[Senate Hearing 112-497]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-497
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 25, 2012
__________
Available via http://www.fdsys.gov
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-670 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK BEGICH, Alaska JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Nicholas A. Rossi, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Joyce Ward, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARK BEGICH, Alaska JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Margaret Daum, Staff Director
Brian Callanan, Minority Staff Director
Kelsey Stroud, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statement:
Page
Senator McCaskill............................................ 1
Senator Tester............................................... 3
WITNESSES
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Lieutenant General Peter M. Vangjel, Inspector General, U.S. Army 4
Belva M. Martin, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 6
Brian J. LePore, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 8
Kathryn A. Condon, Executive Director, Army National Cemeteries
Program, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Army.................... 10
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Condon, Kathryn A.:
Testimony.................................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 66
LePore, Brian J.:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Martin, Belva M.:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Vangjel, Lieutenant General Peter M.:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 27
APPENDIX
Informational Paper for the record from Senator McCaskill........ 80
Questions and Responses for the Record from:
Ms. Condon................................................... 82
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:29 p.m., in
Room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claire
McCaskill, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators McCaskill, Pryor, and Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL
Senator McCaskill. This hearing will now come to order.
On July 29, 2010, almost exactly 18 months ago, this
Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the mismanagement of
contracts at Arlington National Cemetery, the Nation's most
revered and sacred burial ground for veterans and their
families. At the hearing, we reviewed the findings of a June
2010 report by the Army Inspector General which found hundreds
of mistakes associated with graves and gross mismanagement by
the Cemetery's leadership. The Subcommittee also investigated
how the mismanagement of contracts to implement a new automated
system to manage burials contributed to those mistakes.
The Subcommittee found that the problems with graves was
more extensive than previously acknowledged and that thousands
of graves were potentially at risk of being unmarked,
improperly marked, or mislabeled on the Cemetery's maps.
The Subcommittee's investigation also found that officials
at the Cemetery and at the Army failed to conduct basic
oversight. For example, Arlington's former leadership approved
projects to automate and digitize burial records which resulted
in millions of dollars in contracts over a decade without
producing one usable product. In addition, there had been no
review or audit of the Cemetery for over a decade prior to the
Inspector General's 2010 review.
In September 2010, as a result of the investigation of this
Subcommittee, I introduced legislation to address those
failures. The bill ultimately acquired 12 cosponsors, passed
the Senate, and was signed into law in December of 2010. The
law requires two separate reports by the Secretary of the Army.
The first provision required the Secretary to verify the
identity, location, and burial records for gravesites in
Arlington National Cemetery and present plans to remedy any
errors found in the review. This report was submitted on
December 22, 2011.
The second provision requires the Secretary of the Army to
submit an annual report for the next 3 years on execution of
the Secretary's June 2010 directive, which changed the
structure and authority of operations at Arlington National
Cemetery. This first annual report was, in fact, submitted
September 2011.
The law also required the Comptroller General to present a
report to Congress on the management and oversight of contracts
at Arlington National Cemetery, including a review of the
feasibility and advisability of transferring to or sharing
jurisdiction of Army National Cemeteries with the Department of
Veterans Affairs. This report was released in two parts on
December 15, 2011.
The findings of these reports and the way forward from here
are the subject of today's hearing. We will hear from the Army
Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office (GAO),
and Arlington National Cemetery about what the Army and the
Cemetery have done to try and remedy the failures of the past.
We will also hear about what Arlington and the Army still need
to do to ensure that this never happens again.
The reports provided to Congress reveal that much work
remains to be done. Arlington must be put on a course that will
ensure no tragedy like the one we saw unfold in 2010 is ever
again reported to veterans and their families.
At the outset, I want to commend Ms. Condon and the staff
at Arlington for their efforts over the last 18 months. The
corrections made by Ms. Condon, Mr. Hallinan, the Cemetery
staff, the members of the Accountability Task Force, and the
Cemetery's Old Guard, among others, constitute a sea change
from what we saw under the Cemetery's prior leadership.
I would also like to recognize the Army Inspector General,
both old and new. The original 2010 report issued under the
leadership of General McCoy demonstrates the quality and
independence we expect from the Inspector General community,
and I expect that General Vangjel will continue to hold
Arlington and other Army officials accountable in his new role
as Army Inspector General.
As I tell witnesses from GAO at nearly every hearing, you
are the unsung heroes of the government for the work you do
every day. Nothing pains me more when people take political
cheap shots at government workers, particularly because I am
aware of the work that is done at GAO, the incredible savings
that you produce for taxpayers in this country every day, and
the dedication with which you go about your work. And it is not
like you are doing it for big bucks.
As I was told during the September 2010 hearing, I said
that I would continue my work on Arlington until I was
confident that all problems at the Cemetery were fixed and that
we could stand tall and assure the families of our veterans
that they would never again need to wonder about the location
of their loved ones' remains. I look forward to continuing to
work with all of you and my colleagues to make this goal a
reality.
I thank the witnesses for being here today and I look
forward to their testimony.
Senator Tester, welcome. You are welcome to make any
comments you would like before we begin with the witnesses.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER
Senator Tester. I would love to, Senator McCaskill. Thank
you very much, and thank you for convening this hearing and for
leading the charge to expose and address this issue. I want to
thank the witnesses ahead of time.
When the issue of mismarked graves and mismanagement at
Arlington came to light initially, I said it was a black eye
that needed to be made right. Simply put, our Nation is
entrusted with certain sacred responsibilities. It is not only
about honoring and taking care of those who wear the uniform,
it is about being there for the families during their time of
loss. And when entrusted with the remains of their loved ones,
it is incumbent upon this Nation to carry out its
responsibility with the utmost respect and dignity. On too many
occasions in recent memory, whether it is mismanagement at
Arlington National Cemetery or the mishandling of remains of
American troops at Dover Air Force Base, that responsibility
has been abandoned and that trust with the people for whom we
serve has been broken.
Ms. Condon, as the Chairman said, I am happy to have you
here, along with Mr. Hallinan. By all accounts, you stepped up
to the plate. You have made some tough decisions and instituted
a number of needed reforms and I very much appreciate that. But
as a recent GAO report pointed out, we are not there yet, and
when you are entrusted with sacred responsibilities, there is
no margin for error. So this afternoon, I look forward to your
testimony and I look more forward to the discussion that will
happen after that testimony.
Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Let me introduce the witnesses. Our first witness is
Lieutenant General Peter Vangjel. He is the Inspector General
of the U.S. Army. He was appointed to the position on November
14, 2011. As Inspector General, he is responsible for
investigating allegations of misconduct by Army officials. Most
recently, Lieutenant General Vangjel served as the Deputy
Commanding General of the Third Army, U.S. Army Central, at
Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, from September 2009 to September 2011. I
could also probably talk to you about contracting, could I not,
over there. I know that is the center of most of the
contracting and the contingencies.
Belva McFarland Martin is the Director of Acquisition and
Sourcing Management team at the U.S. Government Accountability
Office. She is responsible for a portfolio of major management
and public policy issues related to the protection of the
Nation's critical technologies, including export controls, the
defense industrial base, Navy shipbuilding, defense acquisition
workforce, and Army modernization programs.
Brian Lepore is the Director of Defense Capabilities and
Management at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. He
directs audit and evaluation teams that review the Department
of Defense (DOD) support infrastructure, programs for base
closure and realignment, installment, sustainment,
modernization, and restoration, base operations including
installation services, management of training ranges,
infrastructure and privatization programs, and facilities
energy management.
Kathryn Condon is the Executive Director of the Army
National Cemeteries Program. She was appointed to the position
on June 10, 2010. As the Executive Director, Ms. Condon is
responsible for both long-term planning and day-to-day
administration of Arlington National Cemetery and the U.S.
Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. Ms. Condon has
held several other military positions, including serving as the
Civilian Deputy to the Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel
Command, from 2006 to 2009.
It is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in all
witnesses who appear before us, so if you do not mind, I would
ask you to stand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give
before this Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
General Vangjel. I do.
Mr. Lepore. I do.
Ms. Martin. I do.
Ms. Condon. I do.
Senator McCaskill. Let the record reflect that the
witnesses answered in the affirmative. Please be seated.
We will be using a timing system today. We would ask that
your oral testimony be no more than 5 minutes. I am going to
say somewhere around 5 minutes. This is very important. If you
need to go over 2 or 3 minutes, I do not think Senator Tester
and I are going to mind. Your written testimony will obviously
be printed in the record in its entirety, and we will begin
with Lieutenant General Peter Vangjel. Am I saying your name
right?
General Vangjel. You are, Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. OK. Great.
General Vangjel. I will answer to just about anything as
long as I know that they are looking at me, Madam Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator McCaskill. OK, sir. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL PETER M. VANGJEL,\1\ INSPECTOR
GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
General Vangjel. Madam Chairman and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to
you today, and thank you for your input, support, and guidance
over the past 18 months. It has made a significant difference
at Arlington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Vangjel appears in the appendix
on page 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since assuming the duties of the Army Inspector General in
November, I have reviewed our previous inspections, I have met
with the Executive Director, Ms. Condon, her team, and other
stakeholders who have been involved in correcting the
deficiencies found at Arlington. To fully appreciate the
progress that has been made, one only has to review the June
2010& report which identified 61 deficiencies, among them being
a deplorable organizational climate, archaic recordkeeping and
automation systems, uncontrolled contracting and budgeting
processes, and a significant problem with gravesite
accountability.
In contrast, our 2011 IG report identified no deficiencies
and noted significant progress at the Cemetery, largely due to
the course set by the Secretary of the Army's Directive 2010-
04, the efforts of the Executive Director and her team, and the
support from the Department of the Army's staff. In short, the
mismanagement and deficiencies reported to you in the June 2010
IG report have been relegated to the past and Arlington is
transitioning from successful crisis management to sustained
excellence. Allow me to share just a few specifics.
The previous insular environment that contributed to
mismanagement and substandard performance at Arlington no
longer exists. The Executive Director has established a
positive work environment, emphasizing cooperation,
coordination, and collaboration. Workforce surveys taken as
part of the 2011 inspection reflected steadily improving
morale, unity, and organizational effectiveness.
The Cemetery now possesses an advanced fully functional
information technology infrastructure supported by a service
agreement with the Army's Information Technology Agency.
Arlington has leveraged the agency's Consolidated Customer
Service Center (CCSC) to more effectively monitor and respond
to customer calls, thus improving customer service. A new
computer application for digitizing burial records has been
critical in establishing an accountability baseline for each
gravesite and inurement niche.
The 2011 inspection team reviewed 25 contracts covering
services, engineering, and construction and found that these
contracts are now properly aligned, with contractors possessing
the requisite skill sets to perform required work to standard.
New acquisitions are subjected to rigorous analysis, fee award
compliance checks, and contract packet reviews for quality
assurance. While we still noted some errors in 2011, none were
egregious and the number was significantly less than 2010.
Arlington now works closely with the Office of the
Administrative Assistant and the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Financial Management to ensure improved oversight of
the Cemetery's budget formulation and execution. The transition
to the General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) has
provided full visibility and transparency of Cemetery
expenditures.
Finally, with respect to improvements, the Executive
Director recently published a Campaign Plan which includes
major efforts to complete gravesite accountability, address
long-term expansion of the Cemetery, and complete documentation
of policies and procedures. For these and other objectives, it
assigns responsibilities, time lines, and metrics to measure
progress.
With this encouraging news comes the reality that there is
still much more work to do. The 2011 Army IG inspection report
provided 53 recommendations for continued improvement at
Arlington. I will highlight a few key actions.
Arlington's leadership and the Department of the Army must
finish updating relevant policies and procedures. Further, the
Arlington leadership must complete the documentation and
validation of internal processes, procedures, and controls. The
recent work to establish the Gravesite Accountability Baseline
must continue to resolve the nearly 50,000 cases that are still
outstanding.
Effort must be exerted to establish a multi-service policy
that standardizes required assets for full honors funerals and
enables maximum utilization of finite resources at the
Cemetery.
The Executive Director must coordinate with the Army staff
to establish enduring external oversight processes to prevent
any reoccurrence of past shortcomings.
The Department of the Army must finalize and implement
enduring organizational and support relationships for the
National Cemeteries Program.
And finally, the Army must maintain the support and
oversight that it has provided recently to its National
Cemeteries and apply lessons learned from Arlington to all
cemeteries under Army control.
In conclusion, Arlington remains a priority for the
Secretary and for the Army. The significant progress observed
by the Army IG validates the Secretary's approach to creating
the processes, systems, and management that we found to be
lacking at Arlington in 2010. This strategy, executed according
to the Executive Director's Campaign Plan with the support of
the Army, the Defense Department, other Federal agencies, and
Congress will set the conditions for continued improvement and
ultimately sustained excellence.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify today
and I look forward to answering your questions and working with
the Subcommittee in the future.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Lieutenant General. Ms.
Martin.
TESTIMONY OF BELVA M. MARTIN,\1\ DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION AND
SOURCING MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Martin. Madam Chairman, Senator Tester, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to discuss
GAO's work at Arlington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Martin and Mr. Lepore appears in
the appendix on page 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator McCaskill, you alluded to legislation that became
the mandate for GAO to review contracting and management issues
at the Cemetery. Those reviews found that Arlington has taken
significant actions to address its problems and that the path
forward is for Arlington to sustain progress through improved
management and oversight. My colleague, Mr. Lepore, will
discuss GAO's work on management issues.
On contracting, GAO identified 56 contracts over $100,000
that supported Cemetery operations, construction and facility
maintenance, and new efforts to enhance IT systems for the
automation of burial operations. Arlington does not have its
own contracting authority, but relies on relationships with
contracting offices to award and manage contracts on its
behalf. These contracting authorities obligated roughly $35.2
million in support of the 56 contracts covered by our review.
The Army has taken a number of steps, as the IG has alluded
to, since June 2010 at different levels to provide for more
effective management and oversight of contracts, including
improving contracting practices, establishing new support
relationships, formalizing policies and procedures, and
increasing the use of dedicated contracting staff to manage and
improve its acquisitions. However, GAO found three areas at
Arlington where additional improvements are needed. First,
maintaining complete data on contracts, second, defining
responsibilities for contracting support, and third,
determining contract staffing needs. I will briefly summarize
key findings in these three areas.
First, with respect to maintaining complete data, we pulled
together information on Arlington contracts from various
sources, including support organizations. However, there were
limitations with each of the sources. To be able to identify,
to track, and ensure the effective management and oversight of
its contracts, Arlington leadership needs complete data on all
contracts.
Second, with respect to support relationships, the Army has
taken a number of positive steps to better align Arlington
contract support with the expertise of its partners. For
example, Arlington has agreements with the Army Information
Technology Agency (ITA), and the Army Analytics Group to help
manage its IT infrastructure. While these agreements spell out
services that ITA will provide to Arlington and performance
metrics against which ITA will be measured, they do not
specifically address ITA's contract management roles and
responsibilities in support of Arlington requirements. Although
officials told us that they clearly understand their
responsibilities, the question is what happens in the future
when there are new personnel in place? Going forward, sustained
attention on the part of Arlington and its partners will be
important to ensure that contracts of all types and risk levels
are managed effectively.
Third, with respect to dedicated contract staffing
arrangements, three contract specialist positions have been
identified for Arlington but have not yet been filled.
Arlington is presently receiving support from the Fort Belvoir
Contracting Office in the form of 10 contracting staff
positions, five of which are funded by Arlington and five by
Fort Belvoir. Arlington officials have identified the need for
a more senior contracting specialist and are developing plans
to fill this new position in fiscal year 2013.
In closing, the success of the Army's efforts to improve
contracting and management at Arlington will depend on
management's sustained attention and efforts to
institutionalize positive steps taken to date. Accordingly, we
made a number of recommendations in our December 2011 report to
improve contract management and oversight in the three areas
where we found shortcomings. For the most part, DOD agreed that
there is a need to take action and have provided time frames
for doing so. We will continue to monitor their progress.
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this
concludes my short statement. I will be happy to answer
questions.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Ms. Martin. Mr. Lepore.
TESTIMONY OF BRIAN J. LEPORE, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CAPABILITIES
AND MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Lepore. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
be here today to present our findings reviewing oversight and
management of Arlington National Cemetery.
We issued our report on December 15 and my testimony today
will be based on our report. I will make two points today.
First, I will discuss the policies and procedures the current
leadership team at Arlington has put into place to manage the
Cemetery and I will identify some of our recommendations to
assist in that endeavor. And second, I will discuss some
factors affecting the feasibility and advisability of
transferring Arlington from the Army to the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA).
Here is the bottom line. I think it is fair to say the
current leadership team at Arlington has taken many positive
steps to address the deficiencies at the Cemetery and make
improvements. The Army has made progress in a range of areas,
including improving chain of custody procedures to ensure
proper accountability over remains, better providing
information assurance, and improving procedures to address
inquiries from the families and the public. However, we believe
further steps are needed to ensure the changes are
institutionalized and will prove long lasting long after the
spotlight has faded.
Therefore, we have made recommendations in six areas.
First, they should complete the enterprise architecture to
guide new investments in information technology to ensure the
investments are aligned with the future operational
requirement.
Second, an updated workforce plan to ensure the workforce
is properly sized and trained.
Third, an internal assessment program to gauge how the
Cemetery is doing and to make any improvements that may be
warranted.
Fourth, improving coordination with the Cemetery's
operational partners, including the Military District of
Washington, the Military Service Honor Guards, and Joint Base
Myer-Henderson Hall, to ensure, for example, scheduling
conflicts are avoided and the right honor guards are available
when needed.
Fifth, a strategic plan or campaign plan with expected
outcomes, performance metrics and milestones.
And sixth, written policies explaining how to assist
families when assistance is warranted.
The Cemetery leadership has generally concurred with our
recommendations and begun to implement them. We are encouraged
by this.
Now, my final point. The question of feasibility and
advisability of transferring Arlington from the Army to the VA.
It is certainly feasible. The Congress transferred more than 80
Army-managed cemeteries to the VA in the 1970s. However,
several factors could affect the advisability of this. Such a
change could have potential costs and benefits, lead to some
important transition challenges, and affect the characteristics
that make Arlington unique among our National Cemeteries. Thus,
it may be premature to change jurisdiction since the Army has
significantly improved its management of Arlington.
Here are some of the specific challenges that could arise
in a jurisdictional change. First, identifying the goals of the
transfer. Why is the transfer to be made?
Second, the Army and the VA have their own staff,
processes, and systems to determine burial eligibility and to
schedule and manage burials. Arlington has more restrictive
eligibility for in-ground burials than VA, for example.
Third, Arlington's appropriation structure is different
than VA's and Congress might need to address that in the event
there is to be a change.
Fourth, the Army provides military funeral honors, but the
VA does not.
Fifth, Arlington hosts many special ceremonies throughout
the year, including some involving the President and visiting
heads of state.
And finally, sixth, Arlington is one of the most visited
tourist destinations in Washington, hosting over four million
visitors a year.
Finally, we do think there are some opportunities for the
Army and the VA to collaborate more for the mutual benefit of
both organizations, but most importantly for the benefit of our
servicemembers, our veterans, and their families. Here are some
examples.
VA has staff dedicated to establishing eligibility for
burial in its cemeteries and a central scheduling center that
could assist Arlington, if necessary. Conversely, VA officials
are examining whether Geographic Information System or Global
Positioning System technology should be used in their
cemeteries, but the Army already provides such services and
could assist the VA if that is deemed appropriate. Since no
formal mechanism yet exists to identify collaboration
opportunities, we recommended that the two Departments
establish one and they agreed.
In conclusion, we believe the Army has worked through the
crisis and taken steps to put Arlington National Cemetery on a
sustainable path to ensure effective cemetery operations. Our
recommendations are offered in the spirit of helping this
process along so that we never have to come before you again to
have this conversation.
Madam Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks and I
would be happy to answer any questions that you or the other
Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Lepore. Ms. Condon.
TESTIMONY OF KATHRYN A. CONDON,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARMY
NATIONAL CEMETERIES PROGRAM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Ms. Condon. Madam Chairman and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity today to provide an
update on the progress we have made at Arlington National
Cemetery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Condon appears in the appendix on
page 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to state up front that we still have work to do to
correct some of the remaining challenges that we have at
Arlington, as was just discussed by the colleagues at the
hearing with me today. But I want you to know that I and the
U.S. Army accept those challenges and all are dedicated to
restore the dignity and honor that our veterans and their
families so rightly deserve.
Significant progress has been made. Our contracting
practices now bring the Cemetery in compliance with Federal
Acquisition Regulations. And the implementation of state-of-the
art technology now make the hallowed grounds of Arlington one
of the most technologically advanced cemeteries in the Nation,
a different perspective than 19 months ago, when the Cemetery
lacked fiscal stewardship, was a paper-based operations, where
calls were not answered and where the workforce was not
properly manned, trained, or equipped.
In the accountability report recently submitted to this
Congress, we examined and soldiers from the Old Guard
photographed 259,978 gravesites, niches, and markers and the
Accountability Task Force coupled those photos with existing
Cemetery burial information that for the first time
consolidated 147 years of Cemetery records, records created
from logbook entries, paper-based records of internment and
grave cards, and computerized burial records. We now have them
in an accountable database.
Since the submission of the report, the total validated
gravesites without any burial discrepancies in evidence is now
210,076, and we are working diligently to close the remaining
19 percent of those cases to bring our efforts to completion.
The creation of this single, complete, verified database
will soon allow families and other stakeholders with Internet
access to search for and produce a picture of any marker in the
Cemetery and review publicly available information about that
gravesite through our state-of-the-art Web site.
In the area of contracting, we have made significant
progress in contract management, transforming our contracting
activities to position the Army National Cemetery programs for
long-term sustainment. The Army has resourced our contracting
support and oversight, adding skilled acquisition personnel to
support my staff and properly training the workforce in the
acquisition process.
Madam Chairman, I do believe that Arlington has made some
monumental changes in the last 19 months, but we continue to
move forward each and every day, capturing our progress with
repeatable processes and predictable results.
In order to orchestrate the many activities required to
effectively run Arlington, we developed the Army National
Cemeteries Program Campaign Plan, which codifies in one
strategic document the long-term vision for the operation of
Arlington and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home Cemeteries. It is
the vehicle that I and the Superintendent, Pat Hallinan, will
use to ensure that we achieve our vision for the Cemetery. It
incorporates the significant guidance, support, and
recommendations that we have received from the Secretary of the
Army, the GAO, the Army Inspector General, the Army Audit
Agency, the Northern Virginia Technology Council, and from
distinguished members of Congress, in particular Members of
this Subcommittee. Coupled with the Campaign Plan, we are
developing our Enterprise Architecture and Technology
Acquisition Roadmap which will serve as our IT blueprint and
ensure that our IT investments are effectively and efficiently
meeting the needs of the organization well into the future.
In conclusion, I personally want to thank this Subcommittee
for its leadership, its guidance, support, and encouragement
for helping us restore the faith and dignity once again to
Arlington National Cemetery. I look forward to your questions.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Ms. Condon.
Let us start. So that people realize, I think what I talked
about in my opening statement about the Old Guard, it sounds
like when you say the Cemetery's Old Guard, people do not
realize that these are, in fact, active members of the Army
that are assigned to the Cemetery, and while they are called
the Cemetery's Old Guard, they are anything but old. These are
young men and women who have been assigned to do the work at
the Cemetery that we all think of, the Honor Guard, the
Caissons.
And I do want to point out as I begin asking questions that
it was, in fact, these young men that came to the Cemetery when
I went out there in November and I had the opportunity to thank
a number of them. They, besides their other duties, many of
them showed up at midnight and worked through the night until 5
or 6 in the morning with cell phones and/or cameras and
individually went through the Cemetery and photographed over
259,000 gravesites. While some people might think of that work
as something that was less than honorable, it was remarkable in
talking to these young men, proud members of the military,
proud soldiers, how honored they were to have been engaged in
this task. And I want to point that out, because it once again
confirms in my mind what I have learned over and over and over
again as a member of the Armed Services Committee. This country
is incredibly blessed by the men and women who step across the
line and say, ``Take me.''
So let us talk about the number of graves and the
discrepancies. We had heard that there were 330,000 graves at
Arlington, and now we know there are not 330,000 graves at
Arlington. Where had that number come from? Why was that number
being used if it is off by almost 100,000 graves?
Ms. Condon. Ma'am, the 330,000 number that people quote was
the number that they would say of the number of people who were
actually interred at Arlington National Cemetery. That is not
the actual number of gravesites, because you can have a husband
and spouse in the same gravesite, and sometimes even dependents
along with them.
I can tell you right now, ma'am, that I--one of the efforts
of the Accountability Task Force will be to truly identify what
the number of people who are actually interred in the Cemetery,
and right now our data shows that it is over 400,000
individuals who are interred at Arlington. But until we
complete the results of the Accountability Task Force, we will
not be able to give you the accurate number of the number of
people who are interred at the Cemetery.
Senator McCaskill. So we now know that we have at least
70,000 more people buried at Arlington than had been previously
estimated?
Ms. Condon. Yes, ma'am, we do.
Senator McCaskill. The additional review--we have heard
today that there will be over 64,000 gravesites that will need
additional review. What does that mean?
Ms. Condon. Ma'am, to give you a great example, part of our
Accountability Task Force is we set up business rules, and one
of our business rules was that we had to have at least two
official documents to match with the photo of the headstone or
the niche. What we are finding in the previous, as reported in
the Task Force report, is there was a period where all we had
was literally a record of internment or a grave card. And so
what that means, ma'am, is that we are looking at other sources
of official data such as the Social Security Death Index and
Census records so that we can truly verify the information of
those interred. So that is one of the examples of what that
means.
Senator McCaskill. So what you are saying is we have over
60,000 gravesites where we do not have sufficient back-up and
documentary evidence for you all to be certain that you have it
right?
Ms. Condon. Yes, ma'am, because as an example, in Section
27, which is the Freedman's Village section, all we have is a
headstone that says ``Citizen,'' and that is all the
information that we have there. So that is one of the examples.
Senator McCaskill. OK. How long do you think it is going to
take to get through this additional 64,000 gravesites where you
cannot at this point speak with certainty about who is located
there?
Ms. Condon. Ma'am, as I stated in the report, I think
because we currently have a team of 40 individuals who are now
temporary employees working on that, we should probably come to
closure by this summer.
Senator McCaskill. OK. Let me go to contracting. One of the
things that was interesting to me in the GAO report is that you
all use contracting services of various places, and that, to
me, as somebody who spends a lot of time around this subject
matter, that makes the little alarm bells go off in my head. It
is hard enough to do contract oversight if you have one
contracting source in terms of your work. But with you all
using several different contracting personnel from several
different agencies, I think it is really problematic that you
are ever going to get the kind of control that you need.
Do you think you should bring it in house, or at a minimum,
try to locate all the contracts either with the Army Corps of
Engineers or with the Northern Virginia Contracting Authority
or one of these various places that you are now actually
executing contracts within?
Ms. Condon. Ma'am, that was one of the issues that I
addressed immediately when taking over as the Executive
Director, and one of the first things that I did was sign an
agreement with two contracting agencies, with the Army
Contracting Command for all of our service contracts and with
the Corps of Engineers for all of our construction contracts.
Most of our contracts really are service contracts and that is
why our Mission and Installation Contracting Command is the one
who has a contracting support element who is supporting me at
Arlington National Cemetery.
So, really, most of our contracts are channeled through--
because they are service contracts, such as our landscaping, et
cetera. So I am very confident that we have a handle on our
contracts by really going to those two agencies, the Corps for
our major construction projects and the Mission and
Installation Contracting Command for our services contracts.
Senator McCaskill. So going forward, those are the only two
contracting sources you are going to use and they are clearly
delineated from a management perspective that you feel
confident you can keep track of it?
Ms. Condon. I feel confident that we can keep track of it,
and the only other contracting is, as before, we are no longer
having individual information technology contracts. I am now
part of the Headquarters Department of the Army support for IT.
So I only have to put forward my requirement. I do not have to
have separate contracts to support that. So I am comfortable
with where we are going now.
Senator McCaskill. And do you all feel GAO--Ms. Martin, do
you feel okay about the way they have organized the contracting
at this point in time?
Ms. Martin. Yes, we would not take exception with the fact
that they use outside sources for contracting, and as Ms.
Condon alluded to, they have two means of doing that. One is to
go to a contracting authority to identify their requirements,
their oversight, et cetera, and the second means is to partner
with Army-wide efforts and use their existing contracts and
task orders. So we do not have concerns with that.
What it means is that you have, just as you alluded to,
Madam Chairman, you have to do more with respect to management
and oversight to get that visibility into the contracts, to
make sure that the requirements are stated in a way that you
get deliverables and that you provide the adequate oversight.
So it is not so much the vehicle. It is the management
oversight and visibility that is important, and I think Ms.
Condon alluded to the fact that she took some actions to try to
do that.
Senator McCaskill. Great. OK. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and we will
start with you, Ms. Condon. As I said in my opening statement,
the trust of our Nation depends upon the work that is being
done in Arlington and rebuilding that trust is going to be a
tall task. Can you give me any ideas on what you are doing to
help rebuild that trust?
Ms. Condon. Senator, one of the things that we have focused
on is honoring the fallen and making sure that we are doing
everything we can to provide information to the families of our
loved ones that we inter at Arlington. And I think the greatest
step forward on that is we now have a means to communicate with
those who are scheduling services by just the implementation of
our call center.
Senator Tester. OK.
Ms. Condon. Before, literally, most of the telephone calls
went unanswered. Now, every phone call to the Cemetery is
answered. So I think we have the means to--so our loved ones
can schedule their service. So I think that is a great step
forward in restoring the confidence.
Senator Tester. OK, that is good. How about outreach to
families that had concerns?
Ms. Condon. What we did is, sir, every time there was an
issue with an affected family member, we personally work with
the next of kin on each and every one of those cases so that
they know we have been open, we have been candid, and we have
been transparent with each and every one of those family
members.
Senator Tester. So from your perspective, you are 100
percent confident that folks are where they are said to be,
their final resting place?
Ms. Condon. Sir, in the report to Congress when we do our
accountability, there is still the possibility of human error
in a burial at Arlington. But if we do discover that there
could possibly be a discrepancy, we have set procedures where
we follow each and every case, where we notify not only
Congress but also the next of kin and accommodate what the
family's wishes are in case we find any.
Senator Tester. Do you have any mechanism--I guess
redundancy would be the term--to be able to determine if there
is a mistake, a human error that is made? Do you have any
ability to find it quicker than one of the family members would
find?
Ms. Condon. Sir, we have the ability from this day forward.
We now have--
Senator Tester. OK.
Ms. Condon [continuing]. A six-step chain of custody
procedure. We have implemented new procedures. And, what
happened prior to June 10, we will--we have procedures on how
we will handle any discrepancy that we find--
Senator Tester. That is good. I think it is critically
important that every effort is made to do it right.
At the first hearing, we heard about millions of dollars in
contracts that were not being utilized appropriately. We talked
with Madam Chairman about some of the things that you have done
to eliminate that. I mean, we are in times of austerity here.
We have an important job to do at Arlington and other military
cemeteries around the country, but there still are concerns
about dollars. I read in this testimony that there was a
recommendation to go from 102 to 201 or something like that
employees. We talked about the contracting. I just want to
touch on contracting for just a second.
The information I had is there were three contracting
organizations that dealt with 35 contracts. I think that is GAO
numbers. You are saying, Ms. Condon, that you have taken it
down to two contracting organizations, and do those two
contracting organizations deal with all your contracts now?
Ms. Condon. Except those contracts that are from the
Headquarters--like our IT contracts
Senator Tester. With the Army.
Ms. Condon [continuing]. Are with the Army.
Senator Tester. OK. And how many contracts are with the
Army?
Ms. Condon. Right now, it is predominately our IT
contracts.
Senator Tester. And how many are there?
Ms. Condon. Sir, I would have to get the exact number for
you on that one.
information for the record
Currently 12 information technology task orders or
contracts support Arlington National Cemetery, valued at $3.9M
for an annual period of performance. Ten of these contracts, of
which nine are annual service requirements, leverage the
enterprise contracts managed by the Army Information Technology
Agency, the Army Analytics Group, and the USACE Army Geospatial
Center under the established agreements among all
organizations. ANC serves as the Contracting Officer
Representative (COR) for two of these contracts.
Senator Tester. OK. The whole point is, and I think it goes
to oversight of those contracts. Are we getting, number one,
are we getting our contracting dollar out of the contracts that
are given, and do you have enough oversight? And I guess I will
give you three questions if you can hit them. And the third one
is, because you have--and I understand the IT stuff with the
Army and I think that you should do that. But because you have,
it was three, and then you have two contracting agencies, does
that require more manpower than if you just had one and went
with it? What is the advantage of two, is what I am saying.
Ms. Condon. The advantage of two, sir, is purely expertise.
The Corps of Engineers' expertise is construction--
Senator Tester. OK.
Ms. Condon [continuing]. And we use the Corps for
construction and--
Senator Tester. So that is one of the contracting
organizations. What is the other one?
Ms. Condon. The other one is the Mission and Installation
Contracting Command, which is part of Army Contracting Command,
and that is for services, services such as our landscaping--
Senator Tester. OK. I got you.
Ms. Condon [continuing]. And maintaining the grounds--
Senator Tester. So the bottom line, in your opinion, are we
getting the bang for the buck?
Ms. Condon. Sir, yes, we are, because one of the things
that we have in place now that we did not before, is we now
have trained contracting officer representatives, and each and
every day we are out there holding the contractors accountable
for doing the job correctly. So I think we truly are getting
the bang for the buck. As a matter of fact, we consolidated
from our service contracts. When we started in the Cemetery,
there were 26 contracts. We consolidated them down to 16
contracts. Each and every one of those 16 contracts, when we
recompeted it, came under the government estimate and we did
have cost savings by just consolidating those contracts.
For an example, we had six contracts prior that had
something to do with a tree. By consolidating those contracts
to one contract, we were able to save the government money and
be good stewards of the taxpayer dollar.
Senator Tester. We appreciate that, and that is exactly the
point I am getting to. When you start consolidating the
contracts, I think it is easier for oversight and there is more
accountability, but that is my--I am sitting here and you are
sitting there, okay, so you may have a different perspective
and I appreciate it, but that is what I heard.
When it comes to your contracts with technology, you talked
about the gravesites now, they are all on a searchable database
so you can find out what is going on and I think that is good.
It should have been done years ago, but better late than never.
The question is, as you look at a lot of businesses as they
move towards technology, there is a reduction in manpower
necessary. I think it was the GAO, and correct me if I am
wrong, Ms. Martin, but you had recommended 200 staff people--
somebody recommended 200 staff people for Arlington. It does
not really matter. The question is, as you look at the overall
landscape and you see the kind of changes you are making, is
your manpower demand going to continue to go up or do you see
it potentially becoming static or potentially going down?
Ms. Condon. Sir, that was one of the things that Mr.
Hallinan and I, when we came on board, is we were really truly
building the workforce that was required to run Arlington
properly that we did not have before. What we are also doing is
looking not only at our manpower--we feel that the numbers that
we have now are adequate, but as we look into the future, as we
get time to assess the technology and the operating procedures,
are there some things that we are currently putting on contract
that we could do from within house.
Senator Tester. That is right.
Ms. Condon. So that is one of--because we do realize that
the downsizing of government, et cetera. So that is one of our
goals, is to make sure that we have the right number of people
to do the job--
Senator Tester. Yes, and I agree, although I will tell you,
and excuse me for taking a little bit more time than I should,
Madam Chairman, but I think a lot of times we use contractors
to be subcontractors--I mean, to be general contracts and we
could be doing that and getting more efficiency from the
dollar, quite frankly, and we could get more money to the
ground and more money to get work done in those contractors'
pockets, which I think is ultimately something that is pretty
darn important in this whole thing.
I want to thank you. I can tell you that, and Madam
Chairman knows about this as much as anybody, but the
contracting that goes on in government right now, maybe with
your exception, and this has changed in the last 15 months or
so, but almost every contract that is investigated into, there
is waste, fraud, and abuse. And I would just say, as I said in
my opening remarks, thank you for the work you have done. Thank
you for the work you are going to do, you and Mr. Hallinan, and
I very much appreciate it.
And that is not to take anything off all you guys. I just
let you off the hook. And I am sorry, I should have asked you
guys more questions, but thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing. It is very important and I appreciate you
doing it.
General if I may start with you, in the lessons learned
area, I know you spent a lot of time on Arlington National
Cemetery and I appreciate that. Do you have concerns that there
may be other Arlington Cemetery problems out there in the
system with other National Cemeteries?
General Vangjel. Well, as far as the other National
Cemeteries are concerned, the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home
National Cemetery, we were pretty much focused on that and Ms.
Condon has a plan to get after that as she works through the
Arlington issue.
We do have 28 other cemeteries, though, that are post
cemeteries that are out there, and quite frankly, we are
starting to take a look at that, as well, based on public law
and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2012. They
have asked us to take a look at the Service Academy Cemetery,
for example, and we are getting ready to launch on that now. We
will be participating with the Department of Defense to take a
look at the statistical sample of the cemeteries that are out
there.
But clearly, from our perspective, we are looking forward
to taking a look at what else might be out there. We have no
indications at this point that there is anything, but we want
to make sure that we do not have another Arlington that is out
there.
Senator Pryor. So you have no indications at this point at
any--
General Vangjel. Not at this time, sir. No.
Senator Pryor. OK. And I know that the GAO made several
recommendations and one was enhanced collaboration between the
Army and Veterans Affairs on ways to improve operations. But as
I understand it, there has not been any sort of formalized
working group, is that fair?
General Vangjel. I think where we are at right now,
Senator, is that we have the Department is looking to
collaborate with the Veterans Affairs. Ms. Condon, as the
Executive Director and the proponent right now, is in the best
position to take a look at what we need to do with Arlington
National Cemetery. There are some things that have gone on,
however. The integration of the Internment Scheduling System,
for example, with the Burial Operations Support System that the
VA runs, there is work ongoing right now to take a look at how
we are going to align some of the automation digits, if you
will, to make that compatible so that information can be shared
back and forth.
In terms of the internal assessment program that we are so
concerned with for Arlington and what Ms. Condon has as a
component of her Campaign Plan, the operational assessment and
inspection regimen that the VA uses, that is being
incorporated. Mr. Hallinan, of course, with his expertise and
being the Superintendent there at the Cemetery is taking
advantage of using that document as a base document for that
which he might use from his internal regimen.
So there are a number of different aspects right now that
are going on at a lower level, but really the intent was to
start that at the ground up and find out where we needed to
have some of that collaboration and coordination and it will be
pulled up over the next 6 months. We look forward to seeing
something when we go back down to Arlington in June, July, this
summer. We have another re-look that we have to do in
accordance with public law and we are looking forward to seeing
some of that.
Senator Pryor. Ms. Condon, did you have any comment on
that?
Ms. Condon. Sir, we are working with Veterans Affairs, not
only from an integration of our scheduling system with their
Burial Operations System, but we also have an agreement between
the two, for our Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of VA,
where we are leveraging their training. We have sent several of
our employees to the VA training program and we are looking at
having a way where we can have interns back and forth between
the cemeteries. And one of the things we are also looking at is
we are probably a little bit further ahead right now from a
geospatial standpoint and we would like to share that with VA
because of the steps that we have already taken to geospatially
manage our cemetery.
Senator Pryor. OK. One of the other recommendations that
the GAO made was in how you should interact with families. It
sounds like there is a set of recommendations there. What is
the current process for notifying a family if you guys have
identified an error? What do you do now?
Ms. Condon. Sir, when we identify an error, the first thing
we do is we do the research to make sure that we have all of
the facts from a Cemetery perspective. And then the next step
is to notify the next of kin and to explain the discrepancy
that we may have found and to discuss with the family how, our
plans for rectifying whatever discrepancy that is and
accommodating the family's wishes on if they would like a
chaplain, if they would like to attend if we have to do all of
that. So there is a set procedure that we use for each and
every case. But the bottom line is we immediately notify the
next of kin when we find a discrepancy that could impact their
loved one.
Senator Pryor. And is that now written policy?
Ms. Condon. Sir, it is now written policy.
Senator Pryor. Also, just for my background information, in
looking at the problems at Arlington, did most of these
problems happen during a set period of time or do they go back
to the beginning at Arlington and it is just the function of
the age of the Cemetery?
Ms. Condon. Sir, the issues span the age of the entire
Cemetery.
Senator Pryor. OK. And so what happens if a family member
comes to you and says, hey, I think there is a problem. What is
your process then?
Ms. Condon. If a family member comes to us with a problem,
the first thing we do is to research to see if there truly
could have been a problem with that family member.
Senator Pryor. OK. And if a family member just reaches out
and contacts you and says, I want to make sure that my loved
one is where he is supposed to be and everything is copacetic,
same thing? Do you guys have a process there?
Ms. Condon. Yes, we have a process there, sir, and most of
our burials at Arlington are gravesite burials in the family.
So we have a process for a family who has a concern and part of
our Accountability Task Force is that we verify not only the
headstone and the records that match to that gravesite.
Senator Pryor. And there has been some discussion about an
electronic database?
Ms. Condon. Mm-hmm.
Senator Pryor. Are you saying that you are putting every
person buried in Arlington in an electronic database?
Ms. Condon. Every person buried in Arlington's records will
be in an electronic database.
Senator Pryor. That has not been done yet, but you are
working on it?
Ms. Condon. We are working on that. That was part of our
Accountability Task Force, and sir, as part of our geospatial
effort, as well. We are months away from actually having the
application where you will not only be able to find your loved
one's records, but we will have an application on one of your
smart phone technologies that will literally take you to the
actual gravesite, which is why we started our Accountability
Task Force by using smart phone technology with the Old Guard
taking photos using a smart phone because that was our long-
range plan for our public facing application for the general
public.
Senator Pryor. By virtue of having a database and the
attention that this issue has received over the last year or
two, do you think that these problems are now fixed going
forward?
Ms. Condon. Sir, the same accountability that we are doing
for the task force is how we are going to account for each and
every burial that we have at Arlington from this day forward.
As a matter of fact, the procedures are in place. Our workforce
is now taking the photos of the headstones and latching that up
with our automated records.
Senator Pryor. OK. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you. And I will say, in my visit
to Arlington in November, I had the opportunity to look at the
procedures that are now in place and they are--there is a lot
of redundancy. It will be very hard for them to lose track of a
burial site and what remains are located there based on the
processes that are now in place, which is a big improvement.
General Vangjel, I was worried about the unobligated funds
issue. I do not think I need to tell anybody that is testifying
today that we are trying very hard. I think there is a newfound
sense of urgency in Congress to watch every dime that is spent
and to be accountable for every dollar that is obligated. So
imagine my concern that we have $15 million in obligations that
were out there that had never been spent, and in fact, the Army
Audit Agency found that due to poor financial oversight by the
previous administration at the Cemetery, $27 million in
obligations between 2004 and 2010 were made and never
disbursed.
Now, what worries me about this is that nobody noticed,
that clearly the systems were not in place, that someone would
not have some kind of notification that you had significant
unobligated funds that had never been disbursed. I know we
recovered part of them. What about the other $12 million in
undisbursed funds, for any of you, and what kind of
reassurances--and maybe I need to talk to Army Audit here
instead of Inspector General, but if I were the Inspector
General, this would get my attention because I would wonder,
where else are there unobligated funds that are hanging out
that we could pull back for the taxpayers to be put for a more
important use, or better yet, to put back in the Treasury.
General Vangjel. I could not agree with you more, Madam
Chairman, and one of the things that we will be doing this
summer--as you know, the Army Audit Agency did come and take a
look. It very thoroughly went through Arlington's records,
their existing contracts that they had in place. And in spite
of the previous regime's assessment that they were short of
funds, they, in fact, had funds that they could not account
for. I have to give credit to the current Executive Director
because when she came on board, the first thing she wanted to
do was get visibility of it, and as she went after the General
Fund Enterprise Business System, that enabled them to begin to
account. The Army Audit Agency with the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology both did
program management reviews and audits and they were able to
uncover some $15 million that essentially has been reconciled
and put to good use because Ms. Condon did not want to submit a
budget request until she knew where the money was. That is good
stewardship from our perspective. However, what we want to do
is make sure as we come for a second look this year, a third
look next year, we want to make sure that we have that. So the
Army Audit Agency will be coming down as subject matter experts
as part of the overarching IG inspection and the re-look so
that we have appropriate oversight.
But your point is well made as we look to other activities
that are ongoing in the Army and we will most certainly take
that back, because there are some things as we look at
oversight mechanisms right now systemically across the Army, we
have to make sure that we are spending our money appropriately,
wisely, in the right places, and in accordance with our senior
leader guidance. So I will take that one back, Madam Chairman,
and we will work through that with our subsequent inspections
that we are doing throughout the Army.
Senator McCaskill. If this was not transparent, if this was
not obvious, and clearly it was not, then I think it would be
very helpful for someone at the most senior level at the
Pentagon to take a look at this issue of obligated but not
disbursed and what kind of systems are in place in the various
parts of our military to make sure that we do not have this
going on. I have to believe there are systems other places,
because--well, for one thing, I heard too many whistleblower
stories about getting rid of stuff at the end of the budget
year because if you do not spend it all, then they are going to
think you do not need it the next year, and horror stories
about fuel being dumped and so forth so that they can ask for
the full load the next year without having to admit that maybe
they had not used it all the previous year. That goes on in
every part of government, not just the military.
But this worries me. This is a troubling sign beyond the
problems that were represented, and I will follow up with other
people within DOD to talk about that, but it is a problem.
In terms of the VA, first of all, I am glad to hear that
you are cross-training. I think that is a great idea,
especially since the training for cemeteries that VA does is in
Missouri. I think it is terrific that you are utilizing the
great skill set and core competencies of the Veterans
Administration when it comes to our new cemeteries.
I visited one of those cemeteries in Missouri because I
wanted to compare and contrast what I had seen at Arlington at
the height of this mess compared to what is ongoing at a
cemetery. I went to the cemetery in Springfield, Missouri, and
I was very impressed at what they had done there in regards to
tracking and maintaining. In fact, one of the things I thought
was terrific is if the cemetery office was closed, there was
actually a kiosk outside the building where a visitor could
pull up with their name exactly where they needed to go in the
cemetery to visit their loved one without having to involve any
personnel of the cemetery in that question or that answer. Very
impressive.
And I am assuming with the geospatial technology that you
are embracing that you are envisioning not only can people do
this on their smart phones, but there would be kiosks at
Arlington where people who are visiting outside of the business
hours of the administration could actually get that
information.
Ms. Condon. Ma'am, as a matter of fact, just this past
week, we are in Alpha testing for our kiosk that we are going
to put throughout the entire Cemetery and in our visitor center
to do exactly that, where it will actually print you a copy of
a map that will take you, literally, because of the acreage
that we have at Arlington, literally will take you to that
gravesite. So we did take that from what VA was doing and we
are going to have kiosks by sometime late spring.
Senator McCaskill. So how about GPS? Are you going to be
able to say I arrived at Arlington with my smart phone and I
went on. Is there going to be an application that I can
download, that I could go on, enter the name, and then it will
actually guide me like a GPS to the gravesite?
Ms. Condon. Ma'am, that is exactly what we are doing with
our smart phone application. So we are months away from doing
that.
Senator McCaskill. I was worried when I saw the article in
the Washington Post yesterday that they had some problems in
the VA system, isolated, obviously, but I am pleased at least
they are taking a look, because obviously the scope and breadth
of the VA system dwarfs Arlington. I mean, people do not
realize that all of the cemeteries in the country, and every
State has some, are run by VA, with the only two exceptions
being the two that we have talked about today, Arlington and
the other cemetery that the Army runs.
Well, let me do this. I want to try to leave open the door
for the next hearing that we will have on this, because I am
not going to stop until whoever it is that is running Arlington
Cemetery can say, we now have a handle on every single
gravesite, and we are not there yet. We have made a lot of
progress in 18 months. I would like each witness to state what
you think the single biggest challenge facing Arlington is at
the present time. What remains that you think is the biggest
challenge that has to be tackled and accomplished as we look
towards the next 12 months of progress towards full
accountability and transparency for this sacred site, and let
us start with General Vangjel.
General Vangjel. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think the
biggest problem that exists right now would be to complete the
accounting for the gravesite accountability. If we are going to
establish trust and maintain trust with the American people,
folks want to know. They want to know that the problem is
solved, that it has gone away. I think that is the biggest
thing that would face us.
In order to get there, there are some standard operating
procedures (SOPs), documents that need to be done, the
documentation so that we can transfer, as you mentioned a bit
earlier, whoever is going to be at Arlington Cemetery. We want
to make sure the right procedures and documents are in place to
facilitate any transition from the current Executive Director
to one that would follow.
Those would be the two biggest, and I think either one
that, if I could just add one more, would be the overall long-
term expansion of the Cemetery to be able to accommodate the
burials. I think that would be one other that we need to really
make sure that we have the right plans that have been executed.
I know that Ms. Condon in her Campaign Plan has gone after that
and that those are the--in my mind, ma'am, those are the big
three. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. Ms. Martin.
Ms. Martin. Yes. I will certainly fall back to the area
that I am most familiar with, which is the contract management
and oversight. You mentioned the fact of the funds that had not
been recovered, and that is especially important to have
accurate contract data because that allows you to be able to
track and identify where the funds are. And in our report, we
talked about the fact that Arlington funding has a no year
designation. So with money that does not have a fiscal year
limitation it is even more important to--
Senator McCaskill. Why is that? Why do you have no year--
why is it that Arlington does not have a fiscal year like every
other part of government?
Ms. Martin. Well, at least the funds for the Cemetery are
no year funds. I mean--
Senator McCaskill. I know, but why? Why is that? Why do we
not change that?
Ms. Martin. I am not sure--
Senator McCaskill. Can we change that?
Ms. Martin [continuing]. In terms of why. I do not think
Arlington or the Army would necessarily come forward to ask it
be changed, but--I am not sure. I mean, there is some history
there in terms of the fact that it is no year money, but--
Senator McCaskill. Yes, but that is exactly what led to
this problem. I mean, setting a different set of rules for
Arlington contributed to the lack of accountability at
Arlington for many years. And if it were not for brave
whistleblowers, we still would not be where we need to be. I
mean, people that worked at Arlington knew that things were
going badly and nothing was happening, and part of that was
this no year end money, I think. Is there a recommendation that
should be made that we should end the notion that Arlington
should not have fiscal year appropriation like anybody else
would?
Ms. Martin. Well, Senator, we did not look at that as a
part of our audit, but GAO is on record as saying when you have
no year funds, then obviously there is more accountability
involved. So from the perspective of GAO and contracting going
forward, I would say it is the insight and the oversight in
terms of contracting that is important. While strides have been
made, there are still some things that need to be done.
Senator Tester talked about the importance of looking to
see if the number of contracts can be consolidated. Ms. Condon
and her staff have certainly done that. She mentioned having
several contracts for landscaping, and now they have fewer
contracts. All of that is important. Leveraging the expertise
of ITA, all of those are very important steps. Now it is a
matter of, again, getting proper insight and continuing with
the oversight of the contracts that from our perspective is
very important going forward.
Mr. Lepore. Madam Chairman, you asked what we thought were
sort of the key things that the Cemetery needs to focus on
going forward. I certainly agree with what my colleagues have
stated today.
I would also suggest that one of the key things from where
I sit is going to be ensuring that the changes that have been
made to date are sustainable and will outlive the current
leadership team, and I think, to their credit, the review that
we did suggests they have begun that process of pivoting, if
you will, from going through the crisis, working through the
crisis, and beginning to put in place the kinds of policies,
procedures, and systems that, if implemented fully--and the
Campaign Plan is a great example of it--should outlive the
current leadership team so we do not ever have a situation
again where it takes Herculean efforts from very dedicated
senior people to make this work. The whole idea here is that
eventually they will move on to some other thing, whatever it
is, some other stage of their life, and whoever the next
generation of leaders are coming into Arlington should not have
to reinvent it. The systems should be in place.
Senator McCaskill. Turnkey.
Mr. Lepore. A turnkey operation, or a plug-and-play
operation, absolutely. And it seems to us that is where our
recommendations went and I think that is the key issue for them
right now.
Senator McCaskill. Ms. Condon.
Ms. Condon. Senator McCaskill, if I could address the no
year money--
Senator McCaskill. Yes, let us talk about that.
Ms. Condon. OK. The first--
Senator McCaskill. How did that happen, and when did it
happen?
Ms. Condon. Arlington was designated as a civil works
activity and, hence, it was no year funds. But one of the first
things that I did, and with the help of our Assistant Secretary
for Financial Management and Comptroller, is to put in an
accounting system. And now that Arlington is part of the
General Fund Enterprise Business System, we are now going to be
fiscally transparent. So the financial management community can
now see how we expend each and every dollar.
The benefit of having no year money was one of the benefits
of being able to recoup those unliquidated obligations from
prior years and to be able to apply them to the projects that
we have ongoing right now. Because of those unliquidated
obligations, ma'am, we were able to start and finance the ninth
columbarium. That was one of--and we were able to put in all of
those IT issues. We will be able to address and put in the
technology and buy the right equipment to get Arlington to
where it is today.
So having no year money from that perspective has really
been a benefit for myself and Mr. Hallinan to truly put in the
changes we need. But now that we are under GFEBs, we are
fiscally transparent, so it does not matter if we are one year
money or no year money. We truly--every dollar is now in an
accounting system that is being monitored like every other
process in the Army.
Senator McCaskill. Well, but I am confused. I think
everyone would like no year money.
Ms. Condon. Yes, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. We would not be dumping any fuel if we
had no year money because on one would feel the need to hurry
and spend year end. So there are arguments that can be made for
that.
On the other hand, we have an appropriations process that
is an annual process and a justification on an annual basis,
and that also has a great deal of merit in terms of fiscal
accountability. I understand you could use money that was not
used for other things you needed--
Ms. Condon. Right.
Senator McCaskill [continuing]. But most parts of
government cannot do that. They have to come back and justify
to Congress that they have additional needs, that there should
be appropriations for them. I have a hard time believing that
Arlington would have difficulty getting appropriations because
I think this body has great respect for what that represents to
our country and would want to fund it appropriately. I am just
trying to figure out, if we have transparency, good, but maybe
the year end funds is a discipline that everyone should have. I
am not asking you to say yes or no here--
Ms. Condon. Right.
Senator McCaskill [continuing]. I am just thinking, I think
it is something that we need to take a look at.
Ms. Condon. Understood, and what we do is we do report the
carryover very similar to the working capital fund that you
carry over from year to year.
Senator McCaskill. I understand.
Ms. Condon. So we do report those numbers, so that would be
it.
You asked, what is the most outstanding challenge from my
perspective we are facing at Arlington right now. Ma'am, and as
you have witnessed, the incredible changes to the business
processes that we have put in place at Arlington. And what I
need right now is the patience for us to allow, to look at
those processes to make sure that we have the right metrics, to
make sure that we have the systems right so that we can truly
sustain the changes that we have made at Arlington up until
this point. So we just need to test all of the IT support and
all of the changes that we have made to the operational
procedures.
And so what I just need now is--my biggest challenge is
patience, because in this next year, that is what the
Superintendent and I are doing, is to make sure that those
changes that we have put in place can be sustained for
generations, not just for the immediate future.
Senator McCaskill. I want to thank all of you for the work
on this. It was quite an undertaking, and for those out there
that are skeptical about the ability of government to fix
problems on a time table, I think this is a great poster child
for people deciding that this work was important and it
deserved lots of eyes and a lot of effort from a lot of people,
and I think that the Army--and I have said this to top
leadership in the Army--I understood that the Army was more
upset than anyone else about the problems at Arlington. All of
us can tsk, tsk and bemoan the incompetence that had occurred
there, but I do not think anybody felt it more acutely than the
Army. And so I think the Army responded in a way that reflects
the dedication they have to the fallen. And I am impressed that
the amount of progress that has been made is substantial and
significant, frankly, at lightning speed for government. Within
18 months, we have a completely different protocol at Arlington
as it relates to accountability and I think it is good.
We still have work to do, and I have said from the
beginning that the oversight of this Subcommittee would not end
until people sat in front of this dais and said, ``I think the
challenges have been met and I think all the processes and
procedures are in place and I see no problems that need to be
addressed by additional oversight.'' No one said that today, so
we will have another hearing. I am sure it will be a year from
now. And at that point in time, General, I am sure you will
have more information to report because I know you are planning
on going back out to take another look at Arlington.
I want to compliment Ms. Condon, because even when things
were discovered that were not good, her office checked in with
this Subcommittee and let us know that another problem had been
discovered. I think there might have been a tendency to say,
well, they will never know. Let us just get it fixed. But
instead, there has been transparency and that is very good. So
congratulations for that, and most particularly,
congratulations to all the men and women who have worked hard
at Arlington, many of whom have worked there many years and
care deeply about the reputation and the method in which we
take care of the problems there. And thank you to GAO.
We will have another hearing in probably about a year. In
the meantime, if problems surface, I will depend on you to
continue to let us know and we will continue to monitor the
situation, and thank you for all the good progress that has
been made.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
