what the actual numbers is, it turns out. but they were in the process of reviewing every record. and so it didn't seem very 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 that someone knew this. this didn't just pop up since 2008. and it's interesting to me that we have no players that have been identified as having gross mismanagement of this. and i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. critz. we proceed to mr. coffman of colorado. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, all of you, for your testimony, for your service to 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. and i can remember being in iraq that there was extraordinary care and respect paid to those that fell on the battlefield. and where i see the breakdown, whether it's with the air force at dover or the army at 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 uniform code of military justice.

when there is a violation of a regulation, it is, in effect, a lawful order. and 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 dereliction of duty that has befallen arlington and dover. 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 military personnel. we're talking about dependents. we're talking about other

things. but if there's 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 who have fallen in battle. and i would open it up if anybody would like to comment on that. thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. coffman. and you raise a really good point about the ucmj. we proceed to mr. runyan of new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i somewhat agree with what my colleague, mr. coffman, has kind of 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 fortunately had an opportunity to actually chair the va subcommittee on

disabilities assistance at memoria memorials. so i obviously 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 pit k pitfalls that you're finding from your predecessor, to make sure all of that information is in there. because it truly is a disgrace 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 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 prove. it's heartbreaking to have to go through that kind of stuff. so i know we have 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 families, veterans, this is so important. and i would like now to proceed to mr. wittman. >> 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 vangjel, and from you, ms. condon, some indication about where that is. may notur dect jury diction. i realize it's probably direct internal investigations 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. 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 issue for this. and we look forward to hearing something definitive back from the army as to where that is. >> i believe -- excuse me. general vangjel wanted to comment on that. >> yes, ngreman, if i could. >> please. >> as wet investigation for what we have with the two outstanding issues, the urns and grave site 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 invests 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

can provide -- we'll 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 about time frame. >> absolutely can, sir. >> and, in fact, i look forward to working with chairman wittman and our in regard to possibly cid and doj officials to come know what the status is. because this would be 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 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 your serious consideration. >> any further? if not, we shall be adjourned. thank you, again, everyone, for being here today.

join us later today when book tv features an event with author david rothkopf. his latest work called "power ink" looks at the evolving relationship between public and private power in the world and assesses the different forms of capitalism that have emerged over the years as a result. watch this live at 5:00 p.m. eastern online at booktv.org. >> when i first started the book, i also thought this must be an american story. this is about a country that worships the religion of self-reliance and individualism. this is a legacy of thorough and emerson. it turns out we're laggards when it comes to living alone. it's, in fact, much more common in european nations. especially scandinavia. it's even more common in japan. >> afterwords in gt going solo"

we look at the trend of adults choosing to live alone. also this weekend on book tv sunday at 3:00, the second cousin of former secretary of state condoleezza rice, connie rice, on her work to reduce gank violence in l.a. and starting a dialogue between gang leaders and police. at 8:15, georgetown university's bonnie morris on her one woman play and book of the same name, "revenge of the women's study professor." book tv every weekend on c-span 2. up next, dennis ross, the former middle east adviser to presidents obama and clinton. he talks about israel and recent changes in the middle east. ambassador ross stepped down from his post in the obama administration in november. the aspen institute here in washington hosts this hour, 20 minute event. >> welcome, everybody.

it's good to have back our old friend, dennis ross. this is a michelle smith and robert smith foundation sponsored round table. also the middle east programs of the aspen institute are putting it together. i thank you all for being here. looking around the table, i realize that this is a man who needs no introduction to you. henry kissinger's line, maybe a man who needs no introduction but there's no man who enjoys one more. so i will say of dennis. he's written one of the great books, "missing piece." he's worked for george h.w bush as policy planning. president clinton. obviously the current president obama's administration as well as secretary hillary clinton, worked with madeleine albright, jim baker. but he's here, totally, obviously, nonpartisan but also speaking only for himself, not for any of the previous administrations except for the truman administration as the only one you'll feel confident to speak for.

especially since you have a new book that's going to start with the truman administration. we're looking forward to that very much. dennis, let me start by asking about the view from israel. with everything happening, including the hamas reconciliation and the syrian thing and obviously iran being the great exten chal threat, why is it that israel can't do what seems to be a relatively obvious and easy thing to position itself well for the coming crises, which is cut a deal with the palestinians? >> well, it's always easier to say cut a deal with the pal tin yans than it actually is to cut such a deal with the palestinians. because it ultimately does take two to be able to do any deal. but you're asking a question that itself is -- begs for context. i know that context is my middle name. my mother didn't know that when she named me, but it actually is

my middle name. so let me -- let me try to set some context. because i think the question is a very important one in terms of trying to understand how the israelis may be looking at a region that suddenly looks like the following. if you're sitting in jerusalem, you look at egypt and you see what is basically the rise of the muslim brotherhood. an organization that is not by any shape or form likely to be friendly towards israel. israel has had a cold peace with egypt, but that cold peace with egypt not only ensured that it could shape a certain kind of posture in terms of its military, its doctrine, it budget, it could count on what was a stable, secure border. and so now suddenly it looks at an egypt where the sanide looks like a no man's land.

the muslim brotherhood from their standpoint, israeli standpoint, very little stake in controlling what goes on in regard to what goes on at gaza. the first point of reference is look at how things are changing in terms of egypt, and it's a threat. it looks to its north and it sees 45,000 to 50,000 rockets that hezbollah has in lebanon. it looks farther to the north and east and it sees syria, where in the best of cases it sees enormous unknowns. it can't really know -- even if it assumes as many now do that the assad regime is doomed and is not going to survive, it doesn't know what the process of its -- of its demise is going to be. it doesn't know the timing. it doesn't know what's going to happen in syria. the longer things drag on in syria, the more likely you could have a whole range of different

kinds of outcomes, from an israeli standpoint could also be quite threatening. jordan right now, its relationship with jordan is -- is an important and a good one. and the jordanians actually are playing a very serious, important role right now trying to preserve a -- what i'll describe as a discussion process between israelis and palestinians. there have been five preparatory talks. they're working hard to try to preserve that process. but that is a work in progress, and it's not exactly clear what's going to happen as a result of it. and particularly now with what is at least a new development on reconciliation between hamas and fatah, i think we always have to approach the reconciliation process between hamas and fatah with a high degree of -- of shall i say humility? by that i mean -- first of all, you should approach this region right now with a high degree of

humility since nobody predicted actually what was going to happen. we've seen announcements don't translate to immediate behaviors. do you think that the announcement this morning is just an announcement or does it look like that one's more real, the hamas, fatah announcement. >> i don't know. anybody who sits there and says they know you should be skeptical of. i would guess that the two sides themselves are 100% certain of what this is going to translate into. what it does reflect, though is something that i think is likely to emerge over the coming year, and i think it is a step toward elections. i do believe you'll have elections between -- that you'll have elections -- palestinian elections because elections in this awakening have become kind of the symbol of credibility and i think that the pressures on the two sides will grow very

high so that they do end up having elections. so this brief overview, if you're sitting in jerusalem and looking out leaves some in israel to say given the unknowns this is the time to hunker down and do nothing. for some, i would say it's an understandable posture to have. from my own standpoint, i would say when you're thinking strategically, the one thing you always want to do is never limit your choices and the problem with hunkering down and doing nothing is that your choices shrink. they don't expand. from a strategic standpoint how can you expand the available options that i have not how can i shrink the options that are available to me because even if the range of options are not great, the smaller the number, the less likely they are to be good and the worse it will be. so number one, from the israeli standpoint, i think, don't shrink your options. number two, don't assume the story is now written.

by that i mean, you know, take a look at what's going on. there's no surprise that everywhere you look they seem to have the upper hand in the nonmonarchies. a, they were allowed to organize in the mosque and they had a place where they could speak their minds and they came to embody social justice because they crow eighted an approach to provide limited social welfare and they were authentic because they reflected in terms of islam, they connected in all classes including the lower classes and they had a kind of credibility and they had a kind of effectiveness. they had an organization and they had an identity and an agenda and the secular, more liberal forces had that. so they have built-in advantages right now, but this is a new middle east and that is the new middle east from 1993 and it is

a new middle east in that the muslim brotherhood decided that they'll rule the way ben ali and mubarak did, they can't do that. >> but you're saying israel can affect this process for the better if it had moved down -- and moved down the peace process with the palestinians? >> i'm saying -- i'm not sure they can effect it for the better, but i think they can affect their situation for the better and i don't think the muslim brotherhood, per se, will be paying an enormous amount of attention to this issue unless they're trying to divert attention away from not being able to deliver and that basically follows the model of people like mub ar being who said rather than delivering domestic change what they would focus when there was anger would be to divert attention away. i think the muslim brotherhood will have to find ways to deliver because they're see

dealing with people who see themselves as citizens. they have the right to hold governments accountable. in other words, i think the muslim brotherhood and others will have to govern, not rule, and i think what this leads to in my mind is the israelis looked at the palestinian and if i'm right there will be elections this year and the elections will be an awful lot about shaping the future identity of the palestinians and israel has an enormous stake in ensuring that those palestinians who believe in nonviolence, who believe in coexistence are the ones who were validated. >> you came very close both in the parameters and in the aspen facility and camp david of coming really close to what that arab -- that palestinian-israeli deal would be. is that still the outline of the deal that could be if they both could get there? >> you know, i would love to be

able to say yes. i'm not sure because right now i don't think the context lends itself very well to producing a status deal. when i say from an israeli stand point it's important to try to validate those palestinians who believe in nonviolence. it's not because i believe necessarily the conduct that exists today to do a deal. >> why not? >> i think, for one thing, as i said, the context i just described from the israeli side is there's going to be great concern. is this the time to be running risks given the unknowns that you face out there and who could take advantage of the situation, but look at the other side. is abu mazen ready today to do a final deal? look at the context he's operating in. he looks around the region. who are his friends among the arab leaders? where are their preoccupations? with the muslim brotherhood rising, are they particularly interested in a deal between israelis and palestinians?

maybe their preoccupation is internal, but the fact is if abu mazen tries to do a big deal right now, inevitably he has to make compromises. there's no such thing in trying to do a deal without compromise. does he feel confident given the current context that if he makes the kind of compromise that's required, he's also having to concede something as well and is that context the context where he's going to feel confident that he'll not face enormous opposition. so -- the reason i don't want to give up on trying is because i think you ought to test that proposition. i say this is a time for humility. those who say either that they know that each side can't take these big steps or that they can't take these big steps, i say i can understand the difficulty of this and we ought to continue to try to produce a political process which is what the jordanians with the administration's support is trying to produce through these

preparatory talks. >> do you think the jordanians should continue to have the lead for the moment? >> i think that they are proving that they can -- they can be effective and i would note something. a lot of people will say, well, gee, isn't this unusual? >> for those -- for better or for worse, i actually -- >> yes. >> such as it is, yes. >> the fact is that when we were negotiating the hebron deal we reached a point that we hit a part that we couldn't overcome. people forget that it was king hussein who intervened and we were doing wide river. >> yes. >> and he helped us overcome then what was also a block that we couldn't overcome. in fact, the jordanians do have a history of playing a quite helpful role in certain moments and given the context and as i

said, if you look around the region today king abdullah of jordan is one of the -- is one of the few leaders in the region who is focused on this. cares about this and has a relationship with abu mazen and has a relationship with the israeli prime minister. >> so i think it makes sense to continue to try for the political process. what i want to suggest is even if you try for the political process, i think from an israeli standpoint it's important for them to be thinking about what are the steps that they can take that will help to validate those palestinians who were engaged in a state-building process who believe in non-violence, who believe in co-existence because if you'll have elections they're going to compete against those who reject coexistence and who believe in violence and from a strategic standpoint israel has a long-term interest. >> appreciate it. >> in having those palestinians

who believe in non-violence become validated and become more credible. look, i would always like to see whatever steps the israelis take, i would like to see parallels and reciprocity, but i will say that if you'll have elections this year it's very important that those palestinians who are competing us, are able to say, look, we're achieving something and it is showing that israeli control is receiving so you can show -- a piece in "the washington post," the incursions and maybe they're being phased out. >> you increase the palestinian police presence and some of the responsibilities here. >> area c, and you've done a lot of work. >> in area c in economics. one of the things you know is that it's 60% of the west bank. they have very limited access economically. for