we now have ranking remember jim cooper of tennessee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the title of the hearing, i'm worried we're hearing more about accounting and bureaucracy than we are hearing about accountability. when i talk to folks back home they think accountability means that somebody was in charge and they had to account for what they did or did not do while they were in charge. and we're not hearing much about that. and to refresh everybody's memory, july/august of '09 the newspaper, the "washington post," discovered irregularities at the cemetery. i think it was june 2010, almost a year later, secretary of the army responded. we had a hearing in '11. now it's '12. we are years into this and, to my knowledge, not one person, either military or civilian, has

been punished in any way for one of the worst scandals in the 150-year history of arlington national cemetery. now, as this was going on we've learned from the news media that the air force was apparently improperly disposed of the remain, ashes of over 200 airmen and women. to my knowledge, there's been no accountability there either. now, that's the newer scandal. but what is going on here? and i love your new systems and i think accountants are great and you love software and record keeping is great, but we must remember this is a core function of the u.s. military and has been since the founding of the services. there is no more premier location than arlington. and no reprimand, no punishment,

to accountability. we haven't even, in this hearing, at least, identified folks to be held accountable. i love looking forward and i love optimism and i do think great progress has been made by the current folks. but how do i look folks in the eye back home and said there's been accountability? when you talk about whether it should be an army or a va facility, who in the army was in char charge? and this is way beyond the realm of gao and folks like that and your excellent witnesses and i appreciate the limits on your supervision, but this hearing is about accountability at arlington. and the best i can tell, there is none, at least in terms of holding the wrongdoers accountable. so what are we going to do about this? this is years into the investigation. members of congress have run for office hoping to hold hearings

on cemetery accountability. presumably this will be handled responsibly, but i'm getting tired of waiting years into the investigation. now, want to be fair to all involved. but this is years have passed. is it going to take three years to find out what happened to the ashes of the airmen that were apparently dumped in a dumpster? what is going on here? so, i hope that these committees will not be part of any sweeping under the rug, any white wash. but as the years click by, shouldn't there be not just an accounting but accountability? thank you, mr. chairman. as you know i did not take an opening statement. i did not want to stress the committee here, but i think we have more work to do in this area. >> thank you very much for your inquiries, which certainly need to be addressed. at this time we have mr.

connaway. >> thank you, chairman. cooper is a hard act to follow. i am a cpa. i'm trying to figure out the record-keeping process which i do think is core so to some of the stuff that went on. a report went through an era-based model where the various eras. starting in ' 99 something called the boss system did, i guess, va cemetery system. and did you have anybody look at the state-of-the-art -- there are people who control cemeteries and burials, you know, all over the united states. and there's a full industry of that that does it. there's nothing unique about handling remains and burying folks to the military. we honor those folks a little bit more than the general. so help me understand what the current boss system is versus a

system you normally find in a relatively modern cemetery operation. >> congressman conaway, the boss system is the veterans affair system, scheduling system that the va -- >> which is scheduling. >> it does scheduling. it also is the system that the grave stones, the markers are ordered from. so that is what -- that is how arlington uses the boss system. >> all right. so it's not -- well -- >> it is a scheduling system that va uses. >> what's iss? >> internment scheduling system is a system from arlington that i hin rer itted on yun 10th, scheduling system that we use at arlington for scheduling system. the difference between that and the boss system is the variables

at artic arlington is different because of the kcoordinating with the chapels. >> if boss is just scheduling, why do you need two? >> it is the system that you -- we don't need two. the bottom line is we need a scheduling system. what more than that, we just need accountable data. it doesn't matter which system you use to schedule a service, it's all about the data. >> okay. so services are being held at arlington today. >> uh-huh. >> help us understand what the records look like for a particular service and is it a combination of handwritten records or is it all automated, all captured electronically? what's the current state affairs? >> sir, i'm very proud to state for those members on the committee who have been to arlington and saw the paper records and the cardx machine, our internment scheduling branch right now does not have one paper record in it. everything is digital.

all the records now are digital. >> i understand scheduling. somewhere in your records you keep track of who is buried where are. >> yes, sir. >> the research is being held today. those long-term oh once the services are done, scheduling to make thur the honor guard was there and everything, going forward though, we need to keep track of who is buried where. what does that data set look like? >> that data set, sir, follows the exact data that we reported in the december 22nd report to this congress. this way forward, we will have a photo of the front and back of every grave site and niche and electronically attached to that will be all the records pertaining to that service. that is how we are counting for each and every burial, not enfor the report we did to congress but from this day forward. our employees now, when a headstone is set, take the photo of the front and back of that headstone and attach that digitally to the records. >> and the record is all

electronic? >> the record is all electronic. >> this is a little crude. maintaining the inventory of folks who are buried where, that's fully electronic now for all new internments? >> yes, sir, it is. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. conaway. we proceed to mr. chris of pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. trying to get my arms around this. mr. lepore, you said that in the '70s at some point jurisdictional responsibility for -- is it every other national -- or any other veterans cemetery was transferred to the va? >> the army at the time managed 82 cemeteries -- or 82 national cemeteries, and under the 1973 national cemeteries act, those cemeteries transferred to the department of -- what was then just the va, now the department of veterans affair, except for

two. arlington did not transfer and the soldiers and airmen's home here in washington did not transfer. the army retained those. >> okay. are there any trouble like we experienced at arlington at any of these other cemeteries? >> we have not audited anybody beyond the activities at arlington, so i really can't say. i have certainly seen some press accounts but our audit was focus and arlington. >> prior to what was reported -- what's that, almost four years ago, had there ever been an audit of arlington's record keeping prior? >> i am not aware of one by gao. i do not know whether the inspector general had ever done one, but we had not, to my knowledge. >> was arlington's, we'll call it for lack of a better term, management required to report at the end of fiscal years or at any point back to the army

budgetary processes, anything that had happened during the year? >> i am not aware of that, but ms. condon may be in a better position to answer that than i am. >> sir, the management of arlington, as you do your resource, has to report to the department of the army. >> so -- but it's just gross numbers. we had this many ceremonies, that kind -- and not specifics? >> it would be, you know, from a resource standpoint, it will be the resources required to run the cemetery. >> going through the grave site accountability study findings, obviously this is a complex issue. as you read through subsections that, you know, sections within and then subsections within, if they're not clearly marked, there's going to be issues. do we have any recollection of anywhere before 2008, any report of we have some issues because we're finding sections that have people in them that aren't supposed to have them or we're

finding grave markers that have no people there? is there anything prior to this 2008 disaster? i guess the question would be, how long have you folks been involved in this other than since we started this process? >> sir, i can start with that one. my first day was on june 10th, 2010, when secretary mccue created the executive director position. mr. cooper, to be accountable, for the management and the operation of arlington. >> so everyone is pretty much just since 2008. and, sir, you just came on board very recently? >> personally, yes, sir. i do know that there were operational assessments that were conducted at arlington cemetery based on my document research that i did as i come on the job. '96, '97, '98 because they, in fact, had oversight responsibility during that time. >> nothing was indicated in those reports? >> nothing that had to do with mismarked graves or

accountability of graves was reported during that particular time, no, sir. >> since the digital system came on in 1999, has there been any -- is there any documentation of issues of mismarked graves since 1999 forward? maybe in your audit report, is there anything -- now, prior to 1999, obviously we have some issues because of paper records and, you know, hopefully there are cemeteries across the country that existed to that prior but notwithstanding that. anything since 1999 where we went digital that there's been an issue? >> we did not attempt to go back that far. the reason we didn't, the grave side accountability task force was in the process of reviewing all 350,000 or so records. there were some differences on what the actual numbers is, turns out. but they were in the process of reviewing every record. an ver fruitful for us to do that work

since we already had an organization doing that. and as you know, the grave site accountability task force report was just issued late december, i believe it was. >> right. right. well, you know, i'm new to the committee but obviously i'm listening to mr. cooper because we are talking about accountability and we have -- these issues should have come up long before. i'm sure somebody new this. it's interesting to me that we have no players that have been identified as having gross mismanagement of this. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. critz. proceed to colorado. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for all of you, for your testimony up here and for serving our country. my concern as a marine corps combat veteran is specific to the remains of those who have been lost, particularly in afghanistan or iraq, and

certainly anyone lost in combat. i can remember being in iraq that there was extraordinary care and respect paid to those that felton -- fell on the battlefield. where i see the breakdown, whether it's with the air force at dover or the army in arlington is the fact that you have civilian personnel, whether by the army or by the air force, that, number one, come from a different culture where that respect may or may not be there, but is not necessarily shared. but more importantly, are not subject to the military code of military justice. when there's a violation of a regulation, is it effect a lawful order. in uniform military personnel can be prosecuted under the

uniform code of military justice where civilian personnel are not accountable to the uniform code of military justice for the violation of the same regulation. and i really think that if anything comes out of these hearings, that the chain of custody for those who have fallen in battle, that chain of custody for the remains of those who have fallen must be by uniformed military personnel only. and -- because that is what is most upsetting about this, is that we are in this discussion saying, oh, things are getting better, oh, things are changing. let me tell you this. if this all were handled -- and i understand support services. so i'm narrowly defining something that i really think ought to be changed in respect

for those who have fallen on the battlefield. that i just don't believe we would be in this situation right now. having had a career between the united states army and the marine corps. we are in the kind of discussions that we've had about the kind of dereelection of duty, i know dover is not a part of this discussion today, but i simply don't believe we would be here today if we were dealing -- now, i understand there's a broader question. we're talking about retired milita military personnel, we're talking at dependent, we're talking about other things. but anything that, as a combat veteran, that i believe must come out of these hearings, it is, again, that only uniformed u.s. military personnel handle

the remains of those that have fallen in battle. i open it up if anybody would like to comment on that. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much, coffman. you raise an important point about the umj. >> i somewhat agree so what my colleague mr. coffman said. i think we all agree, we kind of have our arms around this but we have to put teeth to it. we talk about accountability and i've had the fortunate opportunity to actually chair the va subcommittee on disabilities assistance at memorials. so obviously i have dual jurisdiction here. and we are beginning, obviously,

with sam houston cemetery experiencing some of these same pitfalls that we have here at arlington, unfortunately. again, the word accountability comes up time and time again. and if there are no teeth to anything we're doing, actions have consequences. no one has the fear of a consequence coming down, whether it's through contracting, whether it's through your predecessor. how do we do this? do we do it through the contractor? do we have to do it through legislation, through this committee? i mean, obviously recalling mr. coffman has a legitimate pathway to address that issue. but i think there's multiple factors that have to be in there. but we have to hold people

accountable. at the root of it, i think most of these problems go away. and i think, also, and i think as we're moving forward, ms. condon with our plan, and i know you're still building the road map of you can take this manual and hand it to your predecessor. i know we're building that. but to have those teeth in those procedures, also, and throughout the process of gaining the information and the pitfalls that you're finding from your predecessor, to make thur thsur all of that information is in there because it truly is a disgrace to what we have done to this cemetery and frankly to what i'm finding in the va. and i know being briefed by the va people that you guys are working very closely together because you have a lot of similar problems and share those experiences. and i hope we can -- we can work together on that aspect because

i know how a lot of this -- how a lot of this works. this is my problem. that's their problem. no, it's the american people's problem. it's our soldiers, it's our taxpayers at the end of the day. and there are people who need to be held accountable. i think as a committee, we have to find a way to do that. and i applaud you all for your efforts here, but there is a lot of things that, it hurts. it hurts people every day when these loved ones call up and say, i don't -- i don't know if my loved one is buried where you say they're buried. and there are some of them that we can't even heartbreaking to o through that kind of stuff. so i know we had our arms around it. i think we -- truly, i'll say it again, sink our teeth into it and make sure that this never happens again. i thank you all for your

testimony. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much for your heartfelt comments, mr. runyan. at this time, unless there's any further question, we shall, again, thank the witnesses for being here. thank you for making a difference. again, arlington, the shrine of our country, the respect that we have for service members, military family, veterans, this is so important. and i would like now to proceed to mr. whitman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would also like to thank the witnesses. i think there are a couple of things here that all of us on the committee would like to know today. i think mr. cooper brings up a great point about accountability and about past actions, current investigations. i think all of us feel like sufficient amount of time has passed where those investigations should have reached their conclusion. there should be findings, and there should be actions. so i think i know that our committee would expect from you, general, and from you, ms.

condon, some indication where that is. i realize that may not be under your direct jurisdiction and may be within the army but i'm sure you can pass on to the army leadership there that i think both of our committees would like a definitive answer as to where that goes on. and i realize mr. cooper's frustration because at our last meeting, at our last hearing, the same questions were asked about when we could expect findings and actions. as mr. cooper pointed out, it's been a long time. and i think all of us think it's very reasonable that a conclusion should have been reached by this particular point in time. so i hope that that comes back to both of our committees so we understand where things are. i think that's an extraordinarily important question. we talked about some of the nuts and bolts today. that is one of those efforts hanging out there that i think leaves us all in a very

uncomfortable position. i thank mr. cooper for bringing it up. i know it's a difficult but a very, very important issues for this. and we look forward to hearing something d where that is. >> i believe -- excuse me. i believe the general wanted to exem comment on that. >> yes, if i could. as we went through the investigation for what we have with the two outstanding urns reservations in particular, as we move forward we look at violations of policy, guidance, if it's criminal we hand it over to the criminal investigation division. they have completed their investigation for the department of justice now. so that is the decision and that is what we are told in the army, they are making the determination on prosecution. so what we'll do is we'll do the best we can do to get information from them and we will provide that to the committee. ultimately right now it's under the jurisdiction of the department of justice. >> i think that would be great. if you could let us know when cid passed it over to the

justice department and who it is with there so these committees can communicate with the justice department to get from them an idea of about time. >> absolutely can, sir. >> and, in fact, i look forward to working with chairman whitman and ranking members, too, with cid and the officials in is beyond your purview but there should be accountability. and we can't proceed without it. >> yeah. and i think, too, another thing to take from today that i ask all of you to consider, i think the suggestion that the leadership chain include somebody in uniform to make sure the uniformed code of military justice is something that reins with that is something that is a very, very significant suggestion, one that, as strategic planning and organization plans are looked at, that -- i think it's something that garners your serious consideration. i want to thank mr. coffman for

bringing that up. >> any further? if not, we shall be adjourned. thank you, again, everyone, for being here today. both houses of congress are in today. the house gavels in at noon eastern for speeches with legislative work starting at 2:00.

members will work on a bill to create a centralized process for recommending federal military properties to be consolidated and sold. the senate also gavels in at 2:00 with work on faa programs and a final vote on that bill at 5:30. you can watch the house live over on c-span and the senate on c sp-spa c-span2. >> tonight "the communicators," the third in our service, from this year's consumer electronic show, on developments and communications, this week with the head of mercedes benz cars and john bucci, toyota's vice president for advanced technology, they will discuss voice command, integration, and increasing car safety, in some cases aiming for crash-free cars. "the communicators" on c-span2. this past week house and senate lawmakers continue negotiations to extend the payroll tax cut

for workers. they will continue on tuesday if cuts expire at the end of the monday. the talks are focused on how to pay for it. >> i don't hear a fundamental disagreement in the philosophy that if people get a ged that enhances they lives and that enhances the ability for them to get a job down the road. i don't hear as disagreement with that. i hear an excuse as to why not to do it but rather the fundamental trying to rearm people with an education so when they go into the workforce they have an additional tool. >> to link a social insurance program designed and for 70 plus years functioning to provide financial support when you have lost a job, to a requirement that you have to be in this trap i training, i think, first of all, won't work for some practical considerations. but second, i don't think that it contradicts the notion that you're suggesting and i agree

with that the more education you have today the better off you will be in in economy. >> watch the rest of this meeting online at c-span video library, archived and search searchable at c-span.org/videolibrary. critics of president obama's recess appointment said the white house has created a dangerous precedent that would override the confirmation process. next the house oversight committee hears from chris lee followed by a panel with white house counsel. the president's appointments from earlier january is being disputed who say congress was not actually in recess at the time. this hearing is just over 3 1/2 hours. >> good morning. the committee will come to order. the oversight and government reform committee's mission is that secure two fundamental

principle, first, americans have the right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent and, second, americans deserve an efficient effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight and government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine resoform to the federal bureaucracy. at the very let