[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY:
AN UPDATE FROM THE NEW ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 23, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-20
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-195 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 VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BOB FILNER, California, Ranking
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado CORRINE BROWN, Florida
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
BILL FLORES, Texas BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California
JEFF DENHAM, California JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan JOHN BARROW, Georgia
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas
Vacancy
Vacancy
Helen W. Tolar, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JERRY McNERNEY, California,
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York Ranking
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana JOHN BARROW, Georgia
Vacancy MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
June 23, 2011
Page
Arlington National Cemetery: An Update from the New
Administration................................................. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman Jon Runyan.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of Chairman Runyan........................ 34
Hon. Jerry McNerney, Ranking Democratic Member, prepared
statement of................................................... 35
Hon. Timothy J. Walz............................................. 3
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Defense:
Kathryn A. Condon, Executive Director, Army National Cemeteries
Program, Department of the Army.............................. 5
Prepared statement of Ms. Condon........................... 35
Patrick K. Hallinan, Superintendant, Arlington National
Cemetery, Department of the Army............................. 6
Prepared statement of Mr. Hallinan......................... 39
______
American Veterans (AMVETS), Christina M. Roof, National Acting
Legislative Director........................................... 22
Prepared statement of Ms. Roof............................... 41
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc., Vivianne Cisneros Wersel,
Au.D., Chair, Government Relations Committee................... 26
Prepared statement of Dr. Wersel............................. 52
Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, Ami D. Neiberger-
Miller, Director of Outreach and Education..................... 24
Prepared statement of Ms. Neiberger-Miller................... 43
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Legion, Ian de Planque, Deputy Director, National
Legislative Commission, statement.............................. 54
Barrow, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia, statement............................................. 55
ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY:
AN UPDATE FROM THE NEW ADMINISTRATION
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance
and Memorial Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jon Runyan
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Runyan, Stutzman, McNerney, and
Walz.
Also Present: Representative Johnson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RUNYAN
Mr. Runyan. Good afternoon and welcome. This oversight
hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and
Memorial Affairs will now come to order. We are here today to
monitor the progress of the new administration at Arlington
National Cemetery (ANC), after taking over following the
shocking revelations of last year's Army's Inspector General
(OIG) report.
Before we get started, I would first like to recognize Mr.
Richard Hopkins, who is sitting over there on the first row.
Mr. Hopkins is a constituent of mine and traveled down from
Marlton, New Jersey, to be here with us today. This hearing is
of great interest to Mr. Hopkins because he has both of his
parents, and his lovely sister is sitting next to him, both of
his parents are buried at Arlington. He was understandably
upset, as was I, when I first took on this Chairmanship. Mr.
Hopkins called me and said he had a couple of questions with
something going on in Arlington. His father's gravestone had
been replaced with another man's name. But working with Ms.
Condon and her newly-appointed team, Mr. Hopkins' problem was
solved and the headstone was fixed in a matter of days.
I had the privilege of paying my respects to his parents
and seeing the new headstone and the correct names were in
place. However, I believe this story highlights some of the
heartache associated with the recent problems at Arlington. We
all know that 1 year at the helm of Arlington Cemetery is not
long enough to fix all the problems. Years, if not decades of
neglect and mismanagement cannot be fixed overnight. However,
with the experience the new leadership brings, great strides
have been made.
The troubles at Arlington existed on all levels, from
highly publicized problems with gravesite locations, low
employee morale and an information technology (IT) system that
was virtually nonexistent, despite several years of development
and millions of taxpayer dollars.
There have already been multiple hearings of other
Committees on the past performance issues at Arlington. I want
to be clear: It is not my intention to rehash these issues and
dwell on the past. My focus for this hearing will be on what
Ms. Condon and Mr. Hallinan and the rest of the staff at
Arlington National Cemetery have accomplished thus far since
taking over the operations of the Cemetery, as well as how they
plan to ensure these type of issues never occur again.
I believe one place to start is the training of employees.
As we all know, practice makes perfect. And I can tell you from
personal experience, it is perfect practice that makes perfect.
It is perfection that our veterans and their families deserve.
I hope to hear an update from Ms. Condon about Arlington's
efforts to provide continuing training to their employees,
training of substance that will help prevent the Cemetery from
repeating its past mistakes and keep employees accountable,
knowing what the standard is and keeping it.
I was encouraged by what I saw in my visit to Arlington
National Cemetery earlier this spring. Every indication that I
have received shopws there is a new attitude of performance and
accountability at Arlington. Ms. Condon and her team have
already put into action many changes that were needed and long
overdue. While much has been accomplished in the last 12
months, there is still much more hard work ahead.
One matter of major importance has come to the
Subcommittee's attention. This discovery on June 10th, 2011, of
69 boxes of records and documents from Arlington National
Cemetery in an abandoned unit of public storage facility in
Northern Virginia. The Army's Criminal Investigation Division
(CID) was called in and a criminal investigation is ongoing on
this matter. I commend Ms. Condon and her staff for quickly
informing the House and Senate Committees with oversight of
Arlington when this investigation commenced. It is the
Committee's desire to fully support this investigation. And I
eagerly await the findings and the results.
However, I am less pleased with the lack of follow-up and
public disclosure by Arlington after the initial notification.
Two weeks have passed with little follow up and no public
disclosure of the incident or the investigation. We know little
more about the incident now than was first reported to the
Committee staff in the late afternoon of June 10th. It is my
understanding that these were copies of grave cards and other
documents provided to a contractor for producing a digital
database for the Cemetery. Who this contractor was, how the
documents wound up in a public storage facility, how long they
had been there, who had access to the documents, what had
become of the digital database project this contractor was
working on and how much the contractor was paid? All of these
questions have been yet to be answered, even though the
investigations are directly from Arlington's own records.
Of acute concern to me is the vulnerability of the personal
information on these cards while they were outside the control
of Arlington. Arlington's duty to our fallen heroes is not just
in providing an environment of respect and dignity for final
resting places, but also in protecting privacy, even after
death.
I welcome and look forward to Ms. Condon's remarks and hope
she will offer some greater transparency and clarity to this
situation, not only for the Committee, but for the families and
the American people who hold Arlington in the highest esteem.
It is for this reason that I pledge the support of the
Committee to ensure all of last year's discrepancies cited by
the OIG are corrected and that this dark chapter in the
Cemetery's history is closed for good.
I further offer the Committee's support to the Department
of the Army, the families of those buried at Arlington, the
veterans service organizations (VSOs), and all interested
Americans who work together to ensure a much brighter future
for Arlington National Cemetery and to help it once again
become the iconic symbol of eternal respect of our Nation and
all those who have served their country.
I will now call on the Ranking Member, Mr. Walz, for his
opening statements.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Runyan appears on p.
34.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. WALZ
Mr. Walz. Well, I want to thank the Chairman, his staff and
the minority staff for putting together this important fact-
finding hearing, and quite honestly, for fulfilling our
Constitutional oversight responsibility. I very much appreciate
that. Ranking Member McNerney will be joining us shortly. And
also, to Mr. Hopkins and your family, I express the deepest
apology for something that is absolutely inexcusable. And I
would also like to thank you and Mr. Runyan for your taking the
time to travel here with the purpose of making sure this
doesn't happen to another family, that is very much
appreciated. So thank you for that.
Arlington Cemetery, as the Chairman has so eloquently said,
is an unparalleled national treasure, and it serves a very,
very unique mission. From humble beginnings as a Potter's Field
in 1864, Arlington has become the sacred burial site for many
of America's most honored veterans, other dignitaries,
including U.S. Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, and those
who died in September 11th, 2001. Arlington truly has become a
national shrine and the most hallowed of ground.
Each year, Arlington welcomes millions of visitors from
both home and abroad and conducts thousands of burials of the
highest honor. However, as we are hearing, we have recently
seen the shortcomings at Arlington Cemetery. The archaic
recordkeeping--it is simply unimaginable that we are still
doing business the way that we were until this new team, this
dedicated team came on board. We were still doing it the same
way that we were basically since the Civil War, and now moved
somewhat forward.
The contracting--we have oversight responsibility of that.
We need to make sure that they can actually deliver and make
sure we are providing that oversight of those contractors to
make sure fraud, waste and abuse doesn't occur. And of course,
the March 2011 Time Magazine article talking about what
happened to Mr. Hopkins simply is the unthinkable in this
circumstance, and I am certainly glad we are addressing them.
The good news, I think, is that we are moving in the right
direction. The good news is that these are problems that can be
solved and will be solved, that is simply our mission and
nothing less. Avoidable, yes, but we are committed to getting
it right for all of the moral reasons, but we need to use our
resources wisely. We have too much business to conduct and
Arlington needs to be there for eternity, and that is exactly
the way we are going to take it.
I look forward to finding out more about the length of
burial delays that I am hearing from some of my constituents
and some of the survivors. And I think the Chairman's concern
is absolutely founded, and I concur with him on the recently
recovered 69 boxes of material. On multiple levels, this poses
a real problem and I want to see if we can move forward, as the
Chairman said. We are going to hear from a second panel after
we hear from these two dedicated servants. We are going to hear
from a panel that is going to tell us what we can do better and
we need to take that very seriously.
So Ms. Condon, Mr. Hallinan, thank you for the work you are
doing and thank you for the service you are doing. You have
approached your work with the passion and with the respect and
the professionalism that we were hoping would happen. I am very
interested to see what is going to come in the future. I want
to see how you respond a little bit today to some of these
things, and then we are looking for, I believe, September of
this year we have another status report due.
So our veterans and their loved ones deserve nothing less
than a place of rest with surety and dignity, that is our job
to make sure it happens. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you
for your leadership and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Congressman McNerney appears on
p. 35.]
Mr. Runyan. With that being said, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members be allowed to sit at the dais and ask
questions. Hearing no objection, so ordered. At this time I
would like to welcome our first panel of witnesses, Ms. Kathryn
A. Condon, Executive Director of the Nation Cemeteries Program
for the Department of the Army. And also Mr. Patrick Hallinan,
Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery.
Ms. Condon, your complete written statement will be entered
into the hearing record and I will now recognize you for 5
minutes for your statement.
STATEMENTS OF KATHRYN A. CONDON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARMY
NATIONAL CEMETERIES PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND PATRICK K. HALLINAN, SUPERINTENDANT,
ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
STATEMENT OF KATHRYN A. CONDON
Ms. Condon. Thank you, Chairman Runyan, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee. If I could take a moment right now
to set the record straight. I did not throw myself down the
stairs a month ago to avoid the previously scheduled hearing,
trust me, the hearing would have been much less painful than
what I did to my ankle.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing today to allow
Mr. Hallinan and I to talk about what we have accomplished in
the past year at Arlington National Cemetery. Over the past
year, we have implemented management changes to improve the
organization, and to increase the quality and efficiency in the
areas of daily operations, customer service, records management
and most importantly, fiscal responsibility.
As I stated in my written statement, which I would like to
submit for the record, thank you, sir, I am confident that you
will see that progress has been made in reestablishing the
Nation's confidence in Arlington National Cemetery. Management
functions have been consolidated within the Army National
Cemeteries program. The staff under my direction as Executive
Director have functional expertise in strategic management and
communications, in information management, in resource
management and in engineering.
I am supported by ceremonial units from all of the armed
services, a detailed staff of chaplains, staff support from
headquarters Department of the Army, and the Arlington Ladies,
who represent the chiefs and commandants of each Armed Service
at each funeral. The result is now that we have clearly defined
roles, responsibilities and relationships at Arlington.
My staff performs both an enabling function and oversight
role for the Superintendent's execution of daily operations.
The intent is to enhance operations by removing administrative
burdens from those responsible for execution. While having the
administrative functions performed by subject matter experts,
and clearly segregating duties to ensure proper accountability
and oversight.
We have focused the execution elements of the workforce by
establishing leadership positions where none existed before.
There are now team leader positions and job assignments to
better manage and execute daily operations. Mr. Hallinan will
speak to the improvements that we have made to the daily
operation of the Cemetery.
Customer service is the most critical priority for us at
Arlington, to be responsive to each and every caller and to
establish a uniform standard for scheduling, we streamline
public interaction and telephonic communications by
transitioning to a call center. We now document and track all
incoming calls to the center, which has handled 31,671 calls
since December. We receive on an average of 232 calls a day in
Arlington. And of those each day, 45 is the average for those
who want to schedule an interment.
We have transitioned to a full digital interment scheduling
organization now that has a searchable database that provides
both the digital tool and, more importantly, a backup for the
authoritative records.
We have completely changed fiscal and procurement
operations from fund certification and approvals to
recompeting, consolidating and rewarding all of the service
contracts that Mr. Hallinan and I inherited on 1 June of last
year. We reduced the number of contracts from Arlington from 28
to 16, and each and every one of those was awarded to a small
business.
To ensure accountability for the past, I have asked that
the Army Audit Agency come back in, because at the end of this
fiscal year, we want to make sure that the changes that Mr.
Hallinan and I have both implemented are truly working and
sufficient. So we want to make sure that an outside agency
looks at us so we have that as well.
Finally, we are revising our long-term master plan. In the
10-year capital investment plan for the Cemetery, which
includes the plan expansions for the 31 acres known as the
millennium project. The 42 acres for the Base Realignment and
Closure of the Navy annex, and the construction of Columbarium
Court 9, which we will start construction this fiscal year, so
I would like to thank the Committee for helping us with that.
And we are also doing a comprehensive assessment of the current
status of all of facilities and infrastructure at the Cemetery.
We are committed to maintaining Arlington's grounds and
infrastructure in accordance to the standards that each and
every one of us expect of the national shine, while also
maintaining the cemetery's viability as an active cemetery for
those who have served our Nation.
I hope the highlights of the actions taken and the changes
implemented demonstrate the progress that has been and
continues to be made to restore the Nation's confidence in
Arlington National Cemetery.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee for taking a
positive leadership role in the oversight of Arlington and
coming to visit us at Arlington to see the changes that we have
made. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I look
forward to taking questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Condon appears on p. 35.]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Ms. Condon. Mr. Hallinan, do you
have an opening statement? You will be recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK K. HALLINAN
Mr. Hallinan. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak about the
progress at Arlington National Cemetery. One year ago this
month, Ms. Condon and I, at the direction of the Secretary of
the Army, set out to correct the problems identified in the
Army OIG's report. I am pleased to report to you that 1 year
later, we have arrived at a point where significant progress
has been made at Arlington National Cemetery, and we continue
on the path towards addressing and correcting all of the issues
identified in the report.
Much has been done, much remains to be done in the future.
The progress that we have made to date is like permanent and
lasting cultural and procedural changes through the way we
carry out our mission. In the last year, we have greatly
strengthened our interment procedures. One of the first things
we did to prevent future burial errors was to implement new
procedures for the chain of custody to maintain positive
identification of casketed or cremated remains from the time
they arrive at the Cemetery, until they are secured in their
final resting place.
In addition, Arlington now uses concrete urn liners,
similar to grave liners used for caskets, which eliminates the
risk of urns being unintentionally removed or disassociated
from their final resting place. Arlington is the first and only
national cemetery using urn liners.
In terms of rebuilding the workforce, leadership has
implemented industry standard procedures, training and
equipment that equal the best national cemeteries. In addition,
the new Deputy Superintendent, Mr. James Gemmell, and I are out
daily among the workforce providing direction and guidance
while holding supervisors, team leaders and the workforce
accountable for operations.
The Army has an agreement with the Department of Veterans
Affairs that allows Arlington employees to enroll in the
National Cemetery Administration's Training Center. We also
provide internal and additional external training to the
workforce. New authorized positions and employee turnover have
afforded us the opportunity to bring in trained, seasoned
professionals. Arlington National Cemetery has filled critical
positions such as the Deputy Superintendent, Cemetery and
customer service representatives.
Arlington National Cemetery has begun operating 6 days a
week to improve customer service and gain operational
efficiencies. In order to meet the demand for funeral services,
Arlington has started scheduling services on a Saturday. For
the first time in the Cemetery's history, Saturday services are
performed for dependent and veterans who do not require
military honors. The steps we have taken in the past year have
put us on the path to maintaining Arlington's position as
America's premiere military cemetery and the sacred treasure it
is in American history.
This concludes my opening statement, Mr. Chairman, and I
would be happy to answer any questions of the Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hallinan appears on p. 39.]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you very much, Mr. Hallinan. I will begin
the questioning and recognize the Ranking Member and other
Members in alternating order of arrival.
Ms. Condon, I think there is a little tension in the air
over our newfound issue there at Arlington. I know there is an
ongoing criminal investigation there. I don't know what you are
able to tell us, but please fill us in as much as possible.
Ms. Condon. The records are part of an ongoing criminal
investigation, and it was related to a previous contract to
digitize Arlington's paper records. On the 9th of June through
our newly implemented call center, we received a telephone call
from the storage facility owner. Immediately upon receipt of
that call, we called Army CID to go and see what was at the
storage facility. Army CID did, at that time, secure the 69
boxes of records. When they brought the 69 boxes of records,
which were just scans of the previous digitized effort that was
part of that contract, we immediately called in the Department
of the Army's information assurance organization to make sure
that there wasn't any personal identifying information
challenges there. The recommendation, when we looked at the
scanned records, was that the issue there was rated low,
because my immediate concern, as Mr. Hallinan's was, that there
could possibly have been identifying information in those boxes
and we would have immediately at that initial time contacted
everyone. But the information assurance people said the threat
was low because there were just scanned copies of a previous
contract that we had to digital records.
The other information, sir, that you asked about who was
the contract, how much was the contract, that with is all part
of the ongoing investigation. And as soon as we get the results
of that, we will share it with the Committee.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you very much. I am sure it is part of
your stressful situation of digging out of someone else's hole.
I give you credit for that. We know it is not where we want to
be. But it is a necessary job that we all have to do to really
get Arlington back on the pedestal that it needs to be on. And
I applaud both of you for that, but I would appreciate and hope
that you report back to this Committee when you find any
information, because quite frankly, it is about people who gave
their lives for our country and sacrificed a lot for us to have
these freedoms, to have arguments like this all the time.
I say I look forward to it, but I see another round of
hearings like this one that are going to be ongoing as we go
through this process.
I know when I was out there visiting this spring, I believe
you had two gentlemen there that were active duty that were
basically your IT guys. I know they were going to be reassigned
at some point. Have you been able to fill those positions with
qualified people and pick up where they left off?
Ms. Condon. Sir, fortunately, the uniformed individuals
that are part of our IT staff are still with us, and I am going
to replace them with other uniformed IT guys. But the good news
is that we have been able to hire the complement of our IT
staff with very, very dedicated, experienced professionals in
everything from GIS to records management to information
assurance. So we have built the civilian and military team in
IT.
Mr. Runyan. Okay. Thank you.
I know the next panel will have a lot on this, but when we
have the VSOs we always talk about stakeholders. Have you
instituted a more formalized customer service survey, to really
get the feedback and help you in your process, because I know
we all have a great idea when we started, but it is ultimately
the customer that helps us polish it?
Ms. Condon. Sir, as a matter of fact, we have our new IT
staff on our Web site we have a place where anyone can comment
on their experiences at Arlington National Cemetery, which is
our first way of reaching out to the customer. Also, our public
affairs staff is currently working on an outreach program to
our VSOs, et cetera, so that we can get the stakeholder
feedback as well. We are also planning to revise our Web site
so that we can have better information flow to the American
public. And we are working on a survey that we give to each and
every family member after their service so that they can
provide us the necessary feedback that Mr. Hallinan and I need
for continued process improvement at the Cemetery.
Mr. Runyan. Okay. Mr. Hallinan, you commented on Mr.
Gemmell's hiring. Can you kind of discuss some of the
complications and challenges. You have been in the industry a
long time of finding qualified individuals, which obviously
lacked in the last management team.
Mr. Hallinan. Mr. Chairman, we face the same difficulties
any Federal agency would face in trying to bring new people on,
but one thing is unique about Arlington in its mission is we
have literally had hundreds of people applying for various
positions. So the caliber of people we are going to get to
choose from is among the finest in the Nation and specifically
in regards to Mr. Gemmell, with his many years of cemetery
experience, being the Cemetery director. Also, Mr. Gemmell was
the director of the National Training Center. So to reinforce
your statement, your opening statement, sir, this year will be
about train, train and training the employees. Set a high
standard, train to that standard, then hold people accountable
to that standard. That was the intent of bringing him and
others on. We have been successful.
Mr. Runyan. It sounds like you are stealing everybody away,
though.
Mr. Hallinan. Only the good ones.
Mr. Runyan. One last question for Ms. Condon. You were
talking about the transition and the Internet scheduling
system. Has it been seamless and smooth, and do you have
everyone trained up and able to have it working in that optimal
range?
Ms. Condon. You know, sir, I am not going to say it was
completely seamless without its challenges, because, as you
know, a year ago they were literally using paper records and a
Selectric typewriter. I am very proud to say that we have now
completely transitioned to a digital scheduling system. We have
gone paperless, and the workforce are all using the system. It
was what you have emphasized, it is training, training and
training. And, you know, so I am proud to say today that we
have gone digital in our scheduling system.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you very much. With that, I will
recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Walz.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you
both for the work you are doing.
It is very difficult, I appreciate you taking this on. I am
just even reading how we write about these things talking about
how to identify the misplaced urns. You misplace your keys, you
do not misplace the remains of a hero. I am trying to figure
out have all the families involved in this been notified? If
there has been heroes or loved ones misplaced or misidentified?
Is there anybody in America where their family members are
interred at Arlington and got misplaced as the team that came
up there indicated, or have they all been notified?
Ms. Condon. Sir, the family members for which you are
talking about when we did discover the eight urns that were
identified in that one gravesite. The family members of the
individuals that we have been able to identify the remains of
their loved ones have all been notified. They were notified
immediately upon receipt that it was actually their loved one,
because we had the forensic lab from Hawaii who did that for
us.
We are still waiting for the closeout of that
investigation, because they were trying to see if they could
look into every possible lead to identify the other urns that
we have not identified.
Mr. Walz. What is changed in your best practices and chain
of command to make sure that this never happened again? If I
asked you, Mr. Hallinan, to turn around and tell anyone who is
in this room or listening, how do we assure this won't happen
again?
Mr. Hallinan. Well, sir, I would say standards and
procedures are being put in place along with supervision and
monitoring and accountability. When it comes specifically to
disassociation of urns and how could that happen, we have had
backhoe operators go and excavate a gravesite with very little
information. One of the standards that is in place right now
that gives me full confidence that people are being interred
correctly, and these urns and gravesites are being protected,
that individual has a complete readout of that gravesite that
he's about to open; what is in that gravesite? What depth? What
type of container? Is it a cremation? Where is the cremation
located? We probe for cremation before we go into a gravesite.
Mr. Walz. For every single site at Arlington now?
Mr. Hallinan. Yes, sir. But additionally, one point I would
like to make because it is extremely important both for the
Subcommittee and for the American people, when I mention the
use of concrete urn liners, that is going to prevent and
eliminate disassociation of remains so we do not face that
again. Those urns are being protected, they are secured. And
the probability of them being dug up and disassociated from the
gravesite has been eliminated with that practice, so that is a
very important standard that is in place right now.
Mr. Walz. What type of services do we contract for? What
are the private sector contractors, what type of jobs are they
being asked to do at Arlington?
Ms. Condon. Sir, most of our service contracts are in the
area of the lawn in agriculture, our tree maintenance, our
mowing, et cetera. And then we have some of our operational
services that fall under Mr. Hallinan that are also contracted.
If you want to expound on those, Pat.
Mr. Walz. Do contractors handle remains in the chain of
command?
Mr. Hallinan. Absolutely not, sir. Of the contracts that
are in place from an operational sense of ground maintenance,
are mowing, trimming, headstone washing and headstone raising
and realigning. There were issues in the past that this
Subcommittee is aware of with contracting, but under Ms.
Condon's direction and support, every contract of the 16 that
are in place right now have certified contracting officers
monitoring those contractors. The contractors also have my
oversight where I am out in the sections and I am monitoring
the mowing, the trimming, are they setting those headstones
correctly, are they aligned horizontally and vertically, are
they set to a new standard of 23 to 26 inches? So there is full
oversight and accountability for the contractors.
Mr. Walz. How many employees do we have, government
employees at Arlington?
Ms. Condon. Go ahead.
Mr. Hallinan. Approximately 124, sir.
Mr. Walz. Is that correct number that we need to make sure
that this is carried out efficiently, effectively, with dignity
and with accuracy?
Mr. Hallinan. Congress has authorized additional employees,
we are in the process of bringing that staff on. We are looking
for the best that we can find in the industry. I think what has
been authorized will be enough to accomplish the job.
Ms. Condon. And sir, if I may, one of the things that
Secretary McHugh directed when Pat and I started was a complete
manpower survey review from the Army.
Mr. Walz. And that is happening?
Ms. Condon. And that has already been happening, it has
already been completed. And the number they came up with was
157 employees is truly the number that you need to do the
mission correctly and we are hiring to that number.
Mr. Walz. I will end with one if we come back around again.
Has this Congress, this Committee or any regulations put any
unfunded mandates on you that can be perceived as pulling away
from your core mission?
Ms. Condon. Sir, not--you know, not to date that I have. I
mean this Committee has been nothing but helpful in helping Mr.
Hallinan and I move forward to make the changes that we do need
in Arlington.
Mr. Walz. Very good, thank you both again. I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Walz. Mr. Stutzman.
Mr. Stutzman. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Johnson was here
before myself.
Mr. Runyan. I will gladly go, but seeing how you are a
Member of this Subcommittee, we will allow you to go first, he
is a guest.
Mr. Stutzman. Oh, is that right? Thank you. I would always
be glad to defer to my good friend anyway.
Mr. Runyan. I am sure you will both yield each other your
time.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
being here today. I guess I would like to touch on the boxes
just a little bit and have several questions on that. Whose
doing the investigation?
Ms. Condon. The Army Criminal Investigation Division
command, sir.
Mr. Stutzman. And do you know have there been any other
boxes--you don't have any record that these boxes were stored
off site; is that correct?
Ms. Condon. Sir, the first time that we knew that the
records were stored off site was when we received the phone
call to the Cemetery from the current owner of the storage
facility.
Mr. Stutzman. So that is not typical practice then?
Ms. Condon. That is not--I can't tell you what the practice
was prior to Mr. Hallinan and I being there, but, sir, anything
that Mr. Hallinan and I would do with records, we would make
sure that the records were secured and accounted for.
Mr. Stutzman. I know we will probably find out a lot more
information once the investigation is done. So as far as you
are aware, there are no other boxes that are stored anywhere
outside of your facilities that you know of?
Ms. Condon. Sir, to date, I do not know of any other, but,
you know, every day Mr. Hallinan and I are discovering things
that we wouldn't have expected to discover yesterday.
Mr. Stutzman. Do you happen to know how many members'
records were stored in those boxes yet? Is that something they
will be notified that their records were off site and they need
to be aware of that?
Ms. Condon. Sir, as I stated when I was answering the
Chairman's questions, we had an assessment from our information
assurance agency to review if there was there the potential for
a personal identifying information to have been compromised.
The bottom line is we are going to go through each and every
one of those records, but they were copies of records from
every scanned record from the past. So the bottom line is a lot
of the individuals on those records, their next of kin would no
longer be with us to notify.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay, all right. Can you address the lack of
the standard operating procedures (SOPs) and practices before
you arrived at ANC? And what steps have you taken to address
these issues, Mr. Hallinan?
Mr. Hallinan. Based on the OIG's report and my short time
on the ground when I first arrived, it was clearly evident that
there were no standard operating procedures, written operating
procedures in place. The training would be anecdotal. You would
learn from the person next to you who would show you manually
how to accomplish a task and that would vary from individual to
individual. I was surprised by that. The steps we have taken
immediately was to stabilize Arlington National Cemetery, which
was to get out with the workforce, and show them the proper
procedures, push them and pull them, if you will, through the
correct steps so that they can learn and implement right away.
Basically I have used the analogy of an aircraft carrier at
sea, taking it in, and option to take it in and drydock it and
overhaul it. It was not an option so we had to train and
operate simultaneously. We have done so and we have put written
standard operate--we have a long way to go. We put this in the
beginning stage, we put standard procedures in place, we are
putting policies in place.
So this will give us a way forward for the future long
after Ms. Condon and I are gone, Arlington will have a positive
future going forward. These things will be in writing, they can
be refined from time to time, as technologies change, as
processes change, the employees will have ownership of the
work, but at the most fundamental level we started that
process, yes.
Mr. Stutzman. And I know it is very difficult with the
Cemetery being open to the public. Can you describe the
security situation with respect to Arlington and protecting the
Cemetery while still keeping it open to the public?
Ms. Condon. Sir, if I could address that, please, one of
the major concerns that I had upon taking over the executive
directorship was how porous the Arlington Cemetery was because
it truly is an open site. We had a study conducted for force
protection and security in July of last year. As a result of
that study, we have awarded a contract to make sure that we
have an up-to-date surveillance system for the Cemetery.
We are creating an operations center and communication so
we can have mass notification for not only our workforce, but
for also our visitors and our families who enter the Cemetery.
We are working on those security measures as we speak.
Mr. Stutzman. Good, thank you very much, I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Stutzman. Mr. McNerney, are you
ready?
Mr. McNerney. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want
to thank Mr. Walz for stepping in. Mr. Walz is a tireless
advocate for veterans and I appreciate your hard work.
Ms. Condon, I want to thank you for coming here today, and
I think you have changed the tone there at Arlington, you and
Mr. Hallinan together. There was some unfavorable reports in
the last few years and I think you have really made a
difference to turn that around. I realize it is a big
undertaking, I mean, there are hundreds of thousands of our
heroes that are interred there and creating a filing system
that can be accessed is not an easy task. So what I would like
to know is what is your assessment of where we are in that
process? I mean, I can't imagine how big of a job it is, so
hopefully, the question hasn't been asked too many times
already.
Ms. Condon. No, sir, you are the first one to ask that
question. Just so you know, we have established an
accountability task force at the Cemetery. It is a total Army
effort. It has soldiers from the old guard, Department of the
Army civilians, and military who are detailed to us to work on
the accountability as well as our summer interns, and we are
hiring some temporary employees.
The bottom line is we are currently looking at a resolution
of all the gravesites and records. We are imaging the entire
cemetery using geospatial information. And we will have a full
accounting of not only each and every gravesite, but it will be
matched and delegated against each and every record. We have
started that process. We are taking a photo of each and every
headstone front and back. We are going to have that on a
Smartphone application where it will tie to the data. We have
started that process and will be reporting out to Congress in
December for that. We are well on our way, and I am very
pleased with the progress to date.
Mr. McNerney. I can tell by your voice and your mannerisms
how excited you are about this, so thank you for that. Some of
the other cemeteries that I have been around the country are
fairly accessible. You used to have a computer screen and you
type in the name and it shows you how to get there. I didn't
see photographs of gravestones--that is a whole another level,
so thank you for that work.
Mr. Hallinan, is there something you would like to
recommend to this Committee in terms of how we could help you
serve better in terms of what your objectives are?
Mr. Hallinan. Sir, this Subcommittee has been supportive,
and without offering a specific, I think when we look at the
challenges we face and issues we are dealing with, we could
speak freely to the Subcommittee as we can in this forum, we
would say we need support and we need patience, because we are
about the people's business. We are good stewards. I am a
veteran, Ms. Condon has dedicated her life to the Nation's
military. You do have good stewards in place who have the
passion and who are professionals, and will hold that Cemetery
not only to the highest standard, but restore the faith of the
people in the Cemetery.
So this Subcommittee has been supportive, but based on the
challenges, we need some patience to allow us to work through.
As the Chairman pointed out, 1 year on the ground, boots on the
ground is early on when you look at the many years there have
been problems at Arlington.
Mr. McNerney. I guess either one of you could take this
one. When somebody has a need or request to bury a recently
deceased veteran, what kind of customer service, if that is the
one word you want to use, do they run into when they try to
contact the Cemetery for----
Ms. Condon. Sir, you weren't here in my opening remarks
where I said we now have implemented a case management call
center at Arlington, so that every phone call if you are
calling for directions or you are calling for eligibility
questions, or if you are actually calling to schedule
interment, we now are tracking each and every one of those
phone calls in assigning that a case number and then we call
back the family there.
As I stated before, our priority is customer service. We
now can tell you on the average of 47 people a day call to
schedule an interment, of which Mr. Hallinan, you know,
conducts 27 to 30 a day. So that tells you that there are 17
more people calling in a day than we have time slots to do
their burial.
One of the advantages of having a call center and tracking
every phone call in every schedule is what we now know how many
people are calling and that are no longer are those calls being
dropped. So it is really pushing out the time that we can
accommodate the burials. But to me that is not such a bad news
story because people are not getting impatient that their phone
call was not answered, which was what happened in the past.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you my time has expired. I want to
thank the Chairman for calling this hearing today, it is an
important subject.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thanks to the rest
of the Subcommittee for allowing me to participate today. And
Ms. Condon, and Mr. Hallinan, thank you, folks, for being here.
You know, I am very concerned about the 69 boxes of what
has been described to me as grave cards, which typically
contain very sensitive information like a veteran's full name,
Social Security number, and date of birth and other
confidential information. I find it extremely troubling that
boxes containing this kind of information were left unsecured
and only discovered allegedly, due to a lack of payment for the
use of the storage facility.
I am even more disappointed, as the Chairman pointed out
earlier, that we have had a lack of follow up to inquiries from
this Committee, from you, Mrs. Condon, over the last couple of
weeks. As a former military guy myself of 27 years and as a
veteran, and as Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee, rest assured I take this breach very seriously,
and I will be actively pursuing this issue. I do have a few
questions.
I have heard 69 boxes, I have heard 22 boxes. What is the
right number?
Ms. Condon. Sir, the right number is 69 boxes.
Mr. Johnson. Okay, you mentioned earlier that what was
actually contained in the boxes and deemed as not having an
information security issue were scanned, copies, correct?
Ms. Condon. Yes, they were photocopies of records, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Photocopies of grave cards?
Ms. Condon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Don't photocopies of grave cards have Social
Security and that kind of sensitive information on them?
Ms. Condon. The information on those are of the deceased
members, sir, they do have active Social Security numbers.
Mr. Johnson. Yeah, so it's typical grave card information,
Social Security number, date of birth, those kinds of things?
How can that deem to be not a security issue? I spent
nearly 30 years in the Air Force safeguarding information
myself, formerly as the chief of the Chief Information Officer
(CIO) department for U.S. Special Operations Command. Social
Security numbers are sensitive information. How could it have
been deemed that that is not a security breach of information?
Ms. Condon. Sir, because the individual was deceased so the
Social Security number--in most of the cases, they were records
from the past and the Social Security number would no longer be
a valid number.
Mr. Johnson. Well, yeah, don't we still safeguard that
information?
Ms. Condon. We do safeguard that information.
Mr. Johnson. What is the security process for safeguarding
paper records? You say that you have gone digital and paperless
thus far, what is your typical process for safeguarding the
paper copies? What do you do with those?
Ms. Condon. Sir, the paper copies that we currently have
now are on our facility of which we safeguard them by locking
up the facility every evening.
Mr. Johnson. So they are on site?
Ms. Condon. They are on site. But sir, as we transition to
being totally digital, we are going to take all of the current
paper records and put them in a secure Army storage facility.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. Who has jurisdiction over this
investigation? I know you said who is conducting the
investigation as far as you are concerned, but who has
jurisdiction? Is it CID or Department of the Interior, who is
it?
Ms. Condon. Sir, our Army Criminal Investigation Division
is doing that investigation. And I would have to take that for
the record, if I may, if there is jurisdiction other than the
Army?
[The DoD subsequently provided the following information:]
L CID has investigative jurisdiction and responsibility
for allegations of criminal acts related to Arlington National
Cemetery.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. Can you provide a little bit more
information about the contractor and the contract that they
were completing in regards to these boxes? Are you permitted to
say here who that contractor is?
Ms. Condon. Sir, no I am not, because that is part of the
ongoing investigation.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. Can you tell us when the contract was
awarded and are they still under contract?
Ms. Condon. Sir, I can tell you that they are no longer
under contract, but the other details are part of the
investigation, and I do not have that with me.
Mr. Johnson. Have you reviewed the contract that this
contractor was working under?
Ms. Condon. I personally have not, but it was a part of a
contracting review that Secretary McHugh had directed, and it
has been reviewed by the Army.
Mr. Johnson. Do you know if there were any conditions for
the security of records specified in the contract?
Ms. Condon. No, sir, I do not?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time, but have a
whole lot of questions that I guess we will have to get to in
another context, but thank you for the time. I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. And I think we are
going to do another round because I have some more questions so
you may get to some of them.
Going down that same line of questioning, Ms. Condon, do
you have any idea--has the CID given you any idea when they
intend to complete the investigation?
Ms. Condon. No, sir, they have not.
Mr. Runyan. Okay. And reading the testimony of the next
panel, they give you very high marks on your progress thus far,
but they are hesitant to the communication breakdown. How do
you respond to those suggestions and what can be done to
improve that situation?
Ms. Condon. Sir, as I stated before, we are going to be
reaching out to all of the VSOs and to our constituents to put
Committees together and we have already conducted town halls,
et cetera, so that we can share information. As I stated,
customer service is our priority, we have a long way to go. We
had to fix, what I said before, the foundation of Arlington
first, and now we are going to take this next year and beyond
to the next step where we truly, you know, make sure that we
work on how we deal with our stakeholders, our family members
and the loved ones who have someone buried at the Cemetery.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. And Mr. Hallinan, here in the VA,
and Secretary Shinseki always talks about accountability. It is
the first word out of his mouth. And I think a lot of times we
have a hard time implementing it. Can you give us examples of
working with your contractors in the Cemetery and how they are
being held accountable to the standards your team has set up?
Mr. Hallinan. Yes, I can. Currently, the contract I will
use, the mowing contract and some of the grounds maintenance
contracts, the statements of work have been rewritten to make
them more stringent. The contracting representatives that have
oversight have been trained and certified, they are out there
daily monitoring that contractor. The contractor hits a
headstone or damages the turf, we will hold that contractor
accountable. We are looking for them to meet the contract and
meet the high standards included in that statement of work. So
as we have set the standard for our own employees, Mr.
Chairman, to reach the highest standards, we are also holding
contractors to those same standards.
I think this is something new for the contractors. They
have been quite surprised, I believe, by how proactive and the
monitoring that is taking place now.
Mr. Runyan. Do you have any examples of actual discipline?
Mr. Hallinan. Well, I will give you an example of when
gravesites are sodded by this contractor, they do turf repair,
he was bringing in a piece of equipment that I felt was too
large, that weighed too much, that was actually causing damage
to the gravesite. So he would go in to water a gravesite and
potentially and did damage other gravesites. So we have
restricted him from using that machine and made him repair the
gravesites that he damaged. But we had to work through the
contracting process to hold that contractor accountable and we
have done so.
Mr. Runyan. And I know you are a big proponent of the
training center, the VA training center in St. Louis, how many
of the employees have been through that program and what is the
planning for the rest of them to attend it?
Mr. Hallinan. In my former lifetime, Mr. Chairman, I was in
charge of that National Training Academy. So we do have a
signed agreement with the Secretary of the VA and the Secretary
of the Army. I would say 10 to 15 percent of workforce has gone
out to that academy to be trained. Ms. Condon's goal and my
goal is to look at all the key positions and within a 36-month
cycle, get those employees out for formalized training the
training academy. But one thing I would like to point out under
Ms. Condon's leadership and working with the supervisors on
site, this week we have 4 of our senior equipment operators,
which is more than 50 percent of the senior equipment operators
in Arlington National Cemetery are out in Peoria, Illinois,
being trained by Caterpillar to the highest industry and
commercial standards.
So it is not just the VA that we have partnered with. We
are sending our people out to be professionally trained. And we
are looking for even more opportunities to have the people
trained by outside sources, as well as the programs internally
to train them on a daily basis. So we are going at a great
pace, we have accomplished much, and as I said, we still have a
lot to do. I would say to the Subcommittee, we are probably
looking at a 36-month cycle to all the people trained up, and
get the standard operating procedures in place and completely
change the culture, and that is the goal.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you for that. Mr. McNerney, do you have
any further questions?
Mr. McNerney. Sure I have a couple, Mr. Chairman. Ms.
Condon, is there any firm record of when those 69 boxes were
first put into storage?
Ms. Condon. Sir, that is part of the investigation, I do
not know when they were put in that storage to date.
Mr. McNerney. But as far as you know, that will likely come
out with the investigation----
Ms. Condon. Sir, I assume that it will.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Hallinan, how many interments a day do
you conduct about?
Mr. Hallinan. We average 27 to 30 interments a day.
Mr. McNerney. When these take place, are there situations
where there is crowding, where one is not out of the way before
the next one begins, are they typically held out of site of
each other in different parts of cemetery? How do you handle
this sort of backlog in terms of crowding?
Mr. Hallinan. There are logistics challenges dealing with
the amount of interments that take place, and the final
footprint that Arlington is on right now. A lot of the first
interment and active interment sites are located in one area,
sir. So there is a coordination and logistics problem or
challenge for us. I would say in a majority of cases, that is
not an issue, they are accomplished well and the families are
quite pleased with the honors they receive and interment. But
there are those places where we need to be careful, because of
the amount of interments and the close proximity that we keep a
close eye on the coordination.
Funerals that require full military honors, there is a
strict time frame, they can be late, family members can be late
and there can be delays, and it creates the potential for
funerals to be too close to one another, but we are aware of
the issue and we look to correct it. Right now we are on a
small footprint, sir, when we conduct the first interments
right now.
Mr. McNerney. There have been incidents across the country
where there have been demonstrations held at cemeteries, does
that ever happen during interments? Has that ever happened at
Arlington?
Mr. Hallinan. Not to my knowledge, sir. Outside of the
gates? Yes, but not at an actual interment, no, sir.
Mr. McNerney. When problems are found on gravestones, do
you have the authority just to make the change, or do you have
to notify families or how does that procedure work?
Mr. Hallinan. If we find a problem on a gravestone, we have
the ability and the authority to make that change. But if it is
something of a significant nature, it would be more of the
interment; if there was an issue on the interment, that is when
we would notify the families when we spoke about the cremation
issue. If there is an error on a headstone, a date of birth of
date is wrong, a date of death is wrong and we look at the
records, the family gives us that information, the family signs
for that information, and that information does not match what
the family signed for, we can correct that internally.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. No more questions.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. Mr. Stutzman.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems like there
was a desire from the VSOs for better communication, have you
instituted a formalized or survey and analyzed its results or
since you have taken over?
Ms. Condon. Sir, I have not, but that is truly one of the
things that we are working on with, I just finally staffed our
public affairs office so that we now have the person power to
actually reach out to put together our stakeholder forums, et
cetera.
Mr. Stutzman. The next panel in some of their
recommendations has suggested creating an e-mail list to notify
spouses of events and changes of protocol, rules of policy, is
this feasible to do?
Ms. Condon. Sir, that would be really hard, but one of the
things that we are currently working on is really altering and
changing the current Web site at Arlington. So what we will do
is we will use, that is the main way that we contact for people
to get information. E-mailing each and every individual as just
the numbers and the sheer volume would really be with the staff
we have right now a task that would be impossible to do at the
current time.
Mr. Stutzman. Do you have any idea what the number might be
if you were to try?
Ms. Condon. Sir, I would have to do some analysis on that
and get back to you on what that would be.
[The DoD subsequently submitted the following information:]
L There are approximately 7,000 individuals interred each
year at Arlington National Cemetery. Creating an e-mail list
would involve multiple family members for each of these. Based
on two family members per interment, we estimate that a list
spanning 20 years of interments (e.g., 1990-20n to current w00
e-mail
addresses.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. And then also, what about possibly
putting together an advisory group of VSOs to get their
feedback more quickly and to be more responsive to them, has
that been discussed?
Ms. Condon. That has currently been discussed with my new
public affairs team where we really do want to get a group
together of our VSOs and have an advisory group where we can
share information and they can provide feedback to make
Arlington even better than it is today.
Mr. Stutzman. I think that is really important. Any
communication helps clear up miscommunication and
misunderstandings, and I know the VSOs are obviously very
interested in wanting to communicate, so I would definitely
recommend that personally. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. Mr. Walz.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of things
on procedure now that you are in place, the way you are
handling this. In March, it was indicated there were 3,500
grave reservations on file, some which may not be valid. We
have had concerns from some folks that they have a legitimate
reservation and now it is not being handled as such.
How are we working through that after that story came out
of reservations that were given in an improper context than
they should have? Where are we at on that status?
Ms. Condon. Sir, as you know, we have grandfathered those
reservations that were made prior to 1962, and we honor those
based on the current eligibility for burial at Arlington, so we
are taking care of those. As part of our Accountability Task
Force, we are looking at all of the other potential
reservations that could be--in checking to see if they still
are valid and open, and so we are taking care of it that way as
part of the accountability of each and every gravesite at
Arlington.
Mr. Walz. This might be for you, Mr. Hallinan, or either
one of you. How long does it take on an average to get a burial
time?
Mr. Hallinan. It all depends on the type of honors that are
going to be rendered. It can take anywhere from a couple of
weeks to 3 to 4 months, sir.
Mr. Walz. And is priority given to current warriors?
Mr. Hallinan. Absolutely.
Mr. Walz. Those are done immediately. A veteran of a
previous conflict might have to wait?
Mr. Hallinan. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Walz. Without sounding callous but being also pragmatic
here, who pays to wait the storage, if you will, before that
burial happens? How does that work? If a veteran, an honor,
someone who meets all the eligibility, that are ready to be
buried and they are told it will be 4 months from now, how does
that work?
Mr. Hallinan. The cost will be incurred by the family, sir,
a normal arrangement. Whether it is Arlington National Cemetery
or another national cemetery, there is a wait involved.
Mr. Walz. I can't speak on the best practice of this. Is
that a reasonable amount of time to wait? I ask that in all
earnestness, that I don't know if that is a reasonable amount
of time if it ends up being months.
Mr. Hallinan. It has been a normal wait time for Arlington
National Cemetery, but that is something that Ms. Condon and I
are looking at, with a goal of reducing the wait time.
Mr. Walz. I appreciate that. I ask because I don't know
that if that is a normal wait time and if a family understands
it, because I hear from some of them that we didn't know we
would have to incur this expense during that time period we
were waiting for interment so I appreciate that.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Walz. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Condon, when did
you come to your position?
Ms. Condon. June 10 of 2010, sir.
Mr. Johnson. The storage facility--now, you say your
current process does not involve off-site storage facilities
for the purpose of safeguarding paper records, they are all on
site.
Ms. Condon. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. Who was paying this storage fee of this off-
site storage location?
Ms. Condon. Sir, that would be part of the investigation. I
do not know, but I would have to take that one for the record.
[The DoD subsequently provided the following information:]
L The storage location was rented by Mr. Greaux.
Mr. Johnson. You don't know that it was coming out of your
Department, you don't know who that was?
Ms. Condon. Sir, I do not.
Mr. Johnson. This contractor that was involved, is that
contractor still under contract in any way with the Department
for anything else?
Ms. Condon. Sir, I cannot speak for the Department, but
they are not under contract at Arlington.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. Do you know if they are under contract
within any other part of the Department of the Interior?
Ms. Condon. No, sir, I do not. I would have to take that
one for the record.
Mr. Johnson. I would appreciate it if you would take all of
those questions for that.
[The DoD subsequently provided the following information.]
L No, OS is no longer in business and neither it nor its
owner have any current contracts with DoD.
Mr. Johnson. This particular contractor, do you know if
they completed all of their work under the terms of that
contract?
Ms. Condon. Sir, that is part of the ongoing investigation.
Mr. Johnson. Do you know whether or not they were paid in
full for the terms and conditions of their contract?
Ms. Condon. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Johnson. You don't know, or you can't say?
Ms. Condon. Sir, I do not know all of the specifics there,
but that is part of the ongoing investigation.
Mr. Johnson. Ms. Condon, in all due respect, it frustrates
me just a little bit to get, ``We can't talk about this because
it is an ongoing investigation.'' We are not just an interest
group, this is a Congressional panel. We hear classified
information all the time. I am not sure I understand that.
Ms. Condon. Sir, if I had the information and could share
it I would, but I do not have the details of that.
Mr. Johnson. Okay.
Mr. Johnson. Do you know who the owner of that storage
facility is?
Ms. Condon. Sir, we do know who the owner was because he
was the one who contacted us about finding the records that
were there in the storage facility.
Mr. Johnson. And is it true that the reason they contacted
your office was because of the lack of payment for the storage
fee? Is that what originally----
Ms. Condon. Yes, sir, that is.
Mr. Johnson. One final question here, I think. You know, I
do applaud your Department's level of transparency in regards
to this investigation with us. Why, though, did ANC not decide
to release this information to the public?
Ms. Condon. Sir, at the time when we did the original
investigation on the information assurance part of that, if
there was a potential where we thought that there was current
personal identifying information, we would have immediately
notified not only the families but we would have put a press
release--and because of the ongoing investigation, that was the
reason why we did not put a public press release out.
Mr. Johnson. When was that information assurance evaluation
conducted?
Ms. Condon. Sir, it was done immediately when we had the
records in our facility.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. And when was that?
Ms. Condon. Sir, we got the phone call on the 9th and we
had them do the review on the 10th.
Mr. Johnson. The 9th of June?
Ms. Condon. The 9th of June.
Mr. Johnson. Do you have any idea when to expect CID,
assuming that they are indeed the agency with jurisdiction, are
going to complete their investigation; have they said?
Ms. Condon. Sir, they have not given me a date when they
are going to complete the investigation so I do not know.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. I have no further questions, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you again.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
I guess we can see your team is--we hope it doesn't happen
again, but you are still finding things hidden. It has been a
long year for you, I can imagine. But, I think a lot of us
agree when we look at the progress you have made and the
structure you have put in place, we are moving in the right
direction. We just hope it does not keep getting set back by
new bad findings day in and day out.
So I thank you for your hard work and your dedication, and
also Mr. Hallinan, for your service to this country. Thank you
both. And with that, Ms. Condon and Mr. Hallinan, on behalf of
the Subcommittee, I thank you both for your testimony and we
look forward to continuing to work with you as we work through
this difficult process on these very important matters. You are
both excused.
I ask the next panel to please come forward. Good
afternoon. With this panel we will be hearing first from Ms.
Christina Roof, the National Acting Legislative Director for
AMVETS. Then we will hear from Ms. Ami Neiberger-Miller, the
Director of Outreach and Education for the Tragedy Assistance
for Survivors (TAPS). And finally we have Dr. Vivianne Wersel,
who is the Chair of the Government Relations Committee for Gold
Star Wives of America, Incorporated (GSW).
We appreciate your attendance today and your complete
statements will be entered into the record.
Ms. Roof, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your
statement.
STATEMENTS OF CHRISTINA M. ROOF, NATIONAL ACTING LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, AMERICAN VETERANS (AMVETS); AMI D. NEIBERGER-MILLER,
DIRECTOR OF OUTREACH AND EDUCATION, TRAGEDY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
FOR SURVIVORS; AND VIVIANNE CISNEROS WERSEL, AU.D., CHAIR,
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE, GOLD STAR WIVES OF AMERICA,
INC.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINA M. ROOF
Ms. Roof. Thank you. Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member
McNerney, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. On
behalf of AMVETS, I would like to extend our gratitude for
being given the opportunity to share with you our views,
personal experiences, and recommendations regarding the issues
at Arlington National Cemetery.
As we are all aware, last year the Army's Office of the
Inspector General performed a detailed investigation into the
activities that were occurring at Arlington National Cemetery.
What the OIG uncovered directly affected AMVETS' membership and
the families of countless others who have laid a loved one to
rest at Arlington National Cemetery. AMVETS was saddened and,
quite frankly, upset over the findings that OIG--excuse me,
over the findings OIG released on the numerous disgraceful
wrongdoings occurring at ANC. Furthermore, AMVETS is still at a
loss for words as to how ANC's sacred grounds could have ever
been so blatantly mismanaged in a way that showed absolutely no
respect or care for the remains of our Nation's fallen heroes.
While AMVETS is eager to read OIG's follow-up report to the
investigation in September, we still believe we must voice our
concerns and problems experienced by our membership last year,
if only in an effort to give our membership peace of mind and
comfort to know their experiences are heard and understood.
AMVETS believes that it is important to preface our
statement with the fact that we are not aware of all the
improvements that have occurred at ANC as we, too, are awaiting
the follow-up report. However, concerns we share with you today
are still just as important and personal as they were a year
ago. AMVETS strongly believes that the issues at ANC are a
direct result of a broken chain of command, outdated
technology, absence of updated internal policies, and failure
to codify numerous operational policies and procedures. AMVETS
finds it unacceptable that ANC has moved between multiple Army
agencies over the past 30 years and yet no one agency or
individual ever raised a concern or red flag about the
happenings at ANC.
Furthermore, AMVETS believes that with the constant
shifting of oversight at ANC, the Army has failed to maintain
regulatory ``proponency'' in ensuring ANC was being run in
direct compliance with Army Regulation 25-30. The Army's
failure to enforce compliance to their own regulations, coupled
with the failures of ANC's leadership to adhere to all
regulations and to update internal SOPs, has resulted in our
current situation in Arlington National Cemetery today.
The command and leadership structure for ANC was last
codified in AR 290-5 in 1980, as well as in title 32, section
553, which was last updated in 1997. Although outdated, AR 290-
5 in title 32 clearly outlines a delegation of responsibility
to all the agencies involved with the care of ANC.
However, in 2004 the Army published General Order (GO) 13.
This is entitled ``Army National Cemeteries.'' AMVETS concurs
with OIG's statement that ``GO 13, at best, dilutes the
responsibility, accountability and authority'' of the
organizational structure at ANC. However, what AMVETS does not
understand is why the leadership of ANC failed to formally
address the discrepancies in the updated policies compared to
the old; or better yet, why they do not make an effort to come
to Congress so that these disgraceful events will be prevented
from ever happening again.
Often updated policies and procedures do add confusion to
past policies that have been in place. However, most
responsible Federal agencies immediately address and fix these
problems so that discrepancies--and fix the discrepancies. They
don't choose to ignore them as ANC did. And I am starting to
wonder if maybe it is still happening, as the information that
the Chairman put forward today.
Numerous AMVETS members and their families have been
personally affected by the mistakes that took place at ANC.
AMVETS still continues to receive calls from our membership
wanting to know if their loved one's remains are being properly
cared for.
So with that being said, I would like to share with you
what I have witnessed personally and experienced on a personal
level through my interactions with those most affected by this
ordeal.
Although we have tirelessly searched, AMVETS cannot find
the proper words to explain to this Committee what it feels
like to try and comfort our members so stressed over what they
have seen in the news regarding mismarked headstones and
improper care for remains, or even start to accurately express
to you the feelings of uncertainty and fear these families have
experienced.
While we can discuss the technical and legislative aspects
of what has happened at ANC over and over in hearing after
hearing, we must never forget that behind all of our
discussions on policy and procedures are actual people such as
these two brave women sitting next to me today and many of the
members in the audience today.
Again, AMVETS understands that there is new leadership at
ANC and we look forward to working with them to assist them in
any problems they may have. We also look forward to working
with this Committee in assisting you in whatever way possible.
Chairman Runyan and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my testimony and thank you for
allowing me to go over.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you Ms. Roof.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Roof appears on p. 41.]
Mr. Runyan. Ms. Neiberger-Miller.
STATEMENT OF AMI D. NEIBERGER-MILLER
Ms. Neiberger-Miller. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Subcommittee, I am submitting testimony today on behalf
of the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, known as TAPS.
Founded in 1994, TAPS is the national organization providing
compassionate care for all affected by a death in the Armed
Forces.
I am the TAPS Director of Outreach and Education and my
ties to Arlington National Cemetery are deeply personal. My
father-in-law, Marine Corps Captain Norman Miller is buried in
section 66, one of the sections identified in the OIG report as
having significant discrepancies. My 22-year-old brother, Army
Specialist Christopher Neiberger, was killed in action in Iraq
in 2007 and is buried in section 60. So I have been at
Arlington on the worst day of my life and it is deeply
connected to all of us.
In my testimony, I will share some of the experiences of
families, offer feedback about management, and provide
suggestions for improvement.
Reactions among families of our fallen military and
deceased veterans to the Office of Inspector General's report
fell across a broad spectrum. There was anger, concern,
confusion and no road map to guide our families or the Army.
Some were so deeply grieving that to doubt a loved one's burial
gravesite was impossible for them emotionally, and instead they
would just turn off the news.
At TAPS, we have supported families coping with burial
discrepancies at Arlington, and I will cite an example. Two
months ago we were contacted by a veteran seeking to confirm
that his late wife was in her marked gravesite. He said to me,
``Although my fears are not completely dissolved by Arlington's
assurances, I know that certainty can only be achieved by
disinterment and DNA testing, and I am not prepared for such an
invasive solution, I will just have to live with the
uncertainty that Arlington's mismanagement has created and hope
that my late wife and I are interred together.'' That is a
truly sad statement.
While some have questioned why the Cemetery has not taken
invasive steps more frequently in all of this, this example
illustrates exactly how difficult resolving burial
discrepancies can be and why the Cemetery's approach, leaving
decisions on invasive measures to families, is the right one.
When we saw the Cemetery staff struggle over the last year,
it was not with conducting routine burials, which they do at a
very high level of excellence, but it was under unusual
circumstances. TAPS provided support to two families who did
pursue disinterment's due to suspected burial discrepancies. At
the first disinterment, the family's fear was correct and other
gravesites were disturbed to locate their loved one's remains.
In the second case, our staff were actually present at the
disinterment. The family's son was buried in the correct
gravesite. And at the time, our staff questioned the conduct of
the Cemetery staff in how the disinterment was handled. We
believe that the leadership learned from this experience and
modified procedures.
In a third situation, our staff supported a reinterment.
When the family arrived, the gravesite was not dug and the
service delayed.
In two of these cases, there was a lack of communication
with the service branch by the Cemetery staff. While much
laudable progress has improved services for families and
accountability at the Cemetery today, much remains to be done
to satisfy the Office of Inspector General's 76 findings and
101 recommendations.
I would rate the team at Arlington National Cemetery about
40 percent of the way to the goal line. I expect that most of
the deficiencies will be corrected within the next 2 years.
We were also asked to comment on the future of Arlington.
TAPS would not oppose the transfer of Arlington National
Cemetery to the VA. In our experience, surviving families
placing their loved ones at VA cemeteries have high
satisfaction rates. But at the same time, we are also pleased
to continue working with the Army, and we would seek to work
cooperatively with any agency managing the Cemetery.
We also offer the following recommendations:
Pursue all legal means allowable to render a full
accounting of burial locations.
Write new rules for the Code of Federal Regulations.
Involve a focus group of bereavement professionals
and policies for burial discrepancies.
Involve grief counselors alongside staff talking
with families who are coping with burial problems, and
for the long term, set up an advisory group of VSOs
similar to the group that advises the VA's National
Cemetery Administration.
Improve the Cemetery's Web site and resources, and
do hold town hall meetings in cooperation with us and
the other VSOs for families.
And improve relationships among the different
service branches that are rendering honors at the
Cemetery.
We can't go back and undo decades of mismanagement and poor
recordkeeping, and we have to find a way together, forward, as
a community that supports the surviving families of our fallen
military and our veterans. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Neiberger-Miller appears on
p. 43.]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you Ms. Neiberger-Miller. Dr. Wersel.
STATEMENT OF VIVIANNE CISNEROS WERSEL, AU.D.
Dr. Wersel. Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney,
Members of the Committee, I am pleased to testify on behalf of
Gold Star Wives. Our intent is to inform this Committee of our
Arlington experiences as well as the importance of Ms. Kathryn
Condon's active role to help identify problems and gaps to
improve the ceremony for others.
I am Dr. Vivianne Cisneros Wersel, Chair of the Government
Relations Committee and surviving spouse of Lieutenant Colonel
Rich Wersel, Jr., United States Marine Corps, who died suddenly
a week after returning from his second tour of duty in Iraq.
I became a stakeholder of Arlington the day my husband was
interred, 23rd February 2005. As his surviving spouse, I
acquired the benefit to be buried with him when I die. When we
sent our husbands off to war, we spent time planning for their
homecoming, not their funeral. We never purchased the book what
to expect when you bury your husband at Arlington.
For those who have not endured this experience, I will
share with you my story and stories of other Post-9/11
surviving spouses. It was a day that deeply reflected our
wedding, till death do us part. Many of us endured unfortunate
experiences with the interment process, such as the wait time,
paperwork for the headstone, and the lack of information about
the protocol of the ceremony. This occurred while wading
through our grief, and unfortunately disrupted the integrity of
the ceremony.
We consistently hear from our members that the wait for a
burial can be a most difficult period. Nicole lost her active-
duty husband 24 February 2011. His civilian funeral was the
following week; however, he could not be buried in Arlington
until June due to the wait time. Her husband was placed in
storage. His burial is occurring as I speak, just shy of 4
months, and many of our members are with her today.
In addition to the financial cost of storage, there is an
emotional toll on the family. We seek to raise awareness to the
Committee as well as Arlington so that the situation can be
improved for the wait time and issues with storage.
We are also aware of the fiasco of mismarking of many
graves. Some of our surviving spouses asked for verification in
the placement of their loved ones. Arlington handled the calls
with dignity. A cross-reference check was done to help provide
the families some peace of mind.
We are not aware of how the reconciliation process is
validated. And as told, in 2010 Ms. Condon held a town hall
meeting to listen to our concerns. Throughout the meeting, Ms.
Condon was truly involved in the discussions to best answer our
questions. The majority of concerns pertained to the procedural
issues such as paperwork for the headstones. Many were rushed
and frazzled. Some were merely questioned if the information
presented was accurate. And we are not informed of options of
personal inscriptions.
In my case, the Arlington representative asked me to review
the workshop--excuse me, the worksheet when we were staging for
the ceremony. I corrected the information and was unaware of
options but had the fortitude to ask for the inscription
``Loving Husband and Father.'' However, in haste I forgot he
was also a loving son.
Christian lost her husband in Afghanistan in 2010 and was
never told she could have inscriptions, and was rushed through
the paperwork as well.
The role of the representative needs to be more personal
and active with the arrangements to assure the quality,
dignity, and the honor of Arlington is maintained. We seek
improvement of this process. There has been a lack of
communication when policy changes with lithochrome headstones
and headstone scriptures such as Operation Iraqi Freedom versus
Operation New Dawn. Also, the clarification of who may be
buried in section 60, why some were denied placement prior to
Ms. Condon's leadership when there was no existing policy.
Ms. Condon also presented an Arlington brochure that was in
the final stages waiting for approval. This brochure is vital
for a vital part of communication for the grieving family. Ms.
Condon did her best to address all concerns. This meeting was
very cathartic and a good beginning for making amends.
GSW offers the following recommendations: Decreasing the
wait time for interment; addressing long-term storage of the
servicemember; training for the Arlington representatives;
improving communications, starting with a brochure;
establishing e-mail lists; notifying survivors of events,
changes in protocol policy and rules; implementing working
groups as stakeholders to address the concerns; hosting
scheduled town hall meetings.
We are pleased to have Ms. Condon and the Army as the
gatekeepers for Arlington. GSW recommendations are suggested to
help improve the quality of the service of the interment of
Arlington, to inspire trust and exceed the stakeholder's
expectations, and to decrease the understanding of the
stakeholder's needs.
I am proud and honored to say that my final address will be
2761 near the corner of Arnold and Eisenhower, section 66,
Arlington National Cemetery. Thank you for the opportunity to
present testimony, and I can answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wersel appears on p. 52.]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Doctor.
Let's start the questions now. As we are moving forward and
as I said in my opening statement, I believe we all concede
that there were a lot of problems and a lot of heartache in the
past. I think we are now moving in the right direction. And as
we go through the communications, the wait time and all that,
which I think Mr. Walz addressed earlier also in some of his
questioning, have your members noticed an improvement in the
operations, communications and all that? And I will start with
you Ms. Roof.
Ms. Roof. To the best of my knowledge our membership has
not seen any improvements or any worsening.
Mr. Runyan. Ms. Miller.
Ms. Neiberger-Miller. I would say we worked cooperatively
with the administration prior to Ms. Condon and Mr. Hallinan as
well. But one of the things that we observed, I actually had
suggested the e-mail list that Dr. Wersel suggested to
Superintendent Metzler probably 3 years ago. And we actually
use a family grapevine essentially to distribute information,
which is often not entirely foolproof, in getting information
to families.
But I would say that for many of our families, being able
to call into a call center where calls are tracked is very
helpful. Knowing that no one is going to go into a senseless
voicemail area; that their calls will be returned, I think is
very important.
And when we proposed a town hall meeting to Ms. Condon upon
meeting with her after she arrived at Arlington, she very
enthusiastically endorsed that idea and agreed to participate.
And TAPS facilitated that town hall meeting and invited other
organizations and families to be part of it. So I just find
that attitude to be very helpful. But we also did work
cooperatively with the previous leadership as well.
Mr. Runyan. Dr. Wersel, do you have anything to add to your
testimony? I think you answered it in your testimony.
Dr. Wersel. I can tell you this, that the attitude has
changed. If you give us a chance to voice the inequities or
even the emotional feelings that a survivor goes through, it
does help mend. And it is not until you start sharing stories
with other survivors that you realize, wow, this is broken. And
I honestly thought that my case was an isolated case. And what
happens is that when you are active-duty military and there is
a death, you lose your military friends and your new family
becomes the Arlington family.
Most of us relocated to the Arlington area to be close to
our loved one. My close family friends are our Arlington. And
so we have been able to exchange our stories, and it hasn't
changed in 5 years. So what the healing process to that is, we
have been able to talk about it. But what is more important is
to be able to share it with those who can make a difference,
and that is the leadership of Arlington, because if we can make
change we have to be able to voice our opinion.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you.
Ms. Neiberger-Miller, you said in your statement that you
feel Arlington is about 40 percent of the way to the finish
line. Is it just a matter of time or do you think they are
being slowed down by obstacles.
Ms. Neiberger-Miller. I think it is a combination of both
factors. When you look at the OIG report, which is incredibly
extensive, with 76 findings and 101 recommendations, and the
problems that were identified were sweeping and systemic and
they were cultural, to change all of that overnight is
extremely difficult. And I think it is very reasonable to
believe that it probably would take them a total of about 3
years to address all of those concerns. They were sweeping and
massive. That may not be very fast, but I think is helpful.
Mr. Runyan. Do you feel there is any specific OIG
recommendations that you or your organization specifically feel
haven't been addressed?
Ms. Neiberger-Miller. I would like to see some more
movement forward hopefully on some of the policy and regulatory
issues that were identified in the OIG report. Perhaps it is
because of my background working with a major university with
lots of policies. Because without those policies in place for
how Arlington is supervised, how Arlington is managed for
policies within the Army, you don't have a firm foundation to
build on there.
And I know there are some significant legal challenges I
believe for them in working out all of that for the Code of
Federal Regulations, but it would be nice to see that move
forward.
Mr. Runyan. And Dr. Wersel, do you see any benefit or need
of any type of a special liaison or anything that could, pre-
and post-interment help the family out?
Dr. Wersel. I think so. I think we need--as a liaison, that
person can be the advocate to make sure no one slips through
the cracks. Just like I had previously stated, some of us have
inscriptions on our headstones, some of us don't. As a liaison,
they can make sure that the family is getting the information
they need, if they are not quite sure of the protocol of the
ceremony and that information has been provided, that liaison
person can step in or even follow up and find out what went
wrong.
But I think it is important to have some type of check and
balance and accountability system in order to improve it for
all families.
Mr. Runyan. Well, thank you very much. With that, I will
recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for coming here to talk to us today. Ms. Roof,
you were here for Ms. Condon's testimony. Did any of what she
said give you any reassurance that things are changing there in
terms of what you are looking for?
Ms. Roof. It was good to hear that there is a system of
updating SOPs, and it was actually very reassuring to hear them
say that there were no SOPs in place when they took over. So
hearing that they have updated internal policies is very
reassuring. However, I am going to have to agree with their own
testimony that, while much has been done, there is still much,
much more to be done.
Mr. McNerney. Do you think that the customer service
hotline, or customer service is better now in terms of people
that need to communicate with the ANC?
Ms. Roof. I think the idea of the hotline is good, and it
is a lot better than it was before. However, I would like to
see a lot of that energy and effort that went into establishing
that hotline to establishing something, like the Chairman had
said and the ladies touched on, you know, a liaison; because
while a hotline is great, there are other things that need to
be addressed as well.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Ms. Neiberger-Miller, what do you
think could be done or would be the most important thing to do
in terms of improving the service?
Ms. Neiberger-Miller. Improving service for families?
Mr. McNerney. Yes.
Ms. Neiberger-Miller. I would like to see a liaison in
place, similar to what Dr. Wersel discussed. You know,
especially for active-duty deaths, the family is often in
tremendous shock, and they are there and having to make
decisions very rapidly about their headstones and about the
ceremony. Even if they were informed about it, they may not
remember it, they may not even recall it. So having a liaison
in place I think would be very helpful.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Ms. Cisneros Wersel, you mentioned
something about long-term storage. What is long-term storage?
Dr. Wersel. Say, for instance, our Nicole, who her husband
is being buried today, that is 4 months of storage and that is
pretty costly. And I believe the way the policy is, is that she
is responsible for the payment. The Army doesn't--the way the
procedure goes, they pay once the servicemember is interred, so
there is a fee. And the funeral service directors vary in fees.
Maybe it is gouged, but they do vary.
And Nicole, it just so happened, and I did do some
following up. And the funeral director where he is, the price
was very reasonable. They weren't gouging her. But over 4
months it does add up, and that is very costly for the family.
And, yes, there is the gratuity that the family receives
for this unexpected expense, but still that is something that
needs to be addressed. If there is 4 months of storage, is
there an expected amount that should cost for storage? And that
should be looked at. It varies.
Mr. McNerney. You are at the mercy of a local funeral
director, basically.
Dr. Wersel. Exactly. And you can't go shopping and
changing.
Mr. McNerney. So there should be some standards. All of you
may have a chance to answer this--is your working relationship
with the current leadership satisfactory in terms of
communication and responsiveness? We can start with you Ms.
Wersel, Doctor.
Dr. Wersel. The interactions we had with her in October was
fantastic. I wanted to see more. I wanted to have another forum
or another form of a follow-up, and where we are today, what is
the status of that brochure, what is the status of how they are
slowing down the process, the protocol of--or just even sharing
the protocol to families. You know, how has that process
changed?
But I would have liked to have seen a follow-up on what our
recommendations were at that time with that meeting, what was
discussed. And the protocol for you all who don't understand,
you have no idea what to expect except somebody is going to
give you a flag--you remember that part--and, you know, you get
to sit down, and that is about all you get a grasp of.
And I will tell you a story that is a little funny and a
little embarrassing, because I didn't realize the protocol. And
they were going to give me a flag, and that part I got, while I
was sitting there, the Marine Colonel came down and knelt down
to give me the flag. So she is handing me the flag and she
leans over toward me closer to my face. Well, I am Latin, I am
thinking she is going to kiss me. So I came very close to
giving her a little peck on the cheek, and what she was going
to do was whisper in my ear. I had no idea she was going to
whisper in my ear the delivery of--for a grateful Nation. So I
was really thrown off the whole rest of the ceremony. I had no
idea.
So as far as the communication with Arlington, I would like
to know--getting together with Arlington, Ms. Condon, her
staff--to know what is their role in providing information to
the casualty officer, to the family; who has got the ball of
providing that information to the family. And that is a
communication process that needs to be improved. I would like
to see that improved and more communication with Ms. Condon's
staff.
Mr. McNerney. And if you will allow me, what will be the
best way for them to communicate with you?
Dr. Wersel. Again, the forum. To have a stakeholder's
meeting to find out or to have a liaison where they are meeting
with casualty officers or the casualty officer, who is the
person that is supposed to provide the protocol to the families
on what to expect. Again, when we had babies we read that book,
What to Expect When You Are Expecting. We knew what we were
going to do.
We did not know what to expect with Arlington. And you
can't do that funeral again, you can't do it again; it is done,
it is over with.
So I would like to see what is in place to provide that
information to brief the families on a ceremony that is only
done once.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. My time is expired. I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you Mr. McNerney. Mr. Walz.
Mr. Walz. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, thank you all first for being here, but most
importantly, thank you for always being such staunch supporters
of our veterans and their families and our survivors.
I thought Superintendent Hallinan made a really powerful
statement, and something I am really glad to see. It tells me
that there is a massive cultural change going on. This idea of
getting policies in place, which each of you spoke about, to
ensure continuity long after he and Ms. Condon are gone, long
after this Committee is gone, because this has to be about
forever of trying to get this right, the best that humans can
do that.
So I think, and I think, Ms. Roof, you pointed out in your
testimony, and I agree with you on this, this is going to take
some collaboration and coordination. Army Pamphlet Example
1087, I think it is, is 20 years old now, and it is in direct
contradiction to General Order 13 on how to do these funerals.
There needs to be this collaboration.
It sounds to me like in our previous panel, there is
getting cooperation with each of the services, because they are
responsible for their part of the burial, and the casualty
assistance officer and everything that goes with that. I think
this Committee, along with our friends over in Armed Services
could advocate a little push to the Army to update their
manuals, to streamline and standardize them, and to bring them
into that SOP alignment you are talking about.
Do you think that helps fix some of these things? I will
let Ms. Roof start and then just if anyone else wants to.
Ms. Roof. I do, I really do. First, like you said, updating
them, going through and reviewing--for lack of a better term,
sorry, the word escapes me--which don't work together. And then
not only updating but going ahead and codifying the ones that
need to be codified.
I think a lot of these things could have been avoided if
there were actually laws in place instead of this pamphlet,
that pamphlet. So I think it would be a good start.
Mr. Walz. Well, I would agree with you. Taking checklists
and things, I think all of us, especially dealing with military
people, that checklists are the way to go. Because I struggle
with this. I certainly find it hard to believe someone was that
callous or whatever. But if you don't have systems and
redundant safeguards in place, these types of things can kind
of happen on their own. And that is unacceptable. And that is
why these types of things are not just writing them down to
please us or whatever. They are the absolute standard operating
procedure so there is going to be no deviation.
So I agree with you. I was very happy to hear that with Mr.
Hallinan. But I think we maybe need to push a little bit,
because this is going to cross over into that, whatever it is
at DoD, that I don't even know what happens there to try and
get these types of things done, with some of these directives
to be finished. So I appreciate that.
Again, I thank you all. We are taking away some good things
on this. I do again commend the Chairman and the Ranking Member
for holding this. I think it is what the public expects. We had
an unthinkable situation here, but our responsibility was to,
first, fix it; second, to make sure it never happens again; and
I think we are on the path to doing that.
And again, if you hear some frustrations, Mr. Johnson was
expressing some frustrations, the Chairman, myself, it is
because we all know this is absolutely a zero-sum game. Every
single burial must be perfect. We may never reach that goal,
but it is one we set for ourselves. It is obvious that the new
administrators and leadership accept that responsibility and
are achieving that. And so you are right to come here, keep us
on track to get there, but we are making progress.
So with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Walz. And ladies, on behalf of
the Subcommittee I thank each of you for your testimony. We can
definitely tell not only by your testimony and the emotion that
you each expressed it with, that there is something wrong there
that I think is being addressed. And I think we can agree on
it.
We all agree that a human probably can't turn it around
fast enough, and that is a frustrating part. As I said in my
opening statement, I was made very aware of this by my
constituent, Mr. Hopkins, early on in my still, I suppose,
rather new Congressional career. So it was an honor having all
of you here. Thank you for your testimony and you are excused.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
material. Hearing no objection, so ordered. I thank the Members
for their attendance today and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Runyan, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
Good afternoon and welcome. This oversight hearing of the
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs will now
come to order.
We are here today to monitor the progress of the new administration
at Arlington National Cemetery after taking over following the shocking
revelations in last year's Army OIG Report.
Before we get started however, I would first like to recognize Mr.
Richard Hopkins.
Mr. Hopkins is a constituent of mine who has traveled from Marlton,
NJ, to be with us here today.
Today's hearing is of great interest to Mr. Hopkins because his
parents are buried at Arlington Cemetery.
I got to know Richard shortly after he discovered that the wrong
headstone marked his parents grave.
He was understandably upset. As his Congressman I turned to
Arlington for answers.
Working with Ms. Condon and her newly appointed team, Mr. Hopkins'
problem was resolved and the headstone fixed.
I had the privilege of paying my respects to Mr. Hopkins' parents
and seeing the new headstone with the correct names in person.
I believe this story highlights some of the heartache associated
with the recent problems at Arlington.
We all know that 1 year at the helm of Arlington National Cemetery
is not long enough to fix all of its problems.
Years, if not decades of neglect and mismanagement cannot be fixed
overnight, but with the experience the new leadership brings, great
strides have been made.
The troubles at Arlington existed on all levels--from the highly
publicized problems with gravesite locations, low employee morale, and
an IT system that was virtually non-existent despite several years of
development and millions of taxpayer's dollars.
There have already been multiple hearings by other Committees on
the past performance and issues at Arlington.
I want to be clear that it is not my intention to re-hash these
issues and dwell on the past.
My focus, and that of this hearing, is on what the current
administration at Arlington National Cemetery have accomplished thus
far since taking over operation of the cemetery and how they plan to
ensure these types of issues never occur again.
I believe one place to start is on the training of employees. As we
all know practice makes perfect, and perfect is what our veterans and
their families deserve.
I hope to hear an update from Ms. Condon about Arlington's efforts
to provide continuing training to their employees.
Training of substance that will help prevent the cemetery from
repeating its past mistakes and keep employees accountable; knowing the
standard and keeping it.
I was encouraged by what I saw on my last visit to Arlington
National Cemetery earlier this spring.
Every indication that I have received is that there is a new
attitude of performance and accountability at Arlington.
Ms. Condon and her team have already put into action many changes
that were needed and were long overdue.
And while much has been accomplished in just 12 months, there is
still more hard work ahead.
I pledge the support of this Subcommittee to ensure all of last
year's discrepancies cited by the OIG are corrected. I believe we all
want this dark chapter in the cemetery's history closed for good.
I further offer the Committee's support to the Department of the
Army, the families of those buried at Arlington, the Veterans Service
Organizations and all interested Americans to work together to ensure a
much brighter future for Arlington National Cemetery as the iconic
symbol of respect our Nation has for all who have served their country.
I would now call on the Ranking Member for his opening statement.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jerry McNerney, Ranking Democrat Member,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Arlington National Cemetery is an unparalleled national treasure
that serves a very unique mission.
From humble beginnings as just a potter's field in May 1864,
Arlington National Cemetery became the preferred burial site for many
of America's veterans and other dignitaries including U.S. presidents,
Supreme Court justices, and many of those who died in the attack on
September 11, 2001, Arlington has become a national shrine.
Each year, Arlington National Cemetery welcomes millions of
visitors from both home and abroad and conducts thousands of burials of
the highest honor.
However, as we've recently uncovered, we are falling far short of
our national commitment on many fronts in Arlington National Cemetery.
In particular:
1. Archaic Record Keeping--Arlington needs to update its
antiquated system so that there is no doubt where any veteran is
buried. It is way past time to move to a fully electronic system.
2. Contracting--Arlington needs to make sure that those with whom
it contracts actually have the ability to deliver the desired end
product or service.
3. Mistaken Identities--Numerous articles in the past months,
particularly a March 23, 2011 Time Magazine article, highlight the
cases of mistaken identities in various gravesites as well as mismarked
graves due to avoidable burial errors.
Mistakes like these simply need not happen.
They are as avoidable as they are awful, and they rob us of time
that could otherwise be spent ensuring that our Nation's heroes are
properly laid to rest.
These mistakes also rob those who are left behind of the peace of
mind they deserve.
Today, I look forward to finding out more about whether and why
there are lengthy burial delays as has been reported by some survivors.
I also want to learn more about the 69 boxes of burial records
recently found at a commercial storage facility by the owner who
happened upon them in an abandoned unit--a fact that the ANC
voluntarily disclosed to the Committee. How did they get there, and
what, if anything, does this mean for the security of possible
identifying information and the integrity of gravesite locations?
Finally, I'd like to know what Congress can do to improve these
situations.
I am heartened by the dedication that Ms. Kathryn A. Condon, the
Executive Director of the Army National Cemeteries Programs, brings
with her, along with Mr. Pat Hallinan, the newly installed
Superintendant.
I am hopeful that the Army National Cemeteries Program can avoid
additional future shortcomings under their leadership.
I look forward to hearing an update on your December 2010 report to
the DoD Inspector General and also where you plan to be in September
2011, when your next report is due.
Our veterans and their loved ones deserve a 21st Century, world
class burial system that supports their final place of rest with
surety.
Thank you to our panelists for appearing today. I look forward to
working with you to maintain our promise to those who gave so much for
our country.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Kathryn A. Condon, Executive Director,
Army National Cemeteries Program, Department of the Army,
U.S. Department of Defense
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to provide an update on progress at Arlington
National Cemetery.
INTRODUCTION
Arlington National Cemetery is both the most hallowed burial ground
of our Nation's fallen and one of the most visited tourist sites in the
Washington, DC, area. A fully operational national cemetery since May
1864, Arlington National Cemetery presently conducts an average of 27
funerals each workday-final farewells to fallen heroes from the fronts
of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as to veterans of World War II, the
Korean conflict, Vietnam and the Cold War and their family members.
While maintaining the honor, dignity and privacy of each graveside
service, Arlington National Cemetery hosts approximately 4 million
guests annually. This duality of purpose serves to bring the national
shrine of Arlington National Cemetery, and the sacrifices of those
buried there, closer to the American people.
As the agency responsible for these two cemeteries, the Army is
committed to rendering public honor and recognition through dignified
burial services for members of the Armed Services and other qualified
deceased persons where they may be interred or inurned in a setting of
peace, reverence and natural beauty. On behalf of the cemeteries and
the Department of the Army, I would like to express our appreciation
for the support that Congress has provided over the years.
LEADERSHIP
I believe that the update that the Subcommittee requested can be
most directly addressed by explaining how we have executed, and
continue to execute, our leadership responsibilities. Army Field Manual
6-22, Leadership, defines leadership as ``the process of influencing
people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating
to accomplish the mission and improve the organization.''
Our statement explains how we have provided purpose and direction
by establishing a clear and comprehensive vision and supporting mission
statement. It continues by explaining how we have implemented
management changes to improve the organization and increase the quality
and efficiency. The impact of these changes is best described by
reviewing the standards that have been established and their results in
the areas of daily operations, customer service, records management,
and fiscal responsibility. This leads us to a discussion of sustaining
the cemetery for the future to be able to achieve the vision. In the
end, I am confident that you will see the progress that has been made
and the foundations for reestablishing the Nation's confidence in
Arlington National Cemetery.
VISION AND MISSION
We have provided purpose and direction by establish a clear and
comprehensive vision for Arlington National Cemetery that defines the
desired future state:
America's premier military cemetery
A national shrine
A living history of freedom
Where dignity and honor rest in solemn repose.
While the vision provides the long range goal that the organization
is striving for, the mission is essential to provide clarity for daily
operations. The mission is:
On behalf of the American people, lay to rest those who have
served our Nation with dignity and honor, treating their
families with respect and compassion, and connecting guests to
the rich tapestry of the cemetery's living history, while
maintaining these hallowed grounds befitting the sacrifice of
all those who rest here in quiet repose.
MANAGEMENT CHANGES
To successfully accomplish the mission and put Arlington National
Cemetery on the path to achieve the vision, there have been several
management changes.
These changes started immediately at the top by clearly delineating
roles, responsibilities and relationships. As Executive Director of the
Army National Cemeteries Program I am a direct report to the Secretary
of the Army, and is responsible to effectively and efficiently develop,
operate, manage and administer both Arlington and the Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home National Cemeteries. The Superintendent of Arlington
National Cemetery is my direct report, responsible to effectively and
efficiently manage and execute daily operations.
Management functions have been consolidated within the Army
National Cemeteries Program. The staff under my position as Executive
Director has functional expertise in strategic management and
communications, information management, and resource management. I am
supported by ceremonial units from the Armed Services, a detailed staff
of chaplains, staff support from Headquarters, Department of the Army,
and the Arlington Ladies who represent the Chief's and Commandant's of
each Armed Service at funerals. The result is clearly defined roles,
responsibilities and relationships.
My staff performs both an enabling function and an oversight role
for the Superintendent's execution of daily operations. The intent is
to enhance operations by removing administrative burdens from those
responsible for execution, while having those administrative functions
performed by subject matter experts and clearly segregating duties to
ensure proper accountability and oversight.
We have refocused the execution elements of the workforce by
establishing leadership positions and accountability where none existed
before. There are now team leader positions and job assignments to
better manage and execute daily operations. The Superintendent's
statement will focus on the improvements to daily operations.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
Arlington National Cemetery is truly about the living. It provides
a means for the living to honor our fallen veterans and their families.
It provides a unique lens on the history of freedom. But, first and
foremost, Arlington National Cemetery, on behalf of the American
people, lays to rest those who have served our Nation with dignity and
honor, treating their families with respect and compassion. Hence,
customer service is a critical priority.
When I arrived at Arlington National Cemetery the standard process
for scheduling services or getting questions answered was to either
call one of two toll numbers. If there was not someone immediately
available to answer your call, you would be put on hold. That hold
would last until one three things happened: the caller got tired of
waiting, the wait hit the limit of just under an hour and the caller
was transferred to a voice mailbox that was not set up, or a cemetery
representative picked up the line. We cannot tell you how many calls
went unanswered because of this system or how many people decided to go
elsewhere. This undoubtedly led to frustration and also to frequent
users finding ways to get priority.
To be responsive to each and every caller and to establish a
uniform standard for scheduling we streamlined public interaction and
telephonic communications by transitioning initial call screening to
the Information Technology Agency's Consolidated Customer Service
Center (CCSC) on December 13, 2010. The customized interactive voice
response tree allows us to receive and track incoming calls. This has
also forced us to document detailed processes and work instructions
that reside in a searchable knowledge management database. The call
center leverages CCSC's existing case management application customized
for Arlington National Cemetery to document and track all customer
interactions. We have trained a dedicated team of agents to answer,
triage, resolve when possible, and document all calls. To date the call
center has handled more than 23,432 calls, averaging 235 calls per
weekday with 47 of those to schedule an interment.
Accessibility and preparedness for customers is also a priority.
While the buildings were constructed prior to the American's with
Disabilities Act, that is no excuse for a lack of accommodation. We
have installed a handicapped ramp between Visitors Center and
Administration Building for family members arriving by Metro. We have
also constructed temporary ramps for placement curbside at interment
services and include carpet for wheel chair access graveside. Automated
External Defibrillators (AEDs) have been installed at locations
throughout the cemetery and staff have been trained on their usage to
ensure immediate response when necessary.
While we are pleased with the progress to date to improve customer
service, improvements will continue. We firmly believe in continuous
process improvement and are working to establish feedback mechanisms to
increase our understanding of customer concerns and needs.
RECORDS MANAGEMENT
To address identified information assurance deficiencies in the
Department of the Army Inspector General report and based on the CIO/G-
6 assessment, we commissioned the Army Data Center-Fairfield to
transition the Interment Scheduling System to current hardware and
software. The Army Data Center Fairfield completed this work and
transitioned hosting of Arlington National Cemetery's business
application to the U.S. Army Information Technology agency on November
23, 2010. This critical transition has ensured survivability of this
mission critical application. We are now leveraging the Pentagon data
disaster recovery capability and improvements to the Interment
Scheduling System to allow scheduling to be transparent to the Joint
Staff, Office of the Secretary of the Army, and all service force
providers. The Army Data Center-Fairfield's continued support of the
Interment Scheduling System and enhancements will enable a transition
of the interment services branch to a fully digital organization.
The activities of Army Data Center-Fairfield provide a bridging
solution to allow the Army and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
to collaborate on a new acquisition to replace the current version of
VA's Burial Operation Support System (BOSS). The VA-BOSS system is at
the end of its life cycle and VA is planning the process for gathering
requirements for a new acquisition. Army acquisition professionals have
been tasked to oversee the programmatic delivery of a new system, at
which time milestone decision points will be determined according to
Department of Defense and Army acquisition standard operating
procedures.
One of the biggest concerns upon arrival was the paper records and
the lack of any backup of this information. We have been able to
recover images from efforts in 2005 to scan the records. These images
have been integrated by the Army Data Center-Fairfield with VA-BOSS
records and Interment Scheduling System data from 2003 forward into a
searchable database that provides both a digital tool and, more
importantly, a backup for the vast majority of the authoritative
records. This database will be expanded and form the basis of the
accounting effort mandated by the Secretary of the Army and Public Law
111-339.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Arlington National Cemetery did not certify the FY 2010 year-end
financial reports and schedules due to a lack of available
accountability records. To remedy this issue for FY 2011, we
accelerated the implementation of the General Fund Enterprise Business
System (GFEBS) to 1 October 2010. GFEBS will provide the
accountability, to include the ability to conduct required audits, to
allow Arlington National Cemetery to certify year-end financial reports
from now on.
Instrumental to fiscal responsibility was instituting disciplined
processes, with oversight and direction, to enhance procurement
operations. Executive Director policies and appointments are now in
place to ensure a qualified senior-level staff member conducts funds
certification; only the Director of Resource Management and the Budget
Officer are authorized to certify funds. Similarly, funds approval is
limited to the Executive Director and Chief of Staff. We developed and
implemented a Gift Policy to ensure proper joint ethics accountability
and approval for all gifts and proffers made to Arlington National
Cemetery. We initiated accountability of all Real Property and
implemented a preventative maintenance and repair process to ensure
care and maintenance.
I lowered the threshold for legal review of contracts to $100,000.
Recurring service contracts were extended to allow for a thorough
review for requirements determination prior to re-competing all
contracts. The current contract requirements have been consolidated in
areas that allowed Arlington National Cemetery to gain efficiencies,
streamline work efforts and limit the contractor footprint on the
grounds of Arlington National Cemetery at any given time. The
consolidated requirements went from 28 to 16. Each of the new service
contracts has a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan and a Performance
Requirements Summary as part of the contractual requirement. These
documents will assist our newly trained contracting officer
representatives to hold contractors accountable for services.
To ensure accountability for the past, I have asked the Army Audit
Agency (AAA) to return at the end of this fiscal year to ensure that
the policies, procedures, and practices that have been established are
indeed working and sufficient.
SUSTAINING ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
Arlington National Cemetery includes 624 acres of rolling hills
with 20 miles of roads and the necessary infrastructure to support
interment services, ceremonies, and visitation. Planned expansions
include the 31 acres known as the Millennium Project and 42 acres that
will come with the Base Realignment of the Navy Annex.
Under current estimates, Arlington National Cemetery expects to
exhaust its availability for inurnments in niche spaces in Fiscal Year
2016. To preclude this from happening, we have accelerated investment
in developing and constructing Columbarium Court 9 during this fiscal
year. This investment will add approximately 20,300 niches to the
inventory and with the follow on efforts in the Millennium Project,
should allow Arlington National Cemetery to continue to offer inurnment
services out to Fiscal Year 2037. We expect Columbarium Court 9 to be
operational by November 2012.
Investment in the Millennium Project recommences in Fiscal Year
2012. When all five phases have been completed, this project will
provide space for casketed remains, niches, and space for in-ground
cremated remains. Continuation of this project is critical to extend
the viable life of Arlington National Cemetery and will permit us to
offer multiple services to be performed simultaneously across the
expanse of the cemetery.
Arlington National Cemetery now has a dedicated engineering staff
and has recently completed a comprehensive assessment of the current
status of all facilities and infrastructure. This draft Ten-Year
Capital Investment Plan for Arlington National Cemetery is to assist
top-level management to manage, plan, budget, and acquire capital
assets that will best serve the mission effectively. The draft is a
living document that is updated regularly. It is flexible so the
decision makers can change the project implementation schedules. The
plan intends to highlight and address potential spikes (i.e., large,
one-time increases in annual appropriations) that may have an impact on
other necessary projects. It also establishes a process for managing
the portfolio of capital assets to achieve performance goals with the
lowest life-cycle costs and to minimize risks.
We are committed to maintaining Arlington's grounds and
infrastructure in accordance with the standards expected of a National
Shrine while also maintaining the cemetery's viability as an active
cemetery for those who continue to serve our Nation.
CONCLUSION
I hope that the highlights of the actions taken and changes
implemented demonstrate the progress that has been, and continues to
be, made to restore the Nation's confidence in Arlington National
Cemetery. I would like to thank the Subcommittee for taking a positive
leadership role in the oversight of Arlington National Cemetery.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony. We will be pleased to
respond to questions from the Subcommittee.
Prepared Statement of Patrick K. Hallinan, Superintendent, Arlington
National Cemetery, Department of the Army, U.S. Department of Defense
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to speak to you about Arlington National
Cemetery. I was appointed as the Superintendent of Arlington on October
10, 2010, and served as the Acting Superintendent since June 10, 2010.
I was the Director of the Office of Field Programs, National
Cemetery Administration for the VA since Oct. 20, 2008, and was
responsible for developing and implementing National Cemetery policy,
procedures, and guidance related to national cemetery operations. I had
oversight responsibilities for five Memorial Service Network offices,
131 national cemeteries, 3.1 million gravesites and 19,000 acres..
I began my career in Federal service, working as a temporary
caretaker for the National Cemetery Administration when I was honorably
discharged from the Marine Corps. I have spent my entire Federal career
in cemetery operations and see being the Superintendent of Arlington
National Cemetery as the highpoint of my 37-year career.
First and foremost, Arlington National Cemetery is an active
cemetery conducting approximately 27 funerals per day. We consider it
part of our sacred trust to ensure that each funeral is executed with
the utmost dignity and respect. Every veteran's, and eligible
dependent's, funeral receives our full attention to detail. Daily
operations are critical to maintaining one of the unique hallmarks of
Arlington National Cemetery, multiple simultaneous private grave side
interments with full honors. Neither the importance nor complexity of
this hallmark can be overstated.
To establish accountability while maintaining this hallmark,
standards were developed throughout the operation where none existed.
The leadership team is training the workforce to implement these
standard operating procedures. We are holding supervisors and leaders
responsible and accountable for meeting our established standards. All
supervisors are responsible for quality control in the cemetery. My
staff and I spend at least 60 percent of every day in the cemetery,
regardless of weather conditions, observing daily operations and
ensuring expected standards are being met.
New standards for chain of custody have been implemented to
maintain positive identification of casketed or cremated remains from
the time they arrive at the cemetery until they are secured in their
final resting place. For casketed remains a system of six checks are
made by the cemetery representative to ensure positive identification:
cemetery representative validated daily interment schedule with family;
a non-biodegradable tag is placed on the casket containing the name of
the deceased, date of death, date of interment, section and grave
number and checked with the section and grave number painted on the
concrete lid of the grave liner; section and grave number are painted
on inside the grave liner; temporary grave marker contains name, dates,
section and grave number; and headstone (if applicable).
A ``dig slip'' is now the standard for excavation of a grave being
opened for a second interment. This standard assists in preventing the
unintentional removal of interred cremated remains during the
excavation of a grave. The dig slip is issued to the equipment operator
and must be verified by the equipment operator before opening the
grave. Similarly, niche covers in the columbarium are not removed for
the second interment until the cemetery representative is present. This
standard prevents cremated remains from being left unattended in an
open niche prior to a service. All cremated remains received at the
cemetery are tagged with a non-biodegradable tag and maintained in a
locked area until required for the funeral service. A concrete
government grave liner made specifically for urns is now used for
gravesites where cremated remains are interred. This procedure
effectively eliminates the improper or unintentional disassociation of
cremated remains from their assigned gravesite.
Supervisors and work leaders are being trained regularly by the
cemetery leadership on standards for the correct layout of burial
sections according to burial maps, accurate assignment of gravesites,
and correct procedures for closing graves. The Army has a memorandum of
agreement with the Department of Veterans Affairs leveraging training
at the National Cemetery System, Veterans Administration training site
in St. Louis. Contracting officer representatives throughout the
cemetery workforce are holding contractors working in the cemetery to
the standards of the contracts. Contracts have quality assurance plans
and contractors are being monitored and held accountable to fulfill all
contractual obligations and for any damage sustained to government
property.
Standards are in place to ensure that all sections of the cemetery
are tamped correctly to minimize graves and headstones from sinking. A
sifter was procured to ensure fill soil for closing of graves is now
sifted prior to use to improve effectiveness of the tamping process
when closing a gravesite. Additionally, all first interment sections
are raked level, clear of any excess rocks, to present a neat and cared
for appearance. As soon as possible (seasonal restrictions apply) a
stand of turf is created either by adding a layer of topsoil, seeding,
and fertilizing or installing sod. We are now using hand operated gas
tampers in second interment sections to close graves correctly.
Attachments for tractors have been added to rake large first interment
areas substantially improving the overall appearance of the cemetery.
Government markers (headstones) are being installed and checked against
the newly established standard in the cemetery. Government markers are
installed with 24''-26'' of stone visible above the ground. Headstones
are installed using the permanent monumentation in the sections and
checked with a level to ensure that they are aligned vertically and
horizontally.
Daily operations have been enhanced through the establishment,
training and enforcement of standards, by optimizing procedures, and by
procuring the right equipment for each task. This ensures full
accountability of all remains that are interred or inurned and higher
quality of interment services and grounds keeping. The result is full
confidence that individuals are laid to rest in the correct gravesite
or niche and an significant increase in the appearance of the cemetery.
The cemetery averages 47 new requests for burial each day. We
average 27 interments per day. To address this issue, Arlington
National Cemetery initiated Saturday interment operations on May 14,
2011. These are placement only services, where no honors have been
requested and allow some of the additional demand to be met. In
addition, we are working to increase the daily number of services to
average 30 interments.
Arlington National Cemetery is hallowed ground, consecrated by the
American Heroes buried here. As a veteran, and father of a Marine, I am
truly honored to be the Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery.
I am here to move forward to correct the mistakes of the past and
restore the faith of the American public in the operations at Arlington
National Cemetery.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will gladly respond to
any questions the Subcommittee may have.
Prepared Statement of Christina M. Roof, National Acting Legislative
Director, American Veterans (AMVETS)
Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, on behalf of AMVETS, I would like to extend our
gratitude for being given the opportunity to share with you our views
and recommendations regarding Arlington National Cemetery and the new
administration.
AMVETS feels privileged in having been a leader, since 1944, in
helping to preserve the freedoms secured by America's Armed Forces.
Today our organization prides itself on the continuation of this
tradition, as well as our undaunted dedication to ensuring that every
past and present member of the Armed Forces receives all of their due
entitlements. These individuals, who have devoted their entire lives to
upholding our values and freedoms, deserve nothing less.
As we are all aware, last year the United States Army's Office of
the Inspector General (OIG) preformed a detailed investigation into the
activities of Arlington National Cemetery (ANC). What OIG uncovered
directly impacted AMVETS membership and the families of countless
others who have laid a loved one to rest in Arlington National
Cemetery. AMVETS found OIG's report to be not only upsetting, but also
incredibly disgraceful. AMVETS could not believe the numerous wrong
doings OIG outlined in their report, or that these sacred grounds could
have ever been blatantly mismanaged in a way that showed no respect or
care for the remains of this Nation's fallen heroes. While AMVETS is
eager to read OIG's follow-up report to the investigation, we still
believe that we must voice the concerns, recommendations and problems
experienced by our membership last year, if only in an effort to give
our members the comfort of knowing their experiences are understood.
Moreover, AMVETS believes that it is important to preface our statement
with the fact they we are not aware of all of the improvements already
in place at ANC, as we too are awaiting the Army's new report. However,
the concerns we share with you today are still just as important and
personal as they were 1 year ago.
AMVETS strongly believes that the issues at ANC are a direct result
of a broken chain of command, out-dated technology, absence of updated
internal policies and failure to codify numerous operational policies
and procedures. AMVETS finds it unacceptable the ANC has been moved
between multiple Army agencies over the past 30 years, and yet no one
agency or individual ever expressed concern over the happenings at ANC.
Furthermore, we believe that with the constant shifting of oversight at
ANC, the Army failed to maintain regulatory ``proponency'' in ensuring
ANC was being run in direct compliance with Army Regulation 25-30,
issued in 2006. The Army's failure to enforce compliance with their
regulations coupled with the failures of ANC's superintendent and
senior leadership to adhere to the regulations and update internal
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) has resulted in numerous grave
mismarkings, improper handling of remains and immeasurable stress and
grief, which the families of these fallen heroes must now endure.
The command and leadership structure for ANC was last codified in
AR 290-5 in 1980, as well as in Tile 32 Section 553 which was last
updated in 1997. Furthermore, Department of the Army Pamphlet DA PAM
10-87 entitled ``Administration, Operation and Maintenance of Army
Cemeteries'' has not been updated since 1991 and lastly, GO 13 entitled
``Army National Cemeteries'' was last updated in 2004. The first two
documents clearly outline the delegation of responsibilities to all of
the agencies involved with the care of ANC, however GO 13 seems to add
confusion and opposing policies to those outlined in AR 290-5 and DA
PAM 10-87. In fact according the OIG, ``GO 13, at best, dilutes the
responsibility, accountability and authority of Military District of
Washington as an organizational structure over ANC, and at worst,
effectively strips the organizational level structure out of the
equation, encumbering strategic and direct level structures with the
tasks to lead and manage functional areas in which they are not
resourced.''
The overall operational inefficiencies seem to be a direct result
of outdated and/or non-existent SOPs and internal published policy
guidelines. According to OIG ANC staff reported that they had never
even seen an SOP and the few that did exist were very outdated. It is
in the opinion of AMVETS that ANC was only able to function below the
radar for as long as they did because of the experience of the current
staff and very low turnover rates. However, AMVETS finds it to be
unacceptable and irresponsible to operate any cemetery without
regularly updated SOPs and policies, regardless of the experience level
of the cemetery's personnel. The OIG's findings further confirm AMVETS
belief in utilizing updated SOPs and the necessity for regular
oversight. AMVETS believes if ANC leadership and the Department of the
Army had adhered to and followed policies, regularly updated their
regulations and practiced even the most basic oversight, these grave
injustices could have been avoided all together.
AMVETS strongly believes that ANC should look to the practices and
procedures of the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery
Administration (NCA). NCA has robust and regularly updated procedures,
policies and codified laws called for. Furthermore, NCA has utilized an
electronic tracking system for all of their interments since the
1990's. NCA also continually demonstrates transparency in their daily
operations and has always been forthcoming with any problems they may
be experiencing. NCA has always looked to Congress at the start of any
problem so that policies could be updated and codified in order to
prevent the exact events that have occurred at ANC.
AMVETS also believes that the leadership of ANC should look to NCA
for methods of key decision-making. In the past ANC mid-level managers
have made all of the key decisions regarding employees and daily
operations without looking to higher level management, the employees
themselves or even outside resources that could have been provided by
the Department of the Army. Instead, ANC chose to make all of these
decisions on their own, which in turn created an unhealthy
organizational climate and led to the numerous mistakes regarding
interment on ANC grounds. While AMVETS understands that there is new
leadership at ANC, we strongly urge the new administration utilize the
assistance NCA has offered numerous times over the past 15 years with
the implementation and completion of ANC's automation process.
When comparing the cost of what it took NCA to establish and
implement their automated system to that of what ANC has already spent
over the last decade trying to develop and implement their own
automated system, AMVETS believes ANC accepting the outside assistance
from NCA stands to be the most timely and fiscally responsible manner
in which ANC can finally complete their automated system.
As you know, AMVETS is one of this country's most inclusive
Veterans Service Organizations. Our membership is comprised of
veterans, active duty personnel, National Guard and Reserve and through
AMVETS subsidiary organizations, their families. Numerous AMVETS
members and their families have been personally effected by the
mistakes that took place at ANC. AMVETS still continues to receive
calls from our membership wanting to know if their loved ones remains
are still being properly cared for, as well as calls from concerned
members wanting to know how they can get in touch with ANC to check on
the status of their loved ones interments. So, that being said, I would
like to stray from my usual testimony style and share with you what I
have witnessed and experienced on a personal level through my
interactions with those directly affected by this ordeal.
Although we have tirelessly searched, AMVETS cannot find the proper
words to explain to this Committee what it feels like to try and
comfort our members so distressed over what they have seen in the news
regarding mismarked head stones and improperly cared for remains, or to
even start to accurately express to you the feelings of uncertainty and
fear these families have experienced. Personally, I have witnessed
emotion ranging from pure anger to extreme sadness and even guilt by a
few who wondered if they had made the wrong decision in having their
loved one laid to rest at what they believed was supposed to be one of
this country's most sacred and well kept cemeteries. While we can
discuss the technical and legislative aspects of what happened at ANC
repeatedly, we must never forget that behind all of our discussions on
policies and codifying practices are real people. Moreover, these are
the men and women who have sacrificed and even died for our country.
While, I usually try and leave people's personal tragedies out of
policy discussions, I truly believe that this is one of the times when
we actually need to include it. When the only comfort I have to offer
to my membership is an ANC hotline number and hopeful, yet unverified,
reassurances that the Department of the Army and Congress will quickly
right all of the ``wrongs'' that have happened, is simply not good
enough.
Again, AMVETS understands that new leadership was brought into ANC
to address all of the problems and that there has possibly been great
strides in rectifying all of the problems OIG reported last year,
however the simple fact still remains that this happened and there must
be immediate changes to and the codification of the policies and
procedures utilized at ANC. AMVETS stands ready to assist this
Committee and the leadership of ANC in any way needed, so that we can
all rest assure that this will never happen again.
Chairman Runyan and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, this
concludes my testimony and I stand ready to address any questions you
may have for me.
Prepared Statement of Ami D. Neiberger-Miller, Director of Outreach and
Education, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Because of our role in caring for thousands of families of
America's fallen military since 1994, the Tragedy
Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) is uniquely qualified to
comment on this matter. Ami Neiberger-Miller is a surviving family
member with multiple loved ones interred at Arlington National
Cemetery. In my role as a TAPS staff member, I have worked with several
families to communicate with Cemetery administrators under both the old
and new leadership.
I. Evaluation of Progress to Date In Addressing Deficiencies in the
2010 Inspector General's Report
Family reactions to the Army Inspector General's
report were mixed and fell across a wide spectrum.
TAPS praises administrators for positive steps: an
upgraded phone system, addressing manpower shortages, and
instituting consistent policies and procedures among the
Cemetery workforce.
In spite of this progress, much remains to satisfy
the 101 recommendations and 76 findings in the Inspector
General's report. After steady progress, I would rate
the team at Arlington National Cemetery about 40 percent of the
way to the goal line.
Regulatory deficiencies and the slow pace of work
updating the Code of Federal Regulations leave the new
leadership without a firm foundation upon which to build a
future for the Cemetery.
Families grappling with questions about verifying the
burial locations of their loved ones at the Cemetery have
struggled to understand the information given. Securing
assurance for some families has been problematic, especially
given the nature of the antiquated paper recordkeeping system
and the potential emotional wounds opened by invasive measures.
Cemetery leadership have struggled when conducting
dis-interments and re-interments, and also struggled at times
with connecting families to the branch of service.
II. Opinion on the Future of Arlington National Cemetery
Some within Congress and others are calling to
transfer the Cemetery to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
There is not a consistent opinion among surviving
families on this matter. I know a few families who support the
Cemetery remaining under the Army's management. What matters to
families is the care and support they and their loved ones
receive from the management of the Cemetery.
VA cemeteries rate highly with surviving families.
TAPS would not oppose a transfer to the VA.
TAPS would work cooperatively with any agency
managing Arlington National Cemetery.
III. Recommendations for Improvements in Cemetery Operations
Continue to pursue all legal means to render a full
accounting of the burial locations at Arlington National
Cemetery.
Write and promulgate new administrative rules for the
Code of Federal Regulations for the Cemetery.
Involve a focus group of bereavement professionals
accredited by the Association of Death Education and
Counseling, TAPS, the National Funeral Directors Association
and surviving families in discussing the procedures being taken
to correct burial discrepancies at the Cemetery.
Involve trained bereavement counselors and social
workers alongside Cemetery staff in talking with surviving
families who are grappling with issues related to the burial
locations of their loved ones.
Set up an advisory group comprised of Veterans
Service Organizations to provide input to the Cemetery
administrative staff and offer feedback, similar to the group
already in place that the VA consults.
Communicate more fully with surviving families and
the American public about the steps being taken to correct
burial discrepancies at the Cemetery.
Hold town hall meetings in cooperation with TAPS for
surviving families.
Improve cooperative relationships among the military
service branches that render honors at the Cemetery.
Update the floral policy for the Cemetery to be
consistent with current grieving practices and include
mementoes in the policy, as well as collection procedures.
__________
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to have the opportunity to submit this testimony on
behalf of the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS). TAPS is
the national organization providing compassionate care for the families
of America's fallen military heroes. TAPS provides peer-based emotional
support, grief and trauma resources, seminars, case work assistance,
and a 24/7 resource and information helpline for all who have been
affected by a death in the Armed Forces. Services are provided to
families at no cost to them. We do all of this with no financial
support from the government because TAPS is funded entirely by the
generosity of the American people.
TAPS was founded in 1994 by a group of surviving families following
the deaths of their loved ones in a military plane crash. Since its
founding, TAPS has offered comfort and care to more than 30,000 people.
The journey through grief following a military death can be isolating
and the long-term impact of grief is often not understood in our
society today. On average, it takes a person experiencing a traumatic
loss 5 to 7 years to reach his or her ``new normal.''
TAPS has extensive contact with the surviving families of America's
fallen military servicemembers, making TAPS uniquely qualified to
comment on issues affecting the survivors left behind. Since 1994, our
24/7 resource and information helpline has received approximately
184,260 calls from survivors. In 2010, TAPS received an average of 68
calls per day from military survivors and placed 264 calls per day to
survivors. TAPS intaked 2,864 newly bereaved military survivors in the
last year and received 10,649 calls to our 24/7 resource and
information helpline. Last year, TAPS placed approximately 63,452 calls
to survivors to let them know they were not alone, follow up on a case
inquiry, or discuss needed services and support. One hundred percent of
our 42 professional staff members are survivors of a fallen military
hero or military family members. Ninety-eight percent of our total
workforce are volunteers, including active military servicemembers, who
have donated 48,000 hours of their time in the last year to be trained
in how to companion a child who is grieving and volunteer their time to
support the children left behind by our fallen.
My name is Ami Neiberger-Miller, and I am the director of outreach
and education at TAPS. I am a surviving family member of our fallen
military and have deep personal connections to Arlington National
Cemetery. Tragedy struck my family in 2007 when my 22-year old brother,
U.S. Army Specialist Christopher Neiberger, was killed in action in
Baghdad, Iraq. My brother is buried in section 60 at Arlington National
Cemetery. My father-in-law, U.S. Marine Corps Captain Norman Vann
Miller, who died in 2003 of natural causes, is buried in section 66 at
Arlington National Cemetery, which is one of the sections identified in
the Inspector General's report as having significant problems with
burial discrepancies. Additional relatives of my family are interred in
other locations in the Cemetery. The beginning of my grief journey
after my brother's death is part of the HBO film, ``Section 60:
Arlington National Cemetery,'' which describes the community of
families that grieve together at the Cemetery. I began working with
TAPS in October 2007. In my role as a staff member with TAPS, I have
supported many surviving families of our fallen military and veterans
in communicating with the administration of Arlington National Cemetery
from 2007 to date.
I have been asked by the Subcommittee to ``provide written comments
on TAPS' views on the efforts by the new administration at Arlington
National Cemetery to correct the egregious deficiencies documented in
last year's Inspector General's report.'' I was asked ``to include your
evaluation of their progress to date in addressing these issues, with
particular attention given to the degree of accountability and
transparency exhibited, and your expectations regarding their timeline
and plan for full correction of all noted deficiencies. I was also
asked to provide comment to the Subcommittee ``regarding the future of
Arlington National Cemetery and any recommendations for improvements in
the Cemetery's operations.''
In response to the Committee's request, my testimony will be
segmented into the following three sections: (I) evaluation of progress
to date in addressing the egregious and massive systemic deficiencies
documented in the 2010 Inspector General's report, (II) opinion on the
future of Arlington National Cemetery, and (III) recommendations for
improvements in the Cemetery's operations.
I. Evaluation of progress to date in addressing the deficiencies
documented in the 2010 Inspector General's report
On June 10, 2010, the Army Inspector General published a report
into egregious deficiencies in management and operations at Arlington
National Cemetery. The contents of the report were difficult for many
families of our fallen military and deceased veterans to hear about. We
began receiving calls at TAPS from concerned families even before the
news conference announcing the report had ended.
TAPS issued a statement the same day in response saying, ``TAPS
believes that Army Secretary John McHugh and the military's leadership
are working actively to ensure that Arlington National Cemetery is
managed in a manner that befits the service and sacrifice of the more
than 330,000 servicemembers and their family members who are interred
there.'' The statement also noted that the Army ``apologized to the
community of surviving families, and is taking immediate action to
correct this situation and to assure families.''
For families with loved ones interred at Arlington National
Cemetery, in my experience, reactions to the Inspector General's report
fell across a broad spectrum:
Some families were horrified, angry, and deeply concerned
about the mismanagement of the Cemetery and the burial locations of
their loved ones.
Some families felt worried and were afraid that they had
spent months, and even years, visiting a gravesite that their loved one
might not be in.
Many were confused and unsure what they should ask the
Cemetery to confirm their loved ones' burial locations.
Some families had difficulty interpreting and
understanding what the Cemetery told them, even after they called
seeking confirmation of a loved one's burial location.
Some families were so deeply grieving that to even doubt,
for an instant, a loved one's burial location, was an emotional leap
they could not make. These families either turned off the television or
put down the newspaper every time a story came on about the problems at
Arlington National Cemetery, or clung to hope that their loved one's
gravesite was not affected.
Some families were deeply private about their concerns
and chose to discuss them internally and reach consensus before making
a call to the Cemetery.
Some families were starkly pragmatic, noting that
regardless of burial location, their loved ones were gone, and nothing
could bring them back.
The situation posed by burial discrepancies and mismanagement at
Arlington National Cemetery is unprecedented. No family should ever
have to wonder if their loved one is interred in the correct and marked
location. There is no road map to help these families. In June 2010,
there was also no road map for the Army and the new leadership team at
the Cemetery in how to respond to family concerns.
Working with bereaved and concerned families requires the utmost
sensitivity. Training in bereavement and support from mortuary affairs
professionals, Veterans Service Organizations, TAPS military
bereavement professionals, and others could have saved the families and
the Army much heartache and made this process less painful for all
involved.
In spite of these challenges, I believe the Army has made positive
strides in addressing these problems by taking the following steps:
Continuing the tradition of executing with great
professionalism and care an average of 27-33 military funerals per day.
Eight of these funerals involve full military honors with a caisson. As
many as 5 funerals occur at the same time. In addition to executing the
complicated logistics required for simultaneous and constant military
burials, the staff at Arlington National Cemetery also support an
average of 8 wreath-laying ceremonies per day at the Tomb of the
Unknowns, host dignitaries and heads of state, and host 4 million
visitors annually who learn about our Nation's history and legacy of
military service.
Instituting consistent policies and procedures for
Cemetery operations staff to ensure that future burial or interment
mistakes are not made.
Instituting a healthier workplace culture that encourages
employees to come forward if they make mistakes and correct them
quickly, evidenced by prior Congressional testimony submitted by
Superintendent Hallinan.
Sending staff members to training in cemetery operations
management.
Upgrading the phone system at the Cemetery so the public
and surviving families can communicate more effectively with the staff.
Hiring a new superintendent and deputy superintendent
with military cemetery management experience.
Hiring a director for the Army Cemeteries Program who
reports directly to the Secretary of the Army.
Taking steps to hire additional staff to address the
documented and significant manpower shortage at the Cemetery.
However, in spite of this laudable progress, much remains to be
done to satisfy the 76 findings and 101 recommendations made in the
Inspector General's report, released almost a year ago. The management
problems revealed at Arlington National Cemetery were massive,
systemic, and sweeping.
After a year of steady progress, I would rate the team at Arlington
National Cemetery about 40 percent of the way to the goal line. That
may not be entirely satisfying to Congress or to the public, but when
you consider the serious and systemic deficiencies identified in the
Inspector General's report, it's not surprising. Assuming their
progress remains at this steady pace, I would expect that most of the
deficiencies will be corrected within the next 2 years.
I personally believe that satisfying the recommendations of the
report will require a team approach, because it is a community that is
impacted by the problems at Arlington National Cemetery. This team
should involve leadership at the Department of Defense, Army officials
and staff, mortuary professionals, the National Funeral Directors
Association, the Association of Death Education and Counseling,
military bereavement professionals from TAPS, surviving families of
veterans and our fallen military, the American public, Congress, and
many others. Now, I'd like to discuss a few areas where improvement is
needed and may require a team approach.
There is a significant need to address regulatory deficiencies
impacting Arlington National Cemetery. The Inspector General found that
all governing documents for the Cemetery were outdated, noting that the
``Code of Federal Regulations, Army regulations, and Standard Operating
Procedures are outdated and unsynchronized.''
Many of the serious policy and regulatory issues identified in the
Inspector General's report remain un-acted upon. I've heard that while
some headway has been made in this regard internally, that these new
regulations are being held up by legal concerns.
Many of these items require not just action by the Army and the new
leadership team in place at Arlington National Cemetery, but steps will
also need to be taken by Department of Defense leaders to update and
address Federal and army regulations, in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act.
While the introduction of new standard operating policies and
procedures at Arlington National Cemetery itself have significantly
improved day-to-day operations, new Federal regulations and Army
regulations must be proposed and approved to address the tangled web of
conflicting policies and regulations identified by the Army Inspector
General and ensure a firm foundation upon which to build the next
chapter in Arlington National Cemetery's history.
Arlington National Cemetery has had difficulty at times
communicating with families of veterans and servicemembers interred at
Arlington National Cemetery who called seeking confirmation of a loved
one's burial location. Immediately following the release of the
Inspector General's report in June 2010, concerned survivors of
veterans and our fallen military began calling Arlington National
Cemetery seeking confirmation of their deceased loved ones' locations,
with particular concern being voiced from families of those interred in
sections 59, 65 and 66 where 211 mismarked or misidentified gravesites
had been identified by the Inspector General. The problems were so
massive and systemic, that families with loved ones interred in other
sections of the Cemetery not mentioned in the report were also
concerned.
Typically, families calling the Cemetery with inquiries were given
information found in the Cemetery's antiquated and non-digitized 3x5
card recordkeeping system. The families sometimes struggled to
understand how to interpret what they were being told. To many, it
seemed impossible to confirm burial locations from just these records,
in an atmosphere where families did not always trust what they were
being told.
Even if graves were photographed, the family located additional
burial paperwork of their own from the time of the funeral, and
additional information was given to the family, some families were left
wondering how to interpret this data. Families sometimes did not have
the emotional support needed to grapple with the serious issues posed
by more invasive measures. Families wondered how they could be assured
that their loved ones were in the correct locations, when the Army had
let them down in the past? The need to rebuild trust between the Army
staff and the families calling, was significant.
One person making that call to Arlington National Cemetery was Air
Force Colonel William Koch Jr., a retired veteran who called to verify
his wife's grave location. He was initially assured that all was in
order and not to be concerned. But Colonel Koch was called a few months
later by Cemetery officials who reported that his wife had, in fact,
not been interred under the marker he had faithfully visited. Colonel
Koch's situation and anguish were documented by reporter Christian
Davenport in a story in the Washington Post. TAPS was not involved in
Colonel Koch's initial request for information from the Cemetery, but
his situation illustrates the complex challenges the new leadership
team are facing in assuring families, given the records they inherited.
In handling these inquiries, the staff at Arlington National
Cemetery and the survivors they were attempting to respond to would
have greatly benefited from the input of a focus group of bereavement
professionals accredited by the Association of Death Education and
Counseling, mortuary affairs specialists, the National Funeral
Directors Association, military bereavement professionals from TAPS,
and surviving families.
Had Arlington National Cemetery's situation been treated more like
a mass casualty event, such as a plane crash, by the military, things
might have fared better for surviving families. The military has
considerable expertise in briefing families of those who have died who
visit plane crash locations and preparing them for what to expect and
see. This expertise, process and knowledge could have genuinely helped
the Cemetery's new leadership and its current staff in addressing many
of the concerns voiced by relatives of those interred at Arlington
National Cemetery.
Families needed clear communication about how to interpret what
they were being told by the Cemetery staff as they sought to understand
and confirm the burial locations of their loved ones. Had there been a
handout on the Cemetery's Web site explaining to the families how to
interpret the information they were receiving, and support in helping
them think through these complex emotional issues, things might have
gone smoother.
Each family must decide on its own, how to approach the unique and
unprecedented situation posed by the burial discrepancies at Arlington
National Cemetery. It should be recognized that these conversations
families are having with staff at Arlington National Cemetery staff are
influenced by other factors, including their own emotions, personal
feelings about the death, communication within the family, time since
the death, funeral experiences of the family, paperwork from the time
of the death held by the family, and personal cultural, religious and
burial customs.
It is not surprising at all to us at TAPS, who work with bereaved
families every day, that at times, communication between the Arlington
National Cemetery staff and the families was challenging. Here was a
situation guaranteed to stir emotions and grief, for which there was no
road map. What is so surprising about the Cemetery's interaction with
families on this issue to me, is that more people have not come forward
who are upset--given the emotional nature of the conversations this
situation required.
In the immediate days after the Inspector General's report was
released, there was panic among some families. One family called TAPS
with great concern, worried that their loved one was missing
completely, because his gravesite at Arlington National Cemetery was
not recorded in the VA Grave Locator database online.
The family told TAPS: ``I hope that you can help me. I searched the
national registry (gravelocator.cem.va.gov) and discovered there is no
record of my father. He is buried in Section 59. When my sister called
ANC to find out about this, she was told that it was highly unlikely
that our father was involved in the mix up. This is not reassuring
considering the national registry does not find any record of him. No
information was taken in order to pursue this further. Please help and
advise us what steps to take next.''
After some calls and communication with Cemetery staff on behalf of
the family, I found out that not all gravesites at Arlington National
Cemetery are listed in the VA's grave locator system, even though this
database includes a section for gravesites at Arlington National
Cemetery. This information helped assure the family that their loved
one had not been completely lost.
But the family's interaction with Cemetery staff was troubling, as
they seemed unable to be assured and said no information from them had
been recorded, nor had they received additional information from the
Cemetery. It took an intervention by TAPS on their behalf to provide
essentially basic information to reassure this worried family.
The confusion among families was so significant that TAPS staff
were even asked if the discrepancies at Arlington National Cemetery
might be replicable to veteran's cemeteries in other States that are
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs' National Cemetery
Administration (NCA). We replied that the report applied to only
Arlington National Cemetery.
As recently as 2 months ago, TAPS was contacted by a veteran having
trouble interpreting the information Arlington National Cemetery staff
gave him when he called trying to verify his wife's burial location. He
called TAPS for help and sought confirmation from the Cemetery that he
would truly be buried with his deceased wife after his own death at
some time in the future. After calling the Cemetery, he was left
feeling as though his quest for assurance could not be entirely
fulfilled.
The veteran told me, ``Although my fears are not completely
dissolved by Arlington's assurances, I know that certainty can only be
achieved by disinterment and DNA testing, and I am not prepared for
such an invasive solution. I will just have to live with the
uncertainty that Arlington mismanagement has created and hope that the
new managers will see that my late wife and I are interred together.''
That's a truly sad statement.
But given the significant emotional barriers posed by disinterment
for grieving families, it's also not surprising. While some in Congress
and the media have repeatedly questioned why Arlington National
Cemetery has not deployed backhoes and taken more invasive measures to
address burial discrepancies, this case illustrates exactly why
families are a deeply-enmeshed, necessary, and complicated piece of the
puzzle in resolving burial discrepancies at Arlington National
Cemetery.
In some cases, families simply cannot authorize more invasive
measures emotionally or personally. Yet the condition of the records
the new leadership inherited, leave families few other non-invasive
options for confirming burial location, other than trust and hope.
Under Federal regulations (Sec. 553.19), it's the right of families to
decide what happens to their loved ones, as they are currently
interred, at Arlington National Cemetery. It is a complicated legal and
emotional matter that cannot be easily or quickly resolved.
Placing trained bereavement counselors, compassionate mortuary
professionals or skilled social workers alongside cemetery staff as
they talk with concerned families grappling with concerns about the
burial locations of their loved ones would give concerned survivors
additional support when they call the Cemetery. Involving therapists
and licensed counselors with training in bereavement to talk with
surviving families would have made these conversations easier for the
families, and likely also easier for the Army staff involved.
At times over the last year, I felt it was challenging to convince
the Army that being more forward-thinking in its communications
approach would benefit both the families and the Army.
As a public relations professional with nearly two decades of
experience in communications, I felt it was critical for the Army to
talk about the situation at Arlington National Cemetery and the steps
being taken by the Army to address it. The implementation of an
effective communications plan with clear objectives for communicating
with the public and surviving families of those interred at Arlington
National Cemetery as soon as the Inspector General's report was
released would have tremendously improved the situation.
Because we work on a daily basis with surviving families of our
fallen military, as a representative of TAPS, I undertook a pro-active
effort to reach out to the new leadership at Arlington National
Cemetery as soon as it was in place. This was consistent with our
previous practice, as TAPS has assisted families with gravesite issues,
headstone corrections, or concerns about policies at the Cemetery over
the years. Due to the nature of our work, TAPS is also part of several
events at the Cemetery each year held by and for surviving families.
A meeting was held between TAPS staff and Kathryn Condon, the newly
appointed executive director of the Army Cemeteries Program. During
this meeting, we proposed hosting a town hall meeting where Ms. Condon
and other Cemetery staff could meet with surviving families in an
informal and private environment for open discussion and engagement.
The town hall event was held in late October 2010 and facilitated
by TAPS. It was attended by a number of military survivors, some of
whom had traveled from great distances to participate. Families were
also able to send in questions via e-mail that were asked at the
meeting. Ms. Condon and Mr. Hallinan, the newly-named superintendent,
attended the town hall session and spoke directly with surviving
families. It was a very productive discussion and TAPS would like to
see the Cemetery staff take more proactive measures to communicate with
surviving families directly.
Concerns with dis-interments and re-interments at Arlington National
Cemetery.
In our experience, the times the new leadership and cemetery staff
have struggled, have not been with day-to-day operations or the daily
funerals at the Cemetery. Rather, the times the new leadership have
struggled to relate to or communicate with families, has been when
dealing with families stressed about the interment locations of their
loved ones due to the previous leadership's mis-management, or families
who were coming to Arlington National Cemetery for procedures out of
the normal realm of daily operations for the cemetery staff, such as
dis-interments and re-interments.
TAPS staff provided emotional support to two families who pursued
dis-interments of their loved ones at Arlington National Cemetery due
to suspected burial discrepancies. I was involved personally in both
cases. In both situations, the decisions involved for the surviving
family members were difficult and emotional.
Since its founding, TAPS has supported military families making
decisions about the dis-interment and re-interment of remains, so we
have experience in this area. In some of these past cases, the families
were deciding whether to lay to rest additional remains that were
recovered after a funeral, or were contemplating moving a loved one's
remains to a different cemetery.
Many families have told us that disturbing a gravesite, moving
remains, or questioning the location of remains, has complicated their
grief journeys. Decisions about disturbing a gravesite are deeply
personal, involve a family's culture and burial customs, and are
fraught with emotion and difficulty.
The surviving families of our fallen military and veterans deserve
our support in working through these issues. While the staff and
leadership currently at Arlington National Cemetery are aware of the
significant emotional and personal issues involved in dis-interments,
the news media and political leadership do not seem to fully understand
or note these concerns, and some have speculated as to why there have
been so few disinterments to-date. The simple answer is this that dis-
interments are fraught with difficulty and emotion. Not every family is
able or willing to take such an invasive step to confirm the location
of a deceased loved one. Legally, disinterments remain the choice of
the surviving family and the primary next of kin of the deceased
servicemember.
In the first dis-interment case that TAPS staff was involved with,
the family's fear that their loved one was not located under the marked
headstone was correct. Additional gravesites were disturbed to locate
their loved one's remains. Other burial discrepancies were found and
other families were deeply hurt and upset, including retired Air Force
Colonel Koch, whom I referenced earlier.
In the second case, TAPS staff were present at a dis-interment to
support the Warner family. The family was relieved to find that their
loved one, a Marine who died in combat in Iraq at age 19, was buried in
the marked location. While our staff questioned at the time the conduct
of the Cemetery's staff in how the dis-interment for the Warner family
was handled, it is our hope that the Cemetery leadership learned from
these experiences and have modified their protocols and procedures for
the future.
In a third situation, TAPS staff arrived at Arlington National
Cemetery to support a family re-interring their son who had been killed
in action in Iraq while serving with the Marine Corps. The family had
discovered years after they buried him in another State, that he had
desired to be placed at Arlington National Cemetery. When the family
arrived at the designated ceremony time at Arlington National Cemetery,
the gravesite was not dug and the service delayed for 45 minutes while
the Cemetery staff got things in order. I was not personally present at
this situation, but did hear about it from TAPS staff who were there. I
was told that the Marine Corps funeral director, who was on-site at the
Cemetery, had to take charge of this troubling situation and insist a
grave be dug. It should be noted that another re-interment that TAPS
staff attended to support another family in a similar situation, went
smoothly.
In two of these situations, TAPS staff notified the Marine Corps
about the dis-interment and re-interment events scheduled to happen at
Arlington National Cemetery, prior to their occurrence. In both cases,
TAPS was surprised to learn that the Marine Corps funeral director was
not being kept apprised by Cemetery staff of these impending events and
had not been notified of these events for fallen Marines. We found this
to be concerning, as we know families very much appreciate the support
of a loved one's service branch when going through something as
difficult as a dis-interment or re-interment.
II. Opinion on the future of Arlington National Cemetery
Arlington National Cemetery is a treasured shrine to our fallen
military servicemembers and veterans and honors all who take the oath
to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Arlington
National Cemetery carries deep historical significance and meaning to
the surviving families of those interred there and the American people
as a Nation.
The valor that rests at Arlington National Cemetery and at the
gravesites of thousands of military servicemembers and veterans across
our country, is what makes their burial grounds a place of respect and
honor for all Americans.
It should be noted that the recent tribulations about Arlington
National Cemetery's management, are only a few years within a long and
proud history. I believe it will take the response of a community, to
rectify the problems identified at Arlington National Cemetery, and it
may take as long as 3 years, to truly address all of the very serious
issues identified in the Inspector General's report.
As an independent nonprofit Veterans Service Organization that
supports the families of our fallen military in the immediate days and
years following the deaths of their loved ones, TAPS knows how
important it is to families that fallen servicemembers be laid to rest
with honor and dignity.
We recognize that many within Congress and other areas are calling
for a transfer of Arlington National Cemetery to the VA. Surviving
families placing their loved ones at VA cemeteries have a universally
high satisfaction rate in our experience. Their positive experiences
are borne out by the VA National Cemetery Administration's high
positive rankings with the American Customer Satisfaction Index.\1\
TAPS is grateful that Arlington National Cemetery employees are
benefiting from training provided by the VA and that a new
superintendent and a new deputy superintendent for Arlington National
Cemetery were recruited from within the VA system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ VA's National Cemeteries Lead Nation in Satisfaction Survey, VA
News Release, January 25, 2011, Retrieved from http://www.va.gov/opa/
pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=2036 adequate emotional and psychological
support for surviving families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAPS would not oppose the transfer of Arlington National Cemetery
to the VA, because of the high ratings surviving families have
consistently given the VA's management of its cemeteries. At the same
time, TAPS is also happy to continue partnering with the Army
leadership and the leadership team in place at Arlington National
Cemetery today to facilitate support of families and provide valuable
insight from bereavement professionals. TAPS would seek to work
cooperatively with any agency managing Arlington National Cemetery.
It should be noted that there is not a consistent opinion among
surviving families on the issue of whether Arlington National Cemetery
should be transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs. I know of
a few families who support the Army continuing to administer Arlington
National Cemetery. One family member attending the town hall meeting
facilitated by TAPS for families to meet the new leadership at the
Cemetery, felt very strongly that the Army should retain control of the
Cemetery.
Frankly, most surviving families are more concerned about the
quality of care provided for their loved ones and their families,
rather than which agency is listed as managing a Cemetery.
III. Recommendations for improvements in the Cemetery's operations.
I offer the following recommendations for improvements in the
Cemetery's operations:
I. Continue to pursue all legal means allowable to render a full
accounting of the burial locations at Arlington National Cemetery. The
current administrative leadership staff have outlined a plan to examine
burial discrepancies at the cemetery on a sliding scale of concern that
escalates action steps and only pursues invasive measures with the
involvement and consent of the family of the deceased. While some have
suggested that more invasive measures, such as dis-interment and DNA
testing of remains, should be undertaken more frequently, it should be
recognized that there are significant legal and personal issues with
such actions. Any invasive efforts must be approved by the primary
next-of-kin of the deceased and all living immediate family members,
per Federal regulation (Sec. 553.19).
II. Write and promulgate new administrative rules for the Code of
Federal Regulations that rectify the problems with Arlington National
Cemetery's policy and management oversight. Appoint a committee within
the Army to draft these rules and submit them to the Secretary of the
Army and the Department of Defense for commentary. Allow a public
comment period of at least 60 days and in compliance with the
Administrative Procedure Act.
III. Involve a focus group of bereavement professionals
accredited by the Association of Death Education and Counseling, TAPS
professionals in military bereavement, the National Funeral Directors
Association, and surviving families in discussing the procedures being
taken to correct burial discrepancies at Arlington National Cemetery.
Involve this group in reviewing protocols for talking with survivors
about burial discrepancies and in communicating about what the Cemetery
is doing to resolve them and improve management. Involve this group in
discussions about the cemetery's protocols for dis-interments to ensure
that every effort is made to provide
IV. Involve trained bereavement counselors and social workers
alongside Cemetery staff in talking with surviving families who are
grappling with issues related to the burial locations of their loved
ones. Consult with TAPS and other organizations, such as the
Association of Death Education and Counseling (ADEC) or the VA's Vet
Centers (which provide bereavement counseling to surviving families) to
provide therapists and licensed counselors with training in bereavement
to talk with surviving families who are concerned about the burial
location of their loved one.
V. Set up an advisory group comprised of Veterans Service
Organizations to provide input to the Cemetery administrative staff and
offer feedback. A similar group is in place within the National
Cemetery Administration managed by the VA. This group provides input
and valuable dialogue between Cemetery administrators and these
organizations that touch veterans, survivors and their families.
VI. Communicate more fully with surviving families and the public
about the steps being taken to correct burial discrepancies at
Arlington National Cemetery. Create a comprehensive communications plan
for Arlington National Cemetery. Create a page on the Arlington
National Cemetery Web site that explains the steps being taken by the
administrative leadership to correct these problems. Publish a fact
sheet for surviving families on what is being done to rectify burial
discrepancies and management changes. Explain in detail how the burial
and interment records are being researched and compared, and offer
guidance to help families working through these issues. Include links
to videos, news stories and other information.
VII. Hold town hall meetings in cooperation with TAPS for
surviving families of those interred at Arlington National Cemetery.
Involve Cemetery leadership and staff in sharing information on a
regular basis with the community of survivors and veterans in these
private sessions where families can ask frank questions and learn about
the changes at the Cemetery. TAPS is able to assist with facilitation
if needed.
VIII. Improve the cooperation and relationships among the military
service branches that operate and render honors at Arlington National
Cemetery. Strive to emulate the atmosphere found at Dover Air Force
Base, where all of the service branches participate in dignified
transfers for our fallen military and work cooperatively.
IX. As recommended in the Inspector General's report, update the
floral policy for Arlington National Cemetery. This update should make
the policy consistent with current grieving practices, and take into
consideration the safety and security of those visiting and working at
the cemetery. Include the word ``mementos'' in the floral policy and
describe clearly how often gravesites will be cleaned. The policy
should also specify which items will be retained for historical archive
purposes by the Army's Center for Military History. Locate appropriate
funding for the Army Center for Military History's pilot program to
collect significant mementoes left at gravesites in Arlington National
Cemetery. They are an important part of our Nation's history and
legacy.
It will take a response by a community--comprised of surviving
families, Veterans Service Organizations, bereavement professionals at
TAPS, Army staff and leadership, the National Funeral Directors
Association, mortuary affairs specialists, the Association of Death
Education and Counseling, and others to deal with the significant
burial discrepancies and problems identified at Arlington National
Cemetery by the Army Inspector General.
We cannot go back and undo decades of poor record-keeping and mis-
management. We must find a way forward that supports surviving families
left behind by our military and veterans.
Personally, I would like to see Congress and others, separate their
anger over what happened with the previous leadership of Arlington
National Cemetery, from the efforts being taken by the new leadership
to address the Inspector General's report. I think the new leadership
needs to be held accountable for its actions and how it treats and
communicates with surviving families, but I fear that anger over the
non-punishment of the previous officials, has adulterated public
dialogue and discussion about Arlington National Cemetery, and become a
stumbling block to helping all of us move forward.
Together, we can find the way forward as a community and provide
better and more compassionate and comprehensive support to surviving
families as they face the serious issues raised by burial
discrepancies.
The stakeholders involved in the rectifying the burial mistakes at
Arlington National Cemetery include not just the Army, but also
veteran's service organizations like TAPS, mortuary affairs
professionals from within the military and the professional funeral
services community, bereavement professionals, funeral representatives
from the service branches, and the surviving families of our fallen
military and deceased veterans.
By working together, we can build a new chapter in Arlington
National Cemetery's legacy as a national shrine that honors all who
have served and died for their country.
Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Vivianne Cisneros Wersel, Au.D., Chair,
Government Relations Committee, Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
``With malice toward none; with charity for all; with
firmness in the right, as God gives us to see right, let us
strive to finish the work we are in; to bind up the Nation's
wounds, to care for him who has borne the battle, his widow and
his orphan.''
. . . President Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address,
March 4, 1865
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs, I am pleased to provide testimony on
behalf of the Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. (GSW) on issues at
Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) that are important to our Nation's
military widows and widowers. Our intent is to inform this Committee of
the experiences of our members and to help improve the ceremony for
others. My name is Dr. Vivianne Wersel, and I am the Chair of the Gold
Star Wives' Government Relations Committee. I am the widow of
Lieutenant Colonel Richard Wersel, Jr., USMC, who died suddenly on
February 4, 2005, 1 week after returning from his second tour of duty
in Iraq. My husband was interred in ANC on February 23, 2005.
GSW is an all-volunteer Veterans Service Organization founded in
1945 and Congressionally Chartered in 1980. It is an organization of
surviving spouses of military servicemembers who died while on active
duty or as the result of a service-connected cause. Our current members
are surviving spouses of military servicemembers who served during
World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the
conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and every period in between.
Our primary mission is to support GSW members after the death of
their spouse and provide a place to connect with other military
surviving spouses. We also provide information about military and
veterans' benefits and assist surviving spouses who are experiencing
difficulties accessing those benefits. We strive to raise the awareness
of Congress, the public, and the military community to the many
inequities existing in survivor programs and benefits.
The deceased spouses of many of GSW members are interred in ANC.
Many of our members relocated to the Arlington area just to be near
where their loved one is buried. It is important for some of us to
visit our loved ones and bond with other families in similar
circumstances.
Prior to the recent change in administration, some of our members
endured unfortunate experiences with the interment process such as the
waiting time for interment, paperwork for the headstone, a lack of
information about the protocol of the ceremony. Many of these
experiences occurred when they were wading through their grief and
unfortunately, disrupted the integrity of the ceremony. In preparation
for this testimony, information was gathered from interments that
occurred between 2005 and the present.
We consistently hear from our members that the wait for burial can
be a most difficult period while in their fog of grief. GSW seeks to
raise awareness to the Committee as well as ANC in the hopes the
situation can be improved with the wait time and issues with storage.
One GSW member, Nikole, lost her husband on February 24, 2011. He was
an active duty JAG officer in the U.S. Army. His civilian funeral was
the week following his death; however, he could not be buried at ANC
before June due to the ``wait'' time. He is being buried this very day
as we sit in this hearing, one day shy of 4 full months from his death.
In addition to the wait, the widow has been asked for a $125 per week
fee for storage of her husband's body. The Army will pay for the
service; however, not until the body has been buried. Therefore, in the
meantime, the funeral home is requesting payment from the widow. This
widow was also put in the untenable position of sorting through a
disagreement between the Ft. Belvoir Casualty Affairs Office and the
funeral home about who was responsible to supply the casket, each
pointing to the other. She ended up running short on time and getting a
casket that was basically a ``scratch and dent'' discontinued model
from the warehouse. She could have buried him sooner and avoided the
storage fees if she had him buried without honors, but he served his
country well and deserves the honors. Waiting for the burial of a loved
one is very emotional as interment is the final goodbye. There are
three key players/organizations involved in a burial at Arlington: ANC
itself, the Casualty/Mortuary Affairs Offices for each of the services
and the funeral home. It is logical for Arlington to take the lead and
provide the appropriate information to everyone involved, including the
surviving family.
Typically, for active duty deaths, burial is within a reasonable
amount of time; however, some families of servicemembers who are
eligible for burial at ANC sometimes have to wait for months for their
interment. This is emotionally draining as well as a time of financial
burden.
In the U S Army Inspector General Report completed in February 2010
and amended in November 2010, the average wait time for interring/
inurning of servicemembers killed in action was 10-14 days; the average
wait for veterans was 4-6 weeks. GSW is concerned that the wait time
for veterans, even those who die on active duty, is now 4 months or
more.
The majority of GSW issues pertained to the paperwork for the
headstone that is presented to the family at the time of the interment.
As you can imagine, that is a particularly difficult time for families
to be asked to complete the paperwork. Most are merely questioned if
the information presented is accurate and are not informed of options
for additional information that can be inscribed such as ``Loving
Husband and Father.'' The information provided is not always consistent
and in some cases is non-existent. GSW seeks improvement of this
process.
Lisa, another GSW, stated that when she arrived at the
Administration Center prior to her husband's service, she was escorted
to the desk where she was asked to select a design for her husband's
headstone. The Arlington representative escorting her told her she had
to hurry because she did not have much time. She needed to correct the
date of death on the paperwork and then as she was trying to select
from the hundreds of spiritual symbols, the representative sternly
reminded her to hurry or they would miss the scheduled flyover. If time
was so critical, perhaps they should have waited to complete the
paperwork until the service was finished. Information must be provided
to the families at the right time so decisions can be made outside of
the emotion of the day of interment.
After the ceremony, some families felt they were not given enough
time at the graveside. Some were not allowed to stay through the
lowering of the casket into the grave. There were some concerns about
why non-Iraq/Afghanistan servicemembers (or spouses) were placed in
Section 60 and some Iraq/Afghanistan servicemembers were not given the
option of being buried in Section 60 and were placed in other sections.
In October 2010, Ms. Kathryn Condon, the new Executive Director of
the Army National Cemeteries Program, held a town hall meeting to
listen to survivor issues and concerns. Taking the time to meet with
individuals and listening to their concerns was an important first step
in communication with Gold Star Families. Ms. Condon was truly involved
in the discussions and did her best to answer questions. With the
exception of the ``wait'' time for the interment, Ms. Condon addressed
the issues brought before her. Ms. Condon also presented a brochure
that was being prepared for the families to help alleviate the problems
with communication. It was in the final stages waiting for policy
approval. Ms. Condon's brochure addressing pertinent information
regarding a burial at Arlington is vital in this communications
process.
There has been confusion with misplaced deceased servicemembers, a
lack of communication when policy changes, problems with lithochrome
headstones and headstone scripture, etc. Ms. Condon did her best to
address all of these concerns. This was very cathartic for all who
attended.
Recommendations:
GSW seeks a status update from the ANC town hall meeting
recommendations to ANC:
Approval of ANC brochure, to include protocol and policy
Establish e-mail list to notify survivors of events and
changes to protocol, rules and policy
Implement working group of stakeholders to identify
issues be established to address the concerns of family members
Host town hall meetings periodically so that stakeholders
may raise their concerns in an open forum
GSW seeks decreasing the wait time for interment. The waiting time
for interment and the costs involved in storing the body for long
periods also need to be addressed.
We are pleased to have Ms. Condon and the Army as the gatekeepers
to our loved ones garden as well as our future resting place. GSW
recommendations are suggested to help improve the quality of the
service of the interment at ANC, to inspire trust and exceed the
stakeholders' expectations and to increase the understanding of the
stakeholders' needs.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony. I am available
for any questions you may have.
Statement of Ian de Planque, Deputy Director, National Legislative
Commission, The American Legion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Without question, the failures of past leadership at Arlington
National Cemetery are inexcusable. The hallowed ground, a little over
600 acres of northern Virginia hillside, has stood since this Nation's
Civil War as the crown jewel of reverence for the fallen warriors, the
men and women who have served this Nation in peacetime and war in the
air, on land and at sea. Arlington National Cemetery is the epicenter
of a country's reverence for these servicemembers. This is the sacred
ground of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers, and John F. Kennedy's
Eternal Flame. Yet past management of these grounds led to a state of
disorder, disrepair and disrespect that was clearly disgraceful. There
is very little to be served by reciting a litany of the past failures.
Rather it is far more important to acknowledge the intervening
successes and recognize the remaining challenges.
Last summer, in June of 2010, the transition of management began.
Kathryn Condon took up the post of Executive Director of the Army
National Cemeteries Program, and other changes would follow. Director
Condon and her team have been tireless and honest, sometimes brutally
so, in the pursuit of righting this sinking ship. The American Legion
applauds Director Condon for her forthright efforts to correct these
errors.
In Washington, it is not unheard of to sweep unpleasant truths out
of the public eye. Facts which reflect poorly upon an organization or
program are recast with new spin. It's almost unheard of to admit to
shortcomings and failings. Given the preoccupation with self-
preservation, the candor from the new management team over the past
year has been refreshing. This administration has not shied from hard
truths; they have instead met them head on.
The news coming from the cemetery was seldom good, and often
horrifying, but it was also honest. America learned of mislabeled
remains, and bodies buried in the wrong locations. This was not some
trivial matter thought to have occurred once or twice, but perhaps in
6,000 locations or more. Cemetery staff, when questioned by incoming
management regarding standard procedure manuals for burials and plot
alignment, admitted no such written records existed, and work had been
handed down by word of mouth. Electronic records did not exist,
information was stored on index cards as if the Nation's most prominent
military cemetery was a 1950's muffler shop. Perhaps the only thing
more eye-opening than the litany of prior failings at the cemetery was
the willingness of new management to dig deep enough to find all of the
errors and begin plans to set them aright.
A year later, Arlington Cemetery is far from fixed, but it is on
the road to recovery. The American Legion recognizes the hard work and
dedication of the management and staff to make things right. While it
cannot be definitively said no more scandals are left to surface, there
is at least a newfound sense of confidence management will not flinch
from addressing these scandals head on and will at least work to make
things right.
Yet even so, this cannot be the long term solution.
Now that the Department of Defense (DoD) has had time to regain its
footing and begin to remove the stain of the failures at Arlington from
its image, The American Legion urges Congress to place the ultimate
ongoing responsibility of managing, operating, and maintaining
Arlington National Cemetery and the U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home
National Cemetery in Washington, DC directly with the Department of
Veterans Affairs through the National Cemetery Administration (NCA). In
the entire government, no other agency can match the track record of
success and satisfaction NCA has worked hard to achieve. NCA is well
known for their attention to detail, and their ability to perform the
task of ensuring the dignity of or fallen servicemembers like no other.
Arlington Cemetery may struggle with electronic tracking of
gravesites, but NCA has a system already in operation. A downloadable
``app'' for smart phones is available to utilize this electronic
gravesite tracker on the go. Why look outside for technology already
existing and run by individuals with the expertise already in hand? Why
reinvent the wheel?
The DoD has one critical mission, to prepare for and execute the
war fighting necessary for this Nation's defense. Sidelining resources
of money and staff to non-war fighting tasks degrades efficiency within
DoD. NCA is already managing 131 cemeteries and doing it well. As any
business would point out, management costs can be better amortized when
spread over a large operation in this nature, and the costs to absorb
Arlington and the U.S. Soldier's and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries
would result in net cost saving for the government as a whole.
The American Legion is mindful of the proud tradition of the Army
in maintaining this facility and recognizes the importance to the Army,
those presently serving and veterans, of restoring honor to the
facility. Nobody questions the performance of the Army in the
ceremonial tasks and duties they have always performed, and performed
with distinction. The American Legion believes the responsibilities of
the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment, traditionally known as ``The Old
Guard,'' which include conducting military ceremonies at Arlington
National Cemetery, manning the 24-hour vigil at the Tomb of the
Unknowns, and being the provider of military funeral escorts at
Arlington, should never change, as a result of any reorganization
associated with Arlington National Cemetery.
What transpired at Arlington National Cemetery was unconscionable.
The past is immutable and cannot be changed. All that may change is how
we face the future. To this end, as we begin to move past the immediacy
of crisis and into long range planning, The American Legion again
stresses the importance of ensuring future operations are smooth,
professional and worthy of the gravity afforded to the task of granting
our servicemembers rest with reverence and dignity. While the efforts
of Director Condon and Superintendant Hallinan are laudable, they do
not represent a long term solution, nor should that be asked of them.
The American Legion asks Congress to begin the transitional process of
transferring management authority for Arlington National Cemetery and
the U.S. Soldier's and Airmen's Home National Cemetery to the National
Cemetery Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The U.S. Government has, in NCA, an outstanding body dedicated to
providing for the reverential treatment of the eternal remains of our
fallen, and it is time we handed the future of Arlington to them. Then,
and only then, can we begin to move forward with confidence these
shameful events will never be repeated.
Statement of Hon. John Barrow, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia
The many brave men and women buried at Arlington National Cemetery
dedicated their lives to serving our country. They've earned our
undying gratitude and respect, and it's our responsibility to ensure
that they continue to receive that respect after they have passed on.
I had the honor of recently visiting Arlington National Cemetery,
where Ms. Condon and Mr. Hallinan showed me firsthand the improvements
they have made in maintaining and operating the final resting place for
our veterans and their families.
Two things are certain: the problems at Arlington didn't develop
overnight, and the problems won't be fixed overnight. The problems
resulted from years of poor management and a lack of Congressional
oversight. We have a responsibility to fix those mistakes and ensure
they never happen again.
I look forward to learning more about how the operations at
Arlington have been improved, but I am more interested in ensuring that
these mistakes are never repeated.
Our deceased servicemembers and their families deserve the respect
of a well operated and well maintained final resting place.