    [Senate Hearing 112-497]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-497

               CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                  AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                             HOMELAND SECURITY AND
                              GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 25, 2012

                                   __________

                       Available via http://www.fdsys.gov

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
                            and Governmental Affairs

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    73-670 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                   JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
    CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
    DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
    MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas              JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri           ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
    JON TESTER, Montana                  RAND PAUL, Kentucky
    MARK BEGICH, Alaska                  JERRY MORAN, Kansas

                      Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
          Nicholas A. Rossi, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                      Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
                Joyce Ward, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee

                  AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT

                           CLAIRE McCASKILL, Chairman
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
    MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas              SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
    JON TESTER, Montana                  JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
    MARK BEGICH, Alaska                  JERRY MORAN, Kansas
                         Margaret Daum, Staff Director
                    Brian Callanan, Minority Staff Director
                           Kelsey Stroud, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statement:
                                                                       Page
        Senator McCaskill............................................     1
        Senator Tester...............................................     3

                                   WITNESSES
                          Wednesday, January 25, 2012

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

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Condon, Kathryn A.:
        Testimony....................................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    66
    LePore, Brian J.:
        Testimony....................................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    46
    Martin, Belva M.:
        Testimony....................................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................    46
    Vangjel, Lieutenant General Peter M.:
        Testimony....................................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................    27

                                    APPENDIX

    Informational Paper for the record from Senator McCaskill........    80
    Questions and Responses for the Record from:
        Ms. Condon...................................................    82

               CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2012

                                       U.S. Senate,
              Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight,
                        of the Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:29 p.m., in
    Room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claire
    McCaskill, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators McCaskill, Pryor, and Tester.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL

        Senator McCaskill. This hearing will now come to order.
        On July 29, 2010, almost exactly 18 months ago, this
    Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the mismanagement of
    contracts at Arlington National Cemetery, the Nation's most
    revered and sacred burial ground for veterans and their
    families. At the hearing, we reviewed the findings of a June
    2010 report by the Army Inspector General which found hundreds
    of mistakes associated with graves and gross mismanagement by
    the Cemetery's leadership. The Subcommittee also investigated
    how the mismanagement of contracts to implement a new automated
    system to manage burials contributed to those mistakes.
        The Subcommittee found that the problems with graves was
    more extensive than previously acknowledged and that thousands
    of graves were potentially at risk of being unmarked,
    improperly marked, or mislabeled on the Cemetery's maps.
        The Subcommittee's investigation also found that officials
    at the Cemetery and at the Army failed to conduct basic
    oversight. For example, Arlington's former leadership approved
    projects to automate and digitize burial records which resulted
    in millions of dollars in contracts over a decade without
    producing one usable product. In addition, there had been no
    review or audit of the Cemetery for over a decade prior to the
    Inspector General's 2010 review.
        In September 2010, as a result of the investigation of this
    Subcommittee, I introduced legislation to address those
    failures. The bill ultimately acquired 12 cosponsors, passed
    the Senate, and was signed into law in December of 2010. The
    law requires two separate reports by the Secretary of the Army.
    The first provision required the Secretary to verify the
    identity, location, and burial records for gravesites in
    Arlington National Cemetery and present plans to remedy any
    errors found in the review. This report was submitted on
    December 22, 2011.
        The second provision requires the Secretary of the Army to
    submit an annual report for the next 3 years on execution of
    the Secretary's June 2010 directive, which changed the
    structure and authority of operations at Arlington National
    Cemetery. This first annual report was, in fact, submitted
    September 2011.
        The law also required the Comptroller General to present a
    report to Congress on the management and oversight of contracts
    at Arlington National Cemetery, including a review of the
    feasibility and advisability of transferring to or sharing
    jurisdiction of Army National Cemeteries with the Department of
    Veterans Affairs. This report was released in two parts on
    December 15, 2011.
        The findings of these reports and the way forward from here
    are the subject of today's hearing. We will hear from the Army
    Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office (GAO),
    and Arlington National Cemetery about what the Army and the
    Cemetery have done to try and remedy the failures of the past.
    We will also hear about what Arlington and the Army still need
    to do to ensure that this never happens again.
        The reports provided to Congress reveal that much work
    remains to be done. Arlington must be put on a course that will
    ensure no tragedy like the one we saw unfold in 2010 is ever
    again reported to veterans and their families.
        At the outset, I want to commend Ms. Condon and the staff
    at Arlington for their efforts over the last 18 months. The
    corrections made by Ms. Condon, Mr. Hallinan, the Cemetery
    staff, the members of the Accountability Task Force, and the
    Cemetery's Old Guard, among others, constitute a sea change
    from what we saw under the Cemetery's prior leadership.
        I would also like to recognize the Army Inspector General,
    both old and new. The original 2010 report issued under the
    leadership of General McCoy demonstrates the quality and
    independence we expect from the Inspector General community,
    and I expect that General Vangjel will continue to hold
    Arlington and other Army officials accountable in his new role
    as Army Inspector General.
        As I tell witnesses from GAO at nearly every hearing, you
    are the unsung heroes of the government for the work you do
    every day. Nothing pains me more when people take political
    cheap shots at government workers, particularly because I am
    aware of the work that is done at GAO, the incredible savings
    that you produce for taxpayers in this country every day, and
    the dedication with which you go about your work. And it is not
    like you are doing it for big bucks.
        As I was told during the September 2010 hearing, I said
    that I would continue my work on Arlington until I was
    confident that all problems at the Cemetery were fixed and that
    we could stand tall and assure the families of our veterans
    that they would never again need to wonder about the location
    of their loved ones' remains. I look forward to continuing to
    work with all of you and my colleagues to make this goal a
    reality.
        I thank the witnesses for being here today and I look
    forward to their testimony.
        Senator Tester, welcome. You are welcome to make any
    comments you would like before we begin with the witnesses.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER

        Senator Tester. I would love to, Senator McCaskill. Thank
    you very much, and thank you for convening this hearing and for
    leading the charge to expose and address this issue. I want to
    thank the witnesses ahead of time.
        When the issue of mismarked graves and mismanagement at
    Arlington came to light initially, I said it was a black eye
    that needed to be made right. Simply put, our Nation is
    entrusted with certain sacred responsibilities. It is not only
    about honoring and taking care of those who wear the uniform,
    it is about being there for the families during their time of
    loss. And when entrusted with the remains of their loved ones,
    it is incumbent upon this Nation to carry out its
    responsibility with the utmost respect and dignity. On too many
    occasions in recent memory, whether it is mismanagement at
    Arlington National Cemetery or the mishandling of remains of
    American troops at Dover Air Force Base, that responsibility
    has been abandoned and that trust with the people for whom we
    serve has been broken.
        Ms. Condon, as the Chairman said, I am happy to have you
    here, along with Mr. Hallinan. By all accounts, you stepped up
    to the plate. You have made some tough decisions and instituted
    a number of needed reforms and I very much appreciate that. But
    as a recent GAO report pointed out, we are not there yet, and
    when you are entrusted with sacred responsibilities, there is
    no margin for error. So this afternoon, I look forward to your
    testimony and I look more forward to the discussion that will
    happen after that testimony.
        Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Senator Tester.
        Let me introduce the witnesses. Our first witness is
    Lieutenant General Peter Vangjel. He is the Inspector General
    of the U.S. Army. He was appointed to the position on November
    14, 2011. As Inspector General, he is responsible for
    investigating allegations of misconduct by Army officials. Most
    recently, Lieutenant General Vangjel served as the Deputy
    Commanding General of the Third Army, U.S. Army Central, at
    Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, from September 2009 to September 2011. I
    could also probably talk to you about contracting, could I not,
    over there. I know that is the center of most of the
    contracting and the contingencies.
        Belva McFarland Martin is the Director of Acquisition and
    Sourcing Management team at the U.S. Government Accountability
    Office. She is responsible for a portfolio of major management
    and public policy issues related to the protection of the
    Nation's critical technologies, including export controls, the
    defense industrial base, Navy shipbuilding, defense acquisition
    workforce, and Army modernization programs.
        Brian Lepore is the Director of Defense Capabilities and
    Management at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. He
    directs audit and evaluation teams that review the Department
    of Defense (DOD) support infrastructure, programs for base
    closure and realignment, installment, sustainment,
    modernization, and restoration, base operations including
    installation services, management of training ranges,
    infrastructure and privatization programs, and facilities
    energy management.
        Kathryn Condon is the Executive Director of the Army
    National Cemeteries Program. She was appointed to the position
    on June 10, 2010. As the Executive Director, Ms. Condon is
    responsible for both long-term planning and day-to-day
    administration of Arlington National Cemetery and the U.S.
    Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. Ms. Condon has
    held several other military positions, including serving as the
    Civilian Deputy to the Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel
    Command, from 2006 to 2009.
        It is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in all
    witnesses who appear before us, so if you do not mind, I would
    ask you to stand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give
    before this Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth,
    and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
        General Vangjel. I do.
        Mr. Lepore. I do.
        Ms. Martin. I do.
        Ms. Condon. I do.
        Senator McCaskill. Let the record reflect that the
    witnesses answered in the affirmative. Please be seated.
        We will be using a timing system today. We would ask that
    your oral testimony be no more than 5 minutes. I am going to
    say somewhere around 5 minutes. This is very important. If you
    need to go over 2 or 3 minutes, I do not think Senator Tester
    and I are going to mind. Your written testimony will obviously
    be printed in the record in its entirety, and we will begin
    with Lieutenant General Peter Vangjel. Am I saying your name
    right?
        General Vangjel. You are, Madam Chairman.
        Senator McCaskill. OK. Great.
        General Vangjel. I will answer to just about anything as
    long as I know that they are looking at me, Madam Chairman.
    [Laughter.]
        Senator McCaskill. OK, sir. Thank you.

    TESTIMONY OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL PETER M. VANGJEL,\1\ INSPECTOR
                  GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

        General Vangjel. Madam Chairman and distinguished Members
    of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to
    you today, and thank you for your input, support, and guidance
    over the past 18 months. It has made a significant difference
    at Arlington.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Vangjel appears in the appendix
    on page 27.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Since assuming the duties of the Army Inspector General in
    November, I have reviewed our previous inspections, I have met
    with the Executive Director, Ms. Condon, her team, and other
    stakeholders who have been involved in correcting the
    deficiencies found at Arlington. To fully appreciate the
    progress that has been made, one only has to review the June
    2010& report which identified 61 deficiencies, among them being
    a deplorable organizational climate, archaic recordkeeping and
    automation systems, uncontrolled contracting and budgeting
    processes, and a significant problem with gravesite
    accountability.
        In contrast, our 2011 IG report identified no deficiencies
    and noted significant progress at the Cemetery, largely due to
    the course set by the Secretary of the Army's Directive 2010-
    04, the efforts of the Executive Director and her team, and the
    support from the Department of the Army's staff. In short, the
    mismanagement and deficiencies reported to you in the June 2010
    IG report have been relegated to the past and Arlington is
    transitioning from successful crisis management to sustained
    excellence. Allow me to share just a few specifics.
        The previous insular environment that contributed to
    mismanagement and substandard performance at Arlington no
    longer exists. The Executive Director has established a
    positive work environment, emphasizing cooperation,
    coordination, and collaboration. Workforce surveys taken as
    part of the 2011 inspection reflected steadily improving
    morale, unity, and organizational effectiveness.
        The Cemetery now possesses an advanced fully functional
    information technology infrastructure supported by a service
    agreement with the Army's Information Technology Agency.
    Arlington has leveraged the agency's Consolidated Customer
    Service Center (CCSC) to more effectively monitor and respond
    to customer calls, thus improving customer service. A new
    computer application for digitizing burial records has been
    critical in establishing an accountability baseline for each
    gravesite and inurement niche.
        The 2011 inspection team reviewed 25 contracts covering
    services, engineering, and construction and found that these
    contracts are now properly aligned, with contractors possessing
    the requisite skill sets to perform required work to standard.
    New acquisitions are subjected to rigorous analysis, fee award
    compliance checks, and contract packet reviews for quality
    assurance. While we still noted some errors in 2011, none were
    egregious and the number was significantly less than 2010.
        Arlington now works closely with the Office of the
    Administrative Assistant and the Assistant Secretary of the
    Army for Financial Management to ensure improved oversight of
    the Cemetery's budget formulation and execution. The transition
    to the General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) has
    provided full visibility and transparency of Cemetery
    expenditures.
        Finally, with respect to improvements, the Executive
    Director recently published a Campaign Plan which includes
    major efforts to complete gravesite accountability, address
    long-term expansion of the Cemetery, and complete documentation
    of policies and procedures. For these and other objectives, it
    assigns responsibilities, time lines, and metrics to measure
    progress.
        With this encouraging news comes the reality that there is
    still much more work to do. The 2011 Army IG inspection report
    provided 53 recommendations for continued improvement at
    Arlington. I will highlight a few key actions.
        Arlington's leadership and the Department of the Army must
    finish updating relevant policies and procedures. Further, the
    Arlington leadership must complete the documentation and
    validation of internal processes, procedures, and controls. The
    recent work to establish the Gravesite Accountability Baseline
    must continue to resolve the nearly 50,000 cases that are still
    outstanding.
        Effort must be exerted to establish a multi-service policy
    that standardizes required assets for full honors funerals and
    enables maximum utilization of finite resources at the
    Cemetery.
        The Executive Director must coordinate with the Army staff
    to establish enduring external oversight processes to prevent
    any reoccurrence of past shortcomings.
        The Department of the Army must finalize and implement
    enduring organizational and support relationships for the
    National Cemeteries Program.
        And finally, the Army must maintain the support and
    oversight that it has provided recently to its National
    Cemeteries and apply lessons learned from Arlington to all
    cemeteries under Army control.
        In conclusion, Arlington remains a priority for the
    Secretary and for the Army. The significant progress observed
    by the Army IG validates the Secretary's approach to creating
    the processes, systems, and management that we found to be
    lacking at Arlington in 2010. This strategy, executed according
    to the Executive Director's Campaign Plan with the support of
    the Army, the Defense Department, other Federal agencies, and
    Congress will set the conditions for continued improvement and
    ultimately sustained excellence.
        Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify today
    and I look forward to answering your questions and working with
    the Subcommittee in the future.
        Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Lieutenant General. Ms.
    Martin.

      TESTIMONY OF BELVA M. MARTIN,\1\ DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION AND
       SOURCING MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Ms. Martin. Madam Chairman, Senator Tester, thank you for
    the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to discuss
    GAO's work at Arlington.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Martin and Mr. Lepore appears in
    the appendix on page 46.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senator McCaskill, you alluded to legislation that became
    the mandate for GAO to review contracting and management issues
    at the Cemetery. Those reviews found that Arlington has taken
    significant actions to address its problems and that the path
    forward is for Arlington to sustain progress through improved
    management and oversight. My colleague, Mr. Lepore, will
    discuss GAO's work on management issues.
        On contracting, GAO identified 56 contracts over $100,000
    that supported Cemetery operations, construction and facility
    maintenance, and new efforts to enhance IT systems for the
    automation of burial operations. Arlington does not have its
    own contracting authority, but relies on relationships with
    contracting offices to award and manage contracts on its
    behalf. These contracting authorities obligated roughly $35.2
    million in support of the 56 contracts covered by our review.
        The Army has taken a number of steps, as the IG has alluded
    to, since June 2010 at different levels to provide for more
    effective management and oversight of contracts, including
    improving contracting practices, establishing new support
    relationships, formalizing policies and procedures, and
    increasing the use of dedicated contracting staff to manage and
    improve its acquisitions. However, GAO found three areas at
    Arlington where additional improvements are needed. First,
    maintaining complete data on contracts, second, defining
    responsibilities for contracting support, and third,
    determining contract staffing needs. I will briefly summarize
    key findings in these three areas.
        First, with respect to maintaining complete data, we pulled
    together information on Arlington contracts from various
    sources, including support organizations. However, there were
    limitations with each of the sources. To be able to identify,
    to track, and ensure the effective management and oversight of
    its contracts, Arlington leadership needs complete data on all
    contracts.
        Second, with respect to support relationships, the Army has
    taken a number of positive steps to better align Arlington
    contract support with the expertise of its partners. For
    example, Arlington has agreements with the Army Information
    Technology Agency (ITA), and the Army Analytics Group to help
    manage its IT infrastructure. While these agreements spell out
    services that ITA will provide to Arlington and performance
    metrics against which ITA will be measured, they do not
    specifically address ITA's contract management roles and
    responsibilities in support of Arlington requirements. Although
    officials told us that they clearly understand their
    responsibilities, the question is what happens in the future
    when there are new personnel in place? Going forward, sustained
    attention on the part of Arlington and its partners will be
    important to ensure that contracts of all types and risk levels
    are managed effectively.
        Third, with respect to dedicated contract staffing
    arrangements, three contract specialist positions have been
    identified for Arlington but have not yet been filled.
    Arlington is presently receiving support from the Fort Belvoir
    Contracting Office in the form of 10 contracting staff
    positions, five of which are funded by Arlington and five by
    Fort Belvoir. Arlington officials have identified the need for
    a more senior contracting specialist and are developing plans
    to fill this new position in fiscal year 2013.
        In closing, the success of the Army's efforts to improve
    contracting and management at Arlington will depend on
    management's sustained attention and efforts to
    institutionalize positive steps taken to date. Accordingly, we
    made a number of recommendations in our December 2011 report to
    improve contract management and oversight in the three areas
    where we found shortcomings. For the most part, DOD agreed that
    there is a need to take action and have provided time frames
    for doing so. We will continue to monitor their progress.
        Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this
    concludes my short statement. I will be happy to answer
    questions.
        Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Ms. Martin. Mr. Lepore.

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

        Mr. Lepore. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman and
    Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    be here today to present our findings reviewing oversight and
    management of Arlington National Cemetery.
        We issued our report on December 15 and my testimony today
    will be based on our report. I will make two points today.
    First, I will discuss the policies and procedures the current
    leadership team at Arlington has put into place to manage the
    Cemetery and I will identify some of our recommendations to
    assist in that endeavor. And second, I will discuss some
    factors affecting the feasibility and advisability of
    transferring Arlington from the Army to the Department of
    Veterans Affairs (VA).
        Here is the bottom line. I think it is fair to say the
    current leadership team at Arlington has taken many positive
    steps to address the deficiencies at the Cemetery and make
    improvements. The Army has made progress in a range of areas,
    including improving chain of custody procedures to ensure
    proper accountability over remains, better providing
    information assurance, and improving procedures to address
    inquiries from the families and the public. However, we believe
    further steps are needed to ensure the changes are
    institutionalized and will prove long lasting long after the
    spotlight has faded.
        Therefore, we have made recommendations in six areas.
    First, they should complete the enterprise architecture to
    guide new investments in information technology to ensure the
    investments are aligned with the future operational
    requirement.
        Second, an updated workforce plan to ensure the workforce
    is properly sized and trained.
        Third, an internal assessment program to gauge how the
    Cemetery is doing and to make any improvements that may be
    warranted.
        Fourth, improving coordination with the Cemetery's
    operational partners, including the Military District of
    Washington, the Military Service Honor Guards, and Joint Base
    Myer-Henderson Hall, to ensure, for example, scheduling
    conflicts are avoided and the right honor guards are available
    when needed.
        Fifth, a strategic plan or campaign plan with expected
    outcomes, performance metrics and milestones.
        And sixth, written policies explaining how to assist
    families when assistance is warranted.
        The Cemetery leadership has generally concurred with our
    recommendations and begun to implement them. We are encouraged
    by this.
        Now, my final point. The question of feasibility and
    advisability of transferring Arlington from the Army to the VA.
    It is certainly feasible. The Congress transferred more than 80
    Army-managed cemeteries to the VA in the 1970s. However,
    several factors could affect the advisability of this. Such a
    change could have potential costs and benefits, lead to some
    important transition challenges, and affect the characteristics
    that make Arlington unique among our National Cemeteries. Thus,
    it may be premature to change jurisdiction since the Army has
    significantly improved its management of Arlington.
        Here are some of the specific challenges that could arise
    in a jurisdictional change. First, identifying the goals of the
    transfer. Why is the transfer to be made?
        Second, the Army and the VA have their own staff,
    processes, and systems to determine burial eligibility and to
    schedule and manage burials. Arlington has more restrictive
    eligibility for in-ground burials than VA, for example.
        Third, Arlington's appropriation structure is different
    than VA's and Congress might need to address that in the event
    there is to be a change.
        Fourth, the Army provides military funeral honors, but the
    VA does not.
        Fifth, Arlington hosts many special ceremonies throughout
    the year, including some involving the President and visiting
    heads of state.
        And finally, sixth, Arlington is one of the most visited
    tourist destinations in Washington, hosting over four million
    visitors a year.
        Finally, we do think there are some opportunities for the
    Army and the VA to collaborate more for the mutual benefit of
    both organizations, but most importantly for the benefit of our
    servicemembers, our veterans, and their families. Here are some
    examples.
        VA has staff dedicated to establishing eligibility for
    burial in its cemeteries and a central scheduling center that
    could assist Arlington, if necessary. Conversely, VA officials
    are examining whether Geographic Information System or Global
    Positioning System technology should be used in their
    cemeteries, but the Army already provides such services and
    could assist the VA if that is deemed appropriate. Since no
    formal mechanism yet exists to identify collaboration
    opportunities, we recommended that the two Departments
    establish one and they agreed.
        In conclusion, we believe the Army has worked through the
    crisis and taken steps to put Arlington National Cemetery on a
    sustainable path to ensure effective cemetery operations. Our
    recommendations are offered in the spirit of helping this
    process along so that we never have to come before you again to
    have this conversation.
        Madam Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks and I
    would be happy to answer any questions that you or the other
    Members of the Subcommittee may have.
        Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Lepore. Ms. Condon.

      TESTIMONY OF KATHRYN A. CONDON,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARMY
        NATIONAL CEMETERIES PROGRAM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

        Ms. Condon. Madam Chairman and distinguished Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity today to provide an
    update on the progress we have made at Arlington National
    Cemetery.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Condon appears in the appendix on
    page 66.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I want to state up front that we still have work to do to
    correct some of the remaining challenges that we have at
    Arlington, as was just discussed by the colleagues at the
    hearing with me today. But I want you to know that I and the
    U.S. Army accept those challenges and all are dedicated to
    restore the dignity and honor that our veterans and their
    families so rightly deserve.
        Significant progress has been made. Our contracting
    practices now bring the Cemetery in compliance with Federal
    Acquisition Regulations. And the implementation of state-of-the
    art technology now make the hallowed grounds of Arlington one
    of the most technologically advanced cemeteries in the Nation,
    a different perspective than 19 months ago, when the Cemetery
    lacked fiscal stewardship, was a paper-based operations, where
    calls were not answered and where the workforce was not
    properly manned, trained, or equipped.
        In the accountability report recently submitted to this
    Congress, we examined and soldiers from the Old Guard
    photographed 259,978 gravesites, niches, and markers and the
    Accountability Task Force coupled those photos with existing
    Cemetery burial information that for the first time
    consolidated 147 years of Cemetery records, records created
    from logbook entries, paper-based records of internment and
    grave cards, and computerized burial records. We now have them
    in an accountable database.
        Since the submission of the report, the total validated
    gravesites without any burial discrepancies in evidence is now
    210,076, and we are working diligently to close the remaining
    19 percent of those cases to bring our efforts to completion.
        The creation of this single, complete, verified database
    will soon allow families and other stakeholders with Internet
    access to search for and produce a picture of any marker in the
    Cemetery and review publicly available information about that
    gravesite through our state-of-the-art Web site.
        In the area of contracting, we have made significant
    progress in contract management, transforming our contracting
    activities to position the Army National Cemetery programs for
    long-term sustainment. The Army has resourced our contracting
    support and oversight, adding skilled acquisition personnel to
    support my staff and properly training the workforce in the
    acquisition process.
        Madam Chairman, I do believe that Arlington has made some
    monumental changes in the last 19 months, but we continue to
    move forward each and every day, capturing our progress with
    repeatable processes and predictable results.
        In order to orchestrate the many activities required to
    effectively run Arlington, we developed the Army National
    Cemeteries Program Campaign Plan, which codifies in one
    strategic document the long-term vision for the operation of
    Arlington and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home Cemeteries. It is
    the vehicle that I and the Superintendent, Pat Hallinan, will
    use to ensure that we achieve our vision for the Cemetery. It
    incorporates the significant guidance, support, and
    recommendations that we have received from the Secretary of the
    Army, the GAO, the Army Inspector General, the Army Audit
    Agency, the Northern Virginia Technology Council, and from
    distinguished members of Congress, in particular Members of
    this Subcommittee. Coupled with the Campaign Plan, we are
    developing our Enterprise Architecture and Technology
    Acquisition Roadmap which will serve as our IT blueprint and
    ensure that our IT investments are effectively and efficiently
    meeting the needs of the organization well into the future.
        In conclusion, I personally want to thank this Subcommittee
    for its leadership, its guidance, support, and encouragement
    for helping us restore the faith and dignity once again to
    Arlington National Cemetery. I look forward to your questions.
        Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Ms. Condon.
        Let us start. So that people realize, I think what I talked
    about in my opening statement about the Old Guard, it sounds
    like when you say the Cemetery's Old Guard, people do not
    realize that these are, in fact, active members of the Army
    that are assigned to the Cemetery, and while they are called
    the Cemetery's Old Guard, they are anything but old. These are
    young men and women who have been assigned to do the work at
    the Cemetery that we all think of, the Honor Guard, the
    Caissons.
        And I do want to point out as I begin asking questions that
    it was, in fact, these young men that came to the Cemetery when
    I went out there in November and I had the opportunity to thank
    a number of them. They, besides their other duties, many of
    them showed up at midnight and worked through the night until 5
    or 6 in the morning with cell phones and/or cameras and
    individually went through the Cemetery and photographed over
    259,000 gravesites. While some people might think of that work
    as something that was less than honorable, it was remarkable in
    talking to these young men, proud members of the military,
    proud soldiers, how honored they were to have been engaged in
    this task. And I want to point that out, because it once again
    confirms in my mind what I have learned over and over and over
    again as a member of the Armed Services Committee. This country
    is incredibly blessed by the men and women who step across the
    line and say, ``Take me.''
        So let us talk about the number of graves and the
    discrepancies. We had heard that there were 330,000 graves at
    Arlington, and now we know there are not 330,000 graves at
    Arlington. Where had that number come from? Why was that number
    being used if it is off by almost 100,000 graves?
        Ms. Condon. Ma'am, the 330,000 number that people quote was
    the number that they would say of the number of people who were
    actually interred at Arlington National Cemetery. That is not
    the actual number of gravesites, because you can have a husband
    and spouse in the same gravesite, and sometimes even dependents
    along with them.
        I can tell you right now, ma'am, that I--one of the efforts
    of the Accountability Task Force will be to truly identify what
    the number of people who are actually interred in the Cemetery,
    and right now our data shows that it is over 400,000
    individuals who are interred at Arlington. But until we
    complete the results of the Accountability Task Force, we will
    not be able to give you the accurate number of the number of
    people who are interred at the Cemetery.
        Senator McCaskill. So we now know that we have at least
    70,000 more people buried at Arlington than had been previously
    estimated?
        Ms. Condon. Yes, ma'am, we do.
        Senator McCaskill. The additional review--we have heard
    today that there will be over 64,000 gravesites that will need
    additional review. What does that mean?
        Ms. Condon. Ma'am, to give you a great example, part of our
    Accountability Task Force is we set up business rules, and one
    of our business rules was that we had to have at least two
    official documents to match with the photo of the headstone or
    the niche. What we are finding in the previous, as reported in
    the Task Force report, is there was a period where all we had
    was literally a record of internment or a grave card. And so
    what that means, ma'am, is that we are looking at other sources
    of official data such as the Social Security Death Index and
    Census records so that we can truly verify the information of
    those interred. So that is one of the examples of what that
    means.
        Senator McCaskill. So what you are saying is we have over
    60,000 gravesites where we do not have sufficient back-up and
    documentary evidence for you all to be certain that you have it
    right?
        Ms. Condon. Yes, ma'am, because as an example, in Section
    27, which is the Freedman's Village section, all we have is a
    headstone that says ``Citizen,'' and that is all the
    information that we have there. So that is one of the examples.
        Senator McCaskill. OK. How long do you think it is going to
    take to get through this additional 64,000 gravesites where you
    cannot at this point speak with certainty about who is located
    there?
        Ms. Condon. Ma'am, as I stated in the report, I think
    because we currently have a team of 40 individuals who are now
    temporary employees working on that, we should probably come to
    closure by this summer.
        Senator McCaskill. OK. Let me go to contracting. One of the
    things that was interesting to me in the GAO report is that you
    all use contracting services of various places, and that, to
    me, as somebody who spends a lot of time around this subject
    matter, that makes the little alarm bells go off in my head. It
    is hard enough to do contract oversight if you have one
    contracting source in terms of your work. But with you all
    using several different contracting personnel from several
    different agencies, I think it is really problematic that you
    are ever going to get the kind of control that you need.
        Do you think you should bring it in house, or at a minimum,
    try to locate all the contracts either with the Army Corps of
    Engineers or with the Northern Virginia Contracting Authority
    or one of these various places that you are now actually
    executing contracts within?
        Ms. Condon. Ma'am, that was one of the issues that I
    addressed immediately when taking over as the Executive
    Director, and one of the first things that I did was sign an
    agreement with two contracting agencies, with the Army
    Contracting Command for all of our service contracts and with
    the Corps of Engineers for all of our construction contracts.
    Most of our contracts really are service contracts and that is
    why our Mission and Installation Contracting Command is the one
    who has a contracting support element who is supporting me at
    Arlington National Cemetery.
        So, really, most of our contracts are channeled through--
    because they are service contracts, such as our landscaping, et
    cetera. So I am very confident that we have a handle on our
    contracts by really going to those two agencies, the Corps for
    our major construction projects and the Mission and
    Installation Contracting Command for our services contracts.
        Senator McCaskill. So going forward, those are the only two
    contracting sources you are going to use and they are clearly
    delineated from a management perspective that you feel
    confident you can keep track of it?
        Ms. Condon. I feel confident that we can keep track of it,
    and the only other contracting is, as before, we are no longer
    having individual information technology contracts. I am now
    part of the Headquarters Department of the Army support for IT.
    So I only have to put forward my requirement. I do not have to
    have separate contracts to support that. So I am comfortable
    with where we are going now.
        Senator McCaskill. And do you all feel GAO--Ms. Martin, do
    you feel okay about the way they have organized the contracting
    at this point in time?
        Ms. Martin. Yes, we would not take exception with the fact
    that they use outside sources for contracting, and as Ms.
    Condon alluded to, they have two means of doing that. One is to
    go to a contracting authority to identify their requirements,
    their oversight, et cetera, and the second means is to partner
    with Army-wide efforts and use their existing contracts and
    task orders. So we do not have concerns with that.
        What it means is that you have, just as you alluded to,
    Madam Chairman, you have to do more with respect to management
    and oversight to get that visibility into the contracts, to
    make sure that the requirements are stated in a way that you
    get deliverables and that you provide the adequate oversight.
    So it is not so much the vehicle. It is the management
    oversight and visibility that is important, and I think Ms.
    Condon alluded to the fact that she took some actions to try to
    do that.
        Senator McCaskill. Great. OK. Senator Tester.
        Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and we will
    start with you, Ms. Condon. As I said in my opening statement,
    the trust of our Nation depends upon the work that is being
    done in Arlington and rebuilding that trust is going to be a
    tall task. Can you give me any ideas on what you are doing to
    help rebuild that trust?
        Ms. Condon. Senator, one of the things that we have focused
    on is honoring the fallen and making sure that we are doing
    everything we can to provide information to the families of our
    loved ones that we inter at Arlington. And I think the greatest
    step forward on that is we now have a means to communicate with
    those who are scheduling services by just the implementation of
    our call center.
        Senator Tester. OK.
        Ms. Condon. Before, literally, most of the telephone calls
    went unanswered. Now, every phone call to the Cemetery is
    answered. So I think we have the means to--so our loved ones
    can schedule their service. So I think that is a great step
    forward in restoring the confidence.
        Senator Tester. OK, that is good. How about outreach to
    families that had concerns?
        Ms. Condon. What we did is, sir, every time there was an
    issue with an affected family member, we personally work with
    the next of kin on each and every one of those cases so that
    they know we have been open, we have been candid, and we have
    been transparent with each and every one of those family
    members.
        Senator Tester. So from your perspective, you are 100
    percent confident that folks are where they are said to be,
    their final resting place?
        Ms. Condon. Sir, in the report to Congress when we do our
    accountability, there is still the possibility of human error
    in a burial at Arlington. But if we do discover that there
    could possibly be a discrepancy, we have set procedures where
    we follow each and every case, where we notify not only
    Congress but also the next of kin and accommodate what the
    family's wishes are in case we find any.
        Senator Tester. Do you have any mechanism--I guess
    redundancy would be the term--to be able to determine if there
    is a mistake, a human error that is made? Do you have any
    ability to find it quicker than one of the family members would
    find?
        Ms. Condon. Sir, we have the ability from this day forward.
    We now have--
        Senator Tester. OK.
        Ms. Condon [continuing]. A six-step chain of custody
    procedure. We have implemented new procedures. And, what
    happened prior to June 10, we will--we have procedures on how
    we will handle any discrepancy that we find--
        Senator Tester. That is good. I think it is critically
    important that every effort is made to do it right.
        At the first hearing, we heard about millions of dollars in
    contracts that were not being utilized appropriately. We talked
    with Madam Chairman about some of the things that you have done
    to eliminate that. I mean, we are in times of austerity here.
    We have an important job to do at Arlington and other military
    cemeteries around the country, but there still are concerns
    about dollars. I read in this testimony that there was a
    recommendation to go from 102 to 201 or something like that
    employees. We talked about the contracting. I just want to
    touch on contracting for just a second.
        The information I had is there were three contracting
    organizations that dealt with 35 contracts. I think that is GAO
    numbers. You are saying, Ms. Condon, that you have taken it
    down to two contracting organizations, and do those two
    contracting organizations deal with all your contracts now?
        Ms. Condon. Except those contracts that are from the
    Headquarters--like our IT contracts
        Senator Tester. With the Army.
        Ms. Condon [continuing]. Are with the Army.
        Senator Tester. OK. And how many contracts are with the
    Army?
        Ms. Condon. Right now, it is predominately our IT
    contracts.
        Senator Tester. And how many are there?
        Ms. Condon. Sir, I would have to get the exact number for
    you on that one.

                           information for the record

        Currently 12 information technology task orders or
    contracts support Arlington National Cemetery, valued at $3.9M
    for an annual period of performance. Ten of these contracts, of
    which nine are annual service requirements, leverage the
    enterprise contracts managed by the Army Information Technology
    Agency, the Army Analytics Group, and the USACE Army Geospatial
    Center under the established agreements among all
    organizations. ANC serves as the Contracting Officer
    Representative (COR) for two of these contracts.

        Senator Tester. OK. The whole point is, and I think it goes
    to oversight of those contracts. Are we getting, number one,
    are we getting our contracting dollar out of the contracts that
    are given, and do you have enough oversight? And I guess I will
    give you three questions if you can hit them. And the third one
    is, because you have--and I understand the IT stuff with the
    Army and I think that you should do that. But because you have,
    it was three, and then you have two contracting agencies, does
    that require more manpower than if you just had one and went
    with it? What is the advantage of two, is what I am saying.
        Ms. Condon. The advantage of two, sir, is purely expertise.
    The Corps of Engineers' expertise is construction--
        Senator Tester. OK.
        Ms. Condon [continuing]. And we use the Corps for
    construction and--
        Senator Tester. So that is one of the contracting
    organizations. What is the other one?
        Ms. Condon. The other one is the Mission and Installation
    Contracting Command, which is part of Army Contracting Command,
    and that is for services, services such as our landscaping--
        Senator Tester. OK. I got you.
        Ms. Condon [continuing]. And maintaining the grounds--
        Senator Tester. So the bottom line, in your opinion, are we
    getting the bang for the buck?
        Ms. Condon. Sir, yes, we are, because one of the things
    that we have in place now that we did not before, is we now
    have trained contracting officer representatives, and each and
    every day we are out there holding the contractors accountable
    for doing the job correctly. So I think we truly are getting
    the bang for the buck. As a matter of fact, we consolidated
    from our service contracts. When we started in the Cemetery,
    there were 26 contracts. We consolidated them down to 16
    contracts. Each and every one of those 16 contracts, when we
    recompeted it, came under the government estimate and we did
    have cost savings by just consolidating those contracts.
        For an example, we had six contracts prior that had
    something to do with a tree. By consolidating those contracts
    to one contract, we were able to save the government money and
    be good stewards of the taxpayer dollar.
        Senator Tester. We appreciate that, and that is exactly the
    point I am getting to. When you start consolidating the
    contracts, I think it is easier for oversight and there is more
    accountability, but that is my--I am sitting here and you are
    sitting there, okay, so you may have a different perspective
    and I appreciate it, but that is what I heard.
        When it comes to your contracts with technology, you talked
    about the gravesites now, they are all on a searchable database
    so you can find out what is going on and I think that is good.
    It should have been done years ago, but better late than never.
    The question is, as you look at a lot of businesses as they
    move towards technology, there is a reduction in manpower
    necessary. I think it was the GAO, and correct me if I am
    wrong, Ms. Martin, but you had recommended 200 staff people--
    somebody recommended 200 staff people for Arlington. It does
    not really matter. The question is, as you look at the overall
    landscape and you see the kind of changes you are making, is
    your manpower demand going to continue to go up or do you see
    it potentially becoming static or potentially going down?
        Ms. Condon. Sir, that was one of the things that Mr.
    Hallinan and I, when we came on board, is we were really truly
    building the workforce that was required to run Arlington
    properly that we did not have before. What we are also doing is
    looking not only at our manpower--we feel that the numbers that
    we have now are adequate, but as we look into the future, as we
    get time to assess the technology and the operating procedures,
    are there some things that we are currently putting on contract
    that we could do from within house.
        Senator Tester. That is right.
        Ms. Condon. So that is one of--because we do realize that
    the downsizing of government, et cetera. So that is one of our
    goals, is to make sure that we have the right number of people
    to do the job--
        Senator Tester. Yes, and I agree, although I will tell you,
    and excuse me for taking a little bit more time than I should,
    Madam Chairman, but I think a lot of times we use contractors
    to be subcontractors--I mean, to be general contracts and we
    could be doing that and getting more efficiency from the
    dollar, quite frankly, and we could get more money to the
    ground and more money to get work done in those contractors'
    pockets, which I think is ultimately something that is pretty
    darn important in this whole thing.
        I want to thank you. I can tell you that, and Madam
    Chairman knows about this as much as anybody, but the
    contracting that goes on in government right now, maybe with
    your exception, and this has changed in the last 15 months or
    so, but almost every contract that is investigated into, there
    is waste, fraud, and abuse. And I would just say, as I said in
    my opening remarks, thank you for the work you have done. Thank
    you for the work you are going to do, you and Mr. Hallinan, and
    I very much appreciate it.
        And that is not to take anything off all you guys. I just
    let you off the hook. And I am sorry, I should have asked you
    guys more questions, but thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        Senator McCaskill. Senator Pryor.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for
    having this hearing. It is very important and I appreciate you
    doing it.
        General if I may start with you, in the lessons learned
    area, I know you spent a lot of time on Arlington National
    Cemetery and I appreciate that. Do you have concerns that there
    may be other Arlington Cemetery problems out there in the
    system with other National Cemeteries?
        General Vangjel. Well, as far as the other National
    Cemeteries are concerned, the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home
    National Cemetery, we were pretty much focused on that and Ms.
    Condon has a plan to get after that as she works through the
    Arlington issue.
        We do have 28 other cemeteries, though, that are post
    cemeteries that are out there, and quite frankly, we are
    starting to take a look at that, as well, based on public law
    and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2012. They
    have asked us to take a look at the Service Academy Cemetery,
    for example, and we are getting ready to launch on that now. We
    will be participating with the Department of Defense to take a
    look at the statistical sample of the cemeteries that are out
    there.
        But clearly, from our perspective, we are looking forward
    to taking a look at what else might be out there. We have no
    indications at this point that there is anything, but we want
    to make sure that we do not have another Arlington that is out
    there.
        Senator Pryor. So you have no indications at this point at
    any--
        General Vangjel. Not at this time, sir. No.
        Senator Pryor. OK. And I know that the GAO made several
    recommendations and one was enhanced collaboration between the
    Army and Veterans Affairs on ways to improve operations. But as
    I understand it, there has not been any sort of formalized
    working group, is that fair?
        General Vangjel. I think where we are at right now,
    Senator, is that we have the Department is looking to
    collaborate with the Veterans Affairs. Ms. Condon, as the
    Executive Director and the proponent right now, is in the best
    position to take a look at what we need to do with Arlington
    National Cemetery. There are some things that have gone on,
    however. The integration of the Internment Scheduling System,
    for example, with the Burial Operations Support System that the
    VA runs, there is work ongoing right now to take a look at how
    we are going to align some of the automation digits, if you
    will, to make that compatible so that information can be shared
    back and forth.
        In terms of the internal assessment program that we are so
    concerned with for Arlington and what Ms. Condon has as a
    component of her Campaign Plan, the operational assessment and
    inspection regimen that the VA uses, that is being
    incorporated. Mr. Hallinan, of course, with his expertise and
    being the Superintendent there at the Cemetery is taking
    advantage of using that document as a base document for that
    which he might use from his internal regimen.
        So there are a number of different aspects right now that
    are going on at a lower level, but really the intent was to
    start that at the ground up and find out where we needed to
    have some of that collaboration and coordination and it will be
    pulled up over the next 6 months. We look forward to seeing
    something when we go back down to Arlington in June, July, this
    summer. We have another re-look that we have to do in
    accordance with public law and we are looking forward to seeing
    some of that.
        Senator Pryor. Ms. Condon, did you have any comment on
    that?
        Ms. Condon. Sir, we are working with Veterans Affairs, not
    only from an integration of our scheduling system with their
    Burial Operations System, but we also have an agreement between
    the two, for our Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of VA,
    where we are leveraging their training. We have sent several of
    our employees to the VA training program and we are looking at
    having a way where we can have interns back and forth between
    the cemeteries. And one of the things we are also looking at is
    we are probably a little bit further ahead right now from a
    geospatial standpoint and we would like to share that with VA
    because of the steps that we have already taken to geospatially
    manage our cemetery.
        Senator Pryor. OK. One of the other recommendations that
    the GAO made was in how you should interact with families. It
    sounds like there is a set of recommendations there. What is
    the current process for notifying a family if you guys have
    identified an error? What do you do now?
        Ms. Condon. Sir, when we identify an error, the first thing
    we do is we do the research to make sure that we have all of
    the facts from a Cemetery perspective. And then the next step
    is to notify the next of kin and to explain the discrepancy
    that we may have found and to discuss with the family how, our
    plans for rectifying whatever discrepancy that is and
    accommodating the family's wishes on if they would like a
    chaplain, if they would like to attend if we have to do all of
    that. So there is a set procedure that we use for each and
    every case. But the bottom line is we immediately notify the
    next of kin when we find a discrepancy that could impact their
    loved one.
        Senator Pryor. And is that now written policy?
        Ms. Condon. Sir, it is now written policy.
        Senator Pryor. Also, just for my background information, in
    looking at the problems at Arlington, did most of these
    problems happen during a set period of time or do they go back
    to the beginning at Arlington and it is just the function of
    the age of the Cemetery?
        Ms. Condon. Sir, the issues span the age of the entire
    Cemetery.
        Senator Pryor. OK. And so what happens if a family member
    comes to you and says, hey, I think there is a problem. What is
    your process then?
        Ms. Condon. If a family member comes to us with a problem,
    the first thing we do is to research to see if there truly
    could have been a problem with that family member.
        Senator Pryor. OK. And if a family member just reaches out
    and contacts you and says, I want to make sure that my loved
    one is where he is supposed to be and everything is copacetic,
    same thing? Do you guys have a process there?
        Ms. Condon. Yes, we have a process there, sir, and most of
    our burials at Arlington are gravesite burials in the family.
    So we have a process for a family who has a concern and part of
    our Accountability Task Force is that we verify not only the
    headstone and the records that match to that gravesite.
        Senator Pryor. And there has been some discussion about an
    electronic database?
        Ms. Condon. Mm-hmm.
        Senator Pryor. Are you saying that you are putting every
    person buried in Arlington in an electronic database?
        Ms. Condon. Every person buried in Arlington's records will
    be in an electronic database.
        Senator Pryor. That has not been done yet, but you are
    working on it?
        Ms. Condon. We are working on that. That was part of our
    Accountability Task Force, and sir, as part of our geospatial
    effort, as well. We are months away from actually having the
    application where you will not only be able to find your loved
    one's records, but we will have an application on one of your
    smart phone technologies that will literally take you to the
    actual gravesite, which is why we started our Accountability
    Task Force by using smart phone technology with the Old Guard
    taking photos using a smart phone because that was our long-
    range plan for our public facing application for the general
    public.
        Senator Pryor. By virtue of having a database and the
    attention that this issue has received over the last year or
    two, do you think that these problems are now fixed going
    forward?
        Ms. Condon. Sir, the same accountability that we are doing
    for the task force is how we are going to account for each and
    every burial that we have at Arlington from this day forward.
    As a matter of fact, the procedures are in place. Our workforce
    is now taking the photos of the headstones and latching that up
    with our automated records.
        Senator Pryor. OK. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator McCaskill. Thank you. And I will say, in my visit
    to Arlington in November, I had the opportunity to look at the
    procedures that are now in place and they are--there is a lot
    of redundancy. It will be very hard for them to lose track of a
    burial site and what remains are located there based on the
    processes that are now in place, which is a big improvement.
        General Vangjel, I was worried about the unobligated funds
    issue. I do not think I need to tell anybody that is testifying
    today that we are trying very hard. I think there is a newfound
    sense of urgency in Congress to watch every dime that is spent
    and to be accountable for every dollar that is obligated. So
    imagine my concern that we have $15 million in obligations that
    were out there that had never been spent, and in fact, the Army
    Audit Agency found that due to poor financial oversight by the
    previous administration at the Cemetery, $27 million in
    obligations between 2004 and 2010 were made and never
    disbursed.
        Now, what worries me about this is that nobody noticed,
    that clearly the systems were not in place, that someone would
    not have some kind of notification that you had significant
    unobligated funds that had never been disbursed. I know we
    recovered part of them. What about the other $12 million in
    undisbursed funds, for any of you, and what kind of
    reassurances--and maybe I need to talk to Army Audit here
    instead of Inspector General, but if I were the Inspector
    General, this would get my attention because I would wonder,
    where else are there unobligated funds that are hanging out
    that we could pull back for the taxpayers to be put for a more
    important use, or better yet, to put back in the Treasury.
        General Vangjel. I could not agree with you more, Madam
    Chairman, and one of the things that we will be doing this
    summer--as you know, the Army Audit Agency did come and take a
    look. It very thoroughly went through Arlington's records,
    their existing contracts that they had in place. And in spite
    of the previous regime's assessment that they were short of
    funds, they, in fact, had funds that they could not account
    for. I have to give credit to the current Executive Director
    because when she came on board, the first thing she wanted to
    do was get visibility of it, and as she went after the General
    Fund Enterprise Business System, that enabled them to begin to
    account. The Army Audit Agency with the Assistant Secretary of
    the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology both did
    program management reviews and audits and they were able to
    uncover some $15 million that essentially has been reconciled
    and put to good use because Ms. Condon did not want to submit a
    budget request until she knew where the money was. That is good
    stewardship from our perspective. However, what we want to do
    is make sure as we come for a second look this year, a third
    look next year, we want to make sure that we have that. So the
    Army Audit Agency will be coming down as subject matter experts
    as part of the overarching IG inspection and the re-look so
    that we have appropriate oversight.
        But your point is well made as we look to other activities
    that are ongoing in the Army and we will most certainly take
    that back, because there are some things as we look at
    oversight mechanisms right now systemically across the Army, we
    have to make sure that we are spending our money appropriately,
    wisely, in the right places, and in accordance with our senior
    leader guidance. So I will take that one back, Madam Chairman,
    and we will work through that with our subsequent inspections
    that we are doing throughout the Army.
        Senator McCaskill. If this was not transparent, if this was
    not obvious, and clearly it was not, then I think it would be
    very helpful for someone at the most senior level at the
    Pentagon to take a look at this issue of obligated but not
    disbursed and what kind of systems are in place in the various
    parts of our military to make sure that we do not have this
    going on. I have to believe there are systems other places,
    because--well, for one thing, I heard too many whistleblower
    stories about getting rid of stuff at the end of the budget
    year because if you do not spend it all, then they are going to
    think you do not need it the next year, and horror stories
    about fuel being dumped and so forth so that they can ask for
    the full load the next year without having to admit that maybe
    they had not used it all the previous year. That goes on in
    every part of government, not just the military.
        But this worries me. This is a troubling sign beyond the
    problems that were represented, and I will follow up with other
    people within DOD to talk about that, but it is a problem.
        In terms of the VA, first of all, I am glad to hear that
    you are cross-training. I think that is a great idea,
    especially since the training for cemeteries that VA does is in
    Missouri. I think it is terrific that you are utilizing the
    great skill set and core competencies of the Veterans
    Administration when it comes to our new cemeteries.
        I visited one of those cemeteries in Missouri because I
    wanted to compare and contrast what I had seen at Arlington at
    the height of this mess compared to what is ongoing at a
    cemetery. I went to the cemetery in Springfield, Missouri, and
    I was very impressed at what they had done there in regards to
    tracking and maintaining. In fact, one of the things I thought
    was terrific is if the cemetery office was closed, there was
    actually a kiosk outside the building where a visitor could
    pull up with their name exactly where they needed to go in the
    cemetery to visit their loved one without having to involve any
    personnel of the cemetery in that question or that answer. Very
    impressive.
        And I am assuming with the geospatial technology that you
    are embracing that you are envisioning not only can people do
    this on their smart phones, but there would be kiosks at
    Arlington where people who are visiting outside of the business
    hours of the administration could actually get that
    information.
        Ms. Condon. Ma'am, as a matter of fact, just this past
    week, we are in Alpha testing for our kiosk that we are going
    to put throughout the entire Cemetery and in our visitor center
    to do exactly that, where it will actually print you a copy of
    a map that will take you, literally, because of the acreage
    that we have at Arlington, literally will take you to that
    gravesite. So we did take that from what VA was doing and we
    are going to have kiosks by sometime late spring.
        Senator McCaskill. So how about GPS? Are you going to be
    able to say I arrived at Arlington with my smart phone and I
    went on. Is there going to be an application that I can
    download, that I could go on, enter the name, and then it will
    actually guide me like a GPS to the gravesite?
        Ms. Condon. Ma'am, that is exactly what we are doing with
    our smart phone application. So we are months away from doing
    that.
        Senator McCaskill. I was worried when I saw the article in
    the Washington Post yesterday that they had some problems in
    the VA system, isolated, obviously, but I am pleased at least
    they are taking a look, because obviously the scope and breadth
    of the VA system dwarfs Arlington. I mean, people do not
    realize that all of the cemeteries in the country, and every
    State has some, are run by VA, with the only two exceptions
    being the two that we have talked about today, Arlington and
    the other cemetery that the Army runs.
        Well, let me do this. I want to try to leave open the door
    for the next hearing that we will have on this, because I am
    not going to stop until whoever it is that is running Arlington
    Cemetery can say, we now have a handle on every single
    gravesite, and we are not there yet. We have made a lot of
    progress in 18 months. I would like each witness to state what
    you think the single biggest challenge facing Arlington is at
    the present time. What remains that you think is the biggest
    challenge that has to be tackled and accomplished as we look
    towards the next 12 months of progress towards full
    accountability and transparency for this sacred site, and let
    us start with General Vangjel.
        General Vangjel. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think the
    biggest problem that exists right now would be to complete the
    accounting for the gravesite accountability. If we are going to
    establish trust and maintain trust with the American people,
    folks want to know. They want to know that the problem is
    solved, that it has gone away. I think that is the biggest
    thing that would face us.
        In order to get there, there are some standard operating
    procedures (SOPs), documents that need to be done, the
    documentation so that we can transfer, as you mentioned a bit
    earlier, whoever is going to be at Arlington Cemetery. We want
    to make sure the right procedures and documents are in place to
    facilitate any transition from the current Executive Director
    to one that would follow.
        Those would be the two biggest, and I think either one
    that, if I could just add one more, would be the overall long-
    term expansion of the Cemetery to be able to accommodate the
    burials. I think that would be one other that we need to really
    make sure that we have the right plans that have been executed.
    I know that Ms. Condon in her Campaign Plan has gone after that
    and that those are the--in my mind, ma'am, those are the big
    three. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator McCaskill. Ms. Martin.
        Ms. Martin. Yes. I will certainly fall back to the area
    that I am most familiar with, which is the contract management
    and oversight. You mentioned the fact of the funds that had not
    been recovered, and that is especially important to have
    accurate contract data because that allows you to be able to
    track and identify where the funds are. And in our report, we
    talked about the fact that Arlington funding has a no year
    designation. So with money that does not have a fiscal year
    limitation it is even more important to--
        Senator McCaskill. Why is that? Why do you have no year--
    why is it that Arlington does not have a fiscal year like every
    other part of government?
        Ms. Martin. Well, at least the funds for the Cemetery are
    no year funds. I mean--
        Senator McCaskill. I know, but why? Why is that? Why do we
    not change that?
        Ms. Martin. I am not sure--
        Senator McCaskill. Can we change that?
        Ms. Martin [continuing]. In terms of why. I do not think
    Arlington or the Army would necessarily come forward to ask it
    be changed, but--I am not sure. I mean, there is some history
    there in terms of the fact that it is no year money, but--
        Senator McCaskill. Yes, but that is exactly what led to
    this problem. I mean, setting a different set of rules for
    Arlington contributed to the lack of accountability at
    Arlington for many years. And if it were not for brave
    whistleblowers, we still would not be where we need to be. I
    mean, people that worked at Arlington knew that things were
    going badly and nothing was happening, and part of that was
    this no year end money, I think. Is there a recommendation that
    should be made that we should end the notion that Arlington
    should not have fiscal year appropriation like anybody else
    would?
        Ms. Martin. Well, Senator, we did not look at that as a
    part of our audit, but GAO is on record as saying when you have
    no year funds, then obviously there is more accountability
    involved. So from the perspective of GAO and contracting going
    forward, I would say it is the insight and the oversight in
    terms of contracting that is important. While strides have been
    made, there are still some things that need to be done.
        Senator Tester talked about the importance of looking to
    see if the number of contracts can be consolidated. Ms. Condon
    and her staff have certainly done that. She mentioned having
    several contracts for landscaping, and now they have fewer
    contracts. All of that is important. Leveraging the expertise
    of ITA, all of those are very important steps. Now it is a
    matter of, again, getting proper insight and continuing with
    the oversight of the contracts that from our perspective is
    very important going forward.
        Mr. Lepore. Madam Chairman, you asked what we thought were
    sort of the key things that the Cemetery needs to focus on
    going forward. I certainly agree with what my colleagues have
    stated today.
        I would also suggest that one of the key things from where
    I sit is going to be ensuring that the changes that have been
    made to date are sustainable and will outlive the current
    leadership team, and I think, to their credit, the review that
    we did suggests they have begun that process of pivoting, if
    you will, from going through the crisis, working through the
    crisis, and beginning to put in place the kinds of policies,
    procedures, and systems that, if implemented fully--and the
    Campaign Plan is a great example of it--should outlive the
    current leadership team so we do not ever have a situation
    again where it takes Herculean efforts from very dedicated
    senior people to make this work. The whole idea here is that
    eventually they will move on to some other thing, whatever it
    is, some other stage of their life, and whoever the next
    generation of leaders are coming into Arlington should not have
    to reinvent it. The systems should be in place.
        Senator McCaskill. Turnkey.
        Mr. Lepore. A turnkey operation, or a plug-and-play
    operation, absolutely. And it seems to us that is where our
    recommendations went and I think that is the key issue for them
    right now.
        Senator McCaskill. Ms. Condon.
        Ms. Condon. Senator McCaskill, if I could address the no
    year money--
        Senator McCaskill. Yes, let us talk about that.
        Ms. Condon. OK. The first--
        Senator McCaskill. How did that happen, and when did it
    happen?
        Ms. Condon. Arlington was designated as a civil works
    activity and, hence, it was no year funds. But one of the first
    things that I did, and with the help of our Assistant Secretary
    for Financial Management and Comptroller, is to put in an
    accounting system. And now that Arlington is part of the
    General Fund Enterprise Business System, we are now going to be
    fiscally transparent. So the financial management community can
    now see how we expend each and every dollar.
        The benefit of having no year money was one of the benefits
    of being able to recoup those unliquidated obligations from
    prior years and to be able to apply them to the projects that
    we have ongoing right now. Because of those unliquidated
    obligations, ma'am, we were able to start and finance the ninth
    columbarium. That was one of--and we were able to put in all of
    those IT issues. We will be able to address and put in the
    technology and buy the right equipment to get Arlington to
    where it is today.
        So having no year money from that perspective has really
    been a benefit for myself and Mr. Hallinan to truly put in the
    changes we need. But now that we are under GFEBs, we are
    fiscally transparent, so it does not matter if we are one year
    money or no year money. We truly--every dollar is now in an
    accounting system that is being monitored like every other
    process in the Army.
        Senator McCaskill. Well, but I am confused. I think
    everyone would like no year money.
        Ms. Condon. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator McCaskill. We would not be dumping any fuel if we
    had no year money because on one would feel the need to hurry
    and spend year end. So there are arguments that can be made for
    that.
        On the other hand, we have an appropriations process that
    is an annual process and a justification on an annual basis,
    and that also has a great deal of merit in terms of fiscal
    accountability. I understand you could use money that was not
    used for other things you needed--
        Ms. Condon. Right.
        Senator McCaskill [continuing]. But most parts of
    government cannot do that. They have to come back and justify
    to Congress that they have additional needs, that there should
    be appropriations for them. I have a hard time believing that
    Arlington would have difficulty getting appropriations because
    I think this body has great respect for what that represents to
    our country and would want to fund it appropriately. I am just
    trying to figure out, if we have transparency, good, but maybe
    the year end funds is a discipline that everyone should have. I
    am not asking you to say yes or no here--
        Ms. Condon. Right.
        Senator McCaskill [continuing]. I am just thinking, I think
    it is something that we need to take a look at.
        Ms. Condon. Understood, and what we do is we do report the
    carryover very similar to the working capital fund that you
    carry over from year to year.
        Senator McCaskill. I understand.
        Ms. Condon. So we do report those numbers, so that would be
    it.
        You asked, what is the most outstanding challenge from my
    perspective we are facing at Arlington right now. Ma'am, and as
    you have witnessed, the incredible changes to the business
    processes that we have put in place at Arlington. And what I
    need right now is the patience for us to allow, to look at
    those processes to make sure that we have the right metrics, to
    make sure that we have the systems right so that we can truly
    sustain the changes that we have made at Arlington up until
    this point. So we just need to test all of the IT support and
    all of the changes that we have made to the operational
    procedures.
        And so what I just need now is--my biggest challenge is
    patience, because in this next year, that is what the
    Superintendent and I are doing, is to make sure that those
    changes that we have put in place can be sustained for
    generations, not just for the immediate future.
        Senator McCaskill. I want to thank all of you for the work
    on this. It was quite an undertaking, and for those out there
    that are skeptical about the ability of government to fix
    problems on a time table, I think this is a great poster child
    for people deciding that this work was important and it
    deserved lots of eyes and a lot of effort from a lot of people,
    and I think that the Army--and I have said this to top
    leadership in the Army--I understood that the Army was more
    upset than anyone else about the problems at Arlington. All of
    us can tsk, tsk and bemoan the incompetence that had occurred
    there, but I do not think anybody felt it more acutely than the
    Army. And so I think the Army responded in a way that reflects
    the dedication they have to the fallen. And I am impressed that
    the amount of progress that has been made is substantial and
    significant, frankly, at lightning speed for government. Within
    18 months, we have a completely different protocol at Arlington
    as it relates to accountability and I think it is good.
        We still have work to do, and I have said from the
    beginning that the oversight of this Subcommittee would not end
    until people sat in front of this dais and said, ``I think the
    challenges have been met and I think all the processes and
    procedures are in place and I see no problems that need to be
    addressed by additional oversight.'' No one said that today, so
    we will have another hearing. I am sure it will be a year from
    now. And at that point in time, General, I am sure you will
    have more information to report because I know you are planning
    on going back out to take another look at Arlington.
        I want to compliment Ms. Condon, because even when things
    were discovered that were not good, her office checked in with
    this Subcommittee and let us know that another problem had been
    discovered. I think there might have been a tendency to say,
    well, they will never know. Let us just get it fixed. But
    instead, there has been transparency and that is very good. So
    congratulations for that, and most particularly,
    congratulations to all the men and women who have worked hard
    at Arlington, many of whom have worked there many years and
    care deeply about the reputation and the method in which we
    take care of the problems there. And thank you to GAO.
        We will have another hearing in probably about a year. In
    the meantime, if problems surface, I will depend on you to
    continue to let us know and we will continue to monitor the
    situation, and thank you for all the good progress that has
    been made.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------