U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

58–406 PDF 2011

S. Hrg. 111–1008 

MISMANAGEMENT OF CONTRACTS AT ARLINGTON 

NATIONAL CEMETERY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING 

OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 29, 2010 

Available via http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

JOYCE WARD, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MARGARET DAUM, Staff Director 

MOLLY WILKINSON, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 1 

Senator Brown .................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 5 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 6 

Prepared statements: 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 55 

Senator Brown .................................................................................................. 59 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 62 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2010 

John C. Metzler, Jr., Former Superintendent, Arlington National Cemetery .... 7 

Thurman Higginbotham, Former Deputy Superintendent, Arlington National 

Cemetery ............................................................................................................... 9 

Edward M. Harrington, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Procurement), Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics 

and Technology) ................................................................................................... 35 

Claudia L. Tornblom, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Management 

and Budget), Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ..... 37 

Kathryn A. Condon, Executive Director, Army National Cemeteries Program, 

U.S. Army ............................................................................................................. 38 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Condon, Kathryn: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 

Harrington, Edward M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Higginbotham, Thurman: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Metzler, John C., Jr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Tornblom, Claudia: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 

APPENDIX 

Additional prepared statements submitted for the Record by: 

Clarence Hill, National Commander, The American Legion ........................ 92 

Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) ......................................... 97 

Rick Jones, NAUS Legislative Director, The National Association for 

Uniformed Services ....................................................................................... 102 

Reserve Officers Association (ROA) ................................................................ 106 

Joseph E. Davis, Director of Public Affairs, Veterans of Foreign Wars 

of the United States ...................................................................................... 110 

The Retired Enlisted Association .................................................................... 112 

Memorandum referenced by Senator McCaskill ............................................ 116 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(1) 

MISMANAGEMENT OF CONTRACTS AT 

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY 

THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in 

room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claire McCaskill, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators McCaskill, Carper, Tester, Brown, and Collins 

(ex officio). 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. This hearing will now come to order. This 

is a hearing on Arlington National Cemetery and the problems that 

we have at Arlington National Cemetery. 

Arlington National Cemetery is the Nation’s most sacred burial 

ground for veterans and their families, a national shrine, and an 

emblem of the courage and sacrifice of so many throughout our Nation’s history. Over the last year, I have learned of shocking stories 

about Arlington—bodies accidentally buried in the same graves, 

unmarked and mismarked graves, urns of cremated remains being 

found where they shouldn’t be, the heartbreaking tragedy of families who cannot trust the Cemetery to tell them where their loved 

ones are buried. 

In June, the U.S. Army Inspector General released a report finding major flaws in the operation of Arlington National Cemetery. 

The Army Inspector General found hundreds of mistakes associated with graves and substantiated many of the reports that had 

previously appeared in the media. The Army Inspector General 

found that the failure to implement an effective automated system 

to manage burials at the Cemetery contributed to these mistakes. 

The Army Inspector General also found that the contracts awarded 

to acquire components of the proposed system for the Cemetery 

failed to comply with applicable Federal, Defense, and Army regulations. 

Senator Brown and I called today’s hearings to examine how contract mismanagement at Arlington National Cemetery resulted in 

this scandal. My staff has prepared a memorandum1 summarizing 

what we have learned from our investigation. I ask for unanimous 

consent that the memo and the documents it cites be made part of 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

2 

1The memorandum referenced by Senator McCaskill appears in the appendix on page 116. 

the hearing record. Without objection, those will be entered into 

the record. 

More than 10 years ago, the Army began the development of a 

new system to automate the management of burial operations at 

Arlington National Cemetery. From the beginning, the acquisition 

process was plagued with problems. 

One problem was that the Cemetery and Army officials decided 

to create a new system instead of using or modifying the system 

that was already being used by the Department of Veterans Affairs. This system, called BOSS, was developed by government employees and cost about $2.4 million in total, including the costs of 

automating more than 2.2 million burial records, and it works. 

Instead, the Cemetery asked the Army Center for Contracting 

Excellence and the Army Corps of Engineers to award a series of 

contracts to develop their own system called the Total Cemetery 

Management System (TCMS). The Cemetery has spent somewhere 

between $5.5 and $8 million—and, by the way, it is a problem we 

don’t know exactly how much—on this TCMS program, and today, 

Arlington National Cemetery still does not have a system that can 

accurately track graves and manage burial operations. 

One reason for this was the lack of management and oversight. 

The Army contracting officials who were responsible for these contracts awarded sole source contracts without ensuring that the contractors were even able to do the work. They failed to make sure 

the government was paying a fair price. 

In addition, the responsible officials outside the Cemetery failed 

to conduct even the most basic oversight. Officials within the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, who have been responsible for the Cemetery’s budget for the last decade, merely reviewed the materials submitted by the Cemetery to Congress regarding TCMS. They did not see the red flags. They did not ask 

any additional questions that would have helped bring these problems to light much earlier. 

We have also learned that there has been no review of Arlington 

National Cemetery for the last decade, no review of the contracts. 

And what is even more appalling to me, as a former State Auditor, 

no one has performed any audits whatsoever. 

And now we know that the problems with the graves at Arlington may be far more extensive than previously acknowledged. At 

a conservative estimate, 4,900 to 6,600 graves may be unmarked, 

improperly marked, or mislabeled on the Cemetery’s maps. 

We are here today because we owe our veterans better. We owe 

their families much more. We owe more to the Americans who expect their government not to fritter away their money on wasteful 

contracts. And the people who let this happen, whether it was ignorance, incompetence, or denial, must be held accountable. 

This week, after hearing from all of the different veterans’ organizations, the American Legion, Reserve Officers Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), all of them have participated by submitting information for this hearing. Although this is the Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, what is most important is to 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

3 

get this right for all of the veterans and their families who have 

sacrificed so much for our country. 

In their statement, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, one of the Nation’s largest and oldest veterans’ associations, which also happens 

to be based in Kansas City, wrote the following. ‘‘What occurred at 

Arlington is a national disgrace, yet the VFW hopes it will serve 

as a wake-up call. The failure at Arlington National Cemetery was 

allowed to occur by a hands-off attitude by those more senior in the 

chain of command who may have regarded their oversight responsibility more as an additional duty than a primary mission.’’ 

I hope today’s hearing is a very loud, very clear wake-up call to 

everyone involved. And let me say that there are so many men and 

women who work at Arlington National Cemetery and who volunteer there, the Old Guard, thousands of people who do the right 

thing every day, day in and day out, and their work should not be 

diminished by this hearing. We should lift them up and thank 

them for every effort they make to make sure that every burial is 

dignified and patriotic in a way that our Nation expects. 

I think at the end of today’s hearing we will know much more 

about what happened and why. What we won’t know at the end of 

this hearing is how quickly we can fix it and how we can repair 

the hole in the heart of so many families across this Nation that 

are now going to wonder, is this really the gravesite of my loved 

one? Is this really where they are buried? Until we get this fixed, 

and until we can stand tall with our shoulders back and say we 

have fixed the problems at Arlington National Cemetery, no one 

who has responsibility for this in the Army should rest, and we are 

going to make sure in this Subcommittee that we stay on this until 

we are confident that all the problems have been fixed. 

We are going to take time this morning for opening statements, 

not just from the Ranking Member, but from any other Members 

who are here, and so at this time I will turn the microphone over 

to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Senator Brown. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BROWN 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Today, as Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, I would like to first of all start 

out by thanking you for once again bringing to attention something 

of great importance not only to me personally, but to our country 

and the families of our men and women that are serving. 

As President Clinton stated in his 1993 Memorial Day remarks 

at Arlington National Cemetery, ‘‘The inscription on the Tomb of 

the Unknown Soldier says that he is, and I quote, ‘Known only to 

God.’ But that is only partly true. While the soldier’s name is 

known only to God, we know a lot about him. We know he served 

his country, honored his community and family, and died for the 

cause of freedom.’’ 

As a 30-year member of the Massachusetts Army National 

Guard, I understand some of the sacrifices that the men and 

women in our Armed Services have made, and my respect for those 

who have made the ultimate sacrifices is clearly unparalleled. 

We are all entrusted with the solemn obligation to ensure that 

our heroes buried at Arlington National Cemetery receive the utmost dignity and respect that this country can offer, and today, I 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

4 

intend to focus on how the caretakers of our national shrine were 

allowed to violate our Nation’s sacred trust. It is my intent to not 

only determine the causes of these astonishing management and 

oversight lapses, but also to look forward and identify real solutions. 

The problems uncovered at Arlington National Cemetery have 

made national headlines and have tarnished the sacred trust with 

military families that we have. The well-publicized burial problems, including the misidentifying of grave sites, losing remains, 

double burials, and failure to notify families of any problems have 

eroded the confidence the families of our fallen heroes have that 

their loved ones’ remains will be respected. And evidence from the 

Army Inspector General investigation report that one set of cremated remains was improperly disposed of and reburied as unknown is particularly wrong, as a loved one’s remains are essentially lost forever. 

My service in the National Guard has taught me the importance 

of an effective command and control structure, and today, I intend 

to examine who in the Department of the Army was responsible for 

the oversight of the Cemetery and why these problems were allowed to develop and remain uncorrected for many years. 

My understanding is that the Army has been aware of the management issue since 1997, when the Military District of Washington IG inspected the Cemetery. The Army audit report is clear 

that the management entrusted at Arlington National Cemetery 

failed to properly execute their duties. Cemetery management 

failed to address one of the primary causes of the burial problems, 

the reliance on an inaccurate Cemetery map. In only three of 70 

sections of the Cemetery, 211 discrepancies were identified between 

the map and the gravesites. In an age where geolocation software 

is available for free on our mobile phones, with all of the United 

States Army’s vast resources available, it is truly incomprehensible 

to me that we are unable to accurately depict a map on merely 600 

acres of land in the heart of our Nation’s Capital. 

And to address this problem, Cemetery management attempted 

to automate the effort, but unfortunately for the families and descendants of the American taxpayers, the automation efforts have 

improved little for the millions of dollars spent. After 7 years of effort, over 35 IT contracts totaling approximately $10 million, the 

Cemetery still uses a system implemented in 2003 that is inefficient and has significant functional limitations. 

We intend to examine in today’s hearing why the Cemetery’s acquisitions and efforts were so futile and where the taxpayers’ 

money went and how can we get it back, and once again, more importantly, how do we solve the problem so it doesn’t happen and 

continue to happen. 

Unfortunately, I don’t have a great deal of confidence that the 

Army or anyone else knows the full extent of the burial problems, 

but I do know that we can’t tolerate these problems any longer. Arlington represents to the world and our country the value we place 

on our veterans in life and in death and the Army must restore the 

solemn trust that America’s heroes deserve, and we expect no less. 

Madam Chairman, thank you for the time and thank you once 

again for bringing this to everyone’s attention. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

5 

Senator MCCASKILL. Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me begin by 

thanking you and the Ranking Member for your leadership in investigating this very important issue. 

Nearly every American can picture the peaceful rolling green 

hills dotted with row upon row of bleached white headstones. This 

iconic image of Arlington National Cemetery is close to our hearts, 

for we know that the landscape reflects the thousands of lives 

given in service to this great country. Although established in 1864, 

this Cemetery includes the remains of veterans from every one of 

America’s wars, from the American Revolution through the Iraq 

and Afghanistan conflicts. This place, then, has long been regarded 

as America’s hallowed ground. 

Privates are buried there, as are Presidents. The Tomb of the 

Unknown Soldier honors unidentified warriors from past wars. 

Sailors who died when the U.S.S. Maine was sunk in Havana in 

1898 are memorialized there. Our collective history is read in this 

Cemetery, carved in stones that recite the names of veterans from 

the birth of our Nation to today’s War Against Terrorism. 

We expect the utmost honor and dignity to be given to those buried at Arlington. Tragically, we now know that this most basic of 

expectations was neglected. Gross mismanagement of these sanctified grounds has tarnished the sacred trust and shaken many 

military families. 

We learned this heartbreaking truth on June 10, when the Army 

Inspector General released a special report on the operational and 

contracting deficiencies at Arlington National Cemetery. The findings were appalling. Investigators found unmarked graves, 

gravesites misidentified on Cemetery maps, and at least four burial 

urns that had been unearthed and their contents discarded. 

The Cemetery had not been inspected or audited for more than 

a decade, an unbelievable lapse of oversight. The Army has admitted that it lacked a single point of responsibility and accountability 

for the operations and oversight of the Cemetery. That admission 

is a first step, but the families, fellow service members, and friends 

of our fallen heroes must have their trust restored. Right now, that 

bond is broken. 

The IG’s report documents further mismanagement of the Cemetery and an utter lack of Army oversight spanning many years. The 

Army IG made 76 findings and 101 recommendations, some of 

which were the very same deficiencies from a 1997 IG inspection 

of the Cemetery. Let me repeat that. The Army was alerted to 

some of these problems 13 years ago, yet nothing was done to make 

things right. 

A main cause of the burial problems was the ill-advised reliance 

on an inaccurate map of the burial plots. In just three of the 70 

sections of the Cemetery, more than 200 discrepancies have been 

identified between the map and the gravesites. To correct these discrepancies, in May 2002, the Cemetery management embarked on 

an ambitious project to update the mapping operation, but this goal 

was never met. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

6 

Despite more than 35 IT contracts totaling more than $5.5 million, the Cemetery continues to use manual records and an electronic tracking system set up in 2003. There are many reasons for 

this tremendous waste of taxpayer funds, but a primary culprit in 

derailing the automation efforts can be traced to a lack of effective 

contract oversight. 

Through this hearing, it is our intent not only to determine the 

causes of these disturbing and painful lapses, but also to identify 

solutions and to establish a time table for urgent action. We must 

take aggressive steps to remove this tarnish from our national 

landmark and to renew the promises made to our military families 

and to the American people. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Senator Collins. Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you 

for having this hearing. It is an understatement to say it is truly 

unfortunate we even have to be here today. 

When you talk about burying our loved ones, it is a pretty basic 

act that has gone on since the beginning of mankind. When you 

talk about burying our war heroes and the people who served this 

country so well in a place as Arlington National Cemetery, I can 

tell you from my perspective, this is not only totally unacceptable, 

it is a black eye that, quite frankly, needs to be dealt with in a way 

to make things right as soon as possible. 

Whether it is a lack of information technology, whether it is a 

lack of contracting oversight, I hope we get some insight into that 

today. But what has happened here, I am going to be interested to 

hear what the excuses are, because I can’t figure it out in my head. 

This isn’t like putting a man on the moon. There is nothing really 

mystifying about burying our loved ones and keeping track of them 

and making sure that the ones are in the grave that are supposed 

to be there. 

Here is the upshot. The upshot of this is I have a lady who works 

for me, does my natural resource work in the State of Montana. 

She happens to be out here. She was actually raised out in this 

neck of the woods and her father was buried in Arlington Cemetery 

a couple years ago. Her mom is still alive. She is out here this 

week. She called up her mother and she said, ‘‘I think I am going 

to go over and visit Dad’s grave in Arlington,’’ to which her mother’s response was, ‘‘Do we really know if he is in that grave?’’ This 

is a true story. That is the upshot of this. 

Madam Chairman, we have Mr. Metzler here today. I believe 

that is correct. I don’t know if we have Mr. Higginbotham here 

today or not. I certainly hope so. But hopefully, we will get some 

sort of understanding of what went on here and some solutions on 

how to fix what I think is a problem that should have never, ever— 

we should not be here today. This should never, ever, ever have 

happened. 

So thank you for holding the hearing, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

Our first panel, if you would join us at the witness table, our 

first panel is John C. Metzler and Thurman Higginbotham. We will 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Metzler appears in the appendix on page 65. 

do seven-minute rounds of questions. After this panel, we have a 

second panel of officials that will testify. 

It is the custom of this Subcommittee that we have our witnesses 

sworn in, and so if you all would stand and I will administer the 

oath. 

Do you swear that the testimony that you will give before the 

Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. METZLER. I do. 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. I do. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Mr. Metzler is the former Superintendent— 

thank you, gentlemen. You may be seated. 

John Metzler is the former Superintendent of Arlington National 

Cemetery and Thurman Higginbotham is the former Deputy Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery. We will defer to you all 

for your opening statements. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN C. METZLER, JR., 1 FORMER 

SUPERINTENDENT, ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY 

Mr. METZLER. Good morning, Madam Chairman, Members of the 

Subcommittee. As the Subcommittee is well aware, I was the Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery for the last 19 years. 

Prior to Arlington, I had 17 years’ experience with the Department 

of Veterans Affairs in their Cemetery system. I also served 6 years 

of earlier government service, including one tour of active duty in 

the Army with one tour in Vietnam as a helicopter crew chief with 

the First Aviation Brigade. 

Over my 42 years of service to our Nation, my respect, admiration, and gratitude to our men and women in uniform and their 

families has only increased. I hold them in the highest regards. 

Personally, it pains me that our team at Arlington did not perform 

all aspects of its mission to the highest standard required. 

As a senior government official in charge of the Cemetery, I accept full responsibility for all of my actions and for the actions of 

my team, and I want to express my sincere regrets to any family 

who may have—these failures may have caused them pain. 

As you evaluate these issues, it is important to fully appreciate 

the complexity and breadth of the operation at Arlington National 

Cemetery. They are unique and extraordinary. This complexity and 

breadth has only increased during my tenure. Of the more than 

330,000 burials at Arlington National Cemetery which have taken 

place over the last 146 years, 110,000, one-third of them, took place 

during my tenure. There are only two or three large private or Department of Veterans Affairs Cemeteries in the world that have the 

complexity and the comparable volume of funerals that Arlington 

does each year, 6,000 or 7,000. 

None of these cemeteries, however, required the attention for ceremonial coordination and support that is routine at Arlington Cemetery. None of these cemeteries have 3,000 non-burial ceremonies 

that are conducted regularly at Arlington. None of these cemeteries 

have records that go back over 100 years. And finally, none of these 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

8 

cemeteries have over four million visitors who tour the grounds 

each year. 

Activity at this level is sensitive and important and requires constant and exceptional attention for action. There are no time-outs 

or do-overs. 

Funeral services continue to be a vital—and are conducted, excuse me, in all circumstances. We conducted services at Arlington 

Cemetery on September 11, 2001 and the day after. During this recent record snowfall in which the Federal Government was closed 

for four consecutive days, Arlington Cemetery continued with its 

burial schedule. 

It is undisputed that the overwhelming majority of the funerals 

at Arlington National Cemetery have been completed successfully, 

without error, and to the complete satisfaction of the families. I do 

not highlight this point to excuse any possible findings that may 

have occurred. I understand that each burial service at the Cemetery must be conducted as close as possible to zero defect every 

time. I understand that the complete burial—excuse me. I understand that completing that burial is a significant event for each 

family involved. There has been an enormous amount of good that 

has been accomplished for tens of thousands of families and each 

time the funerals were conducted correctly at Arlington. 

I know the Army is working hard to correct the IG’s finding and 

that the Cemetery will improve its operation. 

During the last 19 years that I was the Superintendent, we did 

not receive the funding that was needed and the dedicated staff of 

the Cemetery was reduced by 35 percent, from 145 when I arrived 

to 95 today. Of these 95, approximately 35 people are performing 

administrative tasks. Those staffing losses were to be offset by increased opportunities for outsourcing of private contracts. As experience has shown, however, that approach does not always result 

in the most efficient or effective solution. There are no substitutes 

to having dedicated staff in the important areas such as government technology and contracting, none of which I had during my 

tenure. Further, issues can be minimized and eliminated with both 

funding and staffing requirements to do this important work. 

In any event, I know the Army is committed to doing whatever 

it takes to make things right now and in the future. As difficult 

as it is for me to conclude my lengthy Federal service under these 

circumstances, I will always value the opportunity I had to be Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery, and I am prepared 

to answer your questions as best I can. Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I want to tell you, Mr. Metzler, how much 

we appreciate you being here today. I am sure this is not a pleasant experience for you and it means a great deal that you are here 

and that you are standing and willing to answer questions. On behalf of the Subcommittee and the Subcommittee staff, we appreciate it very much. 

Mr. METZLER. Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Mr. Higginbotham, do you have an opening 

statement? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

9 

TESTIMONY OF THURMAN HIGGINBOTHAM, FORMER DEPUTY 

SUPERINTENDENT, ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. No, ma’am, I do not. After consultation with 

counsel, I will assert my Fifth Amendment rights to any and all 

questions that the Subcommittee may ask. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I appreciate the fact that you are asserting 

your right, but procedurally, it will be necessary for us to ask you 

some questions and you to assert that privilege in response to those 

questions in order for us to make the record that is appropriate 

going forward. So we will be asking you some questions and you 

will then have to decide as those questions are asked if you wish 

to assert the right. If you do assert the right repeatedly, a few 

times, then we will make the necessary steps in the record to reflect that you have done so. 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Do you have any questions, Mr. 

Higginbotham, in that regard? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. No, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Then we will begin questioning, and let us 

start with you, Mr. Metzler. Let us be clear. How long were you 

an employee at the Cemetery? 

Mr. METZLER. I was an employee there for 19 years and 6 

months. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And on what date did you retire? 

Mr. METZLER. July 2, 2010. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Who did you report to in the Army? Who 

was your boss? 

Mr. METZLER. My direct report was the Commanding General of 

the Military District of Washington. 

Senator MCCASKILL. All right. And was there any other report 

you had, other than the Commander of the District of Columbia? 

Mr. METZLER. Yes, ma’am. I reported to the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army for Civil Works on budget and policy issues, and to the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs 

on eligibility issues and exceptions to policy, and to the Chief of 

Media on any media-related issues. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. And who reported to you at Arlington 

National Cemetery? 

Mr. METZLER. The Deputy Superintendent, the Historian, my 

secretary, and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So you had your secretary, you had the 

Deputy, you had the Historian, and who was the other? 

Mr. METZLER. The Chief Financial Officer. 

Senator MCCASKILL. The CFO, OK. 

Mr. Higginbotham, how long were you an employee at the Cemetery? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. After consultation with counsel, I will assert 

my Fifth Amendment—I can answer? Oh. You can ask the question 

again, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. How long were you an employee with the 

Arlington National Cemetery? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. I started at Arlington in July 1965 and had 

a break in service to attend mortuary school and I returned to the 

Cemetery in 1977. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

10 

Senator MCCASKILL. And when did you become the Cemetery’s 

Deputy Superintendent? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. Nineteen-ninety—1990, I believe it was. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And what date did you retire? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. July 3. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Mr. Higginbotham, what were your responsibilities as Deputy Superintendent? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. Well, I was an assistant to the Superintendent in his responsibilities. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And so did you take your direction directly 

from him? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Were there things that you did independently of his direction? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. I had decision making for supervisors that 

worked for me, yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Who reported to you at the Cemetery? How 

many direct reports did you have? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. Well, we had three divisions that reported 

to me, Facilities, Administrative, and Operations. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Mr. Higginbotham, it is pretty obvious if 

you read the record that you and Mr. Metzler just didn’t get along. 

Is that a correct statement? Would you argue with that statement? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. Not in my opinion. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You did not get along? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. Yes—no, we did get along. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You did get along? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So the fact that there was a report that was 

done as early as 1997 saying that there was real—in fact, 1994, I 

believe, even after you had been Deputy only for a few years, two 

different times, there was an assessment of what was going on in 

Arlington and in both instances they said that there was a great 

difficulty between the two of you, that you did not have a good 

working relationship, that morale was low because of it, and, in 

fact, you were counseled. The record says you were counseled as it 

relates to your ability to work with Mr. Metzler. Is that not accurate? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. Partially. I think if we go back to when Mr. 

Metzler arrived at Arlington in, I believe it was 1991, I was already the Acting Superintendent because the prior Superintendent 

had quadruple bypass surgery and he decided to retire. I applied 

for the job as Superintendent. I was told that I was not eligible for 

the position because I was 22 days short of time in grade, to move, 

the 1 year in grade at the lower grade. 

I think coming in, a new individual, I had no animosity toward 

Mr. Metzler whatsoever. He was new to Arlington, although, he 

had lived there years ago. His management style was new to me. 

I had worked under a previous Superintendent and we both had 

the same feeling about Arlington to do the right thing. We were 

like a corporation. He had 51 percent and I had 49. So any decisions we made were ultimately his decisions. But I don’t feel that 

report accurately reflected. I think it was more of the staff perception that we didn’t get along. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

11 

Senator MCCASKILL. All right. Before my time runs out on the 

first round, I want to establish something for the record before we 

go any further. Mr. Metzler, what was the first date that you knew 

that there were problems with the location of burial remains at Arlington National Cemetery? 

Mr. METZLER. With the IG report, ma’am? 

Senator MCCASKILL. No. I want to know, when was the first 

date—forget about all the reports, I want to know that day when 

you are in your office and you receive information and you have a 

sinking sensation that you may have a problem about where bodies 

are buried at Arlington National Cemetery. What year did that 

occur? 

Mr. METZLER. I never had that problem. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So you are saying that you never had any 

inkling that there could be an issue with the location of remains 

at Arlington National Cemetery until June of this year? 

Mr. METZLER. Until the IG’s report. Anytime an individual, anytime a family member, anytime an employee brought an issue to 

my attention in this regards, we looked at it immediately. We 

stopped what we were doing and we went out to the field and we 

validated anyone’s concerns. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Wait a minute. So you are saying that when 

there was an issue, you went out and you saw that there was a 

concern, or you found that it was not valid, the concern was not 

valid? 

Mr. METZLER. I found that either the concern was not valid or 

there was an explanation that went along with it. There would be 

oftentimes where family members—no, let me restate that. From 

time to time, family members would contact the Cemetery and tell 

us they could not find their loved one and we would find out that 

they were in the wrong burial section or that they had referenced 

a tree or some other permanent structure in the Cemetery and that 

structure either had been removed or they were just in the wrong 

location. So we would go out with them and we would show them 

how to find their loved one’s grave. That was a problem in any 

cemetery that expands and continues to grow. People pick up landmarks and don’t use the numbering system on the back of the 

headstones. 

Senator MCCASKILL. But you are saying that until the IG’s report came out in June, you had never been made aware of an instance where a headstone was marked wrong, a body was 

mislocated, an urn was found buried in the same location as other 

remains, that there were more than one body in one grave, that an 

urn had been—— 

Mr. METZLER. Well, I—— 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. That you never had any inclination that—— 

Mr. METZLER. No. I did have inclinations of those on a one-toone basis. But every time one was brought to our attention, we corrected those issues, whatever that issue was, and we annotated the 

records to fix the problem. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So you knew there were problems. You 

are just saying that as they came along, you fixed them? 

Mr. METZLER. Yes, ma’am. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

12 

Senator MCCASKILL. All right. And when was the first date you 

knew that you had at least one problem that had been validated 

as to location of remains at Arlington National Cemetery? What 

year was that? 

Mr. METZLER. I don’t know. I mean, this is an issue, the way you 

are asking the question, that could happen virtually any day in the 

Cemetery operation, where someone could come in and ask a question that you would have to go out and look at it. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I am not saying that somebody couldn’t find 

something and you helped them find it. I am saying that when you 

looked into it, you realized that a grave was mismarked or there 

were multiple bodies buried there or that the body wasn’t in the 

location that you thought it was in and you weren’t sure where it 

was. I am talking about those situations. When—what year did one 

of those situations come to your attention? 

Mr. METZLER. Well, I think the one situation that we were talking about, where remains were buried in a grave and unmarked, 

came to our attention about a year ago. We had an issue during 

the development of Land Development 90, referred to as LD 90. 

This was the last 40 acres of the Cemetery. In the process of developing that land, this was a fill area where soil had been reposited 

there for probably 35 years. So the soil started to be distributed 

over this 40-acre land mass, and in the process of doing that, two 

urns were discovered. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And when was that? What month and year 

was that? 

Mr. METZLER. Ma’am, I am guessing. I don’t recall the month, 

the year, but I would say it has to be at least 5 years ago that 

came about. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. And I will have the same question for 

you, Mr. Higginbotham, on my next round, but my time is over and 

I want to be respectful of my colleagues, so Senator Brown? 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Metzler, you noted in your opening statement that the majority of the burials are done successfully. I didn’t fall off the turnip 

truck yesterday. The majority are done successfully? I would think 

that at a cemetery of this prestige that 100 percent of them would 

be done successfully, and that is why we are here, is the fact that 

they are not being done successfully and we owe it to our families 

and our soldiers to get it right. With all due respect, once again, 

there are many cemeteries throughout this country that have the 

foresight and courtesy to make that extra effort to automate the 

systems and identify properly where people are buried so the people and family can have closure. 

I guess my first question is, can you clarify for the record what 

your responsibilities specifically were in terms of who was responsible for identifying properly the gravesites? Whose ultimate responsibility was that? Was it yours? 

Mr. METZLER. Ultimately, the responsibility is mine as the Superintendent, yes. 

Senator BROWN. And when the IG investigation report detailed 

the problem that existed for a period of over 18 years, and I am 

presuming it is the time that you were there, because you have 

been there for quite a while, it also noted that the relationship beH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

13 

tween you and the Deputy—how much do you think the relationship between you and the Deputy affected or contributed to the 

documented problems at the Cemetery? 

Mr. METZLER. I don’t believe it contributed at all. Mr. 

Higginbotham and I met daily at staff meeting. We would meet periodically two or three times a day, either in his office or in my office. We would confer on anything that was unusual or different. 

We would often go out to the Cemetery together to look at issues 

that were going on in the Cemetery. I mean, we had a very professional relationship that interacted each day with each other. We 

had the same common goal here on automation. We wanted to see 

the Cemetery automated as quickly as possible. 

Senator BROWN. Well, I noted here in actually an Arlington National Cemetery article where you called him a visionary when it 

came to technology and trying to—and I am paraphrasing—trying 

to implement the technology plan, and you said that is not a word 

that should be tossed around lightly. The funds were provided. 

What is the status of the so-called technology at this point? Where 

are you? How many graves have been identified? What is the status of the IT, the systems, etc? 

Mr. METZLER. There are approximately 60,000 graves that are 

automated right now since around 1999 with the use of the VA system, BOSS, Federal Operation Support System, and then our continuation of the Internment Support System (ISS). We have a system that we are trying to develop to improve the ISS. We are on 

our second generation. We are trying to get to the third generation, 

which would make this system an Internet-based system. 

So we have been working toward that. Unfortunately, with the 

inspections and the reports that have gone on, all this work now 

has come to a halt and no work currently is being done to continue 

automating the system. 

Senator BROWN. So since 1997, you said, you have—— 

Mr. METZLER. No, sir. We started in 1999 trying the VA BOSS 

system. We worked on that system for about 21⁄2 years and we 

found that it was not compatible with our needs at the Cemetery. 

Yes, it would put the information into a system, but the Cemetery 

at Arlington is much more complex with our scheduling system. I 

tried to work with the Veterans Administration to get them to 

modify their scheduling system to accommodate our needs. 

Senator BROWN. Well, they offered it to you basically for nothing, 

for at cost. Couldn’t you—— 

Mr. METZLER. No, sir, that is not accurate. 

Senator BROWN. That is not true? 

Mr. METZLER. No, sir. 

Senator BROWN. Interesting. 

Mr. METZLER. I mean, I personally worked with their IT team. 

I was with the Veterans Administration—— 

Senator BROWN. Well, was it a cheaper cost than what you have 

expended so far and have really little to show for it? Was it offered 

to you at a cheaper cost? Would you have saved the taxpayers 

money by implementing and modifying a system that has been up 

and running and working properly? 

Mr. METZLER. I could not get them to modify their system, sir. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

14 

Senator BROWN. But you could have taken that system and, in 

fact, adopted it and modified it at cost yourself. 

Mr. METZLER. It was not my system. It was the Veterans Administration system. I tried to work with their IT staff to see if they 

would not modify their system to their needs and they could not 

accommodate us on that. 

Senator BROWN. Who is responsible for issuing contracts, signing 

contracts and going out and actually entering into IT or other types 

of arrangements to improve the system that you were working on. 

Mr. METZLER. Contracting officers either at the Baltimore Corps 

of Engineers or at the Army Center of Excellence for Contracting. 

Senator BROWN. Based on whose recommendation? 

Mr. METZLER. It would be based on our recommendation at the 

Cemetery. We would—— 

Senator BROWN. Our? Who is ‘‘our’’? Is it you? Is it the Deputy? 

Is it a combination? 

Mr. METZLER. It is a combination. I mean, any of our staff members—there are basically three styles of contracts that we work 

with on a regular basis, construction contracts, services contracts, 

and the IT contracts. 

Senator BROWN. I guess what I am trying to find out, and I am 

not getting there yet and I am glad we are going to have a couple 

of rounds, is what specific actions did you take to address the underlying issues and problems, the burial problems, in particular, at 

the Cemetery? What have you done since the report? You say you 

were addressing them and you were working on them. 

We had September 11, 2001. We had burials. We had a lot of 

burials. Every cemetery has burials, but these are special burials. 

There are burials and then there is a different level. These are the 

people that are being buried at Arlington National Cemetery. I 

mean, growing up, I think of that and it is the cemetery in our 

country that we all have great pride in, and to find out that it is— 

it is almost like learning that there is no Santa Claus or Easter 

Bunny. 

It is something that, in fact, is held at such high esteem, and 

then here we are. Is it fact or fiction, reality? Who is buried there? 

There are so many questions. What have you, in fact, done since 

then? 

Mr. METZLER. One of the things we did is we went out and did 

a field survey of the sections that were brought to our attention, 

and what we found in the field survey is that the working maps 

were not accurately posted. 

Senator BROWN. And then what did you do? 

Mr. METZLER. We went out and validated each area to ensure 

that if there was a burial there, there was a headstone there. If 

there was not—if the map indicated there was a burial and there 

was no one buried there, we validated that the grave was empty. 

If we found that there was a site where a headstone should have 

been installed and it was off by a number of graves, we checked 

to be sure that there were remains in the grave and then we put 

the headstone up there—— 

Senator BROWN. How do you know the remains were the accurate remains? How did you match up that? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

15 

Mr. METZLER. We matched them up with the records of internment and with the grave survey cards. 

Senator BROWN. Are you still dealing with—my understanding 

are you still dealing with paper cards, is that right? 

Mr. METZLER. We are still dealing with paper cards, two sets of 

cards, an alphabetical set of cards and a numerical set of cards. 

Senator BROWN. So let me get this straight. It is 2010 and you 

guys—may I take this for a minute, Madam Chairman and just 

show it? You have this amazing piece of technology right here. It 

is an amazing piece of technology right here. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Make sure everyone knows that this is the 

IG report I am reading, not—— 

Senator BROWN. Yes. No, I know that—— [Laughter.] 

Senator MCCASKILL. It is hearing materials I am reading. It is 

not something other than hearing materials. [Laughter.] 

Senator BROWN. I know that. We have cell phones. We have 

iPhones. We have this and that and you guys are still dealing in 

cards. I find that just—I just can’t get my hands around that. How 

do you—— 

Mr. METZLER. As frustrated as you are, sir, with this, you can 

only imagine our frustration at the Cemetery. Arlington Cemetery 

was funded—and is funded still to this day—as a separate government agency. We are not—— 

Senator BROWN. Yes, but you have been given between $7 and $10 million to upgrade the IT and the technology, isn’t that right? 

Mr. METZLER. But, sir, not all that money went to upgrading IT. 

We are maintaining fiber optics in the Cemetery. We are maintaining our work stations, our computer stations. We have IT staff on 

board to assist the staff when they have their issues, printers, fax 

machines. All that rolls into that—— 

Senator BROWN. Yes, but with all due respect, sir, the top priority should be identifying and accurately categorizing in modern 

times and not using three-by-five cards for the people who are the 

national heroes of this country. That priority should have been 

given to the fallen who are buried there, the honored dead, and not 

fax machines and copy machines. You should have identified and 

properly categorized all of these remains so they can live forever 

accurately. 

So I will continue on in the next round, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you. And I apologize for doing that, but it just went to the 

fact that it is 2010. We have all this technology and we are still 

dealing in three-by-five cards. It is a joke. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Metzler, I want to follow up on the questions that the Chairman asked you. There are certainly cases where family members 

misread the map or were in the wrong section or relied on a landmark that was no longer there and thus could not find the burial 

plot of their loved ones. We are not talking about those kinds of 

cases. We are talking about cases where because of problems made 

by the Cemetery, their loved ones’ graves are unmarked or not in 

the right place or there is a mismatch. 

I am trying to better understand when the broader problems 

came to your attention and when, if ever, you perceived that there 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

16 

was a pattern of problems caused by operational deficiencies at the 

Cemetery. 

Mr. METZLER. The way Arlington National Cemetery operates is 

a little different than most VA Cemeteries and even private cemeteries today. Arlington Cemetery still buries over the grave, so the 

gravesite is open. The remains straddle an open grave. Unlike private cemeteries or the Veterans Administration Cemeteries where 

the burials are done at a shelter or a chapel away from the 

gravesite and then the remains are brought there later, at Arlington, we bury the remains over the open grave. So we are very confident that the remains are right where they are supposed to be because the remains are sitting there right in front of the family with 

an open site at the time of the service. 

To also ensure that, we have put a separate tag that the Cemetery produces on each casket, on each urn at the time of the remains coming into the Cemetery and that remains as a permanent 

marking on the casket or onto the urn as the remains are buried 

or inured in the Columbarium. So as I am sitting here, I feel very 

confident that the remains are where they are supposed to be in 

the Cemetery. 

Now, if someone of my staff didn’t follow the procedures, that is 

a different story, but I don’t believe that is what we are talking 

about. 

Senator COLLINS. But Mr. Metzler, you have an IG report that 

identifies 100 graves without the proper burial stone, that—— 

Mr. METZLER. Ma’am, that is not accurate. I would like—if I 

may, what we are talking about are the working maps that you 

would take out to the field, and on one map are the number of 

graves in that particular section. It could be 5,000 squares or it 

could be 2,500 squares. And each day, the staff is supposed to color 

in the square as the burial is taking place. 

What we found is that these maps were not properly colored in. 

They either misread the map, the staff, or they didn’t color them 

in at all. 

Senator COLLINS. So do you dispute the findings of the IG report 

that there were 100 unmarked graves, that there were scores of 

gravesites misidentified on the maps, that there were burial urns 

that had been unearthed and their contents discarded? 

Mr. METZLER. I am not aware—— 

Senator COLLINS. Are you disputing the findings? 

Mr. METZLER. I am disputing what the latter statement is. I am 

never aware of any urns that the contents were discarded. Yes, we 

did find two urns that I was aware of that were buried in the Land 

Development 90—or, I am sorry, were unearthed from their graves, 

most likely—we don’t know for sure how they got there—— 

Senator COLLINS. Mr. Metzler, this is really important, because 

what you are saying right now is at odds with what the Army IG 

report says. I have the excerpt from the Army IG report. It says 

117 gravesites were marked as occupied on the maps, but none of 

these gravesites had a headstone or a burial card. Do you dispute 

that finding? 

Mr. METZLER. I do not dispute that finding. What I am saying, 

ma’am, is that the maps were improperly colored. They were—the 

blocks on the maps were colored in when they shouldn’t have been 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

17 

colored in. We went out and did a field survey and we validated 

that the maps were posted incorrectly. 

Senator COLLINS. Do you not think it is a problem that 

gravesites are marked as occupied on the maps but don’t have a 

headstone or a burial card? 

Mr. METZLER. If, indeed, there was—— 

Senator COLLINS. How are the families supposed to find the 

gravesites of their loved ones? 

Mr. METZLER. Ma’am, what I am saying is the staff marked in 

those sites and they shouldn’t have marked in the sites. No one 

was buried at that location. Yes, we did find a few graves in each 

of these sections where the headstones were missing and those 

headstones were ordered as soon as we could validate there were 

remains in the grave and that the staff had overlooked ordering 

those headstones. But the vast majority of the graves that you are 

talking about were simply posting errors on a working map. 

Senator COLLINS. Let me give you another finding. The IG said 

that 94 gravesites were marked on the maps as unoccupied, but 

each had a headstone and a burial card. 

Mr. METZLER. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator COLLINS. Do you dispute that finding? 

Mr. METZLER. I do not dispute that, and again, that would be the 

map was not properly posted. We went out—— 

Senator COLLINS. But Mr. Metzler, the family members are relying on these maps in order to find—— 

Mr. METZLER. No, ma’am, they are not relying on those maps. 

The family members are relying on a section and grave number 

that they are given at the day of the service. Those are the Cemetery’s internal working maps. We don’t give those maps to the—I 

mean, these are not maps that we give to the families. 

Senator COLLINS. You don’t think it is a problem that gravesites 

are mismarked? 

Mr. METZLER. I do—— 

Senator COLLINS. Doesn’t the staff rely—— 

Mr. METZLER. No, I agree with you that the—— 

Senator COLLINS. Well, wait a minute—— 

Mr. METZLER [continuing]. The maps should be accurately 

marked. 

Senator COLLINS. Doesn’t the staff rely on those maps when they 

direct the family members to the gravesites? 

Mr. METZLER. They rely on those maps to give them direction, 

but they don’t show the family that the individual is buried at that 

map. That would give them a location, a grid location, if you will, 

within the Cemetery so that they could help find their loved one. 

Each of the headstones are marked on the back with the section 

and grave number in numerical sequence. 

Senator COLLINS. Mr. Metzler, if your staff is relying on these 

maps and these maps are inaccurate, and you are not disputing 

that the maps are inaccurate, then aren’t family members going to 

have a difficult time finding the appropriate gravesite? 

Mr. METZLER. No, ma’am. 

Senator COLLINS. I have to tell you, your answers make no sense 

to me whatsoever. I am going to switch to a different issue in the 

very short time—— 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

18 

Mr. METZLER. If I could just finish one point on that, we did correct each of these maps, so with the IG report, they reported 211. 

Each of those three burial sections have been corrected and the 

maps are currently posted correctly and copies were given to all 

different divisions within the Cemetery so they would have the latest updated map. 

Senator COLLINS. Mr. Metzler, in your testimony, you blamed a 

lot of the problems on a lack of resources. You said that the Cemetery staffing had been reduced by 35 percent, from 145 to 95 civilian employees. When I look at the budget over the last 10 years, 

I see significant increases, from $13 million in fiscal year 2000 to 

a high of $39 million in fiscal year 2010. If you thought the money 

was being spent for the wrong things, if you thought you were 

understaffed, whom did you relay that to? 

Mr. METZLER. Each budget cycle, we would bring this discussion 

to the table with the Assistant Secretary of the Army’s representative, as well as with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

as we submitted our budget submission for the upcoming year. 

Senator COLLINS. And you specifically asked for more money and 

more staff and were turned down? 

Mr. METZLER. We were asking to be increased. We were usually 

cut back by OMB to lower numbers, and it was through the passbacks that we would go through and with the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army for Civil Works who helped us tremendously keep our 

numbers up to the 95. If not, we would have been reduced even further. The mission or the policy had been to reduce the government 

workforce and each year we were having our workforce cut away 

a little at a time. So we were holding onto the basic function of 

burying the dead and everything else was just about contracted out 

with outsourcing. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate 

it. I appreciate both you gentlemen coming today and I appreciate 

the questions that are being answered today. 

I didn’t want to go down this line, but Senator Collins has forced 

me to go down here one more time. You are saying that what the 

IG found was there are errors on a set of working maps, but there 

were another set of maps that were right, yes? 

Mr. METZLER. No, sir, that is not what I said. 

Senator TESTER. So what you are saying is that there are errors 

on a set of working maps and that the other set of maps was incorrect? 

Mr. METZLER. The working maps, when it was brought to our attention that these maps were inaccurately posted, we went out and 

did the field survey of the sections that were brought to our attention and we corrected those maps, reposted on the permanent set, 

which is another set of maps that is kept in a different location in 

the Cemetery, and then sent working copies out to all the divisions 

within the Cemetery. 

Senator TESTER. The permanent maps were correct, is what you 

were saying? 

Mr. METZLER. Not until we corrected them. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

19 

Senator TESTER. OK. So what you are saying is the IG report 

was correct. If the permanent maps were incorrect and the working 

maps were incorrect—— 

Mr. METZLER. The maps were—— 

Senator TESTER [continuing]. Show me one that was correct. 

Mr. METZLER. The maps that are there today are correct. 

Senator TESTER. OK. But the maps that the IG looked at were 

incorrect? 

Mr. METZLER. That is correct. 

Senator TESTER. And how did you fix those maps so that you 

know that they are correct today? 

Mr. METZLER. We went out to each section and did a field survey, 

checking grave by grave by grave, and where we found that the 

map was posted as someone was there, supposed to be buried 

there, and there was no headstone there, then we would go back 

and check the grave card. The grave card is a numerical card, so 

if you go to one of the sections in the Cemetery, you will find grave 

cards starting with number one—— 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. METZLER [continuing]. Going to the end. If we found no 

grave card, then we would probe the grave to see if there were any 

remains in the grave. If there were no remains in the grave, then 

we would realize that the map was posted incorrectly. 

Senator TESTER. OK. If there were remains in the grave, what 

did you use to know whose remains they were? 

Mr. METZLER. We would look at the site and go back to the cards 

to find the grave card that correlated to that site— 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. METZLER [continuing]. And then we would go back to the 

record of internment, which is the alphabetical listing, and then we 

would find out if there was—— 

Senator TESTER. Let us go the other direction. Joe Soldier was 

supposed to be buried in that and you go down and there is nothing 

there. Where is Joe Soldier now? I don’t understand. I mean, you 

can probe and see if the remains are there and say, ‘‘Yes, that is 

right,’’ and go back to the grave card. What happens in the other 

direction? 

Mr. METZLER. I know of no incident, sir, where we can’t find a 

set of remains. 

Senator TESTER. OK. So you know where everybody is? 

Mr. METZLER. If you give me a name, I can go out there and find 

the location—— 

Senator TESTER. And you are sure of whoever is buried in that 

grave is who is buried in that grave, even though you have some 

maps that are right and some maps that are wrong? Do you understand what I am saying? I am not trying to be critical here, but 

I am trying to be obvious. How do you know which set of maps are 

right if you have one set that is wrong and one set that is right? 

How do you know this set is right and that set is wrong, or that 

set is wrong and this set is right? 

Mr. METZLER. Each time we post a set of maps, we put a date 

on that map as to when it was posted. The maps are only as accurate as the last date on that map, and from that point forward, the 

map becomes a working map. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

20 

Senator TESTER. And if that last date is incorrect, then that map 

is inaccurate and everything is screwed up. I don’t know how you 

can find the bodies once they are in the ground or once they are 

supposed to be in the ground and not in the ground. I don’t know 

how you fix that mistake, but we can go to a different direction 

here. 

I want to talk a little bit about budgeting. You talked about declining budgets, but then again, Senator Collins pointed out that 

your budget from 2000 went from $10 million to $39 million in 10 

years. Are those figures correct? 

Mr. METZLER. I believe they are. 

Senator TESTER. That is not a declining budget. That is a 400 

percent increase. 

Mr. METZLER. It is also reflected of construction costs. Our operation—— 

Senator TESTER. But you had construction costs previous to 2000. 

Mr. METZLER. Very minimal construction cost. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Who makes the budget decisions? 

Mr. METZLER. The budget recommendation is made out of my office, and then the final decision is made by the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army to make the recommendation. 

Senator TESTER. So you, ultimately you, because to your credit 

you said, ‘‘I take responsibility for everything that has happened, 

right or wrong,’’ you are the one that determines how many dollars 

or how many millions you need for Arlington Cemetery, consulting 

with your staff, with the folks you work with, and then you pass 

that up the chain, is that correct? 

Mr. METZLER. Not entirely, sir. Part of it is we are given guidance from OMB at the beginning of the budget cycle—— 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. METZLER [continuing]. And they will tell us how many millions of dollars we can ask for and what our staffing level should 

be. 

Senator TESTER. All right. So if your budget was not adequate, 

whose responsibility is that? Is that yours or is that OMB’s or is 

that somebody above you? 

Mr. METZLER. Well, sir, I think it is a combination of us asking 

and justifying and then ultimately we have to support the President’s initiative and going forward to the Appropriations committee 

and with the guidance that we are given. 

Senator TESTER. But in your opening statement, you said because of funding reductions, your staff was reduced by 35 percent. 

I don’t—correct me if I am wrong. Did your budget reflect that you 

needed 35 percent less people? 

Mr. METZLER. I don’t understand that question. 

Senator TESTER. You put forth a budget. Your staff was reduced 

by 35 percent. Was that your decision or was that somebody else’s? 

Mr. METZLER. No, that was not my decision. 

Senator TESTER. Whose decision was it? 

Mr. METZLER. I mean, our staffing levels were reduced by OMB 

each time that—— 

Senator TESTER. OK. OMB made the reduction? 

Mr. METZLER. Yes, sir. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

21 

Senator TESTER. OK. And those were supposed to be offset by 

contractors, right? 

Mr. METZLER. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. Who made that decision? 

Mr. METZLER. Again, we were told that we would be supported 

with contract dollars, so—— 

Senator TESTER. By who? 

Mr. METZLER. By OMB. 

Senator TESTER. By OMB? 

Mr. METZLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Did you make your plea to the Appropriations committee that this wasn’t going to work, or did you just let 

OMB do it, or, I mean—— 

Mr. METZLER. Sir, we—— 

Senator TESTER. Don’t feel bad about this. I have heard this before. But the truth is and the fact is, you have to fight for it if you 

think it is right, and did you fight for it? 

Mr. METZLER. Sir, as a member of the Executive part of the government, I have to support the President’s initiative, and the guidance that I am given from OMB is the guidance that we set forward. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Tell me how the process works with the 

contractors. Was there oversight? You said that the Army Corps 

gave oversight for contractors. There was somebody on site that 

you could go to for—to make sure the contractors are doing what 

they are supposed to do in a timely manner, on budget? 

Mr. METZLER. Typically, there was not a representative from the 

Corps of Engineers on site at the Cemetery. 

Senator TESTER. Well, did you have anybody on site overseeing 

the contractors? 

Mr. METZLER. We had what we call Contracting Officers Representatives. 

Senator TESTER. Were they trained? 

Mr. METZLER. Most were trained through a 40-hour training 

course. 

Senator TESTER. Who trained them? 

Mr. METZLER. The contracting office that issued that contract. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Was there any rivalry between those contractors and the folks who worked for you full time? 

Mr. METZLER. Not that I am aware of, no. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Was there any point in time during your 

tenure that you requested for contracting support, such as a contracting officer on site, or did you see a need for it? 

Mr. METZLER. Well, we would have loved to have our own contracting shop internally, but unfortunately, it is not a person. It is 

a series of people, from attorneys to clerks, and it would take away 

from our staffing level to actually perform our basic mission at Arlington Cemetery. Our challenge each year was holding on to the 

FTE that we had from the previous year and not take a further reduction. 

Senator TESTER. All right. 

Mr. METZLER. That was not always successful. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Were you happy the way that system 

worked? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

22 

Mr. METZLER. No, sir, I was not happy the way the system 

worked. I had virtually no control or say-so over anything going on 

with contracting and had to rely on the contracting officers to perform the requests that we would submit, whether it was construction contracts, services contracts, or IT contracts. 

Senator TESTER. You were the Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery and you didn’t feel you had adequate supervision 

over the contractors. That needs to be fixed. I mean, if the next 

person has that same sentiment, we are never going to get to a situation where we are doing things right at Arlington or responsible 

to the taxpayers of this country. 

One last question, and I appreciate the latitude the Chairman 

has given me. Today, 20 percent of the graves at Arlington are 

automated. That is fairly correct, isn’t it? 

Mr. METZLER. That is approximate, yes. 

Senator TESTER. Today, Senator McCaskill can get on that little 

machine right there that Senator Brown brought up, go online, and 

find any grave in the 131 VA National Cemeteries right from her 

seat right there—any grave, she can find. How did the VA get so 

far ahead of Arlington from a technological standpoint? 

Mr. METZLER. They had—— 

Senator TESTER. Because they had the same OMB to work with 

that you had. They had the same administration to work with that 

you had. Go ahead. 

Mr. METZLER. They have a dedicated IT staff in the National 

Cemetery Administration that worked exclusively on the BOSS system. 

Senator TESTER. OK. And were you aware of that when you were 

Superintendent of Arlington? 

Mr. METZLER. When I worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs, I was part of that initial program to automate and was a 

driving force, if you will, to the VA to try to get them away from 

the paper and pencil and to get into the automation system—— 

Senator TESTER. Good. 

Mr. METZLER [continuing]. So yes, sir, I was very much aware of 

the BOSS system—— 

Senator TESTER. And so did somebody—— 

Mr. METZLER [continuing]. And anxious to bring it into Arlington 

Cemetery and try it out. 

Senator TESTER. So why didn’t it get implemented? 

Mr. METZLER. Well, we did implement it for 21⁄2 years and we 

just got so frustrated with the system. We couldn’t modify it to 

make it work for Arlington Cemetery that we had to walk away 

from it. 

Senator TESTER. The VA makes it work for 131 cemeteries. You 

have one. 

Mr. METZLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. And you can’t make it work for that one? 

Mr. METZLER. No, sir. The Arlington Cemetery is unique from 

the standpoint that no cemetery except Arlington has military honors that are associated with every funeral, from caissons to bands 

to marching elements to cannons to flyovers. You don’t have that 

in the VA Cemeteries. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

23 

Senator TESTER. We are talking about the ability to find a grave 

online—— 

Mr. METZLER. That is only part of the system, sir. 

Senator TESTER. But it is a pretty darn important part of the 

system. 

Mr. METZLER. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. 

Senator TESTER. All right. I want to thank the Chairman. 

Mr. METZLER. And I would tell you that every burial we have 

done since 1999 is part of that VA system now and you can go into 

their National Gravesite Locator from April 1, 1999 forward and 

find our burials at Arlington Cemetery in their system, as well. 

Senator TESTER. OK. I have to ask this. What you are saying is 

you can go on the VA website right now from 1999 to 2010 and find 

who is buried in Arlington National Cemetery? 

Mr. METZLER. If they have ordered a government headstone from 

the VA, it will be in their system. 

Senator TESTER. So what you are saying is these 211 IG mis-buried graves are on the VA website and they are correct? 

Mr. METZLER. I don’t know that I could say that the way you 

said it, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you very much. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

Let me just ask you to back up a little bit. I was not here for 

your testimony and for the first part of the questions. Let me just 

ask of you, if I can, Mr. Metzler, what went wrong? What has been 

done to fix what went wrong? What remains to be done? Who needs 

to do it? 

Mr. METZLER. Wow. What went wrong is that from the very beginning, we found that the IT automation process was full of difficult turns and twists in the process to accomplish. We started out 

with trying to do an initiative and found out that we needed to do 

a 300 report to OMB. Anytime you had an IT initiative of more 

than a half-million dollars, this report had to be placed in there 

ahead of time. So we had to stop the process—this was around 

2003—and do this 300 report. That in itself took us over a year and 

a half to accomplish. 

Once we got that completed, then we got very little feedback 

from anyone, but we continued to go forward and try to automate. 

We started out by scanning the records, the existing records in the 

Cemetery to get them into an automated system and at the same 

time try to develop the internment scheduling system, which was 

the biggest driving factor for us at Arlington Cemetery at the time, 

trying to automate the daily burials that we were doing so that we 

would make no mistakes in who we were burying that day as far 

as military honors, gravesite location, and get away from the paper 

and pencil issue. 

But as we got into that particular system, our staff continued to 

ask for more and more upgrades to that system. We were successful and able to upgrade it one time. We were in the process of automating a second time and then making a more complex system, 

making a robust system that was Internet-based and that we could 

send the information out to all government agencies, the military, 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

24 

the Chaplain’s Office, and such who needed this, and we were in 

that process. 

If I could use a baseball analogy, I believe we were on third base 

and ready to come home and finish this system when all of the inspections and the allegations were made and it stopped the finishing—the development of that particular system. 

So right now, we are on hold. Until we can get that released and 

get that system finished, nothing else will be accomplished in automation unless you scrap the old system and start all over again. 

Senator CARPER. Let me follow up on your baseball analogy. Let 

us say we are in a rain delay, OK. We have a runner on third base 

and the game is on hold. When the rain stops and when the game 

resumes, what do we need to do? Who needs to do it? 

Mr. METZLER. What we need to do is get in with the contractor 

who has the base knowledge of the ISS upgraded system and finish 

that system, do the beta testing to be sure that we have captured 

all the initiatives that the staff at the Internment Services Office 

wants, and then implement that system. That will be a great improvement, and that is just the base, if you will, of the TCMS system. But that is one of the big cornerstones in getting that accomplished. And then the next thing would be to integrate the records 

that have already been scanned into that system. 

Senator CARPER. Who needs to do those things? 

Mr. METZLER. I think most of that stuff can be done by contractors. Now, the bigger issue is, and I think this goes to the heart 

of the questions that Senator Collins was asking earlier, is the triple-validation, and I think this is a challenge with all older cemeteries, like Arlington, is the information on the headstone, the information on the paper records, and the information on the map all 

need to be cross-checked to be sure every document is accurate. 

Senator CARPER. What does the Congress need to do? 

Mr. METZLER. Work with the Army, support this initiative financially, and help us, help the Army to get this system back off of 

rain delay and get it completed, sir. 

Senator CARPER. All right. In light of the significant number of 

improperly marked and unmarked graves, could you just share 

with us what has been done to reach out to the families of the deceased? 

Mr. METZLER. In cases where we know that the family has had 

a question, then they would be contacted. If the family has called 

into the Cemetery with a question, that research, to my knowledge, 

is currently being done, and then a follow-up phone call would be 

done to the families and tell them whatever information was found 

out to allay their concerns. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I understand that there is a Section 

27 at Arlington. Could you take a moment and tell us, what is the 

historical significance, if you will, of Section 27? 

Mr. METZLER. Section 27 used to be called the Lower Section, 

and it was the original burial area of the Cemetery before it had 

a designation as Section 27. It is where the Cemetery started in 

May 1864. William Christman, the first person buried in Arlington 

Cemetery, described as a hapless recruit who died after 3 months 

in the military from peritonitis, was buried there in May 1864. So 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

25 

the Cemetery’s original burials from the Civil War, during the Civil 

War time, were in Section 27. 

Also, in another part of the Section 27, the former residents of 

Freedman’s Village are buried, about 3,500 individuals who were 

on the grounds of Arlington Cemetery from around 1863 to 1890. 

These were African-Americans who were displaced as a result of 

the Civil War. The government had opened up a series of camps 

or villages here in the Washington area. One of them was on the 

grounds of Arlington Cemetery. And unfortunately, a lot of these 

individuals who were residents of this village passed away from 

disease, natural causes, and they were buried also in Section 27. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I am told that this section has suffered a considerable amount of neglect over the years. First of all, 

I want to ask you if that is true. But I think it was about 20 years 

ago that the Congress ordered the Arlington National Cemetery to 

improve the grounds and to try to restore the burial records. 

Among the folks that were there, I understand some African-American Civil War soldiers, but I am told that little has been done. And 

in addition—— 

Mr. METZLER. Well, that is not correct, sir, at all. 

Senator CARPER. I will let you respond to that, but in addition 

to addressing the burial problems in the newer parts of the Cemetery, what has been done to fix what were believed to be significant 

problems in Section 27? 

Mr. METZLER. Section 27, when I first got to Arlington, the middle part of the section—it is a long, narrow section—the middle 

part of the section, an experiment had been done by the previous 

Cemetery Superintendent there for flat markers. This was an initiative that was being worked on in the National Cemetery System. 

All their new cemeteries that they were opening back in the 1980s 

were all flat markers. So for whatever reason, the former Superintendent decided to try flat markers. It was supposed to be ease 

of maintenance and better mowing, easier mowing. 

It didn’t seem to be too successful in the VA. They walked away 

from it, and around 1992, when I was doing one of my appropriations hearings with Congressman Stokes, who I believe was the 

Chairman at the time, brought to my attention that he felt that 

this was incorrect at Arlington Cemetery and asked us to change 

the headstones from flat markers back to upright headstones, 

which we did. 

At the same time, he asked us to look at the trees at the Cemetery. The trees had been allowed to grow all the way to the ground, 

so you had branches that were on the ground over headstones, covering headstones and such, and we changed the maintenance cycle 

at the Cemetery and lifted the trees up to about a six-foot height 

so you could walk under a tree and the tree limbs would no longer 

be bowing down over the headstones. So all that was accomplished 

between 1993 and 1994, and Section 27 today receives every bit as 

maintenance as every other section of the Cemetery. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. Thanks for those responses. 

Mr. METZLER. You are welcome. 

Senator CARPER. Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this 

hearing. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

26 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Mr. Higginbotham, when did you first realize that there were 

mismarked graves, unmarked graves, improperly marked graves at 

Arlington National Cemetery? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. Well, ma’am, having been a Cemetery Representative back during the Vietnam War, doing funerals, it was 

always—I can’t pinpoint a date and time, but it was always to me 

conceptual that anything done by hand for 140-plus years, there 

has to be some errors somewhere. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I am not asking about conceptual and 

I am not asking for an isolated error. I am asking you what year— 

let me just ask the question this way. The documentation that we 

have developed for this hearing would indicate that you had personal knowledge of unmarked graves or mismarked graves in 2003. 

Would you disagree with that? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. I am not sure of the date, but if it is in the 

report, that was probably what was looked at. I am not sure. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And Mr. Metzler, you testified earlier when 

I was asking you that 5 years ago, you were aware of urns with 

cremated remains in them that had been found in the fill area of 

the Cemetery? 

Mr. METZLER. That is correct. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So at that moment, you knew that someone’s remains had been dug up and dumped somewhere in the 

Cemetery without the people knowing they were digging up remains and not realizing they were dumping a family member’s remains in another part of the fill area of the Cemetery that was unmarked. It was just in with the dirt, correct? 

Mr. METZLER. That is my understanding, yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So in 2003, Mr. Higginbotham, you 

knew there were mistakes that had been documented that reflected 

a lack of procedures of keeping track of where people were being 

buried in an accurate fashion. And in 2005, Mr. Metzler, you knew 

that there were urns that had been uncovered in the fill area of 

the Cemetery. Now, when you found those urns, Mr. Metzler, what 

did you do? 

Mr. METZLER. We looked at the urns and we examined them to 

figure out if we could determine where they belonged in the Cemetery. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And did you? 

Mr. METZLER. No. We could not—there were no markings on the 

urns. There was nothing that would lead us to identify who these 

remains belong to. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So you had no idea who they were? 

Mr. METZLER. That is correct. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And to this day, you have no idea who they 

are? 

Mr. METZLER. That is correct. 

Senator MCCASKILL. All right. So did you think to yourself, we 

have a problem here? 

Mr. METZLER. Yes, I did. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And I assume you went right up to the Appropriations committee and to OMB and to the Army Chief of Staff 

and say, ‘‘We have a crisis? ’’ 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

27 

Mr. METZLER. I did not. 

Senator MCCASKILL. We have urns being dug up that are unidentified and they have been dumped, and we have to get on this because this could be occurring in every single section of the Cemetery? 

Mr. METZLER. I did not do that, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And what about you, Mr. Higginbotham? 

When you realized you had this problem as early as 2003, what action did you take? Did you go to Mr. Metzler? Did you send him 

a memo and say, ‘‘We have a crisis and we need to start examining 

every section of this Cemetery to find where these problems exist? ’’ 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. That is exactly what we did. The triple-validation that Mr. Metzler referred to in the previous question was 

the best way that I personally know. I presented to him as an idea 

of how we could validate each gravesite in the Cemetery. That program would go out with a hand-held device, go to each gravesite, 

look at the headstone, the grave card, the burial record, and the 

map to validate all four of those sources, and then once that is 

done, we would then know, are there other errors out there. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So you are testifying that you went to Mr. 

Metzler in 2003 and said, ‘‘We need to do quality assurance.’’ We 

need to do some kind of survey and determine the mistakes that 

have been made in this Cemetery. 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. No. I am saying that we as an organization 

realized that was what we needed to do, to validate gravesites. 

That was presented to OMB in our plan for the future, to—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Did Mr. Metzler know that you were aware 

of mistakes that were being made throughout the Cemetery in 

terms of the failure to properly mark graves or to make mistakes 

in the marking of graves? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So you knew in 2003, Mr. Metzler? 

Mr. METZLER. I did not know about a grave in 2003. It was 

brought to my attention a little bit later than that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So you are saying that Mr. Higginbotham is 

not being truthful, then, that he brought to you the problems that 

he knew as early as 2003 about the way the graves were being 

handled at Arlington National Cemetery? 

Mr. METZLER. Well, there was one particular grave in Section 67 

or 68 that I believe 2003 was the original date that discrepancy 

was—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. So in your earlier testimony when you said 

you first found out about it when the Inspector General issued his 

report a month ago, that was not correct, your earlier testimony. 

You knew in 2003 that there was a mistake—— 

Mr. METZLER. I was trying to understand your question, ma’am. 

I will go back to my earlier. When something is brought to my attention, I correct it at that point. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, let us be honest here. I mean, really, 

what has happened here is employees at the Cemetery finally had 

enough and they went to Salon.com and Salon did an expose ́ on 

what was going on at Arlington. And then the Inspector General, 

as a result, went out and just did three sections. Mr. Metzler, you 

say the maps are correct now. They are only correct for three secH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

28 

tions and those are the three sections that the Inspector General 

looked at. You didn’t look at those sections, even though you knew 

as long ago as 2003 that you had significant problems—— 

Mr. METZLER. No, ma’am—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Five years ago, you knew you had unidentified urns that were turning up in the fill and you didn’t go and try 

to do any kind of survey and determine what was going on. This 

happened. We are here today because people who worked for you 

had enough and they blew the whistle and somebody wrote an article about it, and finally the Army woke up and realized nobody was 

paying attention at Arlington and they went in and they looked 

and they found in three sections several hundred graves. And how 

many sections are at Arlington, Mr. Metzler? 

Mr. METZLER. Seventy sections. 

Senator MCCASKILL. All right. So we have done 3 out of 70. 

Mr. METZLER. That is correct. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And there is no indication we don’t have the 

same problem in the other 67. None. So really, what happened here 

is you all just decided if you didn’t talk about it—and do you honestly believe, Mr. Metzler, if you would have come to Congress and 

said, ‘‘We have a crisis.’’ We immediately need resources and manpower so we can check the Cemetery, because we are afraid that 

we have lost bodies of our heroes, that we have lost the bodies of 

our fallen heroes, we have cremated remains that we don’t even 

know who they belong to turning up in the fill, did you ever write 

that up? Did that ever go up the chain of command? Did the Chief 

of Staff of the Army ever see a document from you that we have 

a problem? We found cremated remains and we don’t know where 

they belong. 

Mr. METZLER. No—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Did that ever occur, Mr. Metzler? 

Mr. METZLER. We annotated the records. We buried the remains 

as unknowns in the Cemetery. I did not send a memo up to the 

Chief of Staff of the Army. 

Senator MCCASKILL. This is, with all due respect, this is not 

about a lack of resources. This is not about that you have a complicated job. You have a very important job, and I agree that it is 

stressful and you have a lot of burials and there is a lot of protocol. 

But this is not complicated. It is called keeping track of who you 

bury where. That is not a complicated task. 

And the notion that you would come in here and act as if you 

didn’t know about it until a month ago is offensive. You did know 

about it and you did nothing. And you knew about it, Mr. 

Higginbotham, and you did nothing, and that is why we are here. 

And now somebody is going to come along and clean up this mess 

and families have been hurt for no good reason. If you would have 

sounded the alarm the minute you realized you had this kind of 

problem, I think we would be in a much better position now than 

we are today. Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

So just getting back to the BOSS system a little bit, I am just 

trying to focus on this IT issue. You said that you didn’t use the 

BOSS system because of many different reasons. I am trying to 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

29 

still kind of figure it out. But in the TCMS program, it has a 

records database, correct? 

Mr. METZLER. Yes, it does. 

Senator BROWN. Well, so does the BOSS system, right? 

Mr. METZLER. Yes, it does. 

Senator BROWN. And you also have in the TCMS, you have 

gravesite capability, gravesite inventory capability. 

Mr. METZLER. That is correct. 

Senator BROWN. And so does, obviously, the BOSS system. And 

then you also have infrastructure upgrades in your system? 

Mr. METZLER. That is correct. 

Senator BROWN. They have it also in the BOSS system, correct? 

Mr. METZLER. I am—now, I am not—— 

Senator BROWN. I will make it easy. They do. 

Mr. METZLER. OK. I will take your word on it. 

Senator BROWN. And they have a project management system in 

the TCMS, correct? 

Mr. METZLER. Yes. 

Senator BROWN. They also have it in the BOSS system. They 

also have a GIS in your system, correct? 

Mr. METZLER. Yes. 

Senator BROWN. And it is also in the BOSS system. So you are 

saying that it is not capable, that you couldn’t adapt it. What is 

the difference? What wasn’t working? Where was the breakdown? 

Mr. METZLER. The scheduling was the biggest challenge that we 

had. 

Senator BROWN. So you have a system that is compatible—I just 

listed five or six things—and the only difference is because of the 

scheduling, and I want to just, because you have flyovers, you have 

honors, the ceremonial significance of that. So the only difference 

was scheduling. 

Mr. METZLER. That was the first major difference that we saw 

that we couldn’t overcome. 

Senator BROWN. Well, what were the other differences, then? 

Mr. METZLER. Well, our system was going to be Internet-based 

so that we could provide the same information to all branches of 

the military—— 

Senator BROWN. Well, theirs is, too. We can go right online right 

now. I mean, theirs is on the Internet. So what is the difference? 

Mr. METZLER. No, sir. Our information would be sent—the time 

that—whenever we took a funeral application and completed it and 

when the system, our system would then push that information out 

through an email message to the Army, to the Navy, the Air Force, 

Coast Guard, Marines, the Chaplain’s Office, to anyone who was 

involved in that particular funeral. And then as updates came 

along with that funeral, the same thing would happen. The information would be pushed out to the—— 

Senator BROWN. So there is a scheduling and an email capability 

issue between the two systems. So I have two basic changes, scheduling and email capabilities. Was there anything else that was different? 

Mr. METZLER. Well, the other item that was different is the maps 

were going to be posted electronically with each burial, the 

gravesite layout maps. When you do a burial, the first document 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

30 

that is produced is a record of internment. The next document that 

is produced is the grave survey card. And the next thing is posting 

the map. All that would have been done electronically with our system. 

Senator BROWN. Well, the cost for the BOSS system was $1.2 million. The cost for your system is approximately $10 million and 

it isn’t even up and running yet. It is not—it has basically 60,000 

people, I think you told us earlier, that have actually been inputted 

into the system, and you are on third base and you are going to 

bring it home soon but for the fact that you have had to do all 

these other things. Aside from email, scheduling, and maps, we are 

paying three times as much for a system that is already being used 

by an entity that has a tremendous amount more in terms of the 

data and accuracy of records than you do. How do you explain 

that? 

Mr. METZLER. Well, sir, I don’t know how the VA developed its 

numbers. I know that the VA has a dedicated IT staff—— 

Senator BROWN. So you don’t have an IT staff at all? 

Mr. METZLER. No, sir, I do not have an IT staff. 

Senator BROWN. Have you ever requested an IT staff or IT capability or any assistance at all? 

Mr. METZLER. What we have requested is through contract support. 

Senator BROWN. Well, did you get that contract support? 

Mr. METZLER. I mean, we requested IT programs through contracting. 

Senator BROWN. Well, programs. Did you get the actual people 

to come and help you—— 

Mr. METZLER. No, sir. We have not requested IT staff on board 

at the Cemetery. 

Senator BROWN. Well, you have over 300,000 honored dead in the Cemetery. You have a $10 million plan here and you have asked 

for contracts, but you haven’t asked for the staff to help implement 

the—— 

Mr. METZLER. We were working to have the staff to support the 

contracts to be a contractor. 

Senator BROWN. You have been there for how many years? 

Mr. METZLER. I have been here for 19 years. 

Senator BROWN. So when were you going to get around to asking 

for the way to implement the programs that you are trying to do? 

Mr. METZLER. We have been in that process, I would say, for at 

least the last 5 years, trying to get this accomplished. 

Senator BROWN. How? If you haven’t made the request, how have 

you been trying to get it accomplished? 

Mr. METZLER. [No response.] 

Senator BROWN. Your silence speaks for itself, because it—— 

Mr. METZLER. No, I am trying to come up with—I am trying to 

answer your question here, sir. Just give me a second. 

Senator BROWN. I will tell you what. I was an attorney before I 

came here. I will tell you, this would be—I would have a lot of fun 

with you in a deposition because I don’t feel we are getting the 

straight talk here. 

And let me just, while you are thinking, I will just shoot to you, 

Mr. Higginbotham. I am looking at some of the contractors. We had 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

31 

an OFI Solutions and Alphatech Interactive Design. These are 

digitized records, geographic info systems. One is $1.1 million. The 

contractor was paid but we can’t confirm if it was, in fact, deliverable. On the geographic info system, Interactive Design, $226,000, 

contractor paid. Cannot locate deliverable. Do you have any knowledge of actually whether they delivered what we paid them for yet? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. After consultation with counsel, I will assert 

my Fifth Amendment rights to that question, sir. 

Senator BROWN. OK. Let me then ask another question, because 

I have enjoyed your forthright responses. I am just asking if you 

knew if it was deliverable or not. Were you responsible for signing 

contracts or negotiating them or awarding them in any way? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. After consultation with counsel, I assert my 

Fifth Amendment rights to that question. 

Senator BROWN. Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Let the record reflect that you have availed 

yourself of the privileges afforded you under the Fifth Amendment 

of the Constitution not to give testimony that might incriminate 

you. The Subcommittee respects your constitutional right to decline 

to answer questions on that ground and you are excused. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Metzler, on June 11, the Army at the direction of your replacement established a telephone number for the family members 

to call for any problems concerning a loved one’s remains. Why 

does it take the Army to have to set up a telephone number to find 

problems when this is supposedly something that you had been 

working on for quite a while, identifying and reaching out to the 

families? 

Mr. METZLER. Sir, I would address any issue that was brought 

to my attention. Up to that point, I knew of no family that had any 

concerns at Arlington Cemetery. Every issue that was brought to 

my attention was dealt with immediately. 

Senator BROWN. I can’t ask any more questions, Madam Chairman. I will wait for the next panel. Thanks. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Metzler, was Mr. Higginbotham responsible for the management of the information technology efforts at the Cemetery? 

Mr. METZLER. Yes, ma’am. He was my designated person to work 

on that program. 

Senator COLLINS. Were you aware that at least $200,000 had 

been spent for the development of an Internment Scheduling System Version 2 even though a product had never been developed—— 

Mr. METZLER. I was—— 

Senator COLLINS [continuing]. And delivered? 

Mr. METZLER. I was under the—aware that process was—that 

program was under development. Yes, ma’am. I was aware that 

was almost completed, and it was stopped, and I guess I shouldn’t 

have used the baseball analogy, but that was what I was referring 

to. That program was being updated and had almost been completed when the investigation started, and that stopped everything 

dead in its tracks. 

Senator COLLINS. What is your assessment of the information 

technology contracts that the Cemetery entered into? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

32 

Mr. METZLER. I am not very familiar with that, ma’am. That is 

really the contracting officers’ responsibility. I just have a very general knowledge of it. 

Senator COLLINS. Were you aware that millions of dollars were 

being spent on the IT contracts and yet you were not receiving the 

workable products that you needed? 

Mr. METZLER. I was aware that various contracts had been 

awarded and that elements were being completed, such as the 

scanning of the records, such as the wiring of the Cemetery. One 

point I would make is that prior to 1991, or prior to 2001, excuse 

me, September 11, 2001, the Cemetery was not wired. So we were 

still on dial-up modems and working with T–1 lines. So part of our 

automation effort was to wire the Cemetery and to bring us into 

the Internet. 

Senator COLLINS. Who was the contracting officer for the IT contracts? 

Mr. METZLER. I believe it was split between the Baltimore Corps 

of Engineers and the Army’s Contracting Center for Excellence 

(CCE). 

Senator COLLINS. Were you ultimately responsible for the execution of these contracts, or was that your deputy’s responsibility? 

Who was responsible—— 

Mr. METZLER. The contracting officer is ultimately responsible. 

Senator COLLINS. The contracting officer. 

Mr. METZLER. They are the individuals who sign the contract, 

can authorize payments, modify contracts—— 

Senator COLLINS. Did you ever suggest to the contracting officer 

that perhaps payments should be withheld since you were not getting the deliverable products that had been contracted for? 

Mr. METZLER. I did not make that suggestion. Mr. Higginbotham, 

again, was my representative, and I had trust in him that he was 

working this problem. 

Senator COLLINS. What I am trying to get at is in your opening 

comments, you talked about the amount of money in your budget, 

which did go up considerably over the past decade, was not going 

for staff but rather was going for IT contracts and for construction. 

So as a manager, since you are not happy with the results of the 

IT contract and a lot of the budget increase was going for that purpose, did you alert the Army chain of command that budget priorities were not appropriate and should be changed? 

Mr. METZLER. Well, ma’am, our budget priorities were working 

the Cemetery and the appearance of the Cemetery and what we 

would call the fixed costs, and the majority of our money each year, 

around $25 million, went to what we would call fixed costs—turning on the lights, paying the employees, paying contractors to 

maintain the Cemetery, and repetitive maintenance. We did have 

some increases for construction. Yes, we did have some IT initiatives, also, in several million dollars. To my knowledge, right now, 

there is about somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 million 

unspent in IT money sitting either at the Cemetery right now in 

this year or sitting up at Baltimore and has not been executed. 

Senator COLLINS. Doesn’t that trouble you? You say that you are 

short on personnel, that you had a staffing reduction of 35 percent, 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

33 

and yet you have millions of dollars just sitting there for IT 

projects that have not come to fruition? 

Mr. METZLER. Yes, ma’am, it does bother me, but unfortunately, 

with the inspections that were going on, every initiative was put 

on hold and we could not continue our automation effort. 

Senator COLLINS. We have talked a lot about the fact that the 

Veterans Administration has an Automated Cemetery Management 

System. Why couldn’t that be adapted to Arlington Cemetery? 

Mr. METZLER. Well, we did work on it for 21⁄2 years. We tried it. 

We worked it daily into our scheduling system. And we just kept 

coming up with one flaw after the next. The scheduling was the 

biggest challenge that we had. 

At Arlington Cemetery, we use all five branches of the military 

to assist us in providing military honors. Each branch of service 

have different requirements each day, so they are not always available to Arlington Cemetery. All that information was put into a 

manual system. 

We were now trying to automate that so that when we put in a 

burial request in our system for someone who called in today, that 

it would tell us automatically if an element was available or not 

available for the military to support that funeral. The BOSS system couldn’t accomplish that, and when we asked the VA to try to 

modify that part of the scheduling system, they were reluctant to 

change their system that was supporting 130 cemeteries, to change 

it just for Arlington. And that was the critical element, if you will, 

for Arlington Cemetery, is military honors is what distinguishes 

Arlington from the other services. 

Senator COLLINS. I understand that, but it seems to me that the 

VA’s system, despite its deficiencies, is better than the paper system that you are now using. Do you disagree with that? 

Mr. METZLER. No, ma’am, I do not disagree with you. But we are 

trying to automate our system and that was the process that we 

were going through, through the ISS. 

Senator COLLINS. But why not take the VA’s system, which clearly meets some, although not all, of your needs and then customize 

it for the part that is different between Arlington and the VA 

Cemeteries? 

Mr. METZLER. The VA system was not an Army system. It was 

the VA system. I could not export that system into the Cemetery 

and then modify it. 

Senator COLLINS. Well, given the amount of money that you are 

spending to develop a new system, I have to believe the contractor 

would have been willing to license that system to you. You clearly 

were trying it out, at least. This just sounds like bureaucracy at 

its worst as far as taking a practical approach to the problems. 

Madam Chairman, I know the vote is on and my time has expired, but thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. 

We do have a vote right now, and Mr. Metzler, there are a number of other questions that we have about contracting, but we are 

going to go to the second panel and we will direct those questions 

to you in writing for the record at a separate time. And there are 

not a lot of them left. I think we have covered the ground. I think, 

primarily, the questions that remain are this notion that the BOSS 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

34 

system was not adequate for purposes of locating and memorializing where bodies were located and why a separate scheduling 

system could not have been layered on top of that would have fit 

your needs. 

I will just say that our records show, in preparation for this hearing, that Veterans Affairs says they were more than willing to 

work with you, and we have a specific communication from them 

in writing saying that they were willing to work with you and try 

to do whatever was necessary to make the BOSS system work for 

you. 

Mr. METZLER. Well, ma’am, that is a changing attitude with the 

VA. I personally called their Chief of Technology. I personally 

called their Under Secretary and asked to see if that could have 

been done years ago and they were reluctant to do it at that 

time—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Do you have any documentation of that, Mr. 

Metzler? 

Mr. METZLER. No, ma’am, other than the phone call that I made 

myself. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Well, it would seem that something as 

important as whether or not you are going to embark on a multimillion-dollar purchase because an existing system is not adequate, 

it seems to me that ought to be something that is put in writing. 

It seems to me that is something that should have been worked up 

through the chain of command, the head of Veterans Affairs, the 

Chief of Staff of the Army. 

The notion that the taxpayers had invested in a system that 

works perfectly well for the identification of burial remains, that it 

was not utilized, it seems to me that is more than a phone call. It 

seems to me that is something that needs to at least be memorialized in writing. The fact that it wasn’t, I think, damages your 

credibility in this regard, that there really was an effort to use the 

existing system that is operating without a flaw today while we sit 

here among this mess—in this mess. 

I appreciate your testimony today. I appreciate your appearance 

and I will go ahead and ask the second panel to come to the table 

for testimony. We will go ahead with your opening statements, and 

when my colleague or colleagues get back from the floor, I will 

leave to go cast my vote and then come back to question the panel. 

Let me introduce the second panel as you all take your seats. Mr. 

Edward Harrington is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 

for Procurement. Mr. Harrington is a former senior U.S. Army officer with over 28 years’ experience in weapon and information systems lifecycle acquisition, contracting, contract management, and 

military logistics operations worldwide. 

Claudia Tornblom is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 

for Management and Budget in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, where she has served since 

1987. In this capacity, Ms. Tornblom is responsible for policy direction governing development and implementation of the civil works 

budget and supports the Executive Director of the Army National 

Cemeteries Program, including policy oversight of construction 

projects for future development of Arlington National Cemetery. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

35 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Harrington appears in the appendix on page 67. 

Prior to this position, Ms. Tornblom served at the Office of Management and Budget. 

Kathryn Condon is the recently-appointed Executive Director of 

the Army National Cemeteries Program. As the Executive Director, 

she exercises authority, direction, and control over all aspects of 

the Army National Cemeteries Program. In this capacity, she is responsible for both long-term planning and day-to-day administration and operations of Arlington National Cemetery and the U.S. 

Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery. Ms. Condon has 

held several other military positions, including the Civilian Deputy 

to the Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command. 

Thank you for being here, all of you, and it is the custom of this 

Subcommittee to take testimony under oath, so I would ask you to 

stand. 

Do you swear that the testimony that you will be giving before 

this Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 

but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I do. 

Ms. TORNBLOM. I do. 

Ms. CONDON. I do. 

Senator MCCASKILL. We appreciate you being here and you may 

be seated. 

We will begin with you, Mr. Harrington. We have 5 minutes allotted for each one of your statements. We are welcome to take 

more information into the record. And then we will follow up with 

questions after all three of you have given your opening statements. Mr. Harrington. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD M. HARRINGTON,1 DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (PROCUREMENT), OFFICE 

OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY) 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Madam Chairman, Senator Brown, and Members of the Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I am here today to provide an overview of the U.S. Army’s review 

of contract actions supporting Arlington National Cemetery. Let me 

state at the outset that the Army is fully committed to rapidly correcting the contracting deficiencies at and for the Arlington National Cemetery. 

As the proponent for the Army’s Procurement Management Review Program, I am determined to oversee timely correction of 

these deficiencies, which will ensure that contracting for the Arlington National Cemetery will be conducted in accordance with 

Federal, Defense, and Army acquisition regulations, and in a manner that respects and honors the service and sacrifice of our fallen 

warriors and their loved ones. 

On June 10 of this year, Secretary McHugh issued a directive to 

enhance the operations and oversight of the Army National Cemeteries Program. Based on the Secretary’s guidance, I directed a 

Procurement Management Review to evaluate the full range of contracting activities, from requirements definition through contract 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

36 

close-out. This Procurement Management Review was conducted on 

site at the Arlington National Cemetery, the Corps of Engineers 

Baltimore office, and the Contracting Center of Excellence here in 

Washington, D.C. It focused on the government Purchase Card 

records, Memorandums of Understanding, military interdepartmental purchase requests, interviews with the staff and leadership 

involved in the procurement process, and all available contract documentation. 

This PMR analyzed more than 500 contracts worth approxi- mately $46 million awarded between 2005 and 2010, as required 

by the Secretary’s directive. The Procurement Management Review 

team selected 114 contracts for detailed review. Of these contracts, 

34 construction, IT support, and services contracts awarded by the 

Corps of Engineers Baltimore office represent roughly $34 million 

in value. The remaining contracts, valued at approximately $12 

million, were awarded by the Contracting Center of Excellence for 

supplies and services, including IT, grounds maintenance, facilities, 

construction, and miscellaneous items. 

The U.S. Army Inspector General’s Special Inspection of the Arlington National Cemetery listed a number of deficiencies in contracting procedures and made recommendations based upon those 

deficiencies. The Procurement Management Review substantiated a 

number of findings in these areas that were highlighted in the 

Army IG’s report. 

Madam Chairman, my written statement provides further detail 

about the PMR findings. In summary, from requirements definition 

through contract closeout, there was a general breakdown in sound 

contracting practices, and statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements were not followed. The Army has identified the problems in 

regard to contracting and has initiated corrective actions. My office 

will continue to work closely with the Arlington National Cemetery, 

Contracting Center of Excellence, and Corps of Engineers leadership to ensure these corrective actions address root causes and confirm that these deficiencies will never be repeated. 

The Army will perform a follow-up Procurement Management 

Review early in fiscal year 2011 at all three sites and report the 

status of the corrective actions. Further, the PMR of these sites 

will continue again in fiscal year 2012 and all subsequent yearly 

cycles to make sure proper contracting practices have been ingrained. 

The U.S. Army is committed to excellence in all contracting activities. As Secretary McHugh has testified, the entire Army leadership is unequivocally committed to take every step necessary to 

correct yesterday’s oversights and meet tomorrow’s requirements. 

I request that my written statement be submitted for the record. 

This concludes my statement. I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Harrington. Ms. Tornblom. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

37 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Tornblom appears in the appendix on page 79. 

TESTIMONY OF CLAUDIA L. TORNBLOM,1 DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY (MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET), U.S. ARMY 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Madam Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear to testify before 

this Subcommittee today on matters related to management of Arlington National Cemetery. I am Claudia Tornblom, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Management and Budget in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

Under law and general orders, the Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Works is responsible for policy oversight and supervision of all aspects of the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program. In addition, from 1975 until June 10 of this year, the Assistant Secretary was responsible for overseeing the program and budget of 

Arlington National Cemetery’s account, which was called Army 

Cemeterial Expenses, and funds both Arlington National Cemetery 

and the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery. 

As Deputy for Management and Budget, I advised the Assistant 

Secretary on the general policy framework that guides the formulation, defense, and execution of both the Corps of Engineers civil 

works budget and the Arlington National Cemetery Program and 

budget. This included providing policy guidance from the Secretary, 

from the Executive Office of the President, and from Congress. This 

guidance and decisions regarding the annual budget established 

the standards of service to be maintained by the Cemetery. Dayto-day operational control and responsibility rested with the Cemetery. 

A budget priority over the last decade has been to advocate for 

the Secretary to receive sufficient—sorry, for the Cemetery to receive sufficient resources to carry out Army and administration 

policies. Those policies included improving service to the families of 

the deceased and visitors to the Cemetery, expanding burial capacity to keep the Cemetery available for new interments, and maintaining the grounds and facilities of the Cemetery to high standards of appearance and reliability. 

Historically, the Cemetery’s budget has been formulated, defended, and executed separately from the Army’s military budget 

and program. This longstanding separation developed at least in 

part because Congress provided appropriations for the Cemetery 

from outside the Defense Appropriations Act. 

One of the projects in the Cemetery’s 10-year capital investment 

plan was an automation plan called the Total Cemetery Management System, or TCMS. The goal of TCMS, which has not been realized, was to automate burial records and gravesite records and 

maps to support project and financial management and to aid in 

the management of Cemetery operations, including the scheduling 

of services and ceremonies. 

A critical part of this program you have heard a little bit about 

is called triple-validation. This process was to involve a full review 

of burial records, maps, and actual information engraved on the 

headstones in order to identify and reconcile discrepancies. Although the historical records from 1864 to 1999 were scanned to 

ensure their preservation, the follow-on steps of data entry into a 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

38 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Condon appears in the appendix on page 86. 

retrievable system and validation of the data did not proceed as intended. 

The Army has provided three reports to Congress on the Cemetery Automation Plan in 2005, 2007, and 2010. The 2007 report 

noted that there were discrepancies in burial records, but it did not 

clearly describe the potential scope of that problem. The 2010 report identified a total of $10.3 million as having been spent on 

TCMS and related efforts. However, there are many questions, including my own, about the actual spending on the Cemetery’s automation, and I would say, in retrospect, those reports were overly 

optimistic about what was being accomplished. 

Ms. Condon has most appropriately asked the Army Audit Agency to conduct a full review of the Cemetery’s budget process, including an accounting of the funds spent on TCMS and related activities. 

Madam Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I hold Arlington National Cemetery in the highest regard as the Nation’s premier burial place to honor all of those who served in uniform and 

those who have fallen in defense of their country. I have attended 

funerals at the Cemetery and seen firsthand the dignity and honor 

with which they are carried out. 

Through recent months, I have asked myself repeatedly, what 

might I have done differently that could have changed the outcome 

that is so distressing to all of us and has so disappointed the American people. Despite my best intentions, and, I believe, those of others involved in these matters, our combined efforts fell short of 

what the Army and the Nation expected of us. I deeply regret this. 

Since June 10, my efforts have been directed toward supporting 

the Executive Director of the Army National Cemeteries Program 

as she works to restore the public’s confidence in the Army and in 

Arlington National Cemetery as an iconic symbol of the sacrifices 

of America’s men and women in uniform. 

I thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to report on my 

role in the oversight of Arlington National Cemetery. 

Senator BROWN. [Presiding.] Thank you. Ms. Condon. 

TESTIMONY OF KATHRYN A. CONDON,1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ARMY NATIONAL CEMETERIES PROGRAM, U.S. ARMY 

Ms. CONDON. Madam Chairman, Senator Brown, and Members 

of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My 

name is Kathryn Condon, and on June 10, the Secretary of the 

Army appointed me as the new Executive Director of the Army’s 

National Cemeteries Program. It is now my responsibility to provide the direct leadership and guidance and management for both 

Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home 

National Cemetery. 

I want to start out by stating that all in the Army are deeply 

troubled by Arlington’s dysfunctional management, lack of established policies and procedures, the unhealthy organizational climate, and regret the distress that this has caused our veterans and 

their families. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

39 

From my first day on the job, when the call center was established to answer the concerns of family members regarding their 

loved ones’ remains, to addressing the findings and recommendations for improvements at Arlington outlined in the Department of 

the Army’s Inspector General reports, I have been charged to address and fix these and any other found discrepancies at Arlington. 

It has been my mission, along with the Acting Superintendent, 

Mr. Patrick Hallinan, to actively influence and improve Cemetery 

operations and to restore the faith and confidence of the American 

public in Arlington National Cemetery. Every day, we have been 

establishing new standard operating procedures, ranging from establishing new delegations of authority for fund certification and 

approvals, to developing and implementing new standards for 

marking and updating maps, to the assignment of gravesites, and 

to the proper handling of remains, as well as ensuring the accurate 

layout of interment sections. 

These changes have resulted in immediate improvements to 

Cemetery operations. With each day and with each issue, we are 

seeking ways to continuously improve all aspects of our operations 

at Arlington, to include the instructing and coaching of the staff to 

reach a higher standard of quality to maintain Arlington as our 

Nation’s national shrine. 

In the last 50 days, we have laid to rest nearly 1,000 of our Nation’s finest. You have my promise that I, along with Mr. Hallinan 

and each and every member of Arlington Cemetery, that we will 

provide our family members and our fallen heroes with the honors 

commensurate with their service and sacrifice. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions, and I would like to 

submit my written statement for the record. 

Senator BROWN. So noted. There will be no objections, but we 

will take it up again when the Chairman gets here so she can 

make sure it is done properly. 

We might as well just start in. She will be back. Obviously, we 

are in the middle of a vote. 

I know you are new, and I certainly welcome your addition and 

have expectations that you will be able to kind of get a handle on 

everything. Did you all hear the testimony prior, the panel before 

us? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes. 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Yes. 

Ms. CONDON. Yes. 

Senator BROWN. I have to admit, just as I was literally running 

down to vote, I was able to think. I do my best thinking when I 

am running. I just don’t know—I don’t think I got a straight answer, really, or if I got an answer, it seemed to be just whatever, 

and it bothers me greatly. I guess the question to you is the Army 

Inspector General investigation report found the 211 errors in that 

three-section part of Arlington. How confident are you that there 

are no other errors in the remaining part of the Cemetery? 

Ms. CONDON. Senator Brown, in the last 50 days, Mr. Hallinan 

and I have found other map discrepancies in other sections of Arlington National Cemetery. So I am confident that there are probably other map errors that have not been annotated to date. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

40 

Senator BROWN. You heard my conversation back and forth 

about the VA system versus the system at Arlington and the fact 

that they had basically matching systems except for email, mapping, and scheduling. And I understand the ceremonial nature of 

obviously what happens at Arlington. Did you find that—and the 

fact that we paid $10 million for a system that is not really in effect yet. Did you find that troubling, that part of the conversation, 

that we have spent all this money and we don’t have a system in 

place to accurately and properly verify and—— 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, I find that troubling, that we are still using 

paper records at Arlington National Cemetery. 

Senator BROWN. So what is your plan? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, my plan—as you know, the Acting Superintendent, Mr. Pat Hallinan, was on loan for us very graciously 

from the Veterans Administration and what our plan is, we are 

going to look at the Veterans Administration BOSS system as well 

as looking at what we can find from the previous dollars that have 

been spent on the systems that were put on contract earlier. 

Senator BROWN. I know there has been a request and even the 

VFW has stated that it is more important now than ever. It is not 

a question of who operates Arlington, but that they do it properly, 

and they are considering and others are thinking about transferring ownership to the VA. What are your thoughts on that? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, Arlington National Cemetery is both a national 

shrine and a military shrine, and as the previous panel did describe, the honors at Arlington are unique that other cemeteries do 

not have. And personally, sir, the dysfunctional management of the 

past was an Army responsibility and I think the Army should fix 

that and that is what I am here to do. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you for that. The fact that there are ceremonies, obviously, in Arlington that are different than other cemeteries, do you think that was the—in listening, he said, well, the 

flyovers, the ceremonies, all these extra things that we do to bury 

our heroes, that is one of the reasons—it seems as if the main reason we were having all these filing problems and we couldn’t properly color the maps with the crayons. Does that make any sense 

to you? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, frankly, I still, having only been on the job for 

a little less than 2 months, I am going to look at that, but no, that 

doesn’t make sense to me. The scheduling of honors and ceremonies, we could probably work with the BOSS system, and I will 

promise that we will do that— 

Senator BROWN. Thank you. And I know that the major deficiency identified in the Army Inspector General report was the fact 

that Arlington had not been formally inspected since 1997. It was 

supposed to be done every 2 years. Why did the Army fail to follow 

its own regulations in that inspection? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, I do not know why the Army did not—— 

Senator BROWN. If you could maybe dig into it and let us know, 

that would be helpful. 

Ms. CONDON. I will take that one for the record. 

Senator BROWN. Ms. Tornblom, I understand in your role as the 

Deputy Assistant for Management and Budget, you are responsible 

for approving all civil works budgets. Is that accurate? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

41 

Ms. TORNBLOM. For recommending approval to the Assistant Secretary, yes. 

Senator BROWN. For the Total Cemetery Management System, 

the TCMS, and its subcomponents, how did you determine that 

budget estimates submitted by the Arlington National Cemetery 

were, in fact, accurate? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Well, it is clear in retrospect that they were not 

as well-founded as they should have been, and obviously we didn’t 

ask enough questions and we did not require verification and demonstration of all the things we were being told. But I do know that 

one of the main purposes of that program was, as was described 

earlier, the triple-validation program to make sure that there was 

consistency and accuracy among all the records. 

I understood the Chairwoman’s question differently, perhaps, 

than Mr. Metzler did. We did know there were discrepancies and 

that is why the TCMS included the triple-validation program. 

Senator BROWN. But—did Mr. Higginbotham—did he report directly to you on—— 

Ms. TORNBLOM. No, sir. No. 

Senator BROWN. So did you have any knowledge of his involvement with any contracts or contractors or made recommendations 

for contractors to be used or approved by your department? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. No. We had no role in the contracting. I did work 

closely with Mr. Metzler and Mr. Higginbotham as we developed 

the program and then had periodic oversight of its execution, primarily the design and construction program, because that is where 

a lot of the money was in large contracts that the Corps of Engineers was carrying out. 

Senator BROWN. So when you said we should have asked more 

questions, we should have done this, specifically, who and what 

support did you rely on to ultimately make your decisions and not 

take the extra steps to move forward, because as I am noting here, 

when Mr. Higginbotham took the Fifth, I started talking about 

some of these contracts that were paid, but we can’t even confirm 

that these items have been delivered. Is that something that is in 

your purview, or somebody else’s? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. No, sir, it is not. 

Senator BROWN. Whose purview would that be under? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Well, as Ms. Condon has reported and as the 

Secretary has previously testified, oversight of the Cemetery was 

fragmented and no one entity had full visibility of the activities. 

Senator BROWN. So what is going to be done, do you think, in the 

future to kind of make sure that these things don’t happen again? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Well, the Secretary took the initial step of appointing Ms. Condon as the Executive Director and she has full 

support of everyone else in the Army to find out what the real 

problems are and get them solved, and I know she is dedicated to 

doing that and is moving forward. 

Senator BROWN. I know in your discussions with the Subcommittee staff, you stated that in addition to your budget responsibilities over civil works and the two Army Cemeteries, that you 

were managing the programs at three organizations, but not involved in the actual contracting aspect, as you kind of hinted at 

right now. Can you explain in detail what your understanding of 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

42 

what your responsibilities were as a program manager, for example, on the Arlington National Cemetery’s information technology 

systems? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. First, I want to clarify or correct something that 

I did say to the staff. I said I was a program manager, but what 

I was doing was distinguishing that from a project manager, because they were asking me project manager questions. As I left 

that discussion, I realized that I had not answered it correctly, because I am not a program manager, either. I am responsible for 

policy oversight of the Cemetery. The program manager for the IT 

program was Mr. Higginbotham. 

Senator BROWN. Do you think that the IG report—do you agree, 

I should say, with the IG report that the IT decision making at Arlington National Cemetery should have—was left to an untrained 

employee such as Mr. Higginbotham and you think it should have 

been left to somebody who is more knowledgeable about the needs 

and parameters? Do you have any thoughts on that? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Mr. Higginbotham spoke knowledgeably about 

the program and he was understood by most of us to be knowledgeable. I have no knowledge of whether he had the technical expertise or certification that should have been in place. 

Senator BROWN. It is interesting. I noted in some of my papers 

up here in prior testimony from Mr. Metzler saying that he is 

understaffed, he didn’t have the appropriate monies, he has been 

cut, but his budget has gone up dramatically over the years and 

seems like he didn’t fight for any modification of those numbers, 

didn’t come and let us know that there were issues that he was 

concerned about. Knowing that, it is my understanding that the 

Army Audit Agency is now conducting an audit of the money flowing in and out of the Cemetery. 

Before Congress appropriates any more money, we are on a pretty tight budget lately—for obviously the very worthwhile purpose 

of honoring our fallen, what can you do to ensure that independently audited financial statements have been provided to the public 

detailing the revenues and expenses of the Cemetery over the past 

few years? Either one. 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, I will take that question. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. CONDON. What we are doing is our Army Audit Agency is 

doing a complete audit of all of the financials from the past and 

to this fiscal year, as well, because I started the job in the last 

quarter of this fiscal year. So I have put in place and the Army is 

going to conduct audits of the financials of Arlington National Cemetery. 

Senator BROWN. One of the things that I am trying to get my 

hands around, I think everybody up here, you could sense the frustration. So you are a family member of a fallen soldier. You go and 

you go to the burial, obviously, and then you call up your people 

who weren’t able to make it to the funeral and say, yes, Johnny 

is in Section 27, row whatever. Here is where he is at. So by going 

and doing these independent audits and determining and matching 

them, internal maps that they use to bury or rebury, we found, you 

found, and the IG found that there are problems. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

43 

I am trying to get my arms around, so now the fact that we actually know that there is a problem—I get it. There is a problem. I 

am the second new kid here. I am not the bottom anymore, but 

pretty close to it. But I understand that you are new. I understand 

that there are other people who aren’t new and you have a task. 

So one of the things I want to know is what tools and resources 

do you need from me and this Subcommittee and us as a Congress 

so you can address this very serious issue. 

How can we convey—how can I convey to the people back home 

in Massachusetts that, in fact, when those loved ones go to that 

particular plot, that their son or daughter is buried there? So I 

guess my question is, how do they verify? They say they have this 

triple or four-way mechanism to do it. Have they actually had to 

dig up bodies to determine whether they are, in fact, there? Is that 

something that they have done, do you know? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, in my tenure, we have not dug up anything, 

but let me give you an example of what we have done with the 211 

discrepancies that were in the IG report. In part of those discrepancies, the map was marked buried but there were no records that 

anyone was actually buried there. Mr. Hallinan, as the Acting Superintendent, and myself, we directed that we test sites and we 

dug in five locations where there was that error. Each and every 

one of those locations, there was not anyone buried there. So that 

was our sample to make sure that it was truly a map discrepancy 

error. It was a human error. 

We are currently in the process of testing ground-penetrating 

radar, and we are going to use technology. We are at the data collection right now doing one of the three sections and we are determining what we are going to find from ground-penetrating radar. 

If that gives us the results that we need, we will eventually do that 

for the baseline accountability of the entire Cemetery. 

You asked what I need. 

Senator BROWN. Yes. 

Ms. CONDON. The bottom line, sir, is I really need time. 

Senator BROWN. OK. 

Ms. CONDON. I need time to put in the procedures to make sure 

that we validate, that we put in the technology, and right now, I 

can’t tell you that I need more people or I need more money. But 

what I really need right now is time to fix the deficiencies that 

have been identified. 

Senator BROWN. So you need us basically to kind of lay low for 

a little bit and give you some breathing space to kind of figure out 

what the problem is and tackle it? 

Ms. CONDON. Yes, sir. 

Senator BROWN. OK. That is fair. 

I will take one final question and then I will turn it back to the 

Chairman, and they did want to submit their testimony for the 

record and I suggested we wait until you get back. 

The thing that I am having another problem with is the whole 

IT situation and the amount of money that they have spent and we 

really have nothing to show for it. And I guess my question is, who 

was in charge of overseeing them? Like, who was in charge of overseeing Mr. Metzler and Mr. Higginbotham? Was anybody on this 

panel in charge of that? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

44 

Ms. TORNBLOM. In terms of being the official supervisor of Mr. 

Metzler, that was the Commander of the Military District of Washington. In terms—— 

Senator BROWN. But in terms of approving contracts and reviewing these very technical IT contracts, who is responsible for that? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Above Mr. Higginbotham and the contracting officers? 

Senator BROWN. Yes. 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Well, that—— 

Senator BROWN. It seems to me that there has been a—I am trying to find out, I guess, in plain English, where is the breakdown? 

Where is the fact that they are spending upwards of $10 million, 

and at some point a buzzer or a red flag should have either gone 

off or raised that says, what? We have given them $10 million. 

They have 60,000 people in this system that doesn’t work and they 

are misidentifying graves and they don’t know where people are 

and the maps are wrong. I mean, at what point does someone say, 

we have really got to get a handle on this. Who is in charge of 

them? Is there somebody that we can, in fact, bring in again? Is 

it any of you people? I know you are new, but is it any of you guys? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. No, sir—— 

Senator BROWN. I want to go up the food chain, because it is not 

clicking for me. 

Ms. TORNBLOM. If I may speak to that, I think the answer, based 

on what we know now, would be the Army’s Chief Information Officer and the staff under that person. 

Senator BROWN. OK. Hold on a minute, if you would. I would 

suggest that if we want to continue on, we get those folks in here 

if they are the ones responsible. 

Ms. TORNBLOM. No, I am sorry. In the future, they would be responsible. 

Senator BROWN. Well, who was responsible back then, then, 

when those two were in charge? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Well, as we have said, oversight was fragmented. 

We did not have clear oversight of some of the Cemetery’s functions. 

Senator BROWN. Yes, who is ‘‘we’’? Like, who is—— 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Anyone, sir. 

Senator BROWN. Anyone? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Right. 

Senator BROWN. So they didn’t have a boss? They didn’t have 

people that they reported to that approved these contracts? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. I think the problem is they had too many bosses. 

They had too many bosses, sir. That was the problem. 

If I might say a little more, in the development of the TCMS, we 

worked, as Mr. Metzler said, for a couple of years with the Office 

of Management and Budget, not just the budget side, but their Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, whom we understood, 

and I still understand to have some expertise in IT matters. It is 

clear now we relied too much on their involvement in the discussions, because they weren’t really, I think, in a position to identify 

these technical problems. 

One of the things that I would do different in retrospect, and I 

did, is I would have called in the Army IT experts. But it wasn’t 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

45 

until over a year ago, a little over a year ago when these inspections began that it became clear to me how bad the situation was. 

Senator BROWN. Madam Chairman, I have asked a whole host of 

questions and I hope we can maybe, in your inquiry, we can find 

out, like, the next level, because I seem to be kind of getting the 

old ‘‘boogie-woogie’’ here, the old, no one is in charge, or too many 

people are in charge. Someone is in charge. I am in the military. 

I know who my commander is. I know who is in charge. 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, I know who is in charge today. 

Senator BROWN. I know you do. Thank you. And I have more 

confidence that you are here, and I appreciate it, because there is 

going to be a lot of pressure on you to deliver. And like I said, 

whatever you need from the Chairman and me and our colleagues, 

we need to know, because there was a clear breakdown of communication. It was, like, oh, let us just hide it. They won’t know about 

it. Well, we know about it and now we are embarrassed. The whole 

country is embarrassed. It is embarrassing. 

So, Madam Chairman, with that, I have to head off to another 

hearing. 

Senator MCCASKILL. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

Senator BROWN. But thank you for your leadership on this. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Senator Brown. 

Mr. Harrington, let me start with you. I am a little worried we 

haven’t received the report. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Ma’am, I apologize—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Where is the report? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. The report is on its way to you right now, 

ma’am. It should be here right now. I apologize if it has been delayed, but it was on its way when I left my office this morning. 

Senator MCCASKILL. This is a report that Secretary McHugh ordered you to prepare, to conduct a review of all the contracts 

awarded at Arlington National Cemetery. It would have been great 

if we would have had it. We do have briefing slides that you prepared, so to the extent that I have had an opportunity to review 

those briefing slides, I want to talk about a couple of things that 

I know will be in the report when we eventually see it. 

One is a fact that I find astonishing, that the National Capital 

Region Contracting Center couldn’t locate more than half of the 

contract files that your team requested. So we know there were no 

(CORs), contracting officer representatives. We know that there 

was no one with direct line command responsibility for these contracts. We know that the person who was entering into the contracts was the same person overseeing the contracts, who was the 

same one deciding about the contracts, who was basically submitting these contracts no questions asked and they were getting approved. And now we find that half of the contracts, you can’t even 

locate the physical contracts. 

Can I get a response from you about that, Mr. Harrington, 

and—— 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Absolutely, ma’am. That is inexcusable. I have 

no excuse to offer you on that. That is absolutely shoddy contracting practice. It reflects all the way up the contracting chain, 

to include me. All I can express to you, ma’am, is that we have a 

series of corrective actions in process right now and we are going 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

46 

to do all we can as soon as we can, starting about 3 weeks ago, 

to not let that happen any further. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Ms. Tornblom, unfortunately, I don’t want 

my questions to be confrontational to you, but you are the only one 

at the table that could have had an opportunity—— 

Ms. TORNBLOM. That is correct. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. Had you asserted it, to bring 

some sanity to this contracting process that was clearly not working. Could you explain how Mr. Higginbotham was allowed to define requirements, select contractors, provide quality assurance 

evaluations, and certify that they were getting what was paid for, 

I mean, that one person was doing all of those things? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. I did not know and have not seen data today to 

actually verify that was the case. Mr. Higginbotham was, as I said 

earlier, the program manager for the IT effort. He was not the contracting officer, and—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Who was the contracting officer? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Well, it depends on whether the Corps of Engineers or the Center for Contracting Excellence was handling the 

contract. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So—— 

Ms. TORNBLOM. The contracting officer would have been in one 

of those organizations. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So in some instances, it would have been in 

your organization? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. No. I am in the Office of the Assistant Secretary. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So do you to this day know who the 

contracting officers were on these contracts? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. I do on some of them because I have been in 

meetings where it was discussed. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, he was really operating as the contract officer, though. Nobody else was touching these things. 

Ms. TORNBLOM. I understand he was operating as a contracting 

officer’s representative, which is probably, ma’am, what you meant. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That is exactly what I meant. He was operating as a COR, even though he was also the one who defined the 

requirements, selected the contractors, decided that no bids were 

necessary. 

Ms. TORNBLOM. He did not select the contractors. I understand, 

however, that he did make some recommendations to the Baltimore 

District on selection of some small business contractors. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Are you ever aware of a time that the contractor that he recommended did not get the work? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. After the fact, I have learned that. I did not 

know at the time. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So it is a fact, for the record, that there 

was never a recommendation that he made for who should get a 

contract that wasn’t accepted without question? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. I do not know the answer to that question, 

ma’am. It is not something that I was or am now knowledgeable 

about. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Way back when, there was someone 

at—back in 2003 and 2004, there was a man by the name of Rory 

Smith—— 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

47 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. That was really in charge of 

the budget and had up until that point in time been the point of 

contact at Arlington National Cemetery for the budget. Am I correct? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And he got very frustrated at what he saw 

was a failure to perform and contracting processes that didn’t comply with Army regulations, didn’t comply with OMB regulations, 

and he tried to speak out. Are you aware of what happened to him 

after he spoke out? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. I am aware that he retired. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Are you aware that he was reprimanded 

and suspended—— 

Ms. TORNBLOM. After the fact, I learned that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And you brought him up, without name, in 

an email to OMB—— 

Ms. TORNBLOM. I am sorry? 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. And I would like to place into 

the record an email dated the April 22, 2004, an e-mail you sent 

to Bill McQuaid at OMB, subject, ‘‘ANC Automation.’’ ‘‘Bill, as we 

prepare for Tuesday’s meeting with OMB and VA on the subject, 

I feel the need to let you know my views on some of this. I have 

been shocked by the pejorative language you have been using, at 

least in discussions with my staff, when discussing Arlington National Cemetery’s automation efforts. Please be aware that I will 

respond if I hear words like ‘disaster,’ ‘stunned,’ ‘throwing money 

at contractors,’ or ‘no product to show for it.’ Recall that you and 

others at OMB have been briefed in the past on ANC’s automation 

activities, and as I recall, OMB’s automation expert then praised 

ANC for the job they were doing. We have listened and responded 

to past guidance on this subject. I believe you have been influenced 

inappropriately by one disgruntled ANC employee who is trying to 

stir up controversy to retaliate against ANC managers who he has 

disagreements. OMB needs to remain aloof from such internal personal matters. There is a long history here that I do not intend to 

put in writing. We welcome OMB’s interest in the Cemetery and 

looking forward to how you think we can improve the Cemetery’s 

automation efforts. Enough said. Claudia.’’ 

So disaster, stunned, throwing money at contractors, no product 

to show for it, right on the money. 

Ms. TORNBLOM. It is clear now that Mr. Smith was correct about 

those things. If you read that message carefully, you will see that 

I was ask—I was telling Mr. McQuaid to stop haranguing my staff 

with inflammatory language. That message was not intended to 

deal with the substance of the issues. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, but you go on to say that OMB has 

said that—that you praised the job they are doing. You are basically saying—I mean, I think the context is clear if you read the 

entire email, Ms. Tornblom. You are basically saying, get off our 

back. You said it was OK. We don’t want to hear that it is not 

working. We don’t want to hear that you are stunned. We don’t 

want to hear that it looks like you are throwing money and not getH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

48 

ting anything in return. And that is exactly what was going on. Did 

you ever sit down and talk to Mr. Smith yourself? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Mr. Smith and I had a professional working relationship. We interacted regularly over a period of many years. We 

had many discussions on different aspects of the Cemetery’s program. We did not always agree. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Did he tell you that nothing was getting 

done on these hundreds and thousands of dollars that were going 

out the door? I mean, clearly, he was trying to get someone’s attention. It is not like somebody like Mr. Smith to jump the chain. Everybody knows what happens in the military when you jump the 

chain. He was jumping the chain, and the reason he was jumping 

the chain is he saw firsthand what was going on, and for some reason, nobody would listen to him. And here we are, 7 years later, 

and he was right spot on. I am stunned. It is a disaster. We were 

throwing money at contractors. And we absolutely have no product 

to show for it. 

But looking back on it, would you have handled it differently 

now, knowing what you know, Ms. Tornblom. 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Knowing what I know now, absolutely, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And how can we be sure that this is not 

happening somewhere else? Is there someone else out there in government that is trying not to be a whistleblower and go to the 

press, that is trying to get the attention of the people who are in 

a position to do something about this? You were in a position to 

do something. And what did he get? He got suspended and reprimanded. 

Ms. TORNBLOM. I had no role in that, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, it is—— 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Nor no knowledge until after the fact. 

Senator MCCASKILL. This is one nugget out of a long scenario of 

catastrophic incompetence. I mean, this is just one nugget. But it 

is one that you intersected with, and in fairness, I thought that you 

should have an opportunity to look at this in context and exactly 

say, now if this were to happen today, if OMB were to say to you 

for some area that you are supervising—even though you didn’t 

have complete supervision, you had partial supervision—if OMB 

were to use these kinds of language with you today, how would you 

handle it differently? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. If Mr. Smith had come to me and said, I have 

evidence that contracts are being mismanaged and that records are 

not being kept and that, basically, Army regulations are being violated, I would have acted. Nothing that clear was ever said to me. 

I expect the people I work with to follow Army regulations and 

policies, whether it is contracting, financial management, human 

resources, or in some other field. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So you assumed that Mr. Metzler and Mr. 

Higginbotham were following policy and that Mr. Smith was just 

going rogue? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. I have records of a number of conversations with 

Mr. Smith about things that he was unhappy with that Mr. 

Higginbotham was doing. In some cases, I agreed with Mr. Smith 

and supported him and took action almost immediately. In other 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

49 

cases, I looked into it and found out some facts and ended up disagreeing with him. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Was there ever a time that you lost confidence in the leadership at the Arlington National Cemetery? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. Over the last year, yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. But before that, you had no problem with 

the leadership there? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. There are always issues, ma’am. There are always disagreements and issues. 

Senator MCCASKILL. But you didn’t think they rose to the level 

of you getting out of your niche and trying to grab people by the 

neckties or by the cardigan sweaters or whatever you have to grab 

them by and say, we have to sit down. We have a real problem at 

Arlington. 

Ms. TORNBLOM. I was not aware of most of the things that—any 

of the things that have been revealed over the last year in the 

media, except that I knew, as we all knew, that there were problems with the burial records. I understood those to be primarily 

historical problems and paperwork issues until the revelations of 

the last year. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And how did you become aware of burial 

problems? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. I believe the first one I became aware of was 

when Salon.com released a story about a grave in Section 68 

where—that did not have a marker appropriately. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So you first became aware by someone 

at the Cemetery informing someone in the media? 

Ms. TORNBLOM. That is correct. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Mr. Harrington, when I reviewed the 

slides, and this is also for you, Ms. Condon, it is clear to me—I am 

putting my auditor hat on now—that there is a whole lot about the 

BOSS system that can easily be transferred over to Arlington National Cemetery. The notion that you can’t use an underlying successful system for keeping track of gravesites because it doesn’t include the kind of scheduling needs you have is one of those that 

kind of go, well, that is fixable. I mean, with all due respect, what 

we are asking to automate here is not complicated. 

I look at the kind of IT systems, Mr. Harrington, that you have 

responsibility over. I look at what we can do in our Army, whether 

it is the utilization of drones, whether it is the identification of very 

complex cost points. I look at the capability we have within the 

Army, and then I look at this and it is, frankly, jaw-dropping that 

we are actually messing around and saying that we have to go create a new system after we have spent all this money. 

And what worried me about your slides, Mr. Harrington, it appeared to me that we are going down that road instead of going, 

wait a minute. We should have adopted BOSS in the first place. 

We should have made sure that we utilized a system that had already been developed by government employees without excessive 

contractor costs, that was working, and I guess what I need to hear 

from you is that Arlington National Cemetery is going to use 

BOSS. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Ma’am—— 

Ms. CONDON. Excuse me. Could I take that question? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

50 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, you may, and we will let Mr. Harrington add anything to it. 

Ms. CONDON. Senator Brown asked me a similar question when 

you were—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Gone. 

Ms. CONDON [continuing]. Out to vote. As Mr. Pat Hallinan from 

the Veterans Administration is the Acting Superintendent with me. 

He is my partner—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Correct. 

Ms. CONDON [continuing]. To fix Arlington. And, one of the 

things that—I have a dedicated, an IT review, as well, and one of 

the things we are looking at is the BOSS system from VA because 

it works from VA. In having Mr. Hallinan’s expertise of running all 

120 cemeteries before he was the Acting Superintendent, we are 

going to look at the BOSS system as can we modify that, as well 

as looking at what was done in previous contracts and to see if 

there were some deliverables that we can also use in that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Mr. Harrington, the slides gave me the impression that you were going to continue down the road of developing—and maybe I just misread the slides, because your guys’ 

Power Point slides don’t speak English. They are acronym-heavy 

and they are very much in the language of, I call it Pentagonese. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And so—but from what I could tell from 

looking at the slides, since I haven’t seen the report, it looked like 

you were headed down a road of developing completely new software for Arlington National Cemetery. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Well, Madam Chairman, I will tell you that we 

are assessing that right now. We have been meeting with Ms. 

Condon and her staff. If we have contract actions that are continuing that are inappropriate, we will stop them. The leadership 

in the Contracting Center of Excellence, the leadership in the 

Corps of Engineers, we have had the meetings with Ms. Condon so 

that those functional requirements that are unique to Arlington 

National Cemetery that can be implemented in the VA system are 

recognized. So our intent is to continue to assess those contract actions. 

And frankly, ma’am, the contracting community had a role to 

play in this all the way through and we think we need to be more 

disciplined in our interactions with the requirements generation individuals—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. 

Mr. HARRINGTON [continuing]. So that we help alert and raise 

the red flag when we see an action that is being taken that really 

seems to have no end to it. 

So that is our role, ma’am. We will continue to engage, and we 

have worked with Ms. Condon and her staff, with the Contracting 

Center of Excellence and the Corps of Engineers, and we will look, 

and Ms. Condon, I know, has already established a policy that 

those two activities will be the primary contracting activities, and 

were there any other requirements surfacing, then it would take 

her waiver to exercise a contract action in another location. So we 

think we have the focus on the right two activities and those conH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

51 

tracts that are in force right now that do not need to be continued, 

we will stop those. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Are there any other orphans out there besides Arlington National Cemetery? Clearly, what had happened 

here—I think Secretary McHugh basically testified to this—that it 

was a satellite, and because it had multiple reports, no one took 

full ownership. And if you don’t have full ownership, then you can’t 

take full blame if it goes badly. Therefore, you are not so motivated. 

I mean, I am not casting aspersions toward you, Ms. Tornblom, 

but it is very hard for me to be completely mad at you because 

there are four or five other people that could easily have done the 

same thing I asked that you would have done. And because there 

wasn’t one person whose head was going to roll, nobody’s heads 

roll. It is the old finger pointing. 

Are there any other orphans out there that you are aware of that 

don’t have a direct report, that there is not going to be somebody 

who will be blamed if this kind of gross mismanagement were to 

occur another place in the Army? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Madam Chairman, I am not aware, but I 

would say to you that I am sure we will happen upon them. It is 

incumbent upon us in our effort to expand our procurement management review process to assess those types of occurrences and 

then to stop them as immediately as we can and to ensure that the 

procurement chain, the contracting chain, which mirrors the command chain, is robust and understands its obligations statutorily 

to ensure this process is autonomous and pure. 

Senator MCCASKILL. It is my understanding that the Criminal 

Investigations Division of the Army is examining this. Is that correct, Mr. Harrington? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. It is my understanding to that, also, Madam 

Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And that there have been numerous allegations—unfounded at this point, I can’t say that there has been documented proof—but there are allegations out there of fraud. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes, there are, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So we have the whole bouquet. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. We have waste. We have abuse. And we 

have fraud. We have the trifecta. And we have it concerning a national treasure and that is very, very unfortunate. 

After we review the report, we will get back with you, Mr. Harrington—— 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. About the contracting deficiencies. I certainly would encourage you, to whatever extent you 

can prevail upon Army leadership, and frankly, this is something 

I need to take up with Secretary Gates, there needs to be a look 

around to see if there are any other Arlington National Cemetery 

scandals that could be hiding in a corner where there isn’t clear 

line of command, there isn’t clear line of authority, there is not 

clear line of accountability, and there is contracting gone wild. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

52 

Senator MCCASKILL. In fact, I think you can use this as a textbook to teach contracting people about the worst case scenario. 

Every document I would turn as I would read this, I would say, you 

have to be kidding me. And then I would turn another document 

and I would say, you have to be kidding me, especially for how long 

it went on. I don’t think they were as forthcoming as they should 

have been, if they knew these problems were serious and significant for a long period of time. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Is there anything else that any of you would 

like to add for the record that you haven’t been asked by either 

Senator Brown or myself? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. No, Madam Chairman, not from me. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Ms. Tornblom. 

Ms. TORNBLOM. No. 

Ms. CONDON. Ma’am, as of June 10, you have your one individual—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. I know I do, and I am looking at her. 

Ms. CONDON [continuing]. Who is responsible, and you are looking at her. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And you have direct report to the Secretary. 

Ms. CONDON. I have direct report to the Secretary of the Army, 

and I will, any questions that this Subcommittee has, I will come 

back with progress reports. But as Senator Brown asked me what 

I needed from Congress, and what I really need, ma’am, is time. 

I need time to fix the deficiencies that we have found and any that 

I may find from now. So you have my promise that I will come 

back. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, we will give you time, but we don’t 

want it to get slowed down by bureaucratic nonsense—— 

Ms. CONDON. You have my promise that will not happen. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And now I just want you to know, Ms. 

Condon, I am feeling old, because I feel like in some ways I have 

been here 10 minutes, but this is the second time I have run into 

you—— 

Ms. CONDON. Yes, ma’am, it is. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. Because when I first arrived, I 

was trying to figure out how Army Materiel Command at Belvoir 

could be a temporary building, and I remember traveling out there 

somewhat unannounced to check out that very large permanent 

temporary building, and I recall that you were the one that had to 

answer very difficult questions from me at that point. 

Ms. CONDON. Mm-hmm. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Are you getting the short straw every time? 

Are they telling you that you have to go have Senator McCaskill 

yell at you? Is that what is happening? [Laughter.] 

Ms. CONDON. Ma’am, I wanted to know if my mother called you 

ahead of time. 

Senator MCCASKILL. There you go. 

Ms. CONDON. Because she has the same questions. [Laughter.] 

Senator MCCASKILL. There you go. 

I appreciate all of you being here today. We will have more questions for the record. We will stay on this. We have more information that we continue to gather, and we probably have other witH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

53 

nesses that we may call in before this is said and done. Please keep 

us posted on the progress. 

Ms. CONDON. Will do, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I particularly would like to know section by 

section in the Cemetery when you are assured that you have identified all the mistakes that exist. There is no way, frankly, there 

is no way that Mr. Metzler’s assertion that we know the problems 

that are there is true. I think you would—wouldn’t you acknowledge that? 

Ms. CONDON. Ma’am, Senator Brown asked me that same question and we have found other map discrepancies, in the tenure that 

I have been there. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So as you clear sections and you feel confident that the problems that exist there, we would like to be apprised of that progress as it occurs. 

Ms. CONDON. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Thank you all. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(55) 

A P P E N D I X 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.001
56 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.002
57 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.003
58 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.004
59 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.005
60 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.006
61 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.007
62 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.008
63 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.009
64 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.010
65 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.011
66 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.012
67 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.013
68 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.014
69 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.015
70 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.016
71 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.017
72 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.018
73 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.019
74 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.020
75 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.021
76 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.022
77 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.023
78 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.024
79 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.025
80 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.026
81 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.027
82 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.028
83 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.029
84 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.030
85 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.031
86 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.063
87 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.064
88 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.065
89 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.066
90 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.067
91 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.068
92 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.036
93 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.037
94 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.038
95 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.039
96 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.040
97 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.041
98 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.042
99 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.043
100 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.044
101 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.045
102 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.046
103 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.047
104 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.048
105 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.049
106 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.050
107 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.051
108 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.052
109 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.053
110 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.054
111 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.055
112 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.056
113 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.057
114 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.058
115 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.059
116 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.069
117 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.070
118 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.071
119 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.072
120 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.073
121 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.074
122 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.075
123 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.076
124 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.077
125 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.078
126 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.079
127 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.080
128 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.081
129 

Æ 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58406.082