U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–670 PDF 2012

S. Hrg. 112–497 

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AT ARLINGTON 

NATIONAL CEMETERY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING 

OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 25, 2012 

Available via http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

JOYCE WARD, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MARGARET DAUM, Staff Director 

BRIAN CALLANAN, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

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

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 3 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2012 

Lieutenant General Peter M. Vangjel, Inspector General, U.S. Army ................ 4 

Belva M. Martin, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 6 

Brian J. LePore, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 8 

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

Office of the Secretary, U.S. Army ..................................................................... 10 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Condon, Kathryn A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

LePore, Brian J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Martin, Belva M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Vangjel, Lieutenant General Peter M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

APPENDIX 

Informational Paper for the record from Senator McCaskill ............................... 80 

Questions and Responses for the Record from: 

Ms. Condon ....................................................................................................... 82 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(1) 

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AT ARLINGTON 

NATIONAL CEMETERY 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2012 

U.S. SENATE,

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:29 p.m., in Room 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claire McCaskill, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators McCaskill, Pryor, and Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. This hearing will now come to order. 

On July 29, 2010, almost exactly 18 months ago, this Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the mismanagement of 

contracts at Arlington National Cemetery, the Nation’s most revered and sacred burial ground for veterans and their families. At 

the hearing, we reviewed the findings of a June 2010 report by the 

Army Inspector General which found hundreds of mistakes associated with graves and gross mismanagement by the Cemetery’s 

leadership. The Subcommittee also investigated how the mismanagement of contracts to implement a new automated system to 

manage burials contributed to those mistakes. 

The Subcommittee found that the problems with graves was 

more extensive than previously acknowledged and that thousands 

of graves were potentially at risk of being unmarked, improperly 

marked, or mislabeled on the Cemetery’s maps. 

The Subcommittee’s investigation also found that officials at the 

Cemetery and at the Army failed to conduct basic oversight. For 

example, Arlington’s former leadership approved projects to automate and digitize burial records which resulted in millions of dollars in contracts over a decade without producing one usable product. In addition, there had been no review or audit of the Cemetery 

for over a decade prior to the Inspector General’s 2010 review. 

In September 2010, as a result of the investigation of this Subcommittee, I introduced legislation to address those failures. The 

bill ultimately acquired 12 cosponsors, passed the Senate, and was 

signed into law in December of 2010. The law requires two separate reports by the Secretary of the Army. The first provision required the Secretary to verify the identity, location, and burial 

records for gravesites in Arlington National Cemetery and present 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

2 

plans to remedy any errors found in the review. This report was 

submitted on December 22, 2011. 

The second provision requires the Secretary of the Army to submit an annual report for the next 3 years on execution of the Secretary’s June 2010 directive, which changed the structure and authority of operations at Arlington National Cemetery. This first annual report was, in fact, submitted September 2011. 

The law also required the Comptroller General to present a report to Congress on the management and oversight of contracts at 

Arlington National Cemetery, including a review of the feasibility 

and advisability of transferring to or sharing jurisdiction of Army 

National Cemeteries with the Department of Veterans Affairs. This 

report was released in two parts on December 15, 2011. 

The findings of these reports and the way forward from here are 

the subject of today’s hearing. We will hear from the Army Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and Arlington National Cemetery about what the Army and the Cemetery 

have done to try and remedy the failures of the past. We will also 

hear about what Arlington and the Army still need to do to ensure 

that this never happens again. 

The reports provided to Congress reveal that much work remains 

to be done. Arlington must be put on a course that will ensure no 

tragedy like the one we saw unfold in 2010 is ever again reported 

to veterans and their families. 

At the outset, I want to commend Ms. Condon and the staff at 

Arlington for their efforts over the last 18 months. The corrections 

made by Ms. Condon, Mr. Hallinan, the Cemetery staff, the members of the Accountability Task Force, and the Cemetery’s Old 

Guard, among others, constitute a sea change from what we saw 

under the Cemetery’s prior leadership. 

I would also like to recognize the Army Inspector General, both 

old and new. The original 2010 report issued under the leadership 

of General McCoy demonstrates the quality and independence we 

expect from the Inspector General community, and I expect that 

General Vangjel will continue to hold Arlington and other Army officials accountable in his new role as Army Inspector General. 

As I tell witnesses from GAO at nearly every hearing, you are 

the unsung heroes of the government for the work you do every 

day. Nothing pains me more when people take political cheap shots 

at government workers, particularly because I am aware of the 

work that is done at GAO, the incredible savings that you produce 

for taxpayers in this country every day, and the dedication with 

which you go about your work. And it is not like you are doing it 

for big bucks. 

As I was told during the September 2010 hearing, I said that I 

would continue my work on Arlington until I was confident that all 

problems at the Cemetery were fixed and that we could stand tall 

and assure the families of our veterans that they would never 

again need to wonder about the location of their loved ones’ remains. I look forward to continuing to work with all of you and my 

colleagues to make this goal a reality. 

I thank the witnesses for being here today and I look forward to 

their testimony. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

3 

Senator Tester, welcome. You are welcome to make any comments you would like before we begin with the witnesses. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. I would love to, Senator McCaskill. Thank you 

very much, and thank you for convening this hearing and for leading the charge to expose and address this issue. I want to thank 

the witnesses ahead of time. 

When the issue of mismarked graves and mismanagement at Arlington came to light initially, I said it was a black eye that needed 

to be made right. Simply put, our Nation is entrusted with certain 

sacred responsibilities. It is not only about honoring and taking 

care of those who wear the uniform, it is about being there for the 

families during their time of loss. And when entrusted with the remains of their loved ones, it is incumbent upon this Nation to carry 

out its responsibility with the utmost respect and dignity. On too 

many occasions in recent memory, whether it is mismanagement at 

Arlington National Cemetery or the mishandling of remains of 

American troops at Dover Air Force Base, that responsibility has 

been abandoned and that trust with the people for whom we serve 

has been broken. 

Ms. Condon, as the Chairman said, I am happy to have you here, 

along with Mr. Hallinan. By all accounts, you stepped up to the 

plate. You have made some tough decisions and instituted a number of needed reforms and I very much appreciate that. But as a 

recent GAO report pointed out, we are not there yet, and when you 

are entrusted with sacred responsibilities, there is no margin for 

error. So this afternoon, I look forward to your testimony and I look 

more forward to the discussion that will happen after that testimony. 

Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

Let me introduce the witnesses. Our first witness is Lieutenant 

General Peter Vangjel. He is the Inspector General of the U.S. 

Army. He was appointed to the position on November 14, 2011. As 

Inspector General, he is responsible for investigating allegations of 

misconduct by Army officials. Most recently, Lieutenant General 

Vangjel served as the Deputy Commanding General of the Third 

Army, U.S. Army Central, at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, from September 2009 to September 2011. I could also probably talk to you 

about contracting, could I not, over there. I know that is the center 

of most of the contracting and the contingencies. 

Belva McFarland Martin is the Director of Acquisition and 

Sourcing Management team at the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office. She is responsible for a portfolio of major management and 

public policy issues related to the protection of the Nation’s critical 

technologies, including export controls, the defense industrial base, 

Navy shipbuilding, defense acquisition workforce, and Army modernization programs. 

Brian Lepore is the Director of Defense Capabilities and Management at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. He directs 

audit and evaluation teams that review the Department of Defense 

(DOD) support infrastructure, programs for base closure and realignment, installment, sustainment, modernization, and restoraH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

4 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Vangjel appears in the appendix on page 27. 

tion, base operations including installation services, management 

of training ranges, infrastructure and privatization programs, and 

facilities energy management. 

Kathryn Condon is the Executive Director of the Army National 

Cemeteries Program. She was appointed to the position on June 10, 

2010. As the Executive Director, Ms. Condon is responsible for both 

long-term planning and day-to-day administration of Arlington National Cemetery and the U.S. Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery. Ms. Condon has held several other military positions, including serving as the Civilian Deputy to the Commanding 

General, U.S. Army Materiel Command, from 2006 to 2009. 

It is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses 

who appear before us, so if you do not mind, I would ask you to 

stand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this 

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

the truth, so help you, God? 

General VANGJEL. I do. 

Mr. LEPORE. I do. 

Ms. MARTIN. I do. 

Ms. CONDON. I do. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Please be seated. 

We will be using a timing system today. We would ask that your 

oral testimony be no more than 5 minutes. I am going to say somewhere around 5 minutes. This is very important. If you need to go 

over 2 or 3 minutes, I do not think Senator Tester and I are going 

to mind. Your written testimony will obviously be printed in the 

record in its entirety, and we will begin with Lieutenant General 

Peter Vangjel. Am I saying your name right? 

General VANGJEL. You are, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Great. 

General VANGJEL. I will answer to just about anything as long 

as I know that they are looking at me, Madam Chairman. [Laughter.] 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK, sir. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL PETER M. VANGJEL,1

INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

General VANGJEL. Madam Chairman and distinguished Members 

of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you 

today, and thank you for your input, support, and guidance over 

the past 18 months. It has made a significant difference at Arlington. 

Since assuming the duties of the Army Inspector General in November, I have reviewed our previous inspections, I have met with 

the Executive Director, Ms. Condon, her team, and other stakeholders who have been involved in correcting the deficiencies found 

at Arlington. To fully appreciate the progress that has been made, 

one only has to review the June 2010 report which identified 61 deficiencies, among them being a deplorable organizational climate, 

archaic recordkeeping and automation systems, uncontrolled conH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

5 

tracting and budgeting processes, and a significant problem with 

gravesite accountability. 

In contrast, our 2011 IG report identified no deficiencies and 

noted significant progress at the Cemetery, largely due to the 

course set by the Secretary of the Army’s Directive 2010–04, the efforts of the Executive Director and her team, and the support from 

the Department of the Army’s staff. In short, the mismanagement 

and deficiencies reported to you in the June 2010 IG report have 

been relegated to the past and Arlington is transitioning from successful crisis management to sustained excellence. Allow me to 

share just a few specifics. 

The previous insular environment that contributed to mismanagement and substandard performance at Arlington no longer 

exists. The Executive Director has established a positive work environment, emphasizing cooperation, coordination, and collaboration. 

Workforce surveys taken as part of the 2011 inspection reflected 

steadily improving morale, unity, and organizational effectiveness. 

The Cemetery now possesses an advanced fully functional information technology infrastructure supported by a service agreement 

with the Army’s Information Technology Agency. Arlington has leveraged the agency’s Consolidated Customer Service Center 

(CCSC) to more effectively monitor and respond to customer calls, 

thus improving customer service. A new computer application for 

digitizing burial records has been critical in establishing an accountability baseline for each gravesite and inurement niche. 

The 2011 inspection team reviewed 25 contracts covering services, engineering, and construction and found that these contracts 

are now properly aligned, with contractors possessing the requisite 

skill sets to perform required work to standard. New acquisitions 

are subjected to rigorous analysis, fee award compliance checks, 

and contract packet reviews for quality assurance. While we still 

noted some errors in 2011, none were egregious and the number 

was significantly less than 2010. 

Arlington now works closely with the Office of the Administrative 

Assistant and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial 

Management to ensure improved oversight of the Cemetery’s budget formulation and execution. The transition to the General Fund 

Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) has provided full visibility 

and transparency of Cemetery expenditures. 

Finally, with respect to improvements, the Executive Director recently published a Campaign Plan which includes major efforts to 

complete gravesite accountability, address long-term expansion of 

the Cemetery, and complete documentation of policies and procedures. For these and other objectives, it assigns responsibilities, 

time lines, and metrics to measure progress. 

With this encouraging news comes the reality that there is still 

much more work to do. The 2011 Army IG inspection report provided 53 recommendations for continued improvement at Arlington. 

I will highlight a few key actions. 

Arlington’s leadership and the Department of the Army must finish updating relevant policies and procedures. Further, the Arlington leadership must complete the documentation and validation of 

internal processes, procedures, and controls. The recent work to esH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

6 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Martin and Mr. Lepore appears in the appendix on page 46. 

tablish the Gravesite Accountability Baseline must continue to resolve the nearly 50,000 cases that are still outstanding. 

Effort must be exerted to establish a multi-service policy that 

standardizes required assets for full honors funerals and enables 

maximum utilization of finite resources at the Cemetery. 

The Executive Director must coordinate with the Army staff to 

establish enduring external oversight processes to prevent any reoccurrence of past shortcomings. 

The Department of the Army must finalize and implement enduring organizational and support relationships for the National 

Cemeteries Program. 

And finally, the Army must maintain the support and oversight 

that it has provided recently to its National Cemeteries and apply 

lessons learned from Arlington to all cemeteries under Army control. 

In conclusion, Arlington remains a priority for the Secretary and 

for the Army. The significant progress observed by the Army IG 

validates the Secretary’s approach to creating the processes, systems, and management that we found to be lacking at Arlington in 

2010. This strategy, executed according to the Executive Director’s 

Campaign Plan with the support of the Army, the Defense Department, other Federal agencies, and Congress will set the conditions 

for continued improvement and ultimately sustained excellence. 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify today and I 

look forward to answering your questions and working with the 

Subcommittee in the future. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Lieutenant General. Ms. Martin. 

TESTIMONY OF BELVA M. MARTIN,1 DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION 

AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. MARTIN. Madam Chairman, Senator Tester, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to discuss 

GAO’s work at Arlington. 

Senator McCaskill, you alluded to legislation that became the 

mandate for GAO to review contracting and management issues at 

the Cemetery. Those reviews found that Arlington has taken significant actions to address its problems and that the path forward 

is for Arlington to sustain progress through improved management 

and oversight. My colleague, Mr. Lepore, will discuss GAO’s work 

on management issues. 

On contracting, GAO identified 56 contracts over $100,000 that 

supported Cemetery operations, construction and facility maintenance, and new efforts to enhance IT systems for the automation 

of burial operations. Arlington does not have its own contracting 

authority, but relies on relationships with contracting offices to 

award and manage contracts on its behalf. These contracting authorities obligated roughly $35.2 million in support of the 56 contracts covered by our review. 

The Army has taken a number of steps, as the IG has alluded 

to, since June 2010 at different levels to provide for more effective 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

7 

management and oversight of contracts, including improving contracting practices, establishing new support relationships, formalizing policies and procedures, and increasing the use of dedicated contracting staff to manage and improve its acquisitions. 

However, GAO found three areas at Arlington where additional improvements are needed. First, maintaining complete data on contracts, second, defining responsibilities for contracting support, and 

third, determining contract staffing needs. I will briefly summarize 

key findings in these three areas. 

First, with respect to maintaining complete data, we pulled together information on Arlington contracts from various sources, including support organizations. However, there were limitations 

with each of the sources. To be able to identify, to track, and ensure the effective management and oversight of its contracts, Arlington leadership needs complete data on all contracts. 

Second, with respect to support relationships, the Army has 

taken a number of positive steps to better align Arlington contract 

support with the expertise of its partners. For example, Arlington 

has agreements with the Army Information Technology Agency 

(ITA), and the Army Analytics Group to help manage its IT infrastructure. While these agreements spell out services that ITA will 

provide to Arlington and performance metrics against which ITA 

will be measured, they do not specifically address ITA’s contract 

management roles and responsibilities in support of Arlington requirements. Although officials told us that they clearly understand 

their responsibilities, the question is what happens in the future 

when there are new personnel in place? Going forward, sustained 

attention on the part of Arlington and its partners will be important to ensure that contracts of all types and risk levels are managed effectively. 

Third, with respect to dedicated contract staffing arrangements, 

three contract specialist positions have been identified for Arlington but have not yet been filled. Arlington is presently receiving 

support from the Fort Belvoir Contracting Office in the form of 10 

contracting staff positions, five of which are funded by Arlington 

and five by Fort Belvoir. Arlington officials have identified the need 

for a more senior contracting specialist and are developing plans to 

fill this new position in fiscal year 2013. 

In closing, the success of the Army’s efforts to improve contracting and management at Arlington will depend on management’s sustained attention and efforts to institutionalize positive 

steps taken to date. Accordingly, we made a number of recommendations in our December 2011 report to improve contract 

management and oversight in the three areas where we found 

shortcomings. For the most part, DOD agreed that there is a need 

to take action and have provided time frames for doing so. We will 

continue to monitor their progress. 

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my short statement. I will be happy to answer questions. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Ms. Martin. Mr. Lepore. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

8 

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

Mr. LEPORE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman 

and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to be here today to present our findings reviewing oversight and 

management of Arlington National Cemetery. 

We issued our report on December 15 and my testimony today 

will be based on our report. I will make two points today. First, I 

will discuss the policies and procedures the current leadership 

team at Arlington has put into place to manage the Cemetery and 

I will identify some of our recommendations to assist in that endeavor. And second, I will discuss some factors affecting the feasibility and advisability of transferring Arlington from the Army to 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

Here is the bottom line. I think it is fair to say the current leadership team at Arlington has taken many positive steps to address 

the deficiencies at the Cemetery and make improvements. The 

Army has made progress in a range of areas, including improving 

chain of custody procedures to ensure proper accountability over remains, better providing information assurance, and improving procedures to address inquiries from the families and the public. However, we believe further steps are needed to ensure the changes are 

institutionalized and will prove long lasting long after the spotlight 

has faded. 

Therefore, we have made recommendations in six areas. First, 

they should complete the enterprise architecture to guide new investments in information technology to ensure the investments are 

aligned with the future operational requirement. 

Second, an updated workforce plan to ensure the workforce is 

properly sized and trained. 

Third, an internal assessment program to gauge how the Cemetery is doing and to make any improvements that may be warranted. 

Fourth, improving coordination with the Cemetery’s operational 

partners, including the Military District of Washington, the Military Service Honor Guards, and Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, 

to ensure, for example, scheduling conflicts are avoided and the 

right honor guards are available when needed. 

Fifth, a strategic plan or campaign plan with expected outcomes, 

performance metrics and milestones. 

And sixth, written policies explaining how to assist families when 

assistance is warranted. 

The Cemetery leadership has generally concurred with our recommendations and begun to implement them. We are encouraged 

by this. 

Now, my final point. The question of feasibility and advisability 

of transferring Arlington from the Army to the VA. It is certainly 

feasible. The Congress transferred more than 80 Army-managed 

cemeteries to the VA in the 1970s. However, several factors could 

affect the advisability of this. Such a change could have potential 

costs and benefits, lead to some important transition challenges, 

and affect the characteristics that make Arlington unique among 

our National Cemeteries. Thus, it may be premature to change juH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

9 

risdiction since the Army has significantly improved its management of Arlington. 

Here are some of the specific challenges that could arise in a jurisdictional change. First, identifying the goals of the transfer. Why 

is the transfer to be made? 

Second, the Army and the VA have their own staff, processes, 

and systems to determine burial eligibility and to schedule and 

manage burials. Arlington has more restrictive eligibility for inground burials than VA, for example. 

Third, Arlington’s appropriation structure is different than VA’s 

and Congress might need to address that in the event there is to 

be a change. 

Fourth, the Army provides military funeral honors, but the VA 

does not. 

Fifth, Arlington hosts many special ceremonies throughout the 

year, including some involving the President and visiting heads of 

state. 

And finally, sixth, Arlington is one of the most visited tourist 

destinations in Washington, hosting over four million visitors a 

year. 

Finally, we do think there are some opportunities for the Army 

and the VA to collaborate more for the mutual benefit of both organizations, but most importantly for the benefit of our 

servicemembers, our veterans, and their families. Here are some 

examples. 

VA has staff dedicated to establishing eligibility for burial in its 

cemeteries and a central scheduling center that could assist Arlington, if necessary. Conversely, VA officials are examining whether 

Geographic Information System or Global Positioning System technology should be used in their cemeteries, but the Army already 

provides such services and could assist the VA if that is deemed 

appropriate. Since no formal mechanism yet exists to identify collaboration opportunities, we recommended that the two Departments establish one and they agreed. 

In conclusion, we believe the Army has worked through the crisis 

and taken steps to put Arlington National Cemetery on a sustainable path to ensure effective cemetery operations. Our recommendations are offered in the spirit of helping this process along 

so that we never have to come before you again to have this conversation. 

Madam Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks and I 

would be happy to answer any questions that you or the other 

Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Lepore. Ms. Condon. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

10 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Condon appears in the appendix on page 66. 

TESTIMONY OF KATHRYN A. CONDON,1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ARMY NATIONAL CEMETERIES PROGRAM, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF THE ARMY 

Ms. CONDON. Madam Chairman and distinguished Members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity today to provide 

an update on the progress we have made at Arlington National 

Cemetery. 

I want to state up front that we still have work to do to correct 

some of the remaining challenges that we have at Arlington, as 

was just discussed by the colleagues at the hearing with me today. 

But I want you to know that I and the U.S. Army accept those 

challenges and all are dedicated to restore the dignity and honor 

that our veterans and their families so rightly deserve. 

Significant progress has been made. Our contracting practices 

now bring the Cemetery in compliance with Federal Acquisition 

Regulations. And the implementation of state-of-the art technology 

now make the hallowed grounds of Arlington one of the most technologically advanced cemeteries in the Nation, a different perspective than 19 months ago, when the Cemetery lacked fiscal stewardship, was a paper-based operations, where calls were not answered 

and where the workforce was not properly manned, trained, or 

equipped. 

In the accountability report recently submitted to this Congress, 

we examined and soldiers from the Old Guard photographed 

259,978 gravesites, niches, and markers and the Accountability 

Task Force coupled those photos with existing Cemetery burial information that for the first time consolidated 147 years of Cemetery records, records created from logbook entries, paper-based 

records of internment and grave cards, and computerized burial 

records. We now have them in an accountable database. 

Since the submission of the report, the total validated gravesites 

without any burial discrepancies in evidence is now 210,076, and 

we are working diligently to close the remaining 19 percent of 

those cases to bring our efforts to completion. 

The creation of this single, complete, verified database will soon 

allow families and other stakeholders with Internet access to 

search for and produce a picture of any marker in the Cemetery 

and review publicly available information about that gravesite 

through our state-of-the-art Web site. 

In the area of contracting, we have made significant progress in 

contract management, transforming our contracting activities to 

position the Army National Cemetery programs for long-term 

sustainment. The Army has resourced our contracting support and 

oversight, adding skilled acquisition personnel to support my staff 

and properly training the workforce in the acquisition process. 

Madam Chairman, I do believe that Arlington has made some 

monumental changes in the last 19 months, but we continue to 

move forward each and every day, capturing our progress with repeatable processes and predictable results. 

In order to orchestrate the many activities required to effectively 

run Arlington, we developed the Army National Cemeteries Program Campaign Plan, which codifies in one strategic document the 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

11 

long-term vision for the operation of Arlington and the Soldiers’ 

and Airmen’s Home Cemeteries. It is the vehicle that I and the Superintendent, Pat Hallinan, will use to ensure that we achieve our 

vision for the Cemetery. It incorporates the significant guidance, 

support, and recommendations that we have received from the Secretary of the Army, the GAO, the Army Inspector General, the 

Army Audit Agency, the Northern Virginia Technology Council, 

and from distinguished members of Congress, in particular Members of this Subcommittee. Coupled with the Campaign Plan, we 

are developing our Enterprise Architecture and Technology Acquisition Roadmap which will serve as our IT blueprint and ensure 

that our IT investments are effectively and efficiently meeting the 

needs of the organization well into the future. 

In conclusion, I personally want to thank this Subcommittee for 

its leadership, its guidance, support, and encouragement for helping us restore the faith and dignity once again to Arlington National Cemetery. I look forward to your questions. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Ms. Condon. 

Let us start. So that people realize, I think what I talked about 

in my opening statement about the Old Guard, it sounds like when 

you say the Cemetery’s Old Guard, people do not realize that these 

are, in fact, active members of the Army that are assigned to the 

Cemetery, and while they are called the Cemetery’s Old Guard, 

they are anything but old. These are young men and women who 

have been assigned to do the work at the Cemetery that we all 

think of, the Honor Guard, the Caissons. 

And I do want to point out as I begin asking questions that it 

was, in fact, these young men that came to the Cemetery when I 

went out there in November and I had the opportunity to thank 

a number of them. They, besides their other duties, many of them 

showed up at midnight and worked through the night until 5 or 6 

in the morning with cell phones and/or cameras and individually 

went through the Cemetery and photographed over 259,000 

gravesites. While some people might think of that work as something that was less than honorable, it was remarkable in talking 

to these young men, proud members of the military, proud soldiers, 

how honored they were to have been engaged in this task. And I 

want to point that out, because it once again confirms in my mind 

what I have learned over and over and over again as a member of 

the Armed Services Committee. This country is incredibly blessed 

by the men and women who step across the line and say, ‘‘Take 

me.’’ 

So let us talk about the number of graves and the discrepancies. 

We had heard that there were 330,000 graves at Arlington, and 

now we know there are not 330,000 graves at Arlington. Where 

had that number come from? Why was that number being used if 

it is off by almost 100,000 graves? 

Ms. CONDON. Ma’am, the 330,000 number that people quote was 

the number that they would say of the number of people who were 

actually interred at Arlington National Cemetery. That is not the 

actual number of gravesites, because you can have a husband and 

spouse in the same gravesite, and sometimes even dependents 

along with them. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

12 

I can tell you right now, ma’am, that I—one of the efforts of the 

Accountability Task Force will be to truly identify what the number of people who are actually interred in the Cemetery, and right 

now our data shows that it is over 400,000 individuals who are interred at Arlington. But until we complete the results of the Accountability Task Force, we will not be able to give you the accurate number of the number of people who are interred at the Cemetery. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So we now know that we have at least 

70,000 more people buried at Arlington than had been previously 

estimated? 

Ms. CONDON. Yes, ma’am, we do. 

Senator MCCASKILL. The additional review—we have heard 

today that there will be over 64,000 gravesites that will need additional review. What does that mean? 

Ms. CONDON. Ma’am, to give you a great example, part of our Accountability Task Force is we set up business rules, and one of our 

business rules was that we had to have at least two official documents to match with the photo of the headstone or the niche. What 

we are finding in the previous, as reported in the Task Force report, is there was a period where all we had was literally a record 

of internment or a grave card. And so what that means, ma’am, is 

that we are looking at other sources of official data such as the Social Security Death Index and Census records so that we can truly 

verify the information of those interred. So that is one of the examples of what that means. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So what you are saying is we have over 

60,000 gravesites where we do not have sufficient back-up and documentary evidence for you all to be certain that you have it right? 

Ms. CONDON. Yes, ma’am, because as an example, in Section 27, 

which is the Freedman’s Village section, all we have is a headstone 

that says ‘‘Citizen,’’ and that is all the information that we have 

there. So that is one of the examples. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. How long do you think it is going to 

take to get through this additional 64,000 gravesites where you 

cannot at this point speak with certainty about who is located 

there? 

Ms. CONDON. Ma’am, as I stated in the report, I think because 

we currently have a team of 40 individuals who are now temporary 

employees working on that, we should probably come to closure by 

this summer. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Let me go to contracting. One of the 

things that was interesting to me in the GAO report is that you 

all use contracting services of various places, and that, to me, as 

somebody who spends a lot of time around this subject matter, that 

makes the little alarm bells go off in my head. It is hard enough 

to do contract oversight if you have one contracting source in terms 

of your work. But with you all using several different contracting 

personnel from several different agencies, I think it is really problematic that you are ever going to get the kind of control that you 

need. 

Do you think you should bring it in house, or at a minimum, try 

to locate all the contracts either with the Army Corps of Engineers 

or with the Northern Virginia Contracting Authority or one of 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

13 

these various places that you are now actually executing contracts 

within? 

Ms. CONDON. Ma’am, that was one of the issues that I addressed 

immediately when taking over as the Executive Director, and one 

of the first things that I did was sign an agreement with two contracting agencies, with the Army Contracting Command for all of 

our service contracts and with the Corps of Engineers for all of our 

construction contracts. Most of our contracts really are service contracts and that is why our Mission and Installation Contracting 

Command is the one who has a contracting support element who 

is supporting me at Arlington National Cemetery. 

So, really, most of our contracts are channeled through—because 

they are service contracts, such as our landscaping, et cetera. So 

I am very confident that we have a handle on our contracts by really going to those two agencies, the Corps for our major construction 

projects and the Mission and Installation Contracting Command for 

our services contracts. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So going forward, those are the only two 

contracting sources you are going to use and they are clearly delineated from a management perspective that you feel confident you 

can keep track of it? 

Ms. CONDON. I feel confident that we can keep track of it, and 

the only other contracting is, as before, we are no longer having individual information technology contracts. I am now part of the 

Headquarters Department of the Army support for IT. So I only 

have to put forward my requirement. I do not have to have separate contracts to support that. So I am comfortable with where we 

are going now. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And do you all feel GAO—Ms. Martin, do 

you feel okay about the way they have organized the contracting 

at this point in time? 

Ms. MARTIN. Yes, we would not take exception with the fact that 

they use outside sources for contracting, and as Ms. Condon alluded to, they have two means of doing that. One is to go to a contracting authority to identify their requirements, their oversight, et 

cetera, and the second means is to partner with Army-wide efforts 

and use their existing contracts and task orders. So we do not have 

concerns with that. 

What it means is that you have, just as you alluded to, Madam 

Chairman, you have to do more with respect to management and 

oversight to get that visibility into the contracts, to make sure that 

the requirements are stated in a way that you get deliverables and 

that you provide the adequate oversight. So it is not so much the 

vehicle. It is the management oversight and visibility that is important, and I think Ms. Condon alluded to the fact that she took some 

actions to try to do that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Great. OK. Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and we will start 

with you, Ms. Condon. As I said in my opening statement, the trust 

of our Nation depends upon the work that is being done in Arlington and rebuilding that trust is going to be a tall task. Can you 

give me any ideas on what you are doing to help rebuild that trust? 

Ms. CONDON. Senator, one of the things that we have focused on 

is honoring the fallen and making sure that we are doing everyH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

14 

thing we can to provide information to the families of our loved 

ones that we inter at Arlington. And I think the greatest step forward on that is we now have a means to communicate with those 

who are scheduling services by just the implementation of our call 

center. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. CONDON. Before, literally, most of the telephone calls went 

unanswered. Now, every phone call to the Cemetery is answered. 

So I think we have the means to—so our loved ones can schedule 

their service. So I think that is a great step forward in restoring 

the confidence. 

Senator TESTER. OK, that is good. How about outreach to families that had concerns? 

Ms. CONDON. What we did is, sir, every time there was an issue 

with an affected family member, we personally work with the next 

of kin on each and every one of those cases so that they know we 

have been open, we have been candid, and we have been transparent with each and every one of those family members. 

Senator TESTER. So from your perspective, you are 100 percent 

confident that folks are where they are said to be, their final resting place? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, in the report to Congress when we do our accountability, there is still the possibility of human error in a burial 

at Arlington. But if we do discover that there could possibly be a 

discrepancy, we have set procedures where we follow each and 

every case, where we notify not only Congress but also the next of 

kin and accommodate what the family’s wishes are in case we find 

any. 

Senator TESTER. Do you have any mechanism—I guess redundancy would be the term—to be able to determine if there is a mistake, a human error that is made? Do you have any ability to find 

it quicker than one of the family members would find? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, we have the ability from this day forward. We 

now have— 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. CONDON [continuing]. A six-step chain of custody procedure. 

We have implemented new procedures. And, what happened prior 

to June 10, we will—we have procedures on how we will handle 

any discrepancy that we find— 

Senator TESTER. That is good. I think it is critically important 

that every effort is made to do it right. 

At the first hearing, we heard about millions of dollars in contracts that were not being utilized appropriately. We talked with 

Madam Chairman about some of the things that you have done to 

eliminate that. I mean, we are in times of austerity here. We have 

an important job to do at Arlington and other military cemeteries 

around the country, but there still are concerns about dollars. I 

read in this testimony that there was a recommendation to go from 

102 to 201 or something like that employees. We talked about the 

contracting. I just want to touch on contracting for just a second. 

The information I had is there were three contracting organizations that dealt with 35 contracts. I think that is GAO numbers. 

You are saying, Ms. Condon, that you have taken it down to two 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

15 

contracting organizations, and do those two contracting organizations deal with all your contracts now? 

Ms. CONDON. Except those contracts that are from the Headquarters—like our IT contracts 

Senator TESTER. With the Army. 

Ms. CONDON [continuing]. Are with the Army. 

Senator TESTER. OK. And how many contracts are with the 

Army? 

Ms. CONDON. Right now, it is predominately our IT contracts. 

Senator TESTER. And how many are there? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, I would have to get the exact number for you 

on that one. 

INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD

Currently 12 information technology task orders or contracts support Arlington 

National Cemetery, valued at $3.9M for an annual period of performance. Ten of 

these contracts, of which nine are annual service requirements, leverage the enterprise contracts managed by the Army Information Technology Agency, the Army 

Analytics Group, and the USACE Army Geospatial Center under the established 

agreements among all organizations. ANC serves as the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) for two of these contracts. 

Senator TESTER. OK. The whole point is, and I think it goes to 

oversight of those contracts. Are we getting, number one, are we 

getting our contracting dollar out of the contracts that are given, 

and do you have enough oversight? And I guess I will give you 

three questions if you can hit them. And the third one is, because 

you have—and I understand the IT stuff with the Army and I 

think that you should do that. But because you have, it was three, 

and then you have two contracting agencies, does that require more 

manpower than if you just had one and went with it? What is the 

advantage of two, is what I am saying. 

Ms. CONDON. The advantage of two, sir, is purely expertise. The 

Corps of Engineers’ expertise is construction— 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. CONDON [continuing]. And we use the Corps for construction 

and— 

Senator TESTER. So that is one of the contracting organizations. 

What is the other one? 

Ms. CONDON. The other one is the Mission and Installation Contracting Command, which is part of Army Contracting Command, 

and that is for services, services such as our landscaping— 

Senator TESTER. OK. I got you. 

Ms. CONDON [continuing]. And maintaining the grounds— 

Senator TESTER. So the bottom line, in your opinion, are we getting the bang for the buck? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, yes, we are, because one of the things that we 

have in place now that we did not before, is we now have trained 

contracting officer representatives, and each and every day we are 

out there holding the contractors accountable for doing the job correctly. So I think we truly are getting the bang for the buck. As 

a matter of fact, we consolidated from our service contracts. When 

we started in the Cemetery, there were 26 contracts. We consolidated them down to 16 contracts. Each and every one of those 16 

contracts, when we recompeted it, came under the government estiH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

16 

mate and we did have cost savings by just consolidating those contracts. 

For an example, we had six contracts prior that had something 

to do with a tree. By consolidating those contracts to one contract, 

we were able to save the government money and be good stewards 

of the taxpayer dollar. 

Senator TESTER. We appreciate that, and that is exactly the 

point I am getting to. When you start consolidating the contracts, 

I think it is easier for oversight and there is more accountability, 

but that is my—I am sitting here and you are sitting there, okay, 

so you may have a different perspective and I appreciate it, but 

that is what I heard. 

When it comes to your contracts with technology, you talked 

about the gravesites now, they are all on a searchable database so 

you can find out what is going on and I think that is good. It 

should have been done years ago, but better late than never. The 

question is, as you look at a lot of businesses as they move towards 

technology, there is a reduction in manpower necessary. I think it 

was the GAO, and correct me if I am wrong, Ms. Martin, but you 

had recommended 200 staff people—somebody recommended 200 

staff people for Arlington. It does not really matter. The question 

is, as you look at the overall landscape and you see the kind of 

changes you are making, is your manpower demand going to continue to go up or do you see it potentially becoming static or potentially going down? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, that was one of the things that Mr. Hallinan 

and I, when we came on board, is we were really truly building the 

workforce that was required to run Arlington properly that we did 

not have before. What we are also doing is looking not only at our 

manpower—we feel that the numbers that we have now are adequate, but as we look into the future, as we get time to assess the 

technology and the operating procedures, are there some things 

that we are currently putting on contract that we could do from 

within house. 

Senator TESTER. That is right. 

Ms. CONDON. So that is one of—because we do realize that the 

downsizing of government, et cetera. So that is one of our goals, is 

to make sure that we have the right number of people to do the 

job— 

Senator TESTER. Yes, and I agree, although I will tell you, and 

excuse me for taking a little bit more time than I should, Madam 

Chairman, but I think a lot of times we use contractors to be subcontractors—I mean, to be general contracts and we could be doing 

that and getting more efficiency from the dollar, quite frankly, and 

we could get more money to the ground and more money to get 

work done in those contractors’ pockets, which I think is ultimately 

something that is pretty darn important in this whole thing. 

I want to thank you. I can tell you that, and Madam Chairman 

knows about this as much as anybody, but the contracting that 

goes on in government right now, maybe with your exception, and 

this has changed in the last 15 months or so, but almost every contract that is investigated into, there is waste, fraud, and abuse. 

And I would just say, as I said in my opening remarks, thank you 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

17 

for the work you have done. Thank you for the work you are going 

to do, you and Mr. Hallinan, and I very much appreciate it. 

And that is not to take anything off all you guys. I just let you 

off the hook. And I am sorry, I should have asked you guys more 

questions, but thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Senator Pryor. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for 

having this hearing. It is very important and I appreciate you 

doing it. 

General if I may start with you, in the lessons learned area, I 

know you spent a lot of time on Arlington National Cemetery and 

I appreciate that. Do you have concerns that there may be other 

Arlington Cemetery problems out there in the system with other 

National Cemeteries? 

General VANGJEL. Well, as far as the other National Cemeteries 

are concerned, the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery, we were pretty much focused on that and Ms. Condon has a 

plan to get after that as she works through the Arlington issue. 

We do have 28 other cemeteries, though, that are post cemeteries 

that are out there, and quite frankly, we are starting to take a look 

at that, as well, based on public law and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2012. They have asked us to take a look 

at the Service Academy Cemetery, for example, and we are getting 

ready to launch on that now. We will be participating with the Department of Defense to take a look at the statistical sample of the 

cemeteries that are out there. 

But clearly, from our perspective, we are looking forward to taking a look at what else might be out there. We have no indications 

at this point that there is anything, but we want to make sure that 

we do not have another Arlington that is out there. 

Senator PRYOR. So you have no indications at this point at any— 

General VANGJEL. Not at this time, sir. No. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. And I know that the GAO made several recommendations and one was enhanced collaboration between the 

Army and Veterans Affairs on ways to improve operations. But as 

I understand it, there has not been any sort of formalized working 

group, is that fair? 

General VANGJEL. I think where we are at right now, Senator, 

is that we have the Department is looking to collaborate with the 

Veterans Affairs. Ms. Condon, as the Executive Director and the 

proponent right now, is in the best position to take a look at what 

we need to do with Arlington National Cemetery. There are some 

things that have gone on, however. The integration of the Internment Scheduling System, for example, with the Burial Operations 

Support System that the VA runs, there is work ongoing right now 

to take a look at how we are going to align some of the automation 

digits, if you will, to make that compatible so that information can 

be shared back and forth. 

In terms of the internal assessment program that we are so concerned with for Arlington and what Ms. Condon has as a component of her Campaign Plan, the operational assessment and inspection regimen that the VA uses, that is being incorporated. Mr. 

Hallinan, of course, with his expertise and being the Superintendent there at the Cemetery is taking advantage of using that 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

18 

document as a base document for that which he might use from his 

internal regimen. 

So there are a number of different aspects right now that are 

going on at a lower level, but really the intent was to start that 

at the ground up and find out where we needed to have some of 

that collaboration and coordination and it will be pulled up over 

the next 6 months. We look forward to seeing something when we 

go back down to Arlington in June, July, this summer. We have another re-look that we have to do in accordance with public law and 

we are looking forward to seeing some of that. 

Senator PRYOR. Ms. Condon, did you have any comment on that? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, we are working with Veterans Affairs, not only 

from an integration of our scheduling system with their Burial Operations System, but we also have an agreement between the two, 

for our Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of VA, where we 

are leveraging their training. We have sent several of our employees to the VA training program and we are looking at having a way 

where we can have interns back and forth between the cemeteries. 

And one of the things we are also looking at is we are probably a 

little bit further ahead right now from a geospatial standpoint and 

we would like to share that with VA because of the steps that we 

have already taken to geospatially manage our cemetery. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. One of the other recommendations that the 

GAO made was in how you should interact with families. It sounds 

like there is a set of recommendations there. What is the current 

process for notifying a family if you guys have identified an error? 

What do you do now? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, when we identify an error, the first thing we 

do is we do the research to make sure that we have all of the facts 

from a Cemetery perspective. And then the next step is to notify 

the next of kin and to explain the discrepancy that we may have 

found and to discuss with the family how, our plans for rectifying 

whatever discrepancy that is and accommodating the family’s wishes on if they would like a chaplain, if they would like to attend if 

we have to do all of that. So there is a set procedure that we use 

for each and every case. But the bottom line is we immediately notify the next of kin when we find a discrepancy that could impact 

their loved one. 

Senator PRYOR. And is that now written policy? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, it is now written policy. 

Senator PRYOR. Also, just for my background information, in 

looking at the problems at Arlington, did most of these problems 

happen during a set period of time or do they go back to the beginning at Arlington and it is just the function of the age of the Cemetery? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, the issues span the age of the entire Cemetery. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. And so what happens if a family member 

comes to you and says, hey, I think there is a problem. What is 

your process then? 

Ms. CONDON. If a family member comes to us with a problem, the 

first thing we do is to research to see if there truly could have been 

a problem with that family member. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. And if a family member just reaches out and 

contacts you and says, I want to make sure that my loved one is 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

19 

where he is supposed to be and everything is copacetic, same 

thing? Do you guys have a process there? 

Ms. CONDON. Yes, we have a process there, sir, and most of our 

burials at Arlington are gravesite burials in the family. So we have 

a process for a family who has a concern and part of our Accountability Task Force is that we verify not only the headstone and the 

records that match to that gravesite. 

Senator PRYOR. And there has been some discussion about an 

electronic database? 

Ms. CONDON. Mm-hmm. 

Senator PRYOR. Are you saying that you are putting every person 

buried in Arlington in an electronic database? 

Ms. CONDON. Every person buried in Arlington’s records will be 

in an electronic database. 

Senator PRYOR. That has not been done yet, but you are working 

on it? 

Ms. CONDON. We are working on that. That was part of our Accountability Task Force, and sir, as part of our geospatial effort, as 

well. We are months away from actually having the application 

where you will not only be able to find your loved one’s records, but 

we will have an application on one of your smart phone technologies that will literally take you to the actual gravesite, which 

is why we started our Accountability Task Force by using smart 

phone technology with the Old Guard taking photos using a smart 

phone because that was our long-range plan for our public facing 

application for the general public. 

Senator PRYOR. By virtue of having a database and the attention 

that this issue has received over the last year or two, do you think 

that these problems are now fixed going forward? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, the same accountability that we are doing for 

the task force is how we are going to account for each and every 

burial that we have at Arlington from this day forward. As a matter of fact, the procedures are in place. Our workforce is now taking the photos of the headstones and latching that up with our 

automated records. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. And I will say, in my visit to Arlington in November, I had the opportunity to look at the procedures that are now in place and they are—there is a lot of redundancy. It will be very hard for them to lose track of a burial site 

and what remains are located there based on the processes that are 

now in place, which is a big improvement. 

General Vangjel, I was worried about the unobligated funds 

issue. I do not think I need to tell anybody that is testifying today 

that we are trying very hard. I think there is a newfound sense of 

urgency in Congress to watch every dime that is spent and to be 

accountable for every dollar that is obligated. So imagine my concern that we have $15 million in obligations that were out there 

that had never been spent, and in fact, the Army Audit Agency 

found that due to poor financial oversight by the previous administration at the Cemetery, $27 million in obligations between 2004 

and 2010 were made and never disbursed. 

Now, what worries me about this is that nobody noticed, that 

clearly the systems were not in place, that someone would not have 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

20 

some kind of notification that you had significant unobligated funds 

that had never been disbursed. I know we recovered part of them. 

What about the other $12 million in undisbursed funds, for any of 

you, and what kind of reassurances—and maybe I need to talk to 

Army Audit here instead of Inspector General, but if I were the Inspector General, this would get my attention because I would wonder, where else are there unobligated funds that are hanging out 

that we could pull back for the taxpayers to be put for a more important use, or better yet, to put back in the Treasury. 

General VANGJEL. I could not agree with you more, Madam 

Chairman, and one of the things that we will be doing this summer—as you know, the Army Audit Agency did come and take a 

look. It very thoroughly went through Arlington’s records, their existing contracts that they had in place. And in spite of the previous 

regime’s assessment that they were short of funds, they, in fact, 

had funds that they could not account for. I have to give credit to 

the current Executive Director because when she came on board, 

the first thing she wanted to do was get visibility of it, and as she 

went after the General Fund Enterprise Business System, that enabled them to begin to account. The Army Audit Agency with the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and 

Technology both did program management reviews and audits and 

they were able to uncover some $15 million that essentially has 

been reconciled and put to good use because Ms. Condon did not 

want to submit a budget request until she knew where the money 

was. That is good stewardship from our perspective. However, what 

we want to do is make sure as we come for a second look this year, 

a third look next year, we want to make sure that we have that. 

So the Army Audit Agency will be coming down as subject matter 

experts as part of the overarching IG inspection and the re-look so 

that we have appropriate oversight. 

But your point is well made as we look to other activities that 

are ongoing in the Army and we will most certainly take that back, 

because there are some things as we look at oversight mechanisms 

right now systemically across the Army, we have to make sure that 

we are spending our money appropriately, wisely, in the right 

places, and in accordance with our senior leader guidance. So I will 

take that one back, Madam Chairman, and we will work through 

that with our subsequent inspections that we are doing throughout 

the Army. 

Senator MCCASKILL. If this was not transparent, if this was not 

obvious, and clearly it was not, then I think it would be very helpful for someone at the most senior level at the Pentagon to take 

a look at this issue of obligated but not disbursed and what kind 

of systems are in place in the various parts of our military to make 

sure that we do not have this going on. I have to believe there are 

systems other places, because—well, for one thing, I heard too 

many whistleblower stories about getting rid of stuff at the end of 

the budget year because if you do not spend it all, then they are 

going to think you do not need it the next year, and horror stories 

about fuel being dumped and so forth so that they can ask for the 

full load the next year without having to admit that maybe they 

had not used it all the previous year. That goes on in every part 

of government, not just the military. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

21 

But this worries me. This is a troubling sign beyond the problems that were represented, and I will follow up with other people 

within DOD to talk about that, but it is a problem. 

In terms of the VA, first of all, I am glad to hear that you are 

cross-training. I think that is a great idea, especially since the 

training for cemeteries that VA does is in Missouri. I think it is 

terrific that you are utilizing the great skill set and core competencies of the Veterans Administration when it comes to our new 

cemeteries. 

I visited one of those cemeteries in Missouri because I wanted to 

compare and contrast what I had seen at Arlington at the height 

of this mess compared to what is ongoing at a cemetery. I went to 

the cemetery in Springfield, Missouri, and I was very impressed at 

what they had done there in regards to tracking and maintaining. 

In fact, one of the things I thought was terrific is if the cemetery 

office was closed, there was actually a kiosk outside the building 

where a visitor could pull up with their name exactly where they 

needed to go in the cemetery to visit their loved one without having 

to involve any personnel of the cemetery in that question or that 

answer. Very impressive. 

And I am assuming with the geospatial technology that you are 

embracing that you are envisioning not only can people do this on 

their smart phones, but there would be kiosks at Arlington where 

people who are visiting outside of the business hours of the administration could actually get that information. 

Ms. CONDON. Ma’am, as a matter of fact, just this past week, we 

are in Alpha testing for our kiosk that we are going to put throughout the entire Cemetery and in our visitor center to do exactly that, 

where it will actually print you a copy of a map that will take you, 

literally, because of the acreage that we have at Arlington, literally 

will take you to that gravesite. So we did take that from what VA 

was doing and we are going to have kiosks by sometime late 

spring. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So how about GPS? Are you going to be able 

to say I arrived at Arlington with my smart phone and I went on. 

Is there going to be an application that I can download, that I 

could go on, enter the name, and then it will actually guide me like 

a GPS to the gravesite? 

Ms. CONDON. Ma’am, that is exactly what we are doing with our 

smart phone application. So we are months away from doing that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I was worried when I saw the article in the 

Washington Post yesterday that they had some problems in the VA 

system, isolated, obviously, but I am pleased at least they are taking a look, because obviously the scope and breadth of the VA system dwarfs Arlington. I mean, people do not realize that all of the 

cemeteries in the country, and every State has some, are run by 

VA, with the only two exceptions being the two that we have talked 

about today, Arlington and the other cemetery that the Army runs. 

Well, let me do this. I want to try to leave open the door for the 

next hearing that we will have on this, because I am not going to 

stop until whoever it is that is running Arlington Cemetery can 

say, we now have a handle on every single gravesite, and we are 

not there yet. We have made a lot of progress in 18 months. I 

would like each witness to state what you think the single biggest 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

22 

challenge facing Arlington is at the present time. What remains 

that you think is the biggest challenge that has to be tackled and 

accomplished as we look towards the next 12 months of progress 

towards full accountability and transparency for this sacred site, 

and let us start with General Vangjel. 

General VANGJEL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think the biggest problem that exists right now would be to complete the accounting for the gravesite accountability. If we are going to establish trust and maintain trust with the American people, folks want 

to know. They want to know that the problem is solved, that it has 

gone away. I think that is the biggest thing that would face us. 

In order to get there, there are some standard operating procedures (SOPs), documents that need to be done, the documentation 

so that we can transfer, as you mentioned a bit earlier, whoever 

is going to be at Arlington Cemetery. We want to make sure the 

right procedures and documents are in place to facilitate any transition from the current Executive Director to one that would follow. 

Those would be the two biggest, and I think either one that, if 

I could just add one more, would be the overall long-term expansion of the Cemetery to be able to accommodate the burials. I think 

that would be one other that we need to really make sure that we 

have the right plans that have been executed. I know that Ms. 

Condon in her Campaign Plan has gone after that and that those 

are the—in my mind, ma’am, those are the big three. Thank you, 

Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Ms. Martin. 

Ms. MARTIN. Yes. I will certainly fall back to the area that I am 

most familiar with, which is the contract management and oversight. You mentioned the fact of the funds that had not been recovered, and that is especially important to have accurate contract 

data because that allows you to be able to track and identify where 

the funds are. And in our report, we talked about the fact that Arlington funding has a no year designation. So with money that does 

not have a fiscal year limitation it is even more important to— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Why is that? Why do you have no year— 

why is it that Arlington does not have a fiscal year like every other 

part of government? 

Ms. MARTIN. Well, at least the funds for the Cemetery are no 

year funds. I mean— 

Senator MCCASKILL. I know, but why? Why is that? Why do we 

not change that? 

Ms. MARTIN. I am not sure— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Can we change that? 

Ms. MARTIN [continuing]. In terms of why. I do not think Arlington or the Army would necessarily come forward to ask it be 

changed, but—I am not sure. I mean, there is some history there 

in terms of the fact that it is no year money, but— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, but that is exactly what led to this 

problem. I mean, setting a different set of rules for Arlington contributed to the lack of accountability at Arlington for many years. 

And if it were not for brave whistleblowers, we still would not be 

where we need to be. I mean, people that worked at Arlington 

knew that things were going badly and nothing was happening, 

and part of that was this no year end money, I think. Is there a 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

23 

recommendation that should be made that we should end the notion that Arlington should not have fiscal year appropriation like 

anybody else would? 

Ms. MARTIN. Well, Senator, we did not look at that as a part of 

our audit, but GAO is on record as saying when you have no year 

funds, then obviously there is more accountability involved. So 

from the perspective of GAO and contracting going forward, I 

would say it is the insight and the oversight in terms of contracting 

that is important. While strides have been made, there are still 

some things that need to be done. 

Senator Tester talked about the importance of looking to see if 

the number of contracts can be consolidated. Ms. Condon and her 

staff have certainly done that. She mentioned having several contracts for landscaping, and now they have fewer contracts. All of 

that is important. Leveraging the expertise of ITA, all of those are 

very important steps. Now it is a matter of, again, getting proper 

insight and continuing with the oversight of the contracts that from 

our perspective is very important going forward. 

Mr. LEPORE. Madam Chairman, you asked what we thought were 

sort of the key things that the Cemetery needs to focus on going 

forward. I certainly agree with what my colleagues have stated 

today. 

I would also suggest that one of the key things from where I sit 

is going to be ensuring that the changes that have been made to 

date are sustainable and will outlive the current leadership team, 

and I think, to their credit, the review that we did suggests they 

have begun that process of pivoting, if you will, from going through 

the crisis, working through the crisis, and beginning to put in place 

the kinds of policies, procedures, and systems that, if implemented 

fully—and the Campaign Plan is a great example of it—should outlive the current leadership team so we do not ever have a situation 

again where it takes Herculean efforts from very dedicated senior 

people to make this work. The whole idea here is that eventually 

they will move on to some other thing, whatever it is, some other 

stage of their life, and whoever the next generation of leaders are 

coming into Arlington should not have to reinvent it. The systems 

should be in place. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Turnkey. 

Mr. LEPORE. A turnkey operation, or a plug-and-play operation, 

absolutely. And it seems to us that is where our recommendations 

went and I think that is the key issue for them right now. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Ms. Condon. 

Ms. CONDON. Senator McCaskill, if I could address the no year 

money— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, let us talk about that. 

Ms. CONDON. OK. The first— 

Senator MCCASKILL. How did that happen, and when did it happen? 

Ms. CONDON. Arlington was designated as a civil works activity 

and, hence, it was no year funds. But one of the first things that 

I did, and with the help of our Assistant Secretary for Financial 

Management and Comptroller, is to put in an accounting system. 

And now that Arlington is part of the General Fund Enterprise 

Business System, we are now going to be fiscally transparent. So 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

24 

the financial management community can now see how we expend 

each and every dollar. 

The benefit of having no year money was one of the benefits of 

being able to recoup those unliquidated obligations from prior years 

and to be able to apply them to the projects that we have ongoing 

right now. Because of those unliquidated obligations, ma’am, we 

were able to start and finance the ninth columbarium. That was 

one of—and we were able to put in all of those IT issues. We will 

be able to address and put in the technology and buy the right 

equipment to get Arlington to where it is today. 

So having no year money from that perspective has really been 

a benefit for myself and Mr. Hallinan to truly put in the changes 

we need. But now that we are under GFEBs, we are fiscally transparent, so it does not matter if we are one year money or no year 

money. We truly—every dollar is now in an accounting system that 

is being monitored like every other process in the Army. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, but I am confused. I think everyone 

would like no year money. 

Ms. CONDON. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. We would not be dumping any fuel if we 

had no year money because on one would feel the need to hurry 

and spend year end. So there are arguments that can be made for 

that. 

On the other hand, we have an appropriations process that is an 

annual process and a justification on an annual basis, and that also 

has a great deal of merit in terms of fiscal accountability. I understand you could use money that was not used for other things you 

needed— 

Ms. CONDON. Right. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. But most parts of government 

cannot do that. They have to come back and justify to Congress 

that they have additional needs, that there should be appropriations for them. I have a hard time believing that Arlington would 

have difficulty getting appropriations because I think this body has 

great respect for what that represents to our country and would 

want to fund it appropriately. I am just trying to figure out, if we 

have transparency, good, but maybe the year end funds is a discipline that everyone should have. I am not asking you to say yes 

or no here— 

Ms. CONDON. Right. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. I am just thinking, I think it 

is something that we need to take a look at. 

Ms. CONDON. Understood, and what we do is we do report the 

carryover very similar to the working capital fund that you carry 

over from year to year. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I understand. 

Ms. CONDON. So we do report those numbers, so that would be 

it. 

You asked, what is the most outstanding challenge from my perspective we are facing at Arlington right now. Ma’am, and as you 

have witnessed, the incredible changes to the business processes 

that we have put in place at Arlington. And what I need right now 

is the patience for us to allow, to look at those processes to make 

sure that we have the right metrics, to make sure that we have the 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

25 

systems right so that we can truly sustain the changes that we 

have made at Arlington up until this point. So we just need to test 

all of the IT support and all of the changes that we have made to 

the operational procedures. 

And so what I just need now is—my biggest challenge is patience, because in this next year, that is what the Superintendent 

and I are doing, is to make sure that those changes that we have 

put in place can be sustained for generations, not just for the immediate future. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I want to thank all of you for the work on 

this. It was quite an undertaking, and for those out there that are 

skeptical about the ability of government to fix problems on a time 

table, I think this is a great poster child for people deciding that 

this work was important and it deserved lots of eyes and a lot of 

effort from a lot of people, and I think that the Army—and I have 

said this to top leadership in the Army—I understood that the 

Army was more upset than anyone else about the problems at Arlington. All of us can tsk, tsk and bemoan the incompetence that 

had occurred there, but I do not think anybody felt it more acutely 

than the Army. And so I think the Army responded in a way that 

reflects the dedication they have to the fallen. And I am impressed 

that the amount of progress that has been made is substantial and 

significant, frankly, at lightning speed for government. Within 18 

months, we have a completely different protocol at Arlington as it 

relates to accountability and I think it is good. 

We still have work to do, and I have said from the beginning that 

the oversight of this Subcommittee would not end until people sat 

in front of this dais and said, ‘‘I think the challenges have been met 

and I think all the processes and procedures are in place and I see 

no problems that need to be addressed by additional oversight.’’ No 

one said that today, so we will have another hearing. I am sure it 

will be a year from now. And at that point in time, General, I am 

sure you will have more information to report because I know you 

are planning on going back out to take another look at Arlington. 

I want to compliment Ms. Condon, because even when things 

were discovered that were not good, her office checked in with this 

Subcommittee and let us know that another problem had been discovered. I think there might have been a tendency to say, well, 

they will never know. Let us just get it fixed. But instead, there 

has been transparency and that is very good. So congratulations for 

that, and most particularly, congratulations to all the men and 

women who have worked hard at Arlington, many of whom have 

worked there many years and care deeply about the reputation and 

the method in which we take care of the problems there. And 

thank you to GAO. 

We will have another hearing in probably about a year. In the 

meantime, if problems surface, I will depend on you to continue to 

let us know and we will continue to monitor the situation, and 

thank you for all the good progress that has been made. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(27) 

A P P E N D I X 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.001
28 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.002
29 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.003
30 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.004
31 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.005
32 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.006
33 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.007
34 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.008
35 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.009
36 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.010
37 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.011
38 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.012
39 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.013
40 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.014
41 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.015
42 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.016
43 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.017
44 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.018
45 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.019
46 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.020
47 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.021
48 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.022
49 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.023
50 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.024
51 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.025
52 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.026
53 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.027
54 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.028
55 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.029
56 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.030
57 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.031
58 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.032
59 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.033
60 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.034
61 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.035
62 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.036
63 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.037
64 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.038
65 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.039
66 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.040
67 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.041
68 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.042
69 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.043
70 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.044
71 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.045
72 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.046
73 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.047
74 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.048
75 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.049
76 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.050
77 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.051
78 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.052
79 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.053
80 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.054
81 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.055
82 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.056
83 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.057
84 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.058
85 

Æ 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73670.059