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 

58–231 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–169] 

REVIEW OF ARMY INVESTIGATION OF 

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

JUNE 30, 2010 
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

FRANK M. KRATOVIL, JR., Maryland 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

SCOTT MURPHY, New York 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

MARK CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

LEONARD BOSWELL, Iowa 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES K. DJOU, Hawaii 

PAUL ARCANGELI, Staff Director 

MICHAEL HIGGINS, Professional Staff Member 

JOHN CHAPLA, Professional Staff Member 

JAMES WEISS, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2010 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, June 30, 2010, Review of Army Investigation of Arlington National Cemetery .................................................................................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 ...................................................................................... 33 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 2010 

REVIEW OF ARMY INVESTIGATION OF ARLINGTON NATIONAL 

CEMETERY 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ a Representative from California, Ranking 

Member, Committee on Armed Services ............................................................ 2 

Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman, Committee 

on Armed Services ................................................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

McHugh, Hon. John M., Secretary of the Army .................................................... 4 

Whitcomb, Lt. Gen. R. Steven, USA, Army Inspector General, U.S. Army ........ 6 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

McHugh, Hon. John M. .................................................................................... 40 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ .................................................................... 39 

Skelton, Hon. Ike .............................................................................................. 37 

Whitcomb, Lt. Gen. R. Steven ......................................................................... 48 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement of the Reserve Officers Association .............................................. 59 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Courtney ..................................................................................................... 65 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Critz ............................................................................................................ 73 

Mr. Ellsworth .................................................................................................... 72 

Mr. Kissell ......................................................................................................... 73 

Mr. Miller .......................................................................................................... 72 

Mr. Owens ......................................................................................................... 73 

Mr. Reyes .......................................................................................................... 70 

Mr. Thornberry ................................................................................................. 69 

(1) 

REVIEW OF ARMY INVESTIGATION OF ARLINGTON 

NATIONAL CEMETERY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, June 30, 2010. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ike Skelton (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. Our hearing will come to order. 

I have been told we will be having a series of four votes on the 

House floor in the very near future, but Mr. McKeon and I think 

it is best to proceed and go as far as we can. And if our witnesses 

will indulge us while we go over and vote, we will be back as quickly as possible to resume this very important hearing. 

Today our committee receives testimony about the management 

of Arlington National Cemetery (ANC). Our witnesses include the 

Honorable John McHugh, Secretary of the Army; and Lieutenant 

General Steven Whitcomb, Inspector General (IG) of the Army. We 

welcome you both to the Armed Services Committee. 

I am angry, period. Anger is generally not a useful emotion, particularly here on Capitol Hill. However, in light of the recent revelations about the management of Arlington National Cemetery, I 

am just downright angry. 

Arlington Cemetery is our nation’s most hallowed ground. It is 

reserved as the final resting place of our heroic warriors. Management ineptitude and neglect has resulted in a web of errors. How 

in the world could this tragedy be allowed to happen? Behind the 

facade of what appeared to be well-orchestrated burial services, investigations now reveal a dysfunctional management team operating without any oversight. 

We all know people who are buried there, people who we respect, 

and people whose memory we hold dear. My next-door neighbor, 

Bill Hogue, is buried there. Every American, whether they have a 

loved one buried at Arlington or not should be outraged. 

Secretary McHugh, I know you have already done much to right 

this wrong, but I cannot understand how the Army has allowed the 

problem to fester for years. There is clear evidence that in 1992, 

the Army was aware of a level of leadership discord at Arlington 

that would not have been tolerated in any other organization. The 

situation cried out for intervention, but the Army’s response was 

to further withdraw from Arlington Cemetery operations. 
2 

Let me make clear that the uniformed service members who so 

proudly conduct the military honor ceremonies with such grace and 

precision are not part of the problem. We are so proud of these 

young men and women who continue to provide these ceremonies 

during these troubled times at Arlington Cemetery. 

Sadly, notwithstanding the efforts of the Army, the way forward 

offers many difficult challenges. Given the limited nature of the investigation up until now, I am afraid that the 200 irregularities associated with grave sites may be a fraction of the problem. We 

must be prepared that a 100 percent survey of the cemetery and 

all its operations, which I believe must now be undertaken, will 

yield a larger number of problems that must be addressed. 

The American people, and especially our military families, expect 

that those who wear the uniform of this nation and have made the 

ultimate sacrifice are afforded the most utmost respect and dignity 

even after death. They deserve no less. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McKeon, please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary McHugh, General Whitcomb, good morning and welcome. We look forward to your testimony here today. 

The recent revelations about the mismanagement and systematic 

failures at Arlington National Cemetery are both profoundly shocking and heart-wrenching. Arlington National Cemetery is hallowed 

ground, and its sacred hills serve as the final resting place for 

thousands of our nation’s heroes. Families demand, and most importantly deserve, to know that their loved ones are being treated 

with the utmost respect and decorum. To now learn that the Army 

was aware of some of these problems for nearly 20 years and took 

no corrective action is extremely disappointing. 

With that said, I commend Secretary Geren and Secretary 

McHugh for directing a comprehensive and thorough investigation 

into the matters at Arlington, forthrightly acknowledging the 

Army’s mistakes, and taking the necessary steps to restore the 

public’s confidence in the Army’s stewardship of this sacred ground. 

I am committed to work with Secretary McHugh, Chairman Skelton, and all of our colleagues to ensure systems and processes are 

in place that will make certain these errors are never repeated and 

those responsible are disciplined appropriately. 

Among the most concerning findings of the inspector general is 

the nearly complete failure to comply with federal, defense, or 

Army acquisition regulations for services and property procured by 

Arlington National Cemetery. The evidence provided by the IG goes 

far beyond inadvertent noncompliance by overworked contracting 

officers. I find these practices to be unacceptable, particularly given 

the renewed emphasis on contracting best practices, and ensuring 

our business systems deliver value for the war fighter and taxpayer 

as highlighted by the Army’s Gansler Commission, last year’s Ac-
3 

quisition Reform Act, and the improved Acquisition Act recently 

passed by the House. 

While Secretary McHugh has directed a review of all contracts 

awarded during the past five years in support of the Army national 

cemeteries, I believe the review must go further to ensure that the 

Army stops responding to contract failures in merely a reactionary 

mode. I am hopeful that the testimony will address these concerns 

and the progress of the Department in investigating any criminal 

conduct on the part of the contracting officers and agencies. 

It also appears that once again the Army has failed to recognize 

the dramatic increase in mission of its supporting organizations 

since the start of the war on terror. The cemetery’s workload has 

understandably increased as more of our World War II and Korean 

War veterans pass on, in addition to the casualties from Iraq and 

Afghanistan. What is surprising is that the staff at Arlington has 

steadily decreased, and until this investigation became public, 

there was pressure to cut civilian personnel even further. 

It is clear that efforts to achieve economies at the cemetery have 

led to a breakdown in the mission with disastrous results. Thankfully, the dedicated staff at Arlington is able to carry out their mission despite inadequate manning and longstanding leadership failures, and they deserve our gratitude. 

Lastly, I believe that to achieve a complete and accurate accounting for all of the graves and remains at Arlington National Cemetery will require a massive effort and a considerable amount of resources and time. My concern is whether the Army, with all of its 

competing missions, is committed to accounting for all 330,000 individuals interred at Arlington National Cemetery. I am hopeful 

that you can provide that assurance to this committee. 

Once again, thank you for being here today, and I look forward 

to your testimony. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman, and request that my full statement 

be entered into the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. We thank the gentleman from 

California. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Before we get started, I ask unanimous consent 

that a statement from the Reserve Officers Association be entered 

into the record. And it will be taken without objection. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 59.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I also ask unanimous consent that Representative Bobby Rush be allowed to participate in the hearing and ask 

questions under the five-minute rule following the members of the 

committee. Without objection. 

Mr. Secretary, I understand that you have a commitment. We 

hope, in light of the fact that we have a few votes this morning, 

you can stretch that to give us a few extra minutes, and we will 

do our best to work with you on that. So let us move as quickly 

as we can in our questioning, and we call on Secretary McHugh. 

We welcome you back. 
4 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MCHUGH, SECRETARY OF THE 

ARMY 

Secretary MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me assure you, in response to your very reasonable request, 

we will do everything we can to provide as much time as possible 

for questions of the committee members. As I think you probably 

understand, I have a great appreciation for the role of this committee, and I want to do everything I can to facilitate and support 

its very important oversight role, particularly in a matter such as 

this. 

I do, however, want to truncate my statement a bit. I had a rather lengthy one, and I thought it was appropriate given the very 

grave nature—no pun, I am sorry—very serious nature of this 

issue, but time is more important in the exchange, so I will try to 

be somewhat brief. 

Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, for all the anger I know you 

and every member of this committee feels, I share. When I was afforded the honor and the opportunity to serve as Secretary of the 

Army, the last thing I ever envisioned was facing an issue such as 

this. But shortly after my arrival in the building late in September, 

I learned of a review ordered by my predecessor, former member 

of this committee, Secretary Pete Geren, asking the inspector general to examine the cemetery’s policies and procedures; its management, administration and coordination processes; as well as its 

command and leadership structures. 

On November 12, Inspector General Steven Whitcomb advised 

me of the progress of that inspection, and based on the things I 

heard then and some other information that had come to my attention, I ordered the expansion of that to include an examination of 

ANC’s information technology and assurance programs of its contracting procedures. I also ordered the inspector general to conduct 

a full-scale investigation into allegations of a hostile work environment; inappropriate hiring practices; improper interment, 

transinterment, and inurnment of the remains; and noncompliance 

with internal regulations, policies, and accountability errors. 

As I think everybody knows, on June 8 of this year, Lieutenant 

General Whitcomb submitted his reports, containing 76 factual 

findings and making 101 recommendations for improvements at 

ANC. And you know the findings of that. I have tried to be as 

transparent as possible. We posted all of the inspection reports that 

evolved out of these particular efforts and all the attendant orders 

that I gave in response to those. But in short, what General 

Whitcomb found was a system that suffered from dysfunctional 

management, a lack of established policies and procedures, an 

unhealthy organizational climate, numerous errors in the accountability of remains, as well as the now rightfully infamous 211 discrepancies between burial maps and grave sites. Those demanded 

immediate action, and upon receipt of the inspector general’s reports, I directed the entire restructuring of ANC’s leadership, administration and oversight. 

Just if I may, Mr. Chairman, to go through the major points of 

those orders, I ordered the rescission of Army General Order (GO) 

13, which had created a fractured, unmanageable oversight structure for the cemetery. I ordered the creation of a position of Execu-
5 

tive Director of the Army National Cemeteries Program to provide 

direct leadership and management, as well as the appointment of 

Ms. Kathy Condon as that Executive Director, who is one of our 

most capable, experienced and senior executives, to follow forward. 

I called for the establishment of the ANC Provisional Oversight 

Group to support the Executive Director in the restructuring of 

cemetery operations and to make the corrections in deficiencies unveiled in the IG’s report. I ordered the creation of the Army National Cemeteries Advisory Commission to provide independent 

oversight and regimented review of near- and long-term activities 

at ANC. As I know many of you are aware, former Senator Bob 

Dole and former Senator Max Cleland have graciously agreed to assist us in the establishment of this key strategically focused group. 

I reached out to my friend and now my colleague, the Secretary 

of the Veterans Affairs Department, Eric Shinseki, former Chief of 

Staff of the Army, for assistance. He detailed Patrick Hallinan, Director of the Office of Field Programs for the National Cemetery 

Administration. And through the gracious support of Secretary 

Shinseki and also the efforts of Mr. Hallinan, we are finding a better way forward. 

I ordered an all-inclusive study of ANC’s organizational structure, manpower equipment requirements and workload to better 

ensure we have the right resources, personnel, and capabilities to 

meet the cemetery’s growing mission. 

These are just a few of the steps I have taken. I have also ordered full audits of all the contracts. We don’t know what we don’t 

know, but we are working hard every day to find out everything 

that is possible as to the who, why, and what behind the failures, 

particularly in procurement and particularly in contract and contract management. 

For 146 years, Mr. Chairman, the Army has, I think, proudly 

served in the administration of this hallowed ground, as you so 

rightfully put it. Clearly, as the inspector general’s report has 

found, in recent days, perhaps even in recent years, we have lost 

that commitment and that record of success. I want to pledge to 

this committee, more importantly both to the American people and 

the men and women who wear the uniform of this great nation and 

those who love and support them, that the Army is doing and will 

continue to do everything necessary and possible to right these unimaginable and unacceptable wrongs. We are on our way. I think 

we have the process that will hopefully solve many of the problems 

that have been unveiled with respect to yesterday and set us on a 

better path for tomorrow. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I rely upon my written statement and 

its submission to complete the record, and I would yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the entire statement will be 

placed in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary McHugh can be found in 

the Appendix on page 40.] 

The CHAIRMAN. General Whitcomb, thank you for being with us. 
6 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. R. STEVEN WHITCOMB, USA, ARMY 

INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. ARMY 

General WHITCOMB. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, 

and distinguished members of the House Armed Services Committee. And thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to 

discuss our investigation and our inspection into the issues at Arlington National Cemetery. 

Secretary McHugh has explained the genesis of our inspection 

and related investigation into the matters, and I ask that my further comments be submitted as a matter of statement in the 

record. 

What I would say, sir, is that while our findings raised very serious issues that we all are aware of and that require significant remedial actions that the Secretary has outlined, I would like to 

make it clear and assure our folks that the ANC employees, working under an extraordinarily high operational tempo, lack of leadership, lack of a forward vision and thinking, still manage to serve 

our soldiers, honor our families, and honor all Americans with firstclass burials, ceremonies, and ceremonies by senior leaders of our 

nation. That commitment never faltered under these extraordinary 

conditions, and our job and our commitment as an Army is to ensure that the resources are applied; that these men and women 

that serve our fallen so honorably have what they need when they 

need it to keep that tradition that we have followed for so many 

years. 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you for 

your continued support for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, 

coasties, and the civilians that support our nation, and I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of General Whitcomb can be found in 

the Appendix on page 48.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, can we in this committee expect 

an audit of all—that is, 100 percent—of the cemetery grave sites 

with the use of technology and data that is modern and up to date? 

Where are we on that? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Mr. Chairman, we have already begun to examine the record and the circumstances with the 211 graves that 

the inspector general identified. We have resolved about 26 of those 

thus far. But as your question, as framed, suggests, it is a very laborious process under the current procedures available. 

It is our intent to do exactly what you suggested, check the three 

sources of records currently available, that is, the site map, the actual burial cards and records that are contained in paper, against 

tombstones and actual documentation associated with those. To do 

that for some 330,000 graves is going to take a better system of 

recordkeeping, and that means the best in information technology 

(IT). 

I have directed the Army CIO/G–6, which is the technology experts for the United States Army, to engage at Arlington, to begin 

to identify the processes by which we need to move forward to have 

that done as quickly as possible. I would say as well that, through 

the generosity and graciousness of many private sectors, including 
7 

Senator Warner and his support of a consortium of Northern Virginia technology interests, we are exploring the possibility of assistance from the outside to facilitate and accelerate that to the greatest extent possible. There are some legal issues there with prohibitions and certain fashions for accepting outside gifts, but if we can 

work that out, we will use those resources as well. So as soon as 

the IT problems are solved, we will begin the process of checking 

and crosschecking all of those records for each of the 330,000-some 

graves. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, in the course of your review of the 

situation, have you encountered information that would explain 

why the Army didn’t replace the leadership team, the civilian leadership team, in Arlington, because the Army obviously was well 

aware of the dysfunctional relationship between the Superintendent and his deputy. 

Secretary MCHUGH. We can speculate, some with some reason 

and others with not so much certainty, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it is important to show that the last inspection in 1997 

did have follow-on that has not been widely reported. The Commanding General (CG) of the Military District of Washington 

(MDW) after that report did indeed counsel the Superintendent 

and Deputy Superintendent, which, as I know you are aware, is the 

standard procedure for first addressing those issues. There were 

also follow-on inspections that certainly the Inspector General is 

far better positioned than I to detail in 1998 and 1999. So there 

were some efforts. 

As to how it was allowed to continue for so long, I think one of 

the major issues centers around General Order 13. I can speculate 

that I think there was probably a wealth of good intentions behind 

that general order. I suspect what motivated it, at least in some 

measure, was an interest in providing Arlington as much support 

as possible, but the net effect, as I read it was by placing everyone 

in charge, no one was in charge. There was, I think, legitimate 

questions as to who was the controlling authority. There were no 

clear lines of exercising that authority, and, therefore, at least in 

part, the circumstances were allowed to continue. 

But having said that, for whatever the reasons, it should never 

have happened. What we are trying to do now is take the steps 

necessary to set the path more clearly in the future, rescind the GO 

13, restructure the administrative processes, and the lines of authority are pretty clear through the Executive Director right to my 

desk. It is not exactly probably optimum, but this is, I think, an 

immediate response, and certainly as we go forward, we will examine alternatives to administrative structure as may be appropriate. 

The CHAIRMAN. This brings the question to mind, should the 

Army continue its responsibility for managing Arlington Cemetery, 

or should it be given to some other agency? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, those 

questions are for the Congress and the President to answer. I can 

give you my personal perspective. I can think of any number of 

agencies—and there are several who are involved in cemetery operations—I will tell you that, like the Army, perhaps for different 

reasons, all of those agencies are stressed as well. And while I cannot speak for the heads of those agencies, I am not sure the fair 
8 

thing to do is to burden others because of the shortcomings of the 

United States Army. 

As I mentioned, 146 years, there are many reasons, most important of which is that ground is the final resting place of America’s 

greatest heroes. But I do believe over that nearly century and a 

half, the Army has helped to polish that reputation. Clearly that 

record has been tarnished. We are committed fully to regaining 

that kind of record into the future, and I am going to work as 

hard—and the people that we have brought into this initiative will 

work as hard as possible to restore what we consider an Army 

problem. 

I would note as well, Mr. Chairman, this is the final resting 

place of veterans, but we are in a special circumstance. Nearly half 

of the heroes who are interred in Arlington in this current era are 

of Army. And I can’t speak for the other services, but I wouldn’t 

be surprised if they were to feel very strongly as well, we feel it 

is the responsibility of the military, particularly in time of war, to 

carry those heroes to their final resting place, and we feel very 

strongly about that. 

I fear, if I may, as a former member of this committee for 17 

years, that moving jurisdiction from this committee elsewhere 

would have certain considerations that would need to be carefully 

considered, with all due respect. But again, until we are ordered 

to step down, we are going forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

We are running out of time. Mr. McKeon, go ahead and start. 

And if you have to finish when we come back, we will do just that. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I alluded, Mr. Secretary, in my opening statement, I am concerned that the review of Army National Cemetery contracts may 

not go far enough. While it is not conducive to best practices, it is 

understandable that an operation like Arlington National Cemetery 

would not have significant in-house acquisition expertise and would 

rely on other Army commands for contracting support. 

The cemetery relied heavily on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

and the Army’s Contracting Center for Excellence for contract 

award administration. These two organizations should have substantial depth and experience in contracting, yet in instance after 

instance, the contracting officers failed to comply with the most 

basic of federal contracting regulations, and for that matter with 

plain common sense. They frequently failed to verify that contractors receiving noncompetitive awards were capable of performing 

on the contracts. They awarded contracts to contractors with cost 

proposals over double the amount that was estimated to perform 

the work. They awarded contracts for information technology services to contractors who didn’t have any qualifications or training to 

perform it. Most contracts contained no determination that practices were fair or reasonable. When proposals had typographical errors, contracting officers just rounded the numbers down to make 

the bids more advantageous. They violated procurement integrity 

laws by revealing sensitive information. The list goes on. 

I find it implausible to believe that contracting officers for the 

Corps of Engineers and the Contracting Center of Excellence reserved this sloppy work for just Arlington National Cemetery. 
9 

Therefore, my two-part question is: What steps is the Army going 

to take to ensure that other contracts awarded by these two contracting officers, not just those for Arlington, are in compliance 

with federal and defense regulations and are protecting the interests of the American taxpayer? And number two, have the contracting officers involved had their warrants suspended or revoked, 

and what remedial training is being put in place now to avoid further violations of this law? 

Secretary MCHUGH. As I know you understand, Congressman 

McKeon, the Army is bound by requirements of due process to fill 

the record before we take any disciplinary actions, including suspension of warrants. I would agree with you fully that where we 

are right now should not be the end in terms of reviewing the contracts, and I assure you it is not. What we need to do and what 

we are doing is to establish a factual basis and fill in what is currently missing, and that is the vast—what would normally be considered required paper trail as to the structuring of those contracts, 

and how they were reviewed, and what procedures were used or 

not used in that process. 

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, 

and Technology (ASAALT) has been directed by me to examine 

those contracts. They are being supported from my direction by the 

Army Auditing Agency. We are very hopeful that that will provide 

us a much clearer understanding of what, if any, failures were 

committed; which, if any, malfeasance existed; and as you have 

heard mentioned here earlier this morning, the Criminal Investigation Division is being provided all those materials, and they will 

make those determinations not just against particular contracting 

officers, but wherever that trail may take us. 

So this is, for us, the beginning of a process. We have laid it out, 

it is already under way, and I promise you we are going to pursue 

it to its end. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McKeon, may we resume with your questions upon the completion of the votes, and then we will go on to 

others? 

We will recess until we return. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. McKeon, has 

finished his questioning. We will now go to Mr. Ortiz from Texas. 

We are under the five-minute rule. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Secretary McHugh, it is 

good to see you again. I want to welcome you to your old committee. With you at the helm, I know things are going to work out. 

General Whitcomb, it is always a pleasure to have you back here. 

Thank you for your honest and frank dialogue. 

With a significant number of mismarked and unmarked graves, 

what is the Army doing to reach out to the families of the deceased 

warriors, service members? And what is the Army doing to properly account for these unmarked or mismarked graves to actually 

mark the sites? And the report only focuses on the Arlington National Cemetery. Do you think that this problem exists in other 

areas? I know that we focus on Arlington, but we have cemeteries 

in many places—Morocco, Africa, Belgium—and I hope this is not 

a widespread problem we have. But, if it is, I know you are going 
10 

to look at it and take care of it. Maybe you can respond to my questions. 

Secretary MCHUGH. Thank you, Congressman. 

As I tried to lay out very briefly before, and I appreciate the 

chance to expand upon it a bit, our first objective is the 211 graves 

that have been identified with map discrepancies. We are currently 

working through those. As I mentioned earlier, we have resolved 

27 of those. Those will continue, and they have to this point been 

errors of mismarking on the so-called master map. We will each 

and every day match records. 

There is a three-part record system—the map, the burial cards 

that record the funeral, and the soldier, sailor, Marine, Coast 

Guardsman, or the family member involved against headstones 

where they exist. And where, for example, the map shows a grave 

and yet there is no record nor headstone, what we have done is actually unearthed, through a set procedure, and determined in each 

one of those thus far that indeed the map was in error, that there 

were no remains in those graves, and those graves will be reclaimed and used for appropriate purposes with a fallen hero at 

some time in the future. 

After that, we intend to proceed, in all likelihood, chronologically, 

most recent back. I think clearly those who have lost loved ones in 

recent years are more concerned and aware of this. But, at the end 

of the day, I should tell you that it is our intent, upon implementation of a truly viable computer and IT system, to run matches on 

all 330,000 of those graves and, where we find similar discrepancies, to begin the process of validating or finding out what the 

issues are with each one of those discrepancies. 

As to reaching out to the loved ones, on the first day we established—the first day of the announcement when I released the Inspector General’s report, we established a call center. We announced the number for that call center; and as of the last count 

I had available, we had 867 calls into that center. Of those, we 

have resolved 169 of those cases. As we go forward, we are contacting each and every one of those persons who called and expressed concern to update them; and we will continue to do that 

until we have worked through the entire list. 

We are not at this time calling people who have not expressed 

concern to revalidate that indeed they don’t have an issue. For the 

vast majority of family members, they feel—our conjecture is they 

feel confident. But where we do have expressions of concern, we 

work with those people directly, and we will continue to do that 

until we have answered every concern and loved ones’ questions. 

Mr. ORTIZ. My time is up, but my other question was going to 

be, as soon as you finish with this, you don’t think that the cemeteries we have in foreign countries have problems like we encountered at Arlington National Cemetery? 

Secretary MCHUGH. I can’t possibly know that. I can tell you 

that those cemeteries are operated, by and large, by the Veterans 

Administration and National Battle Monuments Commission. I 

guarantee you that they will take lessons learned from our experiences and apply them, also. 

The chairman of the Battle Monuments Commission, former Senator Max Cleland, has agreed to support us, as I mentioned in my 
11 

opening statement, in constructing an advisory and oversight committee so he will be part of that process. And being the great leader 

that he is, I know he will take our experiences and utilize them to 

whatever end is necessary within their purview. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Conaway from Texas. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have too many 

questions. One, I have great confidence in the team, Mr. Secretary 

and General, that you will see this through to the end; and I look 

forward to working with you on how we get that done. 

Are the remains—if you have to disinter someone, are the remains—is there identification with the remains that will be able to 

be used, or will they have to use DNA, or what do you anticipate 

if you have to unearth someone? 

Secretary MCHUGH. The short answer is yes to all of those. Each 

casket is, in theory, tagged on the outside; and you should be able 

to identify it. There are also more forensic-oriented ways to identify 

an era or period. 

Family members—we had one instance where they contemplated 

disinterment because they felt that they had a very unique casket 

and they would be able to identify based on the appearance of the 

casket alone. We ultimately resolved their issue without going to 

that extent. But that would certainly be part of it. 

If we are so authorized and if it is necessary, we have not ruled 

out the possibility of actually opening caskets. Although, obviously, 

decomposition is an issue, there usually are identifiable articles in 

a casket of a particular loved one. And should it thereafter become 

necessary for DNA, assuming the proper authorizations are both 

executed and requested, that would be something that we contemplate. But we consider that a very extreme measure. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Certainly that is a last resort. You said authorized. Are there barriers that you need relief from in order to make 

all of that work? Assuming the worst case you had to go all the 

way to the end of that process, are there things that we need to 

do, just anticipating that? 

Secretary MCHUGH. I don’t think that we need any additional 

legal authorities. The legal authorities are pretty clear. But it requires, obviously, as it well and should, that the designated next 

of kin, pursuant to the paperwork that each soldier submits as part 

of their service in the military, to request that validated up to a 

legal sufficiency. 

Mr. CONAWAY. One minor issue. Two weeks ago, there was a 

brief television expose; and they had at least a granite headstone 

material was discarded into a creek. Have you been able to resolve 

what that was? 

Secretary MCHUGH. To a certain degree. Apparently, prior to 

1994, I believe, it was accepted practice, not just in Army cemeteries but in other government-run cemeteries, to use damaged, excess gravestones for building material. In the case you mentioned, 

it was for bank and stream stability. 

Mr. CONAWAY. These were discarded headstones? This was just 

material that was used for headstones that were no longer suitable 

for that purpose? 
12 

Secretary MCHUGH. There were actual headstones on graves that 

were discarded as excess. Just as an example, a soldier is buried, 

and his wife may pass at a later time. You bury the wife with the 

soldier. You need a new headstone. The prior headstone becomes 

excess. And those were used. 

Our policy has changed. Since 1994, they are broken up and 

ground up and properly disposed of. Before, it was a widespread 

practice. And I am not sure how they justified it in their mind. It 

seems distasteful to me. But, as far as we know, there was no ill 

intent. It was just inappropriate use. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Again, Mr. Secretary, appreciate you being here 

and we have great confidence in your work and I yield back. 

Mr. ORTIZ. [Presiding.] The Chair yields to Dr. Snyder. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you gentlemen for 

being here. 

General, I want to ask you a question, if I might. On March 9 

of this year, I sent a letter to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD) inquiring about alleged reprisals against 

Jennifer ‘‘Gina’’ Gray, the former Director of Public Affairs at Arlington National Cemetery, and yesterday received this report back 

dated June 29, Whistleblower Reprisal Investigation, Arlington National Cemetery, marked for official use only, and then the cover 

letter from the person in the Inspector General’s office is also 

marked for official use only. So why don’t you share with us what 

you can share with us about the results of that investigation 

against Ms. Gray? 

General WHITCOMB. Yes, sir. Unfortunately, I can’t share much. 

We received the same report late last night after work hours. I 

glanced at it this morning. The results of the investigation—the 

bottom line was that it found that the complainant was not 

reprised against, although she met the whistleblower standards for 

an investigation. But it was found she was not reprised against in 

her employment. 

I have not read the entire report in detail. Other than discussing 

it with DOD IG in terms of how long it would take them to complete their investigation and getting it last night, unfortunately, 

that is all I can provide to you. 

Dr. SNYDER. Well, I think we are down to a position I consider 

that to be incomplete information and perhaps unfair to Ms. Gray. 

Is it inappropriate for me to read a portion from the cover letter? 

It is marked for official use only at the bottom. 

Or shall I phrase it another way? Has there been any instructions to Arlington National Cemetery to provide an appropriate 

remedy to Ms. Gray? 

General WHITCOMB. No, sir, not that I’m aware of. Ms. Gray has 

ongoing litigation with the Department of the Army. 

Dr. SNYDER. Let me do it another way. I have 2 minutes and 59 

seconds. I am going to have someone bring this letter to you and 

you can paraphrase it, given the restrictions that I am under. Can 

I do that? 

While he is doing that, Mr. Secretary, I wanted to ask, like Ms. 

Shea-Porter and Mr. Boren, we were attending an earlier hearing 

on the minerals management issue of another committee. As a legislative body—and you have been there before, too—we focus on in-
13 

cidents after we are very dissatisfied with what goes on. It is easy 

for us to say the Army didn’t do this, recognizing the Army has 

much higher turnover in the position of authority that you are in 

than those of us on this committee. What role do we have in this? 

Where did we drop the ball as far as missing these red flags? 

Secretary MCHUGH. I don’t want to characterize this committee 

as having dropped the ball. These problems were committed under 

the watch of the Army, and it is an Army responsibility. 

I would say, as we go forward, after such time as we have the 

opportunity to identify issues and to restructure ourselves, that it 

would be very helpful to have this committee, as part of its oversight processes, at presumably the subcommittee level, to have us 

in at a periodic time of your choosing to do the regular oversight 

hearings that this committee does so effectively in so many other 

operations of the military writ large. 

I think part of the problem that existed here, is that for all of 

the importance that the Army places on this, Arlington National 

Cemetery was somewhat of a satellite spinning off by itself. I ascribe part of that challenge or part of that reality coming out of I 

think the unhelpful construct of General Order 13, but it goes 

deeper than that. 

The Army has what are called DRUs, Direct Reporting Units. We 

have field agencies that, because of the nature of their structure, 

operate somewhat independently; and that has to be a part in this 

process on how we found ourselves where we did. I have ordered 

the Inspector General from this point forward to do biennial, twicea-year inspections at those kinds of activities. But the more light 

on the process and the more eyes on the process the better. So to 

incorporate Arlington and the Army National Cemetery’s program 

into your regular oversight function I would view as a very helpful 

step. 

Dr. SNYDER. General, do you have any further comment to make? 

General WHITCOMB. I can’t comment on a DOD IG inspection, 

sir. I told you what I think the bottom line findings of it are. There 

is still ongoing litigation it would be inappropriate for us to comment on with Ms. Gray and the United States Army. I apologize 

I can’t be more open. 

Dr. SNYDER. I think you already made a comment that may not 

be a full picture of what occurred. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

Mr. Courtney. 

Mr. COURTNEY. I want to thank both witnesses for the response, 

which is focused and sincere in terms of trying to remedy this situation. 

Mr. Secretary, you described what the process is. If there are 

calls that come into the 1–800 number, that those families get attention and there is going to be an effort to work with them. And 

you also described the chronological process. So how does that work 

if a family member calls in with a concern? Does that sort of get 

moved up to the top of the list? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Yes, sir. We are trying to give priority in two 

places. The 211, which, by and large, are not identified so are unknown to the public. So, obviously, with almost 900 calls, we have 
14 

expressions of direct concern from individuals. We are responding 

to those with urgency. 

Mr. COURTNEY. So the calls are generally concerned that one of 

their loved ones was one of those 211? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Generally. Usually, the basis for that—and 

I hate to broad-brush it because, obviously, every family member 

has his or her unique concerns, but, generally, it is because they 

were aware that one of their loved ones was interred in one of the 

sections cited in the report. Not exclusively, but understandably 

the majority of those are. As we solve one problem from a call, 

there is a likelihood that we are solving part of the 211 as well, 

although it is not one for one per se. 

Mr. COURTNEY. In one of the materials, it is a Vietnam-era area 

of the cemetery where problems were identified; is that correct? 

Secretary MCHUGH. I defer to the Inspector General. 

General WHITCOMB. Sir, we don’t have exclusive areas where we 

have located remains. Most areas, unless they are completely 

closed out for further burials, there is a general time frame, but 

there is not a Vietnam era area, there is not a Desert Storm area, 

not specific sections. But I believe one of the grave sites in question 

was from Vietnam. 

Mr. COURTNEY. That is helpful in terms of any of the calls we 

may get. 

Secretary MCHUGH. You do have section 60, which is, by and 

large, Iraq and Afghanistan; not exclusively but almost overwhelmingly. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Skelton mentioned at the outset that testimony had been submitted today by the Reserve Officers Association 

regarding a question of parity for guard and reserve fallen having 

access to the cemetery. Are you aware of that issue that they are 

raising? 

Secretary MCHUGH. I am not aware of the report. I wasn’t aware 

they had submitted testimony until the chairman asked for its inclusion in the record. 

I can tell you just generically we would certainly not want to tolerate any discrepancies in treatment between a guard and a reservist who fell in theater versus an active. They are both equal 

heroes and serve equally. But if the committee would share those 

concerns with us, we would certainly very carefully consider them. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Your staff, I am sure, will have access to the testimony, but any written response you can give to the committee 

after this hearing about trying to eliminate any discrepancy I think 

a lot of us would be interested in hearing. 

Secretary MCHUGH. We will take a look at it. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 65.] 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, General 

Whitcomb, thank you so much for joining us today. 

I want to begin by talking about what has been identified 

through almost a 20-year period as being a dysfunctional civilian 

command structure there at Arlington National Cemetery; and I 
15 

guess the question is, knowing there has been this dysfunction 

there, why did that continue? Why was there continued lack of response by the Army or lack of an effort to try to fix that dysfunction with the civilian command? Is it something that the Army control structure wasn’t set up to be able to do, or to identify, or to 

respond to? Can you give us some idea how that was allowed to 

continue to occur and for that dysfunctional organizational structure to continue? 

Secretary MCHUGH. I wish I had all of the answers to that, Congressman. A lot of this is conjecture. We are talking about back to 

1997, 1992, so well over a decade; and a lot of the people who were 

directly involved are gone. There is no excuse why it happened. It 

was as unacceptable then as much as it is now. 

Part of the way forward for us is to try to restructure this organization writ large so it doesn’t occur again. I have taken I think an 

important step in doing that in rescinding General Order 13. As I 

mentioned earlier in my comments, I think there was real confusion among the various agencies, be it Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Civil Works (CW), or be it the Military District of Washington, and others, as to who had exact oversight authority. A wellintended but in my judgment not well-written general order was a 

part of it. 

I would note there were at least some attempts to address this 

issue, obviously not effectively enough. But I would defer to the Inspector General to kind of walk you through the responses that 

were taken, at least as we have been able to discover them. Again, 

not to justify any of this but just to kind of fill out the picture. 

General WHITCOMB. Congressman, you are exactly right. What 

was identified in 1992 was a complaint by an employee that talked 

about the command climate, the management style at Arlington. 

In 1997, when the MDW, the Military District of Washington, Inspector General was directed by the Commanding General of MDW 

to do an organizational command climate assessment, that was further uncovered. 

A leader has several options once they discover a dysfunctional 

unit. You can counsel the individuals, you can discipline them, or 

you can ultimately relieve them if it is serious enough. There is evidence that the Commanding General of MDW in the general 1992 

time frame, a different general officer, did in fact counsel the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent. There is also evidence 

after the 1997 inspection and assessment the new CG at MDW did 

the same thing, counsel them. 

I don’t know what the written record was of that counseling, 

what the results are. There is no indication with either the Department of the Army Inspector General complaints or requests for assistance or with the MDW–IG that in the period from 1997 until 

the current time that there were complaints from employees requesting assistance due to the command climate. That started to 

surface in 2009 directly to us. 

There was also a 1998 review of the 1997 assessment, done again 

by the Military District of Washington Inspector General, and they 

went back in and looked at the areas that they had covered in the 

1996–1997 time frame and gave the CG an assessment. So there 

was some action, although apparently not the right action. 
16 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Secretary, one additional question, are there 

remains in the 117 graves sites that don’t have headstones? And 

if there are, have we identified those remains? And if we have identified those remains, what are we doing to honor those deceased? 

Secretary MCHUGH. The short answer to your question is we 

have found no remains. The 117 were map discrepancies, as described in the Inspector General’s report. We have gone in and investigated 27 of those thus far; and in each one of those 27 cases 

we have found that the maps were inappropriately marked as having remains when our analysis, including digging into those sites, 

revealed that there were not. That doesn’t ensure that we won’t encounter the circumstances you are concerned about rightfully in the 

future, but to this point we have not had to do that. 

Should we, obviously, we are going to have to take a number of 

steps. Presumably, if the outside tagging is appropriate, we would 

contact the next of kin and make arrangements for appropriate 

honor reinterment in concert with their wishes, of course. But we 

have not had to deal with that as yet. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Loebsack. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you both for being here. We appreciate your service. 

I have to begin by saying that I was deeply disappointed when 

I read in the Washington Post that those headstones from Arlington were found in a river bed on the cemetery’s grounds as well the 

Patuxent Research Refuge. When I saw the photo that accompanied the Washington Post article, I was particularly upset that 

there was a name on one of these headstones, and it happened to 

be George Bihrer, a World War I veteran from Iowa. That particularly hit home, as I am a Representative from Iowa. As you might 

imagine, it hit me hard; and I was quite dismayed. 

And, again, there doesn’t seem to be an explanation for how that 

headstone came to be there; and I guess that is even more upsetting. 

And I know, Mr. Secretary, you tried to answer to some extent 

the question about the current status of the headstones that were 

found there. So what the policy is with respect to headstones that 

are replaced or whatever the case may be, can you elaborate a little 

more on that? I know you were answering that question when Congressman Conaway brought that issue up. What happens to those 

headstones? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Just so I am clear, the normal procedure 

now? 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Now, exactly. 

Secretary MCHUGH. When we replace a headstone—and it has 

been this way since 1994, and we are not aware of any divergence 

from that policy. But what happens now is a replaced headstone is 

broken in two and ground so that, in the case that you cited where 

there are discernible markings, they are no longer discernible. And 

they are disposed of. They are not reutilized. They are disposed of 

in an appropriate manner. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. And is it the case that we don’t know yet why 

these headstones ended up where they did? 
17 

Secretary MCHUGH. It seems obvious this was an accepted practice throughout many government agencies that indeed had cemetery operations that encountered excess headstones. 

As I said to Congressman Conaway, I can’t justify that. It was, 

apparently, acceptable policy. I find it hard to believe how anyone 

could develop that as acceptable policy. I find it rather abhorrent, 

but it was accepted policy. 

So what we are encountering is that these headstones were used 

in a variety of ways as building materials. It is distasteful. We 

don’t do it any longer; and we are making every step, most importantly, to extract those headstones from the stream. 

We have a way forward with the Department of Interior. In fact, 

we have a meeting coming up, I believe it is today, actually, on 

June 30, to talk about the appropriate environmental way forward. 

These are in streams and stream beds; and we don’t want to, A, 

cause an environmental catastrophe or an environmental challenge; and, B, they do in part hold up the stream bed, which validates the integrity of the cemetery land. So we want to make sure 

from an engineering and environmental perspective we are going 

ahead, but we are going to take all of those stones and according 

to current policy grind them up and dispose of them in a respectful 

way. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Two more quick points and I think both of you 

can agree with this. It has been quite some time, and we have been 

pretty successful in this country in sort of bringing America around 

to appreciating our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast 

Guard folks after Vietnam. Vietnam was a low point, as everyone 

in this room knows, sort of how the American public looked at our 

military and, to some extent, our troops as well and didn’t really 

appreciate them very much, I think as a result of Vietnam; and we 

have been making a long, slow comeback on that front since that 

time. 

I am very concerned, obviously, that what we have seen happen 

with these headstones—it is a real problem, obviously. It doesn’t 

reflect well, I think; and I think a lot of the American people are 

going to have a lot of concerns, obviously, about this. And they already do. I look forward to working with both of you, to the extent 

we can do that as Members of Congress, to remedy the situation 

and provide whatever resources we need to provide to make sure 

that this doesn’t happen again. 

One final comment about the guard and reserve. Please do look 

at the report from the Reserve Officers Association. We have 2,900 

Iowa national guard members that are going to be deployed to Afghanistan, and I think it is important that we not tolerate any distinction with what happens with folks who have served active duty 

versus those who are in the guard and reserve. I look forward to 

continuing to work with you on that front as well. 

Secretary MCHUGH. We will certainly look at that, Congressman, 

and appreciate your help. Again, there is no justification for what 

happened. 

General WHITCOMB. And my son is one of those Iowans, sir. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Good for you. Thank you. I probably met him 

when I was at Camp Ripley recently. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 
18 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you Mr. Chairman. General and Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. 

Secretary McHugh, those of us who served with you regret that 

you are in the role you are in on these issues, but we have faith, 

and I have faith in you, and I know that you want the best for our 

military. 

Arlington National Cemetery is a national shrine with the highest honor possible for our veterans of perpetual care on sacred 

ground. As a veteran myself, and also with immediate family members who are buried there, Captain Michael McCory, an Army captain, Marine Colonel Trane McCloud, who is a former staff member 

of mine, is buried at Arlington. So it is extremely personal to me. 

All of us as Americans expect the highest standards of compassion 

for our veterans and military families. 

With that said, Mr. Secretary—and you have addressed this, but 

it is so important it needs to be restated—the Army Inspector General report suggests significant contracting discrepancies, even improprieties, and you have indicated there will be a Criminal Investigation Division (CID) investigation. Can you tell us how far and 

what will be done? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Well, the CID will use, and to the extent 

they are available—and it is very early, as you know, in the process—are using those materials developed through the audit of the 

contracts. ASAALT, Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, the contracting and procurement office for the Army, is the lead on the 

contract review that I have ordered. It is being supported by the 

AAA, the Army Auditing Agency. 

Those materials, after they try to develop to the greatest extent 

possible an audit trail, will be shared with CID, as are all of the 

IG reports, to try to make determinations if there is sufficient evidence to proceed in any way against anyone in a criminal manner. 

That is going to take some time because, as has been noted in 

the IG’s report, there is a paucity of identifiable material as to how 

much was spent, what was garnered for substantial millions of dollars spent of taxpayer and Army money in pursuit of not much 

gain. 

Mr. WILSON. I appreciate you looking into this. Because it is beyond just incompetence. All of us, and I know you, expect much 

more. 

Secretary MCHUGH. If I may, also, Congressman—because Congressman McKeon brought it up as well—we are not just stopping 

at Arlington. We want to make sure that the direct reporting units, 

the field agencies are subjected to oversight. I have ordered the IG 

to do that. I know he and his people will comply. But we have to 

take lessons learned, and where we find deficiencies in our contract 

oversight process we are going to apply those across the Army as 

well. 

Mr. WILSON. The Veterans Administration runs 130 national 

cemeteries. In the district I represent, the Beaufort National Cemetery, the Fort Jackson National Cemetery, which was promoted by 

my predecessor, the late Chairman Floyd Spence, these cemeteries 

have not had such problems as have been uncovered at Arlington. 
19 

Do you see any benefit in bringing Arlington National Cemetery 

under the Veterans Administration? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Well, as I responded to the Chairman in one 

of his opening questions, I have the highest regard for Secretary 

Shinseki. He has been enormously supportive in the Army’s efforts 

to try to rectify this situation. As you noted, they run a very substantial network of cemeteries, and I know they do a fine job as 

well. 

I also mention there are other agencies that run cemeteries, also, 

the Department of Interior and others; and they serve as memorials and active cemeteries to a certain degree. 

I think all of the agencies that run cemeteries have their particular challenges. There are reports as to certain deficiencies in 

these other agency cemetery operations. But I think at the end of 

the day it is rather unfair at best to burden some other agency 

with an Army challenge. 

I mention as well, for 146 years the Army has been a major part 

in making this the most special place on the face of the earth in 

terms of honoring fallen heroes. We view it as our responsibility. 

The military views it as their responsibility to carry those fallen 

heroes, particularly in time of war, to their final resting place. We 

are going to regain that legacy that has been built for nearly one 

and a half centuries. 

I will tell you, as I mentioned to the Chairman, as a former 17- 

year member of this committee, I do think, with all due respect to 

other committees, that it is important for this committee to keep 

jurisdiction over oversight of the final resting place of these fallen 

heroes. But whatever the Congress and the President decides, we 

obviously will follow. But until we are told to step down, we are 

going full speed ahead. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Before I call on Mr. Johnson, let me make an inquiry of the general. 

General, you submitted the Inspector General report; am I correct? 

General WHITCOMB. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. When did you submit it? 

General WHITCOMB. We had two reports, an inspection and an 

investigation. Two separate reports. I have two separate divisions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Approximately what dates? 

General WHITCOMB. The investigation was submitted to the Secretary on the 8th of June. The inspection was not submitted to 

him. We worked it when it was completed from the first part of the 

year until April or May or so. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, as I understand it, there is another report, 

a Department of Defense Inspector General report; am I correct? 

General WHITCOMB. Sir, the only Department of Defense Inspector General report that I am aware of is the one that Congressman 

Snyder mentioned, which is the whistleblower complaint by an employee at Arlington National Cemetery that was opened in October 

of 2008. That goes directly to the DOD IG, and we received the 

final results of it late last night. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman from Arkansas wish to inquire? 
20 

Dr. SNYDER. General, you piqued my interest. I got it because I 

sent a letter of inquiry several months ago. Mr. Skelton got it last 

night or yesterday afternoon as chairman of the committee. Yet 

when I asked you about it you said you hadn’t had time to read 

it. 

I understand busy lives. On the other hand, you are attending 

a full committee hearing today on these terrible things we don’t 

like at Arlington National Cemetery. You are the Inspector General 

for the Army. You received an Inspector General’s report from the 

Department of Defense involving Whistleblower Reprisal Investigation, Arlington National Cemetery. Why couldn’t you have found 

time to read this report and be prepared for questions about it? 

General WHITCOMB. Sir, I did read it. I told you I read it this 

morning. I got it last night. I read it. I have not had a chance to 

analyze the report that took almost 18 months for the Department 

of Defense Inspector General to complete. That is effective—— 

Dr. SNYDER. But then you said that—you ventured a comment 

about it which I felt was an incomplete comment about it, and then 

when I asked you to clarify more completely you said you couldn’t 

talk about it because you hadn’t analyzed it. It seems to me that 

you have said—well, were not adequately prepared to answer this 

committee’s questions but also perhaps did a disservice to Ms. 

Gray. 

I appreciate your clarification. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I share the outrage that you expressed, as well as feelings of 

great empathy for the families of our fallen soldiers who are buried 

at Arlington National Cemetery, as well as their loved ones, their 

spouses. That cemetery serves as a memorial and a national monument to America’s war heroes, and so I look at the situation very 

seriously. 

I do want to focus on the workforce at Arlington National Cemetery, and the investigative report spoke to the fact that there is an 

unhealthy work environment that exists and has existed at Arlington National Cemetery for some time. What I wanted to know is, 

how many complaints of racial discrimination have been made, 

Lieutenant General Whitcomb, to the appropriate authorities arising from employment at the Arlington National Cemetery over the 

past say—since 1990? 

General WHITCOMB. Congressman Johnson, I don’t have the precise number of complaints. We looked at the hostile work environment, which included racial complaints, vulgarity, and intimidation 

of workers at Arlington National Cemetery. That allegation was 

not founded. 

We did find as a part of that that there was an unhealthy work 

environment at the cemetery. It was partly due to the leadership, 

the convoluted command and control Secretary McHugh talked 

about, the insular attitude by the Superintendent to keep things at 

his level, the dysfunctional relationship between the Superintendent and the Deputy. We did not find a hostile work environment that would rise to the level that there were a number of these 

issues taking place on a regular basis. 
21 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Were the Superintendent and Deputy 

Superintendent of the same race? 

General WHITCOMB. Sir, they were not. 

Mr. JOHNSON. What was the race? 

General WHITCOMB. The Superintendent is white, and the Deputy Superintendent is black. 

Mr. JOHNSON. What was the nature of their inability to function 

as a cohesive supervisory unit? 

General WHITCOMB. Sir, we couldn’t determine that. It came out 

in 1992, the inability of these two men to be able to work together. 

It appears that they struck some kind of accommodation where 

they kept in separate lanes. Although what we found and what 

contributed to the unhealthy work environment was those lanes 

tended to overlap. It is a small organization at Arlington of about 

95 employees today. That overlap caused that unhealthy working 

relationship and management at the cemetery. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The inappropriate hiring practices and instances 

of favoritism and nepotism which were also complained about, 

those issues as well as the use of inappropriate racial comments or 

vulgarity and intimidation of subordinate employees, those allegations were ruled to be unsubstantiated or not founded in fact. How 

many such complaints in those areas that I just enumerated were 

there? And who or what agency was it that actually investigated 

those complaints? 

General WHITCOMB. In 1997, the Commanding General of Military District of Washington, because of the command climate complaints received at that point, asked the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute that looks at equal opportunity issues 

for the Department of Defense to come in and do a command climate survey. 

We do not have a record of that survey being done. That survey 

would have been done as a standard practice and given to the commander or the senior leader in the organization that requested it. 

I don’t know whether the Commanding General received it or 

whether the Superintendent would have received it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Is it still a problem out there at Arlington National Cemetery where black folks feel like they are being treated 

badly and differently from other employees? And are there any, 

Secretary McHugh, black folks other than the Assistant Superintendent, in positions of supervision, supervisory personnel, at the 

cemetery? 

General WHITCOMB. Sir, there are both, a mix of races at Arlington. The comments and allegations were also not just one race. It 

worked both ways, discrimination comments against whites and 

against blacks. So it wasn’t a one-way trip. But there are several 

supervisors of both races. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary, 

thank you for being here. General Whitcomb, thank you. I appreciate your service. 

Mr. Secretary, I know that a challenge like this is very complex 

logistically and that it is a significant undertaking to organize 
22 

something as large, and again, in just the realities of the challenges on the ground. But I guess—and I believe that you and all 

of us are more primarily concerned above anything else, and that 

is to assuage the grief and the difficulty of people that have dealt 

with this, that their loved ones are affected and that those that 

they remember with such love and honor that somehow that has 

been diminished. 

So I guess there are two things that I think we should focus on. 

Number one, obviously, is to figure out what happened not so much 

to bring blame but to be able to reorganize and restructure so it 

doesn’t happen again. So I guess my first question is, it sounds 

like, at least in terms of the structure, that some of the people at 

the top echelon were at war with each other and that seems to 

have filtered down and added to the confusion that may be at the 

base of what happened here that we are all concerned about. 

My first question is: What has been done to restructure things? 

And I know that you covered this to some degree before, but give 

me the 101 to ensure there is a clear delineation of leadership to 

prevent this in the future. 

Secretary MCHUGH. Thank you, Congressman. 

As I mentioned, I have taken several steps and certainly don’t 

preclude taking others, but the first was to rescind General Order 

13. That was the governing structure that in my view did just 

about everything but govern. 

I redirected the lines of authority. I created a clear command 

structure at the top in terms of cemetery operations by creating a 

position of Executive Director of Cemetery Army Operations and 

placed one of our most Senior Executive Service professionals into 

that post, Ms. Katherine Condon. 

She has begun to restructure below her in ways where the employees know when there is a problem where they should go to. She 

is constructing directive orders so there is an actual process and 

paper that people can look at when they encounter problems, be 

they in their workplace environment or something that is operationally incorrect out into the cemetery grounds. They have a 

clear chain of command to go and report those irregularities up 

through. 

I have made Ms. Condon directly responsible to me, the Secretary of the Army. Every day since this first came to light and I 

issued the publication of the Inspector General’s report, she and I 

have talked; and we are going to continue to do that on a daily 

basis for quite some time. 

Mr. FRANKS. Let me ask you than, just lying in Arlington National Cemetery is a stark proclamation that the person there has 

been willing to give up all of whatever days they had remaining for 

our tomorrows, as it were. One of the few things that we can give 

them back, of course, is the honor of holding them to be the heroes 

in our society. What are we doing now to try to express that to the 

loved ones that have been affected here and what are we doing so 

that—informationally or logistically so that we can make sure that 

we honor these men and women who laid down their lives for us 

in the future? 

Secretary MCHUGH. If one were to read the Inspector General’s 

report, I think you would find very clear validation that when it 
23 

comes to the actual funereal operations, things I go to on a weekly 

basis, where the honor guards carry those fallen heroes to that 

final resting place, where the rifle companies fire that 21-gun salute, and the band plays its solemn tones and the issuance of taps 

and the care for those families, that is done at the highest level. 

We feel very proud of that but understand that all that went on 

below that diminishes it, and we want to make this a fulsome operation. 

Where there are challenges and concerns, we are going to make 

those right. It will take time. This is a very laborious operation, 

but we feel confident, particularly when we install—and we are on 

a fast track to do it—a working IT system so that recordkeeping 

is brought into the 21st century so we don’t have, as we are encountering, map discrepancies where we thought by a certain 

record a body may lie in rest, but we know now physically there 

is not. So we are getting what we call a baseline of assurance and 

responsibility to restore the full glory of what we all understand 

and believe very strongly is most special place of ground in America. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I think you just gave us the key, Mr. Secretary, the electronic 

recordkeeping. Of course, going back some 146 years is going to be 

very difficult, I know that, but hopefully as complete of an electronic recordkeeping will be available, and I hope that your office 

could keep us advised from time to time as to the progress on this. 

That would be very helpful, rather than having a separate hearing 

every time there is a key milestone that is met. And we would appreciate that. 

Secretary MCHUGH. We will make sure you are provided regular 

updates, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much. 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you both. I appreciate, especially Mr. Secretary, your serious attention to this matter. 

I wanted to clarify the funding issue. And perhaps you addressed 

it, but I wanted to be sure that it was clarified I think for the public as well. 

The funding for Arlington Cemetery operations is appropriated 

separately under the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 

(VA) and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. So it is not a DOD 

appropriation. 

Secretary MCHUGH. That is correct. 

Mrs. DAVIS. So does that legally preclude the Army from using 

Army funds to augment the Arlington Cemetery funding? 

Secretary MCHUGH. It does. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And, if so, what legislative assistance do you need 

from the Congress to provide a remedy for this limitation, and is 

that the issue or is it something else? 

Secretary MCHUGH. I am glad you asked. It is an important part 

of the issue. It doesn’t in any way explain the myriad of other 

shortcomings that have nothing to do with funding. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Right, I would agree with that. But in terms of the 

appropriation. 
24 

Secretary MCHUGH. But it does highlight the reality that, in 

terms of current operations, the Army is severely restricted from, 

on quick fixes or immediate needs, installing an infusion of money; 

and we are clearly going to ask you for relief in that. I don’t want 

to say what that is right now and how we would structure that; 

and, obviously, committee jurisdictions come into play here. Although I think it is fortunate, at least on the House side, as you 

noted, Mrs. Davis, that both the VA and the Army and DOD appropriations are run through the same appropriations subcommittee, 

so it may not be all that difficult. But we very much would like the 

flexibility, on a needs basis, to infuse Army money; and we will be 

coming back to you with a plan on that. 

Mrs. DAVIS. You spoke earlier, though, about the stress on the 

budgets, on all the budgets, the tremendous strain as well. So I am 

wondering, perhaps the public would be questioning where this 

would fit into the many, many challenges that certainly your budget faces as well as others. 

Secretary MCHUGH. Well, obviously, we have to make hard 

choices every day. The operations at Arlington, as I mentioned earlier, the carrying of our fallen heroes to their final resting place is 

awfully important to us, and we would find room. But in the first 

instance we need that legal flexibility which, regardless of other 

budget considerations, doesn’t provide us a chance to even consider 

it. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Connected to that, of course, are the manpower requirements, and I think there have been some questions about personnel that were raised. But, beyond that, the 95 individuals who 

serve now that have a much larger number of families that are 

seeking their help and their assistance in making those decisions 

to inter their loved ones at Arlington National Cemetery, are there 

enough people to do the job? 

Secretary MCHUGH. My instincts say no, but we are not going to 

operate on instincts. Ms. Condon, under my direction, has begun to 

conduct what the Army calls a table of distribution and allowances 

(TDA), which is an analysis of personnel needs. I believe that will 

be done this month, about the 27th, I believe, of July, that we will 

do a hard analysis of the personnel situation and where needs may 

exist. 

I expect you are right. Because the reality is, while the ops and 

post tempo, as we call those things on your great committee, have 

increased for these individuals dramatically, particularly through 

the warriors in Iraq and Afghanistan, their financial support and 

the cadre itself has remained relatively stagnant. It just seems logical to me that they need more help. 

And just, if I may, nothing in this report suggests that those outin-the-cemetery employees are doing anything but an outstanding 

job. Through their grit and determination, they have actually kept 

that good face of Arlington to the families of these fallen heroes, 

and I think we owe them a great debt of thanks. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I was noticing here, they are scheduling from 135 to 

150 funerals every week, and keeping all of that together certainly 

is difficult. Has there been any concern expressed as a result of 

what has occurred that people are reluctant to inter their loved 

ones there? 
25 

Secretary MCHUGH. I am sorry. I didn’t hear the last part. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I am just wondering whether there has been any 

concern expressed of a reluctance now, as a result of this recent 

news, to inter loved ones there. 

Secretary MCHUGH. Not anything that we have heard. But they 

are human beings, and I think it is natural for a human being to 

react in sad ways when a place that you have devoted yourself in 

such credible measure is called into question. That is why I think 

it is important. And the first day, right after the Inspector General 

and I concluded our press conference revealing this information, 

Ms. Condon and I went down to the cemetery and held a town hall 

to make that very clear to these people. They are doing an amazing 

job, and we need them to be proud of that effort. They deserve it, 

and we are doing everything we can to validate that feeling. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Secretary, I was privileged for many years to sit near you 

or next to you here, and it is really good to see you across from us 

here. 

In thinking about this hearing today, I was impressed, I guess, 

with the concern that you all are showing. We are fighting two 

wars, and this would appear to be a fairly low priority relative to 

these two wars that we are fighting. And yet it is very obvious from 

your testimony that you have spent a lot of time and devoted a lot 

of attention to this. 

I thought of a Biblical text in thinking about this hearing today 

when Christ said, ‘‘This ought you to have done, and not to have 

left the other undone.’’ We have paid great attention to these two 

wars, and that we should have done, but we shouldn’t have left undone what we did relative to this cemetery. 

I want to thank you both for what you have done. I don’t have 

any specific questions. I am sure all of the relevant questions have 

been asked. I just wanted to express my appreciation for the concern that you have shown for this, and obviously all the energies 

that you have expended, both of you, in this area when we are busy 

fighting two wars. It shows the respect that we have for our fallen. 

And I want to thank you very much for the statement that you are 

making to all of our servicemen and to their families and to America in general that this really is important. Thank you very much 

for your attention, both of you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Kissell. 

Mr. KISSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know the time is limited. I had really wanted to yield my time 

to Leonard Boswell. So if I could just reserve my time and yield 

it when he comes back, I would appreciate that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Fallin. 

Ms. FALLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and let me also express 

my appreciation to Secretary McHugh and General Whitcomb. I 

know you have had a very tough challenge with trying to figure out 

a way out of this dilemma at Arlington Park, and I appreciate your 

swift and prompt action of something that occurred on someone 
26 

else’s time per se with the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent. 

I do also believe that we owe a great amount of honor and respect to our veterans that are interred at Arlington National Cemetery, and families need to know that once their loved ones are laid 

to rest that they will be given the proper respect and treatment 

that the families and certainly our beloved soldiers deserve in 

honor and respect for their service. 

I have to tell you that I apologize that I have missed some of this 

hearing, but in reading through the report and looking at some of 

the words that have been used, from ‘‘failed,’’ ‘‘missed,’’ ‘‘wasn’t in 

place,’’ all these different procedures and actions, and to look back 

that many of these problems and complaints started occurring back 

clearly to 1992, almost 20 years that we have seen complaints. I 

have to tell you that I am thoroughly disgusted that—I don’t know 

who was being protected during that time with the Deputy and the 

Superintendent, but, clearly, someone wasn’t paying attention to 

what was going on with the complaints that were going on. 

I know that you gentlemen are trying to resolve that situation. 

The personnel policies were obviously failing, because there were 

lots of complaints during that time, and the evidence was there, 

and there was a lack of inspection about what was really going on. 

I know when I was out in the private sector—I had a business 

that I managed—and one of our key phrases was that you ‘‘inspect 

what you expect,’’ and clearly someone wasn’t inspecting what they 

expected out of the service and our military in relation to Arlington. 

So now we go forward. How do we deal with what is going forward? How do we reassure our families and our soldiers that they 

will be treated with the respect they deserve and properly? And I 

guess my question is, are we involving the families? I know that 

there will be an Arlington National Cemetery planning commission 

per such. Will the families be involved in that commission? Will 

they have a voice? Will they have input when they do have issues 

that are concerning them going forward? 

Secretary MCHUGH. I wouldn’t want to insulate the families just 

to one part of this operation. My intent in creating the position of 

executive director of all Army cemetery operations and making that 

person directly reportable to me is to ensure that the families have 

direct access to the highest level. I can tell you in terms of the call 

center that we established where families are able to phone in and 

express their concern, and if there is a specific nature to that, we 

can begin to address it. Ms. Condon is right on the line returning 

and answering calls herself. So she and I have had a discussion, 

and her intention is to move concerns and complaints to the highest level, not to the off level. 

I will tell you, as happens at, for example, every major military 

academy—West Point, the Air Force Academy, Annapolis—boards 

of oversight, boards of visitors, in terms of West Point where I 

served 14 years, are there to put an extra set of eyes upon the dayto-day operations and problems. And we had occasion where largely 

parents of cadets who had issues would inform us of that, and we 

would bring those. 
27 

So they are welcome to do that, but I think it is equally important that we let them know that they are not going to get lost at 

the third or fourth level of the structure. They are welcome and encouraged to come to the executive director and/or me. 

Ms. FALLIN. And I have one other comment, and maybe you can 

respond to this, too. But after reading some of the reports of the 

infighting going on between the Superintendent and the Deputy 

and the length of time in the complaints that were going on, I just 

for the life of me can’t figure out why someone didn’t do something 

about that then. Why did it take so long to make the personnel 

changes that we needed? Was the personnel policy so protective of 

these federal employees that we couldn’t make the changes? Did 

someone just drop the ball? 

Secretary MCHUGH. I think the latter more than the former. 

And, again, it is speculation on my part. I don’t think anyone understood and therefore did not assume proper oversight and supervisory authorities as to these particular types of actions. There was 

a real disconnect between the cemetery operations and the regular 

oversight authority. 

I share your frustration. It still seems to me, looking at it from 

more than a decade later, that even without clearly expressed authorities somebody should have said something to someone. But it 

obviously did not occur; and, as the Inspector General mentioned 

earlier, it seems that the Deputy and the Superintendent were able 

to reach some kind of very, I think, unhelpful but apparently at 

their level somewhat workable accommodation where they didn’t 

cross into each other’s lanes, at least as much as they probably 

should have—they had proper administrative functions—and it just 

rolled on. 

The only thing I had the option to do when I found out about it 

was to relieve the Superintendent of his command authorities, 

which I have done, and put the Deputy superintendent on administrative leave, which I have done, to clear out the conflict that existed and go forward as to what else we need to find out about that 

circumstance. 

Ms. FALLIN. I thank the gentleman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

I understand you do have to leave right at one o’clock, am I correct? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to be having some votes very shortly. Let’s try to squeeze everyone in, if possible. Keep them as short 

as you possibly can. 

Mr. Kissell, did you want to return to you? Very quickly, very 

quickly. 

Mr. KISSELL. Yes, sir. I do have some questions I will submit for 

the record, but I do want to yield to Leonard Boswell. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Kissell. 

It is good to see you, Mr. Secretary and General. I share your 

pain, I think, those last hours since we have learned—and terribly 

unfortunate, certainly unacceptable, alarming that this could have 

happened. But, having said that, I will associate myself with Mr. 

Ortiz and not repeat things that have been said. 
28 

It causes you to reminisce a little bit. I look at you guys in uniform and so on, remembering some of the time when I had to write 

those long letters. And I think it is the same feeling. 

Mr. Lantos, we all remember him. Mr. Lantos used to be with 

us. Another secretary guy named Gates was over. You may have 

been there, John. I don’t know. I think you were. He made the comment that change took place there. 

And I think my experience with you personally, it applies to you, 

too. You have got the right tone. You really care, and I know that. 

I think we all know that. You can’t undo what was done, but you 

are going to make it go right or go forward. And I just want you 

to know that I appreciate that, and you, too, General. So let’s move 

forward. 

It is extremely unfortunate. It makes me very sad, as I know it 

has you. But we are going to do better, and those families are going 

to get that personal attention that you have already talked about. 

I think it is extremely important, as it was for those of us who 

have served a command role, to contact the next of kin, a loved 

one. So I commend you for doing that. 

Carry through. I know you will. We will fix this. And I want to 

work with you, as I am sure everybody here does. Thank you. 

Secretary MCHUGH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BOSWELL. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

We are going to do this as quickly as we can. 

Ms. Shea-Porter. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. 

Earlier, at the beginning of this hearing, I was at another one 

with Secretary Salazar, along with Congressman Boren and a few 

others, and the word ‘‘oversight’’ was there. Here I heard you use 

it as well, Mr. Secretary, and I am very grateful for the work that 

you are doing about this. 

My uncle, my father’s twin, is buried at Arlington National Cemetery. He was an Air Force Colonel, three wars. And I have to tell 

you it was a very solemn burial, and it was a beautiful burial service. I still love Arlington National Cemetery, and I believe we can 

get this right under your leadership. So thank you very much. 

My question has to do with the fact that the inspection team 

found that the Army does not have one single entity for managing 

Army cemeteries. And I wonder, should there be one? Because it 

might result in different levels of maintenance and management, 

et cetera? 

Secretary MCHUGH. We have created, through the position of Executive Director of Army Cemetery Operations, a single authority. 

The primary day-to-day responsibilities of that office will be to 

oversee Arlington and the Soldiers and Sailors Home Cemetery, 

also here in Washington. We have any number of cemeteries that 

are operated on the post camps and stations, most of them historical in that they have existed for some time. Some still have active 

interments. The responsibility for those are generally with the garrison commanders. 

I visited a couple over the past several weeks. They take it very 

seriously. But it is our intention to put out command directives as 
29 

to what we expect them to be doing in terms of inspections and 

oversight reporting methodology as they go forward. 

So I can’t tell you what General Whitcomb and his people’s exact 

form and thought was, but in spirit we have already created that, 

and we are going to continue to work it. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you, and thank you for cleaning up 

this scandal. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Platts. 

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just be very quick. 

Secretary, General, I appreciate the efforts, certainly some of the 

most hallowed ground in our nation, and your efforts in, one, getting to the bottom of this issue and going forward in a positive way 

so we do always show respect to the true heroes of our nation is 

much appreciated. 

Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your commitment. As my colleagues 

said, we know you care and are going to get it right. 

So I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just very quickly, I was wondering, as you go about restructuring and fixing some of the dysfunctional problems that you 

found, what efforts are made to reach out to the veterans’ community itself to include them in the efforts as you make those changes 

and to make sure that they have an ongoing role, there is a regular 

way to communicate and make sure that their concerns are being 

addressed, the family members as well as veterans’ organizations? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Well, family members, as I mentioned earlier, as they have expressed concerns to us, we are reaching back 

to them; and we will try to move forward on whatever those concerns may be. Some are very generic. Others do have to do with 

specific grave sites; and where the latter is the case, we are pursuing. 

As to the veterans’ organizations, they have traditionally been 

very, very active at Arlington. We appreciate that. Obviously, they 

have a vested interest and concern, and they are always welcoming 

in that. I think their interest and concern is directed toward proper 

recordkeeping, ensuring that the pomp and circumstances—and I 

mean that in the highest way—is continued and afforded to these 

heroes as they are carried to their graves; and we will continue to 

do that. 

I would say here publicly, as I mentioned with respect to any citizen who has concerns who has a loved one there, that the veterans’ organizations are always welcome with their suggestions. 

And my history with them, my experience with them over 17 years 

on this panel has been they are very, very aggressive, rightfully so, 

in support of those they represent. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, not shy about offering their opinions. 

Just for the record, I think some sort of formal structure within 

the new organization might be something worth looking at. I know 

they come at you in different ways, but somebody assigned to the 

committee being specifically assigned to outreach. 
30 

Secretary MCHUGH. We will certainly take a look at that. I don’t 

want to say something I can’t actually keep as a promise, but perhaps with respect to the new board that we are creating, maybe a 

de facto position by title in that. We will take a look at that. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Heinrich and Mr. Rush, I think we can squeeze it all in. 

Mr. Heinrich. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Thank you both for being here and for your efforts 

to fix this. 

I recently got a call from a constituent whose brother was laid 

to rest in Arlington in February of this year. And, as you can imagine, she had heard the press reports and simply wanted to know, 

does this impact me? I am trying to get a handle on what efforts 

are being made to contact those families who are impacted by a 

mismarked plot, and how do we get information to all those other 

families who aren’t impacted that everything is just fine and it is 

the way you think it is? And how do we make sure that information is also available to people who, say, don’t have Internet access? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Well, as to the individual families, as I said, 

we set up a call center. Certainly, Congressman, if you want to give 

me a call and we will get the pertinent information. But any family 

member, be it in your constituency or elsewhere, is not just welcome but encouraged to call 703–607–1899, and we will get back 

to them. And where they have a specific concern, as we are doing 

right now, we will try to work through those. 

We are not at this time contacting members who have not expressed a concern and who our validation process confirms they 

don’t have an issue. We don’t see there is a need to raise levels of 

concern amongst those who for the moment are content. 

Now, where we do find an issue, where even though a family 

member has not contacted us, it has not happened as yet, but we 

fully intend to contact the family member and chart forward a way 

that they are comfortable with in their time. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rush. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank you so much 

and thank the members of this committee for unanimous consent 

to allow me as a nonmember of the committee to come in and be 

a part of this hearing. I am entirely grateful to you and to the 

ranking member and to all the members of this subcommittee for 

this opportunity. 

Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again; and, General, it is good 

to see you. 

Arlington Cemetery is the gold standard for cemeteries across 

the nation. It is iconic. And if disrespect and dishonor can occur at 

Arlington, then it can occur at any cemetery in the nation. 

I am a veteran, I am a proud veteran, and I am here today because there were some reports and some allegations and some findings that arose at a cemetery in my district, the Burr Oak Cemetery, which is a nonmilitary cemetery. But in my capacity as the 
31 

chairman of a subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I looked at cemeteries all across the nation, and I found 

some real issues with cemeteries all across the Nation. 

But specifically in response to Burr Oak in my district, I introduced legislation, H.R. 3655, that sets forth minimal federal standards and guidelines for all nonmilitary cemeteries, crematoriums, 

and mausoleums. These are—using your words, this bill is to establish—and I like your words—baselines of assurances—I am going 

to model your words, if I might—that will establish guidelines and 

rules that will be written by the Federal Trade Commission and 

enforced along with the States, which will require all the entities, 

all the cemeteries to maintain current and accurate burial date and 

location recordkeeping and make that information available to the 

consumers. 

By applying the law to all cemeteries across the nation, whether 

Jewish, Lutheran, Catholic, or Muslim, whether buried or cremated 

in a for-profit or non-profit cemetery, will have added enforcement 

support that ensures cemeteries stick to their contract and that 

families can be assured that their loved ones are being handled accordingly. 

Let me just ask you one question, and you might not be familiar 

with the details of my bill, but in response to my bill and in response to markups and other things that we are doing in the committee, certain powerful organizations, religious and otherwise, 

have argued that they should not be subject to even minimum 

standards. They want a carve-out from the provisions of my bill. 

These standards would preempt State cemetery laws and regulations, and they would be financially burdensome. 

Can you give me an opinion, if you might, on whether or not 

these are sound positions, whether or not these organizations, 

these powerful forces, should not have the same baseline of assurances that you are trying to give to military families? 

Secretary MCHUGH. You have asked an excellently crafted question, Congressman, that I am going to have to respectfully dodge. 

Because I am not, as an Army Secretary, in a position to lobby for 

legislation any longer. I would carefully consider co-sponsorship 

were I still on your side of the dais. 

But I will say this. If your bill is successful and although it 

doesn’t cover military cemeteries, I promise you by the time we are 

done we will exceed every one of those minimum standards you set. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Secretary and General, we appreciate you being with us 

today. One thing we have learned is, out of all this tragedy and the 

problems at Arlington Cemetery, you are on top of it and you care. 

You care. And we know that the investigation will be thorough, 

that you will do everything that you can to restore confidence in 

the American people—not just this committee but the confidence of 

the American people—in the operation of the Arlington Cemetery. 

We hope that you will keep this committee informed of your 

progress, and we look forward to hearing from you. We wish you 

well, and we thank you for caring. 

Secretary MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be back. 

[Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

JUNE 30, 2010 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JUNE 30, 2010 

(37) 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JUNE 30, 2010 

(59) 
60 
61 
62 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

JUNE 30, 2010 

(65) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COURTNEY 

Secretary MCHUGH. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on written testimony provided by the Reserve Officers Association at the June 30, 2010, hearing 

on Arlington National Cemetery. 

The ROA supports expanding the eligibility criteria for burial at ANC to include 

the following categories: 

• Any Reserve Component member who has served on active duty honorably in 

a combat or hazardous duty zone, but who has not been killed in the line of 

duty. 

• National Guard and Reservists who are killed in the line of duty whether on 

Active Duty for Training (ADT), Active Duty for Special Work (ADSW) for less 

than 30 days, or Individual Duty Training (IDT). 

• Deceased gray-area retirees at Arlington National Cemetery, if entitled to retirement pay under Title 10. 

• Spouse, surviving spouse, or dependent children of any group of eligible National Guard and Reserve members. 

I intend to have the Army National Cemeteries Advisory Commission review current eligibility criteria as part of their long-term strategic planning efforts. The 

ROA’s position will certainly be one of the many factors the Commission will consider as part of that effort and I very much appreciate their input and look forward 

to working with them on this important issue. [See page 14.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

JUNE 30, 2010 

(69) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. THORNBERRY 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Secretary McHugh, the IG report notes that the Cemetery 

doesn’t adequately leverage information technology for its operations, a fact made 

glaringly clear by the Cemetery’s reliance on paper records in today’s digital age. 

Preserving the Cemetery’s records and improving its ability to utilize those records 

to ensure the honorable care and preservation of the remains of American servicemen and women must be a top priority and shouldn’t wait for resolution of the other 

issues identified in the report. Given the information technology available today, it 

seems the Army could move to rapidly address this problem. Secretary, what is the 

Army’s plan to preserve the Cemetery’s records and ensure their future availability? 

Secretary MCHUGH. The Provisional Oversight Group, which was created on 10 

June 2010 to address the Inspector General’s findings, has identified over 260,000 

digitally scanned Records of Interment at the cemetery. In addition to these images, 

ANC’s Interment Scheduling System contains over 70,000 records in its database. 

Scheduling records are now routinely ‘‘backed-up’’ to ensure that only one hour or 

less of active schedules could be lost in the event of a malfunction or natural disaster. Both the ISS database and the digitized records of interment (totaling over 

330,000) are now stored in Army Data Centers, which use industry best practices 

for data recovery. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. General Whitcomb, your report highlights Arlington National 

Cemetery’s lack of a modern information technology infrastructure. While the Cemetery has a plan for IT modernization, it still relies on paper records and manual 

recordkeeping processes, despite 7 years of IT procurements. Did you find that the 

lack of a modern IT infrastructure contributed to the other problems outlined in 

your report, including the improper interment of remains, failure to comply with applicable regulations, accountability and notification of next-of-kin? 

General WHITCOMB. Our inspection and investigation of ANC revealed many 

areas where a modern Information Technology (IT) infrastructure would be of great 

benefit. As mentioned under deficiency 2.3 of the report on ANC, modern IT ‘‘could 

have improved operational efficiencies’’ within the cemetery. Its lack of these systems certainly contributed to the problems of improper interments, regulatory compliance failures, accountability, and notification of next-of-kin. 

The lack of a modern IT system affected daily interment operations at Arlington, 

and thus accountability of remains. The current operational tempo of the cemetery 

overwhelmed the current, almost completely manual system and the Interment 

Scheduling System (ISS) did not perform all the necessary functions needed to 

schedule and coordinate any one funeral. Multiplied by up to 33 burials a day, this 

made Arlington ripe for human error. Examples of ISS not performing all required 

tasks include: 1) not preventing multiple entries for the same decedent; 2) not preventing the use of previously assigned gravesite; 3) not generating all required information on the daily funeral schedule; 4) not generating burial cards; 5) not generating the official record of interment; 6) not generating reports pertaining to information within the system; 7) not generating temporary markers with multiple 

names of family members interred in the same gravesite; and 8) not interfacing with 

the Burial Operations Support System (BOSS) used by the VA to order standard 

headstones. To amplify the scheduling challenges faced by cemetery employees and 

management, cemetery schedulers used the facsimile machine to coordinate with 

Service honor guards because ISS does not link with DoD e-mail systems. Many of 

these challenges were overcome only by time and labor intensive, manually-created 

documents and reports, also prone to human error. Consequences of these human 

errors were double burials in one gravesite, burial map discrepancies, improper 

gravesite selection, unmarked gravesites, improper disturbance of and one instance 

of loss of accountability of remains, and improperly marked headstones. 

Arlington’s most significant IT issue is that it did not have qualified IT personnel 

to oversee its IT requirements, to include compliance with Information Assurance 

regulations and policies. Deficiency 4.1 of the report highlights this issue. The Information Assurance (IA) inspection team ‘‘inspected twelve different functional areas 

and found the cemetery non-compliant in all.’’ ‘‘The underlying root cause for information assurance non-compliance at ANC is a general lack of understanding, insuf-
70 

ficient internal knowledge of the Army IA program, and insufficient manpower and 

resources applied to IA within the cemetery staff.’’ From 2004–2008, and three 

months of 2009, ANC did have a qualified IT employee. However, the cemetery leadership, specifically the deputy superintendent, did not place the IT employee in 

charge of IT developmental efforts—he put himself in charge of these efforts. When 

the inspection team visited other national and private cemeteries, all had IT oversight and expertise on site or on call. One private cemetery employed a Director of 

Information Technology and had the most robust IT infrastructure and vision for 

the future of all cemeteries visited. ANC currently has two contracted IT personnel 

to manage its servers, but their role is limited and does not provide ANC with the 

expertise it needs to be IT compliant or to employ IT strategically. 

Our investigation teams did discover one instance where ANC failed to notify 

next-of-kin. Although we do not believe this was directly attributable to the lack of 

a modern IT infrastructure, we did note that Arlington did not have a good means 

of public feedback. A modernized IT system could provide Arlington with the means 

for greater transparency and external communications, aiding in keeping next of kin 

informed. 

Modern IT could certainly have assisted cemetery leadership in the identification 

of compliance shortfalls and in the management of cemetery operations. Ultimately 

though, lack of compliance was a leadership and management function. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. REYES 

Mr. REYES. I’m absolutely beside myself to understand how this could happen at 

Arlington National Cemetery—our nation’s most prominent symbol of honoring our 

veterans’ combat sacrifices. That this could happen during two ongoing wars is 

unfathomable. As a veteran, I understand that when you have a bad unit, you have 

a bad leader. I believe in this case you also have a bad process. The lack of inspections and procedural rigor that resulted in discarded heroes’ gravestones used for 

fill dirt, undocumented veteran remains surprisingly found in supposedly empty 

graves, misplacement of remains, and failure to notify family members defy belief. 

Are you confident that you have discovered all of the problems? How long until you 

know all heroes’ remains entrusted to Arlington National Cemetery are accounted 

for and that their loved ones know where to find them? How many more surprises 

can we expect you to discover? 

Secretary MCHUGH. A primary focus of the new Executive Director is the establishment of an accountability baseline for the entire cemetery. At this time, we are 

unable to accurately predict whether other problems will be uncovered. However, we 

are committed to resolving all discrepancies as soon as possible; and if any involve 

problems other than outdated maps or administrative errors, we will notify the families and work to rapidly correct any issues. 

Mr. REYES. It is a simple maxim of troop leadership that ‘‘you get what you inspect, not what you expect.’’ The Army knows this better than anyone. How could 

things have gotten this bad? What command relationships need to be changed to 

make Arlington National Cemetery a worthy steward of our fallen heroes? What 

should those relationships look like? 

Secretary MCHUGH. The Army is fully committed to rapidly correcting the management, leadership and organizational problems at ANC. These problems developed over many years and stemmed in large part to a dysfunctional organizational 

structure created by General Order (GO) 13. This order created ambiguity in the 

cemetery’s oversight requirements, placing responsibilities in multiple Army agencies including the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) (ASA (CW)), the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) (ASA (M&RA), the 

Office of the Chief Public Affairs (OCPA), as well as the Military District of Washington (MDW). 

As a result of the DAIG inspection, I immediately rescinded GO 13, established 

a clear chain of responsibility, and created the position of Executive Director (ED) 

of the Army National Cemeteries Program. The ED exercises authority, direction 

and control over all aspects of the Army National Cemeteries Program including 

both long-term and day-to-day operations at ANC and the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s 

Home National Cemetery. The ED reports directly to the Secretary of the Army and 

is now supported by MDW, ASA(CW), ASA(MRA), and OCPA, in addition to other 

Army Staff elements as required. 

With the assistance of the ED and the Army National Cemeteries Advisory Commission, I will determine ANC’s long term management structure to ensure similar 

lapses do not occur in the future. 
71 

Mr. REYES. Now that you have had time to review the findings, why do you believe that the operations of Arlington National Cemetery were not subjected to routine inspections? 

Secretary MCHUGH. These problems at ANC developed over many years and 

stemmed in large part to a dysfunctional organizational structure created by General Order (GO) 13. This order created ambiguity in the cemetery’s oversight requirements, placing responsibilities in multiple Army agencies. This structure led 

to lapses in oversight including failures to periodically inspect ANC. With the establishment of the Executive Director (ED) for the Army National Cemeteries Program, 

this has been corrected. The new ED, Ms. Kathryn Condon, will be responsible for 

ensuring that appropriate periodic inspections occur. 

Mr. REYES. I’m absolutely beside myself to understand how this could happen at 

Arlington National Cemetery—our nation’s most prominent symbol of honoring our 

veterans’ combat sacrifices. That this could happen during two ongoing wars is 

unfathomable. As a veteran, I understand that when you have a bad unit, you have 

a bad leader. I believe in this case you also have a bad process. The lack of inspections and procedural rigor that resulted in discarded heroes’ gravestones used for 

fill dirt, undocumented veteran remains surprisingly found in supposedly empty 

graves, misplacement of remains, and failure to notify family members defy belief. 

Are you confident that you have discovered all of the problems? How long until you 

know all heroes’ remains entrusted to Arlington National Cemetery are accounted 

for and that their loved ones know where to find them? How many more surprises 

can we expect you to discover? 

General WHITCOMB. A primary focus of the new Executive Director is the establishment of an accountability baseline for the entire cemetery. At this time, we are 

unable to accurately predict whether other problems will be uncovered. However, we 

are committed to resolving all discrepancies as soon as possible; and if any involve 

problems other than outdated maps or administrative errors, we will notify the families and work to rapidly correct any issues. 

Mr. REYES. It is a simple maxim of troop leadership that ‘‘you get what you inspect, not what you expect.’’ The Army knows this better than anyone. How could 

things have gotten this bad? What command relationships need to be changed to 

make Arlington National Cemetery a worthy steward of our fallen heroes? What 

should those relationships look like? 

General WHITCOMB. The Army is fully committed to rapidly correcting the management, leadership and organizational problems at ANC. These problems developed over many years and stemmed in large part to a dysfunctional organizational 

structure created by General Order (GO) 13. This order created ambiguity in the 

cemetery’s oversight requirements, placing responsibilities in multiple Army agencies including the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) (ASA (CW)), the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) (ASA (M&RA), the 

Office of the Chief Public Affairs (OCPA), as well as the Military District of Washington (MDW). 

As a result of the DAIG inspection, I immediately rescinded GO 13, established 

a clear chain of responsibility, and created the position of Executive Director (ED) 

of the Army National Cemeteries Program. The ED exercises authority, direction 

and control over all aspects of the Army National Cemeteries Program including 

both long-term and day-to-day operations at ANC and the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s 

Home National Cemetery. The ED reports directly to the Secretary of the Army and 

is now supported by MDW, ASA(CW), ASA(MRA), and OCPA, in addition to other 

Army Staff elements as required. 

With the assistance of the ED and the Army National Cemeteries Advisory Commission, I will determine ANC’s long term management structure to ensure similar 

lapses do not occur in the future. 

Mr. REYES. Are there bodies in the 117 graves marked as occupied on maps but 

without headstones? Are there bodies in the 94 graves that have headstones but are 

marked on maps as unoccupied? How will you go about conclusively solving these 

discrepancies while maintaining dignity for the remains and surviving family members? 

General WHITCOMB. As of August 9, 2010, the Arlington National Cemetery management team has reconciled the records for all 211 discrepancies cited in the Inspector General’s report in sections 59, 65, and 66. However, to verify that these 

discrepancies do not go beyond administrative errors, we are also using ground penetrating radar (GPR) to ensure complete accuracy. Once the GPR assessment is 

completed, we will share the results with Congress. 
72 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLER 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Secretary, the IG report notes that the Cemetery doesn’t adequately leverage information technology for its operations, a fact made glaringly 

clear by the Cemetery’s reliance on paper records in today’s digital age. Preserving 

the Cemetery’s records and improving its ability to utilize those records to ensure 

the honorable care and preservation of the remains of American servicemen and 

women must be a top priority and shouldn’t wait for resolution of the other issues 

identified in the report. Given the information technology available today, it seems 

the Army could move to rapidly address this problem. Is the Army seeking expertise 

from the private sector in addressing how to preserve and maintain Arlington’s 

records, and if not, why? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Yes. We are working closely with industry leaders, many of 

whom have already offered assistance in several information technology (IT) areas. 

Each offer, however, must undergo both a legal and technical review prior to being 

accepted. If the Army accepts a gift, ANC staff, in coordination with the Army’s 

Chief Information Officer, will determine how it fits within the new comprehensive 

IT framework under development. Rest assured, the Army will methodically analyze 

ANC’s IT needs and capabilities, to ensure that the new system not only serves as 

the authoritative repository of burial records, but also enhances the operations, 

management and accuracy at the cemetery. 

Mr. MILLER. What is the current status of ANC efforts to implement a computerized management system? 

Secretary MCHUGH. My ANC staff is consulting with the Army’s Program Executive Office—Enterprise Information System, the Department of Veterans Affairs and 

industry experts to determine the requirements, integration and implementation 

timeline for the appropriate computerize management system at the cemetery. Additionally, the Army’s Acquisition community will closely monitor and oversee the 

proper procurement of all ANC technology modernization efforts. 

Note, ANC has used the Interment Scheduling System (ISS) to schedule funeral 

services since 2003. To ensure the ISS viability during the information technology 

transition, the Army Data Center Fairfield is upgrading its security and auditing 

the system to provide more robust management capabilities. 

Mr. MILLER. General, your report highlights Arlington National Cemetery’s lack 

of a modern information technology infrastructure. While ANC has a plan for IT 

modernization, it still relies on paper records and manual recordkeeping processes, 

despite 7 years of IT procurements. Given the ANC’s lack of IT and contracting expertise noted in your report, how quickly do you believe ANC can address this problem on its own? Would ANC benefit from collaboration with the private sector? 

General WHITCOMB. ANC has the full support of all Army Agencies and the entire 

Army Staff in its efforts to address the discrepancies found in the Inspector General’s Report. A key component of ANC’s work is to address information technology 

(IT) shortfalls and to update its data management systems. The Army’s Chief Information Officer completed an interim IT assessment and coordinated with ANC to 

make immediate on the spot corrections. The ANC staff is consulting with the 

Army’s Program Executive Office—Enterprise Information System, the Department 

of Veterans Affairs and industry experts to determine the requirements, integration 

and implementation timeline for the appropriate system. Additionally, the Army’s 

Acquisition community will closely monitor and oversee the proper procurement of 

all ANC technology modernization systems. 

Regarding the private sector, we are working closely with industry leaders, many 

of whom have already offered assistance, in several IT areas. Each offer, however, 

must undergo both a legal and technical review prior to being accepted. If the Army 

accepts a gift, ANC staff, in coordination with the Army’s Chief Information Officer, 

will determine how it fits within the new comprehensive IT framework under development. Rest assured, the Army will methodically analyze ANC’s IT needs and capabilities, to ensure that the new system not only serves as the authoritative repository of burial records, but also enhances the operations, management and accuracy 

at the cemetery. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. ELLSWORTH 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Secretary McHugh and Lieutenant General Whitcomb, thank 

you for coming before the Committee today to testify on the Army Investigation of 

Arlington National Cemetery. Like my colleagues on the Committee and in the 

House, as well as all Americans, I was shocked and saddened by reports of unmarked and improperly identified gravesites and improper handling of remains at 

Arlington National Cemetery. Arlington Cemetery is a solemn tribute to generations 
73 

of American heroes who have bravely served our country. Our fallen soldiers and 

honored veterans deserve the utmost respect and admiration when they are laid to 

rest, and I was appalled to learn that for many at Arlington Cemetery, this was 

simply not the case. We need a complete survey of the cemetery and its operations. 

A comprehensive review is essential for assessing the full scope of the problems at 

Arlington Cemetery and rectifying these tragic errors. Your report found that 117 

gravesites were marked as occupied on burial maps but without headstones, and 94 

had headstones but were identified as unoccupied. Given that the Arlington National Cemetery clearly lacked a strong management structure, what specifically is 

being done to modernize ANC’s management structure? Please provide me with a 

status update of recent efforts to put in place a computerized management system. 

Secretary MCHUGH and General WHITCOMB. Regarding the management structure at Arlington National Cemetery (ANC), I created the position of Executive Director Army National Cemeteries Program to oversee the cemetery and appointed 

Ms. Kathryn Condon to the post. Ms. Condon has extensive executive experience effectively managing and improving large Army organizations. I also established the 

ANC Provisional Oversight Group to review the Inspector General’s findings and to 

develop an accountability baseline for all gravesites and inurnment niches at ANC. 

Regarding a computerized management system, my ANC staff is consulting with 

the Army’s Program Executive Office—Enterprise Information System, the Department of Veterans Affairs and industry experts to determine the requirements, integration and implementation timeline for the appropriate system. Additionally, the 

Army’s Acquisition community will closely monitor and oversee the proper procurement of all ANC technology modernization systems. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. KISSELL 

Mr. KISSELL. What steps are being taken to disseminate the lessons being learned 

from the situation at Arlington National Cemetery to all other government cemeteries to ensure nothing like this will happen again? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Arlington National Cemetery is working collaboratively with 

the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of the Interior (National 

Parks Services) to address the findings of the DAIG report and to develop best practices. The Executive Director of the Army National Cemeteries Program is committed to working proactively and transparently with all Executive Agencies with 

similar missions. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. OWENS 

Mr. OWENS. You testified that you are working on a technological fix to assist in 

your audit process. Why was such a system not developed earlier? Was funding 

sought for such an initiative in the past or not? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Under previous management, an automation plan was created and initially funded in the President’s FY 2000 budget. This initiative evolved 

into the development of the Total Cemetery Management System (TCMS), which 

was intended to automate access to burial records and provide gravesite locations; 

support project and financial management; and aid in the management of supplies, 

equipment, and other administrative services. 

Unfortunately, based on interim assessment by Army Chief Information Officer, 

we have determined that TCMS as a system does not functionally exist at this time. 

Accordingly, based on this finding, the Executive Director, ANC immediately suspended any further investment in TCMS and requested the Assistant Secretary of 

the Army (Acquisition Logistics and Technology) (ASA(ALT)) to lead the procurement of a future Cemetery Information system. This places senior Army acquisition 

professionals in charge of developing/acquiring any future cemetery Information 

Technology products. Moreover, critical to this process, ANC and ASA(ALT) will 

fully participate in the Veteran’s Affairs (VA) requirement development process as 

it begins the 3–5 year process to upgrade the VA Burial Operations Support System. 

Through this co-development process, ANC will ensure it can fully leverage the capabilities of the new system. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CRITZ 

Mr. CRITZ. When will the electronic mapping system for Arlington National Cemetery be implemented? 
74 

Secretary MCHUGH and General WHITCOMB. Applying geospatial tools to operations at Arlington National Cemetery is a vital part of our restructuring plans. 

Electronic mapping will be integral to the overall information technology upgrade 

at the cemetery; and we will consider the many commercial applications, as well as 

other alternatives, available to develop such a system. Although it is impossible to 

determine precisely when it will be fully implemented, rest assured electronic mapping is a priority and will be achieved using appropriate contracting processes and 

procedures. 

Æ