of that value and you value the protection of that privacy, what is wrong with us saying, you need to have a reminder, and, me? the chairman. a 12-year-old. you need to have a prompt to say, you're giving away your privacy. >> so i can imagine someone opening up their mobile phone and they're about to talk in a public place and there a law in congress that says a pop-up has to appear that says, you're in a public place. this is a reminder that you may be reviewing private information about yourself, click here to proceed. >> you can imagine that. >> well, it's -- >> it's not so far away from what you're describing, senator. because if we're going it require it for videos there's no reason why we wouldn't require it for all the other information that people choose to share. that the world we live in. certainly given the right not to share and given the choice not to the share but i really don't think it's the job of congress on such a granular basis to make that choice so difficult. >> what is difficult? having to pop the button now to

say, don't share. there's no difference. they're popping -- they're hitting the button, share and unshare right now. so what is difficult about saying share or unshare? >> i actually don't know what the experience has been in europe with that and whether consumers object to it, whether they think it -- >> you testified consumers wanted that. >> i know it's available. >> the issue -- >> technology changes over time. so in order to implement that technology today we're able to do it on certain devices. on other devices we're not able to do it. so are we to -- older legacy devices we can't go back and change those, because of the way they've been designed. so people who have paid for some of our service, our devices before, now won't be able to take advantage of that feature because we can't give them opt out every time because congress told them we have to give them an opt out every time. the issue for us, again, is, giving that control to the consumer, and if the consumer so elects, to share on an ongoing

basis and perhaps even you could say to opt out of the notice to unshare, if they don't want to being onnered every time because that is inconvenient, they have chosen to give their movie watching on to facebook or other social media progrlatforms, sho it be a law they cannot? as long as consumers understand, be give an choice, our understanding. but to dictate exactly how that is implemented in a diematically changing -- it's important to be careful. >> what's wrong with suggesting it? you have ability to opt out and then you have the ability to opt out of the opt out question? what's wrong with that. >> fundamentally i think that's fine as long as you can get to the -- you know -- way in which the process works. as long as it -- >> let me say it again. so i'm going to give you consent, netflix, to share my movies, and then when a movie comes's you want to opt out.

or would you like to not see this screen again for six months and let all of your sharing continue in your opt in? in other words, for those that want to share everything, don't send me the reminder. >> so -- if that's what consumers want the way in which we implement it, i'm fine doing it. i have a little trouble stlag being legislated because i think over time that may change. it may be that six months isn't the right amount of time. is it three months? is it a never for people? in that sense, from my perspective i think the fundamental of taking a principled base approach of consumers having control and consumers understanding what they're opting into or not opting into at their choice is the important thing that, you know, we as a people and you as legislators ought to focus on that fundamental and the way in which it gets implemented because the way things change over time, gerviv given technol

that should be left to be implemented. >> great point. thank you, mr. chairman. so i went over. >> not at all. i thought that was a very good line of questioning that brought out a lot of great things and we may not go a second round because i was afraid that the ranking member wouldn't be able to get enough time if he only did one round, but -- ranking member went into a lot of great points. started early with an alcoholic husband who's the fate of his wife. i thought that was a good point. might have a hangover and watch something his wife doesn't approve of. a very good point. that's a joke. i was kidding. no. i think that -- >> appreciate your humor. >> no. i don't think it's -- it's that. i think that was probably -- i think that joke curved foul. so -- but i think we don't need

another round, but i think we -- unless anyone wants to respond to a couple of observations i have here, because i think, mr. hyman, you said that it wouldn't be buried in the terms of agreement. the ability to opt -- we don't know that. this piece of legislation doesn't say at all how opting out would work. >> actually, under 2471 there's a specific provision added in amendments, the actual agreement to share, has to be separate and distinct from other legal -- >> not to opt out of the agreement. >> the opt out is not. >> yeah. that's the point. you said that that wouldn't be buried in the terms of agreement, and you talked about yourself, about how this is voluntary. and you're uncomfortable with that being law. this is voluntary. because netflix does what do you in europe, but no other company would have to do it. so i think that you underscore

the point that the ranking member was making, which is the -- it could be incredibly difficult to find out how to opt out of this once you've agre agreed -- once you're sharing everything. i see professor mcgeveren nodding his head. any thoughts on that? >> i'm agreeing. the amendment passed in the house bill does set up specific requirements for how the original blanket consent has to be effectuated but the bill is silent about what would be required to withdraw that later if you didn't want a particular movie shared with friends or cancel the previous authorization. doesn't say anything at all how that would happen. >> right. and, you know, i think that,

again, netflix in europe where it can, when the devices where it works, gives people a clear way to do that, but less scrupulous companies under the law wouldn't be required to do that, and you'd have to go through the terms of, and conditions, which can be pages and pages long, which none of us accept actually read. >> i read them, too, senator. >> oh, well, okay. but they're privacy lawyer ares. come on. no one reads those things, and i think that -- we almost got to the point of absurdity when, of course, you know, you don't have to be repeatminded when you tal the phone in public you don't make it law someone could overhear you. and to reach for that kind of underscores, i think, sort of the common sense of, if it's

just as easy to click one button that says, i want to share, you know, watch and share, as opposed to watch, it's no more burdensome to share each time on a one-by-one basis as the law, original law claims, as opposed to having a consumer of a movie basically agree to sharing and then not be able to find where to opt out of that, because it's buried in some -- some place in terms of agreement, and no one has disputed that that isn't written -- that that is in the law to dictate that you can find it. so -- i want to work with the ranking member on this, because i think he really got to the --

the gist of this, which is that we have to find -- when you mentioned 30 days or 60 days, or 6 months or something like that, i think maybe you could find a thing where someone says, you know what? for the next 30 day, just share everything you like, and then remind me in 30 days. or something like that. i mean, i just think that this was kind of rushed through the house, maybe, and that we need to work on this, if we -- great. okay? so i'm going to adjourn, and i know i'm -- i don't chair that much so let me find -- the record will be held open for a week. >> thank you.

>> thank you, all. there was a discussion on the u.s. economy and monetary policy scheduled for 12:30 that we are going to bring you live here on c-span3 with the ceo of the federal reserve bank of dallas. he's fallen ill, however, and that discussion has been cancelled. we will be live at noon eastern for a discussion of the future of israel with the aspen institute and state department special envoy dennis ross. that will be on our companion network, c-span2. both houses of congress are in today. the house gavels in at noon eastern for speeches with legislative work beginning at 2:00. members will work on a bill to create a centralized process for recommending federal non-military properties to be consolidated and sold. and votes on that this evening at 6:30. and the senate also gavels in at 2:00 with work on faa programs, and a final vote on that bill at

5:30. you can watch the house live on c-span and the senate on c-span2. this is c-span3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week. and every weekend, american history tv, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites, and join in the conversation on the these social media sites. more than 120 graves at military cemeteries have been misidentified, including eight cases of bodies buried at the wrong grave site. there was a review prompted by problems at arlington national cemetery. on friday, receiving an update on improvement made at the cemetery. witnesses included the army inspector general, and officials from the government accountability office. and the hearing is about an hour and 15 minutes.

welcome, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for being here today. today the military personnel subcommittee and oversite and investigation subcommittee continue their oversight of actions to improve the operation and sustainment of the arlington national cemetery, a national shrine, which indicates our sincere appreciation of service member, military families and veterans. the testimony today is based on reports drebt directed by congress and delivered in december by the army and the government accounting office. in general, both reports reflect substantial improvement in a number of areas of management and contracting execution. that progress reflects not only the personal commitment of our former colleague secretary john mchugh but also the professionalism and commitment of ms. kathryn condon, the executive director of the national cemetery -- army national cemetery program and

the superintendent of arlington cemetery. as i look at the issues that still must, need to be addressed, these two appear to rise above all the rest. first, what is the corrective action and funding that will be required to resolve the nearly 14,000 critical deficiencies cited in the arlington grave accountability effort? and, send, should the department of veterans affairs assume responsibility for arlington it national cemetery and the cemetery at the soldiers home here in the district of columbia? before i introduce our witnesses, let me recognize in turn representative susan davis, the ranking member of the military personnel committee, and chairman rob whitman of the oversight investigation subcommittee and mr. jim cooper, the ranking member of the oversight investigation subcommittee for any opening remarks they might wish to make.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the hearing today. general vangiel, i wanted to welcome you. inds you recently took over from general mccoy as the army inspector general. ms. martin and mr. lepore, i look forward to hearing the government accountability assessment of the army's efforts with respect to arlington and ms. condon, welcome back. we've got a chance to see each other quite a bit, and i really appreciate your efforts. arlington national cemetery as we all know is one of the most hallowed grounds of this nation and we must hold it to the highest standards of performance. members of the subcommittee of military personnel in conjunction with the oversight investigation subcommittee are interested in the actions taken by the army to improve its accountable of arlington national cemetery since our hearing in september. ms. condon, i recognize the hard work you and mr. callaghan have done to turn around the cemetery

and know you could not have done it alone. there are probably a number of people that should be acknowledged for their efforts that cannot all be recognized here today. but i do believe that there is still more to be done, to ensure that we maintain and build upon the achievements that have been made and to ensure above all accountability of those who are involved in the missteps at arlington national cemetery. ms. martin and mr. lepore, i'm interested in learning from the gao, what issues and concerns should the committee be aware of as the army works to develop a strategic plan for arlington. what signs, if any, should we be tracking as the army moves forward on its efforts to continue to improve arlington? and i would also like to hear your thoughts on what concerns we should be aware of if there is an effort to transfer the management of arlington from the army to the veterans administration. general vangiel, i would be interested in the i.g.'s

perspective on arlington and what can be done to build upon improvements that have recently been made. thank you all for being here. this is san important issue, and one that touches all who serve our nation in uniform. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, ranking member, and chairman whitman? >> panel member, welcome. i want to thank my co-chair, chairman joe wilson, and our ranking members, jim cooper and susan davis, for their steadfast commitment and focus on this extraordinarily important issue. an honor to work with you over the months and we look forward as we continue along this journey of making sure collectively we all do what is necessary to make sure arlington maintains its rightful place in honoring this nation's heroes. i'd also like to extend a very warm welcome to general vangiel, thank so much for your leadership. and for your oversight of arlington. we know it's a new challenge for you, but know one that you're ready and up to the task.

ms. condon, i thank you you and your team who have met with us on a monthly basis to keep us apprised of progress. we appreciate your dedication. we know it's been a long ar are duous journey with more steps to come. i'd like to also highlight my appreciation for what you do in total for the army, what you've done through your career and what you've done to this point. army leadership has done a lot to change the culture and climate at arlington and i also want to thank secretary mchugh. he is a person of steadfast devotion on getting this issue served. he is a man of his word. he said this was going to be his focus. i admire him for are that focus, for his commitment, for his dedication to make sure that arlington, again, goes back to its rightful place in honoring this nation's heroes. so i want to thank the secretary for that. this was an organization that was characterized by deficiencies and mismanagement that has since been transformed into a stable, functioning and professional organization. that is finally setting a new

standard for are how we care for our fallen heroes. mr. brian lepore and dellva martin, thank you for coming bep appreciate your efforts, the gao and know as always the gao does an excellent job and we appreciate your service. we're here today for two very important reasons. first, figure out what progress has been made with respect to accountability issues at arlington and to determine what challenges remain that need to be addressed moving forward. i've said many times how important it is to me personally that we work to achieve 100% accountability and the army has done a great job with helping us get there with the grave site accountability tasks for, validating almost 200,000 grave sites was difficult and challenging, but you, your staff and the old guard got it done. however, i do remain concerned about a number of issues. first, the lack of accountability with respect to former officials for their misconduct.

it's my understanding that no criminal action has been taken and that investigations are ongoing and open. i find this very, very difficult to believe and unacceptable. and i will continue to follow this very closely. second, despite the great amount of time that has elapsed since initial allegations came to light, management and contracting issues persist at arlington. to highlight a few, i'm concerned about the gao's findings regarding the lack of a strategic plan, lack of i.t. organizational architecture which call into question whether we're effectively and efficiently spending american dollars when millions have already been spent. i hope the panel addresses these issues and you'll tell us what progress has been made and what you believe we will find in finally trying to resolve these remaining matters. we cannot close the door on this terrible chapter in arlington until all of these issues are resolved. we owe it to our nation's heroes

who have sacrificed their lives on our behalf and continue to make this a top priority and as you've done in the past, we need to get this done and owe to do future generations of heroes who deserve the honor of being buried here and knowing that arlington is, again, assuming its rightful place as the hallmark of honors this national heroes. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have no opening statement. >> at this time we'll proceed with our witnesses. the order would be lieutenant general peter m. vangiel, the inspector general of the u.s. army. next would be ms. belva martin, director, acquisition and sourcing management team, u.s. government accountability office. and third we would have mr. brian j. lepore, director of defense capabilities and management, u.s. government accountability office, and fourth and finally, we would have ms. kathryn condon who is the executive director of the

army's national cemeteries program. and so general, thank you for beginning. >> chairman wilson, ranking member davis, chairman whitman, ranking member cooper and distinguished members of the subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and for your oversight and support over the past 18 months. it has made a difference at arlington national cemetery. since assuming the duties of the army inspector general in november, i have reviewed our previous inspections, met with the executive director and here team and other stakeholders involved in directing deficiencies found at arlington. to fully appreciate the progress one only has to review the 2010 i.g. report identifying 61 deficiencies. among them, deplorable organizational climate, archaic recordkeeping and automation system, uncontrolled contracting and budgets processes, significant problems with grave site accountability. in contrast, you may recall from general mccoy's testimony that the 2011 i.g. report identified

no deficiencies and noticed significant progress at the cemetery largely due to the course set by the secretary the army's directive 2010-04, efforts of the executive director her team and support for the department of the army staff. in short, the mismanagement reported to you in june of 2010 i.g. report has been relegated to the past and arlington is beginning to transition from successful crisis management to sustained excellence. allow me to share a few specifics. the previous insular environment contributing to mismanagement and substandard performance at arlington improved significantly. the executive director has established a positive work environment emphasizing cooperation, collaboration and coordination. work force surveys taken as part of the 2011 inspection reflected steadily improving morale, unity and ogsal effectivenesses now possessing a functional technology infrastructure supported by a service agreement

with the technology agency. arlington has leveraged the agency's consolidated customer service center to more effectively monitor and respond to customer calls, which is increasing customer service. a new computer application for digitizing burial records has been critical in establishing the accountability for each grave site. in the contracting arena, new acquisitions subjected to rigorous analysis, pre-award compliance checks and pact reviews for quality assurance. while we still noted some deficiencies and errors within contracts, the number was significantly less than 2010. mostly administrative in documentation. arlington now works closely with the office of the administrative assistant and the assistant secretary ever the army for financial management to ensure improved oversight ever the cemetery's budget formulation and execution.

the transition to the general fund enterprise business system provided full visibility and transparency of cemetery expenditures. finally, with respect to improvements, the executive director has recently published a campaign plan which includes major efforts to complete grave site accountability, complete the documentation of policies and procedures, and address long-term expansion of the cemetery. assigned responsibilities for these and other task as well with metrics and timelines to measure progress. while these developments are encouraging, there is still much more work to do. a 2011 army incht g. inspection report provided 53 lemd recommendations for tcontinued improvement. i'll highlight. arlington's leadership and army must finish up with policies and regulations. further, the arlington leadership must complete the

documentation and validation of internal oversight processes and controls. the recent work to establish the grave site accountability baseline must continue to resolve the nearly 47,000 cases that remain. the executive director must coordinate with the army staff to establish and document during external oversight processes to prevent the occurrences of past shortcomings. the department of army must finalize and implement jurisdictional and support relationships of the army national cemetery's program. as we look to our inspection this summer we intend to conduct assessments in several areas. first of all, compliance with army direct live 2010-04. progress addressing the recommendations from our 2011 report, compliance with the executive director's campaign plan, the grave site accountability process validation, and we're collaborating with the army audit agency, the v.a. and the

united states army force management support agency for their participation as well in this year's inspection. inconclusion, arlington remain as priority for the secretary and for the army. the significant progress observed by the army i.g. validates the secretary's approach to creating the process in systems and management that we found to be lacking at arlington in 2010. this strategy executed according to the executive director's campaign plan with the support of the army, the defense department, other federal agencies and congress has set the conditions for continued improvement and ultimately sustained excellence. thank you once again for the opportunity to testify today. i look forward to answering your questions and working with the committees in the future. thank you. >> general, thank you very much, and ms. bellhavbelva martin? >> members of the subcommittee, mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear are before

to you discuss gao's work at arlington. our reviews 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, mr. lepore, will discuss gao's work on management issues. on the contracting side, gao identified 56 active contracts over $100,000 that supported cemetery operations, construction and facility maintenance and new efforts to enhance i.t. systems for the automation of burial operations. arlington does not have its own contracting authority but relies on relationships with contracting offices to award and manage its contracts. these contracting authorities obligated roughlies $35.2 million in support of the 56 contracts that were included in our review.

as the i.g. noted, the army has taken a number of positive steps since june 2010 at different levels to provide for more effective management and oversight of contracts, including improving contracting policies and practices, establishing new support relationships, formalizing policies and procedures, and increasing the use of dedicated contracting staff to manage and improve its acquisitions, however you we found three areas at arlington where additional improvements are needed. first, maintaining complete data on contracts. second, defining responsibilities for contracting support, and, third, determining contract staffs needs. i will briefly summarize 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 there were shortcomings with each of these sources. to be able to identify track and ensure the effective management and oversight of its contracts, arlington leadership needs complete data on all contracts. second, with respect to support relationships, the army has taken a number of steps to better are align arlington contract support with the expertise of its partners. for example, arlington has agreements with the army information technology agency, i.t.a., and the army analytics group to help manage its i.t. infrastructure. while these agreements spell out the services that i.t.a. will provide to arlington and performance metrics against which i.t.a. will be measured, these are all very positive steps. these agreements do not