U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

66–966 2011

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–45] 

ACCOUNTABILITY AT ARLINGTON 

NATIONAL CEMETERY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 14, 2011 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia, Chairman 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

MICHELE PEARCE, Professional Staff Member 

PAUL LEWIS, Professional Staff Member 

FAMID SINHA, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2011 

Page 

HEARING: 

April 14, 2011, Accountability at Arlington National Cemetery ......................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

April 14, 2011 ........................................................................................................... 33 

APRIL 14, 2011 

ACCOUNTABILITY AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Cooper, Hon. Jim, a Representative from Tennessee, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ...................................................... 2 

Wittman, Hon. Rob, a Representative from Virginia, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations ......................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

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

Office of the Secretary of the Army .................................................................... 13 

Hallinan, Patrick K., Superintendent, Arlington National Cemetery ................. 15 

Koch, Col. William C., Jr., USAF (Ret.) ................................................................. 3 

Schneider, Karl F., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Manpower and Reserve Affairs ........................................................................... 16 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Condon, Kathryn A., joint with Patrick K. Hallinan ..................................... 40 

Cooper, Hon. Jim .............................................................................................. 39 

Wittman, Hon. Rob ........................................................................................... 37 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Wittman ..................................................................................................... 51 

(1) 

ACCOUNTABILITY AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL 

CEMETERY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, Washington, DC, Thursday, April 14, 2011. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rob Wittman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROB WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

Mr. WITTMAN. I call to order the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations. 

And today’s hearing is on accountability at Arlington National 

Cemetery. I want to welcome everybody to this hearing on this 

issue about accountability at our national cemetery. 

Preliminarily, I would like to note for the record that the Secretary of the Army and the Army inspector general received invitations to testify at our hearing today, and I was bitterly disappointed to learn that they have decided not to participate. I hope 

this isn’t a reflection of their seriousness concerning this issue. 

Instead of hearing from them, we will be receiving testimony 

from the Army National Cemetery’s program executive director, 

Ms. Kathryn Condon, and the Arlington superintendent, Mr. Patrick Hallinan. I hope, too, today that they are ready for very robust 

and direct questions. 

These officials will address ongoing discrepancies and issues related to the 2010 Army inspector general’s investigation into misconduct at Arlington. I anticipate a number of Members from other 

committees may wish to participate. Therefore, absent any objections, I ask for unanimous consent that they be allowed to participate and also be provided with an opportunity to ask questions. 

Before we get started with testimony, however, I would like to 

share a story with you that highlights why I am absolutely committed to addressing this issue. It is a story about an American 

hero who has dedicated his life to our Nation and to others who 

serve. His name is Paul Bucha. 

In 1970, Army Captain Paul Bucha received the Medal of Honor 

in Vietnam. Captain Bucha distinguished himself by risking his life 

to save the lives of his fellow wounded soldiers. Captain Bucha’s 

story is a reminder of the thousands of other brave men and 

women in our Nation’s military who served quietly and honorably, 

who all too often go unrecognized for their service and sacrifice, 
2 

and who willingly gave up their lives in defense of freedom for all 

of us. 

Mr. Bucha continues his life of service and has spoken on the 

issues that have plagued Arlington. And he has stated, ‘‘There is 

no place in the United States that is as committed to perfection as 

Arlington. And, as a result, no solution to the issues or challenges 

at Arlington can be accepted that strives for something less than 

perfection.’’ 

The guardians of Arlington are the men and women of the old 

guard. It is their self-imposed dedication to perfection, from their 

performance of duty to their lifelong commitment to service, that 

sets them apart. They establish the standard for everyone who 

would pass among them and for those over whom they stand 

guard. 

Those who they protect and guard, those who lay beneath the 

white markers so neatly placed across that hallowed ground have 

a contract with all of us. Their sacrifice on behalf of our Nation was 

perfect in all respects, and it is our responsibility to similarly strive 

for perfection as well. 

There is no question that the Department of the Army recognizes 

the importance of resolving outstanding accountability. However, 

progress toward full restoration and resolution of these issues has 

been unsatisfactory and is in no way commensurate with the service and sacrifice of our fallen heroes. 

Our expectation is that each and every family affected by this 

scandal will have their issues addressed and, hopefully, their faith 

restored as a result of our work here today. Our Nation’s heroes 

deserve better. Today, this committee is demanding better. 

I now turn to the ranking member, Mr. Cooper, for his remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the Appendix on page 37.] 

Mr. Cooper. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COOPER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

TENNESSEE, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In the interest of time, I would like to insert my written statement in the record, but I commend you for holding this hearing. 

I am sorry that we even have to have this hearing. But I am dedicated to working with you to make sure that we solve these problems. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper can be found in the Appendix on page 39.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cooper. I appreciate that. And, 

with that, we are going to begin our first panel of witnesses. 

And before hearing from our Army representatives, we are going 

to hear from Colonel Koch. He has taken time out of his busy 

schedule to travel here from his home in North Carolina to be with 

us and to share his experiences. I can’t think of a better way to 

start the discussion about accountability than to start to hear from 

Colonel Koch. And I appreciate him taking the time. We had a few 

minutes before the hearing to meet and talk and to learn more 

about him and his commitment to our Nation and his family. 
3 

And, with that, Colonel Koch, I am going to turn it over to you 

and ask for you to give us your thoughts, concerns, and ideas about 

the current state of affairs there at Arlington. I know you have 

some personal experience there that I think is very compelling and 

very useful to us as members of this committee. 

So, Colonel Koch. 

STATEMENT OF COL. WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., USAF (RET.) 

Colonel KOCH. Thank you. 

I was going to say, I have good news and bad news. The bad 

news is, I feel like the guy given a last cigarette and ready to be 

blindfolded. The good news is, I don’t notice any of you having any 

rifles, so I think I am pretty safe. And I guess that is going to be 

the only humor I come up with. I guess that is very little humor, 

but at least I guess it is a good start. 

What I would like to talk about is another kind of hero, not a 

military hero, but the wife of these heroes and the wife of all of 

us military folks who are also buried at Arlington. Arlington gives 

us the opportunity to have our wives with us for eternity, and I 

think that is great. 

And this is my wife—excuse the shaking; when you get old, that 

is what happens—and this is her gravesite as it was before August. 

And the back of it has the location, Section 66, 1180. And for many 

years—she died in 2005—I sent flowers to that location. Just to 

show you, in summer and in winter. 

And in June or July of last year, I started reading about some 

problems at Arlington, but none of them seemed to be associated 

with Section 66, so it didn’t bother me. And I guess it should have 

anyway, but it didn’t. 

And, later on, all of a sudden, it started spreading to other sections, and then I started getting concerned. And Arlington Cemetery gave us a number to call, and I called that number. And I 

said, ‘‘I would like to know if my wife is actually buried where you 

say she is, based on what I have been reading.’’ And they took my 

information and they said, ‘‘We will call you back.’’ 

So about a week to 10 days later, they called me back and said, 

‘‘No problem. We checked all our records. Everything is fine.’’ Well, 

that was good. I felt good about that because I had been visiting 

her regularly, and everything was good. 

About a week later, I got a call from an Army officer, saying, ‘‘We 

have a problem.’’ And he explained it this way—and I have here 

a picture of the three gravesites that were affected by this. This is 

my wife’s, this is an Army staff sergeant, and a Navy commander’s 

wife. 

And what he told me was, the wife of the Army staff sergeant 

had had her husband’s gravesite dug up to prove that he was, in 

fact, buried there. And when they dug it up, they found a wooden 

casket; only, he had been buried in a metal casket. And somehow 

they realized that my wife had been buried in a wooden casket. 

And so they went one gravesite over and dug in my wife’s 

gravesite, and it was empty. So they went one gravesite the other 

way, and they found the urn—the woman had been cremated—for 

the wife of the Navy commander. And they dug deeper, and they 

found the staff sergeant’s casket. 
4 

My understanding is that he is now buried somewhere else at 

Arlington. My wife, they left her in the new gravesite and put a 

new headstone on her. And where she was originally supposed to 

be buried, they buried someone else. 

Now, over that almost 5 years, I sent flowers, as you could see, 

I sent wreaths at Christmas. I even took her mother up there so 

she could see her daughter’s gravesite, and all she saw was a headstone and an empty grave. 

So I went from being elated when I was told everything was okay 

to being very, very sad. And maybe ‘‘sad’’ is the wrong word, but 

I was no longer elated. 

And so, what happened next is everything looks the same with 

the headstone; only, now on the back it has ‘‘Section 66, 1181’’ instead of 1180, because she has moved over. 

And I put this one in there because this is the first flowers that 

I sent her and I knew she was there. No longer was I sending flowers to an empty grave. 

And I found a picture, I think in the newspaper, that kind of 

tells the story better than I can. It is, I think, a beautiful picture. 

But if you look, right behind this headstone, the front headstone, 

is where my wife was supposed to have been buried. And you will 

notice there is no headstone back there. She is now over here in 

her new headstone. So it kind of tells a story of what went on at 

Arlington during this time. 

And I guess—I have been interviewed by several news media, 

and I have told the same story. And I was asked, what do I expect 

to get out of this hearing? And I said, I guess two things. And I 

wasn’t going to mention two things, I was only going to mention 

one, but I think I better mention two. 

First of all, I wanted people out there to know that there is a 

problem at Arlington. A lot of people probably read about it, but 

there may still be families out there that are going to visit an 

empty grave or a grave that is supposed to be John Smith and it 

is Mary Jones. And I think that needs to be corrected as best they 

can. 

And the other part is, the people that were in charge that caused 

all this, from my point of view and from what I have been able to 

read, have been given a slap on the wrist. And I don’t want revenge; I want justice. And I think that is the only fair thing that 

we, the people that have been involved in this—and it is not just 

me; there are many others that have been through similar situations—expect from Arlington, the Army, and I guess from the Congress. 

With that, I will take any questions. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Well, thank you, Colonel Koch. We really appreciate you taking the time to share your story with us. It is very 

heart-wrenching to go to Arlington and believe that your wife was 

in one place but she was not. And we appreciate your service to our 

Nation. 

I want to begin by asking you how you felt after you first realized that through the years your wife wasn’t located where she was 

supposed to be and what your feeling was there as far as the trust 

that you had in Arlington and the expectation that you had with 

the folks there at Arlington and how that cemetery is run. 
5 

Colonel KOCH. Well, the first thing, like I say, I was elated because there were no problems. And when I got the second call, I 

think I was in shock at first. And then I guess I was angry. And 

then I got over that, and I said, I think it is time something is 

done. 

The first time I went to Arlington, I was a high school senior. 

And watching or wandering, walking through all those gravesites, 

just, it was awesome. And I have been to some cemeteries in Europe, also, from World War II. If you have ever been to them, it 

is a similar type situation; you get the same feeling. 

But this is in our own country. This is our major national military cemetery. And it is not something we should be putting up 

with. And I guess, having been in the Air Force for 30 years, I am 

not as emotional externally as some people are. And I don’t apologize for that. I just know that, after I found out about this and was 

home, it was harder being home than it was before I found out. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. And let me ask, from your perspective 

today and what you went through in the efforts to resolve this 

problem, do you feel, number one, that you were dealt with fairly 

and that the problem was directly addressed and that it was solved 

in the best way possible? 

And secondly is, do you believe, based on your experience, that 

the folks currently at Arlington have the wherewithal to continue 

to manage that facility the way it needs to be managed? 

Colonel KOCH. Well, for the first question, when we had the burial for my wife, everything went well, everything was perfect, except it was done after some very heavy rain, so we never did get 

to see the casket lowered into the ground, which probably was 

good, but there was—I mean, when you walked on the grass, it was 

‘‘slush, slush, slush,’’ so we never did get to see it buried. And there 

was a little card that had her name on it where she was supposed 

to be buried. Now, whether that was 1180 or 1181, I don’t remember. 

But we were treated well at Arlington. Everything went smoothly. We had an Air Force sort of honor guard of pallbearers. And I 

can’t say anything bad about that whole situation. 

The only thing bad I can say about that process was—not Arlington’s fault, it was the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs]—they 

wouldn’t let me put—my wife was a minister—they wouldn’t let me 

put ‘‘Reverend’’ under her name. And on the new headstone, they 

let me put ‘‘Reverend’’ on it, but they put it under my name. So 

I want you all to know I am not a reverend; my wife was. 

As to what they are doing today, having read some things about 

it, I think they are probably going in the right direction. They have 

a terrific task. I don’t know how they are ever going to go back. 

I think I mentioned to you earlier that the only way I can see to 

solve the problem is do DNA testing on everybody in Arlington, and 

we know that is never going to happen. And it is not something 

that is even, I don’t think, financially possible. 

But how do you know that this person that is in this grave, even 

though it is a one-for-one, grave versus headstone, is the right person? I don’t know how they are ever going to figure that one out. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Colonel Koch, I couldn’t agree with you more. 

That is, I think, something compelling that this nation needs to be 
6 

assured, and that is that there is 100 percent certainty about every 

grave and every set of remains there at Arlington. I think that is 

something that we owe to our men and women in uniform, obviously. 

From your standpoint, do you see that there are more things that 

Arlington can do to restore the trust, not only of the members of 

the military and their families that are buried there, but of the 

American public? 

Colonel KOCH. Well, I think—I think it would be nice if there 

was some way they could maybe notify the families of all the people there that they have had problems, that people should check in, 

make sure that their loved one is there, and see if they can somehow work that out. 

Like I say, if the lady had not had her husband dug up, this isn’t 

something I have been thinking about. And, say, 20 years from now 

I died and they dug up the gravesite to put me in it, expecting my 

wife to be there, and it was empty, what would happen? Would 

they just put me in there and bury it and say, ‘‘Okay, it is all 

done,’’ or would they have gone and checked and found out, ‘‘Okay, 

she is over here’’ and then bury me over there? I don’t have an answer to that, and maybe they can answer that one for you. But that 

is looking out a long time in the future—hopefully, a long time in 

the future. 

But, yeah, I don’t know everything they are doing, so I can’t answer for what the people at Arlington are doing 100 percent right 

or 50 percent right or 25 percent right. 

Mr. WITTMAN. All right. Very good. Thank you, Colonel. I am 

going to turn to the ranking member now, Mr. Cooper. 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Colonel. I 

am grateful for your service to our Nation. I am sorry that you 

have been treated this way. Nobody should have to undergo this. 

And this will probably go down as one of the biggest snafus in the 

history of the U.S. Army, to have allowed Arlington Cemetery, the 

most honored and sacred of places, to be mismanaged in this fashion. 

So we are working on a bipartisan basis to make sure that these 

problems are corrected as quickly as possible. I hope that we can 

get a handle on this immediately, if not sooner. Already, there have 

been years of problems and delays. 

So we just regret the experience that you faced. So if there is 

anything that we can do, we are there for you. Thank you, sir. 

Colonel KOCH. I would say the thing you can do is keep after 

them. Don’t let them stop. Keep after them. Make sure they are 

doing it, just like you are doing today. And don’t let up. 

Now, facetiously, the other—or, earlier today, I met some Air 

Force guys, and they asked me why I was here, and I told them. 

And I also told them, I said, ‘‘If the Air Force were in charge of 

Arlington, this wouldn’t have happened.’’ 

Mr. WITTMAN. Well, Colonel, I think you have my commitment 

and Mr. Cooper’s commitment and the members of the committee’s 

commitment that we will not rest until we have absolute certainty 

of all the remains and identification there and the management of 

Arlington. 

So thank you so much for taking that time to come in. 
7 

Colonel KOCH. Can I say one other thing? Ask the media to keep 

it up also. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Amen. We will definitely do that. Mr. Conaway. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Colonel, thank you for coming in and sharing this 

with us today. 

I don’t have any questions, other than I came in right in, kind 

of, the ‘‘Tinkers to Evers to Chance’’ of what you were doing. Are 

you comfortable your wife is buried where you believe she is buried? Did I understand that? 

Colonel KOCH. I am sorry. I didn’t hear you. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Are you comfortable that your wife is buried 

where you believe she is buried? 

Colonel KOCH. I am probably 98 or 99 percent sure. 

And I will tell you, when they notified me, I called the funeral 

director that handled her burial and her funeral, and I said, you 

know, ‘‘How do you identify bodies, and how does Arlington do it?’’ 

And the man told me that the funeral parlor has to put a little tag 

or something in the casket that has name and date of birth, date 

of death, and all that, and that Arlington puts a little tag on the 

casket externally. 

So I called Arlington and I said, ‘‘Did you find this tag’’—no, I 

said, I was told that this happened. And the answer I got was, ‘‘We 

are doing it now,’’ which implies to me that they were not doing 

it prior to that time, which was—that was probably in August or 

September. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Well, there is no more delicate way to ask this. 

As part of this process, did they determine your wife’s remains 

were in that casket? Did they open it up? 

Colonel KOCH. They did nothing to do that. They just assumed— 

well, they never told me they did anything. But they assumed, because it was a wooden casket. And, apparently, there are not that 

many wooden caskets buried there. And it was in the general area 

of where she was supposed to be. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. 

Colonel KOCH. I don’t have 100 percent proof. Let me put it that 

way. But I kind of feel comfortable that it is okay. But I couldn’t 

say 100 percent. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. Well, and my apologies. I am sorry that 

this happened, as well. I buried a wife also one time, and so I have 

a sense of what you went through, what you have gone through, 

and I am sorry that you were put through that. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Conaway. Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Colonel Koch, thank you so much for your service. 

And I, of course, mean your military service but also your presence 

today. I appreciate receiving your testimony. 

And I guess I want to express to you the gratitude I have for 

some of the real human impact that these complications have created for you and others around the country. 

And I just would like to say, one of the things that I think I will 

be focused on, moving forward, as we try and rectify some of these 

issues, is ensuring that the concerns of our surviving military family members are addressed throughout the process, that we are involving you as we make such important decisions as disinterment, 
8 

reinterment, and we draw on your wisdom and, frankly, your feelings as we try to handle these matters delicately. 

And there are some organizations out there that I have become 

aware of that have provided some thoughts on how we might involve you in the process, moving forward. The Tragedy Assistance 

Program for Survivors has a number of good suggestions, I think. 

And perhaps we can talk about implementing some of those. 

But, really, I just want to say, thank you, sir. You are doing 

great credit to the military services and to our citizenry by your 

presence and testimony here today. God bless you. 

Colonel KOCH. Excuse me. Could I say one thing? 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes, Colonel, please. 

Colonel KOCH. I have to remember. That is the trouble when you 

get old; you forget things faster than you should. Let me think 

about it, and I will—— 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. 

Colonel KOCH. I will think about it. 

Mr. WITTMAN. All right. We will come back to you, I guarantee, 

guarantee. Mr. Rooney. 

Mr. ROONEY. Sir, when you say the people that were responsible 

for the errors—and I am sorry, I came in late. If I could ask a question before I ask a backup question. 

When your wife’s—when you were at the site and you said that 

it was raining and you didn’t actually see the casket go in the 

ground, how did it go from there to not going into the ground 

there? If you could back up and—and I apologize for coming in late, 

and I didn’t hear if you said that in your opening testimony. What 

is your understanding of how there was a mixup? 

Colonel KOCH. I don’t have an answer for that. I don’t know how 

it got mixed up, other than the fact—well, you see, it wasn’t just 

my wife’s that was mixed up; it was also the staff sergeant, it was 

also the Navy commander’s gravesite. So, really, there were three 

gravesites in that one area. 

Mr. ROONEY. Uh-huh. 

Colonel KOCH. So, apparently, some of the worker bees must 

have either not followed the procedures or did something they 

shouldn’t have or didn’t have some supervisor or something there 

to make sure that they did it right. 

But how they got it wrong I don’t know. Because, like I say, 

there was a little card there with her name on it. And the thing 

I didn’t know was whether it was the correct gravesite or not, because we couldn’t even bring the casket up to that location, it was 

so wet. 

Mr. ROONEY. Uh-huh. And, sir, you say in your testimony that 

those that were responsible for this received a slap on the wrist. 

Do you know what that entailed, what was the slap on the wrist? 

Colonel KOCH. My understanding is that they were given letters 

of reprimand, that in the last paragraph, I believe, of the letter of 

reprimand it said, ‘‘This will be taken out of your records when you 

retire.’’ So, in other words, once they retired, it was as if this whole 

situation never occurred. 

Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any— 

I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. All right. Thank you, Mr. Rooney. Mr. Coffman. 
9 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Colonel Koch, 

thank you so much for your service to our country and for your 

willingness to come before this committee. And, again, my apologies for what has occurred to you and your family. 

Help me out here. I understand it was inclement weather, and 

so, because of that, you didn’t see your wife’s casket go into the 

ground. Is it normal procedure in Arlington that in weather conditions where there is not inclement weather that one would observe—that the family would observe the casket going into the 

gravesite? 

Colonel KOCH. I really can’t answer that. I think you should 

ask—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Very well. That will be a question, certainly, that we raise to the staff at Arlington. 

What was the attitude of, in your communications with the staff 

at Arlington, the graves registration staff or whatever they—if 

there is a civilian term for it, I am not familiar with it. What did— 

tell me about the course or the conduct of those communications. 

I mean, were they bureaucratic? Were they sympathetic? How 

would you describe them? 

Colonel KOCH. Certainly, they were sympathetic. When I spoke 

with the funeral director, he said, ‘‘Well, it is probably going to be 

several weeks before we will be able to do the burial.’’ And the 

night that we had the viewing in Raleigh, he came to me and said, 

‘‘It is going to be on the 6th of January,’’ and she had died on the 

20th of December. So it was probably as quick as I would have 

even thought of. 

The man that dealt with us the day of the actual burial was as 

nice as could be. And, like I say, the only complaint I had at that 

point was not with Arlington, it was with the VA and my concerns 

about the headstone. 

And then the burial, itself, as far as it went—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. When you were first notified, the communications 

at the point in time where you realized that there was a problem—— 

Colonel KOCH. Oh. 

Mr. COFFMAN [continuing]. And you had contacted the staff at 

Arlington, tell me about those communications and how they went. 

Colonel KOCH. I went back too far, I think. 

Mr. COFFMAN. No, that is fine. That is fine. 

Colonel KOCH. It was an Army lieutenant colonel. He called me 

up, he left me a message and said something like, ‘‘We’ve got a 

problem’’—no, he said, ‘‘Please call this number,’’ and he gave me 

the number. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Good. 

Colonel KOCH. He didn’t say there was—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. That is good. 

Colonel KOCH. When I called him, he then told me there was a 

problem. He explained it to me exactly. 

And now I remember what I was going to mention to Mr. Young. 

They dug up my wife’s grave, and someone said, ‘‘I thought that 

was illegal, to dig up a grave without permission.’’ And I don’t 

know if that is true or not; they would have to ask the legal people. 

But that was one of the concerns more people had than I did. 
10 

But anyway, everybody that I dealt with in the building where 

they bring the families, everything there was fine, had no problems. They escorted us to our cars, took us out to the gravesite, 

waited for us, went back, showed us how the cars should be set up. 

So I have no complaints about that part of it. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Colonel KOCH. The lieutenant colonel was very nice. He explained it. He did not try to make excuses. He said, here’s the 

facts. And I think that is what I like about the military: They don’t 

try to make excuses; they tell you the facts. If you don’t like the 

facts, tough luck. 

But, yeah, he was—everything, from that point of view, I thought 

was okay, other than the fact that I didn’t like what he was telling 

me. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Sure. 

Colonel KOCH. Not how he was telling me, but what he was telling me. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Mr. YOUNG. Would the gentleman yield just for a moment? 

Mr. COFFMAN. Yes, I yield. 

Mr. YOUNG. Sir, you indicated, just to make sure we have this 

correct here, that your wife’s remains were dug up without any 

consultation with you. Is that correct? 

Colonel KOCH. Not exactly. What it was was they dug up the 

gravesite where she actually was, which was the staff sergeant’s 

gravesite. So they had permission from the wife of the staff sergeant to dig that up. But then they went into where my wife’s 

gravesite was and dug that one up, not knowing whether she was 

there or not until they actually dug and found that she wasn’t. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. I thought I missed something there. I 

appreciate that. Troubling nonetheless. Thank you. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. Mr. Runyan. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for inviting 

me today. 

I know some of the other Members may wonder why I am sitting 

down here, but I am a member of HASC, but I am also chairman 

of the Veterans Committee, Disability Assistance and Memorials. 

And oversight of our veterans cemeteries and Arlington is one of 

my primary issues that I deal with. 

And, Colonel Koch, thank you for your service, and thanks for 

sharing your story with us. 

You know, it was literally my second week in—or my second 

month in office that I had a similar constituent complaint much 

like you had. And I have since been over to Arlington, and it was 

fixed rapidly. 

I think many people on this committee will be comforted in 

knowing I think we are moving in the right direction. And I look 

forward to their testimony. 

And the situation I would like to share with the constituent I 

had. I had a gentleman reach out to my office the 1st of March, 

that his nephew came down to visit his grandfather’s gravesite, 

and there was a different headstone in the gravesite. And it was 

shocking to them. I reached out to Arlington. They fixed the prob-
11 

lem—identified the problem, and it was, obviously, a human error 

issue that had happened when someone had, you know, buried 

their spouse along with them, and it got put in the wrong part of 

the graveyard. But it was fixed. 

So, you know, I look forward—I appreciate the opportunity to be 

here, but I look forward to tackling this, also, on the VA side with 

several more hearings to make sure we are moving in the right direction. Because stories like yours, unfortunately, you know, they 

are not one of a kind. They happen all the time. And that is really 

why we are having this hearing. 

Thank you again for sharing your story with us today. I yield 

back. 

Colonel KOCH. Can I say something? 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes, please. 

Colonel KOCH. The VA cemeteries appear to be run pretty well, 

from what I understand. And maybe they are smaller, maybe they 

are not in such a situation that maybe it is easier to handle. 

But I was going to say, in the military—I was a navigator in 

Vietnam, and we always had checklists. And you would have the 

checklist, and you would check things off. Now, I don’t know if Arlington has a checklist. I hope they do. And it says: Call this person—check, we did it, and initial it, here is who did it; call this person; dig a hole—I mean, a gravesite—sorry about that. But, you 

know, do each step of the process and have somebody sign off on 

it. 

At the end, the last guy signs off and says, ‘‘These are all done.’’ 

Now you know this person is buried at this section, this gravesite, 

everybody has done their part, we don’t have to worry about that 

one, we can check that one off, let’s go on to the next one. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, will you yield for one second? 

Mr. WITTMAN. Please, yes. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Just to let you know, Colonel, that we stole the superintendent to Arlington from the VA, so, yeah. 

Colonel KOCH. That is right. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Runyan. We appreciate your interest in this, appreciate you joining us today. And we look forward 

to making sure that these issues there at Arlington are, indeed, resolved. 

And, Colonel, thank you so much for taking your time today. 

And I do want to offer to the committee members, if anybody has 

any additional questions, now would be the time to pose them. If 

not, then what we will do is move into recess. But I want to open 

the floor again if anybody has any additional questions. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I could? 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colonel Koch, when 

you were told that the identification card, that it was the normal 

procedure to place the identification card in the casket itself—— 

Colonel KOCH. Yes. 

Mr. COFFMAN [continuing]. What was their response again? That 

they just started doing that? Or was it at some point in time after 

your wife had been interred that they started doing that? What 

was the response again? 
12 

Colonel KOCH. Well, the card from the funeral director was apparently—I think the funeral director told me, by law, they have 

to put that inside the casket. The one outside, it sounded as if they 

had—either they had done it for a while and then they stopped, or 

they had never done it even though people thought they were doing 

it. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. Mr. Rooney. 

Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am not going to be able to make it back for the next panel, so 

I just wanted to say, you know—and, Colonel, again, thank you for 

your testimony. 

I think that the thing that gets me, personally, so upset about 

your situation and the situation that Mr. Runyan was talking 

about is, you know, if you go to Arlington and you go to the changing of the guard and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and the 

reverence that we have for soldiers or servicemen that we don’t 

know quite—we are not quite sure who they are, but we have that 

much respect. Or, you know, you see the President last year going 

up to Dover Air Force Base, and the somber mood of those soldiers 

coming home. 

And, yet, we make what could very well just be an honest human 

error. It is just unacceptable, in my mind. And, you know, the fact 

that this country reveres so much the people that died for this 

country, that we would have the kind of honor and pomp and circumstance of the changing of the guard, but, at the same time, we 

are making these kind of mistakes in the same exact place, in the 

same exact venue, is just unconscionable. 

And I am sorry—I am sorry that you had to go through this, you 

know, on behalf of myself and, I am sure, the rest of this body. And 

I am sorry I am not going to be able to be here for the next block. 

But I hope everything, moving forward, will be squared away. 

Colonel KOCH. Yeah, I think we have more than one unknown 

soldier in Arlington now. There may be multiples spread out over 

the whole cemetery, unfortunately. 

Mr. ROONEY. Yeah. Thank you. 

Mr. WITTMAN. All right. Thank you, Colonel Koch. Any other 

questions for the colonel? 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, just very quickly. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes, Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. I am sorry. When was your wife buried again, interred? 

Colonel KOCH. She died on December 20th, and she was buried 

on the 6th of January last—let’s see. She died in 2005 on the 20th 

of December, and she was buried January 6th in 2006. 

Mr. COFFMAN. In the associated graves of the—I think you talked 

about a staff sergeant, and was it a—I think a lieutenant commander or commander’s wife? 

Colonel KOCH. Commander. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Commander’s wife. Do you remember at all when 

they were interred? 

Colonel KOCH. No, I don’t. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Thank you. 
13 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. Colonel Koch, thank you 

again. We really appreciate you spending your time with us. We 

know this is a very difficult situation for you, to come in here and 

share your experience, but it is extraordinarily helpful to us to 

have an experience, a face, a name, a person associated with the 

issues we are dealing with there at Arlington. 

So I deeply, deeply appreciate that. Thank you for taking your 

time coming here from North Carolina and sharing what I know 

is a very personal situation with us. 

Colonel KOCH. Well, thank you for inviting me. 

And I don’t know if anybody saw, but there was a picture up 

there of my wife and I. And that was the last picture ever taken 

of her. There it is. And she was a very beautiful lady, and I still 

miss her. But I have gotten over some of it. You never get over it 

all, but you get over a little bit of it. And I wish she were still here 

and I didn’t have to sit here and talk about her. Thank you all for 

inviting me. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Well, Colonel, thank you. And we will continue to 

keep you and your wife in our thoughts and prayers. We appreciate 

you sharing with us today. 

And, with that, I am going to recess the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee while we go to the floor and vote. And we will 

reconvene 5 minutes after the vote on the floor. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. I call the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations back to order. 

And we will begin with our next panel of witnesses: Ms. Condon, 

Mr. Hallinan, and Mr. Schneider. We welcome you to the committee and look forward to your opening statements. So, Ms. 

Condon, we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF KATHRYN A. CONDON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ARMY NATIONAL CEMETERIES PROGRAM, OFFICE OF THE 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

Ms. CONDON. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide an update 

on Arlington today. 

I am joined today by Mr. Patrick Hallinan, who is the superintendent of Arlington, and Mr. Karl Schneider, who is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and 

Reserve Affairs. 

As the executive director responsible for both the U.S. Soldier 

and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery and Arlington National 

Cemetery, I want you to know that the Army is committed to rendering public honor and recognition through dignified burial services for members of our armed services and their loved ones. 

On behalf of the cemeteries and the Department of the Army, I 

would like to thank Congress for the support they have provided 

over the years. But, in particular, sir, I would like to thank you 

and the Members for the support that you have provided Mr. 

Hallinan and I in our first 10 months on the job. 

As executive director, I report directly to the Secretary of the 

Army. And it is my responsibility now to effectively and efficiently 

develop, operate, manage, and administer both of the cemeteries. 
14 

Mr. Hallinan, as the superintendent, is responsible for the daily operations. 

I know that the past serious mismanagement of Arlington National Cemetery has caused great consternation to the American 

public, to Congress, but most importantly, to our veterans and 

their loved ones. The news reports, combined with the inspector 

general [IG] reports, have shattered the trust in Arlington. 

I am here today to personally tell you that Arlington Cemetery 

has the full support of the Army and we are moving forward to fix 

the problems found by the inspector general. And we will comply 

with the legislative requirements that will continue to correct the 

mistakes of the past while ensuring future strong management, 

oversight, and, most importantly, accountability. 

In less than a year, we have taken several steps to address the 

past issues, including rebuilding the workforce, overhauling the 

automated interment scheduling system, establishing a consolidated call center, implementing a financial management system 

and a procurement system, and employing a new chain of custody 

for procedures that weren’t there before. 

Arlington National Cemetery, as you know, conducts 27 funerals 

a day. We consider it part of our sacred trust to ensure that each 

funeral is executed with utmost dignity and respect. Every funeral 

receives Mr. Hallinan and my full attention to detail. 

Daily operations are critical to maintaining one of the unique 

traditions of Arlington National Cemetery: multiple, simultaneous, 

private gravesite interments with full military honors. Neither the 

importance nor the complexity of this tradition can be overstated. 

To establish accountability while maintaining this tradition, 

standards were developed throughout the operation which didn’t 

exist before. In addition, we have procured new equipment, we are 

training the workforce to implement the standards that have we 

put in place, and we are now holding our supervisors and leaders 

accountable for the operations. 

Arlington National Cemetery is truly about those who have 

served. It provides a means for families, friends, and the country 

to honor our fallen veterans. Hence, customer service is a critical 

priority, because our goal is to help each and every family come to 

closure. 

While we are making progress to date to improve service to our 

veterans and their loved ones, improvements still must continue. 

We firmly believe in continuous process improvement, and we are 

working every day to establish and improve feedback mechanisms 

to increase our understanding of family needs and concerns. 

One of the biggest concerns upon arrival were the paper records 

and the lack of any backup of this information. We have been able 

to recover images from the efforts in 2005 to scan the records that 

were beginning in the Civil War. These images have been integrated with VA’s BOSS [Burial Operation Support System] records 

and our interment schedule records into a searchable database that 

now provides both a digital tool and, more importantly, a backup 

for the vast majority of those authoritative records. This database 

will be expanded and is forming the basis for the accounting effort 

that has been mandated by public law. 
15 

We hope that we can highlight today the actions that we have 

taken to change, and demonstrate the progress that has been and 

continues to be made to restore the Nation’s confidence in Arlington National Cemetery. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. 

[The joint prepared statement of Ms. Condon and Mr. Hallinan 

can be found in the Appendix on page 40.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Ms. Condon. I will offer an opportunity to Mr. Hallinan or Mr. Schneider, if they have any opening 

comments they would like to make. I will take them at this time. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK K. HALLINAN, SUPERINTENDENT, 

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY 

Mr. HALLINAN. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about 

Arlington National Cemetery. 

I was appointed to superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery on October 10, 2010, and I have served as the acting superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery since June 6, 2010. This 

is my first opportunity to speak before Congress. 

Ms. Condon and I started at Arlington National Cemetery on the 

same day. I came over as a subject-matter expert on the detail, at 

the request of the Secretary of the Army and at the direction of the 

Secretary of the VA, to provide assistance with cemetery operations. 

I was formerly the director of field programs for the National 

Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]. 

And, in that capacity, I was responsible for policies, procedures, 

their implementation and development on cemetery operations and 

to provide guidance to all national cemeteries. I also had oversight 

responsibility for 131 national cemeteries, five memorial service 

networks, and helped establish the National Training Academy for 

the National Cemetery Administration. I bring my commitment 

and that expertise to Arlington National Cemetery. 

I began my career, Mr. Chairman, in Federal service as a Marine. Upon my honorable discharge from the Marine Corps, I took 

a position with the National Cemetery Administration as a temporary caretaker. My entire life has been devoted to cemetery operations. As I look back on my 37-year career, I view my appointment 

as superintendent of Arlington to be the high point. 

I am committed to being part of a team that fixes the many problems that we are all aware of and some we may also discover. 

As Ms. Condon mentioned in her testimony, in less than 1 year— 

10 months—we have taken several steps to address the problems. 

We have introduced industry standards, national standards that 

the VA has used at their national cemeteries and other national 

cemeteries and private industry use. We sent our employees out for 

professional training. We are training our employees onsite. We 

have purchased new equipment. We are providing the leadership 

and direction that they need. 

I am personally out on a daily basis, no matter the weather conditions, snow or rain, directing, leading, guiding, coaching, mentoring, holding the supervisors, the team leaders, and the entire 

workforce accountable. I will say that the workforce has responded 
16 

in a positive manner, and I have seen improvement, while I freely 

admit there is much improvement to be made. 

Arlington National Cemetery is hallowed ground. It is the place 

where America’s heroes lie in rest. As a veteran, as the father of 

a Marine, and, most importantly, as a person who has dedicated 

his entire life to service to our military families, I am honored to 

be the superintendent, and I am committed to fix the mistakes of 

the past and restore the public faith and trust in the operations of 

Arlington National Cemetery. 

I thank you for allowing me to be here today. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Hallinan and Ms. Condon 

can be found in the Appendix on page 40.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Schneider. 

STATEMENT OF KARL F. SCHNEIDER, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR MANPOWER AND 

RESERVE AFFAIRS 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have a statement. I am 

here, though, as the Army’s senior career civilian personnelist. I 

have over 30 years of service with experience with both military 

and civilian personnel. And the Secretary of the Army has asked 

me to appear today to answer your questions about the personnel 

actions related to Arlington National Cemetery. 

I am happy to take your questions, sir. 

Mr. WITTMAN. All right. Very good. Well, thank you, members of 

the panel. We appreciate your opening statements. 

And, at this point, we will begin a line of questioning. And I 

want to begin with you, Ms. Condon, and I will move over to Mr. 

Hallinan. 

Full faith and trust in Arlington National Cemetery is, I think, 

critical not just to the men and women that are interred there, but 

to this Nation. It is a symbol of what is right and what is just in 

how we honor the fallen. 

My question is this: We have heard from the Secretary, when he 

testified before the full committee, and his words were he pledged 

to do everything necessary and possible to right the unimaginable 

and unacceptable wrongs that have taken place. That means 100 

percent accountability, 100 percent auditing, to make sure that everything at Arlington, both past and present, is beyond reproach. 

It seems to me that now we learn that the Army doesn’t plan on 

following up with that promise, that there is not going to be 100 

percent certainty in identification of remains, we won’t use every 

means possible to make sure that we take up the concerns of families that may not know with certainty the placement of their loved 

ones there. 

Also, it is clear to me today by both the Secretary and the Army 

inspector general not being here for this hearing that they don’t 

take this very seriously. 

And I am wondering, from your standpoint, I will first ask, is the 

Army really serious about 100 percent accountability and making 

sure that we do everything to assure that there is not a single set 

of remains there that is misidentified, misplaced, and that families 

have full closure on that? 
17 

And is it difficult for you to work under a circumstance where 

you come here—obviously, you are committed—but it doesn’t seem 

like the Secretary or the IG are taking this seriously? It must be 

kind of frustrating for you not to have the people above you taking 

this issue at Arlington seriously. 

And I will look for your comments. 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, I can tell you personally that the entire Army, 

to include the Secretary and the inspector general, do take the 

issues at—— 

Mr. WITTMAN. Ms. Condon, I hate to say this, but words fail in 

this situation. It is obvious that they have something better to do 

today than to make sure that Arlington is beyond reproach with 

how we treat the men and women who have served this Nation. 

What else on their schedule can be more important than that? 

It is obvious that they don’t get it. And I know it is frustrating for 

you to work under those conditions. And words fail. Actions speak 

louder than words. 

Ms. CONDON. And, sir, actions do speak louder than words, and 

you have the commitment of Mr. Hallinan and myself that we truly 

are putting together the steps that need to be taken to do the accountability at Arlington. 

I would like to use the analogy that, when we started in June, 

we were almost—we moved into a house that didn’t have a foundation. There wasn’t an IT infrastructure. There wasn’t the accountability. There wasn’t the standards and procedures. So what we 

have had to do was to build that first. And now we are working 

on the plan to truly move to do the accountability. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Will we be assured that not only going forward 

that we have the accountability, but that accountability will be 

held in context of what has happened in the past? 

I think that is critical for families to have closure and to make 

sure, too, that the wrongs of the past are righted in relation to 

making sure we assure families with 100 percent certainty about 

the identification and the location of their loved ones. 

Ms. CONDON. And, sir, we will work for the accountability from 

June 10th forward, when Mr. Hallinan and I started, and we will 

work on every gravesite in Arlington. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. Mr. Hallinan. 

Mr. HALLINAN. In support of what Ms. Condon has stated, you 

have our commitment, sir, this subcommittee, the families, and the 

American public, that we will correct the problems of the past and 

ensure that, from an operational standpoint and a maintenance 

standpoint, that Arlington is run to the highest standards. 

And, also, we also have a focus on customer service—the need to 

be compassionate, the need to be sympathetic, the need to be understanding—realizing that there are real operational, systemic 

issues that need to be repaired and fixed, but, at the same time, 

do not lose a sense of the families you are dealing with and the 

grief and the trauma they may be going through. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. Mr. Schneider, could you comment 

about the accountability element? Obviously, there have been 

wrongs in the past. Can you update us on where the Army is? Obviously, the inspector general is doing something—hopefully is 
18 

doing something. Maybe he is not; maybe that is why he is not 

here today. 

But maybe you can give us an update on what is going on with 

making sure that folks are held accountable for actions of the past. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And the frustrating thing about that—and I am 

sure it is frustrating for the committee; I know it is frustrating for 

us—is the superintendent and the deputy superintendent, as soon 

as the report—right after the report was delivered to the Secretary, 

retired. And our jurisdiction to take any adverse action against 

them evaporated the day that they retired. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Well, I understand that their retirement was not 

necessarily a voluntary retirement. But, anyway, that being said, 

it is perplexing, I think, to both the committee, subcommittee, and 

the public that a letter of reprimand was in the file, to be removed 

6 months later, and that is the extent of how folks there in the past 

have been held accountable. 

And I would want to know from you, where is the progress with 

the inspector general? We hear that there is an ongoing investigation. Can we expect that to come to a conclusion? Can we expect 

actions from that investigation? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Again, I think what you can expect—yes, I think 

that will be brought to a conclusion, although I haven’t—I don’t 

track the inspector general investigation. 

What I can tell you is, the Secretary has told all of us that he 

expects accountability to be one of our top priorities. And to the extent that the inspector general report identifies either poor performance or misconduct, the Secretary will expect us to ensure that 

accountability is held. 

The frustrating thing, again, is, the way in which the civil service laws work, the tools that we have available to us, especially 

when people are retirement-eligible, once they retire, we have no 

control. We have no control over when they retire; they can retire 

at any time. And, once they are retired, we lose the opportunity to 

do anything more to hold them accountable. 

For example, with the letter of reprimand to the superintendent, 

that was as much as the Secretary could get done before he retired. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Schneider, isn’t it correct, though, that that 

is limited to administrative procedures on folks that retire? If there 

is criminal behavior there, they fall under the criminal statute. So 

that doesn’t exempt them, if they are Senior Executive Service, 

from being prosecuted if they are found to be criminally—— 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Absolutely. 

Mr. WITTMAN [continuing]. A criminal wrongdoing. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And what the Criminal Investigation Command 

does is they coordinate with the U.S. Attorney who has jurisdiction. 

And it is up to the U.S. Attorney, obviously, to decide—if it is a 

civilian. 

Now, if it is military, it is under the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice, and the chain of command can deal with it appropriately. 

But for civilians, it would rest with the U.S. Attorney and, in the 

case of Arlington, probably for the Eastern District of Virginia. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Is the inspector general pursuing all courses of actions concerning past actions there by personnel, both civil and 

criminal? Of course, on the civil side, obviously, that would be the 
19 

administrative element that you speak of, but even on the criminal 

side? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. If they discover criminal activity, they turn it 

over to the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command—— 

Mr. WITTMAN. I guess the question is, are they looking at the potential for criminal activity there? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Sir, I think whenever they find criminal activity, 

they turn it over to the CID. 

And I think they are committed—I guess what would be best to 

do is to get for the record exactly what the Department of the 

Army inspector general is doing in this area, so you can see exactly 

where they are at. 

Mr. WITTMAN. I think that would be nice, Mr. Schneider. We will 

certainly submit some questions in writing. Although, it would 

have been nice for the inspector general to be here today, as I have 

said. Obviously, he doesn’t feel this is very serious, so we will certainly pose some formal questions to him and gauge his seriousness 

with this effort. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WITTMAN. I am going to pursue one other line of questioning, 

and then I am going to turn it over to the other members of the 

committee. 

Normally, if you look at situations throughout other parts of the 

military, there is a certain standard and procedure that folks go 

through. And I know that you all had spoken of the heavy workload that is there and the things that you have to deal with each 

and every day—the number of burials, the maintenance, those 

kinds of things. 

But it seems to be standard practice in other branches of the 

military that, when you have something of this magnitude that 

happens—in this instance, I think, a tragedy, and whether it is a 

plane going down in another branch of the military, whatever— 

normally, those branches have a stand-down. They say, ‘‘Okay, we 

are going to stand things down. We are going to really get down 

to what caused this problem.’’ 

It doesn’t seem like, in this situation, that there has been a 

stand-down, that there has been the direction or the redirection to 

say, ‘‘Not only are we going to make sure that things are happening properly going forward, but we are going to make sure that 

those problems that have happened in the past are taken care of.’’ 

And if you look at stand-down procedures throughout the military, 

that is normally the course of procedure. 

I would like your comments on why, in this situation, there 

doesn’t seem to have been a stand-down that not only addresses 

things going forward—and, like I said, I want to give you all credit 

for the things that are going on going forward, although I still 

think there are things that need to happen there. But what has 

happened with problems that have occurred in the past and how 

we resolve those particular issues? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, if I could, I am very familiar with stand-down 

procedures in the military, and I would like to think that Mr. 

Hallinan and I really did that. In order for us to do all the changes 

that we are making going forward, we had to correct those issues 

in the past. And that is what we have been doing. 
20 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our 

panel for being here today. 

Mr. Hallinan, I am a Marine, too, and I know you understand 

the ethic ‘‘Semper Fidelis.’’ 

For those who are watching this hearing today, the origin of 

‘‘Semper Fidelis,’’ the Marine Corps motto, it speaks to the seriousness with which the Marine Corps regard loyalty to their fellow 

Marines. It extends not just to the living; ‘‘always faithful’’ even extends to those who happen to pass away, those on the battlefield. 

And it is the Marine Corps tradition, even under the most difficult 

of circumstances, to retrieve those who have departed in service to 

our country from the battlefield, even if that requires great danger 

to our fellow soldiers. I think that speaks to the sort of commitment all of us have as a country to those who have departed and 

all of their families. 

In this case, we know we have unmarked and mismarked graves, 

we had the existence of a mass grave, so many other things, that 

it sort of boggles the mind here. And we are working here constructively, I hope, to address these problems. 

I am quite disappointed, as a member of this subcommittee, that 

invitations went out to the Secretary of the Army, the Army inspector general. And I want to say it puts all of you in a very difficult 

position. Because one of the first things a young lieutenant learns 

in the military is you can delegate responsibility but not accountability. So any inadequacies we might discover here today don’t 

just reside with you; ultimately, accountability, we understand, is 

a bit higher in the food chain. And, hopefully, we can speak to the 

IG and the Secretary in due course. 

We can honor the memory by dealing with the grief and trauma, 

as Mr. Hallinan put it, of family members. And what I want to 

most learn about from you is whether you individuals—Mr. 

Hallinan, Ms. Condon, Mr. Schneider—have reached out to each 

and every family that has been impacted by this scandal, and, if 

so, how that has taken place, and any other details that you think 

might be useful to this panel. 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, if I could start. Each and every time that we 

have discovered a discrepancy in Arlington, the first people that we 

do contact are the next of kin. 

Mr. HALLINAN. When we do discover a discrepancy, if there is an 

issue with a gravesite, we are required to contact the next of kin. 

We cannot arbitrarily just go into a person’s gravesite. So we are 

trying to be—we are being transparent. We are contacting the families. 

Mr. YOUNG. And does that involve sending a letter? Through 

what means do you contact the family members? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, we try to contact them via phone so that we 

talk to them, rather than a letter. And if we cannot reach them by 

telephone, we follow up with a letter. 

Mr. YOUNG. And, presumably, we have a log, records of all the 

contacts that have been made and the results of said contact? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, for all the discrepancies, you know, most of 

them have been via telephone and we have been very fortunate to 

be able to contact the next of kin. 
21 

Mr. YOUNG. Is there a further plan of engagement of family 

members moving forward? And, if so, what is that plan? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, one of the things that Mr. Hallinan and I have 

done is we have had a town hall with Gold Star families. And what 

it was, it was our opportunity to have those family members who 

have lost a loved one talk to us about what they would expect the 

new leadership team at Arlington to discuss with them and any 

other family member that is in a situation that we have encountered to date. 

Mr. YOUNG. As someone who holds many town hall meetings, I 

know those are useful, but their reach can sometimes be limited. 

So what sort of participation do you have in these town hall meetings? And what proportion of the overall family universe that has 

been impacted by this tragedy does it touch, your town hall? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, that town hall meeting was put on by TAPS, 

and that was the organization that I think did send a letter to you, 

Congressman. And they were the ones who orchestrated our first 

town hall. 

The means that we are trying to do to reach our families is via 

our Web site. That is one of the means of communication that we 

are using for any issue that we have at the cemetery. And we are 

constantly trying to improve that medium, as well. 

Mr. YOUNG. Now, I know Web sites, many of us check them regularly, especially when they have valuable content. But I know 

many people do not and they are not comfortable with computers, 

perhaps don’t even own them. 

So are you doing other things in addition to updating a Web site 

to keep the family members engaged and fully informed of 

progress? Is there a help line? Is there an intermediary between 

government, which sometimes can be a sterile organization, and 

the impacted families? 

Ms. CONDON. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, on the first day on the 

job when the inspector general hit, we immediately set up a call 

center hotline. And it was a telephone—where members who read 

this in the media could call us. We now have a consolidated call 

center, which is a toll-free number, for anyone who can call in to 

the cemetery. 

That didn’t exist before. Prior to Mr. Hallinan and I and the call 

center, we really couldn’t tell you how many people were trying to 

contact the cemetery, whether for something as simple as directions, to get a parking pass, or if they truly had an issue or if they 

were going to schedule a service for their loved one. 

Right now, we receive over 200 phone calls a day into the cemetery, which 45 of those are for families who are trying to schedule 

services to have their individuals buried. So that is the means that 

we are—the call number, the call center, we answer every call now 

that comes into the cemetery. 

Mr. YOUNG. Can you speak to any specific programs or things 

that you have implemented to ensure continuous improvement of 

engagement and information being passed down to the families? 

For example, surveying them, asking them what sorts of improvements you might make to better inform them of future developments. 
22 

Ms. CONDON. Yes, sir, we are working on that. As I said, we are 

trying to build a foundation. What we really had to do was to even 

build the IT architecture in the cemetery to even have the means 

to put out a survey electronically. But that is one of the future 

plans that we are having. 

Then we are also putting out a new burial guide that truly is a 

guide that will really answer a lot of the questions that individuals 

have that, before, they just didn’t have a place to go, which will 

outline all of the places of how you can contact anyone in the cemetery. 

Mr. YOUNG. And, finally, I am curious about a related matter. I 

know many family members care deeply about the mementos that 

are left at these gravesites, particularly military gravesites. There 

is a real history of that. 

Does Arlington National Cemetery now operate some sort of system for protecting these mementos, properly cataloging them, and 

then allowing family members to access this information in a reliable way? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, the mementos are collected in Section 60, 

which is where most of the current casualties from the wars are. 

And we have our Center for Military History is collecting those mementos and cataloging them. 

And that is one of the long-term plans that is on my plate, to decide how do we, long term, you know, capture those mementos for 

future generations so that we don’t lose that. 

Mr. YOUNG. So that process has not been fully developed as yet, 

is that correct? 

Ms. CONDON. Right. It is still a pilot that we are still collecting 

the mementos and cataloging them. But we have not finalized, you 

know, what we are going to do for the future on that. 

Mr. YOUNG. Do you have a time frame by which you intend to 

implement? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, I don’t have the exact date, but, you know, it 

is something that I will take as a do-out. And I will work with the 

Center of Military History on, you know, what is the best time to 

transition for that. 

Mr. YOUNG. Okay. Well, I will and I know many of my colleagues 

will continue to keep their finger on the pulse of all these different 

lines of inquiry. And I expect you will keep us informed every step 

of the way. 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, we will. 

Mr. YOUNG. All right. Thank you much. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Young. Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I understand we have changed the leadership at the very top. 

But, yet, there were whole echelons of subordinate leadership that 

were complicit in these activities that are still there. I mean, I just 

find that stunning. 

I mean, this is an organization that is rotten to its core. This is 

an organization that has conducted itself really—I think the best 

way to describe it is a culture of incompetence, if not a culture of 

corruption. And if this was a military organization and such an investigation would have occurred, not only would the Uniform Code 

of Justice have been used fairly dramatically, but at all of those 
23 

echelons of subordinate leadership, they would have been relieved. 

They would have been gone. 

You know, I tell you, this organization—and I am a combat veteran, and I can tell you—does not reflect the values of our military. 

They do not honor our military and their sacrifices. And they need 

to go. 

And so I am asking you, what actions are being taken to change 

leadership at every level, to get rid of these people who have done 

these things, and start over again? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, if I may, in fairness to the workforce, they 

weren’t trained to do the job. And I will let Mr. Hallinan follow up 

on that since he is in charge of—they were not trained. 

I will give an example of one of the supervisors who we recently 

sent to the VA training center. It was the first time he was sent 

to training in 20-some years of employment at the cemetery. There 

weren’t standards, there weren’t procedures, and they weren’t held 

accountable. 

The thing that Mr. Hallinan and I are doing is giving each and 

every one of the workforce the tools to do the job correctly—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. So you are saying these things were okay that occurred, basically. You are defending the actions that were taken by 

this workforce, are you not? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, I am not defending the mistakes that were 

made in the past. 

Mr. COFFMAN. But it is really okay what they did, because we 

can just kind of explain it away. Is that what you are saying? 

Ms. CONDON. No, sir, that is not what I am saying. 

Mr. COFFMAN. That is what I am hearing. 

Mr. HALLINAN. Mr. Congressman, may I take part of that question, please? 

Mr. COFFMAN. Please. 

Mr. HALLINAN. It is not okay, and it is not acceptable. If there 

was any criminal wrongdoing, if the IG investigation comes back 

and provides recommendations about incompetence or misconduct—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Oh, we know that is there. Please go ahead. 

Mr. HALLINAN [continuing]. We will address it. A blind eye will 

not be turned. People will be held accountable. 

The employees, as Ms. Condon was speaking to, were not provided leadership. Those of you who are combat veterans and my 

fellow Marine in the back—no leadership, no guidance, no direction, absolutely no training. They are one-person deep out there. 

And it is a very difficult and challenging situation. 

But I can assure you with 100 percent confidence, under our 

watch, if they do not respect and honor the service of our veterans, 

if it is misconduct or if it is a performance issue, it will be addressed. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Well, you referenced the Marine Corps. And I can 

tell you that the leadership that I am seeing here at Arlington 

couldn’t lead starving troops to a chow hall. But that is fundamentally not the issue. You referenced the Marine Corps, and every 

Marine has basic values, understands the basic mission. And what 

you are, in effect, telling me is that these people were so incom-
24 

petent or so poorly led that they didn’t even understand what they 

were supposed to be doing. Is that correct? 

Mr. HALLINAN. What I am saying, Congressman, is we need to 

change that culture. There has been identified a definitive problem. 

No doubt. We all know this. We need to change that culture and 

instill a culture of professionalism and a culture of honoring our 

veterans and caring. And we do that individually and personally by 

setting that standard and providing that leadership. And that is 

what is happening today. 

Mr. COFFMAN. You don’t honor veterans and their families by 

leaving people in place that have disgraced their memory. You get 

rid of them, and you bring in people that have the integrity, without supervision, you know, that certainly can independently perform their job and understand—understand—the sacred nature of 

that ground. Because, obviously, the culture of Arlington today 

does not understand that. And that is a tragedy. 

And I just don’t see—maybe we need another change in leadership at the top, because I don’t think you all get it. I just don’t 

think you get it. I don’t think you get how these families are affected. I just don’t think you get it. That is what I am hearing 

today, is you don’t get it; that you really, fundamentally, at the end 

of the day, don’t care; that you are bureaucrats in place. 

And we need something—we need to honor these veterans. We 

need to honor their families. We need to honor the sacred ground 

of Arlington. And I can tell you, we need leadership that respects 

that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. Mr. Runyan. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank both of you for 

coming here again today. 

Many of my colleagues may not know—I know the chairman 

does—I had a visit out there, as I said, earlier in mid-March. I understand my colleague’s frustration, but I also know that there is 

a reason why these people are here, because of precisely what you 

are very upset about and what we are all frustrated about. 

And just, kind of, touch on that. I think we touched on that when 

I met with you out there. But has there been a dramatic turnover 

in the workforce since you guys took your positions? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, since we have taken over, we have had 15 individuals who have retired or transferred to other positions. 

But we have also, as part of a manpower survey, we were told 

that there were 57 more people that we really needed to run the 

cemetery effectively and efficiently. We have managed to hire 22 

more individuals, we have 24 active recruitments on the street, to 

bring in the new team to run Arlington. 

Mr. RUNYAN. And, of your knowledge, since you were either on 

an interim basis or permanent, has any incident like this happened 

under your watch? 

Mr. HALLINAN. What type of incident, Congressman? Performance issues? 

Mr. RUNYAN. Issues that we would have with burials or loved 

ones being there and noticing things that have been created under 

your watch. 

Mr. HALLINAN. Yes, we have had two incidents of gravesites 

being misassigned. 
25 

Mr. RUNYAN. And that is part of—I know we spoke out there— 

part of your process of setting up these parameters and basically 

trying to go to a digital system to where it is more at your fingertips, there is less paper involved. How is that process going, and 

how quickly are we moving there? 

Because I don’t know if many of the other Members know that 

most of the records out there are basically in a card catalog system, 

and it is basically ancient. 

I know you guys are addressing that, but just fill us in on how 

that procedure is moving forward. 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, that procedure is moving forward. What we are 

doing is—that is part of the accountability that we are doing by the 

public law. What we have to do is we are going to re-scan all of 

our records. We are doing that, tying that to a digital flyover of 

each and every gravesite so that we truly will have a digital process for our recordkeeping at Arlington. 

And if I could go back on the question about the mistakes that 

have happened—and Mr. Hallinan didn’t touch on the burial mistake. The new standards and procedures that we have in place— 

the workforce, when they made that mistake, immediately notified, 

you know, the chain of command that there was a switch in the 

two gravesites. So that the procedures that we are putting in place 

are working, because the workforce, when they made a mistake, 

came forward to the leadership. 

I don’t know if you want to expound on that, Mr. Hallinan. 

Mr. HALLINAN. In the misassignment of the gravesites, what we 

found in the past was that it would not be reported to the leadership. The leadership was not trusted. The leadership was divided. 

And it is all part of the IG report, the inspector general’s report. 

In this instance, they did come to me and said they made a mistake. And even though these procedures we are putting in place are 

new and they have been trained to those procedures, when they 

made the mistake they came forward and let myself personally 

know. I let Ms. Condon know. And we have corrected the mistakes. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you very much. And, you know, with what 

has happened out there, I think you guys are living under a microscope. It is a very ambitious undertaking, and I wish you all the 

best. We have to do this, because it is truly for our heroes. Thank 

you very much for your testimony. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Runyan. Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, first of all, I 

want to thank you for holding this hearing and paying attention to 

this all-important issue of the lapses that took place at Arlington 

and how we get this right. 

I know that the folks at the table are new to their positions, and 

they are charged with trying to make things right. And I want to 

thank you for the work that you are doing. 

I, like many of my colleagues and the American people, were appalled at the lapses that had taken place and how remains were 

not properly handled and the things that—wrong gravesite burials 

and remains in the wrong place. It is totally unacceptable. 

We have an obligation not only to, obviously, support our 

warfighters and, certainly, support our veterans, particularly those 

disabled, but the ultimate sign of respect, of course, is how we treat 
26 

our soldiers at the end of their lives and how their remains are 

properly handled afterwards. So I am grateful that we are paying 

attention to this issue of how we make things right at Arlington. 

I will have several questions for the record, Mr. Chairman. Just 

one question for purposes of this hearing right now. 

First of all, I understand that it is the Army that basically is responsible for Arlington National Cemetery. Around the country, the 

veterans cemeteries, from what I understand, are mainly handled 

by the VA. 

Could you give me the pros and cons of the Army continuing to 

have jurisdiction and oversight and, basically, operational control 

over Arlington National Cemetery versus the VA? What are the 

pros and cons for either method, if we were to transfer jurisdiction 

to the VA? 

Mr. HALLINAN. Being a former VA employee until recently, Congressman, and responsible for those 131 national cemeteries that 

are highly maintained with a dedicated workforce, I do want to say 

that Arlington National Cemetery is currently being operated and 

maintained to those same consistent standards. 

Arlington National Cemetery—and this touches upon something 

the chairman spoke to early in one of his questions—is unique. Can 

we stand down? Is it like an aircraft carrier; should it be taken in 

and dry-docked and overhauled? Unfortunately not an option. We 

have families, 27 interments, burials on a constant basis. 

Arlington is unique. It is one of the busiest national cemeteries 

in the United States, if not the entire world. Arlington National 

Cemetery conducts over 3,000 ceremonies; has dignitaries, heads of 

state from around the world that come pay their respect to America’s fallen service men and women. Arlington also provides graveside service, which VA cemeteries do not. 

And, additionally, Washington, DC, and Arlington National Cemetery is one of the most visited tourist spots in the country. We average over 4 million visitors who come also to learn of the history 

and pay their respects. There is no other VA cemetery like that. 

These complexities are challenging, and they are very real. 

One thing I would like to add for the record is that the families 

that Ms. Condon and I have dealt with—because we do get feedback on a daily basis from the families that come in and out—encourage us. So, through difficult times for them, they are encouraging us to correct and fix the problems. 

But the families we have met and spoke with, and specifically 

the Gold Star parents that we have met with, their feelings on that 

issue, Mr. Congressman—and I was on the defensive as a VA employee at that point—they felt quite passionately and adamantly 

that Arlington should stay under the Army and not become a VA 

national cemetery. 

And lastly—and Ms. Condon can follow up—I believe, based on 

being on the ground and dealing with these issues, that the Army 

has the resources and has the commitment to fix the past mistakes 

and to operate Arlington National Cemetery effectively into the future. 

Ms. CONDON. And, sir, if I can add, the mistakes that happened 

and Arlington being broken, the Army needs to fix it. When things 
27 

are broken in the Army, the Army needs to fix the issues that happened in the past. 

And then, you know, the decision—once it is fixed, then we can 

make the decision on if, you know, Arlington should remain under 

DOD [Department of Defense], which—I agree with Mr. Hallinan, 

because of the uniqueness of all of the things that we do at Arlington, that it should be a DOD-run cemetery. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Very good. Well, I thank you for your answers. 

This committee takes this issue of getting things right at Arlington 

very seriously, as does every Member of Congress. And we are 

going to continue to provide aggressive oversight. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding this hearing, and my colleagues who participated in this hearing, and the 

folks at the table. 

And, as I said, I know you are new in your positions and you are 

charged with getting things right at Arlington, and we look forward 

to continue working with you. As I said, there is no greater sign 

of respect than how we treat our soldiers at the end of their life 

and their final interment, and we want to make sure that we are 

providing the ultimate respect. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Langevin. We appreciate you joining us here at the hearing today. 

I want to do a couple of follow-up questions. First, you talked 

about discrepancies. Have you identified exactly how many discrepancies exist? And is there a plan of action to address those? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, when we do our accountability effort that we 

are mandated by law, when we check all of the records with the 

actual gravesite, that should identify where we may have potential 

discrepancies in the cemetery. When we do that, then we will address each and every one of those discrepancies. And, as we stated 

before, in the first course of action, if we find a discrepancy, is that 

we will contact the families that are involved. 

Mr. WITTMAN. When do you expect to complete that evaluation 

of the entire cemetery to discover the full content and magnitude 

of the discrepancies that exist? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, as you know, we have the public law that says 

I have to do that by December 22nd of this year. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. 

Ms. CONDON. And we are well on our way of putting forward the 

plan and starting the effort to do just that. 

Mr. WITTMAN. So you expect to comply with that by December 

22nd? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, I will—we will do our best to comply by that 

date. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. I would like for you to say that you will accomplish it. 

Ms. CONDON. Yes. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Doing your best is great, but accomplishing it is 

what we all want. 

Ms. CONDON. Got it, sir. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. Thank you. 

I wanted to ask, too, I know that there is obviously a wide scope 

of problems, discrepancies, issues. Have you all contemplated putting together a panel of experts from other areas, such as the VA, 
28 

to do an independent look at the things that you face—the recordkeeping system, the identification of remains, the operational 

issues there? Have you thought about doing that, rather than continuing to do it internally? 

Because it seems like, internally, we continue on a weekly basis 

to learn more and more about the things that are going on there. 

So I am wondering if it may not be time to have an independent 

panel come in and take a look. 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, as you know, we are in the process of nominating for the Arlington Commission. I didn’t realize how, you 

know, putting a FACA commission in, all the requirements to get 

your members nominated and actually on board. 

That was one of the reasons for putting that independent commission together. Secretary McHugh has directed that. And that is 

what we are going to be using the independent commission for, is 

that outside look of the issues at Arlington. And they could recommend other views that they feel that need to be, to make sure 

that Mr. Hallinan and I are doing all that we need to do. 

Mr. WITTMAN. So the independent commission—I want to make 

sure I am clear—the independent commission is going to be looking 

at existing operations. But will they also be looking at discrepancies in the past and what should be done to fix those discrepancies? And then will they also look at the problem operationally 

with conduct of personnel there at Arlington? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, you know, since the commission hasn’t started 

yet—but those are probably very good agenda items that we could 

put on the commission to look at or to recommend, issues that we 

should have, perhaps, other commissions look at. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Is there a date certain for this commission starting its work? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, we are putting together the nomination packages and forwarding them through the process. And I don’t know 

when all of those will be approved and vetted, but we are trying 

our best to get it done within the next several months. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. All right. We would like a little more specificity on that. I think the urgency, obviously, is before us. I think 

the public wants to see things done and, obviously, people there to 

provide that guidance, that independent commission that the Secretary puts in place. I think timeliness is of the essence. So it 

would certainly be, I think, very, very important. 

I want to go back again to Mr. Schneider. I think we cannot understate the efforts that need to be undertaken by the IG in looking 

at all of the past performance there of employees. 

And, again, as more and more of this comes to light, just as Mr. 

Coffman said, it is beyond me that somehow there wasn’t significant wrongdoing. And I don’t want to prejudge people, but I can 

tell you, externally, looking at this, it sure appears to me that 

there was more than just oversight or mistakes being made there, 

that this type of action and behavior, if it is not criminal sure 

seems that way. 

So I want to get a little more definition about where the IG is 

in that investigation, when they hope to come to some kind of conclusion, when we can hope to hear something. 
29 

I hope this isn’t an effort where this is a marathon where the IG 

is just trying to continue to push this into future and hopefully the 

issue will go away. Because I can assure you, from this committee’s 

standpoint, the issue is not going away. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, I think two things. Number one, I think 

we get it that it is not going away and this committee is not going 

to let it go away. 

Secondly, we owe you an answer on where the IG is going and 

when the IG expects to be completed with its work. My belief is the 

IG will take it wherever it goes, and if criminal activity is identified, it will be turned over to the criminal investigators for them 

to work through their process. 

And, again, if it is military people, it would be under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If it is civilians, it would be Title 18 

and handled through the Justice Department and U.S. Attorney’s 

office. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. Well, we can hope to get something definitive out of the IG? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I will go back tonight, and—— 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER [continuing]. This will be number one on my 

agenda. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. Well, we would like to hear from them. 

And we will also be submitting some questions for the record—— 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WITTMAN [continuing]. To the IG and asking that they respond within a short time period. We will put it like that. 

I wanted to follow a little bit further up on Mr. Langevin’s question, because I think it is very, very pertinent to what we are dealing with here. There has been a lot of suggestion—we have had a 

lot of calls from veterans who said, hey, you know, the cemetery 

there may be better run by the VA, for a variety of reasons. And 

I respect Mr. Hallinan’s viewpoint on that, having worked on the 

VA side and come over to the Arlington side. 

But the question always comes up, the Army’s mission is winning 

wars, it is not really running cemeteries. And with the problems 

that have occurred there, the question then becomes, are we better 

off going to the VA, especially with the magnitude of the cemeteries 

that they manage, to look at how do we re-establish faith, how do 

we re-establish trust there at Arlington. 

And I wouldn’t expect anything other than to say, hey, the Army 

can do the job. But I also want, too—I know that professionally 

both of you have seen operations both in the VA and the Army. 

And I know that there, obviously, are some ideas that you are 

going to have that are going to say, keep it in the Army. 

But I do want to get your thoughts about, what strengths do you 

see the VA bringing to the table in the way that they run their facilities? And I want to put that in context to understand what 

might be still lacking there at Arlington. 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, if I could start on that one, first of all, right 

now I think if we were to transition today to the VA, I think the 

turmoil that that would cause at Arlington would probably impact 

our veterans and their families to a great extent. 
30 

I think what we really need to do is, as I stated before, is to put 

together those standards and procedures and fix the issues, and 

then make the determination on where Arlington should go. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. Very good. 

Mr. Hallinan, I know you had elaborated on that, but I don’t 

know if you had any additional comments. 

Mr. HALLINAN. I agree, Mr. Chairman. I think the Army should 

fix the problem. I think we should restore some faith and trust of 

the families. And then that decision can be made by this body or 

another committee or body if that is the correct course of action. 

But I think, for the here and the now, we need to correct and 

we need to move Arlington forward. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. Any other questions? 

Yes, Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Ms. Condon, can you clarify when you said that 

changing from the Army to the Veterans Administration might 

cause turmoil for the veterans and their families? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, because one of the things that Mr. Hallinan 

and I have experienced as we are putting and implementing the 

new changes in standards and procedures and getting the workforce to adapt to the new accountability that we are doing, I think 

if we were to take the workforce that we have now and to put a 

whole new leadership team in there, it would create a turmoil and 

chaos that would impact our veterans and their families and the 

services that we provide at Arlington in a day. 

Mr. COFFMAN. So you actually believe that there is a level of incompetence beyond what has been done? You got to be kidding. 

You can’t be serious about that. I mean, the fact is, the United 

States Army—and God bless it as an organization; I was once a soldier—but it has demonstrated such a level of incompetence in the 

management of Arlington that it needs to step aside and let the 

Veterans Administration come in there and lead and serve the veterans and their families and end this turmoil. And I yield back, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. I want to follow up on 

one additional question also. You talk about making sure that you 

are identifying these issues going forward, making sure you are 

taking care of them, in context of doing 27-plus burials a day. 

My question is this. It seems like, in that context, you would 

want to have a team that does nothing but implement these improvements, taking up these discrepancies. And it is great to say 

we are dealing with 27 burials, but if you are really serious about 

getting this done, are there plans on putting in place an implementation team to say, ‘‘Your job is to do nothing but fix the past 

wrongs, make sure that there is 100 percent certainty in the identification and location of remains, to get the paper system into a digital form.’’ And I know we met several members of the Army there 

that are working on that. 

But my question is, will we have a bifurcated process—day-today operations, implementation—to right past wrongs? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, as a matter of fact, we are putting together a 

task force, headed by a colonel who was a signal officer, to address 

solely the accountability aspect of the cemetery. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. Very good. 
31 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And, sir, one issue I would like to add on—it is 

something we were talking about before—is sharing of information 

and skill with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Maybe we 

should have some Army employees go off and work at VA for a 

while, have some VA employees come. 

And Ms. Condon and I have talked about the need for military 

officers, Army officers, to be assigned at Arlington. And I think it 

gets to something Mr. Coffman was talking about, in terms of, no 

kidding, we need some people. And, gosh, if we could get, you 

know, men and women, officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan to come in and help us make sure we do the right thing, 

I think that would be something that we would want to do. 

So I am going to work with Ms. Condon from the personnel side 

and see that we can’t make that happen. 

Ms. CONDON. And, sir, if I may add to that, when we did the new 

manpower structure, we did add military spaces to our structure. 

And it has truly made all of the difference in how Arlington has 

operated when you really have, as Colonel Koch saw, when you 

have a lieutenant colonel who was actually calling you in his very 

military fashion and telling you that you have an issue. So that has 

truly been one of the improvements that I think is very important 

at Arlington. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. Thank you, Ms. Condon. Mr. Runyan, 

do you have any other questions? 

Mr. RUNYAN. No. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. Well, I want to conclude by thanking the 

witnesses for coming today. We are going to place great attention 

on the efforts there at Arlington. 

I hope that you will pass on to the Secretary and the Army inspector general that we missed having them here today, and we are 

going to continue to place a focus on this issue, again, to make sure 

that there is no question left at Arlington that any family has with 

the location or identification of remains there. I think that is critical. 

And I want to close with a quote from Colonel Koch in his testimony. I think it is very compelling, and I think it is the best way 

to close and to denote the challenges ahead. 

Colonel Koch said this, he said, ‘‘I think we have more than one 

unknown soldier at Arlington now. I think that we want to make 

sure that we go back to only having one Tomb of the Unknown 

there at Arlington.’’ 

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you all so much for joining us 

today. 

I want to remind the committee members that you have 14 days 

by which to submit additional questions that we will submit to the 

Army for their answers. 

And we look forward to having some quick responses to those 

questions as we submit them to you. 

Thank you. And, with that, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 14, 2011 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 14, 2011 

(37) 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

APRIL 14, 2011 

(51) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN 

Mr. WITTMAN. When will the Arlington Commission be up and running? What will 

their agenda specifically be? 

Ms. CONDON. 

• The Army National Cemeteries Advisory Commission Charter was filed on October 11, 2010 and will consist of nine full time members. The Commission will 

maintain balanced membership that includes a cross-section of qualified experts 

on, as well as others having a strong vested interest in, the dignified transfer 

and burial of remains eligible for interment or inurnment in the Army National 

Cemeteries, veteran’s affairs, service member’s entitlements and surviving family matters. 

• Per Department of Defense policy (DoDI 5105.04), Commission member nominations will be handled as confidential until approved by the appointing authority. 

Those who are not currently full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers 

or employees shall be appointed as experts and consultants under the authority 

of 5 U.S.C. § 3109 and shall serve as special government employees. 

• The initial agenda of the Commission will be to establish business protocols and 

practices; receive ethics training; and become acquainted with the overall operation and conditions at Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s’ Home Cemetery. Topics to be addressed as general business will be directed by the Secretary of the Army and Executive Director. Initial topic agenda 

items include: 

o Strategic planning to extend the life of active burials at Arlington National 

Cemetery which includes the Millennium Project and Navy Annex 

o Long term implications of Section 60 Mementos study 

o Repair of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier 

Mr. WITTMAN. What are the details of the inspector general investigation? When 

will it be complete? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. The current, ongoing Department of the Army Inspector General 

(IG) investigation relating to ANC is under review by the Department of Defense 

Inspector General. This investigation is in regards to an incident that occurred in 

2010 where a Service member’s remains were disinterred then reinterred. In addition, the Department of the Army Inspector General provided additional information 

to Criminal Investigation Command (CID) to consider as a part of their currently 

on-going criminal investigation. 

Because this is an ongoing investigation, it is not possible to establish a definitive 

completion date. I will keep the committee appraised of the investigation results as 

the information is made available. 

Æ