ambitious project to update the mapping operation. but this goal was never met. despite more than 35 i.t. contracts totaling more than $5.5 million, the cemetery continues to use manual records and an electronic tracking system set up in 2003. there are many reasons for this tremendous waste of taxpayer funds, but a primary culprit in derailing the automation efforts can be traced to a lack of effective contract oversight. through this hearing, it is our intent not only to determine the causes of these disturbing and painful lapses, but also to identify solutions and to establish a timetable for urgent action.

we must take aggressive steps to remove this tarnish from our national landmark and to renew the promises made to our military families and to the american people. thank you, madam chairman. >> senator tester. >> thank you for having this hearing. it is an understatement to say it's truly unfortunate we even have to be here today. when you talk about burying our loved ones, it's a pretty basic act it's gone on since the beginning of mankind. when you talk about burying our war heroes and the people who served this country so well in a place like arlington national cemetery, i can just tell you from my perspective, this is not only totally unacceptable, it is a black eye that, quite frankly,

needs to be dealt with in a way to make things right as soon as possible. whether it is a lack of information technology, whether it's a lack of contracting oversight, i hope we get some insight that that today. but what's happened here in a very basic ceremony and there are -- i'm going to be interested to hear what the excuses are because i can't figure it out in my head. this isn't putting a man on the moon. there's nothing really mystifying about burying our loved ones and keeping track of them and making sure that the ones are in the grave that are supposed to be here. here's the upshot of this. the upshot of this is i've got a lady who works for me, does my natural resource work in montana and happens to be out here. she was actually raised out in this neck of the woods and her father was buried in arlington cemetery a couple of years ago. her mom is still alive.

she's out here this week. she called up her mother and said i think i'll go over and visit dad's grave in arlington. to which her mother's response was, do we really know if he's in that grave? this is a true story. that's the upshot of this. i look forward -- i think, madam chair, we've got mr. metzler here today, i believe that's correct. i don't know if we've got mr. higginbotham here today or not. i certainly hope so. but hopefully we will get some sort of understanding what went on here and some solutions on how to fix what i think is a problem that should have never ever -- we should not be here today. this should never ever ever have happened so thank you for hearing me, madam chair. >> thank you, senator tester. our first panel if you would join us at the witness table. our first panel is john c. metzler and thurman higginbotham.

we will do seven-minute rounds of questions and we will after this panel we have a second panel of officials that will testify and it is the custom of this committee that we have our witnesses sworn in and so if you all would stand and i will administer the oath. do you swear that the testimony that you will give before the subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> mr. metzler is the former superintendent, thank you, gentlemen. you may be seated. john metzler is the former superintendent of arlington national cemetery and thurman higginbotham is the former deputy superintendent of arlington national cemetery. and we will defer to you all for your opening statements.

>> good morning, madam chairman. members of the committee. as the committee is well aware i was the superintendent of arlington national cemetery for the last 19 years. prior to arlington i had 17 years' experience with the department of veterans affairs and their cemetery system and also served six years of earlier government service including one tour of active duty in the army with one tour in vietnam as a helicopter crew chief with the 1st aviation brigade. over my 42 years of service to our nation, my respect, admiration and gratitude to our men and women in uniform and their families has only increased. i hold them in the highest regards. personally it pains me that our team at arlington did not perform all aspects of its politician to the highest standards required. as a senior government official in charge of the cemetery, i accept full responsibility for all my actions and the actions of my team. and i want to express my sincere regrets to any family who may

have these failures may have caused them pain. as you evaluate these issues it is important to fully appreciate the complexity and bredth of the operation at arlington national cemetery. they are unique and extraordinary. this complexity and bredth has only increased during my tenure. of the more than 300,000 burials that have taken place over the last 146 year, one-third took place during my tenure. there are only two or three large private or department of veteran affairs cemeteries in the world that have the complexity and comparable volume of funeral that is arlington does each year, 6,000 or 7,000. none of these cemetery, however, require the attention for ceremonial coordination and support that is routine at arlington cemetery. none of these cemeteries have 3,000 nonburial ceremony tass are conducted regularly at arlington. none of these cemeteries have records that go back over a hundred years and finally, none

of these cemeteries have over 4 million visitors who tour the grounds each year. activity at this level is sensitive and important. and it requires constant attention to action. there are no time-outs or do-overs. funeral services continue to be a vital and are conducted, excuse me, in all circumstances. we conduct services at arlington cemetery on 9/11 and the day after. during this recent record snowfall in which the federal government was closed for four consecutive days arlington cemetery continued with its burial schedule. it is undisputed that the overwhelming majority of funeral arlington national cemetery have been completed successfully without error and to complete satisfaction of the families. i do not highlight this point to excuse any possible findings that may have occurred. i understand that each burial service at the cemetery must be

conducted as close as possible to zero defect every time. i understand that the complete burial -- excuse me. i understand that completing that burial is a significant event for each family involved. there has been an enormous amount of good that has been accomplished for tens of thousands of families and each time the funerals were conducted correctly at arlington. i know the army is working hard to correct the i.g.'s finding and the cemetery will improve its operation. during the last 19 years that i was the superintendent we did not receive the funding that was needed and the dedicated staff of the cemetery was reduced by 35% from 145 when i arrived to 95 today. of these 95, approximately 35 people are performing administrative tasks. those staffing losses were to be outsourced by private contracts.

as experience has shown, however, that approach does not always result in the most efficient or effective solution. there are no substitutes of having dedicated taff in the important areas such as government technology and contracting. none of which i had during my tenure. further, issues can be minimized and eliminated with both funding and staffing requirements to do this important work. in any event i know the army is committed to doing whatever it takes to make things right now and in the future. as difficult as it is to conclude my lengthy service under these circumstances i will always value the opportunity i had to be superintendent of arlington national cemetery and i am prepared to answer your questions as best i can. thank you. >> i want to tell you, mr. metzler, how much we appreciate you being here today. i'm sure this is not a pleasant experience for you, and it means a great deal that you are here and that you are standing and willing to answer questions on behalf of the committee and

committee staff we appreciate it very much. >> thank you. >> mr. higginbotham, do you have an opening statement? >> no, ma'am, i do not. i would like to after consultation with counsel i will assert my fifth amendment rights to any and all questions that the committee may ask. >> i appreciate the fact that you are asserting your right, but procedure rally it will be necessary for us to ask you some questions and you to assert that privilege in response to those questions in order for us to make the record that is appropriate going forward. >> yes, ma'am. >> so we will be asking you some questions and you will then have to decide as those questions are asked if you wish to assert the right. if you do assert the right, repeatedly, a few times, then we will make the necessary steps in the record to reflect that you have done so. >> thank you. >> do you have any question, mr. higginbotham in that regard? >> no, ma'am. >> then we will begin questioning and let's start with

you, mr. metzler. let's be clear. how long were you an employee at the cemetery? >> i was an employee there -- i was an employee there for 19 years and 6 months. >> and on what date did you retire? >> july 2nd, 2010. >> who did you report to in the army? who was your boss? >> my direct report was commanding general of the district of washington. >> all right. and was there any other report you had other than the commander of the district of columbia? >> yes, ma'am. i reported to the assistant secretary of the army for civil works on budget and policy issues and to the assistant secretary of the army from manpower and reserve affairs on eligibility issues and exceptions to policy and to the chief of media on any media-related issues. >> okay. and who reported to you at

arlington national cemetery? >> the deputy superintendent, the historian, my secretary and the chief financial officer. >> okay. so you had -- your secretary. you had the deputy. you had the historian and who was the other? >> the chief financial officer. >> cfo, okay. mr. higginbotham, how long were you an employee at the cemetery? >> after consultation with counsel i will assert my fifth amendment. okay. you can ask the question again, ma'am. >> how long were you an employee with the arlington national cemetery? >> i started at arlington in july 1965 and had a break in service to attend mortuary school and returned in 1977. >> when did you become the cemetery's deputy superintendent? >> 1990 i believe it was, yeah.

>> and what date did you retire? >> july 3rd. >> mr. higginbotham, what were your responsibilities as deputy superintendent? >> well, i was an assistant to the superintendent in his responsibilities. >> and so did you take your direction directly from him? >> yes. >> were there things that you did independently of his direction? >> i had decision-making, you know, for supervisors that worked for me, yes. >> who -- who reported to you at the cemetery? how many direct reports did you have? >> we had three divisions that reported to me, facilities, administrative and operations.

>> mr. higginbotham, it's pretty obvious if you read the record that you and mr. metzler just didn't get along. is that a correct statement? would you argue with that statement? >> not in my opinion. >> that you did not get along -- >> no, we did get along. >> you did get along. >> yes. >> so the fact that there was a report that was done as early as 1997 saying that there was real -- in fact, 1994 i believe even after you all had -- after you had been deputy for only a few years, two different types there was an assessment of what was going on in arlington and in both instances they said that there was a great difficulty between the two of you, that you did not have a good working relationship, that morale was low because of it and in fact you were counseled, the record says you were counselled as it relates to our ability to work with mr. metzler. is that not accurate?

>> partially. i think if we go back to when mr. metzler arrived at arlington in i believe it's 1991, i was already the acting superintendent because the prior superintendent had quadruple bypass surgery and he decided to retire, okay. i applied for the job as superintende superintendent. i was told that i was not eligible for the position because i was 22 days short of time and grade, you know, to move the one year in grade at the lower grade. i think coming in a new -- a new individual, you know, i had no animosity toward mr. metzler whatsoever, he was new to arlington, although, you know, he had lived there years ago.

his management style was new to me. i had worked under previous, you know, superintendent and we both had the same feeling about arlington to do the right thing, you know. we were like a corporation. he had 51% and i had 49 so any decisions we made were ultimately, you know, his decisions, but i don't feel that that report accurately reflected -- i think it was more of the staff perception that we didn't get along. >> all right. let me -- before my time running out on the first round i want to establish something for the record before we go any further. mr. metzler, what was the first date that you knew that there were problems with the location of burial remains at arlington national cemetery? >> with the i.g. report, ma'am. >> no, i want to know when was

the first date -- forget about all the reports. forget about -- i want to know that day when you're in your office and you receive information and you have a sinking sensation that you may have a problem about where bodies are buried at arlington national cemetery, what year did that occur? >> i never had that problem. >> so you're saying that you never had any inkling that there could be an issue with a location of remains at arlington national cemetery until june of this year? >> until the i.g.'s report. any time an individual, any time a family member, any time an employee brought an issue to my attention in this regards, we looked at it immediately. we stopped what we were doing and we went out to the field and we validated anyone's concerns. >> wait a minute. so you -- you're saying that when there was an issue, you

went out and you saw that there was a concern or you found that it was not valid, the concern was not valid. >> i found that either the concern was not valid or there was an explanation that went along with it. there would be oftentimes where family members, let me restate that. from time to time family members would contact the cemetery and tell us they could not find their loved one and we would find out that they were in the wrong burial section or that they had referenced a tree or some other permanent structure in the cemetery and that structure either had been removed or they were just in the wrong location so we would go out with them and we would show them how to find their loved one's grave. that was a problem at any cemetery that expands and continues to grow, people pick up landmarks and don't use the numbering system on the back of the headstones. >> but you're saying that until the i.g.'s report came out in june, you had never been made aware of an instance where a headstone was marked wrong, a

body was mislocated, an urn was found buried in the same location as other remains, that there were more than one body in one grave, that an urn had -- >> no. >> you never had any ineconomy nation? >> no, i did have inclinations of those on a one-to-one basis but every time one was brought to our attention, we corrected those issues, whatever that issue was or we annotated the records to fix the problem. >> okay, so you knew there were problems, you're just saying as they came along you fixed them? >> yes, ma'am. >> and when was the first date you knew that you had at least one problem that had been validated as to location of remains at arlington national cemetery? what year was that? >> i don't know. i mean, this is an issue, the way you're asking the question that could happen virtually any day in the cemetery operation where someone could come in and ask a question that you would have to go out and look at. >> i'm not saying that somebody can't find something and you

help them find it. i'm saying that when you looked into it, you realized that a grave was mismarked or there were multiple bodies buried there or that the body wasn't in the location that you thought it was in and you weren't sure where it was. i'm talking about those situations. when -- what year did one of those situations come to your attention? >> well, i think the one situation that we were talking about where a remains was buried in a grave and unmarked came to our attention about a year ago. we had an issue during the development of land development 90 referred to as ld-90, this was the last 40 acres of the cemetery in the process of developing that land, this was a fill area where soil had been reposited there for probably 35 years so the soil was started to be distributed over this 40-acre land mass and in the process of doing that, two urns were discovered. >> when was that?

what month and year was that? >> ma'am, i'm guessing. i don't recall the month and year but i would say it has to be at least five years ago that that came about. >> okay. that's -- and we will -- and i will have the same question for you, mr. higginbotham, on my next round but my time is over and i want to be respectful of my colleagues so, senator brown. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. metzler, you noted in your opening statement that the majority of the burials are done successfully. i didn't fall off the turnin truck yesterday. i would think a cemetery of this prestige that 100% of them would be done successfully and that's why we're here is the fact that they're not being done successfully and that we owe it to our families and our soldiers to get it right and with all due respect, once again, there are many cemeteries throughout this country that have the foresight

and courtesy to make that extra effort to automate the systems, identify properly where people are buried so that people and family can have closure. i guess my first question is, can you clarify for the record what your responsibilities specifically were in terms of who was responsible for identifying properly the grave sites. whose ultimate responsibility was that, yours? >> ultimately it is mine as the superintendent, yes. >> and when the i.g. investigation report detailed the problem that existed for a period of over 18 years and i'm presuming it's the time that you were there because you've been there for quite a while, it also noted that the relationship between you and the deputy, how much do you think the

relationship between you and the deputy affected or contributed to the documented problems at the cemetery? >> i don't believe it contributed at all. mr. higginbotham and i met daily in a staff meeting. we would meet periodically two or three times a day either in his office or in my office. we would confer on anything that was unusual or different. we would often go out to the cemetery together to look at issues that were going on in the cemetery. i mean, we had a very professional relationship that interacted each day with each other. we had the same common goal here on automation. we wanted to see the cemetery automated as quickly as possible. >> well, i noted here in actu actually a national -- arlington national cemetery article where you called him a visionary when it came to technology and trying to -- paraphrasing, implement the technology plan and then you said that's not a word that

should be tossed around lightly and the funds were -- were provided. what's the status of the so-called technology at this point? where are you? how many graves have been identified? what's the status of the i.t., the systems, et cetera? >> there are approximately 60,000 graves that are automated right now since around 1999 with the use of the v.a. system b.o.s.s., and then our continuation of the interment, the iss system. we have a system that we're trying to develop to improve the iss. we're on our second generation. we're trying to get to the third generation, which would make this system an internet-based system, so we have been working toward that. unfortunately, with the inspections and the reports that have gone on, all this work now has come to a halt and no work currently is being done to

continue automating the system. >> so since 1997 you said? >> no, sir. the -- we started in 1999 trying the v.a.b.o.s.s. system. we worked on that for about 2 1/2 years and found it was not compassable with our needs at the cemetery. yes, it would put the information into a system, but the cemetery at arlington is much more complex with our scheduling system. i tried to work with the veterans' administration to get them to modify their scheduling system to accommodate our needs. >> well, they offered it to you basically for nothing at cost. >> no, sir, that is not accurate. >> that is not true. >> no, sir. >> interesting. >> i mean i personally worked with their i.t. team. i was with -- >> was it a cheaper cost than what you've expended so far and have really little to show for it? was it offered to you at a cheaper cost? would you have saved the taxpayers money by modifying -- >> i could not get them to modify their system. >> you could have taken it and

adopted it and modified it at cost to yourself. >> it was not my system. it was the veterans' administration system. i tried to work with their i.t. staff to see if they would not modify their system to our needs and they could not accommodate us. >> who was responsible for issuing contracts, signing contracts and going out and actually entering into i.t. or other types of arrangements to improve the system that you were working on? >> contracting officers, either at the baltimore corps of engineers or at the army center of excellence for -- >> based on whose recommendation. >> it would be based on our recommendation at the cemetery. >> our, who is ours? is it you, the deputy, is it a combination? >> it's a combination. i mean any of our it's a combin our staff members, there are basically three tiles of contracts that we work with on a regular basis, construction contracts, serviceses contracts and the i.t. contracts. >> i guess what i'm trying to find out and i'm not getting there yet and i'm glad we're

going do have a couple of rounds, what specific actions did you take to address the underlying issues and problems, the beurial problems in particular at the cemetery. what have you done since the report? you say you were addressing them, we had 9/11, burial, every cemetery has burials but these are special burr yals. there's a different level. these are the people that are being buried at arlington national cemetery. and i mean, growing up i think of that and it's like the sem t cemetery in our country we have great pride in, it's like learning there's no santa claus or easter bunny. it's something that's held at such high esteem. here we are. it's like wow, is it facts or fiction, reality? who's buried there? there's so many questions. what have you in fact done since then? >> one of the things we did was we went out and did a field

survey of the sections that were brought to our attention. and what found in the field survey is that the working maps were not accurately posted. >> then what did you do? >> we went out and validated each area to ensure that if there was a burial there, there was a head stone there, if there was not -- if the map indicated there was a burr yeltsin and there was no one buried there, we validated the grave was empty. if there was a site where a head stone should have been installed and it was off by a number of graves, we checked to be sure there was remains in the grave and put the head stone up there. >> how do you know the remains were the accurate remains? >> way matched them up with the records of inderment and grave service cards. >> you're still dealing with, my understanding, you're still dale diehling with paper cards, is that right? >> we are still dealing with paper cards, two sets of cards, an alphabet cal set of cards and numerical set of cards.

>> let me get this straight. it's 2010 and you guys -- may i take this poor minute? you have this amazing piece of technology right here, you know? it's an amazing piece of technology right here. we have iphones. >> make sure everyone knows this is the ig report i'm reading. it's hearing material s on ther, not something other than hearing material. >> i know that we've got cell phones, iphones, this and that and you guys are still dealing in cards. i just can't get my head around that. >>s a frustrated as you are, sir, with this, you can only imagine our frustration at the cemetery. arlington national cemetery is funded still to this day as a separate government agency b. but you've been given between $7 million to $10 million and to upgrade technology. >> not all that money went to upgrading i.t.. we're maintaining fiber optic,

our work stations, our computer stations, we have i.t. staff on board to assist staffs when they have issue, printer, fax machines are of, that all rolls into that. >> but with all due respect, the top priority should be identifying and accurately categorizing in modern times and not using 3 x 5 cards for the people the national heroes of this country, we should get -- that priority should have been given to the fallen who are buried there and in the honored dead and not fax machines and copy machines, how is have identified and properly data khat gorized all of these remains so they can live forever accurately. so i'll continue on in the next round, madam chair, thank you. i apologize for doing that. it just went to the fact that it's 2010, we're got all this technology and we're dealing in

3 x "the 5ive" ca5 cards, it's >> mr. metsler, i want to follow up on the questions the chairman asked you. there are certainly cases where family members misread the map or were in the wrong section or relied on a landmark that was no longer there and thus could not find the burial plot of their loved ones. we're not talking about those kinds of cases. we're talking about cases where, because of problems made by the cemetery, their loved ones' graves be unmarked or not in the right place or there's a mismatch. i'm trying to better understand when the broader problems came to your attention and when, if

ever, you perceived that there was a pattern of problems caused by operational deficiencies at the cemetery. >> the way arlington national cemetery operates is a little different than most va cemeteries and even private cemeteries today. arlington national cemetery still burriss over the grave. so the grave it is open, the remains straddle an open grave. unlike private cemeteries or the veterans administration cemeteries where the burials are done a at shelter or chapel away from the grave site and then the remains brought there later. at arlington we bury the remains over the open grave. so we're confident that the remains are right where they're supposed to be because they're sitting there right in front of the family at an open site at the time of the service to also ensure that, we have put a separate tag that the cemetery produces on each casket, on each

urn at the time of the remains coming into the cemetery and that remains as a permanent marking onto the casket or urn as remains are buried in the burial. i'm very confident that the remains are where they're supposed to be in the cemetery f someone on my staff didn't follow the procedures, that's a different story, but i don't believe that's what we're talking about. >> but mr. metzler, you have an ig report that identifies 100 graves without the proper burial stone. >> that not accurate. if i may, what we're talking about are the working maps that you would take out to the field and on one map are the number of graves in that particular section. it could be 5,000 squares or it could be 2500 squares and each day the staff is supposed do color in the square as the

burial is taking place. what we found is that these maps were not properly colored in. they either misread the map, the staff or they didn't color them in at all. >> so, do you dispute the findings of the ig report that there were 100 unmarked graves, that there were scores of grave sites misidentified on the maps, that there were burial urns that had been unearth and their contents discarded? >> i'm not aware -- let me. >> are you disputing these findings? >> i'm disputing what's latter statement is. i'm never aware of any urns that any contents were discarded. yes, we did find two urns that i was aware of that were buried in the land development 90 -- or i'm sorry were unearthed from their graves and most likely when we don't know for sure how they got there. >> mr. metzler, this is really

important is because what you're saying right now is at odds what the army ig report says. i have the excerpt from the army ig report. it says 117 grave sites were marked as occupied on the maps but none of these grave sites had a head stone or a burial card. do you dispute that finding? >> i do not dispute that finding. what i'm saying, ma'am, is that the maps were improperly colored. the blocks on the maps were colored in when they should have been colored in. we went out and did a field survey and we validated that the maps were posted. >> do you not think it's a problem that grave sites are marked as occupied on the maps but don't have a head stone or a burial card? >> if indeed there was -- >> how are the families supposed to find the grave sites of their loved ones? >> ma'am, what i'm saying is the

staff marked in those sites and they shouldn't have marked in those sites. no one was buried at that location. yes, we did find a few graves in each of these sections where the head stones were missing and those head stones were order as soon as we could validate there were remains in the grirv and that the staff had overlooked ordering those head stones but the vast majority of the graves that you're talking about were simply posting errors on a working map. >> let me give you another finding. the ig said that 94 grave sites were marked on the maps as unoccupied. but each had a head stone and a burial card. >> yes, ma'am. >> do you dispute that finding? >> i do not dispute that again, that would be the map was not properly posted. we went out -- >> but mr. metzler, the family members are relying on these maps. >> no, ma'am, they are not relying on those maps, they're relying on a section and grave

number they're given on the day of the service. those are the internal working maps. these are not maps buy we give to the families. >> you don't think it's a problem that grave sites are mismarked? >> i do. >> doesn't the staff -- >> i agree with you -- >> but wait a minute, i agree with you that the map should be accurately marked. >> doesn't the staff rely on those maps when they direct the family members to the grave sites? >> they rely on those maps to give them direction, but they don't show the family that the individual is buried that the map. that would give them a election, a grid location if you will within the cemetery so they could help find their loved one. each of the head stones are marked on the back with the section and grave number in numerical sequence. >> mr. metzler, if your staff is relying on these maps and these maps are inaccurate and you're not disputing that the maps are inaccurate, then aren't family members going to have a

difficult time finding the appropriate grave site? >> no, ma'am. >> i've got to tell you, your answer make no sense to me whatsoever. i'm going to switch to a different issue -- >> if i could just finish one point on that. we did correct each of these maps so with the ig report, they reported 211, each of those three burial sections have been corrected and the maps are currently posted correctly and copies given to all different divisions within the cemetery so they would have the latest updated map. >> mr. metzler, in your testimony, you blamed a lot of the problems on a lack of resources. you said that the cemetery staffing had been reduced by 35% from 145 to 95 civilian employees. when i look at the budget over at the last ten years, i see

significant increases from 13 million in fiscal year 2000 to a high of 39 million in fiscal year '10. if you thought the money was being spent for the wrong things, if you thought you were understaffed, whom did you relay that to? >> each budget cycle, we would bring this discussion to the table with the assistance secretary of the armies representative as well as with the office of management and budget as we submitted our budget submission for the upcoming year. >> and specifically asked for more money and more staff and were turned down? >> we were asking to be increased, we were usually cut back by omb to lower numbers. and it was through the pass backs that we would go through and with the assistant secretary of the army for civil works who helped us tremendously keep our

numbers up to the 95, if not, we have been reduced even further. the mission or the policy had been to reduce the government workforce and each year we were having our workforce cut away a little at a time. so we were holding on to the basic function of burying the dead and everything hels was just about contracted out with outsourcing. >> thank you madam chair. >> senator tester. >> thank you, madam chair. i appreciate and i do want to also reflect i appreciate both you gentlemen coming today and i appreciate the questions that are being answered today. i didn't want to go down this line but senator collins has forced me to go down here one more time. you are saying that -- what you're saying is that what the ig found that there are errors on a set of working maps but there were another set of maps that were right?

>> no, sir, that's not what i said. >> so what you're saying is that there are errors on a set of working maps and that the other set of maps was incorrect? >> the working maps, when it was brought to our attention that these maps were not accurately posted, we went out and did the field survey of the sections that were brought to our attention and we corrected those maps, reposted on the permanent set, which is another set of maps that is kept in a different location in the cemetery and then sent working copies out to all the divisions within the cemetery. >> the permanent maps were correct, is what you were saying? >> not until we corrected them. >> so what you're saying is that the ig report was correct? if the permanent maps were incorrect and working maps were incorrect -- show me one that was correct. >> the maps that are there today are correct. >> but the maps at the ig looked at were incorrect. >> that is correct. >> how did you fix those maps so that you know they're correct today? >> we went out to each section

and did a field survey, checking grave by grave by grave and where we found that the map was posted as someone was supposed to be buried there and there was no head stone there, then we would go become and check the grave card, the grave card is a numerical card, so if you go to one of the sections in the cemetery, you'll find grave cards starting with number one going to the end, we found no grave card, then we would probe the grave to see if there are any remains in the grave, if there were no remains in the grave, we realize that the map was posted incorrectly. >> okay. if there were remains in the grave, what did you use to know whose remains they were? >> we would look at the site and go back to the cards to find the grave card that correlated to that site. >> okay. >> then we would go back to the record of interment, the

alphabet callusing. >> let's go the other soldier, joe soldier was supposed ton buried in that and you go down and there's nothing there. where is joe soldier at now? i don't understand. i mean you can probe and see if the remains are there and say yeah, that's right. what happens the other direction. >> i know of no intense where we can't find a set of remains. >> you know where everybody is. >> new give me a name i can find the location. >> you're sure that who is burr flid that grave is buried in that grave even though you've got some maps that are right and some are wrong? i'm not trying to be critical here, but i'm trying to be obvious. how do you know which set of maps are right, if you have one set that's wrong and one set that's right. how do you know this set is right or that set is wrong? >> each time we post a set of maps, we put a date on that map as to when it's posted. the maps are only as accurate as the last date on those man, at

that point, it becomes working map. >> if that last date sin correct, that map sin accurate and screwed up. i don't know how you can find the bodies once they're in the ground or supposed to be in the ground and not in the ground, i don't know how you fix that mistake, but let's go in a different direction here. i want to talk a little bit about budgeting. you talk about declining budgets but then again senator collins pointed out your budget from 2000 went from $10 million to $39 million in ten years, are those figures correct? >> i believe they are. >> that's not a declining budget, that's a 400% increase. >> that's also reflective of construction costs. >> you had construction costs previous to 2000. >> very minimal construction costs. >> okay. who makes the budget decisions? >> the budget recommendation is made out of my office and then the final decision is made by the assistant secretary of the army to make the recommendation. >> so you ultimately -- you

because to your credit when you said i take responsibility for everything that's happened right or wrong. you are the one that determines how many dollars or how many millions you need for arlington national cemetery consulting with your staff and the folks you work with and pass that up the chain, is that correct? >> not entirely, sir. part it is we are given guidance from omb at the beginning of the budget sigle and they will tell us how many millions of dollars we can ask for and what our staffing level should be. >> so if your budgets were not adequate, whose responsibility is that? is that yours or omb's or somebody above you? >> well, sir, i think it's a combination of us asking and justifying and then ultimately we have to support the president's initiative and going forward to the appropriations committee and with the guidance that we're given. >> but in your opening statement, you said because of funding reductions, your staff

was reduced by 35%. i don't -- correct me if i'm wrong, did your budget reflect that you needed 35% less people? >> i don't understand that question. >> you put forth a budget. your staff was reduced by 35%, was that your decision or somebody angels. >> no, that was not my decision. >> whose decision was it? >> our staffing levels were reduced by omb each time. >> omb made the reduction. >> yes, sir. >> those are supposed to be offset by contractors, right? >> yes. >> who made that decision? >> again, we were told that we would be supported with contract dollars, so -- >> by who? >> by omb. by omb. >> yes, sir. >> okay. did you make your plea to the appropriations committee this wasn't going to work? or did you just omb do it or i mean -- >> sir -- >> don't feel bad about this, i've heard this before, and the

truth is not your budget but the other budget, but you have to fight for it if you think it's right. did you fight for it? that's the question. >> circumstance as a member are a part of the government i have support the president's initiative and the guidance i'm given from omb is the guidance we set forward. >> tell me how the process works with the contractors. was there oversight? you say that the army corps gave oversight for contract evers, was there somebody on site you could go to to make sure the contractors are doing what they're supposed to do in a timely manner on budget? >> typically there was not a representative from the corps of engineers on site at the cemetery. >> did you have anybody onsite overseeing the contractors. >> we have contracting representatives. >> were they trained. >> most through a 40 hour training course. >> who trained them. >> the kragting office that issued that contract. >> okay. was there any rivalry between those contractors and the folks who work for you? full-time? >> not that i'm aware of, no.

>> okay. was there any point in time during your tenure that you requested for contracting support such as a contracting officer on site or did you see a need for it? >> well, we would have loved to have our on contracting shop internally but it's not a person, it's a series of people, from attorneys to clerks, it would take away from our staffing level to actually perform our basic mission at arlington national cemetery, our challenge each year was holding onto the fte we had the previous year and not take a further reduction, that was not always successful. >> were you happy with the way that system worked? >> no, i was not happy with the way the system worked. i had virtually no control or say-so over anything going on with contracting and i had to rely on the contracting officers to perform this request that we would submit whether it was construction contracts, services contracts are or i.t. contracts.

>> and you were the superintendent of arlington national cemetery and you didn't feel like you had adequate supervision over the contractors. that needs to be fixed. i mean if the next person has that same sentiment, we're never going to get to a situation where we're doing things right at arlington or responsible to the taxpayers of this country. one last question, i appreciate the latitude the chair has given me. today, 20% of the graves are at arlington are automated, is that correct, isn't it? >> it's that approximate. >> today, senator mccaskill, if you can look at that little machine senator brown brought up, go online and find any grave in the 131 va national cemeteries right from her seat right there. any grave she can find. how did the va get so far ahead of arlington from a technological standpoint? because they had the same omb to work with that you had.

they had the same administration to work with that you had. go ahead. >> they have a dedicated i.t. staff that the national cemetery administration that worked exclusively on the b.o.s.s. system. >> okay. were you aware of that when you were superintendent of arlington? >> when i worked for the department of veterans affairs i was part of that initial program to automate and was a driving force, if you will, to the va to get them away from the paper and pencil and get into the autom e automated system, i was very much aware of the b.o.s.s. system and anxious to bring it into arlington and try it out. why didn't it get implemented? >> we did implement it for two and a half years, we just got so frustrated with the system, we couldn't maude fay to to make it work for arlington cemetery. >> the va works it for 171

cemetery. you've got one. >> no, sir. the arlington sem stare unique from the standpoint that no cemetery has military honors associatesed with every funeral from caissons to bands, to marching bands flyovers, you don't have those in the va cemeteries. >> we're talking about the ability to find a brave online. >> that's only a part of the system. >> but it's a pretty darn important part of the system. >> yes, it is. >> i want to thank the chair. >> and i would tell you that every burial we have done since 1 1999 is part of that system now and you can go into the locater and find our burr yalts at arlington national cemetery in their system as well. >> just, i got to do this. what you're saying is you can go on the va website from 1999 to 2007 and find who's buried in arlington national cemetery? >> if they have ordered a government head stone from the va, it will be in their system.

>> these 211 ig misburied graves are on the va website and they're correct? >> i don't know that i could say that the way you said it, sir. >> thank you very much. >> senator carper. >> thanks very much. let me just ask you to back up a little bit. i was not here for your testimony and for the first part of the questioning. let me just ask you, if i can, mr. metzler, what went wrong? what has been done to fix what went wrong? what remains to be done? who needs to do it? >> wow. what went wrong is that from the very beginning, we found that the i.t. automation process was full of difficult turns and twists in the process to accomplish. we started out with trying to do an initiative and found out we needed to do a 300 report to omb any time you have had an i.t.

initiative of more than a half million dollars, this report to h to be placed in their ahead of time. so we had to stop the process, this was around 2003 and do this 300 report. that in itself took us over a year and a half to accomplish. once we got that completed, then we got very little feedback from anyone but we continued to go forward and try to automate. we started out by scanning the records of the existing records in the cemetery to get them into an automated system and at the same time try to develop the interment scheduling system which was the biggest driving factor for us at the time, trying to automate the daily burials we were doing so we would make no mistake whose we were burying that day as far as military honor, grave site location and get away from the paper and pencil issue, but as we got into that particular system, our staff continued to ask for more and more upgrades

to that system, we were successful and able to automate or upgrade it one time, we were in the process of automating a second time and in making it a more complex system, robust system that was internet based and that we could send the information out to all government agency, the military, the chaplin's office and such who needed this and we were in that process, if i could use the baseballablesy ji, i believe we were on third base ready to come home and finish the system when all of the inspections and the allegation were made and it stopped the finishing that development of that particular system o right now, we're on hold. until we can get that released and get that system finished, nothing else will be accomplished in automation unless you scrap the old system and start all over again. >> let me follow up on your baseball analogy, let's say we're in a rain delay, we got a runner on third base and game is on hold. when the rain stops and the game rupees, what do we need to do,

who needs to do it? >> what we need to do is get in with the contractor who has got the base knowledge of the iss upgraded system and finish that system. do the beta testing to be sure we've captured all the initiatives that the staff at the interment services wants and implement that system. that is one of the big cornerstones in getting that accomplished. then the next thing would be to integrate the records already scanned into that system. >> who needs to do those things? >> i think most of that stuff can be done by contractors. now the bigger issue is and i think this goes to the heart of the questions that senator collins was asking earlier, is the triple validation. and i think this is a challenge with all older cemeteries like arlington is the information on the head stone, the information on the paper records, all need

to be cross checked to be sure it's accurate. >> what does the congress need to do? >> work with the army, support this initiative financially and help us help the army to get this system back off rain delay and get it completed, sir. >> all right. in light of the significant number of improperly mark and marked graves, could you just share with us what's been done to reach out to the families of the deceased? >> in cases where we know that the family has had a question, then they would be contacted. if the family has called into the cemetery with a question, that research, to my knowledge, is currently being done and that then a follow-up phone call would be done to the families and tell them whatever information was found out allay their concerns. >> all right. i understand that there's a section 27 at arlington. could you take a moment.

tell me what is the historical significance of section 27. >> it used to be called the lower section. it was the original burial area of the cemetery before it had a designation as section 27. it is where the cemetery started in may of 1864, william christman who died after three months in the military was buried there in may of 1864. so the original burials during the civil war time were in section 27. also in another part of section 27, the former residents of friedman's village are buried, about 3500 individuals who were on the grounds of arlington cemetery from 1863 to 1890. these were african americans displaced as a result of the civil war. the government had opened up a series of camps orvilleages here in the washington area, one of

them was on the fwlounds of arlington cemetery and unfortunately a lot of these individuals who were residents of this village passed away from disease, natural causes, they were buried also in section 27. >> i'm told that this section has suffered a considerable amount of negts over the years. first of all, i want to ask you if that's true, but i think it was about 20 years ago that the congress order the arlington national cemetery to improve the grounds and to try to restore the burial records. among the folks who were there, i understand some african-american civil war soldier, but i'm told that little has been done and in addition -- >> that's not correct, sir, at all. >> isle let you respond to that. but in addition to addressing the burial problems in the newer parts of the cemetery, what has been done to fix significant problems in section 27. >> section 27, when i first got

to arlington, the middle part of the section, it's a long narrow section, the middle part of the section an experiment had been done by the previous cemetery superintendent there for flat markers. this was an initiative that was being worked on in the national cemetery system. all their new tell me taers they were opening back in the '80s were all flat marker ares. so for whatever reason, the former superintendent decided to try flat markers for ease of maintenance and better mowing, easier mowing. it didn't seem to be too succ s successful in the va, they walked away from it. around 1992, when i was doing one of my appropriations hearings with congressman stokes, who i believe was the chairman at the time, brought to my attention he felt this was incorrect at arlington cemetery and asked to us change the head stones from flat markers back to upright head san antonios, which

we d at the same time, he asked us to look at the trees at the cemetery. the trees had been loy allowed to grow all the way to the ground. so you had branches that want ground over head stone, covering head stones and such and we changed the maintenance cycle at the cemetery and lifted the trees up to about a six foot height so could you walk under a tree and tree limbs would no longer be bowing down over the headstones. so all that was accomplished between 1993, 1994 in section 27 today receives every bit of maintenance as any other section of the cemetery. >> thank you for those response. >> you're welcome. >> madam chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. >> mr. higginbotham, when did you first realize there were mismarked graves, unmarked graves and improperly marked graves at arlington national cemetery? >> well, ma'am, having been a

cemetery representative during the vietnam war doing funerals, it was always -- i can't pinpoint a date and time, it was always to me conceptual that anything done by hand for 140-plus years there has to be some errors somewhere. >> well, i'm not asking about conceptual or an isolated era, i'm asking you what year -- let me just ask the question this way -- the documentation that we have developed for this hearing would indicate that you had personal knowledge of unmarked graves or mismarked graves in 2003. would you disagree with that? >> i'm not sure of the date, but if it's in the report, that was probably what was looked at, i'm not sure. >> mr. metzler, you are testified earlier when i was asking you that five years ago, you were aware of urns with

cremated remains in them that had been found in the fill area of the cemetery. >> that's correct. >> so at that moment, you knew that someone's remains had been dug up and dumped somewhere in the cemetery without the people knowing they were digging up rye mains and not realizing they were dumping a family's member's remains in another part of the fill area of the cemetery that was unmarked just in with the dirt, correct? >> that's my understanding, yes. >> so in 2003, mr. higginbotham, you knew there were mistakes that had been documented that reflected a lack of procedures of keeping track of where people were being buried in an accurate fashion. and in 2005, mr. mmplt etzler, you knew that there were urns uncovered in the fill area of the cemetery. now when you found those urns, what did you do? >> we looked at the umplt rns

and examined them to figure out if we could determine where they belong in the cemetery? >> did you? >> no, there were no markings on the umplt rns, nothing to lead us to identify who these remains belonged to. >> you have no idea who they were. >> that is correct. >> to this day, you have no idea who they are. >> that is correct. >> did you think to yourself, we've got a problem here? >> yes, i did. >> and i assume you went right up to the appropriations committee and to omb and to the army chief of staff and said we've got a crisis. >> i did not. >> we have urns being dug up that are unidentified and they've been dumped, we've got to get on this because this could be occurring in every single section of the cemetery? >> die not do that, ma'am. >> what about you, higginbotham, when you realized you had this problem as early as 2003, what action did you take? do you go to mr. metzler or send him a memo and say we've got a crisis and we need to start examining every section of this

cemetery and find out where these problems exist? >> that's exactly what we did. the triple validation that mr. metzler referred to to the previous question was the best way that i personally know, i presented to him, as an idea of how we could validate each grave site in the cemetery. that program would go out with a hand-held device, go to each grave site, look at the head stone, the grave card, the burial record and the map to validate all four of those sources and then once that's done, we would then know are there other errors out there. >> so you're testifying that you went to mr. metzler in stwe and said we need to do quality assurance, we need to do some kind of survey and determine the mistakes that have been made in this cemetery? >> no, i'm saying we as an organization realized that was what we needed to do to validate grave sites. that was presented to omb in our

plan for the future -- >> did mr. metzler know that you were aware of mistakes being made throughout the cemetery in terms of the mark, tfailure to properly mark graves or mistakes in the marking of grarchs. >> yes. >> so you knew in 2003, mr mr. metzler? >> i did not know about a grave in 2003, it was braut to my attention a little later than that. >> so you're saying that mr. higginbotham not beak truthful that he brought to you as early as 2003 the graves being mishandled? >> there was one particular grave in section 67 or 68 that i believe 2003 was the original date that that discrepancy was -- >> so in your earlier testimony when you said you first found out about it when the inspector general issued his report a month ago, that was not correct, your earlier testimony.

you knew in 2003? >> i was trying to understand your question, ma'am. i'll go back to my earlier, when something is brought to my attention, i corrected it at that point. >> well, let's be honest here. i mean really what's happened is here employees at this cemetery finally had enough and they went to sallen.com and salon did an expose at what was is going on at arlington. then the inspector general as a result went out and in just in three section, mr. mmplt etzler, you say the maps are correct now, they're only correct for three section, those are the sections the inspector general looked a at, you didn't look at those sections even though you knew you had significant problems, you had unidentified umplt rns turning up in the fill. you didn't do any kind of survey and determine what was going on. this happened, we are here today because people who work for you had had enough. and they blew the whistle. and somebody wrote an article

about it and finally the army woke up and realized nobody was paying attention at arlington and they went in and they look and they found in three sections several hundred graves and how many sections are at arlington, mr. metzler. >> 70 sections. >> so we've done three out of 70? >> that's correct. >> there's no indication we don't have the same problem in the other 67. none. so really what happened is here is you all just decided if you didn't talk about -- do you honestly believe if you had come to congress and said we have a crisis, we immediately need resources and man so we can check this cemetery because we're afraid that we've lost bodies of our heroes, that we lost the bodies of our fallen heroes, we've got cremated remains, we don't even know who they belong to turning up in the fill, did you ever write that up? did that ever go up the chain of command? did the chief of staff of the army ever see a document from you that we've got a problem, we

found cremated remains, we don't know where they are belong? >> no. >> did that ever occur, mr mr. metzler. >> we an at any time the records, we buried the remains as unknown in the cemetery. i did not send a note to the chief of staff of the army. >> with all due respect, this is not about a lack of resources or that you have a complicated job, off very important job, and i agree that it is stressful and you have a lot of burials and there's a lot of protocol, but this is not complicated. it's called keeping track of who you bury where. that is not a complicated task. and the notion that you would come in here and act like you didn't know about it until a month ago is offensive. you did know about it. and you did nothing. and you knew about it, mr. higginbotham and you did nothing and that's why we're here. now somebody is is going to come along and clean up this mess and families have been hurt for no good reason. if you would have sounded the alarm the minute you realized you had this kind of problem, i

think we would be in a much better position now than we are today. senator brown. >> thank you, madam chair. so just getting back to the b.o.s.s. system a little bit, i'm a little bit -- i'm just trying to focus on this i.t. issue, you said you didn't use the b.o.s.s. system because many different reasons. i'm trying to still kind of figure it out. but in the tcms program, it has a records data base, correct? >> yes it does. >> so does the b.o.s.s. system, right? >> yes, it does. >> and you also have in the tcms, you have grave site capability, grave site inventory capability. >> that's correct. >> so does the obviously the b.o.s.s. system. and then you also have infrastructure upgrades in your system. >> that's correct. >> they have it also in the

b.o.s.s. system, correct? >> i'm -- now i'm not sure. >> i'll make it easy, they do. i'll take your word on it. >> and they have a project management system in the tcms, correct? >> yes. >> they also have a it in the b.o.s.s. system. they also have a gis in your system, correct? >> yes. >> and it's also in the b.o.s.s. system, so you're saying that it's not capable, you couldn't adapt it, what's the difference? what wasn't working? where was the break -- >> the scheduling was the biggest challenge that we had. >> so you have a system that can battle, i just listed five or six things, the only difference is because of the scheduling, i want to just because you have flyovers, honors, you know, the ceremonial significance of that, so the only difference was scheduling. >> that was the first major difference that we saw that -- >> what were the other differences then? >> our system was going to be internet based so that we could

provide the same information to all branches of the military. >> theirs is too, you can go right online right now. so what's the difference? >> no, sir, our information would be sent the time -- whenever we took a funeral application and completed it, and when the system -- our system would then push that system, push that information out through an e-mail mess amp to the army, the navy, air force, coast guard, marine, chaplin's office, to anyone who was involved in that particular funeral. then as updates came along with that funeral, the same thing would happen, the information would be pushed out. >> so there's an scheduling and e-mail capability issue between the two systems, so i have two basic changes, scheduling and e-mail capability, anything else that was different? >> the other thing is the maps were going to be posted electronically with each burial, the fwrarv site layout maps. when you do a burial, the first document that is produced is a record of interment, the next

document that is produced is the grave survey card and the next thing is posting the map, all that would have been done electronically with our system. >> the cost for the b.o.s.s. system was $1.2 million. the cost for your system is approximately $10 million and it isn't even up and running yet. it's not -- it has basically 60,000 people, i think, you told us earlier that have actually been inputted into the system and you're on third base and you're going to bring it home soon but for the fact that you've had do all these other things. aside from e-mail, scheduling and maps, we're paying three times as much for a system that is already being used by an entity that has a tremendous amount more in terms of the data and accuracy of records than you do. how do you explain that? >> well, sir, i don't know how the va developed its numbers. i know that the va has a

dedicated i.t. staff. >> do you don't have an i.t. staff at all? >> no, sir, i don't. >> have you ever requested any assistance at all? >> what we have requested is through contract support? >> well, did you get that contract support? >> we requested i.t. programs through contracting. >> programs, did you get the actual people to come and help you? >> no, sir -- we have not requested i.t. staff on board. >> you've got over 300,000 honored dead in this cemetery, you've got a $10 million plan here and you've asked for contracts, but you haven't asked for the staff to help implement -- >> we were working to have the staff to support the contracts to be a contractor. >> well, you've been there for how many years? >> i've been here for 19 years. >> so when were you going to get around to ask for way to implement the programs that you're trying to do? >> we have been in that process i would say for at least the last five years trying to get

this accomplished. >> how? if you haven't made the request, how have you been trying to get it accomplished? >> your silence speaks for itself. >> no, no, i'm trying to answer your question here, sir, just give me a second. >> i'll tell you what, i'm an attorney, before i got here, i tell you, i would have a lot of fun with you in a deposition. because i don't feel we're getting the straight talk here. let me just -- while you're thinking, i'll just shoot to you, mr. higginbotham, i'm looking at some of the contractors, we had an ofis solution and alpha tech interactive design, these are digitized record, geographic info system, one is a $1.1 million, contractor was paid but we can't confirm if it was in fact deliverable on the info system interactive design,

226,000, not deliverable. do you have any knowledge of what they delivered what we paid for them yet. >> after consultation with council i will assert my fifth amendment rights to that question, sir. >> let me ask another question, because i've enjoyed your forthright responses, i'm just asking if you knew it was deliverable or not. were you responsible for signing contracts or negotiating them or awarding them in any way? >> after consultation with counsel, i assert my fifth amendment rights. >> madam chair? >> let the record refrequent that you availed yourself not to give testimony that might incriminate you, the subcommittee respects your constitutional right to decline to answer questions on that ground. and you are excused. >> thank you, madam chair. on june 11th, the army at the

direction of your replacement established a telephone number for the family members to call if they had any problems concerning loved one's remains, why does it take the army to set up a telephone number to find problems when this is supposedly something you've been working on for quite a while, identifying and reaching out to the families and the like. >> sir, i would address any issue that was traut brought to my attention. up to that point, i knew of no family had a had any concerns at arlington national cemetery, every issue that was brought to my attention was dealt with immediately. >> i can't ask any more question, madam chair, i'll waite for the next panel. thanks. >> senator collins. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. metzler, was mr mr. higginbotham responsible for the management of the information technology efforts at the cemetery? >> yes, ma'am, he was my designated person to work on

that program. >> were you aware that at least $200,000 had been spent for the development of an internment scheduling system even though a product had never been developed. >> i was aware that that program was under development, yes, ma'am, i was aware that that was almost completed and it was stopped -- i guess i shouldn't have used the baseball analogy but that's what i was referring to that program was being updated and almost completed when the investigation start and that stopped everything dead in its tracks. >> what is your assessment of the information technology contracts that the cemetery entered into? >> i'm not very familiar with that, ma'am. that's really the contracting

officer's responsibility, i just have a very general knowledge of it. >> were you aware that millions of dollars were being spent on the i.t. contracts and yet you were not receiving the workable products that you needed? >> i was aware that various contracts had been awarded and that elements were being completed such as the scanning of the records, such as the wiring of the cemetery, at one point i would make is that prior to 1991, prior to 2001, excuse me, 9/11, the stcemetery was nod so we were on dial-up modems and t-1 lines, so part of the effort was to wire the cemetery and bring us into the internet. >> who was the contracting officer for the i.t. contracts? >> i believe it was split between the baltimore corps of engineers and the army's cce,

army's contracting z inin ining excellence. >> were you ultimately responsible for the execution of these contracts? or was that your deputy's responsibility? >> the crack contracting officer. they can sign the contracts, authorize payment, modify contracts. >> did you ever suggest to the contracting officer that perhaps payments should be withheld since you were not getting the deliverable products that had been contracted for? >> i did not make that suggestion. mr. higginbotham, again, was my representative and i had trust in him he was working this problem. >> what i'm trying to get at is in your opening comments, you talked about the amount of money in your budget which did go up considerably over the past decade was not going for staff, but rather was going for i.t.

contracts and for construction. so as the manager, since you're not happy with the results of the i.t. contract and a lot of the budget increase was going for that purpose, did you alert the army chain of command that budget priorities were not appropriate and should be changed? >> well, ma'am, our budget priorities were working the cemetery and the appearance of the cemetery in what we would call the fixed costs and the majority of our money each year around $25 million went to what we would call fixed costs, turning on the light, paying the employees, paying contractors to maintain the cemetery and repetitive maintenance, we had some increases for construction, yes. we had some i.t. initiatives also in several million dollars. to my knowledge right now, there

is about somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 million unspent in i.t. money sitting at the cemetery this year orr sitting up at baltimore and hadn't been executed. >> doesn't that trouble you, you say that you're short on personnel, that you had staffing reduction of 35% and then you have millions of dollars just sitting there for i.t. projects that have not come to fru wigs? >> yes, ma'am, it does bother me. but unfortunately with the ins going on, every initiative was put on hold and we could not continue our automation effort. >> we've talked a lot about the fact that the veterans affairs administration has an automated cemetery management system. why couldn't that be adapted to arlington cemetery? >> well, we did work on it for two and a half years, we tried it. we worked it daily into our scheduling system and we just kept coming up with one flaw

after the next. and the scheduling was the biggest challenge that we had. at arlington sem tae, we use all five branches of the military to assist us in providing military honors, each branch of service have different requirements each day so they're not always available to arlington cemetery. all that information was put into a manual system, we are now trying to automate that so when we put in a burial request for our system who kuld in today that it would tell us automatically if an element was available or not available for the military to support that funeral. the b.o.s.s. system couldn't accomplish that and when we asked the va to try to maude fay phi that part of the scheduling system, they were reluctant to change their system that was supporting 130 cemeteries to change it just for arlington. that was the critical element, if you will, for arlington cemetery as military honors is what distinguishes arlington from the other office services. >> i understand that, but it seems to me that the va's

system, despite its deficiencies is better than the paper system that you are now using. do you disagree with that. >> no, ma'am, i do not disagree with you, but we are trying to automate our system and that was the process we were going through through the iss. >> but why not take the va's system which clearly meets sm, although not all of your needs and then customize it for the part that is different between arlington and the va cemeteries? >> the va system was not an army system, it was the va system. i could not export that system into the cemetery and then modify it. >> well, given the amount of money you're spending to develop a new system, i got to believe the contractor would have been willing to license that system to you. you clearly were trying it out at least. this just sounds like

bureaucracy at its worst as far as taking a practical approach to the problems. madam chairwoman, i know the vote soon and my time has expired, but thank you. >> thank you. we do have a vote right now. and mr. metzler, there's a number of other questions we have about contracting, but worry going to go to the second panel and we were will directed thoe those questions to you in writing for the record at a separate time. there's not a lot of them left. i think we've covered the ground, i think primarily the questions that remain is this notion that the b.o.s.s. system was not adequate for purposes of locating and memorializing where bodies were located and why a separate scheduling system could not have lailayered on top of t would have fit your needs. veterans affairs said they were more than willing to work with you, we have a specific communication from them in writing saying that they were willing to work with you and try

to do whatever was necessary to make the b.o.s.s. system work. >> well, ma'am, that is a change now to what the va -- i personally called their chief of technolo technology, i personally called their undersecretary and see if that would have been done years ago and they were reluctant to do it. >> do you have any document of that? >> no, ma'am, other than a phone call i made myself. >> it would seem something as important as whether or not you're going to embark on a multi-million dollar purchase, it seems to me that's something that should have been put in writing, worked up through the chain of command, the notion that the taxpayers had invested in a system that works perfectly well for the identification of burial remains, that it was not utiliz utilized, it seems to me that's more than a phone call, that's something that needs to at least be memorialized in writing. the fact that it wasn't, i think, damages your credibility in this regard that there really

was an effort to use the he tes

that you will give before the subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> mr. metzler is the former superintendent, thank you, gentlemen. you may be seated. john metzler is the former superintendent of arlington national cemetery and thurman higginbotham is the former deputy superintendent of arlington national cemetery. and we will defer to you all for your opening statements. >> good morning, madam chairman. members of the committee. as the committee is well aware i was the superintendent of arlington national cemetery for the last 19 years. prior to arlington i had 17 years' experience with the department of veterans affairs and their cemetery system and also served six years of earlier government service including one tour of active duty in the army with one tour in vietnam as a helicopter crew chief with the 1st aviation brigade. over my 42 years of service to

our nation, my respect, admiration and gratitude to our men and women in uniform and their families has only increased. i hold them in the highest regards. personally it pains me that our team at arlington did not perform all aspects of its politician to the highest standards required. as a senior government official in charge of the cemetery, i accept full responsibility for all my actions and the actions of my team. and i want to express my sincere regrets to any family who may have these failures may have caused them pain. as you evaluate these issues it is important to fully appreciate the complexity and bredth of the operation at arlington national cemetery. they are unique and extraordinary. this complexity and bredth has only increased during my tenure. of the more than 300,000 burials that have taken place over the last 146 year, one-third took

place during my tenure. there are only two or three large private or department of veteran affairs cemeteries in the world that have the complexity and comparable volume of funeral that is arlington does each year, 6,000 or 7,000. none of these cemetery, however, require the attention for ceremonial coordination and support that is routine at arlington cemetery. none of these cemeteries have 3,000 nonburial ceremony tass are conducted regularly at arlington. none of these cemeteries have records that go back over a hundred years and finally, none of these cemeteries have over 4 million visitors who tour the grounds each year. activity at this level is sensitive and important. and it requires constant attention to action. there are no time-outs or do-overs. funeral services continue to be a vital and are conducted, excuse me, in all circumstances. we conduct services at arlington cemetery on 9/11 and the day

after. during this recent record snowfall in which the federal government was closed for four consecutive days arlington cemetery continued with its burial schedule. it is undisputed that the overwhelming majority of funeral arlington national cemetery have been completed successfully without error and to complete satisfaction of the families. i do not highlight this point to excuse any possible findings that may have occurred. i understand that each burial service at the cemetery must be conducted as close as possible to zero defect every time. i understand that the complete burial -- excuse me. i understand that completing that burial is a significant event for each family involved. there has been an enormous amount of good that has been accomplished for tens of thousands of families and each time the funerals were conducted correctly at arlington. i know the army is working hard

to correct the i.g.'s finding and the cemetery will improve its operation. during the last 19 years that i was the superintendent we did not receive the funding that was needed and the dedicated staff of the cemetery was reduced by 35% from 145 when i arrived to 95 today. of these 95, approximately 35 people are performing administrative tasks. those staffing losses were to be outsourced by private contracts. as experience has shown, however, that approach does not always result in the most efficient or effective solution. there are no substitutes of having dedicated taff in the important areas such as government technology and contracting. none of which i had during my tenure. further, issues can be minimized and eliminated with both funding and staffing requirements to do this important work. in any event i know the army is committed to doing whatever it takes to make things right now and in the future.

as difficult as it is to conclude my lengthy service under these circumstances i will always value the opportunity i had to be superintendent of arlington national cemetery and i am prepared to answer your questions as best i can. thank you. >> i want to tell you, mr. metzler, how much we appreciate you being here today. i'm sure this is not a pleasant experience for you, and it means a great deal that you are here and that you are standing and willing to answer questions on behalf of the committee and committee staff we appreciate it very much. >> thank you. >> mr. higginbotham, do you have an opening statement? >> no, ma'am, i do not. i would like to after consultation with counsel i will assert my fifth amendment rights to any and all questions that the committee may ask. >> i appreciate the fact that you are asserting your right, but procedure rally it will be necessary for us to ask you some questions and you to assert that privilege in response to those

questions in order for us to make the record that is appropriate going forward. >> yes, ma'am. >> so we will be asking you some questions and you will then have to decide as those questions are asked if you wish to assert the right. if you do assert the right, repeatedly, a few times, then we will make the necessary steps in the record to reflect that you have done so. >> thank you. >> do you have any question, mr. higginbotham in that regard? >> no, ma'am. >> then we will begin questioning and let's start with you, mr. metzler. let's be clear. how long were you an employee at the cemetery? >> i was an employee there -- i was an employee there for 19 years and 6 months. >> and on what date did you retire? >> july 2nd, 2010. >> who did you report to in the army? who was your boss? >> my direct report was commanding general of the

district of washington. >> all right. and was there any other report you had other than the commander of the district of columbia? >> yes, ma'am. i reported to the assistant secretary of the army for civil works on budget and policy issues and to the assistant secretary of the army from manpower and reserve affairs on eligibility issues and exceptions to policy and to the chief of media on any media-related issues. >> okay. and who reported to you at arlington national cemetery? >> the deputy superintendent, the historian, my secretary and the chief financial officer. >> okay. so you had -- your secretary. you had the deputy. you had the historian and who was the other? >> the chief financial officer. >> cfo, okay. mr. higginbotham, how long were you an employee at the cemetery? >> after consultation with

counsel i will assert my fifth amendment. okay. you can ask the question again, ma'am. >> how long were you an employee with the arlington national cemetery? >> i started at arlington in july 1965 and had a break in service to attend mortuary school and returned in 1977. >> when did you become the cemetery's deputy superintendent? >> 1990 i believe it was, yeah. >> and what date did you retire? >> july 3rd. >> mr. higginbotham, what were your responsibilities as deputy superintendent? >> well, i was an assistant to the superintendent in his responsibilities. >> and so did you take your direction directly from him? >> yes.

>> were there things that you did independently of his direction? >> i had decision-making, you know, for supervisors that worked for me, yes. >> who -- who reported to you at the cemetery? how many direct reports did you have? >> we had three divisions that reported to me, facilities, administrative and operations. >> mr. higginbotham, it's pretty obvious if you read the record that you and mr. metzler just didn't get along. is that a correct statement? would you argue with that statement? >> not in my opinion. >> that you did not get along -- >> no, we did get along. >> you did get along. >> yes. >> so the fact that there was a report that was done as early as 1997 saying that there was

real -- in fact, 1994 i believe even after you all had -- after you had been deputy for only a few years, two different types there was an assessment of what was going on in arlington and in both instances they said that there was a great difficulty between the two of you, that you did not have a good working relationship, that morale was low because of it and in fact you were counseled, the record says you were counselled as it relates to our ability to work with mr. metzler. is that not accurate? >> partially. i think if we go back to when mr. metzler arrived at arlington in i believe it's 1991, i was already the acting superintendent because the prior superintendent had quadruple bypass surgery and he decided to retire, okay. i applied for the job as

superintende superintendent. i was told that i was not eligible for the position because i was 22 days short of time and grade, you know, to move the one year in grade at the lower grade. i think coming in a new -- a new individual, you know, i had no animosity toward mr. metzler whatsoever, he was new to arlington, although, you know, he had lived there years ago. his management style was new to me. i had worked under previous, you know, superintendent and we both had the same feeling about arlington to do the right thing, you know. we were like a corporation. he had 51% and i had 49 so any decisions we made were ultimately, you know, his decisions, but i don't feel that that report accurately reflected -- i think it was more

of the staff perception that we didn't get along. >> all right. let me -- before my time running out on the first round i want to establish something for the record before we go any further. mr. metzler, what was the first date that you knew that there were problems with the location of burial remains at arlington national cemetery? >> with the i.g. report, ma'am. >> no, i want to know when was the first date -- forget about all the reports. forget about -- i want to know that day when you're in your office and you receive information and you have a sinking sensation that you may have a problem about where bodies are buried at arlington national cemetery, what year did that occur? >> i never had that problem. >> so you're saying that you never had any inkling that there could be an issue with a location of remains at arlington

national cemetery until june of this year? >> until the i.g.'s report. any time an individual, any time a family member, any time an employee brought an issue to my attention in this regards, we looked at it immediately. we stopped what we were doing and we went out to the field and we validated anyone's concerns. >> wait a minute. so you -- you're saying that when there was an issue, you went out and you saw that there was a concern or you found that it was not valid, the concern was not valid. >> i found that either the concern was not valid or there was an explanation that went along with it. there would be oftentimes where family members, let me restate that. from time to time family members would contact the cemetery and tell us they could not find their loved one and we would find out that they were in the wrong burial section or that they had referenced a tree or some other permanent structure

in the cemetery and that structure either had been removed or they were just in the wrong location so we would go out with them and we would show them how to find their loved one's grave. that was a problem at any cemetery that expands and continues to grow, people pick up landmarks and don't use the numbering system on the back of the headstones. >> but you're saying that until the i.g.'s report came out in june, you had never been made aware of an instance where a headstone was marked wrong, a body was mislocated, an urn was found buried in the same location as other remains, that there were more than one body in one grave, that an urn had -- >> no. >> you never had any ineconomy nation? >> no, i did have inclinations of those on a one-to-one basis but every time one was brought to our attention, we corrected those issues, whatever that issue was or we annotated the records to fix the problem. >> okay, so you knew there were

problems, you're just saying as they came along you fixed them? >> yes, ma'am. >> and when was the first date you knew that you had at least one problem that had been validated as to location of remains at arlington national cemetery? what year was that? >> i don't know. i mean, this is an issue, the way you're asking the question that could happen virtually any day in the cemetery operation where someone could come in and ask a question that you would have to go out and look at. >> i'm not saying that somebody can't find something and you help them find it. i'm saying that when you looked into it, you realized that a grave was mismarked or there were multiple bodies buried there or that the body wasn't in the location that you thought it was in and you weren't sure where it was. i'm talking about those situations. when -- what year did one of those situations come to your attention? >> well, i think the one situation that we were talking about where a remains was buried in a grave and unmarked came to our attention about a year ago.

we had an issue during the development of land development 90 referred to as ld-90, this was the last 40 acres of the cemetery in the process of developing that land, this was a fill area where soil had been reposited there for probably 35 years so the soil was started to be distributed over this 40-acre land mass and in the process of doing that, two urns were discovered. >> when was that? what month and year was that? >> ma'am, i'm guessing. i don't recall the month and year but i would say it has to be at least five years ago that that came about. >> okay. that's -- and we will -- and i will have the same question for you, mr. higginbotham, on my next round but my time is over and i want to be respectful of my colleagues so, senator brown. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. metzler, you noted in your opening statement that the majority of the burials are done

successfully. i didn't fall off the turnin truck yesterday. i would think a cemetery of this prestige that 100% of them would be done successfully and that's why we're here is the fact that they're not being done successfully and that we owe it to our families and our soldiers to get it right and with all due respect, once again, there are many cemeteries throughout this country that have the foresight and courtesy to make that extra effort to automate the systems, identify properly where people are buried so that people and family can have closure. i guess my first question is, can you clarify for the record what your responsibilities specifically were in terms of who was responsible for identifying properly the grave

sites. whose ultimate responsibility was that, yours? >> ultimately it is mine as the superintendent, yes. >> and when the i.g. investigation report detailed the problem that existed for a period of over 18 years and i'm presuming it's the time that you were there because you've been there for quite a while, it also noted that the relationship between you and the deputy, how much do you think the relationship between you and the deputy affected or contributed to the documented problems at the cemetery? >> i don't believe it contributed at all. mr. higginbotham and i met daily in a staff meeting. we would meet periodically two or three times a day either in his office or in my office. we would confer on anything that was unusual or different. we would often go out to the cemetery together to look at issues that were going on in the cemetery. i mean, we had a very

professional relationship that interacted each day with each other. we had the same common goal here on automation. we wanted to see the cemetery automated as quickly as possible. >> well, i noted here in actu actually a national -- arlington national cemetery article where you called him a visionary when it came to technology and trying to -- paraphrasing, implement the technology plan and then you said that's not a word that should be tossed around lightly and the funds were -- were provided. what's the status of the so-called technology at this point? where are you? how many graves have been identified? what's the status of the i.t., the systems, et cetera? >> there are approximately 60,000 graves that are automated right now since around 1999 with the use of the v.a. system

b.o.s.s., and then our continuation of the interment, the iss system. we have a system that we're trying to develop to improve the iss. we're on our second generation. we're trying to get to the third generation, which would make this system an internet-based system, so we have been working toward that. unfortunately, with the inspections and the reports that have gone on, all this work now has come to a halt and no work currently is being done to continue automating the system. >> so since 1997 you said? >> no, sir. the -- we started in 1999 trying the v.a.b.o.s.s. system. we worked on that for about 2 1/2 years and found it was not compassable with our needs at the cemetery. yes, it would put the information into a system, but the cemetery at arlington is much more complex with our scheduling system. i tried to work with the veterans' administration to get them to modify their scheduling

system to accommodate our needs. >> well, they offered it to you basically for nothing at cost. >> no, sir, that is not accurate. >> that is not true. >> no, sir. >> interesting. >> i mean i personally worked with their i.t. team. i was with -- >> was it a cheaper cost than what you've expended so far and have really little to show for it? was it offered to you at a cheaper cost? would you have saved the taxpayers money by modifying -- >> i could not get them to modify their system. >> you could have taken it and adopted it and modified it at cost to yourself. >> it was not my system. it was the veterans' administration system. i tried to work with their i.t. staff to see if they would not modify their system to our needs and they could not accommodate us. >> who was responsible for issuing contracts, signing contracts and going out and actually entering into i.t. or other types of arrangements to improve the system that you were working on? >> contracting officers, either at the baltimore corps of

engineers or at the army center of excellence for -- >> based on whose recommendation. >> it would be based on our recommendation at the cemetery. >> our, who is ours? is it you, the deputy, is it a combination? >> it's a combination. i mean any of our it's a combin our staff members, there are basically three tiles of contracts that we work with on a regular basis, construction contracts, serviceses contracts and the i.t. contracts. >> i guess what i'm trying to find out and i'm not getting there yet and i'm glad we're going do have a couple of rounds, what specific actions did you take to address the underlying issues and problems, the beurial problems in particular at the cemetery. what have you done since the report? you say you were addressing them, we had 9/11, burial, every cemetery has burials but these are special burr yals. there's a different level. these are the people that are being buried at arlington national cemetery. and i mean, growing up i think

of that and it's like the sem t cemetery in our country we have great pride in, it's like learning there's no santa claus or easter bunny. it's something that's held at such high esteem. here we are. it's like wow, is it facts or fiction, reality? who's buried there? there's so many questions. what have you in fact done since then? >> one of the things we did was we went out and did a field survey of the sections that were brought to our attention. and what found in the field survey is that the working maps were not accurately posted. >> then what did you do? >> we went out and validated each area to ensure that if there was a burial there, there was a head stone there, if there was not -- if the map indicated there was a burr yeltsin and there was no one buried there, we validated the grave was empty. if there was a site where a head stone should have been installed

and it was off by a number of graves, we checked to be sure there was remains in the grave and put the head stone up there. >> how do you know the remains were the accurate remains? >> way matched them up with the records of inderment and grave service cards. >> you're still dealing with, my understanding, you're still dale diehling with paper cards, is that right? >> we are still dealing with paper cards, two sets of cards, an alphabet cal set of cards and numerical set of cards. >> let me get this straight. it's 2010 and you guys -- may i take this poor minute? you have this amazing piece of technology right here, you know? it's an amazing piece of technology right here. we have iphones. >> make sure everyone knows this is the ig report i'm reading. it's hearing material s on ther, not something other than hearing material. >> i know that we've got cell phones, iphones, this and that

and you guys are still dealing in cards. i just can't get my head around that. >>s a frustrated as you are, sir, with this, you can only imagine our frustration at the cemetery. arlington national cemetery is funded still to this day as a separate government agency b. but you've been given between $7 million to $10 million and to upgrade technology. >> not all that money went to upgrading i.t.. we're maintaining fiber optic, our work stations, our computer stations, we have i.t. staff on board to assist staffs when they have issue, printer, fax machines are of, that all rolls into that. >> but with all due respect, the top priority should be identifying and accurately categorizing in modern times and not using 3 x 5 cards for the people the national heroes of this country, we should get -- that priority should have been

given to the fallen who are buried there and in the honored dead and not fax machines and copy machines, how is have identified and properly data khat gorized all of these remains so they can live forever accurately. so i'll continue on in the next round, madam chair, thank you. i apologize for doing that. it just went to the fact that it's 2010, we're got all this technology and we're dealing in 3 x "the 5ive" ca5 cards, it's >> mr. metsler, i want to follow up on the questions the chairman asked you. there are certainly cases where family members misread the map or were in the wrong section or relied on a landmark that was no longer there and thus could not find the burial plot of their loved ones. we're not talking about those

kinds of cases. we're talking about cases where, because of problems made by the cemetery, their loved ones' graves be unmarked or not in the right place or there's a mismatch. i'm trying to better understand when the broader problems came to your attention and when, if ever, you perceived that there was a pattern of problems caused by operational deficiencies at the cemetery. >> the way arlington national cemetery operates is a little different than most va cemeteries and even private cemeteries today. arlington national cemetery still burriss over the grave. so the grave it is open, the remains straddle an open grave.

unlike private cemeteries or the veterans administration cemeteries where the burials are done a at shelter or chapel away from the grave site and then the remains brought there later. at arlington we bury the remains over the open grave. so we're confident that the remains are right where they're supposed to be because they're sitting there right in front of the family at an open site at the time of the service to also ensure that, we have put a separate tag that the cemetery produces on each casket, on each urn at the time of the remains coming into the cemetery and that remains as a permanent marking onto the casket or urn as remains are buried in the burial. i'm very confident that the remains are where they're supposed to be in the cemetery f someone on my staff didn't follow the procedures, that's a different story, but i don't believe that's what we're talking about. >> but mr. metzler, you have an

ig report that identifies 100 graves without the proper burial stone. >> that not accurate. if i may, what we're talking about are the working maps that you would take out to the field and on one map are the number of graves in that particular section. it could be 5,000 squares or it could be 2500 squares and each day the staff is supposed do color in the square as the burial is taking place. what we found is that these maps were not properly colored in. they either misread the map, the staff or they didn't color them in at all. >> so, do you dispute the findings of the ig report that there were 100 unmarked graves, that there were scores of grave sites misidentified on the maps, that there were burial urns that

had been unearth and their contents discarded? >> i'm not aware -- let me. >> are you disputing these findings? >> i'm disputing what's latter statement is. i'm never aware of any urns that any contents were discarded. yes, we did find two urns that i was aware of that were buried in the land development 90 -- or i'm sorry were unearthed from their graves and most likely when we don't know for sure how they got there. >> mr. metzler, this is really important is because what you're saying right now is at odds what the army ig report says. i have the excerpt from the army ig report. it says 117 grave sites were marked as occupied on the maps but none of these grave sites had a head stone or a burial card. do you dispute that finding? >> i do not dispute that finding. what i'm saying, ma'am, is that

the maps were improperly colored. the blocks on the maps were colored in when they should have been colored in. we went out and did a field survey and we validated that the maps were posted. >> do you not think it's a problem that grave sites are marked as occupied on the maps but don't have a head stone or a burial card? >> if indeed there was -- >> how are the families supposed to find the grave sites of their loved ones? >> ma'am, what i'm saying is the staff marked in those sites and they shouldn't have marked in those sites. no one was buried at that location. yes, we did find a few graves in each of these sections where the head stones were missing and those head stones were order as soon as we could validate there were remains in the grirv and that the staff had overlooked ordering those head stones but the vast majority of the graves that you're talking about were simply posting errors on a working map. >> let me give you another

finding. the ig said that 94 grave sites were marked on the maps as unoccupied. but each had a head stone and a burial card. >> yes, ma'am. >> do you dispute that finding? >> i do not dispute that again, that would be the map was not properly posted. we went out -- >> but mr. metzler, the family members are relying on these maps. >> no, ma'am, they are not relying on those maps, they're relying on a section and grave number they're given on the day of the service. those are the internal working maps. these are not maps buy we give to the families. >> you don't think it's a problem that grave sites are mismarked? >> i do. >> doesn't the staff -- >> i agree with you -- >> but wait a minute, i agree with you that the map should be accurately marked. >> doesn't the staff rely on those maps when they direct the family members to the grave sites? >> they rely on those maps to give them direction, but they don't show the family that the individual is buried that the

map. that would give them a election, a grid location if you will within the cemetery so they could help find their loved one. each of the head stones are marked on the back with the section and grave number in numerical sequence. >> mr. metzler, if your staff is relying on these maps and these maps are inaccurate and you're not disputing that the maps are inaccurate, then aren't family members going to have a difficult time finding the appropriate grave site? >> no, ma'am. >> i've got to tell you, your answer make no sense to me whatsoever. i'm going to switch to a different issue -- >> if i could just finish one point on that. we did correct each of these maps so with the ig report, they reported 211, each of those three burial sections have been

corrected and the maps are currently posted correctly and copies given to all different divisions within the cemetery so they would have the latest updated map. >> mr. metzler, in your testimony, you blamed a lot of the problems on a lack of resources. you said that the cemetery staffing had been reduced by 35% from 145 to 95 civilian employees. when i look at the budget over at the last ten years, i see significant increases from 13 million in fiscal year 2000 to a high of 39 million in fiscal year '10. if you thought the money was being spent for the wrong things, if you thought you were understaffed, whom did you relay that to? >> each budget cycle, we would bring this discussion to the table with the assistance secretary of the armies

representative as well as with the office of management and budget as we submitted our budget submission for the upcoming year. >> and specifically asked for more money and more staff and were turned down? >> we were asking to be increased, we were usually cut back by omb to lower numbers. and it was through the pass backs that we would go through and with the assistant secretary of the army for civil works who helped us tremendously keep our numbers up to the 95, if not, we have been reduced even further. the mission or the policy had been to reduce the government workforce and each year we were having our workforce cut away a little at a time. so we were holding on to the basic function of burying the dead and everything hels was just about contracted out with outsourcing. >> thank you madam chair. >> senator tester. >> thank you, madam chair. i appreciate and i do want to

also reflect i appreciate both you gentlemen coming today and i appreciate the questions that are being answered today. i didn't want to go down this line but senator collins has forced me to go down here one more time. you are saying that -- what you're saying is that what the ig found that there are errors on a set of working maps but there were another set of maps that were right? >> no, sir, that's not what i said. >> so what you're saying is that there are errors on a set of working maps and that the other set of maps was incorrect? >> the working maps, when it was brought to our attention that these maps were not accurately posted, we went out and did the field survey of the sections that were brought to our attention and we corrected those maps, reposted on the permanent set, which is another set of maps that is kept in a different

location in the cemetery and then sent working copies out to all the divisions within the cemetery. >> the permanent maps were correct, is what you were saying? >> not until we corrected them. >> so what you're saying is that the ig report was correct? if the permanent maps were incorrect and working maps were incorrect -- show me one that was correct. >> the maps that are there today are correct. >> but the maps at the ig looked at were incorrect. >> that is correct. >> how did you fix those maps so that you know they're correct today? >> we went out to each section and did a field survey, checking grave by grave by grave and where we found that the map was posted as someone was supposed to be buried there and there was no head stone there, then we would go become and check the grave card, the grave card is a numerical card, so if you go to one of the sections in the cemetery, you'll find grave cards starting with number one going to the end, we found no grave card, then we would probe the grave to see if there are any remains in the grave, if

there were no remains in the grave, we realize that the map was posted incorrectly. >> okay. if there were remains in the grave, what did you use to know whose remains they were? >> we would look at the site and go back to the cards to find the grave card that correlated to that site. >> okay. >> then we would go back to the record of interment, the alphabet callusing. >> let's go the other soldier, joe soldier was supposed ton buried in that and you go down and there's nothing there. where is joe soldier at now? i don't understand. i mean you can probe and see if the remains are there and say yeah, that's right. what happens the other direction. >> i know of no intense where we can't find a set of remains. >> you know where everybody is. >> new give me a name i can find

the location. >> you're sure that who is burr flid that grave is buried in that grave even though you've got some maps that are right and some are wrong? i'm not trying to be critical here, but i'm trying to be obvious. how do you know which set of maps are right, if you have one set that's wrong and one set that's right. how do you know this set is right or that set is wrong? >> each time we post a set of maps, we put a date on that map as to when it's posted. the maps are only as accurate as the last date on those man, at that point, it becomes working map. >> if that last date sin correct, that map sin accurate and screwed up. i don't know how you can find the bodies once they're in the ground or supposed to be in the ground and not in the ground, i don't know how you fix that mistake, but let's go in a different direction here. i want to talk a little bit about budgeting. you talk about declining budgets but then again senator collins pointed out your budget from 2000 went from $10 million to

$39 million in ten years, are those figures correct? >> i believe they are. >> that's not a declining budget, that's a 400% increase. >> that's also reflective of construction costs. >> you had construction costs previous to 2000. >> very minimal construction costs. >> okay. who makes the budget decisions? >> the budget recommendation is made out of my office and then the final decision is made by the assistant secretary of the army to make the recommendation. >> so you ultimately -- you because to your credit when you said i take responsibility for everything that's happened right or wrong. you are the one that determines how many dollars or how many millions you need for arlington national cemetery consulting with your staff and the folks you work with and pass that up the chain, is that correct? >> not entirely, sir. part it is we are given guidance from omb at the beginning of the budget sigle and they will tell us how many millions of dollars we can ask for and what our staffing level should be.

>> so if your budgets were not adequate, whose responsibility is that? is that yours or omb's or somebody above you? >> well, sir, i think it's a combination of us asking and justifying and then ultimately we have to support the president's initiative and going forward to the appropriations committee and with the guidance that we're given. >> but in your opening statement, you said because of funding reductions, your staff was reduced by 35%. i don't -- correct me if i'm wrong, did your budget reflect that you needed 35% less people? >> i don't understand that question. >> you put forth a budget. your staff was reduced by 35%, was that your decision or somebody angels. >> no, that was not my decision. >> whose decision was it? >> our staffing levels were reduced by omb each time. >> omb made the reduction. >> yes, sir. >> those are supposed to be offset by contractors, right?

>> yes. >> who made that decision? >> again, we were told that we would be supported with contract dollars, so -- >> by who? >> by omb. by omb. >> yes, sir. >> okay. did you make your plea to the appropriations committee this wasn't going to work? or did you just omb do it or i mean -- >> sir -- >> don't feel bad about this, i've heard this before, and the truth is not your budget but the other budget, but you have to fight for it if you think it's right. did you fight for it? that's the question. >> circumstance as a member are a part of the government i have support the president's initiative and the guidance i'm given from omb is the guidance we set forward. >> tell me how the process works with the contractors. was there oversight? you say that the army corps gave oversight for contract evers, was there somebody on site you

could go to to make sure the contractors are doing what they're supposed to do in a timely manner on budget? >> typically there was not a representative from the corps of engineers on site at the cemetery. >> did you have anybody onsite overseeing the contractors. >> we have contracting representatives. >> were they trained. >> most through a 40 hour training course. >> who trained them. >> the kragting office that issued that contract. >> okay. was there any rivalry between those contractors and the folks who work for you? full-time? >> not that i'm aware of, no. >> okay. was there any point in time during your tenure that you requested for contracting support such as a contracting officer on site or did you see a need for it? >> well, we would have loved to have our on contracting shop internally but it's not a person, it's a series of people, from attorneys to clerks, it would take away from our staffing level to actually perform our basic mission at

arlington national cemetery, our challenge each year was holding onto the fte we had the previous year and not take a further reduction, that was not always successful. >> were you happy with the way that system worked? >> no, i was not happy with the way the system worked. i had virtually no control or say-so over anything going on with contracting and i had to rely on the contracting officers to perform this request that we would submit whether it was construction contracts, services contracts are or i.t. contracts. >> and you were the superintendent of arlington national cemetery and you didn't feel like you had adequate supervision over the contractors. that needs to be fixed. i mean if the next person has that same sentiment, we're never going to get to a situation where we're doing things right at arlington or responsible to the taxpayers of this country. one last question, i appreciate the latitude the chair has given me. today, 20% of the graves are at

arlington are automated, is that correct, isn't it? >> it's that approximate. >> today, senator mccaskill, if you can look at that little machine senator brown brought up, go online and find any grave in the 131 va national cemeteries right from her seat right there. any grave she can find. how did the va get so far ahead of arlington from a technological standpoint? because they had the same omb to work with that you had. they had the same administration to work with that you had. go ahead. >> they have a dedicated i.t. staff that the national cemetery administration that worked exclusively on the b.o.s.s. system. >> okay. were you aware of that when you were superintendent of arlington? >> when i worked for the department of veterans affairs i was part of that initial program to automate and was a driving force, if you will, to the va to

get them away from the paper and pencil and get into the autom e automated system, i was very much aware of the b.o.s.s. system and anxious to bring it into arlington and try it out. why didn't it get implemented? >> we did implement it for two and a half years, we just got so frustrated with the system, we couldn't maude fay to to make it work for arlington cemetery. >> the va works it for 171 cemetery. you've got one. >> no, sir. the arlington sem stare unique from the standpoint that no cemetery has military honors associatesed with every funeral from caissons to bands, to marching bands flyovers, you don't have those in the va cemeteries. >> we're talking about the ability to find a brave online. >> that's only a part of the system. >> but it's a pretty darn important part of the system. >> yes, it is. >> i want to thank the chair. >> and i would tell you that

every burial we have done since 1 1999 is part of that system now and you can go into the locater and find our burr yalts at arlington national cemetery in their system as well. >> just, i got to do this. what you're saying is you can go on the va website from 1999 to 2007 and find who's buried in arlington national cemetery? >> if they have ordered a government head stone from the va, it will be in their system. >> these 211 ig misburied graves are on the va website and they're correct? >> i don't know that i could say that the way you said it, sir. >> thank you very much. >> senator carper. >> thanks very much. let me just ask you to back up a little bit. i was not here for your testimony and for the first part of the questioning. let me just ask you, if i can, mr. metzler, what went wrong? what has been done to fix what

went wrong? what remains to be done? who needs to do it? >> wow. what went wrong is that from the very beginning, we found that the i.t. automation process was full of difficult turns and twists in the process to accomplish. we started out with trying to do an initiative and found out we needed to do a 300 report to omb any time you have had an i.t. initiative of more than a half million dollars, this report to h to be placed in their ahead of time. so we had to stop the process, this was around 2003 and do this 300 report. that in itself took us over a year and a half to accomplish. once we got that completed, then we got very little feedback from anyone but we continued to go forward and try to automate. we started out by scanning the records of the existing records

in the cemetery to get them into an automated system and at the same time try to develop the interment scheduling system which was the biggest driving factor for us at the time, trying to automate the daily burials we were doing so we would make no mistake whose we were burying that day as far as military honor, grave site location and get away from the paper and pencil issue, but as we got into that particular system, our staff continued to ask for more and more upgrades to that system, we were successful and able to automate or upgrade it one time, we were in the process of automating a second time and in making it a more complex system, robust system that was internet based and that we could send the information out to all government agency, the military, the chaplin's office and such who needed this and we were in that process, if i could use the baseballablesy ji, i believe we were on third base ready to come home and finish the system when all of the inspections and the

allegation were made and it stopped the finishing that development of that particular system o right now, we're on hold. until we can get that released and get that system finished, nothing else will be accomplished in automation unless you scrap the old system and start all over again. >> let me follow up on your baseball analogy, let's say we're in a rain delay, we got a runner on third base and game is on hold. when the rain stops and the game rupees, what do we need to do, who needs to do it? >> what we need to do is get in with the contractor who has got the base knowledge of the iss upgraded system and finish that system. do the beta testing to be sure we've captured all the initiatives that the staff at the interment services wants and implement that system. that is one of the big cornerstones in getting that accomplished.

then the next thing would be to integrate the records already scanned into that system. >> who needs to do those things? >> i think most of that stuff can be done by contractors. now the bigger issue is and i think this goes to the heart of the questions that senator collins was asking earlier, is the triple validation. and i think this is a challenge with all older cemeteries like arlington is the information on the head stone, the information on the paper records, all need to be cross checked to be sure it's accurate. >> what does the congress need to do? >> work with the army, support this initiative financially and help us help the army to get this system back off rain delay and get it completed, sir. >> all right. in light of the significant number of improperly mark and marked graves, could you just share with us what's been done to reach out to the families of

the deceased? >> in cases where we know that the family has had a question, then they would be contacted. if the family has called into the cemetery with a question, that research, to my knowledge, is currently being done and that then a follow-up phone call would be done to the families and tell them whatever information was found out allay their concerns. >> all right. i understand that there's a section 27 at arlington. could you take a moment. tell me what is the historical significance of section 27. >> it used to be called the lower section. it was the original burial area of the cemetery before it had a designation as section 27. it is where the cemetery started in may of 1864, william christman who died after three months in the military was buried there in may of 1864. so the original burials during

the civil war time were in section 27. also in another part of section 27, the former residents of friedman's village are buried, about 3500 individuals who were on the grounds of arlington cemetery from 1863 to 1890. these were african americans displaced as a result of the civil war. the government had opened up a series of camps orvilleages here in the washington area, one of them was on the fwlounds of arlington cemetery and unfortunately a lot of these individuals who were residents of this village passed away from disease, natural causes, they were buried also in section 27. >> i'm told that this section has suffered a considerable amount of negts over the years. first of all, i want to ask you if that's true, but i think it was about 20 years ago that the congress order the arlington national cemetery to improve the grounds and to try to restore

the burial records. among the folks who were there, i understand some african-american civil war soldier, but i'm told that little has been done and in addition -- >> that's not correct, sir, at all. >> isle let you respond to that. but in addition to addressing the burial problems in the newer parts of the cemetery, what has been done to fix significant problems in section 27. >> section 27, when i first got to arlington, the middle part of the section, it's a long narrow section, the middle part of the section an experiment had been done by the previous cemetery superintendent there for flat markers. this was an initiative that was being worked on in the national cemetery system. all their new tell me taers they were opening back in the '80s were all flat marker ares. so for whatever reason, the former superintendent decided to

try flat markers for ease of maintenance and better mowing, easier mowing. it didn't seem to be too succ s successful in the va, they walked away from it. around 1992, when i was doing one of my appropriations hearings with congressman stokes, who i believe was the chairman at the time, brought to my attention he felt this was incorrect at arlington cemetery and asked to us change the head stones from flat markers back to upright head san antonios, which we d at the same time, he asked us to look at the trees at the cemetery. the trees had been loy allowed to grow all the way to the ground. so you had branches that want ground over head stone, covering head stones and such and we changed the maintenance cycle at the cemetery and lifted the trees up to about a six foot height so could you walk under a tree and tree limbs would no longer be bowing down over the headstones. so all that was accomplished between 1993, 1994 in section 27

today receives every bit of maintenance as any other section of the cemetery. >> thank you for those response. >> you're welcome. >> madam chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. >> mr. higginbotham, when did you first realize there were mismarked graves, unmarked graves and improperly marked graves at arlington national cemetery? >> well, ma'am, having been a cemetery representative during the vietnam war doing funerals, it was always -- i can't pinpoint a date and time, it was always to me conceptual that anything done by hand for 140-plus years there has to be some errors somewhere. >> well, i'm not asking about conceptual or an isolated era, i'm asking you what year -- let me just ask the question this way -- the documentation that we

have developed for this hearing would indicate that you had personal knowledge of unmarked graves or mismarked graves in 2003. would you disagree with that? >> i'm not sure of the date, but if it's in the report, that was probably what was looked at, i'm not sure. >> mr. metzler, you are testified earlier when i was asking you that five years ago, you were aware of urns with cremated remains in them that had been found in the fill area of the cemetery. >> that's correct. >> so at that moment, you knew that someone's remains had been dug up and dumped somewhere in the cemetery without the people knowing they were digging up rye mains and not realizing they were dumping a family's member's remains in another part of the fill area of the cemetery that was unmarked just in with the

dirt, correct? >> that's my understanding, yes. >> so in 2003, mr. higginbotham, you knew there were mistakes that had been documented that reflected a lack of procedures of keeping track of where people were being buried in an accurate fashion. and in 2005, mr. mmplt etzler, you knew that there were urns uncovered in the fill area of the cemetery. now when you found those urns, what did you do? >> we looked at the umplt rns and examined them to figure out if we could determine where they belong in the cemetery? >> did you? >> no, there were no markings on the umplt rns, nothing to lead us to identify who these remains belonged to. >> you have no idea who they were. >> that is correct. >> to this day, you have no idea who they are. >> that is correct. >> did you think to yourself, we've got a problem here? >> yes, i did. >> and i assume you went right up to the appropriations committee and to omb and to the army chief of staff and said we've got a crisis.

>> i did not. >> we have urns being dug up that are unidentified and they've been dumped, we've got to get on this because this could be occurring in every single section of the cemetery? >> die not do that, ma'am. >> what about you, higginbotham, when you realized you had this problem as early as 2003, what action did you take? do you go to mr. metzler or send him a memo and say we've got a crisis and we need to start examining every section of this cemetery and find out where these problems exist? >> that's exactly what we did. the triple validation that mr. metzler referred to to the previous question was the best way that i personally know, i presented to him, as an idea of how we could validate each grave site in the cemetery. that program would go out with a hand-held device, go to each grave site, look at the head stone, the grave card, the

burial record and the map to validate all four of those sources and then once that's done, we would then know are there other errors out there. >> so you're testifying that you went to mr. metzler in stwe and said we need to do quality assurance, we need to do some kind of survey and determine the mistakes that have been made in this cemetery? >> no, i'm saying we as an organization realized that was what we needed to do to validate grave sites. that was presented to omb in our plan for the future -- >> did mr. metzler know that you were aware of mistakes being made throughout the cemetery in terms of the mark, tfailure to properly mark graves or mistakes in the marking of grarchs. >> yes. >> so you knew in 2003, mr mr. metzler? >> i did not know about a grave in 2003, it was braut to my attention a little later than

that. >> so you're saying that mr. higginbotham not beak truthful that he brought to you as early as 2003 the graves being mishandled? >> there was one particular grave in section 67 or 68 that i believe 2003 was the original date that that discrepancy was -- >> so in your earlier testimony when you said you first found out about it when the inspector general issued his report a month ago, that was not correct, your earlier testimony. you knew in 2003? >> i was trying to understand your question, ma'am. i'll go back to my earlier, when something is brought to my attention, i corrected it at that point. >> well, let's be honest here. i mean really what's happened is here employees at this cemetery finally had enough and they went to sallen.com and salon did an expose at what was is going on at arlington. then the inspector general as a result went out and in just in three section, mr. mmplt etzler,

you say the maps are correct now, they're only correct for three section, those are the sections the inspector general looked a at, you didn't look at those sections even though you knew you had significant problems, you had unidentified umplt rns turning up in the fill. you didn't do any kind of survey and determine what was going on. this happened, we are here today because people who work for you had had enough. and they blew the whistle. and somebody wrote an article about it and finally the army woke up and realized nobody was paying attention at arlington and they went in and they look and they found in three sections several hundred graves and how many sections are at arlington, mr. metzler. >> 70 sections. >> so we've done three out of 70? >> that's correct. >> there's no indication we don't have the same problem in the other 67. none. so really what happened is here is you all just decided if you didn't talk about -- do you

honestly believe if you had come to congress and said we have a crisis, we immediately need resources and man so we can check this cemetery because we're afraid that we've lost bodies of our heroes, that we lost the bodies of our fallen heroes, we've got cremated remains, we don't even know who they belong to turning up in the fill, did you ever write that up? did that ever go up the chain of command? did the chief of staff of the army ever see a document from you that we've got a problem, we found cremated remains, we don't know where they are belong? >> no. >> did that ever occur, mr mr. metzler. >> we an at any time the records, we buried the remains as unknown in the cemetery. i did not send a note to the chief of staff of the army. >> with all due respect, this is not about a lack of resources or that you have a complicated job, off very important job, and i agree that it is stressful and you have a lot of burials and there's a lot of protocol, but this is not complicated. it's called keeping track of who

you bury where. that is not a complicated task. and the notion that you would come in here and act like you didn't know about it until a month ago is offensive. you did know about it. and you did nothing. and you knew about it, mr. higginbotham and you did nothing and that's why we're here. now somebody is is going to come along and clean up this mess and families have been hurt for no good reason. if you would have sounded the alarm the minute you realized you had this kind of problem, i think we would be in a much better position now than we are today. senator brown. >> thank you, madam chair. so just getting back to the b.o.s.s. system a little bit, i'm a little bit -- i'm just trying to focus on this i.t. issue, you said you didn't use the b.o.s.s. system because many different reasons. i'm trying to still kind of figure it out. but in the tcms program, it has

a records data base, correct? >> yes it does. >> so does the b.o.s.s. system, right? >> yes, it does. >> and you also have in the tcms, you have grave site capability, grave site inventory capability. >> that's correct. >> so does the obviously the b.o.s.s. system. and then you also have infrastructure upgrades in your system. >> that's correct. >> they have it also in the b.o.s.s. system, correct? >> i'm -- now i'm not sure. >> i'll make it easy, they do. i'll take your word on it. >> and they have a project management system in the tcms, correct? >> yes. >> they also have a it in the b.o.s.s. system. they also have a gis in your system, correct? >> yes. >> and it's also in the b.o.s.s. system, so you're saying that it's not capable, you couldn't adapt it, what's the difference?

what wasn't working? where was the break -- >> the scheduling was the biggest challenge that we had. >> so you have a system that can battle, i just listed five or six things, the only difference is because of the scheduling, i want to just because you have flyovers, honors, you know, the ceremonial significance of that, so the only difference was scheduling. >> that was the first major difference that we saw that -- >> what were the other differences then? >> our system was going to be internet based so that we could provide the same information to all branches of the military. >> theirs is too, you can go right online right now. so what's the difference? >> no, sir, our information would be sent the time -- whenever we took a funeral application and completed it, and when the system -- our system would then push that system, push that information out through an e-mail mess amp to the army, the navy, air force, coast guard, marine, chaplin's office, to anyone who was involved in that particular funeral. then as updates came along with

that funeral, the same thing would happen, the information would be pushed out. >> so there's an scheduling and e-mail capability issue between the two systems, so i have two basic changes, scheduling and e-mail capability, anything else that was different? >> the other thing is the maps were going to be posted electronically with each burial, the fwrarv site layout maps. when you do a burial, the first document that is produced is a record of interment, the next document that is produced is the grave survey card and the next thing is posting the map, all that would have been done electronically with our system. >> the cost for the b.o.s.s. system was $1.2 million. the cost for your system is approximately $10 million and it isn't even up and running yet. it's not -- it has basically 60,000 people, i think, you told us earlier that have actually been inputted into the system and you're on third base and you're going to bring it home soon but for the fact that you've had do all these other

things. aside from e-mail, scheduling and maps, we're paying three times as much for a system that is already being used by an entity that has a tremendous amount more in terms of the data and accuracy of records than you do. how do you explain that? >> well, sir, i don't know how the va developed its numbers. i know that the va has a dedicated i.t. staff. >> do you don't have an i.t. staff at all? >> no, sir, i don't. >> have you ever requested any assistance at all? >> what we have requested is through contract support? >> well, did you get that contract support? >> we requested i.t. programs through contracting. >> programs, did you get the actual people to come and help you? >> no, sir -- we have not requested i.t. staff on board. >> you've got over 300,000 honored dead in this cemetery,

you've got a $10 million plan here and you've asked for contracts, but you haven't asked for the staff to help implement -- >> we were working to have the staff to support the contracts to be a contractor. >> well, you've been there for how many years? >> i've been here for 19 years. >> so when were you going to get around to ask for way to implement the programs that you're trying to do? >> we have been in that process i would say for at least the last five years trying to get this accomplished. >> how? if you haven't made the request, how have you been trying to get it accomplished? >> your silence speaks for itself. >> no, no, i'm trying to answer your question here, sir, just give me a second. >> i'll tell you what, i'm an attorney, before i got here, i tell you, i would have a lot of fun with you in a deposition. because i don't feel we're getting the straight talk here.

let me just -- while you're thinking, i'll just shoot to you, mr. higginbotham, i'm looking at some of the contractors, we had an ofis solution and alpha tech interactive design, these are digitized record, geographic info system, one is a $1.1 million, contractor was paid but we can't confirm if it was in fact deliverable on the info system interactive design, 226,000, not deliverable. do you have any knowledge of what they delivered what we paid for them yet. >> after consultation with council i will assert my fifth amendment rights to that question, sir. >> let me ask another question, because i've enjoyed your forthright responses, i'm just asking if you knew it was deliverable or not. were you responsible for signing contracts or negotiating them or awarding them in any way? >> after consultation with

counsel, i assert my fifth amendment rights. >> madam chair? >> let the record refrequent that you availed yourself not to give testimony that might incriminate you, the subcommittee respects your constitutional right to decline to answer questions on that ground. and you are excused. >> thank you, madam chair. on june 11th, the army at the direction of your replacement established a telephone number for the family members to call if they had any problems concerning loved one's remains, why does it take the army to set up a telephone number to find problems when this is supposedly something you've been working on for quite a while, identifying and reaching out to the families and the like. >> sir, i would address any issue that was traut brought to my attention. up to that point, i knew of no

family had a had any concerns at arlington national cemetery, every issue that was brought to my attention was dealt with immediately. >> i can't ask any more question, madam chair, i'll waite for the next panel. thanks. >> senator collins. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. metzler, was mr mr. higginbotham responsible for the management of the information technology efforts at the cemetery? >> yes, ma'am, he was my designated person to work on that program. >> were you aware that at least $200,000 had been spent for the development of an internment scheduling system even though a product had never been developed. >> i was aware that that program was under development, yes, ma'am, i was aware that that was almost completed and it was

stopped -- i guess i shouldn't have used the baseball analogy but that's what i was referring to that program was being updated and almost completed when the investigation start and that stopped everything dead in its tracks. >> what is your assessment of the information technology contracts that the cemetery entered into? >> i'm not very familiar with that, ma'am. that's really the contracting officer's responsibility, i just have a very general knowledge of it. >> were you aware that millions of dollars were being spent on the i.t. contracts and yet you were not receiving the workable products that you needed? >> i was aware that various contracts had been awarded and that elements were being completed such as the scanning of the records, such as the wiring of the cemetery, at one point i would make is that prior to 1991, prior to 2001, excuse

me, 9/11, the stcemetery was nod so we were on dial-up modems and t-1 lines, so part of the effort was to wire the cemetery and bring us into the internet. >> who was the contracting officer for the i.t. contracts? >> i believe it was split between the baltimore corps of engineers and the army's cce, army's contracting z inin ining excellence. >> were you ultimately responsible for the execution of these contracts? or was that your deputy's responsibility? >> the crack contracting officer. they can sign the contracts, authorize payment, modify contracts. >> did you ever suggest to the contracting officer that perhaps payments should be withheld since you were not getting the

deliverable products that had been contracted for? >> i did not make that suggestion. mr. higginbotham, again, was my representative and i had trust in him he was working this problem. >> what i'm trying to get at is in your opening comments, you talked about the amount of money in your budget which did go up considerably over the past decade was not going for staff, but rather was going for i.t. contracts and for construction. so as the manager, since you're not happy with the results of the i.t. contract and a lot of the budget increase was going for that purpose, did you alert the army chain of command that budget priorities were not appropriate and should be changed? >> well, ma'am, our budget

priorities were working the cemetery and the appearance of the cemetery in what we would call the fixed costs and the majority of our money each year around $25 million went to what we would call fixed costs, turning on the light, paying the employees, paying contractors to maintain the cemetery and repetitive maintenance, we had some increases for construction, yes. we had some i.t. initiatives also in several million dollars. to my knowledge right now, there is about somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 million unspent in i.t. money sitting at the cemetery this year orr sitting up at baltimore and hadn't been executed. >> doesn't that trouble you, you say that you're short on personnel, that you had staffing reduction of 35% and then you have millions of dollars just sitting there for i.t. projects that have not come to fru wigs? >> yes, ma'am, it does bother

me. but unfortunately with the ins going on, every initiative was put on hold and we could not continue our automation effort. >> we've talked a lot about the fact that the veterans affairs administration has an automated cemetery management system. why couldn't that be adapted to arlington cemetery? >> well, we did work on it for two and a half years, we tried it. we worked it daily into our scheduling system and we just kept coming up with one flaw after the next. and the scheduling was the biggest challenge that we had. at arlington sem tae, we use all five branches of the military to assist us in providing military honors, each branch of service have different requirements each day so they're not always available to arlington cemetery. all that information was put into a manual system, we are now trying to automate that so when we put in a burial request for our system who kuld in today that it would tell us automatically if an element was

available or not available for the military to support that funeral. the b.o.s.s. system couldn't accomplish that and when we asked the va to try to maude fay phi that part of the scheduling system, they were reluctant to change their system that was supporting 130 cemeteries to change it just for arlington. that was the critical element, if you will, for arlington cemetery as military honors is what distinguishes arlington from the other office services. >> i understand that, but it seems to me that the va's system, despite its deficiencies is better than the paper system that you are now using. do you disagree with that. >> no, ma'am, i do not disagree with you, but we are trying to automate our system and that was the process we were going through through the iss. >> but why not take the va's system which clearly meets sm, although not all of your needs and then customize it for the part that is different between arlington and the va cemeteries? >> the va system was not an army

system, it was the va system. i could not export that system into the cemetery and then modify it. >> well, given the amount of money you're spending to develop a new system, i got to believe the contractor would have been willing to license that system to you. you clearly were trying it out at least. this just sounds like bureaucracy at its worst as far as taking a practical approach to the problems. madam chairwoman, i know the vote soon and my time has expired, but thank you. >> thank you. we do have a vote right now. and mr. metzler, there's a number of other questions we have about contracting, but worry going to go to the second panel and we were will directed thoe those questions to you in writing for the record at a separate time. there's not a lot of them left. i think we've covered the ground, i think primarily the questions that remain is this

notion that the b.o.s.s. system was not adequate for purposes of locating and memorializing where bodies were located and why a separate scheduling system could not have lailayered on top of t would have fit your needs. veterans affairs said they were more than willing to work with you, we have a specific communication from them in writing saying that they were willing to work with you and try to do whatever was necessary to make the b.o.s.s. system work. >> well, ma'am, that is a change now to what the va -- i personally called their chief of technolo technology, i personally called their undersecretary and see if that would have been done years ago and they were reluctant to do it. >> do you have any document of that? >> no, ma'am, other than a phone call i made myself. >> it would seem something as important as whether or not you're going to embark on a

multi-million dollar purchase, it seems to me that's something that should have been put in writing, worked up through the chain of command, the notion that the taxpayers had invested in a system that works perfectly well for the identification of burial remains, that it was not utiliz utilized, it seems to me that's more than a phone call, that's something that needs to at least be memorialized in writing. the fact that it wasn't, i think, damages your credibility in this regard that there really was an effort to use the existing system, that is operating without a flaw today, while we sit here among this mess. in this mess. so i appreciate your testimony today. i appreciate your appearance. and i will go ahead and ask the second panel to come to the table for testimony and we will go ahead with your opening statements and when my colleague or colleagues get back from the floor, we will -- i will leave to go cast my vote and then come

back to question the panel. let me introduce the second panel. as you all take your seats. mr. ed ward hari rington is former senior u.s. army officer with over 28 years experience in weapons and information systems. contracting, contract management and operations world i'd. claudia tornblum is the deputy assistant secretary. she has served since 1987. am i saying your name correctly

to tornblum? okay. including policy oversight of construction projects for future development of arlington national cemetery. prior to this position, miss tornblum served at the office of management and budget. as the executive director he exercises authority, direction and control over the army national cemeteries program. she is responsible for both long-term planning and day-to-day administration and operations of arlington cemetery. she has held several other positions including the deputy to the u.s. army material command. thank you for being here. and it is the custom of this committee to satisfy testimony under oath. i would ask you to stand, do you

swear that the testimony that you will be giving for this sub comment will be the trutht, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? we appreciate you being here. you may be seated. we have five minute as lotted for each statement. and then we will follow up with questions after you have given your opening statements. >> members of the committee on contracting oversight, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i am here today to provide an overview of the u.s. army's review of contract actions supporting arlington national cemetery. the army is fully xhicommitted correcting the contracting deficiencies. i am determine the to oversee timely correction of these

deficiencies that will ensure that contracting for the arlington national cemetery will be conducted with regulations and in a manner that respects and honors the service and sacrifice of our fallen warriors and their loved ones. on june 10th of this year, secretary mccue issued a directive regarding the program. based on the guidance, i directed a procurement management review regarding a full range of activities through contract close out. this review was conducted on sight as the arlington national cemetery corp of engineers baltimore office and here in washington, d.c. it focused on purchase card records, memorandums of understanding and purchase requests. interviews with staff and leadership involved in the

procurement process and all available contract documentation. contract awarded between 2005 and 2010. the review team selected 114 contracts for a detailed review. of these contracts, 34 construction it support and services contracts awarded by the corp of engineers baltimore office represent roughly p $34 million in value. the remaining contracts valued at $12 million were awarded for supplies and services including it, grounds maintenance, facilities, construction and other items. the u.s. army inspector sgenera listed a number of deficiencies and made recommendations based on those deficiencies.

the review substantiated a number of findings in these areas that were highlighted in the army ig's report. madam chair, my written statement parorovides further detail. there was a general break down in sound contracting practices and requirements were not followed. the army has identified phi the problems and has initiated directive actions. my office will continue to work closely with the cemetery and leadership to ensure these corrective actions address root causes and confirm that these deficiencies will never be repeated. the army will conduct a follow up review and report the status of the corrective actions.

the u.s. army is committed to excellence at all contracting activities. as secretary mccue has testified, the entire army leadership is committed to take every step necessary to correct yesterday oversights and meet tomorrow's requirements. this concludes my statement, i look forward to your questions. thank you madam chair. >> thank you. >> madam chairman -- >> turn on your -- >> madam chairwoman, members of the sub comment, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee today on matters related to management of the arlington cemetery.

in the office of the assistant secretary of the army for civil works. under law and general orders the assistant secretary for civil works is responsible for oversight and super vision for all aspects of the army corp of engineers civil works program. in addition, the assistant secretary was responsible for overseeing the program and budget for arlington national cemetery's account and funds both arlington national cemetery and the soldiers and airman's home at the national cemetery. as deputy for management and budget, i add vivised the assist secretary that guides the formlation defense and execution of both the budget and cemetery program and budget. this included providing policy guidance from the secretary,

office of the president and from congress. this guidance and decisions regarding the annual budget established the standards of service to be maintained by the cemetery. day-to-day operational control and responsibility rested with the cemetery. abudget priority over the last decade has been to advocate for the secretary to receive sufficient resources to carry out army and administration policies. those policies included improving service to families of the deceased. expanding capacity to keep the cemetery available to new internments and maintaining the grounds to high standards of appearance and reliability. historically, the cemetery's budget has been executed

separately from the army's military budget and program. this long-standing separation developed in part because congress provided appropriations for the cemetery from outside the defense appropriations act. one of the projects in the cemetery's ten year capitol in development plan was an automation plan called, total cemetery management system or tcms, the goal of tcms, to support project and financial management and to aid in the management operations including. you have heard a little bit about triple valdation. this process was to involve a full review of burial records, maps and the actual informati

informationen grave einformatio en gr engraved on the headstones. although the historical records from 1864 to 199 were scanned to ensure their preservation, the steps of data entry into a retrievable system did not provide as intended. the army has provided three reports to congress on the cemetery automation plan in 2007, and 2010. the 2007 report noted that there were discrepancies in records but did not clearly describe the potential scope of that problem. 2010 report identified a total of $10.3 million as having been spent on tcms and related efforts. there are many questions including my own about the actual spending on the

automation. and i would like to say in retrospect those reports were overly optimistic about what was being accomplished. miss condon has most appropriately asked the army agency to conduct a full review of the budget process including accounting spend on tcms and related activities. i hold arlington national cemetery in the highest regard. as the nation's premier burial place to honor all of those who served in uniform and those who have fallen in defense of their country. i have attended funerals and seen first hand the dignity and honor through which they were carried out. i have asked myself what might i have done differently that could have changed the outcome that is so distressing to all of us and

has so disappointed the american people. despite my best intensions and those of others involved, our combined efforts felt short of what the army and the nation expected of us. i deeply regret this. since june 10th, my efforts have been directed towards supporting the executive director of the army national cemeteries program as she works to restore the public's confidence in the army and in the national cemetery as a symbol for the sacrifices of america's men and women in uniform. i thank the sub xhicommittee fo this opportunity to report on my role in the oversight of arlington national cemetery. >> thank you.

>> o of the army national secretary's program. it is my ability to report on the national cemetery. i want to start out by stating that all in the army are deeply troubled by arlington's dysfunctional management, lack of established policies and procedures, the unhealthy o organizati organizational climate, in regret that this has caused our veterans and their families. on my first day on the job, to answer the concerns of family members regarding their loved one's remains to addressing the findings for improvements at arlington outlined in the reports, i have been charged to

address and fix these and any other found discrepancies at arlington. it has been my mission along with the acting superintendant to influence and improve cemetery operations and restore the confidence of the american people in the cemetery. every day we have been establishing new standard operating procedures for the fund certification and approvals to developing new standards for marking and updating maps, to the assignment of gravesites into the proper handling of remains as well as ensuring the accurate lay out of internment sections. these changes have resulted in mediate improvements to cemetery

operations. we are seeking way to improve all aspects of our operations at arlington to include the instructing and coaching of the staff. to reach a higher standard of quality to maintain arlington as our nation's national shrine. in the last 50 days we have late to rest our nation's finest. we have promised and each and of a member of arlington cemetery that we will provide our family members and our fallen heros with the honors commensurate with their service and sacrifice. thank you i look forward to your questions and i would like to submit my wran statement for the record. >> all oh noalso noted. >> all oh noalso noted

i certainly welcome your addition and have expectations to get a handle on everything. did you hear the testimony prior to? i have to admit. just as a ras running down to vote, i was able to think, i do my best thinking when i'm running. i don't think i got a straight answer, or if i got an answer, it seemed to be yeah whatever. it bothers me greatly. i guess the question to you, is the report found 211 errors at the three section heart of arlington. how confident are you that there are no other areas in the remains part of the cemetery? >> senator brown, in the last 50 days, mr. helenan and i have

found other map discrepancies in other sections. so i am confident that there are probably other map errors that have not been an know tated to date. >> you heard my comment about the matching systems exsecept f e-mail mapping and scheduling. did you find that in the fact that we paid $10 million for a system that is not really in effect yet, did you find that troubling that -- that part of the conversation that we haven't -- we've spent all of this money and we don't have a system in place to properly verify? >> sir, i find that troubling

that we are still using paper records there. >> what is your plan? >> sir, my plan as you know, the acti ining superintendant was o loan for us very graciously from the veteran's administration. and we are going to look at the veteran's administration system as well as looking at what we can find from the previous dollars that have spent on the systems that were put on contract earlier. >> and i know there has been a request and even the vfw has stated that it is more important now than ever. it is not -- a question of who operates arlington, but that they do it properly. and they are considering and others are thinking about transferring ownership to the va, what are your thoughts on that? >> arlington national cemetery

is both a national and military shrine. as the previous panel did describe, the honors at arlington are unique that other cemeteries do not have. personally sir, the dysfunctional management in the past was an army responsibility and i think the army should fix that and that is what i'm here to do. >> thank you for that. the fact that there are ceremonies in arlington that are different than other sem tecemi, in listening you say the fly overs, the ceremonies, all of these extra thing that is we do to bury our heros, seems like the main reason we were having these filing problems and we couldn't color the maps with the crayons, does that make any sense to you? >> sir, you know, i still you know having only been on the job for less than two months, i'm

going to look at that. but no, that doesn't make sense to me, the scheduling of honors and ceremonies we can probably work with the system and i will promise that we will do that. >> thank you. >> and i know that the deficiency identify in the report that was it had not been inspected since 1997. as you know, it was supposed to be done every two years. why did the army fail to follow its own records? >> sir, i do not know. >> i will take that into consideration. >> and miss tornblum, i understand your role for the management budget you are responsible for approving all civil works budgets? >> for recommending approval to the assistant secretary yes. >> for the tcms how did you determine that budget estimate submitted by arlington were in

fact accurate? >> well, it is clear in ro retrospect that they were not as well founded as they should have bee been. and we didn't ask enough questions and did not require verification of all of the things we were being told. but, i do know that the -- one of the main purposes in that program, was as was described earlier, the triple valdation program to make sure that there was accuracy among all of the records. i understand the chairwoman's, comments we did know there were discrepancies and that is why it included the triple valdation program. but, did he report directly to you on this? >> no, sir, no.

>> did you have knowledge that his involvement with contracts or made recommendations for contractors to be used or approved by your department? no, we had no rule in the contracting. i did work closely as we develops the program and then added oversight of the execution primarily the design and construction program because that is where a lot of the money was in large contracts. >> when you said you should have asked more questions, who and what support did you rely to make your decisions and not take the extra steps to move forward? as i'm noting here, when he took the 5th, i started talking about some of these contract that is were paid, but we can't even confirm that these items have been delivered. is that something that is in

your purview? >> no, sir it is not. whose would that be under? as the secretary has previously testified, oversight of the cemetery was fragmented and no one entity had full visibility of the activities. >> so what is going to be done in the future to kind of make sure that these things don't happen again. the secretary took the step of apointing miss condon as the director. she has full support to find out what the real problems are and get them solved. i know she is dedicated to doing that and is moving forward. i know you stated in addition your responsibilities of the civil works you were managing the programs of three o organizations but not involved in the contract.

can you explain in detail what your responsibilities were? for example, on the cemetery's information technology systems? >> first, i would like to clarify or correct something i did say to the staff. what i was doing was distinguishing that from a project manager because they were asking me project manage questions. i realized that i had not answered it correct ly. i'm not a program manager either. i'm responsible for policy oversight of the cemetery. the program manager was mr. higginbothom. >> do you agree with the ig report that the it decision making at arlington national cemetery should have -- what was left to annen train euntrained

and you think it should have been left to somebody who is more knowledgeable about the needs and parameters? any thoughts on that? >> mr. hihigginbothom spoke abo the program and he was understood by most of us to be knowledgeable. i have no knowledge of whether he had the spucertification in place. >> prior testimony saying that e he is understaffed and his budget has gone up and it seems like he didn't fight for any d modification of those numbers. knowing that, it is my understanding that the army audit agency is conducting an

audit of the money flowing in and out of the cemetery. we are on a tight budget lately. more obviously the worthwhile purpose of honoring our fallen, what can you do to ensure that financial statements will be provided to the public detailing the expenses of the cemetery over the past few year. >> i'll take that. what we are doing is, our audit agency is doing a complete audit of the financial from the past to this year as well. i started in the last quarter of this fiscal year. the army is going to conduct audits of the financials of arlington national cemetery.

>> i think you can sense the frustration, so you are a family member of a fallen soldier and you go to the burial and then you call up your people who weren't able to make it to the funeral and say yes, johnny is in section 27, row whatever. here is where he is at. so by going and doing these independent audits and matching them internal maps that they use to bury or rebury, we found, you found the ig found that there are problems. i'm trying to get my hand around -- my arms around so now the fact that we've actually know that there is a problem, you know, i get it. there is a problem. i'm the new kid here, i'm not the bottom anymore, but pretty close to it. but i understand that you are new and there are other people

who aren't new and you have a task. i want to know what tools and resources do you need from me and us as a congress so you can address this simple -- serious issue number one. and number two is, how can we convey to the people back home in massachusetts that when those loved ones go to that plot, that their son or daughter is buried there. so i guess my question is, how do they verify, they say they have this triple or four way mechanism to do it. have they had to dig up body to determine whether they are there? is that something that they have done do you know? >> sir, we hahave not dug up anything. let me tell you what we have

done with the discrepancies in the report. there was -- the map was marked, but there were no records that anyone was actually buried there. mr. hellenan and myself we directed that we test sight and dug in five locations where there was that er roar. each and every one of those locations there was not anyone buried there. that was our sample to make sure that it was truly a map error, human error. we are testing ground radar. we are at the data collect right now doing one of the three sections and determining what we are going to find from ground penetrating radar. we will do that for the baseline of the entire cemetery. >> you asked what i need, the bottom line sir, is i need time.

time to put in the procedures to make sure that we put in the technology and right now i can tell you that i need more people or money, but what i really need right now is time to fix the deficiencies. >> you need us to lay low and give you breathing space to figure out what the problem is and tackle it? >> yes, sir. >> okay that is fair. i will take one final question and they did want to submit their testimony for the record and i suggest that we wait until you get back. but the thing that i'm having a problem with is the whole it situation and the amount of money that they have spent and have nothing to show for it. and i guess my question is who was in charge of overseeing

them? was anybody in this panel in charge of that? >> in terms of being the official supervisor of mr. nessler the commander of the military district of washington. >> in terms of reviewing the technical it contracts, who was responsible for that? >> above the contracting officers? >> yeah. it seems to me, i'm trying to find out where is the breakdown? where is the fact that they are spending upwards of $10 million and a red flag should have gone off that says we have given them $10 million and they are misidentifying graves an the maps are wrong. when does someone say we have to get a handle on this? who is in charge of them? is there somebody that we can

bring in again? is it any of you people? i know you are new, but are any of you guyed? i want to go up the food chain, because it is not clicking for me. >> i think the answer would be the army's chief information officer and the staff under that person. >> okay. hold on a minute if you would. i suggest if we wanto