documentation. .. while these developments are encouraging, there's still much work to do. the 2011 inspection report from

either 53 recommendations for the continued improvement at arlington i will highlight if you required actions. first of all, the leadership finished up the relevant policy and regulations. further from the arlington leadership must complete the documentation and validation of internal oversight process these and controls. the recent work to establish the grave site accountability must continue to resolve the 47,000 cases that remained. the executive director must go with the army staff to establish and document and two external oversight process is to continue debate to prevent the recurrence. the department of the army must also finalize and implement the jurisdictional organizational support relationships of the army national cemetery program. as we look to our inspection this summer we will conduct assessments in several areas. first of all, compliance with the director of 2010 tarincot 04

and the recommendations from the 2011 report. compliance with the executive director campaign plan, the grave site accountability process validation, and we are collaborating with the agency from the va and the management support agency for their participation as well in this year's inspection. in conclusion, arlington remains a priority for the secretary and for the army. a significant progress of served by the army ig validates the secretary's approach to creating the process systems management that we find lacking in 2010. the strategy executed according to the director campaign plan was to support the army from the defense department of the federal agencies and congress to set the conditions for the continued improvement and ultimately sustained actions. thank you once again for the opportunity to testify today i look forward to answering your

questions and working with the committee in the future. thank you. >> thank you very much. ms. martin. >> chairman willson and wittman, ranking members david and cooper, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the gao workout arlington. our review found that arlington has taken significant actions to address its problems and that the path forward as you stated, chairman wilson, is for arlington to sustain progress through improved management and oversight. my colleague will discuss the work on management issues. on the contract inside, gao identified 56 active contract over $100,000 that supported cemetery operations and construction and facility maintenance and new efforts to enhance the systems for the automation of the operations. arlington doesn't have its own

contracting authority but relies on relationships with kentucky offices 20 word and manage its contracts. these contracting authorities obligated to roughly $35.2 million in support of the 56 contracts that were included in our review. and as the baiji has noted, the army has taken a number of positive steps since june, 2010 at different levels to provide more effective management and oversight of contracts including improving contract and policies and practices establishing new support relationships, formalizing policies and procedures and increasing the use of dedicated contract in staff to manage and improve its acquisition. however, gao found three areas at arlington where additional improvements are needed. first-come maintaining complete data on contracts. second, defining

responsibilities for contracting support, and feared, determining the contract staffing needs. i will briefly summarize the key findings in these three areas. first with respect to maintaining complete data. when we did our review we were able to pull together information on arlington contracts from various sources including support organizations, but they were shortcomings with each of the sources. to be able to identify, track and ensure the effective management and oversight of the contract, arlington leadership needs complete data on all contracts. second, with respect to support relationships, the army has taken a number of steps to better align arlington contract support with the expertise of its partner. for example, arlington has agreements with the army information technology agency and the army analytics group to

help manage its i.t. infrastructure. while these agreements spell out the services that all ta will provide to arlington and performance metrics against which all 88 will be measured these are all very positive steps. these agreements do not specifically address the contract management roles and responsibilities in support of the arlington requirement. although officials told us that they were aware of the roles and responsibilities, the question is what happens when personnel change? 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 staff aide arrangements three contract specialist positions have been identified for arlington but have not been

filled. arlington is presently receiving support from fort belvoir contract in office in the form of ten positions. 500 by arlington and five by fours belfour. arlington officials have identified the need for a more senior contracting specialist and are developing plans fulfilled this new position in fy 13. in closing the success of the army efforts to improve contacting and management at the cemetery will depend on management, sustained attention and efforts to institutionalize positive steps taken to date. accordingly we need 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 with our findings and that there is a need to take action and provide time frame for doing so.

we will continue to monitor their progress. mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my short statement. i will be happy to answer questions. 64 very much ms. martin. we now have mr. bryan. >> thank you. churn and wilson, a ranking member davis, chairman whitman and ranking member cooper and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present our findings from our review of oversight and management of arlington national cemetery. we issue our report on the management and oversight of arlington on december 15th of last year. my testimony is based on our report, and i will make two points today. first i will discuss the policies and procedures the current leadership at arlington has put into place to begin to address these deficiencies that became apparent, and i will identify some of our recommendations to help assist that endeavor and second, i will discuss some factors that could potentially affect the

feasibility and advisability of transferring arlington from the army to the department of veterans affairs, the va. here's the bottomline. i think it is fair to say the current leadership team at arlington has taken any positive steps at the cemetery to address the deficiencies and make improvements. the army has made progress in a range of areas including the 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 some steps are still needed to ensure that these changes are institutionalized and will prove lasting for the long term long after the spotlight has faded. therefore we've made recommendations in six areas. first we believe they should complete the architecture to guide new investments and information technology to ensure the investments are aligned with the future operational

requirements. second, and 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 making any improvements that may be warranted. fourth, improving coordination with the cemetery's operational partners, the military district of washington, the military honor guards and the joint based myerson hall to ensure for example but scheduling conflicts are avoided and the right on our guards are available when needed. fifth, a strategic plan or campaign plan with expected outcomes, performance metrics and milestones and written policies and explaining how to assist the families when such assistance is warranted. the cemetery leadership has generally concurred with our recommendations and has begun to implement them. we are encouraged by this. now my final point, the question of the feasibility and advisability of transferring arlington from the army to the

va. it's certainly feasible. as you know, congress transferred more than 80 national cemeteries managed by the army to the va 1970's. however, several factors could affect the advisability of this. such a change could have potential constant benefit to colleges and can lead to certain transition challenges and can affect the characteristics that make arlington unique among the national cemeteries. thus it may be premature to change the jurisdiction right now since the army has significantly improved the management of arlington. here are some of the specific challenges that could arise in the jurisdictional change. first, simply identifying the goals of the transfer. second, the army and the v.a. have their own stuff policies and systems to determine the real eligibility and scheduling and managing the terri hail as an example arlington has more restrictive eligibility for the embrum burial than the va. third, arlington's appropriation structure is different than the

va should you make a jurisdictional change the congress may wish to determine what is the right course of action. fourth of arlington provides military funeral honors that the v.a. does not. fifth, arlington hosts many special ceremonies every year some involving the president and visiting heads of state. in six, arlington as one of the most visited destinations in washington post in over 4 million visitors a year. finally, we do think opportunities exist for the army and the va to collaborate more for the mutual benefit of both organizations but most importantly, for the benefit of our active duty service members, our veterans and their families. here are some examples. va staff, the it staff dedicated to establishing eligibility for the burial in the cemeteries and the central scheduling center that could assist arlington. conversely, va officials are examining whether geographic information systems or global positioning system technology should be used in this imagery is that the army already does

this and could conceivably provide assistance to the va. since no formal mechanism exists yet to identify the cooperation opportunity, we recommended that the two departments establish one and the 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 to read our recommendations are offered in the spirit of assisting that process along so that we never have to come before you begin to have this conversation. mr. chairman that concludes my prepared remarks and i would be happy to answer questions you or any member of the subcommittee may have to beat >> thank you, director. i went thank director martin to read both of you were very helpful and i appreciated the final comments that you didn't want to have to come back. a truly you are helping make that possible. so thank you. arlington director ms. catherine. >> chairman wilson, chairman

whitman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the progress we've made at the arlington national cemetery. as both of the chairmen and ranking member davis and cooper both know from our monthly updates we still have a lot of work we have to do at arlington. the army and the entire cemetery are prepared to address the challenges that remain. but today significant progress has been made. progress as a result of our focus on establishing for the standards, measures and operating procedures that emphasize safety, proficiency, professionalism and accountability. the implementation of the starting of the technology now makes the grounds of burlington one of the most technologically advanced cemeteries in the country. a different perspective than 19 months ago when the summit to reflect fiscal stewardship, was a peter based operation using a

typewriter and having only one fax machine. when calls were not answered and the workforce wasn't properly mant, trained or equipped. but practicing the sound fiscal stewardship and displaying the transparency in the cemetery operations is paramount in our effort to restore the faith, trust and honor our veterans and their families rightfully deserve. a chain of custody process has been implemented to maintain positive, there's liable control of the remains throughout both interment process of the cemetery. and we have the financial records and the recovered funds come $2,638,000,000 to be exact. funds that will be used to fund as you know mr. chairman the construction of the column and to make the necessary improvements to the years of backlogs of maintenance and repair.

you have my commitment that we will continue to examine prior funding records to see if there are more dollars that can be recovered to put back into arlington. in the accountability report recently submitted to the congress, we have examined and photographed 259,978 and great sleep and markers. the accountability task force by all those photos and a couple of them with the existing records. and for the first time, we now have consolidated 147 years of cemetery records. records that were created from the country's, the paper based records of internment that we used to have in our internet scheduling but are no longer there and the automated records that we did have come and we now have them into a single accountable database. since the submission of the report told of a degree of sites without any discrepancies and

evidence is now 212,674 and we are working diligently to continue to close the remaining 18% of the cases to bring our efforts on accountability to closure. the creation of the single complete verifiable data base will soon allow families and other stakeholders with internet access to search and produce a picture of each and every marker in the cemetery and to review that with public information obtaining to each gravesite. they can do this on our state of the art website ayaan soon to be smart for applications we will be launching to the public to read in the area of contract and we have made significant progress and contract management, transforming the contracting activities. the army has researched the contracting support in oversight adding skill acquisition support

personnel to support myself and properly trained workforce involved in the acquisition process. in order to orchestrate the activities required to effectively run arlington we've allowed the arlington national cemetery campaign plan which codifies an one strategic document the long-term vision for the operation of the cemetery at both arlington and the soldiered immense home. it is the vehicle the superintendent and l.i.e. will use to ensure that we do achieve the future vision for the cemetery. and incorporated the significant guidance, support and recommendations we have received from the secretary, from the gao come from the army inspector general come from the army audit agency, from the northern virginia technology council, and from distinguished members of congress, in particular members of this committee. coupled with the candian plan we are developing our enterprise architecture and technology acquisition road map which will serve as our blueprint and

ensure our i.t. investments are effectively and efficiently meeting the needs of the organization will into the future. in conclusion i wish to thank both committees again for your leadership and guidance as we restore honor and integrity to the could dignity to the arlington national cemetery. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. at this time we will proceed to questions from each member of both of the subcommittees. and we will be on a street five minute rule. this will be upheld by mr. john chaplain who is a professional staff member of the armed services committee and above reproach. he's very good about keeping the five minute rule. including with both chairmen. and at this time i would like to ask first of all it's exciting and i hope people do hear the good news that you can access records now by the internet as a person who has a family member there it means a lot to me and

as a citizen of our country and also as a member of congress. in your report you identified more than 57,000 great discrepancies still have to be resolved. i would like for you to focus on what the most serious or and particularly the 14,000 critical discrepancies. what is the corrective action time line and funding required to address the critical deficiencies? >> mr. chairman, the critical -- and our accountability what we have done is we started the process with business rules. and one of our business rules to match the photograph of the old guard took of each and every gravesite and niche was that we had to match that with at least two records. most of the 14,000 discrepancies which are really not discrepancies per say means we didn't have to records. we only had one record. we are finding that from the civil war we only have one

document and the transcript books and what the task force did and the end of the 22nd of december and we now have 45 analysts most of them are temporary employees who are dedicated themselves to looking at the social security death index to look at the census data, to look at the military records, to go on ancestry.com to make sure that we could find another record so that we could validate the information that we have on the grave site and had stone and that incorporates most of what the 14,000 is. >> that's a very creative and i'm delighted to hear that. additionally, there's been press reports that the $12 million was previously appropriated funds could not be found, and then you indicated that you have recovered $26.8 million. could you tell us how the recovery was stunned, whether there are any other on obligated funds still to be found, and how is this situation to be

prevented in the future? >> i can first start by talking about how the $12 million came about. on page 15 of ms. martin's gao report on contract in, they cited a 2010 army audit that said 15 million was on the liquidated obligations that recovered so if you take a total of the amount that we have and subtract the 50 million, you get $12 million that they said was unaccounted for. so that wasn't and accounted for. we've recovered all of that $26.8 million because the ig report, the army audit report and the gao report for snapshots in time and that data, we were continuing to recover the funds. how did the staff to mine resource management staff has been working meticulously to look at each end of contract to make sure we close out the contracts and recover funds and to also look at each and every

coming to know, member when you give money to the organization to provide support to make sure that we close out and bring back those dollars. that is how we were able to recoup the 26 million that we found to be islamic i want to congratulate you. i can't imagine recovering that much money. so i am very pleased. for everyone, and it can be very brief, since my time is brief, should the department of the veterans affairs assumed the responsibility for the arlington national cemetery and the cemetery at the soldiers home here in columbia to read stomachs before mr. chairman. i think we need to take a good look at this and the more detailed look at i concur with the gao has brought a already and as i take a look at it though i think right now the army should keep it and the bottom line is collaboration is probably better at this point at least for the next few years and then we take another look and we will do whatever the president and congress want us to do.

>> mr. chairman as we noted in our report, given the progress the army has made and given the potential short-term costs of actually doing a transfer, it seems to us that it might be more prudent to give the army the chance to see if they can complete the progress and bring this through to a successful conclusion and you will have a pretty good idea how they come back later this year so it seems to us that right now making the decision might be premature. >> thank you. >> i'm not coming to answer this provoking a week. my job was to put in place to fix arlington for the veterans and their loved ones. the decision on where arlington is placed all i can tell you is if it is transferred you will have a fixed and much improved arlington.

>> thank you. we now proceed to the ranking member, susan davis of san diego, california. >> thank you. to you, general, but -- if you were to give arlington a grade right now, what would that be? >> i got the chance to go down and he essentially talk to some people, and i've looked at some past reports to really haven't had a chance to forget it in death like i'm going to do with the inspection team as we go down. what i can say is being deployed the last two years, and i heard what was going on at arlington, i would have to give them of zero. with what i heard i have to be honest with you because it is just not something -- it was inconceivable that that was happening because what i saw was they were very respectful ceremonies. it seemed to be going well. i will say though that looking

at the progress that's been made it coming and as i say, i go back and look at the reports, but the department of the army ig has done, they're have been too, there's been significant progress. if you're asking me to put it on a number scale that would be difficult for me to do that this point because i don't usually give so i'd have to say that they are probably around you know, they are better than five. estimate of what you know, and certainly from the testimony today, one of the things i kept hearing was about staffing issues and making sure the issue is around that are sustained so that no matter who is there that those issues are addressed. is that one that would improve the breed or is their anything else that really stands out to you from all of this? >> in 2010 we identified the fact that they were -- the staff

wasn't robust enough to be able to do the jobs they were being asked to do particularly from the oversight function. we've recommended that the army force management support agency and the united states man power agency come down and take a look again. they made recommendations and the secretary of the army authorized about 63 personnel. and she's been hiring folks. i don't believe she has the knowledge and i would defer to her for the status but in my mind is the documentation of the internal process controls. if i had to say what really in my mind influences the score if you would come the service to the families is remarkable. they are doing a good job with that. ceremonies have always been done well. in fact in one circumstance you could argue that in fact they were done well and caused a lack of oversight in some other areas and there's the assumption that everything was okay.

as you take a look at that i think at the end of the day it is about as tom was in the document and euphemizing the process these. they've made so much progress with so far but it's all about making sure that the sop matches the execution. >> thank you very much. ms. martin, you mentioned in your testimony the need for contract in specialists and certainly senior staffers as well. and i'm just wondering what do you think is a reasonable time frame if we look back six months from now should those issues be addressed buy then or should it be three months, a year, what is reasonable to assume that a lot of these areas have been address? >> i would have to defer to the leadership at arlington to her

credit she has identified the need for a more senior contracting specialist and she has taken some steps to get that in 2013. my understanding is there is a process to do that. so she's already put the steps in place. the fact she's getting the support she needs from fort belvoir at the time is a positive, but our point would be that at some point if there is another urgent need within the army that support may not be there so as we have been saying it's important to put the policy procedures to have the right people in place an order to sustain. the sustainment again is the key but certainly her team has taken the steps to identify what she needs and to hopefully bring those people on board. >> thank you. >> what do you think is a reasonable time frame to come back and be sure, six months, is that reasonable, or three

months? >> we are currently in the process of hiring that senior contacting professional to be personally on my staff. the reason why i'm very comfortable with the agreement we have right now with the command with having been provide our contracting support because that means we have trained acquisition professionals who are in the acquisition chain so i will make sure they have the right training, the right credentials and levels of certification and the right weren't because arlington is in that large an organization to have a large contract and structure. so if i have the one senior professional on the staff personally and then reach back to the contract in command for support i think that will satisfy the contract and oversight requirements that we need the cemetery. >> thank you mr. sherman. 64. we proceed to chairman of rob

wittman of virginia. >> thank you. i find it interesting in the report to speak about contract management deficiencies at arlington with contract management specifically in the area of i.t. it appears as though 5 million spent and wasteful but haven't produced any results and on page nine of the report you said that the ip contract management system isn't guided by the modernization blueprint and that its duplicative and poorly integrated and not necessarily costly to maintain. from that standpoint, what is your review on covered and specific terms about what you believe that was occurring as well as what are the current efforts to overcome those deficiencies? where are they in the modernization effort to make sure there isn't duplication and that systems are not unduly costly to those. >> thank you, chairman, for the

question, and it actually stands both of the reports. the external review is found that dhaka over 5 million that have been spent to modernize the system didn't give up very much and there were a number of reasons starting from some basic stuff like the people who were executing the contracts were not properly trained and didn't have the right experience and the kind of referred to the importance of giving that up front planning for the contracts. and a couple of the system's really did not get up very much in terms of trying to modernize. as a part of the mandate, we were required to look at five particular systems that were called out, and what we found is that two of the systems are active and those are the internment scheduling systems and the geographic information system. that is the one that my colleague refers to to the altar

used gps to do the mapping etc. one system is in use and that is a be a system so it's not really in arlington contract but it does use the system to order the headstones and the grave markers but there is no payment to the va under that contract and then the last two, the internment management system and total management system are the ones that we've basically got nothing for in terms of the money that was spent. so there were a number of reasons in terms of the contract not having the specific again oversight come of the deliverable is not being very clear, documentation, planning, oversight, so it spans the gamut in terms of things you wouldn't want to do for contracts, and so and the oversight and manager in mant report we've made some specific recommendations in terms of having an architecture

and we can talk a bit more about that. >> the point that my colleague ms. martin is making is we had made the point in our report that the cemetery staff took some very reasonable initial steps to deal with the sort of immediate deficiencies ensure you have a good fire wall and virus protection and fundamental stuff, probably things that needed to be done urgently and very reasonable steps. powerpoint then was as the cemetery staff begins to transition to putting the organizational on long-term sustainable have come having a good plan that ties the information back for what we call the architecture would be an important step to make sure that for the long term the cemetery is on a sustainable path to the they've begun the process and expect to completed later this year to the >> would be followed on that long-term sustainable path. you also point out that there is a lack of a strategic plan. it seems like to be an

organization can't get to where it needs to be without a clear vision stated in the strategic plan. can you tell me where you believe the deficiency lie as far as not having that plan what that means and really where the organization of arlington needs to go with that plan? >> i would be happy to. when we did the work there wasn't a plan at that time. it turns out that the secretary was working on one. just a couple of weeks ago we saw for the first time the army can plan which that's their jargon, okay, good enough. and among the kind of things we look for in the strategic plan is the goals and objectives where are you trying to take the organization, performance much rex so you have a way of knowing did i get there or not and milestones that sort of have a forcing action to help you get there and then a process to go back and look at yourself and find out that i get where i need to go. we saw the campaign plan for the first time a couple of weeks

ago. the staff were gracefully enough to share it with us so we haven't had a chance to fully reveal that yet but i can tell you it does seem to have the basic fundamentals we would look for. >> thank you de maw wittman and we now proceed to james cooper of tennessee picks bixby for mr. chairman. this is an update on account of the debt arlington national cemetery. i'm worried we are hearing a whole lot more about accounting than bureaucracy than we are accountability. when i talked folks back home they think accountability means somebody was in charge and they had to account for what they did or did not do while they were in charge. and we are not hearing much about that and to refresh of brigety's memory come jul come august 09. they discovered irregularities at the cemetery here but i think it was june, 2010, almost a year

later the secretary of the army responded we've had a hearing in the 11 and now it's 12. we are years into this and to my knowledge not one person either military or civilian has been punished in any way for one of the worst scandals in the 150 year history of arlington national cemetery. now, as this was going on in the media that the air force apparently improperly disposed of the remains, the ashes of over 200 airmen and women, and to my knowledge there's been no accountability there either. now that is a new scandal. what is going on here? and i love the new system. i think accountants are great and i love software and record keeping is great but we must

remember this is a core function of the u.s. military and has been since the founding of the services. there is no more premier location than arlington. and no reprimand, the punishment, no accountability. we haven't even in this hearing at least identified folks to be held accountable. and i love looking forward and i love optimism and i do think great progress has been made by these folks but how do i look folks in the eye and say there's been accountability? when you talk about whether it should be an army or the va facility, who in the army was in charge? this is way beyond the realm of the gao and the excellent witnesses and i appreciate limits on the supervision, but this hearing is about accountability at arlington. and the best i can tell there is

none at least in terms of holding. so what are we going to do about this? this is years into the investigation. members of congress that ran for office hoping to hold investigative hearings on this country accountability presumably this would be handled responsibly but i'm getting tired of waiting years into the investigation. i want to be fair to all involved, but this is years have passed. is it going to take three years to find out what happened to the ashes of their men that were apparently dumped in a dumpster? what is going on here? i hope these committees will not be a part of any sweeping under the rug or whitewash, but as the years go by, shouldn't there be not just an accounting, that accountability? as you know i didn't take an

opening statement. i didn't want to stretch the committee but i think that we have more work to do in this area. >> thank you very much for your increase which need to be addressed. at this time we have mr. conaway. -- before mr. chairman. that's a hard act to follow. i am a cpa and i'm trying to figure out the record keeping progress which is core to some of the stuff that went on. the report went through an era where starting and 99 there something called the boss system that's i guess the ravee a cemetery system. did you have anybody look at the state of the large cracks people who control cemeteries and

burials willing to the united states and there's a full industry of that. there's nothing unique about handling remains and varying folks to the military on to those folks a little bit more than the general. so, help me understand what the current system is versus the system that would normally find in a relatively modern summitry operation. >> the system is veterans affairs. the operational scheduling system that the va -- >> it does scheduling and it also is the system that the gravestones, the markers are ordered from. so that is how arlington uses the system. >> so it's not -- the mcginn is a scheduling system that va uses to the interim and scheduling system is the system that arlington was kidding. i inherited on january 10th and

that is a system that we use at arlington to schedule our services. the difference between that and the boss system is the variable for the burial at arlington are somewhat different. it's because you are coordinating the troubles and services and so forth. but congressman conaway, we are working with the va. the interface between the two systems are required. >> if they are just scheduling, why do you need to? >> it is the system that -- we don't need to. the bottom line is we need a scheduling system but more than that we just need accountable data. so it doesn't matter what system you use they are there to schedule a service it is all about the data. >> the services are being held in arlington today. help us understand what the records look like for a particular service in the combination of the hand written records or is that

electronically? what is the current state of affairs? >> i'm proud to stand for those members the committee to back to the and to arlington and actually saw the paper records and the machine. our internet scheduling branch right now doesn't have one paper record. everything is digital. all of the records. >> by understand the scheduling. but somewhere in your records you keep track of who is very aware? >> yes, sir. >> the services are being held today. and still the -- once the services are done, the scheduling to make sure that the army guard is there and everything. going forward though, we need to keep track of who is buried where. what does that data look like? >> that data set follows the exact data that we've reported in the december 22nd report to this congress. this way forward we will have a photograph of the front and back of every gravesite and electronically attached to that will be all of the records pertaining to that service.

that is how we are accounting for each and every burial will only for the reaper that we did in congress but from this day forward. so, our employees now when the head stone is set take the photograph of the front and back of the head stone and touch that digitally to the record. >> end of the record is all electronic. is the mccaul electronic. >> this is a little crude but maintaining the inventory that's faulty electronic now for the internments to the estimate yes, sir it is. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you very much mr. conaway. pvc debate to proceed to pennsylvania. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm trying to get my arms around this. you said that in the 70's at some point the jurisdictional responsibility for is it every other national -- and the other veterans cemetery that

transferred to the va? >> the army at a time managed 82 national cemeteries. and under the 1973 national cemetery act, the cemetery's transferred to the department of what was then just the va, the department of veterans affairs. arlington didn't transfer and the soldiers and airmen home national cemetery in washington then transferred. the army retained those. >> is there any trouble that we are experiencing in the cemeteries? >> we have not audited anybody beyond the activities at arlington. so i can't say to you i have seen press accounts but our audit was focused on arlington. >> prior to what was reported almost four years ago, had there ever been in the audit of the arlington record keeping prior? >> i am not aware of one by the

gop but i don't know whether the inspector general had ever done one but we have not to my knowledge. >> was arlington's we will call that for lack of a better term management required to report at the end of the fiscal year or any point back to the army budgetary process, anything that happened during the year? >> i am not aware of that but she may be in a better position to answer that than on p.m.. >> arlington -- the management of arlington come as you do though the source has to report to the department of the army. >> but it's just gross numbers. we had these many ceremonies, not specifics. stomach from the resource standpoint it would be those required to run. >> now going through the grave site accountability funding, all of this is a complex issue. as you read through the subsections, sections within and

then sub sections within so they are not clearly marked, there's going to be issues. do we have any recollection of anywhere before 2008 and the report of -- we have some issues because we are finding sections that have people that are not suppose to have them or we are finding the grave markers that have no people there. is their anything prior to the 2008 sort of disaster? >> i guess the question would be how long have you folks been involved in this other than just since we started this process? >> i can start with 51. my first day was june 12th, 2010 when the secretary created the executive director position. mr. coover to be accountable for the management and the operation of arlington. >> so everyone is pretty much just since 2008. and you just came on board very recently. >> i do know that there were

operational or assessments conducted of the symmetry based on my dhaka that research that i did as i had come on the job. 96, 97, 98 by the military district of washington because the had oversight responsibility at that time. >> nothing was reported in those reports? connect nothing that had to put any kind of miss marked graves or accountability was reported during that particular time, no, sir. >> since the digital system came on in 1999, has there been any -- is there any documentation of issues of this mark the graves since 1999 and forward? mabey in the audit report is their anything -- prior to 1999 and obviously we have issues because the paper records and hopefully the cemeteries across the country that existed prior. but notwithstanding that. anything since 1999 when we went digital where there's been an issue? >> we didn't attempt to go back that far. let me tell you the reason we didn't to read the

accountability task force was in the process of reviewing all 350,000 or so records with some differences on the actual number is it turns out, but they were in the process of reviewing every record. so we didn't seem very fruitful for us to do that work since we already had an organization doing that. and as you know the grave site account of the task force was just issued by the late december i believe it was. >> well, you know, i knew to the committee but obviously i am listening to mr. cooper because we are talking about accountability, and we have these issues should have come up long before. i'm sure someone knew this. this didn't just pop up since 2008, and it's interesting to me that we have no players that have been identified as having gross mismanagement of this and i yield back mr. alterman. >> we proceed to mr. kaufman of colorado. 64 mr. sherman.

and thank you for your -- all of you for your testimony in service to the country. my concern as a marine corps veteran and is specific to the remains of those who've been lost particularly in afghanistan and iraq and certainly anyone lost in combat, and i can remember being in iraq there was extraordinary care and respect paid to those that fell on the battlefield. where i see the breakdown whether it's with the air force at dover would be army at arlington is the fact that you have civilian personnel whether by the army or by the air force that number one come from a different culture where the trees that may or may not be there but it's not necessarily shared.

but more importantly, not subject to the uniform code of justice. when there is a violation of a regulation in the uniformed military personnel can be prosecuted under the uniform code of military justice where civilian personnel are not accountable to the code of military justice, said the violation of the same regulation and i think that if anything comes out of these hearings that the chain of custody for those that have fallen in battle, the chain of custody for the remains of those who have fallen must be by uniformed military personnel only. and because that is what is most upsetting about this is that we

are in this discussion saying finance are getting better here. things are changing. let me tell you this if this were all handled, and i understand support services, so i am merely finding something that i got to be changed. for the respect of those have fallen on the battlefield that i just don't believe we need to be in this situation right now. having had a career to the united states army and the marine corps. we are in the kind of discussions that we have had about the kind of dereliction of duty. now i know there's a broader question that we're talking about the retired military personnel. we are talking about dependence.

we are talking about other things. but if there is anything that as a combat veteran but i believe must come out of these hearings, it is again and that only uniformed u.s. military personnel handle the remains of those that have fallen in battle, and the openness of devotee would like to comment on that. thank you mr. chairman. i yield back to the estimates before mr. kaufman and you have raised a really good point about the ucmj. we proceeded to mr. umion of new jersey. >> i think we all agree we could have our arms around this. but we have to put teeth to it. we talk about accountability,

and i have the opportunity to share the be a committee so why have dual jurisdiction here. we are beginning obviously with the same houston cemetery experiencing some of the same pitfalls that we have here at arlington unfortunately. again, the word accountability comes up time and time again. if there are no teeth to anything we are doing, actions have consequences. no one has the fear of the consequence coming down with its crew contacting, whether it is through your predecessor to recount we do this, to be do it through the contractor? to read it through legislation, through this committee? i mean, obviously calling on

mr. kaufman had the legitimate pathway to address the issue. but i think there's multiple factors that have to be in there. but we have to hold people accountable. at the root of it i think most of these problems go away. and i think also -- i think as we are moving forward with how we are -- how our plan, and i know that you are still building the road map of you can take this manual and hand it to your predecessor i know we are building that. but to have the teeth in those procedures also and through the process of gaining the information and the pitfalls your funding from your predecessor to make sure that all of that information is in their because it truly is a disgrace what we've done to this cemetery and frankly to what i am finding in the va.

and i know being briefed by the people what you are working very closely together because you have a lot of similar problems and to share those experiences and i hope we can work together on that aspect because i know how a lot of this, how lot of this works. this is my problem, that's their problem. now it's the soldiers and taxpayers of the end of the day and there are people i think as a committee we have to find a way to do that. and i applaud you all for your efforts here. but there's a lot of things that it hurts. it hurts people everyday when loved ones called and say i don't know if my loved one is buried where you say they are buried and there are some of them that we cannot even proved.

it's heartbreaking to have to go through that kind of stuff, so i know we have our arms around and i will say it again we need to sink our teeth into it and make sure that this never happens again. thank you all for your testimony, and i yield back. >> thank you very much for your heartfelt comments. at this time, unless there is any further question, we shall again think the witnesses for being here and for making a difference. again, arlington, the shrine of the country, the respect that we have for the service members of the three veterans this is so important, and we would like now to proceed to mr. wittman tariffs but i would like to think the witnesses. there are a couple things here but also the committee would like to know today. i think mr. cooper brings up a great point about the accountability and the actions and i think all of us feel like

a sufficient amount of time is past where those investigations should have reached the conclusion. there should be findings and there should be actions, so i think she -- i know our committee would expect from you syndication about where that is coming and i realize it may not be under your direct jurisdiction and i realize it is probably the internal investigation and the army but i sure that you can pass on to the army leadership that i think both of our committees would like a definitive answer as to where that goes on, and i realize mr. cooper's frustration because at our last meeting at our last hearing the same questions were asked when we could expect findings and actions and as mr. cooper pointed out, they spent a long time, and i think all of us think it's very reasonable that a conclusion should have been reached by this particular breed in time, so i hope that comes

back to both of our committees so we'd understand where things are. that is an important question and we talked of the nuts and bolts today and that is one of those efforts hanging out that i think leaves us all a in an uncomfortable position and i think mr. cooper for bringing up. i know it is a difficult but a very, very important issue for this, and we look forward to hearing something definitive back from the army as to where that is. >> excuse me, general wanted to comment on this. >> yes, congressman, if i could. as we went through the investigation for what we have with the two outstanding issues, as we before we look to the violations of the policy guidance - it's criminal we handed over to the criminal investigation. they've completed their investigation with the department of justice now and that is the decision and that is wh w