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 

70–787 2012

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–71] 

UPDATE ON ARLINGTON CEMETERY 

REFORMS 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

MEETING JOINTLY WITH

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

JOHN CHAPLA, Professional Staff Member 

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member 

JIM WEISS, Staff Assistant 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia, Chairman 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

MICHELE PEARCE, Professional Staff Member 

PAUL LEWIS, Professional Staff Member 

ARTHUR MILIKH, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2011 

Page 

HEARING: 

Friday, September 23, 2011, Update on Arlington Cemetery Reforms ............... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Friday, September 23, 2011 .................................................................................... 25 

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 

UPDATE ON ARLINGTON CEMETERY REFORMS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel ................................................................. 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel ........................................................................ 1 

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

on Oversight and Investigations ......................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Condon, Kathryn A., Executive Director, Arlington National Cemetery; accompanied by Patrick Hallinan, Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery ........................................................................................................................ 8 

McCoy, MG William H., USA, Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Army ................ 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Condon, Kathryn A. .......................................................................................... 56 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 31 

McCoy, MG William H. .................................................................................... 35 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 29 

Wittman, Hon. Rob ........................................................................................... 33 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

American Legion Statement for the Record ................................................... 71 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Runyan ....................................................................................................... 77 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. West ............................................................................................................ 81 

(1) 

UPDATE ON ARLINGTON CEMETERY REFORMS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED

SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, MEETING JOINTLY WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVER- SIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, Washington, DC, Friday, 

September 23, 2011. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. WILSON. Good morning. Thank you for attending this morning. And I apologize. I am 4 minutes late. But I was with the Gold 

Star Mothers and, in particular, Ann Hampton, the very grateful 

mother of Captain Kimberly Hampton, who sadly was killed in a 

helicopter incident in Iraq. 

And so as we begin today, today, the Military Personnel Subcommittee and the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee are 

jointly hosting a hearing on the recent report to Congress by the 

Secretary of the Army. That report details the progress that has 

been made since June 2010 to address the numerous serious shortcomings found in the previous oversight, administration, and management of the Arlington National Cemetery which is under the supervision of the Department of the Army. 

The Secretary’s report is based on the findings of an inspection 

conducted by the Department of the Army Inspector General [IG]. 

Overall, there is clear evidence that substantial improvements 

have taken place at Arlington. That progress reflects not only in 

the personal commitment of Secretary John McHugh, but also the 

professionalism and commitment of Ms. Kathryn Condon, the Executive Director of the Army National Cemeteries Program, and Patrick Hallinan, the Superintendent of Arlington Cemetery. 

While great strides have been made, much still remains to be 

done. My focus in the hearing will be where we go from here. I am 

especially concerned about the Inspector General’s findings that 

the wait time for burials is substantially longer than previously reported. We need to find an appropriate way soon to reduce that 

waiting time. 

Before I introduce our witnesses, let me recognize in turn Ranking Member Susan Davis of the Military Personnel Subcommittee; 

Rob Wittman, who is chairman of the Oversight and Investigations 

Subcommittee; and Jim Cooper, who is the ranking member of the 
2 

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, for any opening remarks they may wish. 

Today we will hear—so I now recognize Mrs. Davis. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 29.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Condon and Mr. Hallinan, it is good to see you. I know you 

have been here before. Thank you. Welcome. 

General McCoy, thank you for being here, and we look forward 

to hearing your assessment of Arlington and how it compares to 

last year’s review. 

Today our hearing is being held jointly with the Oversight and 

Investigations Subcommittee. So I certainly want to welcome our 

colleagues from the Oversight Subcommittee as well. 

The Arlington National Cemetery is a final resting place for 

those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their nation. It 

is a place where we expect and we should demand the highest 

standard of conduct and performance of its employees, from management to the lowest levels of the workforce. 

Sadly, the actions of a few individuals have tarnished the renowned reputation of this hallowed ground, so we are here to ensure that such actions never occur again and to begin to restore the 

trust that has been eroded by recent revelations. 

General McCoy, your report seems to suggest that the Army has 

made significant improvements at Arlington, and I have been impressed by the ongoing reports that we have had. But more can be 

done. 

Ms. Condon and Mr. Hallinan, it seems you have turned things 

around and that, again, has been impressive, and in a relatively 

short period of time. But the question that I have is, can this focus 

be maintained and what impact, if any, will potential budget concerns have on the operations of the Cemetery? I look forward to 

hearing from you on what has been accomplished for today and 

what the long-term strategic vision is for the Cemetery and ultimately how those plans may or may not be affected by the current 

budget environment. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 31.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

Chairman Rob Wittman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Ms. Condon, Mr. Hallinan, General McCoy, thank 

you so much for taking the time to be here with us today. 
3 

And I am especially pleased that you brought along Captain Nate 

Peterson, who played such a critical role in the accountability task 

force. 

Captain Peterson, thank you so much for your efforts. 

I want to thank not only Captain Peterson but other members 

of your team, such as Sergeant John McDermott, for your efforts. 

Because of you, we now have an accurate count of gravesites and 

markers at Arlington, which will ensure that future plans are 

based on real facts and data, not supposition. 

You should be proud of the service you provided to the task force 

and more importantly to your Nation. You have accomplished your 

duty with remarkable precision and diligence and have represented 

The Old Guard well. Great job. 

Arlington Cemetery is a special place for many reasons. But for 

me, it is special because it is where generations of heroes have 

been laid to rest. It is a place where we can go and pay appropriate 

tribute to heroes who dedicated their lives to others in answer to 

our Nation’s call to duty despite the sacrifices associated with 

doing so. 

It is why I feel so passionately about accountability and oversight 

of Arlington and why I was happy to read about the recent 

progress that has been made on a number of issues. In particular, 

I was happy to learn that the IG didn’t identify any deficiencies 

during the most recent inspection. And I am happy to know that 

the Army has dedicated the manpower and resources to hopefully 

sustain this progress moving forward. 

That said, I note a number of issues that continue to cause concern, such as employee training, acquisition and contracting procedures and oversight, and also long-term organizational plans and 

oversight regimes. I hope today that you will address these issues. 

And I look forward to hearing your views on how they will be addressed moving forward. 

Again, I thank all of you for being here today and thank you for 

your service to our Nation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Wittman. 

We now proceed to Ranking Member Jim Cooper. 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome 

the witnesses. I have no opening statement. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Cooper. 

Today we will be hearing from Major General William McCoy, 

Deputy Inspector General of the U.S. Army, to be followed by Ms. 

Kathryn Condon, Executive Director of the Army’s National Cemeteries Program. Ms. Condon is accompanied by Mr. Patrick 

Hallinan, who is the Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery. 

Before I recognize our witnesses, I ask unanimous consent that 

a statement from the American Legion be entered into the record. 

Members will find the statement in the material before them. 

Hearing no objection, it shall be admitted. 

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

page 71.] 
4 

Mr. WILSON. At this time, we will begin right away with General 

McCoy. 

STATEMENT OF MG WILLIAM H. MCCOY, USA, DEPUTY 

INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. ARMY 

General MCCOY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members, thank you for the invitation and opportunity to speak to you today about Arlington National Cemetery. 

I became the Deputy Inspector General in October of 2008 and 

have also been serving as the Acting Inspector General since 13 

August 2010, when Lieutenant General Whitcomb retired. During 

my time as Deputy and now the Acting Inspector General, I have 

been intimately involved in all efforts concerning Arlington National Cemetery almost continuously since July of 2009. 

Since then, the Inspector General Agency has conducted two full 

inspections and an interim review this past January, and we have 

conducted 6 investigations involving 21 matters of alleged misconduct. 

On 10 June 2010, after reviewing both the IG inspection and the 

investigation report, Secretary McHugh issued Army Directive 

2010–04, entitled ‘‘Enhancing the Operation and Oversight of Army 

National Cemeteries.’’ The directive established the Army National 

Cemeteries Program Executive Director position and tasked her to 

establish an accountability baseline for all gravesites and 

inurnment niches at the Cemetery. It further tasked agencies and 

organizations across the Army to accomplish numerous actions in 

support of the improvement of cemetery processes and procedures. 

The recent 2011 IG inspection had three objectives: First, to assess action on deficiencies identified in the 2010 report; second, to 

access implementation of Army directive 2010–04; and third, to assess the Cemetery’s efforts to provide outreach information and 

support to family members who inquire about possible burial discrepancies at Arlington National Cemetery. 

I will describe the inspection team’s findings during the remainder of this statement. Up front, I believe our report and what you 

will hear today will show that the changes that have taken place 

in the last year are a good news story. As much as the Army regretted having to report the many deficiencies found in Arlington 

a year ago, I am proud to report that the deficiencies have been 

substantially corrected this year. 

I attribute these improvements to three things: First, the direct 

supervision and direction of the Secretary of the Army, Mr. 

McHugh; second, the strong focused leadership of Ms. Condon and 

Mr. Hallinan; and finally, the application of the full force of Army 

resources to correcting deficiencies at Arlington National Cemetery 

[ANC]. 

Bottom line, in my opinion, the immense management and deficiencies found and reported last year no longer exist. 

Some of the key findings I will discuss next. Since the Secretary 

assigned Army Directive 2010–04, the Executive Director has led 

her staff and other Army stakeholders to make significant improvements at Arlington while still accomplishing the Cemetery’s daily 
5 

mission. Our 2010 IG inspection identified 76 findings and made 

101 recommendations; 61 of those findings were deficiencies. 

This year, there were no deficiencies noted. We made 31 observations and noted 2 other matters for consideration on the progress 

that has been made and the work that is still to be done. This 

alone underscores the tremendous progress ANC and the Army 

have made in correcting the problems at Arlington. 

Let me talk first to the culture. The insularity which contributed 

so significantly to the mismanagement and deficiencies last year no 

longer exist at Arlington National Cemetery. Instead, the Executive 

Director has established an environment of collaboration, cooperation and coordination with supporting Army staff, commands and 

agencies. 

Equally important is the transformation of the Cemetery’s organizational climate. We administered two Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute surveys to Cemetery employees this 

past year: one in January of 2011 and the second in June of 2011. 

Both surveys reflect steadily improving morale and organizational 

effectiveness over the last year. Sensing sessions conducted by inspectors confirm those survey findings. 

These radical improvements in the organizational climate and 

workforce attitude can be attributed directly to the strong leadership style and approach of both the Executive Director and the Superintendent. 

With regard to automated systems and processes, ANC now possesses a fully functional information technology architecture, enabled by current software applications and hardware and supported by a comprehensive service agreement with the Army’s Information Technology Agency [ITA]. 

For instance, this morning while we sit here with Ms. Condon 

and Mr. Hallinan, they are conducting 12 funerals at Arlington National Cemetery. We could not have told you that reliably last year. 

This year you can get it off their Web site. It is pretty incredible. 

ANC has partnered with ITA to route all incoming calls to ITA’s 

consolidated customer service center at Fort Detrick, Maryland. 

This has significantly improved customer service and enabled a 

tiered response system using their remedy tracking system. This 

system allows collaborative resolution by call center personnel and 

Cemetery representatives and enables Cemetery leaders to assess 

performance against established measures of effectiveness. 

ANC and the Veterans Administration are now partnering to integrate the Cemetery’s interment scheduling system and the VA’s 

Burial Operation Support System. This enhancement will save significant staff hours within the Interment Services Branch. ANC 

has partnered also with the Army’s Chief Information Officer to 

create a digital research tool for digitized burial records, cemetery 

maps and headstone photographs, which is enabling the Executive 

Director’s Gravesite Accountability Task Force to reestablish an accountability baseline for each gravesite and inurnment niche at Arlington. 

With regard to information assurance, ANC now meets Army 

standards in all functional areas. During the 2010 IG inspection, 

ANC did not meet the Army standard in any of the functional 

areas inspected; 57 deficiencies were identified in their Information 
6 

Assurance Program. Today, I can report to you that Arlington National Cemetery’s Information Assurance Program is among the 

best in the Army. 

With regard to contracting, during the 2010 IG inspection, we 

found the Cemetery’s procurement and contracting actions were 

not compliant with Army, Defense or Federal acquisition regulations. Untrained and unqualified personnel were developing requirements and committing funds to contracts without appropriate 

oversight. We also identified poor or improper contract management by the agencies charged with executing ANC’s contracts. 

This summer, we reviewed 17 ANC service contracts from the 

Mission Installation Contracting Command and 8 ANC engineering 

and construction contracts from the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Today, the Cemetery’s contracting actions are now properly aligned 

based on scope of work, and both contracting agencies are providing support teams to ANC and are properly providing the oversight necessary to ensure that quality contracts are properly 

awarded. 

ANC is also effectively monitoring contract execution with 

trained and qualified contracting officer representatives. While 

there were some discrepancies found in contract documentation 

this past year, they were all minor compared to what we found last 

year. And systems, processes and management of contracts at Arlington, which were nonexistent last year, are now consistent with 

best practices in the Army. 

With regard to Arlington’s budget, ANC now uses Army standard 

financial management processes and works closely with the Army’s 

Administrative Assistant and Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Financial Management to ensure the development, execution and 

oversight of its program and budget. Further, the Executive Director’s decision to transition Arlington early to the General Fund Enterprise Business System provides the Army full visibility of the 

Cemetery’s expenditures and has been critical to reversing past 

budget shortfalls. 

Turning to Arlington’s outreach to families, during this summer’s 

inspection, we found that ANC’s leadership and staff were professional and compassionate in providing information, support and 

outreach to families of interned or inurned veterans when responding to possible burial discrepancies in Arlington. Immediately after 

assuming her position, Ms. Condon established a hotline at Arlington to respond to burial inquiries. She also developed a tiered system to ensure that proper efforts were made to address family 

member concerns. 

To date, ANC has received almost 1,300 inquiries from family 

members. In all but 13 cases, Cemetery representatives were able 

to assure family members that there were no discrepancies regarding the burial of their loved ones. In the 13 cases of substantiated 

burial discrepancies, which included the 8 urns that were discovered in October of 2010, Cemetery representatives worked closely 

with each family concerned and invited their participation in correcting the error accordingly. 

In the case of the eight urns found in a single grave, only four 

were able to be positively identified. ANC reinterred the unidentified urns as unknown remains with the full dignity and respect 
7 

they provide. And to ensure that these inexcusable breaches of procedure are prevented in the future, the Executive Director and Superintendent have thoroughly revised and imposed strict safeguards into the Cemetery’s procedures for interring or inurning 

veterans—or disinterring veterans. 

Our key recommendations: While the Army and ANC staff have 

made great strides in correcting deficiencies noted in the 2010 IG 

report, there is still more to do. In this year’s IG report, we presented Secretary McHugh with 53 recommendations designed to 

enhance the progress already made to this point. A description of 

some of our key recommendations follow. 

In the last year, the Executive Director has revised 32 Code of 

Federal Regulations 533, and it is now being staffed for public comment. We recognized that the CFR would need to be published before the Army regulation could be appropriately revised. The Executive Director is now working on that. We have recommended that 

the Executive Director incorporate requirements for long-term, robust, and continuous oversight processes and mechanisms in the 

revision of the regulation. 

We also recommended that the Executive Director revise Department of the Army Pamphlet 290–5, ‘‘Administration, Operation and 

Maintenance of Army Cemeteries,’’ to provide all 28 Army post 

cemeteries with sound, authoritative and current guidance on 

standardized processes and procedures for cemetery operations. 

We also recommended a multiservice policy for Arlington in order 

to standardize policies, processes and procedures for interment and 

inurnment honors and for the management of ceremonial and band 

units. We believe this will be both more efficient and more responsive. 

Both the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Army are committed to ensuring we have sustained the progress that we made 

at Arlington. We note that the Executive Director and her staff 

have fundamentally transformed the control mechanisms and oversight of cemetery processes. However, to ensure this continues into 

the long term, we recommended that the Department of the Army 

G–3 provide Secretary McHugh with future options on how best to 

integrate the Army National Cemeteries Program [ANCP], command and control, organizational alignment and support systems 

into an established Army organizational structure. The G–3 is already conducting the analysis on that. 

During our inspection, we found that interments and inurnments 

at Arlington are increasing each year, and that wait times at Arlington continues to increase. This may result in the Cemetery 

reaching its capacity before current projections. We recommended 

that the Secretary of the Army request Army National Cemetery’s 

Advisory Commission, when convened, to examine the causes and 

effects of increasing wait times and increasing demand and make 

recommendations to contend with these issues. 

In conclusion, I believe the progress made at Arlington since last 

June shows a significant turnaround in performance at Arlington 

and demonstrates the Army’s stalwart commitment to ensuring all 

actions at this national shrine are executed to exacting standards. 

Ms. Condon and Mr. Hallinan have been systematically correcting the deficiencies we found last year. Army agencies and or-
8 

ganizations have completed or are in the process of completing the 

tasks specifically assigned to them by the Secretary of the Army. 

And Arlington’s efforts to provide outreach information and support 

to family members are professional and compassionate. Simply put, 

the mismanagement that we found last year no longer exists. 

Much has been done, but there is still more to do. The team that 

is there is fully capable and focused on making continuous improvements at our Army’s sacred ground. 

As the Army’s Inspector General, I know that restoring Arlington 

remains a priority for the Secretary and for the Army and for me. 

We will conduct annual inspections there for the next 2 years in 

accordance with Public Law 111–339, but we are also looking for 

other external oversight measures and internal oversight measures 

that can be implemented. 

Further, as the son of a mother and father who are buried at Arlington, I have a personal interest in ensuring that the Cemetery 

is properly managed. I am confident that Arlington is being run as 

well as possible and I have observed constant, continuous improvement over the past 15 months. 

Thank you once again for the invitation and the opportunity to 

testify today on this most important subject. I present my written 

testimony to you for the record and look forward to answering your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of General McCoy can be found in the 

Appendix on page 35.] 

Mr. WILSON. General, thank you so much. 

And we appreciate your personal commitment. 

As we proceed, I also want to recognize Representative Jon Runyan, a member of the Armed Services Committee. 

And also we appreciate his service as chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs of the 

House Veterans’ Affairs Committee. His subcommittee also has 

oversight of Arlington National Cemetery. 

And now we proceed with Ms. Condon. 

STATEMENT OF KATHRYN A. CONDON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY; ACCOMPANIED BY PATRICK HALLINAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY 

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

committees, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the progress that we have made at Arlington National Cemetery. 

Fifteen months ago, Secretary McHugh created the position of 

Executive Director, the position that I hold, as a direct report to 

him, to be solely responsible for all aspects of Arlington’s operations, identified deficiencies, inefficiencies and areas of noncompliance as a result of the June 2010 Inspector General report. 

I am pleased to report to the subcommittees today that tremendous progress has been made and care taken to analyze the 76 deficiencies identified in that report. Since that time, the Cemetery has 

established standards and crafted corrective actions which addressed those deficiencies. As noted as early as March of this year 

when the Inspector General did an interim review, it was stated 
9 

that we have significantly increased the effectiveness and efficiency 

in all of our missions and functions. 

But first and foremost, the most important action taken was hiring Pat Hallinan as the Superintendent. His years of cemetery experience have allowed both of us to use his words to reorganize, retrain and retool Arlington. 

Over the past year, we have increased the end strength of the 

organization by nearly 50 percent. We have resolved the 211 discrepancies that were identified in the 2010 IG report. We have conducted 16 physical gravesite verifications as a result of family queries. We have formed the Gravesite Accountability Task Force, 

which is currently in the process of establishing the accountability 

baseline of all gravesites and niches in the Cemetery. 

We are in the process of updating the CFR, the Code of Federal 

Regulations. We have implemented the Army’s General Fund Enterprise Business System, allowing Arlington for the first time to 

conduct a Web-enabled financial asset and account management. 

We have validated all of Arlington’s contracts, and as a matter of 

fact, we recompeted all of our service contracts this year. We 

brought Arlington into compliance with information assurance, and 

we have directed the development of a revised master plan. 

And more importantly, we have improved our communication 

with the public and the ability of families and funeral homes to 

schedule interments and inurnments by creating an integrated call 

center. 

Mr. Chairman, most importantly, I want to highlight the tremendous leap in the effective use of technology at Arlington. From the 

soldiers of The Old Guard taking photos and documenting each 

marker in the Cemetery—thank you, Captain Peterson—to replacing the paper records of the past that most of you have seen firsthand and to replacing those with a digital system that uses industry best practices for database management. We are no longer 

using an IBM Selectric typewriter. 

To schedule interments, our team is leveraging a state-of-the-art 

system that ensures visibility for all appropriate stakeholders and 

the ability to share information like never before. And we have initiated a Geospatial Application Development initiative at Arlington. This will form a Google Maps-like information system that enables the Cemetery to better manage the grounds, for Mr. Hallinan 

to assign grave and niche assessments, and to provide street directions and site locations for our guests. 

Although much has been accomplished, there is still a lot of work 

that we need to do. We are on the right path and to work to earn 

and maintain the faith of the American public. To date, this calendar year, we have conducted 4,869 burials; 3,146 ceremonies; 

hosted over 4 million visitors and guests; and as the Inspector General stated, reviewed and addressed over 1,300 family member concerns. 

We have executed these efforts while also maintaining our current operational tempo. But in order to meet the ever-increasing 

demand for dignified services, we have expanded operations to include placement-only services on Saturday that do not require honors. And we continue to conduct on an average of 27 funeral services each day. 
10 

If you were to ask today what is necessary to continue this positive and fast-paced trend, it is the continued stalwart support of all 

of the committees that are represented in the room today. 

Thank you for allowing me to just highlight a few of the examples of our progress to date. 

And Mr. Hallinan and I look forward to answering any of your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Condon can be found in the Appendix on page 56.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. And it really is encouraging 

to get this update. 

We will now be proceeding. Every person here, as a member of 

the subcommittees that are affected, will have 5 minutes each. We 

have a person above reproach, John Chapla, the professional staff, 

who will keep the time. And he is very proficient. 

As we proceed, the first question—and actually, things are coming together here in that the question I had you have largely answered, Ms. Condon. 

But first of all, I want to thank Captain Nate Peterson, of The 

Old Guard. It was really heartwarming to find out that they were 

out there taking headstone photographs. Gosh, that is so real. And 

then putting it on the Web site so that family members, historians, 

young people doing biographies of our heroes, they can look it up. 

And I, 2 weeks ago today, was at Arlington. Incredibly enough, 

Colonel Charles P. Murray, Jr., a medal of honor winner, who was 

the former Deputy Commander of The Old Guard from Columbia, 

South Carolina. And it just warmed your heart to see the tribute 

to our military heroes. 

I am glad you brought up, Ms. Condon, the—where this began 

largely were paper records that were incredibly disorganized and 

then, sadly, there was an effort of digitalization that did not work. 

So can you restate again how this has been improved? Is there any 

cost recovery to prior error? And then, with the computerization 

and the Web site capabilities, let us know how this works. 

Ms. CONDON. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, as you know, we have established the independent 

accountability task force. And what we were able to do is we were 

able to from the previous efforts to—of scanned records—to use 

those. But in our discovery, as we built our IT [information technology] tools, we discovered that not all those records were 

scanned. So we are completely rescanning, and we have rescanned 

all of the paper records of the Cemetery. 

As a result of The Old Guard, we now can tell you that we have 

259,978 gravesite locations in the Cemetery. But those are just the 

actual locations. That does not tell you the number of decedents 

that we have buried in the Cemetery. So what we are doing in the 

task force right now is to match those headstones and markers 

with each and every record that we have in the Cemetery. And we 

are well on our way, sir, on that effort. 

Mr. WILSON. And I am glad it was brought up and I like the 

term general customer service. That means customer friendly. And 

I was happy to hear there has been a change in the telephone system to include voicemail. But I am still concerned that there is a 

waiting list for interments because we know there are family mem-
11 

bers who are in jeopardy between the time of death and interment. 

What is being done? And you have identified some. But how can 

we help, on helping reduce the waiting list? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, as you know, we are almost the victims of our 

own success. Before, they only averaged answering 47 phone calls 

a day. Right now, we are averaging 230 phone calls. We are answering every phone call that comes into the Cemetery. And of 

those phone calls that are coming in, the average right now is 

around 40 of phone calls are for individual scheduling and interment service in the Cemetery. 

Mr. Hallinan and I are doing our best, and I will turn over to 

him to give the operational perspective on how we are addressing 

that increase in volume. One of the things that we did was, as I 

noted in my opening statement, was we now have Saturday services. And that is for family members and military members that do 

not want the honors, so that we can do placements on Saturday 

rather than that. 

Pat, is there anything that I missed? 

Mr. HALLINAN. I would just add that the true intent of the Saturday burials was a customer service initiative. There is no other national cemetery in the United States at this time that inters on a 

Saturday. We are working 6 days a week. That is a credit to the 

crew, and that is a credit to the planning and the efforts we are 

leading. 

As Ms. Condon stated, we are victims of our own success. We do 

not know how many people in the past called up, didn’t get 

through, got frustrated and decided to bury elsewhere. The requests for burials at Arlington is up. I think that is a good reflection on the trust and confidence of the American people. There are 

a lot of logistics and complexities involved, as you know, interring 

at Arlington. But we are working together as a team, Ms. Condon 

and I and our staff, along with the Military District of Washington, 

to see what we can do on a daily basis, Monday through Friday, 

to try to decrease that backlog. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

We now proceed immediately to Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate—really it is good to hear from all of you. I appreciate the fact that you said continuous progress is really dependent on our support, and I think we all heard that clearly. 

But I wonder if you could speak to budgetary constraints as you 

move forward and what you have the most concern about as, you 

know, we look for at the, unfortunately, the dollars and cents of 

those improvements. Where have you found real efficiencies and 

where, on the other hand, as you speak about Saturday burials, 

which is such a positive thing for our families of loved ones who 

are requesting Saturday burials, there is obviously a cost to that? 

So I think just giving us a better sense of where are we and what 

is it going to take, I guess, to keep that continuous improvement? 

How do you see the impacts of budgetary concerns? 

Ms. CONDON. Congresswoman, the issue that we have is right 

now, we have been doing all we can as was identified in the Inspector General report to bring in all of the unliquidated obligations 

from previous years so that—and we have been able to use those 
12 

dollars to pay for the increase in manpower, most importantly to 

improve the equipment that Mr. Hallinan has introduced to the 

Cemetery for our workforce to make us more efficient and effective. 

They were using outdated equipment. One of my best examples, 

and I don’t have the experience that Mr. Hallinan has when it 

comes to burials, but I will scare you now what I know about running a cemetery was we used to—when you refill a gravesite after 

you do an interment, they used to use a backhoe to tamp down the 

gravesite. And now by just introducing equipment like a gas held 

tamper, we no longer have the sinkages that Mr. Hallinan and I 

experienced when we took over last June. 

But that is an efficiency because what that also means is that 

we are now not paying the contractor to come in and refinish, redo 

the gravesite, resod, et cetera. So by introducing state-of-the-art 

modern equipment to the workforce and training the workforce, it 

has been an efficiency. 

My concern is we have been capturing prior year money and, you 

know, that has enabled us to do all of the things that we have been 

able to accomplish in the last year. I am looking seriously, you 

know, at the next budget submits if we do have enough to maintain 

and sustain the operation. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And is there an area in particular that you would 

target, for example, and again just to give us a little further direction? 

Ms. CONDON. One of the areas that we are most concerned about 

is there has been a tremendous lack of paying attention to maintenance and repair of the Cemetery. This summer, we had two catastrophic failures of our air conditioning units in our visitors center, 

which is where our 4 million guests go to use the restroom facilities, and also in our administration building. The administration 

building is where our family members come to, you know, at the 

start of their service, and literally, we had a catastrophic failure 

when we were at 100 degree temperature. Our roads are in very 

poor condition and our sidewalks. We were very fortunate that we 

didn’t have tremendous damage with the hurricanes and earthquake, but we did have damage. So backlog of maintenance and repair, ma’am, is one area where we truly have to focus our resources 

in the future. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Could you comment on transferring jurisdiction to the VA? There 

has been discussion about that as you know. And I just wonder 

what your thoughts are about it. 

Ms. CONDON. Congresswoman Davis, I was put in Arlington to 

fix the Cemetery. The decision on, you know, should it go to VA 

I think is well above me. But I think people who are probably better to answer that question—I am a little parochial—is probably either Mr. Hallinan who came from Veterans Affairs or, you know, 

the Inspector General. 

Mr. HALLINAN. I would be happy to offer my opinion. And it is 

just that; it is one person’s opinion. But I have over three decades 

of experience running 131 National Cemeteries. That expertise is 

now at Arlington, and it has contributed I think to some of the 

positive outcomes that we are testifying to today. 
13 

The final decision would be left up to the distinguished Members. 

That is above my purview. On a personal note, I do believe that 

the Army has demonstrated the resources and the commitment. 

The question is, is this really a core mission of the United States 

Army? And as I have told Ms. Condon, it has been a core mission 

of the United States Army for 150 years. So they interred those 

first Union soldiers after that first Battle of Manassas. And the 

United States Army has forensic experts. It has the labs in Hawaii. 

It has the labs in Dover. The United States Army has the greatest 

registration expertise. 

It is unfortunate what happened. We have done everything we 

can and we will continue to do to correct the mistakes of the past 

and be sure they do not happen again. But I believe the resources 

and, more importantly, the passion and the commitment to the 

mission is there with the Army. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

General McCoy—Mr. Chairman—did you want to just briefly? 

General MCCOY. I would like to answer that. First, as a soldier, 

I will tell you that from the standpoint of core competencies, Mr. 

Hallinan indicated that, you know, we have been doing this for 150 

years. We took our eye off the ball I think for a while, and we made 

a mess there that we have now cleaned up. The Army is capable 

of running this. The Army has the resources. And if you introduced 

another Federal agency, it would create an additional level of bureaucracy I believe. They already coordinate and partner very 

closely with the Veterans Administration. 

As a soldier, you know, you ask us to do things that aren’t really 

our core competency a lot. We do firefighting. We do nation building and nation assistance. We do things all the time. And I think 

the Army is probably the only organization in our government that 

is postured to go anywhere, anytime, and do anything and get the 

job done. So that is my opinion. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you for that very important question. 

We now proceed to Chairman Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General McCoy, I want to follow up on the issue of the Veterans 

Administration, and you noted in your report that the Army has 

had a number of elements that they brought to bear to look at Arlington to make sure that there was progress toward institutional 

reform, including some direct oversight by the Secretary of the 

Army. And I think that is admirable. 

Based on that, putting in a larger perspective, what do you believe is the best organizational structure for Arlington? And how 

robust a role could the Veterans Administration play in the future? 

And along those lines, can you explain why the Army hasn’t asked 

the VA to come in and do an independent evaluation, to just have 

an agency outside or an external group to look in to give an independent evaluation and say, hey, this is how we see things going, 

here are some of our recommendations? It is great to have the internal investigation, but it is also good I think with another agency 

that has expertise in that to say, listen, why don’t you do that? It 

has been recommended that that be done, and it hasn’t been done. 
14 

So I just want to get your comments on the structure and then 

where you see Veterans Administration playing a role in helping 

the future of Arlington. 

General MCCOY. Okay. Thank you, Congressman. I will tell you 

that we did recommend last year, first, a different structural solution, and the Secretary made a determination, based on his own 

judgment and advice, that he would establish this structure with 

the ANCP, the provisional oversight group and the Executive Director. And that system is working. We have asked the G–3 to 

come back and look for a long-term solution. In the short term, this 

is a good fix, and my sense is based on what we have seen is that 

it has worked very well. 

We did recommend last year that they sign an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, with the Veterans Administration to 

partner with them on their Veterans Assessment and Inspection 

Program. Ms. Condon did one better and she hired the expert out 

of Veterans Administration who wrote that program to be the Superintendent. So now he is here doing that. 

In addition to that, she has had a lot of help from organizations: 

GAO [Government Accountability Office]; we have been there continuously since she arrived; AAA [Army Audit Agency] has been 

there; Secretary of the Army for Logistics and Technology has been 

there; the Chief Information Officer. And she has in that time also 

established her own internal assessment programs, although she 

still has some work to do there. She has established and reviewed 

analysis capabilities throughout the Cemetery. My sense is there is 

still an opportunity to partner with the Veterans Administration as 

they do in information technology now and also in other matters. 

And they have done that with training this last year, but there is 

still more that they could do. I think Mr. Hallinan has a couple of 

comments. 

Mr. HALLINAN. Mr. Chairman, just for a point of fact: we do have 

the written agreement between the Department of Veterans Affairs 

and the Secretary of the Army. 

And Ms. Condon and I have spoken with the current Under Secretary, my former boss, Mr. Steve Muro. And we plan on sending 

four to five Arlington employees to their organizational and assessment training program in St. Louis, which is the academy that I 

helped found and started and did a lot of the training of the senior 

leaders. And that is the beginning. 

In order to do a proper assessment, based on cemetery operations—because they are kind of unique—you need properly 

trained people to do an assessment or they can cause more problems than issues they may fix. So that agreement is in place. I expect the first four or five individuals to be trained this year. We 

look to train additional personnel. We look to use that program 

along with an Army inspection program to assess ourselves. And 

then we look to invite the VA in maybe the following year to come 

also to take a look at us. So we have our peers in a similar industry also with their objective set of eyes helping us. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. 

Ms. Condon, I want to follow up on the issue of training. You 

know, in the IG report, it was pointed out as a deficiency, the lack 

of a comprehensive training program, ensuring that all the employ-
15 

ees there have the knowledge and skills necessary to perform their 

tasks in their specific areas. It seems to me along those lines that 

defining those core tasks and establishing conditions for training 

are critical. Can you tell me where you are in making progress towards putting those core tasks in place, having them clearly identified for each employee and then how they will be trained and then 

how those employees will be put in place, how they will be deployed based upon that training regime, because as you know, it 

has sometimes been the cart before the horse. It is employee starts 

working, and then later on, you find out, well, they don’t have the 

core competencies or their core tasks aren’t identified. If you could 

maybe define where things are going with that particular deficiency pointed out in the IG’s report. 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, as you know, the IG pointed out that what we 

are doing is we are having each employee have an individual development plan. But personally, the first thing that Mr. Hallinan and 

I had to do at the Cemetery was to implement the standards and 

procedures to effectively not only run the Cemetery operations but 

to do the administration tasks such as contracting and resource 

management. So what we are doing is we are making sure that the 

employees all have a training program and we are doing that, you 

know, as we speak. So we are addressing that issue because it is 

a concern of both Mr. Hallinan and I that our employees are 

trained to do the job rather than what happened in the past, where 

it was just on-the-job training. And so that is one of the issues that 

we are working. And I don’t know, Pat, if there is anything you 

wanted to add to that one. 

Mr. HALLINAN. Mr. Chairman, you speak about when an employee comes on the job for the first time, that they don’t have the 

skill set that is required, that would be a flaw and a mistake in 

the hiring process. One of the things that Ms. Condon and I have 

done since we have arrived is train the supervisors at Arlington in 

performance-based interviewing techniques. We have had over a 20 

percent turnover in staff in the last 15 months. That has allowed 

us to bring in new people with new skill sets based on performance-based interviews. And I have to say that they have done a 

better job of selecting candidates; I am feeling pretty confident with 

the quality of people we are bringing on board. We are training on 

site internally. We are also sending people out professionally to be 

trained, whether it is at St. Louis with the VA under the memorandum of agreement or even to Caterpillar training in Peoria, Illinois, where my equipment operators and Ms. Condon’s equipment 

operators are being trained at the highest industry standard. That 

will save the taxpayer money and wear and tear on equipment. 

That will save us in the prevention of accidents to employees or the 

visiting public. And we should gain operational efficiencies from 

the backhoe operators and equipment operators in the future. 

So when it comes to training, this is going to be the year of intense training, as I spoke to the Inspector General about. 

You need to have standards and measures. Each employee will 

be issued a copy of the standards and measures and trained in all 

standards and measures which are the very best in the country. So 

they will know word for word and line for line what is in those 

standards and measures. Then you need standard operating proce-
16 

dures to support the standards and measures. Then you need an 

assessment program to ensure that everyone is doing just that. So 

it is a three-legged stool, and we are well on our way, sir. 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, if I may add. One of the things that we are 

also doing is we are doing succession planning. We are bringing individuals in at a lower level and actually grooming them to positions within the Cemetery, both from the operational side and the 

administration side. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We now proceed to Ranking Member Jim Cooper of Tennessee. 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it is very important to get a long-term solution to this 

problem. I was very impressed by the statement of the American 

Legion and to highlight the importance of that statement, I would 

like to read from it. ‘‘The American Legion urges Congress to place 

the ultimate ongoing responsibility of managing and operating Arlington National Cemetery directly with the Department of Veterans Affairs through the National Cemetery Administration, with 

ceremonial duties still preserved by The Old Guard. In the entire 

government, no other agency can match the track record of success 

and satisfaction of NCA, that has worked hard to achieve. NCA is 

well known for their attention to detail and their ability to perform 

the task of ensuring the dignity of our fallen service members like 

no other.’’ 

They point out how Arlington is struggling to track graves, and 

NCA has already had a downloadable app for Smartphones for 

some time, so why reinvent the wheel. The American Legion goes 

on to point out that the ‘‘DOD has one critical mission, to prepare 

for and execute the warfighting necessary for this Nation’s defense. 

Sidelining resources of money and staff to nonwarfighting tasks degrades the efficiency of the DOD. NCA is already managing 131 

cemeteries and doing it very well.’’ 

They go on to point out that in a consumer satisfaction index, 

NCA scores a 96, which is higher than any other government agency and higher than any other organization in the United States. So 

the American Legion believes this is indicative of the level of commitment in getting the job done right for the families. 

So to me, Mr. Chairman, this is pretty persuasive case, and I 

think the committee should be looking at something like this. 

As the American Legion says, the efforts of Director Condon and 

Superintendent Hallinan are laudable, but they do not represent a 

long-term solution, nor should that be asked of them. So I appreciate the accomplishments that you have achieved. But we all need 

to remember this is a scandal that never should have happened. 

And the Army is always going to be distracted by more important 

missions, and I appreciate Inspector General McCoy and others volunteering for duty and getting this done. But if the Veterans Administration is doing such a great job and Ms. Condon herself had 

to hire Mr. Hallinan from the Veterans Administration, I think 

that a long-term solution is very much headed in that direction. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
17 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And we now proceed to Mr. Scott of Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ladies and gentlemen, I thank both of you. 

And I will tell you I do hope that it stays under the control of 

where it is, as much respect as I have for my colleague. I remember 

quite well as a teenager visiting the beaches of Normandy and the 

impact that it had on me. And for a long, long time, I had a picture 

of a tombstone and my recollection was it said this soldier known 

only to God, but looking—it may have said a comrade in arms 

known only to God, as I look at the things. And the impact that 

one of those funerals has and visiting one of those treasures on our 

teenagers, especially, that are growing up, I think is extremely important. 

And my granddad was a B–17 pilot. I cannot help bring that up 

with the honor flight that is here today. I saw them going in the 

Capitol, and certainly we are losing that generation at a rapid 

pace. 

I want to first say, thank you. I want to thank you for going out 

and taking your time to take the pictures because it is important 

to me as an American, and it is more important to those families 

whose loved ones are being now properly taken care of. 

General, the question I have is Andersonville is very close to 

home for me in Georgia. I have family members that are buried 

there. Are we looking at the other areas to make sure that we don’t 

have similar issues that we have had here? 

General MCCOY. You are talking about other cemeteries, correct? 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir. Correct. 

General MCCOY. There are two moves afoot. First, as the Secretary walked away from this hearing last year, he recognized that 

there may be other autonomous organizations in the Army. So he 

created a task force to look at, where might he have other autonomous organizations? And that task force concluded that we have 

several organizations in the Army that had the same kind of governance structure that Arlington National Cemetery had. So now 

we are moving to look in detail at those. 

But more to the point of the cemeteries, in addition to the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home, which is part of the Arlington National 

Cemetery Program—or the Army National Cemetery Program, 

there are 28 cemeteries throughout the Army that are on for the 

most part post camps and stations in the continental United 

States. Ms. Condon as the Executive Director of ANCP, Army National Cemeteries Program, also has proponency for those, and she 

is establishing as part of her Department of the Army Pamphlet 

290–5, she is establishing procedures and processes for proper 

gravesite burial and management there. 

So my sense is that while those cemeteries are much less engaged than hers is, than Arlington National Cemetery, she understands what she has to do to make those changes at those cemeteries as well. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. One last question or comment. 

When my grandfather died, we chose to bury him in a family 

plot. He was a POW [prisoner of war] in World War II, and we simply asked for an Honor Guard to carry out the service, the flag and 

the rifles and the playing of taps. And obviously, it was carried out 
18 

from a base in Georgia, and the gentleman in charge was a very, 

very respectful, but commented that, you know, we simply don’t 

have the manpower to carry out all of the requests that we are getting. I would just ask, obviously this is the priority of this committee hearing right now, that maybe we consider how we are 

going to handle the respect for those who are not being buried in 

Arlington and maybe even if we worked with ROTC [Reserve Officer Training Corps] programs throughout the State—I represent a 

very rural area of the country in many of the counties that I represent and whether or not we could work with an ROTC program 

to make sure that those families have the service that they request. 

Thank you. Thank you for everything you have done. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

And we now will proceed to Ms. Tsongas of Massachusetts. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you all for being here. And it is a pleasure 

to hear this report compared to that which we heard over a year 

ago. So I want to commend you all for the great progress you have 

made. And the progress has been significant, but I think if you look 

at what we heard initially, there was no other way than up. So you 

are on a good path. 

And I would also like to say that in my office, I have a wounded 

warrior; his name is Paul Corbett. And I let him know that I would 

be attending this hearing today. And he asked that I recognize the 

tremendous work that he has seen performed by our service members who work at Arlington National Cemetery. He has attended 

too many ceremonies there as a result of his service but said he 

has always been incredibly touched and moved by the seriousness 

and professionalism of The Old Guard and their incredible commitment to burying our soldiers with dignity, the dignity they deserve. 

So I just wanted to convey that to you. 

I also, in reading your testimony, was sort of alerted to your Web 

site and I went on it just out of curiosity. I had a free moment. And 

I found it to be very well done. So I commend you for that as well. 

And as I was looking through it, you know, I saw one of the little 

tabs where it talks about eligibility and who was eligible to be buried there. And I wondered if one of the issues you are contending 

with in the delay, part of it is a result of the improvements you 

have made, that people are now able to get through and otherwise 

might have given up. But what the process is for determining eligibility. You have criteria. But once somebody makes it known that 

they would like to bury a loved one there, how efficient is that 

process? What does it look like? Does it need more resources? 

Would that help address the delay? Whoever feels it would be suitable to answer that. 

Mr. HALLINAN. Well, I will start off by saying I believe Arlington 

has gotten strong support and enough resources to carry out the 

mission. Whether adding additional resources is going to impact 

the situation, I really don’t believe so. I do think it is volume. I 

think also it is logistics. There is only a number of open and first 

interment sections in Arlington. They are all in a certain location 

within Arlington, almost in the corner of Arlington. 

So we need to be very careful. We have gone from 27; our goal 

is to do 30 interments a day to address the backlog. But we need 

to be real careful as we try to reach 30 interments a day, that we 
19 

don’t impact any of the other families because of the logistics and 

locations. So today we have 27 interments. If we had 30, and the 

service is going on with another service coming down and disrupt 

that family and impact that service in a negative way. So there is 

a balance. I don’t think the possibility of an additional caisson, a 

changing of work schedules, is only going to add 1 additional interment, 5 interments a week, 24 a month. That will start to address 

the backlog. But I guess I question, my staff, when you raise people’s expectations, interest in Arlington may go up again. You may 

get more calls. The more efficient you become, the higher the 

standard you operate to, you raise people’s expectations. So I think 

we are doing everything we can locally. I don’t really think it is a 

resource issue at this time. I think it is more coordination and logistics. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Is eligibility a fairly cut-and-dry determination? Is 

that fairly quickly determined? 

Ms. CONDON. Yes, ma’am, it is. And you did mention one of the 

factors by putting up the new Web site. I think one of the issues 

before was it wasn’t clear, people didn’t know where to go to actually find what the criteria was for eligibility. So we put out a new 

administrative guide, which is also on our Web site. Just they 

didn’t have the information, and it is pretty clear on who is eligible 

to be buried at Arlington. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And in the context of our discussion as to whether 

or not it should be transferred to the VA or remain under the 

Army, do you keep figures on—from what branches of the services 

people are being buried, family members, numbers of family members versus those who have served? Do you have that broken down 

into categories? 

Ms. CONDON. Yes, ma’am, we do. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. Thank you. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Ms. Tsongas. 

We proceed now to Colonel Allen West of Florida. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To the visiting chairman, and also ranking members, thank you 

very much. 

And to the panel, thank you for joining us here today. 

And I want to commend you all because the Army that my father 

served in, in World War II; that I served in for 22 years; and that 

my nephew is now serving in, we don’t run away from our missions, and we don’t run away from challenges. We step up to the 

plate, and we make the corrective action. So I commend you for 

this and keep pressing on because I don’t want to see this great 

tradition to be taken away from my Army, and that is an important thing that we have to understand. So, with that being said, 

I would like to ask a little bit about the inspection program because as we know, previously, as it said in the IG report, there was 

not an OIP [Organizational Inspection Program]. So I would like to 

get a little bit more information as far as the schedule by which 

we will have these OIPs coming up. 

I know, General, you talked about having inspections over the 

next 2 years. Now, will those be IG driven inspections, so there will 

be reports? Or will we have a formal OIP program from an external 
20 

entity? And then, also, Ms. Condon, if you could kind of give us an 

understanding about your internal assessment programs that you 

will have. 

General MCCOY. Congressman, I will start with just two things, 

and then I will turn it over to Ms. Condon. The inspection I was 

talking about for the next 2 years required by Public Law 111–339 

is a DAIG [Department of the Army Inspector General] inspection 

that will result in a written report in order to determine that continuing progress is made based on the findings that we had in 

2010. So that will continue. The organizational inspection program 

is kind of—there are three tools available to Ms. Condon. One, obviously, is an internal program that she can implement herself. But 

it also includes staff assistance visits. And the staff is very focused 

right now on being at her beck and call to help in many ways. 

Sometimes it is too much help. But the fact is, they are there to 

help, and she is leveraging that very powerfully. And then the 

other part is command inspections, things that we can—that the 

Secretary can ask us to go drill into specifically if he wants us to 

look at things. And then finally her own internal processes to get 

out and about and look at the operations inside her program to 

make sure that they are operating properly. Our recommendation 

to her was that she develop internal processes, the external ones 

are going to continue for the foreseeable future. 

Ms. CONDON. And, Congressman, we have been able to get to the 

state we are today by having had independent people coming in 

and looking and addressing where issues are, everything from contracting to resourcing to how we do our operations. I am going to 

follow, you know, in good Army tradition, the Army regulation on 

the program for inspection. We are going to have internal inspections. I am very fortunate, from a cemetery operation standpoint, 

that I have Mr. Hallinan here because he was the one who was responsible for all of those inspections and that fabulous rating that 

was given to the VA cemeteries. And I welcome any external agency to come in and do an inspection. 

I think to date, we are probably the most inspected organization 

in government. But that is okay because it has enabled us to fix 

those issues that need to be corrected for our veterans and their 

loved ones. 

Mr. WEST. Last question. And that kind of goes along with what 

my colleague was saying. In being a victim of your own success and 

understanding the constraints that you have with the capacity 

there, the increased requests now, are you seeing that you have to 

make any type of changes in the prioritization or the guidelines 

and criteria that you have for interment there at Arlington National Cemetery? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, this is a great segue. As you know, Secretary 

McHugh is in the process of establishing and we are putting together our first meeting of the Arlington Commission, which is an 

outside body to look at us. And those are the kind of issues that 

we would like to present to that commission. Do we need to relook 

at the eligibility requirements for the Cemetery as well as the expansion of the Cemetery? How best should we utilize the land that 

are part of the expansion? So that is what we are going to do to 

address those issues. 
21 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Colonel. 

We now proceed to Chairman Jon Runyan. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And again, Ms. Condon, Mr. Hallinan, General McCoy, thank you 

again for your testimony. 

Ms. Condon, again, thank you for everything we are doing. Every 

time we have a hearing, we are enlightened and encouraged by 

moving forward, but I think the black cloud that hangs over us a 

lot of times is a lot of what I hear a lot of times. People see the 

the forward progress, but they want to talk about the bad things, 

and I want to talk about one right now. 

As you know, we had a briefing—and I know there is an ongoing 

criminal investigation going on—but we had a briefing not too long 

ago in the VA with the Army CIS [Criminal Investigation Command, CID] and the missing contract that has to do with digitizing 

the records of the last time when we found the 69 boxes. Have they 

found that contract as of yet, the base contract? Not the one with 

the subcontractor but the base contract that we were looking for? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, I will have to take that one for the record since 

it is under investigation. I am not aware if they found the contract 

or not. 

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

page 77.] 

Mr. RUNYAN. General, do you have any idea on that? 

General MCCOY. No, Congressman. We do not investigate criminal matters inside the IG. So that was passed to the Criminal Investigation Command, and they have taken that on now. We can 

take that back. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. 

And just to comment, Mr. Hallinan: when we are talking about 

maybe transferring, you know, Arlington to the VA, just a statement, and I think you would probably agree with me because you 

ran it, are we not duplicating the same process in the VA here in 

the Army? 

Mr. HALLINAN. We are providing the same service. I don’t know 

if we are duplicating the same process because Arlington does 

things completely differently. I think if the VA in fact does have 

Arlington transferred under their jurisdiction, there are going to be 

some change that they are going to have to deal with, some very 

real challenges. They do not do graveside burials. They do not do 

the honors that are rendered, the coordination of military honors 

units, the 4 million tourists, the visitation from heads of state who 

come to pay their respects to America’s service men and women. 

These complexities they do not deal with. They deal with their regional, local cemeteries and their local communities. Arlington is 

unique. Arlington is special to the American people. It is special to 

the world. It is the world stage. So it is very challenging. My eyes 

were opened and my ears were opened somewhat, Congressman, 

when I went to a meeting of TAPS [Tragedy Assistance Program 

for Survivors]. And these are the Gold Star Mothers and Fathers. 

When we first came on board, we felt it important to meet with 

those most deserved stakeholders, and we were discussing the 
22 

many issues that Arlington was facing, but what I got out of it was 

a number of times, they were quite adamant that Arlington remain 

with the Army and we don’t want it to be a VA cemetery. And they 

kind of directed it towards me because I had VA written all over 

me at the time. So I was in the defensive mode. But on the most 

human level, I understood exactly what they were telling me. 

Despite everything that happened, the honors that they received, 

they know that the Army had taken their eye off the ball, as the 

Inspector General spoke of, but the Army can fix it, the Army has 

fixed it, and they look for the Army to maintain that trust and 

commitment going into the future. So it was right there right in 

front of us. They were very vocal about it. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Understood. And I respect that totally. But I think 

in a world where there are some very similar aspects for it, and 

there may be room in the future for a collaboration there to actually—because we are stewards of the taxpayers’ money, and that 

is ultimately what we are about, and there may be something to 

move forward to where we can help the taxpayer out a little bit 

more. So I thank you. 

And, Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As we conclude, I have a brief question, but, Ms. Condon, you 

touched on it. It is expansion. What reassurance do you have to the 

American people as to space at the current location of Arlington 

Cemetery, and looking ahead, has Arlington II been identified? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, as you know, when Mr. Hallinan and I started, 

we were given data, and the data that we were given was that we 

were going to run out of niche space in the Cemetery in the year 

2016 and in-ground burial in 2025, which caused Mr. Hallinan and 

I to relook the expansion designs, to look at the designs that we 

inherited from the previous administration for the Millennium 

Project and the expansion to the Navy Annex. 

What we have done is the Army’s Concept Analysis Agency, our 

research, organizational research guys, have put a model together 

for us which looks at not only the available acreage but also looks 

at the eligibility criteria so we can change the factors, because our 

number one priority is to expand the life of Arlington Cemetery for 

our veterans and their loved ones to the maximum extent possible. 

As a matter of fact, last week, Mr. Hallinan and I participated 

in a design charrette for the Millennium Project. And it was very 

interesting because I think Mr. Hallinan had much more fun. I had 

to go back to meetings, but he got to spend more time with them 

to redesign, to put his expertise to look at the designs of how we 

can expand in the future. And I don’t know if you want to say anything else on that, Pat. 

Mr. HALLINAN. As I looked at the Millennium Project, some of 

the expertise that Ms. Condon is referring to is, you know—if we 

change the gravesite layout pattern—and this comes from my years 

of experience with the VA, Congressman. We are collaborative. I 

am on the phone with the Under Secretary and we are willing to 

share training and resources. And there are more opportunities in 

the future. And we are going to take them up on that and leverage 

any assistance we can get. But something as simple as changing 
23 

the gravesite layout from a 5-by-10 gravesite to a 3-by-8 will increase the yield and the longevity of Arlington National Cemetery. 

And as the commission that Ms. Condon spoke of, the Secretary 

of the Army has directed looks at eligibility. It may impact that decision. Because if we can increase the yield at Arlington National 

Cemetery, we may not have to revisit eligibility so those that are 

eligible now would remain so. You would not have to restrict it. 

There is a finite footprint to Arlington National Cemetery, as we 

all know. But based on something as simple as changing the 

gravesite layout may have a significant impact on longevity at Arlington National Cemetery from an operational standpoint. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you. And you do identify finite. Is there 

a second location under consideration at all? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, that is one of the issues that we are going to 

present to the Commission for Arlington, is that we all know that 

there is a finite time when we will run out of burial space at Arlington National Cemetery. So that would be one of the issues we 

would tee up to the independent commission is, what after Arlington? 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

Are there any further questions? 

Hearing none, at this time we adjourn. 

[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 

(29) 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 

(71) 
72 
73 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 

(77) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. RUNYAN 

Ms. CONDON. Criminal Investigation Command (CID) determined that the contract vehicle described by CID in the briefing to Congressman Runyan and the Veterans Affairs Committee has not been found. The contracting relationship between 

Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) and the company Office Solutions was documented in 2004 (awarded 26 MAR 2004). The original (basic) contract file was required by Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) to be retained for a period of 3 

years following fiscal closeout. The basic contract file and documentation is presumed destroyed IAW [in accordance with] the FAR, due to the retention period expiration. None of the basic contract files have been discovered by CID and are presumed to have been destroyed. What CID was able to locate was the documents related to Office Solutions that were retrieved from the Electronic Document Access 

(EDA) system maintained by Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Ogden, 

UT. We have five Standard Form 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial 

Items and three Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract, consisting of 139 pages. A review of the documents from the EDA system did 

not reveal anything of evidentiary value. As stated previously, we do not have, nor 

have we been able to locate, the base contract. [See page 21.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 

(81) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WEST 

Mr. WEST. With the significant development of tracking systems in the past few 

years, commercial and government organizations are now using RTLS (‘‘Real-Time 

Location Systems’’) to track their high-value assets in real time. Indeed, the Department of Defense is already applying such technologies to a variety of high priority 

items. For example, the U.S. Army Depot at Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania is using 

RTLS technology to provide a real-time location capability that enables the effective 

tracking and tracing of weapons system parts. What technologies like this are you 

evaluating and/or benchmarking against within DOD so that Congress and the public can be assured that there will be a stewardship system in place at Arlington National Cemetery that will accurately account for the remains of our Nation’s veterans from theatre to the cemetery and, within Arlington, to burial? 

Ms. CONDON. Arlington National Cemetery is diligently working to meet the legislative requirements set forth by Public Law 111–339 by conducting a full accounting 

of Arlington National Cemetery Gravesites. 

In August 2010, the ANCP Executive Director formally requested support from 

the Army’s Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (ACSIM) to field 

Arlington National Cemetery a world class geospatial information system (GIS). 

This system once fielded will provide Arlington Cemetery a ‘‘Google-maps like’’ ability to digitally track and audit the management and assignment of gravesites for 

our nations’ veterans. This system is on track to be fielded in March 2012. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) uses the Defense Casualty Information Processing System (DCIPS) to track individual remains as they transit from theatre to 

their final destination. 

Arlington National Cemetery has investigated technologies that could provide 

Radio Frequency Identification Technologies as well as looked at how mobile applications and digital photographs could permanently enhance the burial records of Arlington National Cemetery to assure the public of stewardship of burial remains. In 

addition to Arlington’s internal research, through partnership with the VA we understand the Department of Veterans affairs is investigating asset management systems as part of their Memorial Affairs Redesign (MAR) project and if such technology could enhance the stewardship provided to the remains of our nation’s veterans from theater. This research is part of their requirement development phase 

as they undergo a replacement for their Current Burial Operations Support System 

(BOSS). 

Æ