixed them?
Mr. Metzler. Yes, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. All right. And when was the first date
you knew that you had at least one problem that had been
validated as to location of remains at Arlington National
Cemetery? What year was that?
Mr. Metzler. I don't know. I mean, this is an issue, the
way you are asking the question, that could happen virtually
any day in the Cemetery operation, where someone could come in
and ask a question that you would have to go out and look at
it.
Senator McCaskill. I am not saying that somebody couldn't
find something and you helped them find it. I am saying that
when you looked into it, you realized that a grave was
mismarked or there were multiple bodies buried there or that
the body wasn't in the location that you thought it was in and
you weren't sure where it was. I am talking about those
situations. When--what year did one of those situations come to
your attention?
Mr. Metzler. Well, I think the one situation that we were
talking about, where remains were buried in a grave and
unmarked, came to our attention about a year ago. We had an
issue during the development of Land Development 90, referred
to as LD 90. This was the last 40 acres of the Cemetery. In the
process of developing that land, this was a fill area where
soil had been reposited there for probably 35 years. So the
soil started to be distributed over this 40-acre land mass, and
in the process of doing that, two urns were discovered.
Senator McCaskill. And when was that? What month and year
was that?
Mr. Metzler. Ma'am, I am guessing. I don't recall the
month, the year, but I would say it has to be at least 5 years
ago that came about.
Senator McCaskill. OK. And I will have the same question
for you, Mr. Higginbotham, on my next round, but my time is
over and I want to be respectful of my colleagues, so Senator
Brown?
Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Metzler, you noted in your opening statement that the
majority of the burials are done successfully. I didn't fall
off the turnip truck yesterday. The majority are done
successfully? I would think that at a cemetery of this prestige
that 100 percent of them would be done successfully, and that
is why we are here, is the fact that they are not being done
successfully and we owe it to our families and our soldiers to
get it right. With all due respect, once again, there are many
cemeteries throughout this country that have the foresight and
courtesy to make that extra effort to automate the systems and
identify properly where people are buried so the people and
family can have closure.
I guess my first question is, can you clarify for the
record what your responsibilities specifically were in terms of
who was responsible for identifying properly the gravesites?
Whose ultimate responsibility was that? Was it yours?
Mr. Metzler. Ultimately, the responsibility is mine as the
Superintendent, yes.
Senator Brown. And when the IG investigation report
detailed the problem that existed for a period of over 18
years, and I am presuming it is the time that you were there,
because you have been there for quite a while, it also noted
that the relationship between you and the Deputy--how much do
you think the relationship between you and the Deputy affected
or contributed to the documented problems at the Cemetery?
Mr. Metzler. I don't believe it contributed at all. Mr.
Higginbotham and I met daily at staff meeting. We would meet
periodically two or three times a day, either in his office or
in my office. We would confer on anything that was unusual or
different. We would often go out to the Cemetery together to
look at issues that were going on in the Cemetery. I mean, we
had a very professional relationship that interacted each day
with each other. We had the same common goal here on
automation. We wanted to see the Cemetery automated as quickly
as possible.
Senator Brown. Well, I noted here in actually an Arlington
National Cemetery article where you called him a visionary when
it came to technology and trying to--and I am paraphrasing--
trying to implement the technology plan, and you said that is
not a word that should be tossed around lightly. The funds were
provided. What is the status of the so-called technology at
this point? Where are you? How many graves have been
identified? What is the status of the IT, the systems, etc?
Mr. Metzler. There are approximately 60,000 graves that are
automated right now since around 1999 with the use of the VA
system, BOSS, Federal Operation Support System, and then our
continuation of the Internment Support System (ISS). We have a
system that we are trying to develop to improve the ISS. We are
on our second generation. We are trying to get to the third
generation, which would make this system an Internet-based
system.
So we have been working toward that. Unfortunately, with
the inspections and the reports that have gone on, all this
work now has come to a halt and no work currently is being done
to continue automating the system.
Senator Brown. So since 1997, you said, you have----
Mr. Metzler. No, sir. We started in 1999 trying the VA BOSS
system. We worked on that system for about 2\1/2\ years and we
found that it was not compatible with our needs at the
Cemetery. Yes, it would put the information into a system, but
the Cemetery at Arlington is much more complex with our
scheduling system. I tried to work with the Veterans
Administration to get them to modify their scheduling system to
accommodate our needs.
Senator Brown. Well, they offered it to you basically for
nothing, for at cost. Couldn't you----
Mr. Metzler. No, sir, that is not accurate.
Senator Brown. That is not true?
Mr. Metzler. No, sir.
Senator Brown. Interesting.
Mr. Metzler. I mean, I personally worked with their IT
team. I was with the Veterans Administration----
Senator Brown. Well, was it a cheaper cost than what you
have expended so far and have really little to show for it? Was
it offered to you at a cheaper cost? Would you have saved the
taxpayers money by implementing and modifying a system that has
been up and running and working properly?
Mr. Metzler. I could not get them to modify their system,
sir.
Senator Brown. But you could have taken that system and, in
fact, adopted it and modified it at cost yourself.
Mr. Metzler. It was not my system. It was the Veterans
Administration system. I tried to work with their IT staff to
see if they would not modify their system to their needs and
they could not accommodate us on that.
Senator Brown. Who is responsible for issuing contracts,
signing contracts and going out and actually entering into IT
or other types of arrangements to improve the system that you
were working on.
Mr. Metzler. Contracting officers either at the Baltimore
Corps of Engineers or at the Army Center of Excellence for
Contracting.
Senator Brown. Based on whose recommendation?
Mr. Metzler. It would be based on our recommendation at the
Cemetery. We would----
Senator Brown. Our? Who is ``our''? Is it you? Is it the
Deputy? Is it a combination?
Mr. Metzler. It is a combination. I mean, any of our staff
members--there are basically three styles of contracts that we
work with on a regular basis, construction contracts, services
contracts, and the IT contracts.
Senator Brown. I guess what I am trying to find out, and I
am not getting there yet and I am glad we are going to have a
couple of rounds, is what specific actions did you take to
address the underlying issues and problems, the burial
problems, in particular, at the Cemetery? What have you done
since the report? You say you were addressing them and you were
working on them.
We had September 11, 2001. We had burials. We had a lot of
burials. Every cemetery has burials, but these are special
burials. There are burials and then there is a different level.
These are the people that are being buried at Arlington
National Cemetery. I mean, growing up, I think of that and it
is the cemetery in our country that we all have great pride in,
and to find out that it is--it is almost like learning that
there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny.
It is something that, in fact, is held at such high esteem,
and then here we are. Is it fact or fiction, reality? Who is
buried there? There are so many questions. What have you, in
fact, done since then?
Mr. Metzler. One of the things we did is we went out and
did a field survey of the sections that were brought to our
attention, and what we found in the field survey is that the
working maps were not accurately posted.
Senator Brown. And then what did you do?
Mr. Metzler. We went out and validated each area to ensure
that if there was a burial there, there was a headstone there.
If there was not--if the map indicated there was a burial and
there was no one buried there, we validated that the grave was
empty. If we found that there was a site where a headstone
should have been installed and it was off by a number of
graves, we checked to be sure that there were remains in the
grave and then we put the headstone up there----
Senator Brown. How do you know the remains were the
accurate remains? How did you match up that?
Mr. Metzler. We matched them up with the records of
internment and with the grave survey cards.
Senator Brown. Are you still dealing with--my understanding
are you still dealing with paper cards, is that right?
Mr. Metzler. We are still dealing with paper cards, two
sets of cards, an alphabetical set of cards and a numerical set
of cards.
Senator Brown. So let me get this straight. It is 2010 and
you guys--may I take this for a minute, Madam Chairman and just
show it? You have this amazing piece of technology right here.
It is an amazing piece of technology right here.
Senator McCaskill. Make sure everyone knows that this is
the IG report I am reading, not----
Senator Brown. Yes. No, I know that---- [Laughter.]
Senator McCaskill. It is hearing materials I am reading. It
is not something other than hearing materials. [Laughter.]
Senator Brown. I know that. We have cell phones. We have
iPhones. We have this and that and you guys are still dealing
in cards. I find that just--I just can't get my hands around
that. How do you----
Mr. Metzler. As frustrated as you are, sir, with this, you
can only imagine our frustration at the Cemetery. Arlington
Cemetery was funded--and is funded still to this day--as a
separate government agency. We are not----
Senator Brown. Yes, but you have been given between $7 and
$10 million to upgrade the IT and the technology, isn't that
right?
Mr. Metzler. But, sir, not all that money went to upgrading
IT. We are maintaining fiber optics in the Cemetery. We are
maintaining our work stations, our computer stations. We have
IT staff on board to assist the staff when they have their
issues, printers, fax machines. All that rolls into that----
Senator Brown. Yes, but with all due respect, sir, the top
priority should be identifying and accurately categorizing in
modern times and not using three-by-five cards for the people
who are the national heroes of this country. That priority
should have been given to the fallen who are buried there, the
honored dead, and not fax machines and copy machines. You
should have identified and properly categorized all of these
remains so they can live forever accurately.
So I will continue on in the next round, Madam Chairman.
Thank you. And I apologize for doing that, but it just went to
the fact that it is 2010. We have all this technology and we
are still dealing in three-by-five cards. It is a joke.
Senator McCaskill. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Metzler, I want to follow up on the questions that the
Chairman asked you. There are certainly cases where family
members misread the map or were in the wrong section or relied
on a landmark that was no longer there and thus could not find
the burial plot of their loved ones. We are not talking about
those kinds of cases. We are talking about cases where because
of problems made by the Cemetery, their loved ones' graves are
unmarked or not in the right place or there is a mismatch.
I am trying to better understand when the broader problems
came to your attention and when, if ever, you perceived that
there was a pattern of problems caused by operational
deficiencies at the Cemetery.
Mr. Metzler. The way Arlington National Cemetery operates
is a little different than most VA Cemeteries and even private
cemeteries today. Arlington Cemetery still buries over the
grave, so the gravesite is open. The remains straddle an open
grave. Unlike private cemeteries or the Veterans Administration
Cemeteries where the burials are done at a shelter or a chapel
away from the gravesite and then the remains are brought there
later, at Arlington, we bury the remains over the open grave.
So we are very confident that the remains are right where they
are supposed to be because the remains are sitting there right
in front of the family with an open site at the time of the
service.
To also ensure that, we have put a separate tag that the
Cemetery produces on each casket, on each urn at the time of
the remains coming into the Cemetery and that remains as a
permanent marking on the casket or onto the urn as the remains
are buried or inured in the Columbarium. So as I am sitting
here, I feel very confident that the remains are where they are
supposed to be in the Cemetery.
Now, if someone of my staff didn't follow the procedures,
that is a different story, but I don't believe that is what we
are talking about.
Senator Collins. But Mr. Metzler, you have an IG report
that identifies 100 graves without the proper burial stone,
that----
Mr. Metzler. Ma'am, that is not accurate. I would like--if
I may, what we are talking about are the working maps that you
would take out to the field, and on one map are the number of
graves in that particular section. It could be 5,000 squares or
it could be 2,500 squares. And each day, the staff is supposed
to color in the square as the burial is taking place.
What we found is that these maps were not properly colored
in. They either misread the map, the staff, or they didn't
color them in at all.
Senator Collins. So do you dispute the findings of the IG
report that there were 100 unmarked graves, that there were
scores of gravesites misidentified on the maps, that there were
burial urns that had been unearthed and their contents
discarded?
Mr. Metzler. I am not aware----
Senator Collins. Are you disputing the findings?
Mr. Metzler. I am disputing what the latter statement is. I
am never aware of any urns that the contents were discarded.
Yes, we did find two urns that I was aware of that were buried
in the Land Development 90--or, I am sorry, were unearthed from
their graves, most likely--we don't know for sure how they got
there----
Senator Collins. Mr. Metzler, this is really important,
because what you are saying right now is at odds with what the
Army IG report says. I have the excerpt from the Army IG
report. It says 117 gravesites were marked as occupied on the
maps, but none of these gravesites had a headstone or a burial
card. Do you dispute that finding?
Mr. Metzler. I do not dispute that finding. What I am
saying, ma'am, is that the maps were improperly colored. They
were--the blocks on the maps were colored in when they
shouldn't have been colored in. We went out and did a field
survey and we validated that the maps were posted incorrectly.
Senator Collins. Do you not think it is a problem that
gravesites are marked as occupied on the maps but don't have a
headstone or a burial card?
Mr. Metzler. If, indeed, there was----
Senator Collins. How are the families supposed to find the
gravesites of their loved ones?
Mr. Metzler. Ma'am, what I am saying is the staff marked in
those sites and they shouldn't have marked in the sites. No one
was buried at that location. Yes, we did find a few graves in
each of these sections where the headstones were missing and
those headstones were ordered as soon as we could validate
there were remains in the grave and that the staff had
overlooked ordering those headstones. But the vast majority of
the graves that you are talking about were simply posting
errors on a working map.
Senator Collins. Let me give you another finding. The IG
said that 94 gravesites were marked on the maps as unoccupied,
but each had a headstone and a burial card.
Mr. Metzler. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Collins. Do you dispute that finding?
Mr. Metzler. I do not dispute that, and again, that would
be the map was not properly posted. We went out----
Senator Collins. But Mr. Metzler, the family members are
relying on these maps in order to find----
Mr. Metzler. No, ma'am, they are not relying on those maps.
The family members are relying on a section and grave number
that they are given at the day of the service. Those are the
Cemetery's internal working maps. We don't give those maps to
the--I mean, these are not maps that we give to the families.
Senator Collins. You don't think it is a problem that
gravesites are mismarked?
Mr. Metzler. I do----
Senator Collins. Doesn't the staff rely----
Mr. Metzler. No, I agree with you that the----
Senator Collins. Well, wait a minute----
Mr. Metzler [continuing]. The maps should be accurately
marked.
Senator Collins. Doesn't the staff rely on those maps when
they direct the family members to the gravesites?
Mr. Metzler. They rely on those maps to give them
direction, but they don't show the family that the individual
is buried at that map. That would give them a location, a grid
location, if you will, within the Cemetery so that they could
help find their loved one. Each of the headstones are marked on
the back with the section and grave number in numerical
sequence.
Senator Collins. Mr. Metzler, if your staff is relying on
these maps and these maps are inaccurate, and you are not
disputing that the maps are inaccurate, then aren't family
members going to have a difficult time finding the appropriate
gravesite?
Mr. Metzler. No, ma'am.
Senator Collins. I have to tell you, your answers make no
sense to me whatsoever. I am going to switch to a different
issue in the very short time----
Mr. Metzler. If I could just finish one point on that, we
did correct each of these maps, so with the IG report, they
reported 211. Each of those three burial sections have been
corrected and the maps are currently posted correctly and
copies were given to all different divisions within the
Cemetery so they would have the latest updated map.
Senator Collins. Mr. Metzler, in your testimony, you blamed
a lot of the problems on a lack of resources. You said that the
Cemetery staffing had been reduced by 35 percent, from 145 to
95 civilian employees. When I look at the budget over the last
10 years, I see significant increases, from $13 million in
fiscal year 2000 to a high of $39 million in fiscal year 2010.
If you thought the money was being spent for the wrong things,
if you thought you were understaffed, whom did you relay that
to?
Mr. Metzler. Each budget cycle, we would bring this
discussion to the table with the Assistant Secretary of the
Army's representative, as well as with the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) as we submitted our budget submission for the
upcoming year.
Senator Collins. And you specifically asked for more money
and more staff and were turned down?
Mr. Metzler. We were asking to be increased. We were
usually cut back by OMB to lower numbers, and it was through
the pass-backs that we would go through and with the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works who helped us
tremendously keep our numbers up to the 95. If not, we would
have been reduced even further. The mission or the policy had
been to reduce the government workforce and each year we were
having our workforce cut away a little at a time. So we were
holding onto the basic function of burying the dead and
everything else was just about contracted out with outsourcing.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I
appreciate it. I appreciate both you gentlemen coming today and
I appreciate the questions that are being answered today.
I didn't want to go down this line, but Senator Collins has
forced me to go down here one more time. You are saying that
what the IG found was there are errors on a set of working
maps, but there were another set of maps that were right, yes?
Mr. Metzler. No, sir, that is not what I said.
Senator Tester. So what you are saying is that there are
errors on a set of working maps and that the other set of maps
was incorrect?
Mr. Metzler. The working maps, when it was brought to our
attention that these maps were inaccurately posted, we went out
and did the field survey of the sections that were brought to
our attention and we corrected those maps, reposted on the
permanent set, which is another set of maps that is kept in a
different location in the Cemetery, and then sent working
copies out to all the divisions within the Cemetery.
Senator Tester. The permanent maps were correct, is what
you were saying?
Mr. Metzler. Not until we corrected them.
Senator Tester. OK. So what you are saying is the IG report
was correct. If the permanent maps were incorrect and the
working maps were incorrect----
Mr. Metzler. The maps were----
Senator Tester [continuing]. Show me one that was correct.
Mr. Metzler. The maps that are there today are correct.
Senator Tester. OK. But the maps that the IG looked at were
incorrect?
Mr. Metzler. That is correct.
Senator Tester. And how did you fix those maps so that you
know that they are correct today?
Mr. Metzler. We went out to each section and did a field
survey, checking grave by grave by grave, and where we found
that the map was posted as someone was there, supposed to be
buried there, and there was no headstone there, then we would
go back and check the grave card. The grave card is a numerical
card, so if you go to one of the sections in the Cemetery, you
will find grave cards starting with number one----
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Metzler [continuing]. Going to the end. If we found no
grave card, then we would probe the grave to see if there were
any remains in the grave. If there were no remains in the
grave, then we would realize that the map was posted
incorrectly.
Senator Tester. OK. If there were remains in the grave,
what did you use to know whose remains they were?
Mr. Metzler. We would look at the site and go back to the
cards to find the grave card that correlated to that site--
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Metzler [continuing]. And then we would go back to the
record of internment, which is the alphabetical listing, and
then we would find out if there was----
Senator Tester. Let us go the other direction. Joe Soldier
was supposed to be buried in that and you go down and there is
nothing there. Where is Joe Soldier now? I don't understand. I
mean, you can probe and see if the remains are there and say,
``Yes, that is right,'' and go back to the grave card. What
happens in the other direction?
Mr. Metzler. I know of no incident, sir, where we can't
find a set of remains.
Senator Tester. OK. So you know where everybody is?
Mr. Metzler. If you give me a name, I can go out there and
find the location----
Senator Tester. And you are sure of whoever is buried in
that grave is who is buried in that grave, even though you have
some maps that are right and some maps that are wrong? Do you
understand what I am saying? I am not trying to be critical
here, but I am trying to be obvious. How do you know which set
of maps are right if you have one set that is wrong and one set
that is right? How do you know this set is right and that set
is wrong, or that set is wrong and this set is right?
Mr. Metzler. Each time we post a set of maps, we put a date
on that map as to when it was posted. The maps are only as
accurate as the last date on that map, and from that point
forward, the map becomes a working map.
Senator Tester. And if that last date is incorrect, then
that map is inaccurate and everything is screwed up. I don't
know how you can find the bodies once they are in the ground or
once they are supposed to be in the ground and not in the
ground. I don't know how you fix that mistake, but we can go to
a different direction here.
I want to talk a little bit about budgeting. You talked
about declining budgets, but then again, Senator Collins
pointed out that your budget from 2000 went from $10 million to
$39 million in 10 years. Are those figures correct?
Mr. Metzler. I believe they are.
Senator Tester. That is not a declining budget. That is a
400 percent increase.
Mr. Metzler. It is also reflected of construction costs.
Our operation----
Senator Tester. But you had construction costs previous to
2000.
Mr. Metzler. Very minimal construction cost.
Senator Tester. OK. Who makes the budget decisions?
Mr. Metzler. The budget recommendation is made out of my
office, and then the final decision is made by the Assistant
Secretary of the Army to make the recommendation.
Senator Tester. So you, ultimately you, because to your
credit you said, ``I take responsibility for everything that
has happened, right or wrong,'' you are the one that determines
how many dollars or how many millions you need for Arlington
Cemetery, consulting with your staff, with the folks you work
with, and then you pass that up the chain, is that correct?
Mr. Metzler. Not entirely, sir. Part of it is we are given
guidance from OMB at the beginning of the budget cycle----
Senator Tester. Right.
Mr. Metzler [continuing]. And they will tell us how many
millions of dollars we can ask for and what our staffing level
should be.
Senator Tester. All right. So if your budget was not
adequate, whose responsibility is that? Is that yours or is
that OMB's or is that somebody above you?
Mr. Metzler. Well, sir, I think it is a combination of us
asking and justifying and then ultimately we have to support
the President's initiative and going forward to the
Appropriations committee and with the guidance that we are
given.
Senator Tester. But in your opening statement, you said
because of funding reductions, your staff was reduced by 35
percent. I don't--correct me if I am wrong. Did your budget
reflect that you needed 35 percent less people?
Mr. Metzler. I don't understand that question.
Senator Tester. You put forth a budget. Your staff was
reduced by 35 percent. Was that your decision or was that
somebody else's?
Mr. Metzler. No, that was not my decision.
Senator Tester. Whose decision was it?
Mr. Metzler. I mean, our staffing levels were reduced by
OMB each time that----
Senator Tester. OK. OMB made the reduction?
Mr. Metzler. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. OK. And those were supposed to be offset by
contractors, right?
Mr. Metzler. Yes.
Senator Tester. Who made that decision?
Mr. Metzler. Again, we were told that we would be supported
with contract dollars, so----
Senator Tester. By who?
Mr. Metzler. By OMB.
Senator Tester. By OMB?
Mr. Metzler. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. OK. Did you make your plea to the
Appropriations committee that this wasn't going to work, or did
you just let OMB do it, or, I mean----
Mr. Metzler. Sir, we----
Senator Tester. Don't feel bad about this. I have heard
this before. But the truth is and the fact is, you have to
fight for it if you think it is right, and did you fight for
it?
Mr. Metzler. Sir, as a member of the Executive part of the
government, I have to support the President's initiative, and
the guidance that I am given from OMB is the guidance that we
set forward.
Senator Tester. OK. Tell me how the process works with the
contractors. Was there oversight? You said that the Army Corps
gave oversight for contractors. There was somebody on site that
you could go to for--to make sure the contractors are doing
what they are supposed to do in a timely manner, on budget?
Mr. Metzler. Typically, there was not a representative from
the Corps of Engineers on site at the Cemetery.
Senator Tester. Well, did you have anybody on site
overseeing the contractors?
Mr. Metzler. We had what we call Contracting Officers
Representatives.
Senator Tester. Were they trained?
Mr. Metzler. Most were trained through a 40-hour training
course.
Senator Tester. Who trained them?
Mr. Metzler. The contracting office that issued that
contract.
Senator Tester. OK. Was there any rivalry between those
contractors and the folks who worked for you full time?
Mr. Metzler. Not that I am aware of, no.
Senator Tester. OK. Was there any point in time during your
tenure that you requested for contracting support, such as a
contracting officer on site, or did you see a need for it?
Mr. Metzler. Well, we would have loved to have our own
contracting shop internally, but unfortunately, it is not a
person. It is a series of people, from attorneys to clerks, and
it would take away from our staffing level to actually perform
our basic mission at Arlington Cemetery. Our challenge each
year was holding on to the FTE that we had from the previous
year and not take a further reduction.
Senator Tester. All right.
Mr. Metzler. That was not always successful.
Senator Tester. OK. Were you happy the way that system
worked?
Mr. Metzler. No, sir, I was not happy the way the system
worked. I had virtually no control or say-so over anything
going on with contracting and had to rely on the contracting
officers to perform the requests that we would submit, whether
it was construction contracts, services contracts, or IT
contracts.
Senator Tester. You were the Superintendent of Arlington
National Cemetery and you didn't feel you had adequate
supervision over the contractors. That needs to be fixed. I
mean, if the next person has that same sentiment, we are never
going to get to a situation where we are doing things right at
Arlington or responsible to the taxpayers of this country.
One last question, and I appreciate the latitude the
Chairman has given me. Today, 20 percent of the graves at
Arlington are automated. That is fairly correct, isn't it?
Mr. Metzler. That is approximate, yes.
Senator Tester. Today, Senator McCaskill can get on that
little machine right there that Senator Brown brought up, go
online, and find any grave in the 131 VA National Cemeteries
right from her seat right there--any grave, she can find. How
did the VA get so far ahead of Arlington from a technological
standpoint?
Mr. Metzler. They had----
Senator Tester. Because they had the same OMB to work with
that you had. They had the same administration to work with
that you had. Go ahead.
Mr. Metzler. They have a dedicated IT staff in the National
Cemetery Administration that worked exclusively on the BOSS
system.
Senator Tester. OK. And were you aware of that when you
were Superintendent of Arlington?
Mr. Metzler. When I worked for the Department of Veterans
Affairs, I was part of that initial program to automate and was
a driving force, if you will, to the VA to try to get them away
from the paper and pencil and to get into the automation
system----
Senator Tester. Good.
Mr. Metzler [continuing]. So yes, sir, I was very much
aware of the BOSS system----
Senator Tester. And so did somebody----
Mr. Metzler [continuing]. And anxious to bring it into
Arlington Cemetery and try it out.
Senator Tester. So why didn't it get implemented?
Mr. Metzler. Well, we did implement it for 2\1/2\ years and
we just got so frustrated with the system. We couldn't modify
it to make it work for Arlington Cemetery that we had to walk
away from it.
Senator Tester. The VA makes it work for 131 cemeteries.
You have one.
Mr. Metzler. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. And you can't make it work for that one?
Mr. Metzler. No, sir. The Arlington Cemetery is unique from
the standpoint that no cemetery except Arlington has military
honors that are associated with every funeral, from caissons to
bands to marching elements to cannons to flyovers. You don't
have that in the VA Cemeteries.
Senator Tester. We are talking about the ability to find a
grave online----
Mr. Metzler. That is only part of the system, sir.
Senator Tester. But it is a pretty darn important part of
the system.
Mr. Metzler. Yes, it is. Yes, it is.
Senator Tester. All right. I want to thank the Chairman.
Mr. Metzler. And I would tell you that every burial we have
done since 1999 is part of that VA system now and you can go
into their National Gravesite Locator from April 1, 1999
forward and find our burials at Arlington Cemetery in their
system, as well.
Senator Tester. OK. I have to ask this. What you are saying
is you can go on the VA website right now from 1999 to 2010 and
find who is buried in Arlington National Cemetery?
Mr. Metzler. If they have ordered a government headstone
from the VA, it will be in their system.
Senator Tester. So what you are saying is these 211 IG mis-
buried graves are on the VA website and they are correct?
Mr. Metzler. I don't know that I could say that the way you
said it, sir.
Senator Tester. Thank you very much.
Senator McCaskill. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks very much.
Let me just ask you to back up a little bit. I was not here
for your testimony and for the first part of the questions. Let
me just ask of you, if I can, Mr. Metzler, what went wrong?
What has been done to fix what went wrong? What remains to be
done? Who needs to do it?
Mr. Metzler. Wow. What went wrong is that from the very
beginning, we found that the IT automation process was full of
difficult turns and twists in the process to accomplish. We
started out with trying to do an initiative and found out that
we needed to do a 300 report to OMB. Anytime you had an IT
initiative of more than a half-million dollars, this report had
to be placed in there ahead of time. So we had to stop the
process--this was around 2003--and do this 300 report. That in
itself took us over a year and a half to accomplish.
Once we got that completed, then we got very little
feedback from anyone, but we continued to go forward and try to
automate. We started out by scanning the records, the existing
records in the Cemetery to get them into an automated system
and at the same time try to develop the internment scheduling
system, which was the biggest driving factor for us at
Arlington Cemetery at the time, trying to automate the daily
burials that we were doing so that we would make no mistakes in
who we were burying that day as far as military honors,
gravesite location, and get away from the paper and pencil
issue.
But as we got into that particular system, our staff
continued to ask for more and more upgrades to that system. We
were successful and able to upgrade it one time. We were in the
process of automating a second time and then making a more
complex system, making a robust system that was Internet-based
and that we could send the information out to all government
agencies, the military, the Chaplain's Office, and such who
needed this, and we were in that process.
If I could use a baseball analogy, I believe we were on
third base and ready to come home and finish this system when
all of the inspections and the allegations were made and it
stopped the finishing--the development of that particular
system.
So right now, we are on hold. Until we can get that
released and get that system finished, nothing else will be
accomplished in automation unless you scrap the old system and
start all over again.
Senator Carper. Let me follow up on your baseball analogy.
Let us say we are in a rain delay, OK. We have a runner on
third base and the game is on hold. When the rain stops and
when the game resumes, what do we need to do? Who needs to do
it?
Mr. Metzler. What we need to do is get in with the
contractor who has the base knowledge of the ISS upgraded
system and finish that system, do the beta testing to be sure
that we have captured all the initiatives that the staff at the
Internment Services Office wants, and then implement that
system. That will be a great improvement, and that is just the
base, if you will, of the TCMS system. But that is one of the
big cornerstones in getting that accomplished. And then the
next thing would be to integrate the records that have already
been scanned into that system.
Senator Carper. Who needs to do those things?
Mr. Metzler. I think most of that stuff can be done by
contractors. Now, the bigger issue is, and I think this goes to
the heart of the questions that Senator Collins was asking
earlier, is the triple-validation, and I think this is a
challenge with all older cemeteries, like Arlington, is the
information on the headstone, the information on the paper
records, and the information on the map all need to be cross-
checked to be sure every document is accurate.
Senator Carper. What does the Congress need to do?
Mr. Metzler. Work with the Army, support this initiative
financially, and help us, help the Army to get this system back
off of rain delay and get it completed, sir.
Senator Carper. All right. In light of the significant
number of improperly marked and unmarked graves, could you just
share with us what has been done to reach out to the families
of the deceased?
Mr. Metzler. In cases where we know that the family has had
a question, then they would be contacted. If the family has
called into the Cemetery with a question, that research, to my
knowledge, is currently being done, and then a follow-up phone
call would be done to the families and tell them whatever
information was found out to allay their concerns.
Senator Carper. All right. I understand that there is a
Section 27 at Arlington. Could you take a moment and tell us,
what is the historical significance, if you will, of Section
27?
Mr. Metzler. Section 27 used to be called the Lower
Section, and it was the original burial area of the Cemetery
before it had a designation as Section 27. It is where the
Cemetery started in May 1864. William Christman, the first
person buried in Arlington Cemetery, described as a hapless
recruit who died after 3 months in the military from
peritonitis, was buried there in May 1864. So the Cemetery's
original burials from the Civil War, during the Civil War time,
were in Section 27.
Also, in another part of the Section 27, the former
residents of Freedman's Village are buried, about 3,500
individuals who were on the grounds of Arlington Cemetery from
around 1863 to 1890. These were African-Americans who were
displaced as a result of the Civil War. The government had
opened up a series of camps or villages here in the Washington
area. One of them was on the grounds of Arlington Cemetery. And
unfortunately, a lot of these individuals who were residents of
this village passed away from disease, natural causes, and they
were buried also in Section 27.
Senator Carper. All right. I am told that this section has
suffered a considerable amount of neglect over the years. First
of all, I want to ask you if that is true. But I think it was
about 20 years ago that the Congress ordered the Arlington
National Cemetery to improve the grounds and to try to restore
the burial records. Among the folks that were there, I
understand some African-American Civil War soldiers, but I am
told that little has been done. And in addition----
Mr. Metzler. Well, that is not correct, sir, at all.
Senator Carper. I will let you respond to that, but in
addition to addressing the burial problems in the newer parts
of the Cemetery, what has been done to fix what were believed
to be significant problems in Section 27?
Mr. Metzler. Section 27, when I first got to Arlington, the
middle part of the section--it is a long, narrow section--the
middle part of the section, an experiment had been done by the
previous Cemetery Superintendent there for flat markers. This
was an initiative that was being worked on in the National
Cemetery System. All their new cemeteries that they were
opening back in the 1980s were all flat markers. So for
whatever reason, the former Superintendent decided to try flat
markers. It was supposed to be ease of maintenance and better
mowing, easier mowing.
It didn't seem to be too successful in the VA. They walked
away from it, and around 1992, when I was doing one of my
appropriations hearings with Congressman Stokes, who I believe
was the Chairman at the time, brought to my attention that he
felt that this was incorrect at Arlington Cemetery and asked us
to change the headstones from flat markers back to upright
headstones, which we did.
At the same time, he asked us to look at the trees at the
Cemetery. The trees had been allowed to grow all the way to the
ground, so you had branches that were on the ground over
headstones, covering headstones and such, and we changed the
maintenance cycle at the Cemetery and lifted the trees up to
about a six-foot height so you could walk under a tree and the
tree limbs would no longer be bowing down over the headstones.
So all that was accomplished between 1993 and 1994, and Section
27 today receives every bit as maintenance as every other
section of the Cemetery.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you. Thanks for those
responses.
Mr. Metzler. You are welcome.
Senator Carper. Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Mr. Higginbotham, when did you first realize that there
were mismarked graves, unmarked graves, improperly marked
graves at Arlington National Cemetery?
Mr. Higginbotham. Well, ma'am, having been a Cemetery
Representative back during the Vietnam War, doing funerals, it
was always--I can't pinpoint a date and time, but it was always
to me conceptual that anything done by hand for 140-plus years,
there has to be some errors somewhere.
Senator McCaskill. Well, I am not asking about conceptual
and I am not asking for an isolated error. I am asking you what
year--let me just ask the question this way. The documentation
that we have developed for this hearing would indicate that you
had personal knowledge of unmarked graves or mismarked graves
in 2003. Would you disagree with that?
Mr. Higginbotham. I am not sure of the date, but if it is
in the report, that was probably what was looked at. I am not
sure.
Senator McCaskill. And Mr. Metzler, you testified earlier
when I was asking you that 5 years ago, you were aware of urns
with cremated remains in them that had been found in the fill
area of the Cemetery?
Mr. Metzler. That is correct.
Senator McCaskill. So at that moment, you knew that
someone's remains had been dug up and dumped somewhere in the
Cemetery without the people knowing they were digging up
remains and not realizing they were dumping a family member's
remains in another part of the fill area of the Cemetery that
was unmarked. It was just in with the dirt, correct?
Mr. Metzler. That is my understanding, yes.
Senator McCaskill. OK. So in 2003, Mr. Higginbotham, you
knew there were mistakes that had been documented that
reflected a lack of procedures of keeping track of where people
were being buried in an accurate fashion. And in 2005, Mr.
Metzler, you knew that there were urns that had been uncovered
in the fill area of the Cemetery. Now, when you found those
urns, Mr. Metzler, what did you do?
Mr. Metzler. We looked at the urns and we examined them to
figure out if we could determine where they belonged in the
Cemetery.
Senator McCaskill. And did you?
Mr. Metzler. No. We could not--there were no markings on
the urns. There was nothing that would lead us to identify who
these remains belong to.
Senator McCaskill. So you had no idea who they were?
Mr. Metzler. That is correct.
Senator McCaskill. And to this day, you have no idea who
they are?
Mr. Metzler. That is correct.
Senator McCaskill. All right. So did you think to yourself,
we have a problem here?
Mr. Metzler. Yes, I did.
Senator McCaskill. And I assume you went right up to the
Appropriations committee and to OMB and to the Army Chief of
Staff and say, ``We have a crisis? ''
Mr. Metzler. I did not.
Senator McCaskill. We have urns being dug up that are
unidentified and they have been dumped, and we have to get on
this because this could be occurring in every single section of
the Cemetery?
Mr. Metzler. I did not do that, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. And what about you, Mr. Higginbotham?
When you realized you had this problem as early as 2003, what
action did you take? Did you go to Mr. Metzler? Did you send
him a memo and say, ``We have a crisis and we need to start
examining every section of this Cemetery to find where these
problems exist? ''
Mr. Higginbotham. That is exactly what we did. The triple-
validation that Mr. Metzler referred to in the previous
question was the best way that I personally know. I presented
to him as an idea of how we could validate each gravesite in
the Cemetery. That program would go out with a hand-held
device, go to each gravesite, look at the headstone, the grave
card, the burial record, and the map to validate all four of
those sources, and then once that is done, we would then know,
are there other errors out there.
Senator McCaskill. So you are testifying that you went to
Mr. Metzler in 2003 and said, ``We need to do quality
assurance.'' We need to do some kind of survey and determine
the mistakes that have been made in this Cemetery.
Mr. Higginbotham. No. I am saying that we as an
organization realized that was what we needed to do, to
validate gravesites. That was presented to OMB in our plan for
the future, to----
Senator McCaskill. Did Mr. Metzler know that you were aware
of mistakes that were being made throughout the Cemetery in
terms of the failure to properly mark graves or to make
mistakes in the marking of graves?
Mr. Higginbotham. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. So you knew in 2003, Mr. Metzler?
Mr. Metzler. I did not know about a grave in 2003. It was
brought to my attention a little bit later than that.
Senator McCaskill. So you are saying that Mr. Higginbotham
is not being truthful, then, that he brought to you the
problems that he knew as early as 2003 about the way the graves
were being handled at Arlington National Cemetery?
Mr. Metzler. Well, there was one particular grave in
Section 67 or 68 that I believe 2003 was the original date that
discrepancy was----
Senator McCaskill. So in your earlier testimony when you
said you first found out about it when the Inspector General
issued his report a month ago, that was not correct, your
earlier testimony. You knew in 2003 that there was a mistake--
--
Mr. Metzler. I was trying to understand your question,
ma'am. I will go back to my earlier. When something is brought
to my attention, I correct it at that point.
Senator McCaskill. Well, let us be honest here. I mean,
really, what has happened here is employees at the Cemetery
finally had enough and they went to Salon.com and Salon did an
expose on what was going on at Arlington. And then the
Inspector General, as a result, went out and just did three
sections. Mr. Metzler, you say the maps are correct now. They
are only correct for three sections and those are the three
sections that the Inspector General looked at. You didn't look
at those sections, even though you knew as long ago as 2003
that you had significant problems----
Mr. Metzler. No, ma'am----
Senator McCaskill. Five years ago, you knew you had
unidentified urns that were turning up in the fill and you
didn't go and try to do any kind of survey and determine what
was going on. This happened. We are here today because people
who worked for you had enough and they blew the whistle and
somebody wrote an article about it, and finally the Army woke
up and realized nobody was paying attention at Arlington and
they went in and they looked and they found in three sections
several hundred graves. And how many sections are at Arlington,
Mr. Metzler?
Mr. Metzler. Seventy sections.
Senator McCaskill. All right. So we have done 3 out of 70.
Mr. Metzler. That is correct.
Senator McCaskill. And there is no indication we don't have
the same problem in the other 67. None. So really, what
happened here is you all just decided if you didn't talk about
it--and do you honestly believe, Mr. Metzler, if you would have
come to Congress and said, ``We have a crisis.'' We immediately
need resources and manpower so we can check the Cemetery,
because we are afraid that we have lost bodies of our heroes,
that we have lost the bodies of our fallen heroes, we have
cremated remains that we don't even know who they belong to
turning up in the fill, did you ever write that up? Did that
ever go up the chain of command? Did the Chief of Staff of the
Army ever see a document from you that we have a problem? We
found cremated remains and we don't know where they belong.
Mr. Metzler. No----
Senator McCaskill. Did that ever occur, Mr. Metzler?
Mr. Metzler. We annotated the records. We buried the
remains as unknowns in the Cemetery. I did not send a memo up
to the Chief of Staff of the Army.
Senator McCaskill. This is, with all due respect, this is
not about a lack of resources. This is not about that you have
a complicated job. You have a very important job, and I agree
that it is stressful and you have a lot of burials and there is
a lot of protocol. But this is not complicated. It is called
keeping track of who you bury where. That is not a complicated
task.
And the notion that you would come in here and act as if
you didn't know about it until a month ago is offensive. You
did know about it and you did nothing. And you knew about it,
Mr. Higginbotham, and you did nothing, and that is why we are
here. And now somebody is going to come along and clean up this
mess and families have been hurt for no good reason. If you
would have sounded the alarm the minute you realized you had
this kind of problem, I think we would be in a much better
position now than we are today. Senator Brown.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
So just getting back to the BOSS system a little bit, I am
just trying to focus on this IT issue. You said that you didn't
use the BOSS system because of many different reasons. I am
trying to still kind of figure it out. But in the TCMS program,
it has a records database, correct?
Mr. Metzler. Yes, it does.
Senator Brown. Well, so does the BOSS system, right?
Mr. Metzler. Yes, it does.
Senator Brown. And you also have in the TCMS, you have
gravesite capability, gravesite inventory capability.
Mr. Metzler. That is correct.
Senator Brown. And so does, obviously, the BOSS system. And
then you also have infrastructure upgrades in your system?
Mr. Metzler. That is correct.
Senator Brown. They have it also in the BOSS system,
correct?
Mr. Metzler. I am--now, I am not----
Senator Brown. I will make it easy. They do.
Mr. Metzler. OK. I will take your word on it.
Senator Brown. And they have a project management system in
the TCMS, correct?
Mr. Metzler. Yes.
Senator Brown. They also have it in the BOSS system. They
also have a GIS in your system, correct?
Mr. Metzler. Yes.
Senator Brown. And it is also in the BOSS system. So you
are saying that it is not capable, that you couldn't adapt it.
What is the difference? What wasn't working? Where was the
breakdown?
Mr. Metzler. The scheduling was the biggest challenge that
we had.
Senator Brown. So you have a system that is compatible--I
just listed five or six things--and the only difference is
because of the scheduling, and I want to just, because you have
flyovers, you have honors, the ceremonial significance of that.
So the only difference was scheduling.
Mr. Metzler. That was the first major difference that we
saw that we couldn't overcome.
Senator Brown. Well, what were the other differences, then?
Mr. Metzler. Well, our system was going to be Internet-
based so that we could provide the same information to all
branches of the military----
Senator Brown. Well, theirs is, too. We can go right online
right now. I mean, theirs is on the Internet. So what is the
difference?
Mr. Metzler. No, sir. Our information would be sent--the
time that--whenever we took a funeral application and completed
it and when the system, our system would then push that
information out through an email message to the Army, to the
Navy, the Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines, the Chaplain's
Office, to anyone who was involved in that particular funeral.
And then as updates came along with that funeral, the same
thing would happen. The information would be pushed out to
the----
Senator Brown. So there is a scheduling and an email
capability issue between the two systems. So I have two basic
changes, scheduling and email capabilities. Was there anything
else that was different?
Mr. Metzler. Well, the other item that was different is the
maps were going to be posted electronically with each burial,
the gravesite layout maps. When you do a burial, the first
document that is produced is a record of internment. The next
document that is produced is the grave survey card. And the
next thing is posting the map. All that would have been done
electronically with our system.
Senator Brown. Well, the cost for the BOSS system was $1.2
million. The cost for your system is approximately $10 million
and it isn't even up and running yet. It is not--it has
basically 60,000 people, I think you told us earlier, that have
actually been inputted into the system, and you are on third
base and you are going to bring it home soon but for the fact
that you have had to do all these other things. Aside from
email, scheduling, and maps, we are paying three times as much
for a system that is already being used by an entity that has a
tremendous amount more in terms of the data and accuracy of
records than you do. How do you explain that?
Mr. Metzler. Well, sir, I don't know how the VA developed
its numbers. I know that the VA has a dedicated IT staff----
Senator Brown. So you don't have an IT staff at all?
Mr. Metzler. No, sir, I do not have an IT staff.
Senator Brown. Have you ever requested an IT staff or IT
capability or any assistance at all?
Mr. Metzler. What we have requested is through contract
support.
Senator Brown. Well, did you get that contract support?
Mr. Metzler. I mean, we requested IT programs through
contracting.
Senator Brown. Well, programs. Did you get the actual
people to come and help you----
Mr. Metzler. No, sir. We have not requested IT staff on
board at the Cemetery.
Senator Brown. Well, you have over 300,000 honored dead in
the Cemetery. You have a $10 million plan here and you have
asked for contracts, but you haven't asked for the staff to
help implement the----
Mr. Metzler. We were working to have the staff to support
the contracts to be a contractor.
Senator Brown. You have been there for how many years?
Mr. Metzler. I have been here for 19 years.
Senator Brown. So when were you going to get around to
asking for the way to implement the programs that you are
trying to do?
Mr. Metzler. We have been in that process, I would say, for
at least the last 5 years, trying to get this accomplished.
Senator Brown. How? If you haven't made the request, how
have you been trying to get it accomplished?
Mr. Metzler. [No response.]
Senator Brown. Your silence speaks for itself, because it--
--
Mr. Metzler. No, I am trying to come up with--I am trying
to answer your question here, sir. Just give me a second.
Senator Brown. I will tell you what. I was an attorney
before I came here. I will tell you, this would be--I would
have a lot of fun with you in a deposition because I don't feel
we are getting the straight talk here.
And let me just, while you are thinking, I will just shoot
to you, Mr. Higginbotham. I am looking at some of the
contractors. We had an OFI Solutions and Alphatech Interactive
Design. These are digitized records, geographic info systems.
One is $1.1 million. The contractor was paid but we can't
confirm if it was, in fact, deliverable. On the geographic info
system, Interactive Design, $226,000, contractor paid. Cannot
locate deliverable. Do you have any knowledge of actually
whether they delivered what we paid them for yet?
Mr. Higginbotham. After consultation with counsel, I will
assert my Fifth Amendment rights to that question, sir.
Senator Brown. OK. Let me then ask another question,
because I have enjoyed your forthright responses. I am just
asking if you knew if it was deliverable or not. Were you
responsible for signing contracts or negotiating them or
awarding them in any way?
Mr. Higginbotham. After consultation with counsel, I assert
my Fifth Amendment rights to that question.
Senator Brown. Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. Let the record reflect that you have
availed yourself of the privileges afforded you under the Fifth
Amendment of the Constitution not to give testimony that might
incriminate you. The Subcommittee respects your constitutional
right to decline to answer questions on that ground and you are
excused.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Metzler, on June 11, the Army at the direction of your
replacement established a telephone number for the family
members to call for any problems concerning a loved one's
remains. Why does it take the Army to have to set up a
telephone number to find problems when this is supposedly
something that you had been working on for quite a while,
identifying and reaching out to the families?
Mr. Metzler. Sir, I would address any issue that was
brought to my attention. Up to that point, I knew of no family
that had any concerns at Arlington Cemetery. Every issue that
was brought to my attention was dealt with immediately.
Senator Brown. I can't ask any more questions, Madam
Chairman. I will wait for the next panel. Thanks.
Senator McCaskill. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Metzler, was Mr. Higginbotham responsible for the
management of the information technology efforts at the
Cemetery?
Mr. Metzler. Yes, ma'am. He was my designated person to
work on that program.
Senator Collins. Were you aware that at least $200,000 had
been spent for the development of an Internment Scheduling
System Version 2 even though a product had never been
developed----
Mr. Metzler. I was----
Senator Collins [continuing]. And delivered?
Mr. Metzler. I was under the--aware that process was--that
program was under development. Yes, ma'am. I was aware that was
almost completed, and it was stopped, and I guess I shouldn't
have used the baseball analogy, but that was what I was
referring to. That program was being updated and had almost
been completed when the investigation started, and that stopped
everything dead in its tracks.
Senator Collins. What is your assessment of the information
technology contracts that the Cemetery entered into?
Mr. Metzler. I am not very familiar with that, ma'am. That
is really the contracting officers' responsibility. I just have
a very general knowledge of it.
Senator Collins. Were you aware that millions of dollars
were being spent on the IT contracts and yet you were not
receiving the workable products that you needed?
Mr. Metzler. I was aware that various contracts had been
awarded and that elements were being completed, such as the
scanning of the records, such as the wiring of the Cemetery.
One point I would make is that prior to 1991, or prior to 2001,
excuse me, September 11, 2001, the Cemetery was not wired. So
we were still on dial-up modems and working with T-1 lines. So
part of our automation effort was to wire the Cemetery and to
bring us into the Internet.
Senator Collins. Who was the contracting officer for the IT
contracts?
Mr. Metzler. I believe it was split between the Baltimore
Corps of Engineers and the Army's Contracting Center for
Excellence (CCE).
Senator Collins. Were you ultimately responsible for the
execution of these contracts, or was that your deputy's
responsibility? Who was responsible----
Mr. Metzler. The contracting officer is ultimately
responsible.
Senator Collins. The contracting officer.
Mr. Metzler. They are the individuals who sign the
contract, can authorize payments, modify contracts----
Senator Collins. Did you ever suggest to the contracting
officer that perhaps payments should be withheld since you were
not getting the deliverable products that had been contracted
for?
Mr. Metzler. I did not make that suggestion. Mr.
Higginbotham, again, was my representative, and I had trust in
him that he was working this problem.
Senator Collins. What I am trying to get at is in your
opening comments, you talked about the amount of money in your
budget, which did go up considerably over the past decade, was
not going for staff but rather was going for IT contracts and
for construction. So as a manager, since you are not happy with
the results of the IT contract and a lot of the budget increase
was going for that purpose, did you alert the Army chain of
command that budget priorities were not appropriate and should
be changed?
Mr. Metzler. Well, ma'am, our budget priorities were
working the Cemetery and the appearance of the Cemetery and
what we would call the fixed costs, and the majority of our
money each year, around $25 million, went to what we would call
fixed costs--turning on the lights, paying the employees,
paying contractors to maintain the Cemetery, and repetitive
maintenance. We did have some increases for construction. Yes,
we did have some IT initiatives, also, in several million
dollars. To my knowledge, right now, there is about somewhere
in the neighborhood of $3.5 million unspent in IT money sitting
either at the Cemetery right now in this year or sitting up at
Baltimore and has not been executed.
Senator Collins. Doesn't that trouble you? You say that you
are short on personnel, that you had a staffing reduction of 35
percent, and yet you have millions of dollars just sitting
there for IT projects that have not come to fruition?
Mr. Metzler. Yes, ma'am, it does bother me, but
unfortunately, with the inspections that were going on, every
initiative was put on hold and we could not continue our
automation effort.
Senator Collins. We have talked a lot about the fact that
the Veterans Administration has an Automated Cemetery
Management System. Why couldn't that be adapted to Arlington
Cemetery?
Mr. Metzler. Well, we did work on it for 2\1/2\ years. We
tried it. We worked it daily into our scheduling system. And we
just kept coming up with one flaw after the next. The
scheduling was the biggest challenge that we had.
At Arlington Cemetery, we use all five branches of the
military to assist us in providing military honors. Each branch
of service have different requirements each day, so they are
not always available to Arlington Cemetery. All that
information was put into a manual system.
We were now trying to automate that so that when we put in
a burial request in our system for someone who called in today,
that it would tell us automatically if an element was available
or not available for the military to support that funeral. The
BOSS system couldn't accomplish that, and when we asked the VA
to try to modify that part of the scheduling system, they were
reluctant to change their system that was supporting 130
cemeteries, to change it just for Arlington. And that was the
critical element, if you will, for Arlington Cemetery, is
military honors is what distinguishes Arlington from the other
services.
Senator Collins. I understand that, but it seems to me that
the VA's system, despite its deficiencies, is better than the
paper system that you are now using. Do you disagree with that?
Mr. Metzler. No, ma'am, I do not disagree with you. But we
are trying to automate our system and that was the process that
we were going through, through the ISS.
Senator Collins. But why not take the VA's system, which
clearly meets some, although not all, of your needs and then
customize it for the part that is different between Arlington
and the VA Cemeteries?
Mr. Metzler. The VA system was not an Army system. It was
the VA system. I could not export that system into the Cemetery
and then modify it.
Senator Collins. Well, given the amount of money that you
are spending to develop a new system, I have to believe the
contractor would have been willing to license that system to
you. You clearly were trying it out, at least. This just sounds
like bureaucracy at its worst as far as taking a practical
approach to the problems.
Madam Chairman, I know the vote is on and my time has
expired, but thank you.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you.
We do have a vote right now, and Mr. Metzler, there are a
number of other questions that we have about contracting, but
we are going to go to the second panel and we will direct those
questions to you in writing for the record at a separate time.
And there are not a lot of them left. I think we have covered
the ground. I think, primarily, the questions that remain are
this notion that the BOSS system was not adequate for purposes
of locating and memorializing where bodies were located and why
a separate scheduling system could not have been layered on top
of that would have fit your needs.
I will just say that our records show, in preparation for
this hearing, that Veterans Affairs says they were more than
willing to work with you, and we have a specific communication
from them in writing saying that they were willing to work with
you and try to do whatever was necessary to make the BOSS
system work for you.
Mr. Metzler. Well, ma'am, that is a changing attitude with
the VA. I personally called their Chief of Technology. I
personally called their Under Secretary and asked to see if
that could have been done years ago and they were reluctant to
do it at that time----
Senator McCaskill. Do you have any documentation of that,
Mr. Metzler?
Mr. Metzler. No, ma'am, other than the phone call that I
made myself.
Senator McCaskill. OK. Well, it would seem that something
as important as whether or not you are going to embark on a
multi-million-dollar purchase because an existing system is not
adequate, it seems to me that ought to be something that is put
in writing. It seems to me that is something that should have
been worked up through the chain of command, the head of
Veterans Affairs, the Chief of Staff of the Army.
The notion that the taxpayers had invested in a system that
works perfectly well for the identification of burial remains,
that it was not utilized, it seems to me that is more than a
phone call. It seems to me that is something that needs to at
least be memorialized in writing. The fact that it wasn't, I
think, damages your credibility in this regard, that there
really was an effort to use the existing system that is
operating without a flaw today while we sit here among this
mess--in this mess.
I appreciate your testimony today. I appreciate your
appearance and I will go ahead and ask the second panel to come
to the table for testimony. We will go ahead with your opening
statements, and when my colleague or colleagues get back from
the floor, I will leave to go cast my vote and then come back
to question the panel.
Let me introduce the second panel as you all take your
seats. Mr. Edward Harrington is the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Procurement. Mr. Harrington is a former senior
U.S. Army officer with over 28 years' experience in weapon and
information systems lifecycle acquisition, contracting,
contract management, and military logistics operations
worldwide.
Claudia Tornblom is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Management and Budget in the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, where she has served
since 1987. In this capacity, Ms. Tornblom is responsible for
policy direction governing development and implementation of
the civil works budget and supports the Executive Director of
the Army National Cemeteries Program, including policy
oversight of construction projects for future development of
Arlington National Cemetery. Prior to this position, Ms.
Tornblom served at the Office of Management and Budget.
Kathryn Condon is the recently-appointed Executive Director
of the Army National Cemeteries Program. As the Executive
Director, she exercises authority, direction, and control over
all aspects of the Army National Cemeteries Program. In this
capacity, she is responsible for both long-term planning and
day-to-day administration and operations of Arlington National
Cemetery and the U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National
Cemetery. Ms. Condon has held several other military positions,
including the Civilian Deputy to the Commanding General, U.S.
Army Materiel Command.
Thank you for being here, all of you, and it is the custom
of this Subcommittee to take testimony under oath, so I would
ask you to stand.
Do you swear that the testimony that you will be giving
before this Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Harrington. I do.
Ms. Tornblom. I do.
Ms. Condon. I do.
Senator McCaskill. We appreciate you being here and you may
be seated.
We will begin with you, Mr. Harrington. We have 5 minutes
allotted for each one of your statements. We are welcome to
take more information into the record. And then we will follow
up with questions after all three of you have given your
opening statements. Mr. Harrington.
TESTIMONY OF EDWARD M. HARRINGTON,\1\ DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (PROCUREMENT), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY)
Mr. Harrington. Madam Chairman, Senator Brown, and Members
of the Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Harrington appears in the
appendix on page 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am here today to provide an overview of the U.S. Army's
review of contract actions supporting Arlington National
Cemetery. Let me state at the outset that the Army is fully
committed to rapidly correcting the contracting deficiencies at
and for the Arlington National Cemetery.
As the proponent for the Army's Procurement Management
Review Program, I am determined to oversee timely correction of
these deficiencies, which will ensure that contracting for the
Arlington National Cemetery will be conducted in accordance
with Federal, Defense, and Army acquisition regulations, and in
a manner that respects and honors the service and sacrifice of
our fallen warriors and their loved ones.
On June 10 of this year, Secretary McHugh issued a
directive to enhance the operations and oversight of the Army
National Cemeteries Program. Based on the Secretary's guidance,
I directed a Procurement Management Review to evaluate the full
range of contracting activities, from requirements definition
through contract close-out. This Procurement Management Review
was conducted on site at the Arlington National Cemetery, the
Corps of Engineers Baltimore office, and the Contracting Center
of Excellence here in Washington, D.C. It focused on the
government Purchase Card records, Memorandums of Understanding,
military interdepartmental purchase requests, interviews with
the staff and leadership involved in the procurement process,
and all available contract documentation.
This PMR analyzed more than 500 contracts worth
approximately $46 million awarded between 2005 and 2010, as
required by the Secretary's directive. The Procurement
Management Review team selected 114 contracts for detailed
review. Of these contracts, 34 construction, IT support, and
services contracts awarded by the Corps of Engineers Baltimore
office represent roughly $34 million in value. The remaining
contracts, valued at approximately $12 million, were awarded by
the Contracting Center of Excellence for supplies and services,
including IT, grounds maintenance, facilities, construction,
and miscellaneous items.
The U.S. Army Inspector General's Special Inspection of the
Arlington National Cemetery listed a number of deficiencies in
contracting procedures and made recommendations based upon
those deficiencies. The Procurement Management Review
substantiated a number of findings in these areas that were
highlighted in the Army IG's report.
Madam Chairman, my written statement provides further
detail about the PMR findings. In summary, from requirements
definition through contract closeout, there was a general
breakdown in sound contracting practices, and statutory,
regulatory, and policy requirements were not followed. The Army
has identified the problems in regard to contracting and has
initiated corrective actions. My office will continue to work
closely with the Arlington National Cemetery, Contracting
Center of Excellence, and Corps of Engineers leadership to
ensure these corrective actions address root causes and confirm
that these deficiencies will never be repeated.
The Army will perform a follow-up Procurement Management
Review early in fiscal year 2011 at all three sites and report
the status of the corrective actions. Further, the PMR of these
sites will continue again in fiscal year 2012 and all
subsequent yearly cycles to make sure proper contracting
practices have been ingrained.
The U.S. Army is committed to excellence in all contracting
activities. As Secretary McHugh has testified, the entire Army
leadership is unequivocally committed to take every step
necessary to correct yesterday's oversights and meet tomorrow's
requirements.
I request that my written statement be submitted for the
record. This concludes my statement. I look forward to your
questions. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Harrington. Ms. Tornblom.
TESTIMONY OF CLAUDIA L. TORNBLOM,\1\ DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
(MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET), U.S. ARMY
Ms. Tornblom. Madam Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee,
I appreciate the opportunity to appear to testify before this
Subcommittee today on matters related to management of
Arlington National Cemetery. I am Claudia Tornblom, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Management and Budget in
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Tornblom appears in the appendix
on page 79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under law and general orders, the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Works is responsible for policy oversight and supervision
of all aspects of the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Program. In addition, from 1975 until June 10 of this year, the
Assistant Secretary was responsible for overseeing the program
and budget of Arlington National Cemetery's account, which was
called Army Cemeterial Expenses, and funds both Arlington
National Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National
Cemetery.
As Deputy for Management and Budget, I advised the
Assistant Secretary on the general policy framework that guides
the formulation, defense, and execution of both the Corps of
Engineers civil works budget and the Arlington National
Cemetery Program and budget. This included providing policy
guidance from the Secretary, from the Executive Office of the
President, and from Congress. This guidance and decisions
regarding the annual budget established the standards of
service to be maintained by the Cemetery. Day-to-day
operational control and responsibility rested with the
Cemetery.
A budget priority over the last decade has been to advocate
for the Secretary to receive sufficient--sorry, for the
Cemetery to receive sufficient resources to carry out Army and
administration policies. Those policies included improving
service to the families of the deceased and visitors to the
Cemetery, expanding burial capacity to keep the Cemetery
available for new interments, and maintaining the grounds and
facilities of the Cemetery to high standards of appearance and
reliability.
Historically, the Cemetery's budget has been formulated,
defended, and executed separately from the Army's military
budget and program. This longstanding separation developed at
least in part because Congress provided appropriations for the
Cemetery from outside the Defense Appropriations Act.
One of the projects in the Cemetery's 10-year capital
investment plan was an automation plan called the Total
Cemetery Management System, or TCMS. The goal of TCMS, which
has not been realized, was to automate burial records and
gravesite records and maps to support project and financial
management and to aid in the management of Cemetery operations,
including the scheduling of services and ceremonies.
A critical part of this program you have heard a little bit
about is called triple-validation. This process was to involve
a full review of burial records, maps, and actual information
engraved on the headstones in order to identify and reconcile
discrepancies. Although the historical records from 1864 to
1999 were scanned to ensure their preservation, the follow-on
steps of data entry into a retrievable system and validation of
the data did not proceed as intended.
The Army has provided three reports to Congress on the
Cemetery Automation Plan in 2005, 2007, and 2010. The 2007
report noted that there were discrepancies in burial records,
but it did not clearly describe the potential scope of that
problem. The 2010 report identified a total of $10.3 million as
having been spent on TCMS and related efforts. However, there
are many questions, including my own, about the actual spending
on the Cemetery's automation, and I would say, in retrospect,
those reports were overly optimistic about what was being
accomplished.
Ms. Condon has most appropriately asked the Army Audit
Agency to conduct a full review of the Cemetery's budget
process, including an accounting of the funds spent on TCMS and
related activities.
Madam Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I hold
Arlington National Cemetery in the highest regard as the
Nation's premier burial place to honor all of those who served
in uniform and those who have fallen in defense of their
country. I have attended funerals at the Cemetery and seen
firsthand the dignity and honor with which they are carried
out.
Through recent months, I have asked myself repeatedly, what
might I have done differently that could have changed the
outcome that is so distressing to all of us and has so
disappointed the American people. Despite my best intentions,
and, I believe, those of others involved in these matters, our
combined efforts fell short of what the Army and the Nation
expected of us. I deeply regret this.
Since June 10, my efforts have been directed toward
supporting the Executive Director of the Army National
Cemeteries Program as she works to restore the public's
confidence in the Army and in Arlington National Cemetery as an
iconic symbol of the sacrifices of America's men and women in
uniform.
I thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to report on
my role in the oversight of Arlington National Cemetery.
Senator Brown. [Presiding.] Thank you. Ms. Condon.
TESTIMONY OF KATHRYN A. CONDON,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARMY
NATIONAL CEMETERIES PROGRAM, U.S. ARMY
Ms. Condon. Madam Chairman, Senator Brown, and Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My
name is Kathryn Condon, and on June 10, the Secretary of the
Army appointed me as the new Executive Director of the Army's
National Cemeteries Program. It is now my responsibility to
provide the direct leadership and guidance and management for
both Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's
Home National Cemetery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Condon appears in the appendix on
page 86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to start out by stating that all in the Army are
deeply troubled by Arlington's dysfunctional management, lack
of established policies and procedures, the unhealthy
organizational climate, and regret the distress that this has
caused our veterans and their families.
From my first day on the job, when the call center was
established to answer the concerns of family members regarding
their loved ones' remains, to addressing the findings and
recommendations for improvements at Arlington outlined in the
Department of the Army's Inspector General reports, I have been
charged to address and fix these and any other found
discrepancies at Arlington.
It has been my mission, along with the Acting
Superintendent, Mr. Patrick Hallinan, to actively influence and
improve Cemetery operations and to restore the faith and
confidence of the American public in Arlington National
Cemetery. Every day, we have been establishing new standard
operating procedures, ranging from establishing new delegations
of authority for fund certification and approvals, to
developing and implementing new standards for marking and
updating maps, to the assignment of gravesites, and to the
proper handling of remains, as well as ensuring the accurate
layout of interment sections.
These changes have resulted in immediate improvements to
Cemetery operations. With each day and with each issue, we are
seeking ways to continuously improve all aspects of our
operations at Arlington, to include the instructing and
coaching of the staff to reach a higher standard of quality to
maintain Arlington as our Nation's national shrine.
In the last 50 days, we have laid to rest nearly 1,000 of
our Nation's finest. You have my promise that I, along with Mr.
Hallinan and each and every member of Arlington Cemetery, that
we will provide our family members and our fallen heroes with
the honors commensurate with their service and sacrifice.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions, and I would
like to submit my written statement for the record.
Senator Brown. So noted. There will be no objections, but
we will take it up again when the Chairman gets here so she can
make sure it is done properly.
We might as well just start in. She will be back.
Obviously, we are in the middle of a vote.
I know you are new, and I certainly welcome your addition
and have expectations that you will be able to kind of get a
handle on everything. Did you all hear the testimony prior, the
panel before us?
Mr. Harrington. Yes.
Ms. Tornblom. Yes.
Ms. Condon. Yes.
Senator Brown. I have to admit, just as I was literally
running down to vote, I was able to think. I do my best
thinking when I am running. I just don't know--I don't think I
got a straight answer, really, or if I got an answer, it seemed
to be just whatever, and it bothers me greatly. I guess the
question to you is the Army Inspector General investigation
report found the 211 errors in that three-section part of
Arlington. How confident are you that there are no other errors
in the remaining part of the Cemetery?
Ms. Condon. Senator Brown, in the last 50 days, Mr.
Hallinan and I have found other map discrepancies in other
sections of Arlington National Cemetery. So I am confident that
there are probably other map errors that have not been
annotated to date.
Senator Brown. You heard my conversation back and forth
about the VA system versus the system at Arlington and the fact
that they had basically matching systems except for email,
mapping, and scheduling. And I understand the ceremonial nature
of obviously what happens at Arlington. Did you find that--and
the fact that we paid $10 million for a system that is not
really in effect yet. Did you find that troubling, that part of
the conversation, that we have spent all this money and we
don't have a system in place to accurately and properly verify
and----
Ms. Condon. Sir, I find that troubling, that we are still
using paper records at Arlington National Cemetery.
Senator Brown. So what is your plan?
Ms. Condon. Sir, my plan--as you know, the Acting
Superintendent, Mr. Pat Hallinan, was on loan for us very
graciously from the Veterans Administration and what our plan
is, we are going to look at the Veterans Administration BOSS
system as well as looking at what we can find from the previous
dollars that have been spent on the systems that were put on
contract earlier.
Senator Brown. I know there has been a request and even the
VFW has stated that it is more important now than ever. It is
not a question of who operates Arlington, but that they do it
properly, and they are considering and others are thinking
about transferring ownership to the VA. What are your thoughts
on that?
Ms. Condon. Sir, Arlington National Cemetery is both a
national shrine and a military shrine, and as the previous
panel did describe, the honors at Arlington are unique that
other cemeteries do not have. And personally, sir, the
dysfunctional management of the past was an Army responsibility
and I think the Army should fix that and that is what I am here
to do.
Senator Brown. Thank you for that. The fact that there are
ceremonies, obviously, in Arlington that are different than
other cemeteries, do you think that was the--in listening, he
said, well, the flyovers, the ceremonies, all these extra
things that we do to bury our heroes, that is one of the
reasons--it seems as if the main reason we were having all
these filing problems and we couldn't properly color the maps
with the crayons. Does that make any sense to you?
Ms. Condon. Sir, frankly, I still, having only been on the
job for a little less than 2 months, I am going to look at
that, but no, that doesn't make sense to me. The scheduling of
honors and ceremonies, we could probably work with the BOSS
system, and I will promise that we will do that--
Senator Brown. Thank you. And I know that the major
deficiency identified in the Army Inspector General report was
the fact that Arlington had not been formally inspected since
1997. It was supposed to be done every 2 years. Why did the
Army fail to follow its own regulations in that inspection?
Ms. Condon. Sir, I do not know why the Army did not----
Senator Brown. If you could maybe dig into it and let us
know, that would be helpful.
Ms. Condon. I will take that one for the record.
Senator Brown. Ms. Tornblom, I understand in your role as
the Deputy Assistant for Management and Budget, you are
responsible for approving all civil works budgets. Is that
accurate?
Ms. Tornblom. For recommending approval to the Assistant
Secretary, yes.
Senator Brown. For the Total Cemetery Management System,
the TCMS, and its subcomponents, how did you determine that
budget estimates submitted by the Arlington National Cemetery
were, in fact, accurate?
Ms. Tornblom. Well, it is clear in retrospect that they
were not as well-founded as they should have been, and
obviously we didn't ask enough questions and we did not require
verification and demonstration of all the things we were being
told. But I do know that one of the main purposes of that
program was, as was described earlier, the triple-validation
program to make sure that there was consistency and accuracy
among all the records.
I understood the Chairwoman's question differently,
perhaps, than Mr. Metzler did. We did know there were
discrepancies and that is why the TCMS included the triple-
validation program.
Senator Brown. But--did Mr. Higginbotham--did he report
directly to you on----
Ms. Tornblom. No, sir. No.
Senator Brown. So did you have any knowledge of his
involvement with any contracts or contractors or made
recommendations for contractors to be used or approved by your
department?
Ms. Tornblom. No. We had no role in the contracting. I did
work closely with Mr. Metzler and Mr. Higginbotham as we
developed the program and then had periodic oversight of its
execution, primarily the design and construction program,
because that is where a lot of the money was in large contracts
that the Corps of Engineers was carrying out.
Senator Brown. So when you said we should have asked more
questions, we should have done this, specifically, who and what
support did you rely on to ultimately make your decisions and
not take the extra steps to move forward, because as I am
noting here, when Mr. Higginbotham took the Fifth, I started
talking about some of these contracts that were paid, but we
can't even confirm that these items have been delivered. Is
that something that is in your purview, or somebody else's?
Ms. Tornblom. No, sir, it is not.
Senator Brown. Whose purview would that be under?
Ms. Tornblom. Well, as Ms. Condon has reported and as the
Secretary has previously testified, oversight of the Cemetery
was fragmented and no one entity had full visibility of the
activities.
Senator Brown. So what is going to be done, do you think,
in the future to kind of make sure that these things don't
happen again?
Ms. Tornblom. Well, the Secretary took the initial step of
appointing Ms. Condon as the Executive Director and she has
full support of everyone else in the Army to find out what the
real problems are and get them solved, and I know she is
dedicated to doing that and is moving forward.
Senator Brown. I know in your discussions with the
Subcommittee staff, you stated that in addition to your budget
responsibilities over civil works and the two Army Cemeteries,
that you were managing the programs at three organizations, but
not involved in the actual contracting aspect, as you kind of
hinted at right now. Can you explain in detail what your
understanding of what your responsibilities were as a program
manager, for example, on the Arlington National Cemetery's
information technology systems?
Ms. Tornblom. First, I want to clarify or correct something
that I did say to the staff. I said I was a program manager,
but what I was doing was distinguishing that from a project
manager, because they were asking me project manager questions.
As I left that discussion, I realized that I had not answered
it correctly, because I am not a program manager, either. I am
responsible for policy oversight of the Cemetery. The program
manager for the IT program was Mr. Higginbotham.
Senator Brown. Do you think that the IG report--do you
agree, I should say, with the IG report that the IT decision
making at Arlington National Cemetery should have--was left to
an untrained employee such as Mr. Higginbotham and you think it
should have been left to somebody who is more knowledgeable
about the needs and parameters? Do you have any thoughts on
that?
Ms. Tornblom. Mr. Higginbotham spoke knowledgeably about
the program and he was understood by most of us to be
knowledgeable. I have no knowledge of whether he had the
technical expertise or certification that should have been in
place.
Senator Brown. It is interesting. I noted in some of my
papers up here in prior testimony from Mr. Metzler saying that
he is understaffed, he didn't have the appropriate monies, he
has been cut, but his budget has gone up dramatically over the
years and seems like he didn't fight for any modification of
those numbers, didn't come and let us know that there were
issues that he was concerned about. Knowing that, it is my
understanding that the Army Audit Agency is now conducting an
audit of the money flowing in and out of the Cemetery.
Before Congress appropriates any more money, we are on a
pretty tight budget lately--for obviously the very worthwhile
purpose of honoring our fallen, what can you do to ensure that
independently audited financial statements have been provided
to the public detailing the revenues and expenses of the
Cemetery over the past few years? Either one.
Ms. Condon. Sir, I will take that question.
Senator Brown. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Condon. What we are doing is our Army Audit Agency is
doing a complete audit of all of the financials from the past
and to this fiscal year, as well, because I started the job in
the last quarter of this fiscal year. So I have put in place
and the Army is going to conduct audits of the financials of
Arlington National Cemetery.
Senator Brown. One of the things that I am trying to get my
hands around, I think everybody up here, you could sense the
frustration. So you are a family member of a fallen soldier.
You go and you go to the burial, obviously, and then you call
up your people who weren't able to make it to the funeral and
say, yes, Johnny is in Section 27, row whatever. Here is where
he is at. So by going and doing these independent audits and
determining and matching them, internal maps that they use to
bury or rebury, we found, you found, and the IG found that
there are problems.
I am trying to get my arms around, so now the fact that we
actually know that there is a problem--I get it. There is a
problem. I am the second new kid here. I am not the bottom
anymore, but pretty close to it. But I understand that you are
new. I understand that there are other people who aren't new
and you have a task. So one of the things I want to know is
what tools and resources do you need from me and this
Subcommittee and us as a Congress so you can address this very
serious issue.
How can we convey--how can I convey to the people back home
in Massachusetts that, in fact, when those loved ones go to
that particular plot, that their son or daughter is buried
there? So I guess my question is, how do they verify? They say
they have this triple or four-way mechanism to do it. Have they
actually had to dig up bodies to determine whether they are, in
fact, there? Is that something that they have done, do you
know?
Ms. Condon. Sir, in my tenure, we have not dug up anything,
but let me give you an example of what we have done with the
211 discrepancies that were in the IG report. In part of those
discrepancies, the map was marked buried but there were no
records that anyone was actually buried there. Mr. Hallinan, as
the Acting Superintendent, and myself, we directed that we test
sites and we dug in five locations where there was that error.
Each and every one of those locations, there was not anyone
buried there. So that was our sample to make sure that it was
truly a map discrepancy error. It was a human error.
We are currently in the process of testing ground-
penetrating radar, and we are going to use technology. We are
at the data collection right now doing one of the three
sections and we are determining what we are going to find from
ground-penetrating radar. If that gives us the results that we
need, we will eventually do that for the baseline
accountability of the entire Cemetery.
You asked what I need.
Senator Brown. Yes.
Ms. Condon. The bottom line, sir, is I really need time.
Senator Brown. OK.
Ms. Condon. I need time to put in the procedures to make
sure that we validate, that we put in the technology, and right
now, I can't tell you that I need more people or I need more
money. But what I really need right now is time to fix the
deficiencies that have been identified.
Senator Brown. So you need us basically to kind of lay low
for a little bit and give you some breathing space to kind of
figure out what the problem is and tackle it?
Ms. Condon. Yes, sir.
Senator Brown. OK. That is fair.
I will take one final question and then I will turn it back
to the Chairman, and they did want to submit their testimony
for the record and I suggested we wait until you get back.
The thing that I am having another problem with is the
whole IT situation and the amount of money that they have spent
and we really have nothing to show for it. And I guess my
question is, who was in charge of overseeing them? Like, who
was in charge of overseeing Mr. Metzler and Mr. Higginbotham?
Was anybody on this panel in charge of that?
Ms. Tornblom. In terms of being the official supervisor of
Mr. Metzler, that was the Commander of the Military District of
Washington. In terms----
Senator Brown. But in terms of approving contracts and
reviewing these very technical IT contracts, who is responsible
for that?
Ms. Tornblom. Above Mr. Higginbotham and the contracting
officers?
Senator Brown. Yes.
Ms. Tornblom. Well, that----
Senator Brown. It seems to me that there has been a--I am
trying to find out, I guess, in plain English, where is the
breakdown? Where is the fact that they are spending upwards of
$10 million, and at some point a buzzer or a red flag should
have either gone off or raised that says, what? We have given
them $10 million. They have 60,000 people in this system that
doesn't work and they are misidentifying graves and they don't
know where people are and the maps are wrong. I mean, at what
point does someone say, we have really got to get a handle on
this. Who is in charge of them? Is there somebody that we can,
in fact, bring in again? Is it any of you people? I know you
are new, but is it any of you guys?
Ms. Tornblom. No, sir----
Senator Brown. I want to go up the food chain, because it
is not clicking for me.
Ms. Tornblom. If I may speak to that, I think the answer,
based on what we know now, would be the Army's Chief
Information Officer and the staff under that person.
Senator Brown. OK. Hold on a minute, if you would. I would
suggest that if we want to continue on, we get those folks in
here if they are the ones responsible.
Ms. Tornblom. No, I am sorry. In the future, they would be
responsible.
Senator Brown. Well, who was responsible back then, then,
when those two were in charge?
Ms. Tornblom. Well, as we have said, oversight was
fragmented. We did not have clear oversight of some of the
Cemetery's functions.
Senator Brown. Yes, who is ``we''? Like, who is----
Ms. Tornblom. Anyone, sir.
Senator Brown. Anyone?
Ms. Tornblom. Right.
Senator Brown. So they didn't have a boss? They didn't have
people that they reported to that approved these contracts?
Ms. Tornblom. I think the problem is they had too many
bosses. They had too many bosses, sir. That was the problem.
If I might say a little more, in the development of the
TCMS, we worked, as Mr. Metzler said, for a couple of years
with the Office of Management and Budget, not just the budget
side, but their Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
whom we understood, and I still understand to have some
expertise in IT matters. It is clear now we relied too much on
their involvement in the discussions, because they weren't
really, I think, in a position to identify these technical
problems.
One of the things that I would do different in retrospect,
and I did, is I would have called in the Army IT experts. But
it wasn't until over a year ago, a little over a year ago when
these inspections began that it became clear to me how bad the
situation was.
Senator Brown. Madam Chairman, I have asked a whole host of
questions and I hope we can maybe, in your inquiry, we can find
out, like, the next level, because I seem to be kind of getting
the old ``boogie-woogie'' here, the old, no one is in charge,
or too many people are in charge. Someone is in charge. I am in
the military. I know who my commander is. I know who is in
charge.
Ms. Condon. Sir, I know who is in charge today.
Senator Brown. I know you do. Thank you. And I have more
confidence that you are here, and I appreciate it, because
there is going to be a lot of pressure on you to deliver. And
like I said, whatever you need from the Chairman and me and our
colleagues, we need to know, because there was a clear
breakdown of communication. It was, like, oh, let us just hide
it. They won't know about it. Well, we know about it and now we
are embarrassed. The whole country is embarrassed. It is
embarrassing.
So, Madam Chairman, with that, I have to head off to
another hearing.
Senator McCaskill. [Presiding.] Thank you.
Senator Brown. But thank you for your leadership on this.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Senator Brown.
Mr. Harrington, let me start with you. I am a little
worried we haven't received the report.
Mr. Harrington. Ma'am, I apologize----
Senator McCaskill. Where is the report?
Mr. Harrington. The report is on its way to you right now,
ma'am. It should be here right now. I apologize if it has been
delayed, but it was on its way when I left my office this
morning.
Senator McCaskill. This is a report that Secretary McHugh
ordered you to prepare, to conduct a review of all the
contracts awarded at Arlington National Cemetery. It would have
been great if we would have had it. We do have briefing slides
that you prepared, so to the extent that I have had an
opportunity to review those briefing slides, I want to talk
about a couple of things that I know will be in the report when
we eventually see it.
One is a fact that I find astonishing, that the National
Capital Region Contracting Center couldn't locate more than
half of the contract files that your team requested. So we know
there were no (CORs), contracting officer representatives. We
know that there was no one with direct line command
responsibility for these contracts. We know that the person who
was entering into the contracts was the same person overseeing
the contracts, who was the same one deciding about the
contracts, who was basically submitting these contracts no
questions asked and they were getting approved. And now we find
that half of the contracts, you can't even locate the physical
contracts.
Can I get a response from you about that, Mr. Harrington,
and----
Mr. Harrington. Absolutely, ma'am. That is inexcusable. I
have no excuse to offer you on that. That is absolutely shoddy
contracting practice. It reflects all the way up the
contracting chain, to include me. All I can express to you,
ma'am, is that we have a series of corrective actions in
process right now and we are going to do all we can as soon as
we can, starting about 3 weeks ago, to not let that happen any
further.
Senator McCaskill. Ms. Tornblom, unfortunately, I don't
want my questions to be confrontational to you, but you are the
only one at the table that could have had an opportunity----
Ms. Tornblom. That is correct.
Senator McCaskill [continuing]. Had you asserted it, to
bring some sanity to this contracting process that was clearly
not working. Could you explain how Mr. Higginbotham was allowed
to define requirements, select contractors, provide quality
assurance evaluations, and certify that they were getting what
was paid for, I mean, that one person was doing all of those
things?
Ms. Tornblom. I did not know and have not seen data today
to actually verify that was the case. Mr. Higginbotham was, as
I said earlier, the program manager for the IT effort. He was
not the contracting officer, and----
Senator McCaskill. Who was the contracting officer?
Ms. Tornblom. Well, it depends on whether the Corps of
Engineers or the Center for Contracting Excellence was handling
the contract.
Senator McCaskill. So----
Ms. Tornblom. The contracting officer would have been in
one of those organizations.
Senator McCaskill. So in some instances, it would have been
in your organization?
Ms. Tornblom. No. I am in the Office of the Assistant
Secretary.
Senator McCaskill. OK. So do you to this day know who the
contracting officers were on these contracts?
Ms. Tornblom. I do on some of them because I have been in
meetings where it was discussed.
Senator McCaskill. Well, he was really operating as the
contract officer, though. Nobody else was touching these
things.
Ms. Tornblom. I understand he was operating as a
contracting officer's representative, which is probably, ma'am,
what you meant.
Senator McCaskill. That is exactly what I meant. He was
operating as a COR, even though he was also the one who defined
the requirements, selected the contractors, decided that no
bids were necessary.
Ms. Tornblom. He did not select the contractors. I
understand, however, that he did make some recommendations to
the Baltimore District on selection of some small business
contractors.
Senator McCaskill. Are you ever aware of a time that the
contractor that he recommended did not get the work?
Ms. Tornblom. After the fact, I have learned that. I did
not know at the time.
Senator McCaskill. OK. So it is a fact, for the record,
that there was never a recommendation that he made for who
should get a contract that wasn't accepted without question?
Ms. Tornblom. I do not know the answer to that question,
ma'am. It is not something that I was or am now knowledgeable
about.
Senator McCaskill. OK. Way back when, there was someone
at--back in 2003 and 2004, there was a man by the name of Rory
Smith----
Ms. Tornblom. Yes.
Senator McCaskill [continuing]. That was really in charge
of the budget and had up until that point in time been the
point of contact at Arlington National Cemetery for the budget.
Am I correct?
Ms. Tornblom. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. And he got very frustrated at what he
saw was a failure to perform and contracting processes that
didn't comply with Army regulations, didn't comply with OMB
regulations, and he tried to speak out. Are you aware of what
happened to him after he spoke out?
Ms. Tornblom. I am aware that he retired.
Senator McCaskill. Are you aware that he was reprimanded
and suspended----
Ms. Tornblom. After the fact, I learned that.
Senator McCaskill. And you brought him up, without name, in
an email to OMB----
Ms. Tornblom. I am sorry?
Senator McCaskill [continuing]. And I would like to place
into the record an email dated the April 22, 2004, an e-mail
you sent to Bill McQuaid at OMB, subject, ``ANC Automation.''
``Bill, as we prepare for Tuesday's meeting with OMB and VA on
the subject, I feel the need to let you know my views on some
of this. I have been shocked by the pejorative language you
have been using, at least in discussions with my staff, when
discussing Arlington National Cemetery's automation efforts.
Please be aware that I will respond if I hear words like
`disaster,' `stunned,' `throwing money at contractors,' or `no
product to show for it.' Recall that you and others at OMB have
been briefed in the past on ANC's automation activities, and as
I recall, OMB's automation expert then praised ANC for the job
they were doing. We have listened and responded to past
guidance on this subject. I believe you have been influenced
inappropriately by one disgruntled ANC employee who is trying
to stir up controversy to retaliate against ANC managers who he
has disagreements. OMB needs to remain aloof from such internal
personal matters. There is a long history here that I do not
intend to put in writing. We welcome OMB's interest in the
Cemetery and looking forward to how you think we can improve
the Cemetery's automation efforts. Enough said. Claudia.''
So disaster, stunned, throwing money at contractors, no
product to show for it, right on the money.
Ms. Tornblom. It is clear now that Mr. Smith was correct
about those things. If you read that message carefully, you
will see that I was ask--I was telling Mr. McQuaid to stop
haranguing my staff with inflammatory language. That message
was not intended to deal with the substance of the issues.
Senator McCaskill. Well, but you go on to say that OMB has
said that--that you praised the job they are doing. You are
basically saying--I mean, I think the context is clear if you
read the entire email, Ms. Tornblom. You are basically saying,
get off our back. You said it was OK. We don't want to hear
that it is not working. We don't want to hear that you are
stunned. We don't want to hear that it looks like you are
throwing money and not getting anything in return. And that is
exactly what was going on. Did you ever sit down and talk to
Mr. Smith yourself?
Ms. Tornblom. Mr. Smith and I had a professional working
relationship. We interacted regularly over a period of many
years. We had many discussions on different aspects of the
Cemetery's program. We did not always agree.
Senator McCaskill. Did he tell you that nothing was getting
done on these hundreds and thousands of dollars that were going
out the door? I mean, clearly, he was trying to get someone's
attention. It is not like somebody like Mr. Smith to jump the
chain. Everybody knows what happens in the military when you
jump the chain. He was jumping the chain, and the reason he was
jumping the chain is he saw firsthand what was going on, and
for some reason, nobody would listen to him. And here we are, 7
years later, and he was right spot on. I am stunned. It is a
disaster. We were throwing money at contractors. And we
absolutely have no product to show for it.
But looking back on it, would you have handled it
differently now, knowing what you know, Ms. Tornblom.
Ms. Tornblom. Knowing what I know now, absolutely, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. And how can we be sure that this is not
happening somewhere else? Is there someone else out there in
government that is trying not to be a whistleblower and go to
the press, that is trying to get the attention of the people
who are in a position to do something about this? You were in a
position to do something. And what did he get? He got suspended
and reprimanded.
Ms. Tornblom. I had no role in that, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. Well, it is----
Ms. Tornblom. Nor no knowledge until after the fact.
Senator McCaskill. This is one nugget out of a long
scenario of catastrophic incompetence. I mean, this is just one
nugget. But it is one that you intersected with, and in
fairness, I thought that you should have an opportunity to look
at this in context and exactly say, now if this were to happen
today, if OMB were to say to you for some area that you are
supervising--even though you didn't have complete supervision,
you had partial supervision--if OMB were to use these kinds of
language with you today, how would you handle it differently?
Ms. Tornblom. If Mr. Smith had come to me and said, I have
evidence that contracts are being mismanaged and that records
are not being kept and that, basically, Army regulations are
being violated, I would have acted. Nothing that clear was ever
said to me. I expect the people I work with to follow Army
regulations and policies, whether it is contracting, financial
management, human resources, or in some other field.
Senator McCaskill. So you assumed that Mr. Metzler and Mr.
Higginbotham were following policy and that Mr. Smith was just
going rogue?
Ms. Tornblom. I have records of a number of conversations
with Mr. Smith about things that he was unhappy with that Mr.
Higginbotham was doing. In some cases, I agreed with Mr. Smith
and supported him and took action almost immediately. In other
cases, I looked into it and found out some facts and ended up
disagreeing with him.
Senator McCaskill. Was there ever a time that you lost
confidence in the leadership at the Arlington National
Cemetery?
Ms. Tornblom. Over the last year, yes.
Senator McCaskill. But before that, you had no problem with
the leadership there?
Ms. Tornblom. There are always issues, ma'am. There are
always disagreements and issues.
Senator McCaskill. But you didn't think they rose to the
level of you getting out of your niche and trying to grab
people by the neckties or by the cardigan sweaters or whatever
you have to grab them by and say, we have to sit down. We have
a real problem at Arlington.
Ms. Tornblom. I was not aware of most of the things that--
any of the things that have been revealed over the last year in
the media, except that I knew, as we all knew, that there were
problems with the burial records. I understood those to be
primarily historical problems and paperwork issues until the
revelations of the last year.
Senator McCaskill. And how did you become aware of burial
problems?
Ms. Tornblom. I believe the first one I became aware of was
when Salon.com released a story about a grave in Section 68
where--that did not have a marker appropriately.
Senator McCaskill. OK. So you first became aware by someone
at the Cemetery informing someone in the media?
Ms. Tornblom. That is correct.
Senator McCaskill. OK. Mr. Harrington, when I reviewed the
slides, and this is also for you, Ms. Condon, it is clear to
me--I am putting my auditor hat on now--that there is a whole
lot about the BOSS system that can easily be transferred over
to Arlington National Cemetery. The notion that you can't use
an underlying successful system for keeping track of gravesites
because it doesn't include the kind of scheduling needs you
have is one of those that kind of go, well, that is fixable. I
mean, with all due respect, what we are asking to automate here
is not complicated.
I look at the kind of IT systems, Mr. Harrington, that you
have responsibility over. I look at what we can do in our Army,
whether it is the utilization of drones, whether it is the
identification of very complex cost points. I look at the
capability we have within the Army, and then I look at this and
it is, frankly, jaw-dropping that we are actually messing
around and saying that we have to go create a new system after
we have spent all this money.
And what worried me about your slides, Mr. Harrington, it
appeared to me that we are going down that road instead of
going, wait a minute. We should have adopted BOSS in the first
place. We should have made sure that we utilized a system that
had already been developed by government employees without
excessive contractor costs, that was working, and I guess what
I need to hear from you is that Arlington National Cemetery is
going to use BOSS.
Mr. Harrington. Ma'am----
Ms. Condon. Excuse me. Could I take that question?
Senator McCaskill. Yes, you may, and we will let Mr.
Harrington add anything to it.
Ms. Condon. Senator Brown asked me a similar question when
you were----
Senator McCaskill. Gone.
Ms. Condon [continuing]. Out to vote. As Mr. Pat Hallinan
from the Veterans Administration is the Acting Superintendent
with me. He is my partner----
Senator McCaskill. Correct.
Ms. Condon [continuing]. To fix Arlington. And, one of the
things that--I have a dedicated, an IT review, as well, and one
of the things we are looking at is the BOSS system from VA
because it works from VA. In having Mr. Hallinan's expertise of
running all 120 cemeteries before he was the Acting
Superintendent, we are going to look at the BOSS system as can
we modify that, as well as looking at what was done in previous
contracts and to see if there were some deliverables that we
can also use in that.
Senator McCaskill. Mr. Harrington, the slides gave me the
impression that you were going to continue down the road of
developing--and maybe I just misread the slides, because your
guys' Power Point slides don't speak English. They are acronym-
heavy and they are very much in the language of, I call it
Pentagonese.
Mr. Harrington. Yes, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. And so--but from what I could tell from
looking at the slides, since I haven't seen the report, it
looked like you were headed down a road of developing
completely new software for Arlington National Cemetery.
Mr. Harrington. Well, Madam Chairman, I will tell you that
we are assessing that right now. We have been meeting with Ms.
Condon and her staff. If we have contract actions that are
continuing that are inappropriate, we will stop them. The
leadership in the Contracting Center of Excellence, the
leadership in the Corps of Engineers, we have had the meetings
with Ms. Condon so that those functional requirements that are
unique to Arlington National Cemetery that can be implemented
in the VA system are recognized. So our intent is to continue
to assess those contract actions.
And frankly, ma'am, the contracting community had a role to
play in this all the way through and we think we need to be
more disciplined in our interactions with the requirements
generation individuals----
Senator McCaskill. Right.
Mr. Harrington [continuing]. So that we help alert and
raise the red flag when we see an action that is being taken
that really seems to have no end to it.
So that is our role, ma'am. We will continue to engage, and
we have worked with Ms. Condon and her staff, with the
Contracting Center of Excellence and the Corps of Engineers,
and we will look, and Ms. Condon, I know, has already
established a policy that those two activities will be the
primary contracting activities, and were there any other
requirements surfacing, then it would take her waiver to
exercise a contract action in another location. So we think we
have the focus on the right two activities and those contracts
that are in force right now that do not need to be continued,
we will stop those.
Senator McCaskill. Are there any other orphans out there
besides Arlington National Cemetery? Clearly, what had happened
here--I think Secretary McHugh basically testified to this--
that it was a satellite, and because it had multiple reports,
no one took full ownership. And if you don't have full
ownership, then you can't take full blame if it goes badly.
Therefore, you are not so motivated.
I mean, I am not casting aspersions toward you, Ms.
Tornblom, but it is very hard for me to be completely mad at
you because there are four or five other people that could
easily have done the same thing I asked that you would have
done. And because there wasn't one person whose head was going
to roll, nobody's heads roll. It is the old finger pointing.
Are there any other orphans out there that you are aware of
that don't have a direct report, that there is not going to be
somebody who will be blamed if this kind of gross mismanagement
were to occur another place in the Army?
Mr. Harrington. Madam Chairman, I am not aware, but I would
say to you that I am sure we will happen upon them. It is
incumbent upon us in our effort to expand our procurement
management review process to assess those types of occurrences
and then to stop them as immediately as we can and to ensure
that the procurement chain, the contracting chain, which
mirrors the command chain, is robust and understands its
obligations statutorily to ensure this process is autonomous
and pure.
Senator McCaskill. It is my understanding that the Criminal
Investigations Division of the Army is examining this. Is that
correct, Mr. Harrington?
Mr. Harrington. It is my understanding to that, also, Madam
Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. And that there have been numerous
allegations--unfounded at this point, I can't say that there
has been documented proof--but there are allegations out there
of fraud. Is that correct?
Mr. Harrington. Yes, there are, Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. So we have the whole bouquet.
Mr. Harrington. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. We have waste. We have abuse. And we
have fraud. We have the trifecta. And we have it concerning a
national treasure and that is very, very unfortunate.
After we review the report, we will get back with you, Mr.
Harrington----
Mr. Harrington. Yes, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill [continuing]. About the contracting
deficiencies. I certainly would encourage you, to whatever
extent you can prevail upon Army leadership, and frankly, this
is something I need to take up with Secretary Gates, there
needs to be a look around to see if there are any other
Arlington National Cemetery scandals that could be hiding in a
corner where there isn't clear line of command, there isn't
clear line of authority, there is not clear line of
accountability, and there is contracting gone wild.
Mr. Harrington. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. In fact, I think you can use this as a
textbook to teach contracting people about the worst case
scenario. Every document I would turn as I would read this, I
would say, you have to be kidding me. And then I would turn
another document and I would say, you have to be kidding me,
especially for how long it went on. I don't think they were as
forthcoming as they should have been, if they knew these
problems were serious and significant for a long period of
time.
Mr. Harrington. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. Is there anything else that any of you
would like to add for the record that you haven't been asked by
either Senator Brown or myself?
Mr. Harrington. No, Madam Chairman, not from me.
Senator McCaskill. Ms. Tornblom.
Ms. Tornblom. No.
Ms. Condon. Ma'am, as of June 10, you have your one
individual----
Senator McCaskill. I know I do, and I am looking at her.
Ms. Condon [continuing]. Who is responsible, and you are
looking at her.
Senator McCaskill. And you have direct report to the
Secretary.
Ms. Condon. I have direct report to the Secretary of the
Army, and I will, any questions that this Subcommittee has, I
will come back with progress reports. But as Senator Brown
asked me what I needed from Congress, and what I really need,
ma'am, is time. I need time to fix the deficiencies that we
have found and any that I may find from now. So you have my
promise that I will come back.
Senator McCaskill. Well, we will give you time, but we
don't want it to get slowed down by bureaucratic nonsense----
Ms. Condon. You have my promise that will not happen.
Senator McCaskill. And now I just want you to know, Ms.
Condon, I am feeling old, because I feel like in some ways I
have been here 10 minutes, but this is the second time I have
run into you----
Ms. Condon. Yes, ma'am, it is.
Senator McCaskill [continuing]. Because when I first
arrived, I was trying to figure out how Army Materiel Command
at Belvoir could be a temporary building, and I remember
traveling out there somewhat unannounced to check out that very
large permanent temporary building, and I recall that you were
the one that had to answer very difficult questions from me at
that point.
Ms. Condon. Mm-hmm.
Senator McCaskill. Are you getting the short straw every
time? Are they telling you that you have to go have Senator
McCaskill yell at you? Is that what is happening? [Laughter.]
Ms. Condon. Ma'am, I wanted to know if my mother called you
ahead of time.
Senator McCaskill. There you go.
Ms. Condon. Because she has the same questions. [Laughter.]
Senator McCaskill. There you go.
I appreciate all of you being here today. We will have more
questions for the record. We will stay on this. We have more
information that we continue to gather, and we probably have
other witnesses that we may call in before this is said and
done. Please keep us posted on the progress.
Ms. Condon. Will do, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. I particularly would like to know
section by section in the Cemetery when you are assured that
you have identified all the mistakes that exist. There is no
way, frankly, there is no way that Mr. Metzler's assertion that
we know the problems that are there is true. I think you
would--wouldn't you acknowledge that?
Ms. Condon. Ma'am, Senator Brown asked me that same
question and we have found other map discrepancies, in the
tenure that I have been there.
Senator McCaskill. So as you clear sections and you feel
confident that the problems that exist there, we would like to
be apprised of that progress as it occurs.
Ms. Condon. Yes, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. OK. Thank you all.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8406.082