organization well into the future. in conclusion, i personally wish to thank both committees again for your leadership and monthly guidance as we restore honor and dignity to arlington national cemetery. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, and at this time we'll proceed to questions from each member of both of the subcommittees, and we will be on a strict five-minute rule. this will be upheld by mr. john chapla who is a professional staff member of the armed services committee, and above reproach. he is very good about keeping the five-minute rule, including with both chairmen. and at this time, i'd like to ask ms. condon, 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 direct family member there, it means a lot to me. as a citizen of our country, and, also, as a member of congress. in your report you have

identified that more than 57,000 grave discrepancies still have to be resolved. i'd like to focus on what the most serious are, and particularly 14,000 critical discrepancies. what is the corrective action timeline and funding required to address the critical deficiencies? >> mr. chairman, the critical -- in our accountability, what we have done is we started the process with business rules. and one of our business rules to match the photo that the old guard took of each and every grave site and niche, we had to match that with at least two records. most of those 14,000 discrepancies which are really not discrepancies per se, means we didn't have two records. we only had one record. we're finding that from the civil war we only had one document, which this is the document in the handwritten transcribed law book.

what our accountability task force did, and they ended it the 22nd of december, but we now have 45 analysts. most of them are temporary employees who have dedicated the themselves to looking at the social security death index, look at census data, look at military records, to go on ancest 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 headstone. and that incorporates most of what that 14,000 is. >> that's very creative. i'm delighted to hear that. additionally, there have been press reports that $12 million of previously appropriated funds could not be found. and you've indicated you recovered $28.6 million. could you say how the recovery was done? whether there are any other unobligated funds still to be found and how is this situation of unobligated funds to be prevented in the future? >> sir, i can first start by talking how the $12 million came about.

on page 15 of ms. martin's gao report on contracting, they cited a 2010 army audit that said that $15 million was of unliquidated ob legations was recovered. so if you take the total of the amount we found and subtract, you get the $12 million they said was unaccounted for. that was not unaccounted for. we recovered all of that $26.8 million, because the ig reports, the army audit reports, and the gao reports were all snatched out on time. that data, we were continuing to recover those funds. how did the staff, my resource management staff has been working meticulously to look at each and every contract to make sure that we close out those contracts, and recover funds, and to also look at each and every, you know, miper when is when you give money out to an

organization to provide support to make sure we close out and bring back those dollars. that is how we were able to recoup the $26 million we found. >> i want to congratulate you. i can't imagine recovering that much money. i'm very, very pleased for everyone, and it can be very brief, since my time is brief. should the department of veterans affairs assume responsibility for arlington national cemetery and the cemetery at the soldiers home here in the district of columbia? we'll begin this time with general vangjel. >> thank you. i concur with what the gao said already. as i take a look at it, i think right now the army should keep it. the bottom line is collaboration is probably better at this point, at least for the next few years. then we'll take another look. and we'll do whatever the president and congress want us to do. >> thank you. >> i will defer. defer to my colleague. >> yes, 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 seemed to us that it might be more prudent to give the army a chance to see if they can complete the -- their progress and bring this through to a successful conclusion. and you'll have a pretty good idea how they do when general vangjel and his team come back in later this year. it seemed to us that right now making that decision might be a little premature. >> thank you. ms. condon? >> chairman wilson, i'm not going to answer this parochially. my was was to put in place and fix arlington for our veterans and their loved ones. the decision on where arlington is placed, allky tell you, sir, if it is transferred, you will have a fixed, much improved arlington. >> well, thank you all. we now proceed to the ranking member, susan davis, of san diego, california. >> thank you.

to you, general vangjel, what -- if you were to give arlington a grade right now, what would that be? >> i've had a chance to go down and essentially talk to some people. and i've looked at some past reports. i haven't had a chance to look at it in-depth like i'm going to do this summer with the inspection team as we go down. what i can say is that being deployed for the past two years is i heard what was going on at arlington. i'd have to give them a zero with what i heard. i have to be honest with you. because it's just not something -- it was inconceivable that that was happening. because what i saw was they were very respectful ceremonies. everything was -- it seemed to be going well. i will say, though, that looking at the progress that's been made, and i -- as i say, i go back and look at the reports

that the department of the army ig has done. there have been two now. there has been significant progress. if you're asking me to put it on a number scale, ma'am, that would be difficult for me to do at this point because i don't usually give 10s. so i'd have to say that they're probably around a -- you know, they're better than 5. >> of the -- of what you know and certainly from the testimony today, one of the things i kept hearing was about staffing issues, and making sure that the issues around that are really sustained so that no matter who's there, that those issues are addressed. is that one that would certainly improve the grade? is there anything else that really stands out to you from all that's been said? >> in 2010 we identified the fact that they just -- the staff wasn't robust enough to be able

to do the jobs they were being asked to do, particularly from an oversight function. we recommended that the army force management support agency and the united states manpower and analysis agency come down, take a look. they did. they made recommendations, and we -- the secretary of the army authorized an increase of about 63 personnel, i believe. ms. condon has been hiring folks. i don't believe she's got them all yet. i defer to her for the actual status. in my mind, a documentation of sops internal process controls. if i had to say what really in my mind influences the score, if you will, the service to the families is remarkable. they're doing a good job with that. ceremonies have always been done well. in fact, in one circumstance you could argue that that -- the fact that they were done well caused a lack of oversight in some other areas. there was an assumption that everything was okay. and as you take a look at that, though, i think at the end of the day it really is about

establishing documenting and root nizing these processes they've made progress with so far. but it's all about making sure the sops make execution right now. that's where we're at. >> thank you. thank you very much. ms. martin, you mention in your testimony that the need for contracting specialists and certainly for senior -- senior staffers, as well. and i'm just wondering, what do you think is a reasonable time frame to -- if we look back six months from -- look forward six months from now, should those issues be addressed by then or should it be three months? a year? what is reasonable to assume that a lot of these areas have been addressed? >> well, congresswoman, i would certainly have to defer to the leadership at arlington. to her credit, ms. condon 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 has already put the steps in place. the fact that she is getting the support that she needs from ft. belvoir at the present time is certainly a positive. but our point would be that at some point if there's another urgent need within the army, that support may not be there for arlington. so as we've been saying that it's important, again, to put the policies, procedures, have the right people in place in order to sustain. so sustainment, again, is the key. but ms. condon has certainly -- and her team have certainly taken the steps to identify what she needs and to hopefully bring those people onboard. >> thank you. ms. condon, what do you think is a reasonable time frame to come back and be sure that -- six months? is that reasonable? three months? >> six months is fair. ma'am, we're currently in the process of hiring that senior

contracting professional to be personally on my staff. the reason why i'm very comfortable with the agreement we have now with the army contracting command with having them provide our contracting support, because that means we have trained acquisition professionals who are in the acquisition chain so that i will make sure that they have the right training, the right credentials, the right levels of certification and the right warrants. because arlington really isn't that large of an organization to have a large contracting structure imbedded in our tda. so if i had the one senior professional on the staff personally and then reach back to the contracting command for support, i think that will satisfy the contracting oversight requirements that we will need at the cemetery. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, ms. davis. we proceed now to chairman rob wittman of virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. martin, i want to begin with you. i find it interesting in the report you speak about contract

management and deficiencies there at arlington with contract management. specifically in the area of i.t., it appears as though about $5 million spent in i.t. contractings that appear to be wasteful and that haven't produced any results. on page 9 of the report you've said that the i.t. contract management system is not guided by a modernization blueprint and that it's due pliktive, poorly integrated and unnecessarily costly to maintain. from that standpoint, what did your review uncover in specific terms about why you believe that was occurring? as well as what are the current efforts to overcome those deficiencies? where are they in this modernization effort to make sure there is not duplication and that systems aren't unduly costly to maintain those efforts? >> thank you, chairman, for the question. and it actually spans both of the reports. we -- the external reviews found

that over $5 million that had been spent to try to modernize the i.t. systems really didn't get us 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 did not have the right experience. and ms. condon kind of referred to the importance of doing that up-front planning for contracts. but in a couple of the systems, they really did not get us 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 these systems are active and those two are the interment scheduling system and the geographic information system. that's the one that ms. condon and my colleague referred to, to be able to use gps, to do the mapping, et cetera.

one system is in use, the boss system. that's a va system, so it's not really an arlington contract. but arlington does use that system to order the headstones and the grave markers. but there's no payment to va under that contract. and then the last two, the interment management system and the total cemetery management system are the ones that we basically got nothing for in terms of the monies that were spent. so there were a number of reasons in terms of, you know, the contracts not having the specific, again, oversight. the deliverables not being very clear. documentation, planning, oversight. so it spanned the gamut in terms of things that you would not want to do for contracts. and so in the oversight and management report, we made some specific recommendations in terms of having an architecture, and mr. lepore can talk a bit more about that. >> mr. chairman, the point that

my colleague, ms. martin, is making is we made the point in our report that the cemetery staff took some very reasonable initial steps to deal with sort of immediate deficiencies. insuring you've got a good fire wall and virus protection. and pretty fundamental stuff. probably things that needed to be done urgently, very reasonable steps. our point then was, as the cemetery staff begins to pran transition to putting the organizational on a long-term, sustainable path, having a good plan that ties the future operational environment back to the technology investments will be needed, or what we call an enterprise architecture, would be an important step to make sure that for the long term, the cemetery is on a sustainable path. they've begun that process and expect it completed later this year. >> let me follow up on that long-term sustainable path. you also point out in the report that there is a lack of a strategic plan. it seems like to me an organization can't get to where it needs to be without a clear vision that's stated in a

strategic plan. can you tell me where you believe the deficiencies lie as far as not having that plan, what that means and really where the organization there at arlington needs to go with that plan? >> yes, i'd be happy to. when we did the work, the plan -- there wasn't a plan at that time. it turns out that the cemetery was working on one. just a couple of weeks ago, really, we saw for the first time the army's campaign plan, as they call it. which is -- that's their jargon. okay. good enough. among the kinds of things we look for in the strategic plan is goals and objectives, where are you trying to take the organization? performance metrics, so you have some way of knowing did i get there or not? and milestones that sort of force you, sort of a forcing action to help you get there, and then a process to go back and look at yourself and figure out, did i get where i need to go? we just saw the campaign plan for the first time a couple weeks ago. ms. condon and her staff were gracious enough to share it with us. so we haven't had a chance to fully review it yet since we just got it.

i can tell you it does seem to have the basic fundamentals that we would look for in such a plan. >> very good, thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, chairman wittman. we now have ranking remember jim cooper of tennessee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the title of the hearing, i'm worried we're hearing more about accounting and bureaucracy than we are hearing about accountability. when i talk to folks back home they think accountability means that somebody was in charge and they had to account for what they did or did not do while they were in charge. and we're not hearing much about that. and to refresh everybody's memory, july/august of '09 the newspaper, the "washington post," discovered irregularities at the cemetery. i think it was june 2010, almost a year later, the secretary of the army responded. we had a hearing in '11.

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, we've learned from the news media that the air force was 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's the newer scandal. but what is going on here? and i love your new systems and i think accountants are great and i love software and recordkeeping 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, no punishment, no accountability. we haven't even, in this hearing, at least, identified the 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 -- the current folks. but how do i look folks in the eye back home and said there's been accountability? when you talk about whether it should be an army or a va facility, who in the army was in charge? and this is way beyond the realm of the gao and folks like that, and you're excellent witnesses, and i appreciate the limits on your supervision. but this hearing is about accountability at arlington. and the best i can tell, there is none, at least in terms of holding the wrongdoers accountable. so what are we going to do about

this? this is years into the investigation. members of congress have run for office hoping to hold investigative hearings on cemetery accountability. presumably this will be handled responsibly, but i'm getting tired of waiting years into the investigation. now, 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 the airmen that were apparently dumped in a dumpster? what is going on here? so i hope that these committees will not be part of any sweeping under the rug, any whitewash, but as the years click by, shouldn't there be not just an accounting, but accountability? thank you, mr. chairman. as you know, i did not take an opening statement. i did not want to stress the committee here. but i think we have more work to

do in this area. >> thank you very much for your inquiries, which certainly need to be addressed. at this time we have mr. conaway. >> thank you, mr. chairman. cooper is a hard act to follow. i am a cpa. and i'm trying to figure out the recordkeeping process which i do think is core to some of the stuff that went on. the report went through an era-based model where the various eras. starting in '99 there's something called a boss system. it's, i guess, a va cemetery system. and did you have anybody look at kind of the state of the art for -- there are people who control cemeteries and burials, you know, all over the united states. and there's a full industry of that that does it. there's nothing unique about handling remains and burying folks to the military.

we honor those folks a little bit more than the general. so help me understand what the current boss system is versus a system you'd normally find in a relatively modern cemetery operation. >> congressman conaway, the boss system is the veterans affairs system, they're burial operation scheduling system -- >> which does scheduling? >> it does scheduling. it also is the system that the grave stones, the markers are ordered from. so that is what -- that is how arlington uses the boss system. >> all right. so it's not -- well -- >> it is a scheduling system that va uses. >> all right. what's iss. >> interment can she think yuling system was the scheduling system that arlington db it was a scheduling system i inherited on june 10th. it was the scheduling system that we use at arlington to schedule our services. the difference between that and

the boss system is the variables for a burial at arlington are somewhat different. it's because coordinating the chapels and all the services and so forth. congressman conaway, we are working with va on interface between the two systems that are required. >> if boss is just scheduling, why do you need two? >> it is the system that you -- we don't need two. the bottom line is we need a scheduling system. but more than that, we just need accountability data. it doesn't matter what system you use to schedule a service, it's all about the data. >> okay. so services are being held at arlington today? >> mm-hmm. >> help us understand what the records look like for a particular service, and is it a combination of handwritten records, or is it all automated? all captured electronically? what's the current state of affairs? >> sir, i'm very proud to state for those members of the

committee who sl actually been to arlington and actually saw the paper records and the cardx machine, our interment scheduling branch right now does not have one paper record in it. everything is digital. all the records now are digital. >> i understand scheduling. somewhere in your records you keep track of who is buried where. >> yes, sir. >> there are services being held today. those long-term records -- once the services are done, the scheduling to make sure that the honor guard was there and everything got taken -- going forward, though, we need to keep track of who's buried where. what does that dataset look like? >> that data set, sir, follows the exact data that we reported in the december 22nd report to this congress. this way forward, we will have a photo of the front and back of every grave site and niche 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. not only for the report that we

did to congress, but from this day forward. so our employees now when a headstone is set, take the photo of the front and back of that headstone and attach that digitally to the records >> and the record is all electronic? >> the record is all electronic. >> so this is a little crude. maintaining the inventory of folks who are buried where, that's fully electronic now for all new intermentes? >> yes, sir, it is. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. conaway. we proceed to mr. critz of pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm trying to get my arms around this. mr. lepore, you said that in the '70s at some point jurisdictional responsibility for -- is it every other national -- or any other veterans cemetery was transferred to the va? >> the army at the time managed 82 cemeteries -- or 82 national cemeteries, and under the 1973

national cemeteries act, those cemeteries transferred to the department of -- what was then just the va, now the department of veterans affair, except for two. arlington did not transfer and the soldiers and airmen's home national cemetery here in washington did not transfer. the army retained those. >> okay. is there any trouble like we're experiencing in arlington at any of these other cemeteries? >> we have not audited anybody beyond the activities at arlington, so i really can't say. i certainly have seen some press accounts, but we have not -- our audit was focused on arlington. >> prior to what was reported -- what's that? almost four years ago. had there ever been an audit of arlington's recordkeeping prior? >> i am not aware of one by gao. i do not know whether the inspector general had ever done one, but we had not, to my knowledge. >> was arlington's -- we'll call

it, for lack of a better term, management required to report at the end of fiscal years or at any point back to the army budgetary processes, anything that had happened during the year? >> i am not aware of that, but ms. condon may be in a better position to answer that than i am. >> sir, arlington -- the management of arlington, as you do your resource, has to report to the department of the army. >> so -- but it's just gross numbers. we had this many ceremonies, not specifics? >> it would be, you know, from a resource standpoint, it will be the resources required to run the cemetery. >> right. going through the grave site accountability study findings, obviously this is a complex issue. as you read through subsections that, you know, sections within and then subsections within, if they're not clearly marked, there's going to be issues. do we have any recollection of

anywhere before 2008, any report of we have some issues because we're finding sections that have people in them that aren't supposed to have them or we're finding grave markers that have no people there? is there anything prior to this 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? >> sir, i can start with that one. my first day was on june 10th, 2010, when secretary mchugh created the executive director position, mr. cooper, to be accountable for the management and the operation of arlington. >> so everyone is pretty much just since 2008. and, sir, you just came on board very recently? >> personally, yes, sir. i do know that there were operational assessments that were conducted at arlington cemetery based on my document research that i did as i've come

on the job. '96, '97, '98 by the military district of washington because they had oversight responsibility during that time. >> nothing was indicated in those reports? >> nothing that had to do with mismarked graves or accountability of graves 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 mismarked graves since 1999 forward? maybe in your audit report, is there anything -- now, prior to 1999, obviously we have some issues because of paper records and, you know, hopefully there are cemeteries across the country that have existed prior. but that withstanding -- notwithstanding that, anything since 1999 where we went digital that there's been an issue? >> we did not attempt to go back that far. let me tell you, congressman, the reason we didn't. the grave site accountability task force was in the process of reviewing all 350,000 o