SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
HEARING TO EXAMINE ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY BURIAL WAIVERS
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1998
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Terry Everett (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Everett, Stump, Spence, Buyer, Clyburn, Snyder, and Mascara.
Also present: Representatives Hutchinson and Evans.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN EVERETT
Mr. EVERETT. Good morning. As we begin this hearing, I want to recognize that in the Capitol Statuary Hall the memorial service is beginning for our departed colleague, Sonny Bono. I wrestled with the decision of whether to reschedule the hearing, and I decided that Sonny, who was a member, along with myself and many others on this panel, of the National Security Committee and a great supporter of our Armed Forces and of our veterans, would probably have wanted this hearing to go on because of its significance and importance, as will be revealed to you later today. A number of our committee members are attending that service. I expect them to join us shortly.
I do ask that all of us here today observe a moment of silence for Sonny Bono, who was very special to us.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you.
This hearing today by the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is intended to provide an in-depth look at the Department of Army's waiver process at Arlington National Cemetery, to include the case of Ambassador M. Larry Lawrence. We will also examine presidential waivers to the extent that we can and the presidential waiver for Dr. C. Everett Koop.
Arlington National Cemetery is hallowed ground dedicated to the high honor and eternal rest of America's military heroes, most of whom gave their lives in defense of our liberty. The subcommittee's only objective is to ensure the integrity of Arlington, a historic place which has obtained almost mystic connotations to many Americans.
This hearing may cause discomfort to some Republicans and Democrats and to this administration and to some past administrations and to the Army, which is responsible for Arlington. But it is time that this business of Arlington waivers got a thorough airing and is straightened out. I believe that this hearing will show that the Carter, Reagan, and the Clinton administrations were entirely too free with waivers. The Bush administration record was apparently better because the White House stayed out of the decisions.
The Army, in at least one incident the committee has learned about, treated Arlington as a private preserve and not as a sacred trust. Arlington belongs to the American people. Too much secrecy has surrounded the Army's operation of Arlington. It isn't necessary. It isn't right, and it must stop.
I hope that no family of anyone buried at Arlington as the result of a waiver is embarrassed or apologetic that a loved one is there. Other than the Lawrence case, we have found no situation of outright lies, fraud, or anything illegal, none at all, regarding any person currently buried there.
I believe the serious problems are with the process and the government officials from the President on down who have made the decisions to disregard eligibility and grant waivers for Arlington. I recognize how hard it is to say no to grieving family members who have just lost a loved one. It is very hard. Yet each time a waiver is granted because someone put on political pressure or sought favoritism—each time that happens a qualified, eligible veteran loses his or her place at Arlington. And unfortunately, it is my opinion, in some cases there undoubtedly has been favoritism, overwhelming pressure, political influence, string pulling, and arm twisting, as well as public relations considerations, even if no one will openly admit it.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Waivers for the ineligible and de facto reservations in violation of Arlington's regulations have been one of Washington's dirty little secrets. Those who are insiders and who are well connected have a distinct advantage. I hope it is about to end. But what is done is done. We should allow those who rest at Arlington to rest in peace.
Chairman Stump is introducing bipartisan legislation to codify Arlington's eligibility, to curb waivers, and to provide additional land for Arlington. Other committee members and I will join him. I expect he will have more to say about that when he is recognized.
Representatives of the General Accounting Office will testify first regarding GAO's intensive and expedited review of Arlington waivers. It is unfortunate that someone in possession of the GAO-embargoed testimony decided to leak it to the press. It troubles me greatly that someone would side with the White House and against those heroic heroes who are currently buried at Arlington. That, in my opinion, is what that leak has done. It was done to gain a cheap headline. I think you will see in testimony today Mr. Lawrence did not deserve his ambassadorship and he certainly used his influence to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
The current and former Superintendent of Arlington will testify.
The Secretary of the Army, the Honorable Togo D. West, Jr. who is now Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, will testify about his waiver decisions and the administration of Arlington. And he will also be asked some questions about the Army's belated disclosure and production of an important file.
Next, representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard will testify regarding the Lawrence matter and records of his Merchant Marine service.
Ms. Norma Nicholls, who was Ambassador Lawrence's longtime personal assistant prior to his nomination, will testify regarding her knowledge of the Lawrence matter.
Representatives of the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security will testify regarding the Lawrence background investigation and nomination. The reason the State Department is before a Veterans' Affairs committee is because when the subcommittee traced back Ambassador Lawrence's fabricated Merchant Marine service, the trail went through the State Department. I've asked the State Department Inspector General to investigate the State Department's background investigation on the Lawrence matter as it pertains to his assertions of Merchant Marine service.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also intend to ask the State Department witness about a criminal referral which I have confirmed has been made to the Justice Department and which may relate to the Lawrence matter.
President Clinton was invited to designate a White House representative to testify regarding presidential waivers during his administration. The White House Counsel to the President, Mr. Charles Ruff, has responded with a letter dated January 23, 1998. The letter does not address whether the White House is sending a representative to address questions. The letter is available to the public. The documents accompanying the letter are being reviewed and no decision has been made about their release.
The President's counsel has asserted executive privilege with respect to two documents dated January 9 and January 10, 1996 which pertain to Ambassador Lawrence or Arlington. Ambassador Lawrence died on January 9, 1996. Subcommittee counsel will have discussions with White House counsel regarding these two documents.
Dr. C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General, was invited to testify regarding the waiver granted to him by President Clinton, but he declined. I'm asking unanimous consent that his letter of January 21, 1998 be made part of the record. (See p. 89.)
I have urged the President to withdraw the waiver granted to Dr. Koop, and the White House has not responded. If I do not get satisfactory information considering this, I will introduce a sense of Congress that that waiver be withdrawn.
All witnesses are here today voluntarily. On behalf of the subcommittee, I thank them for their cooperation and their willingness to testify under oath and to possibly face some hard questions.
I now recognize Mr. Clyburn, our ranking member on the subcommittee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CLYBURN. I would like to thank Chairman Everett for holding this important hearing to discuss the waiver process for burials at Arlington National Cemetery.
The Arlington National Cemetery burial issue was one of the major political stories over the congressional recess. I am hopeful that the testimony that we hear today will help to bury once and for all the baseless allegations which initially brought the unprecedented media attention to our committee.
This committee has historically been a committee that has gone about its serious business away from the glare of the media spotlights and insulated from the partisan rancor that has unfortunately tainted the public's view of the Congress in recent years.
Last December Chairman Everett and Lane Evans, the ranking Democratic member of the full committee, joined me in asking that the General Accounting Office conduct a review of Arlington National Cemetery records and the Department of the Army files to give us a better understanding of how the cemetery's waiver process works. Lane and I went a step further and asked that as part of the review that the GAO tell us what role, if any, political contributions played in decisions to grant or deny waivers for burial at Arlington National Cemetery. I am pleased to say that the GAO has found no evidence to support the recent media reports that political contributions played a role in waiver decisions.
Obviously, this should be welcome news to all members of the subcommittee, whether Democrat or Republican. This should not, however, be the end of our consideration of the current standards for burial at Arlington. Clearly, as the GAO testimony also points out, there have been ambiguities and internal inconsistencies with regard to how waivers have been decided since 1967, the point when stricter eligibility requirements were established for Arlington.
Throughout both Republican and Democratic administrations, we can now all agree that Presidents have exercised their discretion, discretion that according to GAO lawyers was legally within their authority to grant individual waivers for burial at Arlington. We have no reason to believe that any such decisions were made for anything but humanitarian reasons. Similarly, since at least 1980, the Department of the Army has routinely granted waivers for burial at Arlington. One of the problems appears to be that the waiver process itself has not always been adequately explained to the general public. In addition, the waiver criteria have evolved over time and have been perhaps overly dependant upon the particular management styles of the various Superintendents who have kept watch over the cemetery through the years.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because there are no firm statutory guidelines on this issue, the standards have been open to interpretation over the years. I believe we should enact legislation to codify the Arlington eligibility requirements, so that we can avoid the uncertainties which clearly exist today and which may have led to the criticism which has enveloped the cemetery in the last few months.
Before closing, I want to take a moment to thank Arlington National Cemetery Superintendent, Mr. Jack Metzler, for his willingness to work with the staff of this subcommittee throughout the course of this controversy. I think that everyone who knows anything about Arlington National Cemetery would agree that Jack is a public servant in the truest and best sense of the word. And I want to thank you, Jack, for your service to our Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And that completes my opening remarks.
Mr. EVERETT. I will now recognize the chairman of the full Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Bob Stump.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB STUMP, CHAIRMAN, FULL COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Mr. STUMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me express my appreciation to you and to the subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Clyburn, for working during the past 2 months. And I would like to recognize all the hard work you have done when you could have been on recess, as well as that of the staff. I believe you did a great job.
As you say, Mr. Chairman, it appears that most recent administrations were less judicious regarding waivers for burial at Arlington than they should have been.
Part of a 1994 memorandum from the Secretary of the Army regarding a request for exception to the burial policy at Arlington National Cemetery stated, and I quote, ''As you are aware, exceptions to burial policy tradition are granted only in limited circumstances. Those circumstances must be particularly compelling when granting the exceptions which will result in the displacement of an eligible veteran.'' The memorandum recommended disapproving of the requested exception. However, the exception was granted by the President of the United States.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I believe the phrase ''particularly compelling'' was an appropriately high threshold to use. Unfortunately, it appears that in too many waiver cases granted during this administration and previous administrations the circumstances were not particularly compelling.
Regardless of our individual views about the appropriateness of any particular waiver granted, I believe that we have already reached a collective determination that legislation is needed to codify more restrictive eligibility rules for Arlington National Cemetery.
We also need to assure veterans and the American public that political influence can no longer undermine those eligibility rules. We have been working to draft legislation addressing these concerns. Our bill would tighten up current eligibility requirements to reemphasize that special military nature of Arlington National Cemetery. It would cancel the eligibility of so-called high Federal officials, including Members of the Congress who are currently eligible based on basic rather than distinguished military service. The President would remain eligible based on his status as Commander-in-Chief.
The bill would also make clear that no waiver exceptions to the eligibility rules would be authorized under law. Army regulations do not now provide any waiver authority. Rather than establishing a more formal waiver process, our bill would prevent any granting of waivers in the future.
Additionally, the bill would require that future memorials erected in Arlington Cemetery be limited to recognition and commemoration of military events only.
Mr. Evans has agreed to be an original co-sponsor of the bipartisan bill which we intend to move to the floor as soon as possible, hopefully before the Easter break.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today.
Thank you very much.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. Mr. Snyder.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER
Mr. SNYDER. I just made a comment to the witnesses who are going to testify here today and probably into the afternoon. We've heard some conclusions expressed. I think that the great majority of members of the full Veterans' Committee and the great majority of the American people still have a lot of information to learn and are entering this with an open mind about what the situation is and I hope—I would encourage you not to be too defensive about some of the conclusions you may have already heard. We would just like to hear the full story from your perspective.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. Mr. Hutchinson.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I'm not on this subcommittee, but I am very delighted to have the opportunity to hear the testimony today, and I thank you for your leadership on the issue and look forward to the testimony.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. Mr. Mascara.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK MASCARA
Mr. MASCARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to you and to my colleagues on the subcommittee. It is nice to be back in Washington, DC. While I am glad to be here, I do wish that the topic for this morning's hearing was a different one.
When this story first broke in December and serious charges were raised alleging that the White House was selling plots in Arlington Cemetery, I was, frankly, shocked. As a Member of this Subcommittee on Investigations and an Army veteran and the son of a World War I veteran highly decorated with the Silver Star for valiant service, I naturally feel very strongly that the veterans who gave so much to serve their Nation in times of war and peace deserved the highest priority in consideration for burial in this great and historic national cemetery.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Like all of you I heard from angry veterans. They were hurt and demanded answers. I felt that the allegations were so serious and upsetting to our Nation's veterans that the subcommittee should have immediately held hearings to get to the bottom of this story.
Now, 2 months later, the smoke has cleared, the facts are out, and while we all can agree the waiver process at Arlington is flawed and needs to be tightened, there is no major scandal to be found. The GAO report being released here today makes it clear that no evidence has been found to support the early and frequent media reports that political contributions played a role in the waiver process. In the spirit of bipartisanship on which we pride ourselves on this committee, I think that it serves no purpose to rehash the full, sorry tale. I sincerely wish we were instead focusing on the legislation that will be introduced in the near future which seeks to reform the waiver process.
Our veterans deserve to know that the limited space at Arlington truly belongs to them. The sooner that we can ensure them that this is the case, the better.
I'm ready to get to work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you.
I would ask the GAO panel now to come to the table. I ask each witness to limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. Your complete written testimony will be made part of the official record. I ask that we hold our questions until the entire panel has testified. Because of the nature of some of today's testimony, I have decided to have the witness panels with the direct knowledge of events and the investigative activities sworn in.
I now recognize and welcome Mr. Richard Hembra, Assistant Comptroller General for Health, Education, and Human Services Division of the General Accounting Office. If you will, Mr. Hembra, please introduce the rest of your panel.
TESTIMONY OF MR. RICHARD L. HEMBRA, ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL FOR HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED BY BARRY R. BEDRICK, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; MARK TRAPANI, SENIOR EVALUATOR, HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HEMBRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On my left is Barry Bedrick, our Associate General Counsel. On my right is Mark Trapani, who led our review for you on the waiver issue.
Let me begin by just mentioning briefly that with the history that goes back to the Civil War, Arlington is today revered by many as a national shrine. And with the interment of President Kennedy, the requests for burial at Arlington shot up dramatically. For this reason, in 1967, the Army imposed strict standards. Absent the imposition of those standards, Arlington probably would be at full capacity today.
Key eligibility requirements now limit interment to service members who have died while on active duty, retired service members meeting certain qualifications, and holders of the Nation's highest military decorations. In addition to a columbarium, Arlington has a grave——
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Hembra?
Mr. HEMBRA. Yes?
Mr. EVERETT. Excuse me. I apologize. But I had a page transposed in my notebook, and before you give your testimony, I really do need to swear you in.
Mr. HEMBRA. That would be fine.
Mr. EVERETT. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to give, including answers to the questions of the committee members, is the truth, so help you God?
Mr. HEMBRA. I do.
Mr. BEDRICK. I do.
Mr. TRAPANI. I do.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. Please continue.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HEMBRA. I was mentioning, Mr. Chairman, that in addition to the columbarium, Arlington has a gravesite capacity of about 264,000 sites and the Army now projects that these sites will be at full capacity by 2025.
If we turn and look at the trends with regard to the waiver process, since 1967, there have been 196 waivers for burial at Arlington that have been granted. Sixty-three percent of those involved individuals asking to be buried in gravesites of someone already interred at Arlington or eligible to be interred in the future. About 18 percent were granted for burial in new gravesites to those having no military service. Forty-two percent of those who were granted waivers had military service.
With regard to the question you posed to us as to the authority for granting waivers, although no explicit statutory authority exists, we believe there is a legal basis for the Army's long-standing assertion of that authority.
Let's turn now and take a moment and look at the Army waiver process itself. I should begin by saying that although there is a process, it has not been formally established in regulatory policy. The way the process works is a request goes into the Superintendent's office. There is an attempt to verify information. The Superintendent makes a recommendation for granting or denying the waiver. That is then forwarded to the Assistant Secretary. At that level, the Assistant Secretary reviews the Superintendent's case, seeks concurrence from other offices within the Army, such as the General Counsel, and then forwards his or her recommendation to the Secretary. In this process the Secretary would make the final decision with regard to granting or denying the waiver.
I should mention that all of these actions usually occur within a 24-to-48-hour period. And I believe that for that reason it does impose some obvious limitations on how much verification can occur.
Most presidential waivers, unlike those decisions made within the Department of Army, are handled outside the waiver process, and the Army is simply informed of the decision.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Interestingly, some individuals that inquire about burial at Arlington may not know that a waiver can be pursued. Others may be aware of this, but they give up on their attempt to obtain a waiver. Others, however, persist, and may even contact a high-level government official. In cases where a high-level government official makes the request or expresses support, the waiver process appears to be vulnerable to influence.
Recognizing the controversy that has occurred over the last couple of months, last month the Secretary of Army imposed some new requirements with regard to providing the public with information about burial waivers, requiring publication of the names of those who were granted waivers, and notification of the appropriate committees of both the House and Senate with when a waiver is granted.
Finally, let me turn for just a minute to waiver criteria. There are no formal criteria for determining when a waiver should be granted or denied. For waiver decisions made by the Secretary, the Superintendent and the Assistant Secretary cite their reasons for recommending denial or approval, but the basis on which these individuals weigh the various factors in making these decisions is not clear. Since 1993 there have been 12 cases where the Secretary has made a decision to grant a waiver even though the Superintendent or the Assistant Secretary had recommended denial.
insert for the record from the secretary of the army
The GAO testimony states that since 1991 the Secretary made a decision to grant a waiver even though the Superintendent and the Assistant Secretary recommended denial in 12 cases.
Correction: Of the nine cases between November 1993 and December 1997 in which the Secretary granted a waiver even though the Superintendent recommended denial, the Assistant Secretary only concurred with the recommended denial in seven of those cases.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HEMBRA. In three of those cases, the Secretary reversed his initial decision which was to deny the waiver and in turn approved it.
The bases for waiver decisions are not always cited in the decisions made by the Secretary and rarely are they cited in decisions made by the President.
I should note, though, that waivers, by their very nature involve unique circumstances for which specific criteria cannot easily be developed.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, in light of the diminishing capacity at Arlington and the current controversy over waivers, decisions are likely to continue to be scrutinized by veterans' groups and the American public. For this reason, my statement contains several options to address these concerns. But I should note that each of these options has its own advantages and disadvantages. I think, most importantly, we believe that whatever decisions are reached should be ones that ensure the use of waiver authority is sound and that the waiver process be publicly visible. And to the Secretary's credit, I think that his recent requirements that he put in place in December should help in that regard.
With that, that concludes my prepared remarks. And we are prepared to answer any questions that you and other members of the subcommittee would have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hembra appears on p. 90.]
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much.
And I want to thank GAO for undertaking and completing this huge task of reviewing Arlington's waivers on schedule in the short time of about 6 weeks. The subcommittee wanted an independent, non-partisan, objective look at the Arlington waivers. And who better than the GAO to do the job? I think that it must be one of the last organizations in this city with any real credibility left, at least as far as I'm concerned. GAO in its very careful, understated way has done an outstanding job. I know the staff has worked nights and weekends on this, and I commend everyone at GAO who contributed to this very important review.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'll begin the questions. I'm going to allow each member to question the GAO for a period of 10 minutes. I will not allow any member to go over 10 minutes, but we will have 10 minute questioning.
I'm going to begin questioning by pointing out, and this statement will be put in the record, in my press conference on December 4, 1997, I made the statement, in response to a direct question, that I had found no evidence, in reviewing the waivers, that any political donations had been a part of getting a waiver. I later said that—it will come out in testimony a little later—I had told Secretary West that initially Mr. Lawrence was not a target investigation of this subcommittee. We were interested in the 12 waivers that had been denied by the Superintendent and then had been overruled by either the President or the Secretary of the Army. I make that statement because I was asked by the minority to join them in asking GAO to look through these files to see if any political donations had been made. This committee had done that already. Number one, in looking at those files if I find out that political donations had been made, it is kind of like looking for a moon rock in this room. There is absolutely no possibility that you could have found that. And that is the reason I did not want to give somebody a cheap headline defending this administration against—as I said earlier—the heroes who are buried over there at Arlington. I resisted pressure by this White House to let political donations be a focus of this, and I'm sorry that my minority members who have respect for it will not honor that. Because, as I said, there is no way—did you look at any Federal election files?
Mr. HEMBRA. Mr. Chairman, given the time available, we did not. Our review was limited to the case files that were made available by the Army.
Mr. EVERETT. Let me just ask some quick questions here and yes, no, and then we'll get into details later.
Mr. HEMBRA. Okay.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EVERETT. Did you look into any Member of Congress's personal donations that he had gotten?
Mr. HEMBRA. No we did not.
Mr. EVERETT. Did you look at the Democratic National Committee, any donations that they may have gotten?
Mr. HEMBRA. No we did not.
Mr. EVERETT. Did you look at the DCCC, at any donations that they may have gotten?
Mr. HEMBRA. No we did not.
Mr. EVERETT. And you looked at no files in the Federal Election Commission. Any donations that may have come from there?
Mr. HEMBRA. That is correct.
Mr. EVERETT. So let me read the lead paragraph of an AP story—which I again regret that in my 6 years of service on this committee, this is the first time that a GAO report had been leaked to the press. And it was leaked simply to buy a cheap headline at the expense of the veterans of this country in defense of this White House.
Let me read to you the opening paragraph: ''Congressional investigators have found no evidence that political contributions played any role in selecting people to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.''
Can you actually make that statement? This is referring to your GAO report. Does your GAO report actually say—from the basis of what you have found, can you actually say that there were never any political donations made?
Mr. HEMBRA. No we cannot. And nor does our statement say that.
Mr. EVERETT. Well, and I suggest to this committee that was the sole reason for violating trust of this committee in leaking that to the press. It is unfortunate. I do consider it a violation of trust of the committee, and I apologize to all the veterans of this country and to the families who have members buried at Arlington that somebody would stoop so low.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me go with some other questions. Did GAO interview anyone or review records at the White House regarding presidential waivers? What specifically was GAO told by the White House about its response and about presidential waivers and by whom?
Mr. HEMBRA. We did attempt to discuss presidential waivers with someone from the White House. We began our attempts to make that contact early in January. We had some difficulty connecting with someone. We did finally talk with the Deputy Counsel, Cheryl Mills, and requested from her documentation and to be able to talk with someone who could give us a better understanding of what the basis was for the decisions made by the President in granting waivers. We were told by the deputy counsel that subcommittee staff had made a similar request to the White House and that she was concerned about the redundancy of the requests—that being GAO and the subcommittee—and indicated to us that she wanted to talk to the subcommittee staff and work through how to cooperate to provide that information.
Mr. EVERETT. So can GAO provide at this point a complete analysis of presidential waivers?
Mr. HEMBRA. No we cannot because we do not, to this day, understand the basis behind the President's decisions to grant waivers.
Mr. EVERETT. I think that the White House's minimal response is a disservice to the veterans and to our Armed Services. I want to add that the GAO was told essentially what the subcommittee staff was told as well. In other words they danced around it using the two folks that were questioning them. All I can say is that I hope the President hears from veterans and military people about the contemptuous way the White House has handled this. They have behaved over there as though they think that we are all fools beneath their notice or that they are not answerable to anyone.
What did GAO learn about the waiver for Dr. Koop, the former Surgeon General?
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HEMBRA. In terms of what was contained in the files—and I should mention or repeat that the information that we have on Dr. Koop and the granting of the waiver was information that was provided to us from the Army files—in those files you will see certain pieces of documentation. For example, there are a couple of faxes of information back and forth from the White House to the Army preceding—it appears to be preceding the August 16 letter that the President sent to the Army granting a waiver for Dr. Koop. What you will find is a fax between the White House and the Secretary's office thanking the Secretary's office for helping drafting the letter—and we are assuming that the letter is the letter that the President sent back to the Secretary saying that he granted the waiver.
There is also another fax or document—it wasn't clear to us, we couldn't find a date on it—from within the Secretary's office talking about working with the White House and the Chief of Staff's office to try to resolve the issue and get the letter finalized and signed because of a visit that Dr. Koop was making to the White House. And also mentioning that the letter from a White House standpoint had been cleared through the White House Counsel and the First Lady's office.
The only remaining documentation contained in the files was the August 16 letter from President Clinton granting the waiver. And dated also on August 16 was a letter moving through the Army process that was pointing out to the Secretary of the Army that Dr. Koop was determined not to be eligible because there was no verification that he was a veteran. They had concerns about the fact that this would be a reservation for future interment, and also pointing out that if in fact the waiver was granted that there should be certain limitations placed on that decision.
Mr. EVERETT. The Army did produce documents to the subcommittee and the GAO regarding the Koop waiver didn't it?
Mr. HEMBRA. Yes they did.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EVERETT. Does one of the documents show who some of the individuals at the White House and what offices were involved? Who were they?
Mr. HEMBRA. The offices were, from what we understand, the Chief of Staff's office, whether it was the Chief of the Staff at the time, Mr. Panetta, or whether it was the Deputy Chief of Staff, Mr. Lader. It's somewhat unclear with regard to Mr. Panetta, but there was a mention of Mr. Lader's name in the documents, and there was also a mention of the letter being cleared by the counsel and by Mrs. Clinton's office.
Mr. EVERETT. Mrs. Clinton's office?
Mr. HEMBRA. That's correct.
Mr. EVERETT. Why would a waiver concerning a burial at Arlington National Cemetery go through the First Lady's office?
Mr. HEMBRA. We can't answer that.
Mr. EVERETT. Also there is a memo from the Secretary of the Army, Mr. West, isn't there?
Mr. HEMBRA. Yes there is, and that was—I believe you are referring to the memo from Colonel Peters in the Secretary's office.
Mr. EVERETT. What is the date on it compared to the date on the President's waiver letter?
Mr. HEMBRA. On that particular document, it is difficult for us to identify the date. But based on what is contained, it would suggest that it was sometime prior to August 16. And I say prior to August 16—I think that most of this happened over a couple day period with regard to trying to get the letter signed, finalized and signed because of a visit that Dr. Koop was making to the White House.
Mr. EVERETT. I would ask unanimous consent to have a memorandum from the Army Assistant Secretary, Secretary West, be made a part of the record as redacted.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information follows:]
explanatory insert for the record provided by the secretary of the army
A memorandum from Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), John Zirschky, to the Secretary of the Army dated August 16, 1994 is included as part of the record. Reliance on this memorandum to imply that the Army's objection to the Dr. Koop exception was considered and rejected by the White House is misleading. In fact, this memo was a personal note transmitted to the Secretary of the Army after the exception had been granted and was never shared outside of his office. The Army, despite the objections voiced internally in this memorandum, provided no recommendation to the White House on this case.
Mr. EVERETT. I would like to add that the subcommittee staff in response to a request by Cheryl Mills of the White House counsel's office faxed a copy of the memorandum to her because she said that she could not locate it. One can only assume that at this point that the White House staff never saw it, and in a rush to grant Dr. Koop's waiver did not wait for the Army to give a response.
Since the 1960's when reservations started to be prohibited, how many other waivers displacing an eligible veteran have been granted to living individuals?
Mr. TRAPANI. There have been two other waivers granted to living individuals for burial in a new grave, thereby displacing an eligible veteran.
Mr. EVERETT. I see that my time is about up. I have many other questions. Perhaps some of my other colleagues will ask them. But true to my promise not to allow anybody to go over 10 minutes, that includes the chairman.
I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Clyburn.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by establishing something that you and I are very aware. We share similar backgrounds in that prior to our coming to this body, both of us were owners of newspapers. And I think that we know something about newspapers and how to write a lead and how to engender a headline. And I think that all of us are aware that this story broke as a result of an article written in Insight magazine, one of the extreme right-wing organizations in our country. And this story—and I want you to correct me if I'm wrong about this—my understanding is that this story was all about whether or not burial plots were being sold for political contributions. That's all my wife ever said to me about it and she worked with the VA for 29 1/2 years, and she was very upset about that.
Now Mr. Chairman, I would be derelict if I did not include references to that headline in my request. I would have been derelict to just ignore—and I know something about ignoring headlines. My father taught me that as a kid. Silence is consent. If we had not addressed what was in the headlines, then the natural conclusion would be that we agreed with that part of it.
Mr. EVERETT. The gentleman asked me to respond. Would he like for me to respond.
Mr. CLYBURN. I didn't ask you to respond.
Mr. EVERETT. Yes you did——
Mr. CLYBURN. I said——
Mr. EVERETT. You said to ''tell me if I'm incorrect.''
Mr. CLYBURN. No, I'm talking to the panel.
Now, I want to ask the panel this question. Was this report, the GAO report, was it circulated to other Federal agencies for review prior to your submission to us?
Mr. HEMBRA. Our policy is to attempt to get agency comments, and in this case we discussed the results of our work with the Department of Army and received feedback from them.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CLYBURN. Well my question is——
Mr. HEMBRA. They were provided a draft, that is correct.
Mr. CLYBURN. That's exactly—thank you very much.
Now, am I to understand from that that other eyes saw this document outside of people who may be on this side of the subcommittee and that other eyes saw this document before we ever saw it?
Mr. HEMBRA. That would be correct.
Mr. CLYBURN. But we have no way of knowing who, if anybody, may have leaked this document. It could have been leaked before it ever got here. Is that a possibility?
Mr. HEMBRA. It is a possibility.
Mr. CLYBURN. Okay. That's all I wanted to know.
I, for one, still have not read the report. And maybe I am being derelict in my duties, but I didn't see where it was all that important to read the report, quite frankly. I thought that all of this was behind us.
And now I want to ask this. Based on your review—well let me ask this first. I thought that we—I saw somewhere—I thought that we were looking at this thing since we changed the review process back in 1967. Now did you all go back anything beyond this current Administration to look at anything what may or may not have been practices that took place after 1967?
Mr. HEMBRA. The fact of the matter is that it is difficult to go too far back because there is just an absolute absence of documentation. And it was not until more recently that case files were being developed to document the granting of waivers.
Mr. CLYBURN. But you did not go back beyond the current administration. So we have no idea?
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HEMBRA. No, that is incorrect. There is information—we do have information that goes back a number of years. Let me clarify that.
Mr. CLYBURN. Okay.
Mr. HEMBRA. The focus of our work is post-1967, and looking at files that were available and talking to both the current Superintendent and talking to the former Superintendent.
Mr. CLYBURN. Okay. Let me get to the real question. The question is: what would you characterize as the reasons for giving waivers to individuals who otherwise did not meet the eligibility requirements? I'm assuming that the reason there is a waiving in the first place is because these people did not on the face meet the requirements. Now looking at all of that, the files and the interviews of all the people prior to this administration, can you give me how you would characterize the reasons for these waivers? That's what I'm asking.
Mr. HEMBRA. Let me give you two examples, one dealing with presidential waivers. With regard to presidential waivers, with the exception of the approval for reservation for Dr. Koop, we do not know what the bases were for the decisions made by the President. In the case of the decisions made by the Secretary, in those cases where the Secretary granted a waiver in spite of the recommendations by the Superintendent or the Assistant Secretary not to grant the waiver, those decisions usually reflected that the individual did not meet the criteria or that a precedent would be set by granting the waiver. There is little documentation of the bases behind the Secretary's decision to grant the waiver.
So what we have in terms of documentation, Mr. Clyburn, is what is contained on those decisions where the Superintendent, the Assistant Secretary, and the Secretary all concurred that an exception should be granted. Over 60 percent of the waivers that were granted were granted basically to former spouse and adult children that would be interred in the same gravesite of someone either already interred at Arlington or eligible for future internment. In the other instances, you would probably best characterize the affirmative decisions being based on what in their minds were compelling reasons to grant the waiver.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CLYBURN. That's presidential or secretarial?
Mr. HEMBRA. It would be secretarial because, like I said, with regard to Dr. Koop, we do not understand at all the bases behind the President's decisions.
Mr. CLYBURN. Well, I don't either, quite frankly. One thing I do know, it wasn't partisan.
Now let me ask you, without naming names—I guess I'm trying to get before Mr. Koop. That's the only presidential waiver—there were presidential waivers in the past?
Mr. HEMBRA. There have been presidential waivers that have gone back certainly to the Johnson administration. The only period from the Johnson administration forward, Mr. Clyburn, where there were not presidential waivers granted appears, once again based on the information contained in records, was during the Bush administration.
Mr. CLYBURN. Okay, well, let's just look at this administration to give us some defined theory here. How would you characterize the reasons for the waivers?
Mr. HEMBRA. The reasons for those, other than those that were interred in the same gravesite, had to do with the events surrounding the death of the individual, the tragic nature of the death, and a judgment call in terms of the significance of the contribution made by the individual to this country.
Mr. CLYBURN. Okay. Would you say that that's different from what may have been the reasons for Carter waivers or a Clinton waiver?
Mr. HEMBRA. We would have to, once again based on the records, we would have to say that you probably would not see much difference between those waiver decisions, whether it was made during the Carter administration, the Reagan administration, or the Clinton administration.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That's all right.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EVERETT. The chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Stump.
Mr. STUMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hembra, let me ask you one question, as I understood you to say, would the spouses and unmarried children of those veterans that were eligible, they would not have required a waiver, would they?
Mr. HEMBRA. The way the eligibility standards are set up, there are some questions that needs some clarification with regard to whether former spouses and certain unmarried adult children fit the eligibility criteria and these questions are resolved as part of the exception process.
Mr. STUMP. I see. Let me ask you one question. As a result of your reviews, of these exceptions to waivers, would you agree that the particular ''compelling'' standard for granting waivers, the standard the Army itself tried to establish, was probably routinely ignored?
Mr. HEMBRA. I would say that, once again based on what we could see in the records, looking at how the process works in terms of the Superintendent's decision, the Assistant Secretary's decision with regard to denials or approvals, they appear to make their recommendations based on, even though there are no formal criteria, based on what in practice is a set of criteria for granting exceptions.
Mr. STUMP. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions, but I'd be glad to yield my time to you, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. I thank my friend.
In response to my friend, Mr. Clyburn, yes, I was in the newspaper business 30 years, and that's served me well in being suspicious of certain things. As I pointed out earlier, this chairman announced in the December 4th press conference that he had not found, or did he expect to find, or know how you would find, any indication of political donations in the waiver files on Arlington. If my friend had asked the GAO to look in the files of donations of the Democratic National Committee or the Republican National Committee, the Federal Relations Committee, then I think that the statement attributed which GAO denies, that there was no indication of political donations having bought a plot in Arlington, would have some credibility. As I said earlier, asking someone to look into those files for evidence of political donations is like looking for a moon rock in this room; it simply—and I have stated it for the record—would not exist.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now let me ask GAO——
Mr. CLYBURN. Will you yield?
Mr. EVERETT. Since the gentleman refused to yield to me, I'll ask the gentleman to use the time of someone else.
Was Dr. Koop a veteran?
Mr. HEMBRA. The information we were able to derive from the files suggests that Dr. Koop was not a veteran.
Mr. EVERETT. Our staff has been told by his staff that he was a veteran. Can you explain that?
Mr. HEMBRA. I can't explain it because we're going, once again, by what was provided to us in the files, and the information generated by the Army, and at that time they were still attempting to verify whether, in fact, Dr. Koop was a veteran.
Mr. EVERETT. Do you have a record of how many non-veterans have been given waivers?
Mr. HEMBRA. Non-veterans have been granted waivers.
Mr. EVERETT. Do you have any idea how many?
Mr. TRAPANI. There were 113 non-veterans granted waivers.
Mr. EVERETT. How many?
Mr. TRAPANI. One hundred and thirteen.
Mr. EVERETT. One hundred and thirteen non-veterans have been given waivers. How many of those were spouses or children?
Mr. TRAPANI. About 100 of those were spouses or adult children.
Mr. EVERETT. About a hundred, which leaves about 13.
Mr. TRAPANI. That's correct.
Mr. EVERETT. What did the GAO learn about the Zachary Fisher case?
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HEMBRA. Let me mention, while I'm finding my sheet on the Fisher case, that up until a couple of weeks ago we had felt that we had pretty much all of the records that the Army had, and had done a wonderful job providing to us, and it was about a week ago that we received a phone call that another record, another case, had been identified and they were bringing it over to us.
Mr. EVERETT. Was that a surprise to you?
Mr. HEMBRA. Well, it was a surprise, but a surprise only in the sense that we had believed up until a couple of weeks ago that the Army had given us everything that was available. Now at the time they provided us with the information with regard to Mr. Fisher, it was explained to us that part of the reasons the information didn't surface earlier is this particular set of information was being maintained in a correspondence file as opposed to a waiver file.
Mr. EVERETT. How did that meet the subcommittee's request for all applications be furnished to the subcommittee? The subcommittee didn't get that file until January 21st.
Mr. HEMBRA. Clearly, in our case, after looking at the file, it should have been a file that was made available earlier, but we're going by, once again, how the Army explained the fact that there was this oversight, and that's how it was characterized.
Mr. EVERETT. Was the Fisher file handled routinely by the Army?
Mr. HEMBRA. I'm going to have to say that, based on what's contained in this file, it certainly doesn't fit with the waiver process. I would say that there were some—there was a different type of role being played certainly with regard to the Fisher case.
Mr. EVERETT. Was Mr. Fisher a veteran?
Mr. HEMBRA. Mr. Fisher was not a veteran. Mr. Fisher was a New York businessman. He was an individual that had donated generously over the years to the military, set up a foundation that operates the U.S.S. Intrepid as a museum, contributed funds to the Beirut bombing victims' families, the U.S.S. Iowa explosion victims' families, established Fisher Houses at military medical facilities, and done a number of things that the military certainly were grateful to Mr. Fisher for.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EVERETT. Do you know whether or not, for instance, the Medal of Honor Society opposed Mr. Fisher's tentative, if that's what it was—I won't split hairs with people—approval to be buried at Arlington?
Mr. HEMBRA. I personally couldn't remember, but Mr. Bedrick said he recalled seeing a fax in the file that at least one individual in the Society had raised some opposition.
Mr. EVERETT. In other words, the best you can determine, the only information you've been able to gather about Mr. Fisher is because he was a very wealthy man he was able to at least get tentatively endorsed by the Secretary of Army, Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force for burial at Arlington National Cemetery?
Mr. HEMBRA. Yes, what is missing—what is not part of the files is an actual request by Mr. Fisher or a representative of Mr. Fisher for his interment in Arlington.
Mr. EVERETT. Did that not include an extensive instructions on how that burial should be carried out?
Mr. HEMBRA. Well, that's what is somewhat unusual about this case. If you look at the chronology of most of the case files, it usually begins with a request that a waiver be granted, and that's not quite the chronology that we saw in this particular case. In terms of the correspondence, the correspondence basically began with the transmittal of funeral plans for Mr. Fisher and his wife for burial at Arlington National Cemetery, and at some point after that, there were endorsements by the Secretary of the Air Force, endorsements by the Secretary of the Navy, that Mr. Fisher and his spouse be granted waivers. There is a letter from the Assistant Secretary basically indicating that the Secretary of the Army, while he was not in a position to grant a waiver, certainly endorsed the notion of the Fisher family being buried at——
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EVERETT. Did not the Secretary of the Navy in his letter say he requested that he be buried——
Mr. HEMBRA. Yes.
Mr. EVERETT (continuing). Rather than endorsed?
Mr. HEMBRA. Yes. The Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy both requested——
Mr. EVERETT. Well, there are tons of other questions, but, obviously—you know, I should say in fairness on December 7th the Fisher family submitted a letter withdrawing the request or the application or the correspondence, or whatever you want to call it, for interment at Arlington National Cemetery, and I certainly salute the family for doing so.
And I would like to thank Mr. Stump for allowing me to use his time. I will now recognize Mr. Evans.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I'd prefer, if possible, if you'd yield to the subcommittee members and come to me last; they've been waiting for a period of time. I'd appreciate it.
Mr. EVERETT. I'm sorry, I've reached the age I need a hearing aid and I'm too vain to buy one. Please, would you repeat the request?
Mr. EVANS. I'd like it, if possible, if you could yield to the members who preceded me getting here.
Mr. EVERETT. Certainly. I'd be happy to. Mr. Snyder, I'm sorry.
Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Evans, being the ranking member of the full committee, I naturally deferred to him.
Mr. SNYDER. No problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Several questions I wanted to question: Is it ''Hembra'' or ''Embra?''
Mr. HEMBRA. ''Hembra.''
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Hembra, just a comment, and I don't even know if I want you to respond, on the statement with regard to the political contributions. I got the report last night that was provided to us, the draft, and if I can just read the sentence: ''Although these cases indicate that involvement of high-level officials may in some cases influence the waiver process, we found no evidence in the records we reviewed to support recent media reports that political contributions have played a role in waiver decisions.''
Your comments about records, I'm now wondering, were those, you know, NFL playbook records? Were they financial reports? I mean, to be in the spirit of providing this information, I think probably a second sentence would have been helpful, in line with Mr. Everett's comments that, please be aware that our review was limited only to the waiver file, which I think was put together in 24 or 48 hours, but that's perhaps not as fully discussed there as it might have been in the GAO report.
I wanted to ask about the numbers here, and trying to make a distinction now—I mean, isn't it a fair statement to say that the ones that we should really be concerned about here are the new gravesites; that when you're talking about family, there's really not been any controversy, has there, about family members meeting the criteria to be buried in the same site as long as they meet the criteria of a predeceased veteran or even a veteran that may not be predeceased? Is that a fair statement?
Mr. HEMBRA. Well, I would agree with that. The controversy tends to be focused not on the individuals that are asking to be interred in an existing gravesite.
Mr. SNYDER. Right. I was trying to do the math last night, and I guess we have two Superintendents here, and as I look at the numbers, the most recent ones, I came up with 21 new gravesites out of a total of 22,413 total burials, 22 out of 22,000, and then in the years preceding, I guess the predecessor Superintendent, 44 new gravesites out of 55,500, a little bit of increase in the numbers, the percentage, 21 out of 22,000, 44 out of 55,000, but pretty close in terms of the numbers.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The one thing that struck me, when Mr. Stump asked you about the question, do you feel the standards, that the criteria were routinely ignored, you made the comment that you thought, even though they weren't written down, that there was a set of criteria. It would also be fair to say, would it not, given that you're talking about, what, 68 new gravesites over quite a few years now, there really can't be anything routine about this. I mean, personnel change; Presidents change; Secretaries of the Army change. There's not much of a routine established in that kind of thing, which may be one of the problems. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. HEMBRA. I think if there is probably a point of continuity, it has been in the Superintendent's——
Mr. SNYDER. Superintendent, yes.
Mr. HEMBRA (continuing). Office, and while there clearly is a process that's followed, I think we tried to make it clear that it is not something that has been articulated in regulation, and so there is an absence of that being institutionalized.
Mr. SNYDER. Right. In your statement, if I've not lost it, you give a little bit of a history lesson on this thing, and you point out that around 1980—this is on—well, I don't know what page it is—you make the comment that around 1980 or so that the Army appears to have adopted a more lenient approach also to granting of waivers. I'd just make a comment, does that reflect again that, by not having any kind of written standards, that the waiver standards can kind of ebb and flow, all in a good faith perhaps effort to resolve those questions?
Mr. HEMBRA. I think the absence—and we've tried to make it clear in our statement—the absence of criteria and the absence of fully understanding how the process works all contribute, can contribute to that happening.
Mr. SNYDER. Yes, yes. Then on the following page in your report you talk about the period from 1986 to 1989 that the Army talked about coming up with some proposed changes to deal with explicit authority and some criteria, but then you make a comment that one of the concerns was that by formalizing the process and publicizing it, I mean the implication is that the Superintendent or somebody were afraid that they'd be overwhelmed by waiver requests or that Members of Congress would be overwhelmed by waiver requests. That's an interesting comment to me. Is that—did I characterize your comment there?
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HEMBRA. I think that is an accurate characterization, that there is concern. There has always been concern at Arlington about the capacity question and the more light you shine on this issue, the fact that there is a process that you can use, it does increase the likelihood of more people applying.
Mr. SNYDER. Yes. I guess in terms of an overall comment, by looking at 1986 to 1989, this is—I think the chairman referred to it as a dirty secret. I mean, there has been concern expressed within—concern about the lack of standards expressed now and again. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. HEMBRA. It is a fair statement.
Mr. SNYDER. Yes. The comment that the process could appear to be one subjected to influence—and I agree with that—I assume that what you're talking about there would be, again, given the time period of 48 hours, somebody passes away; the family's scrambling around; I would assume that they call a Member of Congress; they may call the First Lady; they may call the Secretary of Defense; they may call the commanding general of the nearby—the commanding officer of the nearby military facility, and say, ''Please help me. Daddy died today, and he always wanted to be buried at Arlington.'' I would assume that that kind of a letter or nowadays a fax would trigger this whole process, and it could be nothing more than: Dear Mr. Superintendent, as commanding officer or the governor of the State of Arkansas, I was recently contacted by a constituent whose father passed away this morning. Would you please expedite their consideration?
I assume that that's—you would—I mean, is that the extent of what we mean by influence? Do we have examples where repeated letters and phone calls—do you have any comments there in your review of the files?
Mr. HEMBRA. In reviewing the files, what you see is a combination of either a record that—and if we would use the example of Congressional Members, which is probably the predominant example that appears with cases, that there is either some telephone call that has been made or a case where an individual Congressional Member will request that a waiver be granted or a Member or Members will certainly endorse.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SNYDER. Right.
Mr. HEMBRA. Now——
Mr. SNYDER. But it's fair to say—I mean, it's fair to say that I would put that under the category of influence. I mean, being a Member of Congress, we wouldn't see it that way, but I would say that if a letter appeared in the file, we would say that certainly is effort to influence.
There's a note in here that you say in 1997 there was legislation proposed or discussed or consideration given for a legislative proposal. Was that before any of these allegations were made?
Mr. BEDRICK. Yes, sir, that suggestion was made in, I think, January of 1997.
Mr. SNYDER. Was there a bill filed? Was it discussed by a committee? Was it—I didn't—I couldn't tell; I couldn't find from staff.
Mr. BEDRICK. We're not entirely sure about that either, but we were told by Army officials that the initiative did not originate with them, that they were asked by committee staff to draft a legislative proposal for the convenience of the committee, and that the Army did not necessarily endorse or support the proposal.
Mr. SNYDER. So what you're telling me is that sometime prior to when all these allegations broke over the break that our chairman has been so dedicated to sorting out there was concerns apparently by at least committee staff or committee members to pursue this lack of clear standards?
Mr. BEDRICK. There was some interest but I can't attribute it. The Army could tell you more authoritatively.
Mr. SNYDER. That's all right. And, finally, on your discussion of potential solutions, one of the areas that you don't discuss is this lack of process or the lack of anything written down. It would seem like—I mean, I would think that governors and Members of Congress and First Ladies and anybody else is going to be very sensitive now, given what has come out in the last couple of months, about process, and that it would probably be helpful to have, for congressional offices to have, a 2-page official statement from the Superintendent, you know, ''You called me today. Let me—come over to my office right now, even though it's Sunday morning. I've got the process to show you that you can go through to apply for a waiver.'' You make no comment about any kind of discussion about the process, and yet your statement is very strong that there needs to be the same information given to the same group of people, regardless of political influence.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HEMBRA. I think throughout the statement it's clear on our part that this is a process that needs to be built so that the waiver decisions are sound ones and ones that are publicly visible, and to us that clearly means a process that is better understood, as well as decisions being better understood by everyone.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that, to the credit of the Secretary of the Army, last month—certainly in light of all the controversy, and what they've learned themselves, I believe, through this process—has put into place three new requirements. One is to help the public better understand how you go about requesting burial waivers at the cemetery. The others are to publish the names of those individuals who are granted waivers to be buried there that would not otherwise be eligible, and very importantly, that the appropriate congressional committees on both the House and Senate side be notified when a waiver is granted. While those requirements have just been put in place, I think if they're followed through, they are going to help considerably.
Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. Mr. Mascara.
Mr. MASCARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps I'll refer you to page 6 of your testimony, the authority for waiver decisions, I'm a little bit confused, but perhaps you could move me through chronologically about the legislation—I mean, dating back to 1967, because in that paragraph you cite that in 1973 the Congress in the National Cemeteries Act expressly preserved the existing functions, powers, and duties of the Secretary of the Army with respect to Arlington, while at the same time repealing the prior law that specified who was eligible for burial at national cemeteries. And then you go on to say that this left no explicit legal restrictions on the Secretary's authority over burials at Arlington.
Can you sort of take me through 1967, 1973, and the eighties?
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEDRICK. I'll try to, sir. It's complicated, but for a long time there was no explicit legislation governing eligibility for the national cemeteries generally. 1948 was when a statute was enacted that set forth some specific eligibility criteria, and that remained in effect with a few amendments until the 1973 amendment. In 1973, the Congress decided to transfer all the national cemeteries, except for Arlington and the one at the Soldiers' Home, to what was then the Veterans' Administration. The clause that we referred to that preserves the authority of the Secretary of the Army was in recognition that the transfer to the VA did not include Arlington.
At the same time, the 1973 act repealed the 1948 eligibility requirements and enacted new eligibility requirements that were only applicable to the cemeteries under the Veterans' Administration. So it's very difficult, frankly, to sort all that out and come up with any sort of definitively legal view, but given that the Secretary had had waiver authority in the past that had been exercised and was recognized, and given that the Secretary's earlier authority had been preserved in the savings clause, and given that the specific eligibility authority applicable to Arlington had been repealed, we agreed with the Army's interpretation that the net result was that there was some surviving waiver authority.
Mr. MASCARA. So the authority lies with the Secretary of the Army, in your opinion, under current statute?
Mr. BEDRICK. Yes, sir.
Mr. MASCARA. Do you have any recommendations on how and who should have the authority in granting waivers, after the research that you have done?
Mr. HEMBRA. I would say we do not have any recommendations in terms of who should have that authority. There's some questions of how explicit you need to make that authority. I think perhaps most of the controversy has generated not so much around who has the authority, but how the authority has been exercised. I think that in terms of whether the President should maintain that authority solely or whether the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of Defense, there's nothing in our view that suggests who has it is as important as how it's being used.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MASCARA. I have just one final question, and it's repeating what was disclosed earlier when the Chairman made his statement, but just one more time: Are you aware of any abuses in the waiver process related to campaign contributions?
Mr. HEMBRA. And I'm glad you raised that again. Mr. Snyder pointed out that we have a statement with regard to political contributions, and we stand by that statement. We also make it very clear early in the statement—and certainly the Chairman has alluded to this—that because of the compressed time that we were working in, our review focused on the available files that we had access to, and in looking at those files and looking at those specific records, there was nothing contained in the records that would suggest that political contributions weighed in on the decisions. But that review, I've tried to make clear from the beginning, that was quite limited, as the Chairman himself has pointed out.
Mr. MASCARA. Thank you very much, Mr. Hembra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. The chairman now recognizes a member of this committee and the chairman of the full National Security Committee, my friend, Mr. Floyd Spence.
All right. Let's see, I have restricted—I apologize to Mr. Evans—I have turned down members of the majority already because they were not members of this subcommittee, and earlier staff reminded me of restricted questions to only members of this subcommittee since we have such a long list of people to be questioned today, and I didn't want this thing to go to midnight tonight, but my apologies to Mr. Evans in that respect.
I thank this panel for its testimony and for the great job it did, and my earlier statements about my respect for GAO still stand. The panel is dismissed.
Mr. HEMBRA. Thank you.
Mr. EVERETT. I would like to call the second panel: Mr. Ray Costanzo, former Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery, and Mr. John Metzler, the current Superintendent of Arlington.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would also say that all members would have 5 days to submit any additional questions to any of these panels, and we would ask the panels to respond.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. EVERETT. The chair would like to recognize Mr. Ray Costanzo, former Superintendent at Arlington, and Mr. Jack Metzler, the current Superintendent.
TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND J. COSTANZO, FORMER SUPERINTENDENT, ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN C. METZLER, JR., SUPERINTENDENT, ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Metzler, you recommended the waiver of Ambassador Lawrence, I believe. Did you attempt to confirm his Merchant Marine service?
Mr. METZLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I did.
Mr. EVERETT. How did you do that?
Mr. METZLER. Through the State Department.
Mr. EVERETT. By the way, each person will have 5 minutes on this round. Please go ahead.
Mr. METZLER. Through the State Department, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. Did you contact the Coast Guard National Maritime Center?
Mr. METZLER. No, I did not.
Mr. EVERETT. Did you contact the Lawrence family?
Mr. METZLER. I attempted to work with their representative, but my major effort in contact or trying to get the service information was through the State Department, sir.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EVERETT. The cemetery worksheet for Ambassador Lawrence, dated January 11, 1996, has blank service date data blocks for enlistment and discharge. Why are these blocks blank?
Mr. METZLER. We were not able to determine his period of service during World War II that was represented to us.
Mr. EVERETT. Who did you tell in the Army that you could not verify Mr. Lawrence's Merchant Marine service?
Mr. METZLER. I didn't tell anyone that I couldn't validate the service. I did tell them I received a memo from Patrick Kennedy, and signed by Mr. Holbrooke, on behalf of the State Department attesting to Mr. Lawrence's military service during World War II.
Mr. EVERETT. Does it bother you that these blocks remained at the time blank?
Mr. METZLER. Yes. I did try to continue to validate through repeated phone calls to get the rest of the information, but was unable to obtain that information.
Mr. EVERETT. How many Merchant Mariners are buried at Arlington whose service could not be verified?
Mr. METZLER. Mr. Lawrence is the only one that I'm aware of, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. Out of how many?
Mr. METZLER. Eighty-one exceptions, 26 Merchant Marines from the period of 1995 to 1997 and 55 records from the period of 1988 to 1994, some records are duplicates, some are of spouses.
Mr. EVERETT. Submit it for the record. I think it's about 82 or 83, somewhere in that area.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Eighty. Eighty other than Lawrence, staff informs me.
Did anyone from the White House contact you regarding Mr. Lawrence, and if so, when and why?
Mr. METZLER. I was contacted by the military office of the White House and they asked me to keep them informed of the progress of this case.
Mr. EVERETT. That would be routine?
Mr. METZLER. It's not normal that the White House contact me, but in the case when the President would attend a funeral or in the case when a high-level Government official passes away, then I would say it was normal, yes.
Mr. EVERETT. And we could consider it routine?
Mr. METZLER. Yes, I would.
Mr. EVERETT. What part did you have in granting the waiver for Dr. Koop?
Mr. METZLER. None whatsoever.
Mr. EVERETT. Does the granting of the waiver follow usual waiver process?
Mr. METZLER. I'm sorry, sir, I didn't understand——
Mr. EVERETT. Does granting of the Koop waiver follow the usual waiver process?
Mr. METZLER. No, it does not. We were not—my office was not informed of Mr. Koop's request. We were only informed that it had been approved by the President.
Mr. EVERETT. Does the waiver for Dr. Koop set a new precedent?
Mr. METZLER. It is certainly a different one, yes, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. Have you in the past had, to your knowledge, any other waiver granted in this way?
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. METZLER. Not before the death has occurred. The White House has approved other requests in which I have not been consulted in.
Mr. EVERETT. But not for any living human being?
Mr. METZLER. That is correct.
Mr. EVERETT. Does the waiver for Dr. Koop violate Arlington regulations against reservations?
Mr. METZLER. It does from the standpoint that the death had not occurred, but no actual grave was assigned to Mr. Koop; only the letter from the President that came that he was eligible. So if you look through the regulations, we didn't actually assign a section and grave number to him.
Mr. EVERETT. How many of your recommendations to deny waivers were not followed by the Secretary of Army from 1991 to 1993?
Mr. METZLER. I believe it was 13, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. How many from 1993 to the present? I'm talking about prior to 1993, and then from 1993 to present.
Mr. METZLER. I'm sorry, let me start again. From 1991 to 1993——
Mr. EVERETT. Right, 1991 to 1993.
Mr. METZLER (continuing). I believe there was three.
Mr. EVERETT. And from 1993 to the present?
Mr. METZLER. Ten.
Mr. EVERETT. Ten. With respect to consideration of the waiver for Mr. Fisher, did that follow normal process?
Mr. METZLER. I don't consider Mr. Fisher's request a waiver in the sense of we're talking about the rest of them, and, no, what we did with Mr. Fisher was not what we normally would do. I did not write a memo, did not review this case. The only information I was provided or was asked to provide was on the actual burial procedures that were involved——
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EVERETT. Let me ask you, can you explain why the Secretary of the Navy thought it was a waiver request, as he referred to in his letter?
Mr. METZLER. I didn't see that letter initially, Mr. Chairman. That was only—that came in after the——
Mr. EVERETT. Have you seen it now?
Mr. METZLER. I have seen it now, yes.
Mr. EVERETT. Can you explain why he would refer to it as a waiver request?
Mr. METZLER. No, I cannot.
Mr. EVERETT. I see. Okay, there again, for this panel, I've limited members to 5 minutes, and I've about used my 5 minutes up. Thank you, Mr. Metzler.
Dr. Snyder?
Mr. SNYDER. When—explain to me the process briefly, if you would. It's Friday night at 11 o'clock, and I leave my home number in the book for these kinds of occasions, as a matter of fact. I get a call; someone's passed away. I assume I'll be able to somehow struggle and find a number for the Arlington Cemetery, saying, ''I've got a family that wants to have someone buried at Arlington.'' Walk me through the process of somebody who you would decide is not eligible.
Mr. METZLER. Someone who is not eligible?
Mr. SNYDER. Yes.
Mr. METZLER. If they don't meet the normal burial criteria as laid out in the Federal Code of Regulations——
Mr. SNYDER. What do you tell them?
Mr. METZLER. I would tell them that, based on the information you've provided me, that you are not eligible for burial in Arlington Cemetery. If you were—if that deceased person was in the military and had an honorable discharge, I would tell them, though, that you are eligible for cremation in our columbarium or you'd be eligible for burial in any one of the 115 national cemeteries opened by the Veterans' Administration.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SNYDER. So getting to the issue of I think the chairman's concern of, do we have a two-tiered situation here where those that know there's an elaborate waiver process, if you can get on the phone very quickly and have the right biography of the deceased person—do you advise or does your staff advise in those situations that you need to understand these are our criteria; from here on, there is a waiver process, and that in rare situations you may be able to get a loved one buried at Arlington, either by a decision of the Secretary of the Army or by the President? Is that routinely—is that information routinely given to people when they're denied?
Mr. METZLER. If the requestor does not accept the information that's provided to them over the telephone, then generally they're referred to my office or to me specifically to continue asking questions, and depending upon how the question is asked, they may be told right upfront about the exception policy as well.
Mr. SNYDER. So when you say routinely—so I call; Daddy, who was a veteran for 2 years, he got a good conduct medal and I'd like to have him buried at Arlington, and the information would be, while we appreciate his service, he's not eligible for burial in Arlington, but perhaps would be at one of the other veterans' cemeteries——
Mr. METZLER. Or he's also eligible for cremation——
Mr. SNYDER. For cremation.
Mr. METZLER (continuing). And then at Arlington——
Mr. SNYDER. And then they would say, thank you, and hang up. They would never be aware that, in fact, there is a waiver process available for them. It will only be our persistent, squeaking-wheel types that will eventually get that information? Is that a—I don't—I'm getting back, I guess, to the issue we were talking about earlier: do we need to have some written information sitting in congressional offices and in governors' offices around the country that we would all have that we could say, ''Okay, this is the situation. If you meet this criteria, you're in. If you don't, chances are pretty slim, but we could, if you want to make the application, you could.'' But it sounds like only some people are getting that information on the second part of that or I guess the second two parts, part A, the Secretary of the Army; part B, the President. Is that a fair characterization?
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. METZLER. The way you describe it, yes, sir.
Mr. SNYDER. In view of what has happened here in the last few months, what's your thoughts about—are you providing information differently now when people call or contact you in those kinds of situations with regard to the burial policy at Arlington or is it the same?
Mr. METZLER. Right now it's still pretty much the same. My office has been pretty well wrapped up with doing the—providing the information to the various requestors, the committees and the GAO, and really haven't had an opportunity to implement fully the Secretary's new guidance. We have implemented the disclosure aspect of it. So when the requestor comes in for an exception, he or she is told that their name would be released publicly as well as the information released to Congress.
Mr. SNYDER. Now let me ask—I'm about out of time—if instead of the phone call from a family member, you get a letter from a Member of Congress that says, please consider this person for burial at Arlington, does that automatically trigger your waiver process?
Mr. METZLER. No, sir.
Mr. SNYDER. Would the first letter I get back the ''I'm sorry, they don't meet the eligibility,'' and in that contact would then you also advise me that there is a waiver process, if you're now dealing with a governor or the First Lady or a Member of Congress, say?
Mr. METZLER. If the letter is written for someone who is deceased, then, yes, we would institute the exception policy procedure. If the letter is a letter of general information, we would not.
Mr. SNYDER. Okay. So we do have a two-tiered system then, don't we? I mean, if you get the—if the request for information comes from a Member of Congress, even though within that letter it may not say, please consider this person for a waiver of your eligibility requirements at Arlington, what you're telling me is that that automatically does trigger the waiver process if the person had just recently died?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. METZLER. If the person's deceased, it would.
Mr. SNYDER. If the contact is from the veteran's family, not a power player in the system, they do not get the same information back, and the case file is handled differently? Is that a fair characterization?
Mr. METZLER. It depends upon how the question is posed to my office.
Mr. SNYDER. Yes. It sounds like—you have a very good reputation, Mr. Metzler, but that sounds like something we probably needed to perhaps handle a little differently, don't you think?
Mr. METZLER. Well, if I may say, sir, we get requests and phone calls throughout the day——
Mr. SNYDER. Right.
Mr. METZLER (continuing). Dozens, maybe sometimes more, of people inquiring about their eligibility at Arlington Cemetery, and we try to provide them the information based on what they tell us over the telephone, based on their military information. We don't go into the waiver process on those routine calls at all.
Mr. SNYDER. But the concern of Mr. Everett is that some people—I mean, I think—I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think them with money get a different set of information than them that don't; them with influence get a different set of information than them that don't, and that may be something that's—I understand that's such a small number, but it still is of concern.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me put words in your mouth.
Mr. EVERETT. Well, that's all right.
Mr. Spence?
Mr. SPENCE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, just one brief question and then I'll yield the remaining of my time back to you.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Metzler, why did you check with the State Department with the information on the service of this individual?
Mr. METZLER. The State Department is one of the initial phone calls I had received when Ambassador Lawrence passed away, and I was working directly with their office, which is typical when we have a State Department representative die overseas.
Mr. SPENCE. They usually have the information as to his service record?
Mr. METZLER. They usually have all the pertinent information on the deceased; that is correct.
Mr. EVERETT. I thank Mr. Spence. In regard to the questions, putting words in my mouth by my friend, I would say that the problem is that people who are outside the sphere of influence have no knowledge that the waiver system exists. But I will go further. I would think that the results of this hearing will show that, in particular, the case of Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lawrence, that the very least you could say is that favoritism pays a great part in them being buried at—or in Mr. Fisher's case tentatively agreed to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery, and I don't believe that you can dismiss it out of hand because of the files that we've gone through showing that, well, it may have played some part, and we'll get into that a little bit later.
Mr. Costanzo, during the Carter administration, is it correct you sent a letter to the President about waivers at Arlington? Please tell us about it.
Mr. COSTANZO. During President Carter's administration?
Mr. EVERETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. COSTANZO. I did not send it directly to the President. I forwarded the request through the chain of command. President Carter was a very humanitarian person. He took every death personally and was granting exceptions that I thought should not have been granted.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EVERETT. And you were there during the Reagan administration also?
Mr. COSTANZO. Yes, I was.
Mr. EVERETT. Did you have any such feeling during the Reagan administration also?
Mr. COSTANZO. No, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. I see. During the 1980s, how did the granting of waivers operate at Arlington?
Mr. COSTANZO. 1980?
Mr. EVERETT. 1980s, yes, sir.
Mr. COSTANZO. There was a distinct change around the year 1980. Prior to that time, all exceptions or waivers were granted by the President. After 1980 the responsibility for granting waivers was shifted to the Secretary of the Army. We did notice an increase after 1980.
Mr. EVERETT. Do you recall at any time any waiver you had denied being overridden by either the Secretary of the Army or any other member of the administration?
Mr. COSTANZO. No, sir, none comes to my mind at this time.
Mr. EVERETT. And under how many Presidents did you serve?
Mr. COSTANZO. I started under President Ford, and continued all the way through to President Reagan.
Mr. EVERETT. All the way through Reagan?
Mr. COSTANZO. Yes.
Mr. EVERETT. And we have established already that Mr. Bush took a hands-off approach, and then——
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COSTANZO. He wasn't involved as deeply as others were, that's correct, to the best of my memory.
Mr. EVERETT. And so, as far as you know, the 13—the current overruling of the waiver process of the Superintendent's recommendation, that's the first that you know of that happening?
Mr. COSTANZO. That's correct.
Mr. EVERETT. Okay. I have no other—excuse me. Was there a de facto waiver process in 1990?
Mr. COSTANZO. 19——
Mr. EVERETT. Reservation—I'm sorry. Reservation, de facto reservation process in 1990?
Mr. COSTANZO. Correct.
Mr. EVERETT. Was that denied by the Army?
Mr. COSTANZO. I don't quite understand that——
Mr. EVERETT. The Army IG did an investigation on that, and I think a reporter asked about it, and it was publicly denied that it had happened.
Mr. COSTANZO. The making of gravesite reservations were discontinued in 1962. The two gravesite policy was changed to a single gravesite for each veteran. It was therefore no longer legally possible to make a reservation.
Mr. EVERETT. Was that an open process?
Mr. COSTANZO. Making a reservation?
Mr. EVERETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. COSTANZO. No, you could not make a gravesite reservation. We did, however, continue to receive numerous requests for a reservation. I responded to many of these requests—not granting a grave reservation, just advising them that the cemetery records would be annotated to reflect their desire for burial and that it would be honored if they were still eligible at the time of death.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, sir. I've used my time up, and I would like for a copy of the IG report to be submitted for the record.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
STRIP OFFSET FOLIO 1 HERE
Offset folios 2 to 11 insert here
Makes pp. 31 to 40
Mr. EVERETT. Let's see, I believe that's all for this panel. I will now dismiss you and thank you very much for your participation here today.
I'd like to call up our third panel: the Honorable Secretary Togo West, Acting Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Perhaps Secretary West has not arrived. We'll go to another panel. Panel 4: Captain Michael Rosecrans, Director of the National Maritime Center for the U.S. Coast Guard, and his Deputy, Donald Kerlin.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Mr. EVERETT. Yes?
Mr. SNYDER. While they're getting settled, if I could ask a question about the schedule, when I first came in here at 10 to 10:00, I was advised that Mr. West wasn't even scheduled until 1:30 this afternoon. Was that incorrect?
Mr. EVERETT. That may have been. The problem was that Mr. West's confirmation hearing was originally scheduled for today. The 1:30 schedule was then set so that he could attend his confirmation hearing.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SNYDER. Oh, I see. I see.
Mr. EVERETT. For the third time, the confirmation hearing——
Mr. SNYDER. Was postponed.
Mr. EVERETT (continuing). Has been cancelled. It was to take place originally tomorrow. Then it was moved to today. Then it was moved back to tomorrow. Now it's been cancelled. I would suggest to my friend it may be pretty typical for the Senate.
Mr. SNYDER. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. Captain Rosecrans and Mr. Kerlin, would you please rise?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. EVERETT. Please be seated.
I now recognize you, Captain, for any statement you may have to make.
TESTIMONY OF CAPTAIN MICHAEL ROSECRANS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL MARITIME CENTER, U.S. COAST GUARD; ACCOMPANIED BY DONALD J. KERLIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL MARITIME CENTER, U.S. COAST GUARD
Captain ROSECRANS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm Captain Michael M. Rosecrans, Director of the Coast Guard's National Maritime Center. As such, I'm responsible for the licensing and documentation of all U.S. merchant mariners as well as maintaining records of such licenses and documents issued.
The National Maritime Center is also responsible for maintaining records concerning Merchant Mariner service. Maintaining these records has been the Coast Guard's responsibility since 1937.
I'm accompanied today by Mr. Donald J. Kerlin, Deputy Director of the National Maritime Center.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In November 1997, this committee requested that we search our records regarding the Merchant Marine service of Ambassador M. Larry Lawrence. This investigation was in conjunction with concerns regarding his burial at Arlington National Cemetery, based upon a waiver granted on his behalf as a result of service with the U.S. Merchant Marine during World War II. We were also asked to investigate Ambassador Lawrence's service on the SS Horace Bushnell, a vessel which was torpedoed in 1945. I'd like to make a correction to my written testimony. I stated there that it sank in 1945. In fact, it was only torpedoed.
As a result of the above inquiry, a check was made of our records. No record for Maurice Larry Lawrence was found. Shipping articles for the Horace Bushnell were retrieved from the National Archives, and a review of the crew list showed that Mr. Lawrence was not aboard the Horace Bushnell when it sailed from Philadelphia, nor was he onboard the vessel when it was torpedoed in March of 1945.
Thanks for the opportunity to appear before you this morning, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Captain Rosecrans appears on p. 134.]
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much, Captain. The Coast Guard has been cooperative, helpful, and straightforward with the subcommittee. I commend each of you and the Coast Guard for your work, for your truly public service, and I appreciate that.
You're the experts when it comes to determining Merchant Marine service for World War II; is that right?
Captain ROSECRANS. Yes, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. How difficult is it to check World War II Merchant Marine service in a case like that of Mr. Lawrence?
Captain ROSECRANS. Well, it can be rather difficult. We have a computer database that has records entered for seamen that have shipped over since 1981. Those before that time are on paper files, and can sometimes be quite troublesome to check those paper files. There is a file set up for each individual by name, but there are—it's still quite difficult. There also may be other documents besides just certificates of discharge that would show evidence that a mariner was in fact in the Merchant Marine at a particular time, and that could be the vessel's shipping articles. It's essentially a contract that's signed between the master and the crew. We have those on record. Vessel logs which are housed in different record centers throughout the country may also show the same thing, and there are also a number of other government records, medical records from the Army, from the Navy transport command; those can also be checked at times.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EVERETT. Captain, did I read your testimony correctly that these records are better than 99 percent reliable in determining veteran status of World War II Merchant Marine service?
Captain ROSECRANS. We don't have direct data as to how accurate you are; you never know what you don't have, but those who have requested since Merchant Mariners became eligible for veteran status in 1988, there have been less than 1 percent of those that have requested veteran status that have been shown to be veterans in records that we don't have. In other words, when a request is made, we do everything we can to find the record, including asking for additional information. If the individual has records that we do not have, then we honor those records and grant veteran status.
Mr. EVERETT. Would you agree with any assertion that these records were poor or incomplete in 1993?
Captain ROSECRANS. No, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. What was volunteer Merchant Marine service during World War II?
Captain ROSECRANS. Mr. Chairman, I don't know exactly what context that is in. In fact, Merchant Mariners have always been volunteers. They've shipped over voluntarily. They were hired by the shipping companies. So that term really doesn't have any application to the U.S. Merchant Marine, although I would say that some of the maritime academies have obligated service, but they entered those contracts voluntarily as well.
Mr. EVERETT. Was Robert Albertson an employee of the Coast Guard at Buzzard Point in 1993?
Captain ROSECRANS. Yes, sir, he was.
Mr. EVERETT. And could he have handled an inquiry about World War II Merchant Marine service?
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Captain ROSECRANS. Yes, sir, he could.
Mr. EVERETT. Have you reviewed the State Department's summaries that the subcommittee has provided you with regard to Merchant Marine service?
Captain ROSECRANS. Yes, sir, I have.
Mr. EVERETT. Can you explain what they are saying?
Captain ROSECRANS. No, sir, I cannot.
Mr. EVERETT. Do you go along with them——
Captain ROSECRANS. I cannot explain them, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. I have to say I don't know if they're bureaucrat double-talk or if there's, frankly, been some purposely misleading information inserted into those State Department summaries. Would you expect the Coast Guard employee to make the statements attributed to Mr. Albertson and the Coast Guard source?
Captain ROSECRANS. No, sir, I would not.
Mr. EVERETT. Why not?
Captain ROSECRANS. Merchant Mariners were not enlisted, and in fact they were all volunteers. So the process that was used to check records in 1993 is the same as it was since early 1987—the 1980s.
Mr. EVERETT. Have you read Mr. Albertson's declaration?
Captain ROSECRANS. I'm sorry, sir?
Mr. EVERETT. Have you read Mr. Albertson's declaration?
Captain ROSECRANS. No, sir, I have not.
Mr. EVERETT. Okay. It looks to me that Mr. Lawrence's statement regarding his Merchant Marine service, which has technical mistakes in it, has been backfilled, frankly, into statements attributed to Mr. Albertson to make it appear consistent. Could you agree with that, Mr. Kerlin?
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KERLIN. I'm sorry, the——
Mr. EVERETT. It appears to me that statements that are attributed to Mr. Albertson have been backfilled into the State Department's records to appear to be consistent with comments made by Mr. Lawrence. Do you have any opinion on that?
Mr. KERLIN. No, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. Okay. Captain?
Captain ROSECRANS. No, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. Did the Office of Management and Budget make revisions to your written statement, Captain?
Captain ROSECRANS. Sir, I submitted a draft statement through our chain of command for clearance, as we always do, and it was changed, yes, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. Do you have all the drafts submitted to OMB?
Captain ROSECRANS. No, sir, I have the statement I submitted to the—through my chain of command.
Mr. EVERETT. You don't have all the drafts you submitted to your chain of command?
Captain ROSECRANS. I only submitted one draft, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. Okay. If you will, please retain that draft and any written statements which you have submitted.
I want to thank you. Oh, and please provide a copy of that to the subcommittee.
Captain ROSECRANS. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
The draft version of Captain Rosecrans' written statement was provided to the Committee under separate correspondence on February 3, 1998.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EVERETT. I would thank you for your testimony.
And Dr. Snyder——
Mr. STUMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Captain, I have one question. Had a person served in the Merchant Marine in World War II for 2 to 3 years, he would not have been eligible under any circumstances for burial in Arlington National Cemetery under today's standards, would he?
Captain ROSECRANS. Sir, I don't know anything about the criteria for entering Arlington. All we can do is verify the service in the Merchant Marine.
Mr. STUMP. Well, am I not correct, the Merchant Mariners were not considered members of the military?
Captain ROSECRANS. They have been granted veteran status, sir.
Mr. STUMP. I understand that, but, nevertheless, it was alleged that he had been given—I'm referring now to Mr. Lawrence—a purple heart. There is no such thing as a purple heart for members of the Merchant Marine; is that correct? Maybe that's not fair to ask you that question.
Captain ROSECRANS. Not that I'm aware of, although the Maritime Administration does have an award system for Merchant Mariners.
Mr. STUMP. A comparable one?
Captain ROSECRANS. I don't know that it's comparable to the military, but they do have an award system. I'm not familiar with whether they have a purple heart or not.
Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Captain.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Snyder?
Mr. SNYDER. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Captain Rosecrans, do you all keep records of—do you have a record at your place of an inquiry that occurred in August of 1993? Do you keep—when somebody applies, particularly, say, a presidential appointee clearance or security check, or whatever you want to call it, do you keep records—do you have a log-in that this inquiry was made or not, or do you not keep a lot of those kinds of inquiries?
Captain ROSECRANS. I believe the inquiry that was made in 1993 was an informal phone call. If there was correspondence or written requests, we would have had a written answer, and we would have documentation then. We don't have any documentation that there was a formal inquiry made.
Mr. SNYDER. All right, how——
Captain ROSECRANS. In other words, if we get a phone call——
Mr. SNYDER. Excuse me for interrupting. You're not suggesting that I could get on the phone and call up without some kind of—aren't there privacy considerations on these things? Do you not—when you say an informal phone call, I hope that somebody—I hope Mr. Everett can't call up and get my Marine Corps record informally. Is that what you say is going on?
Captain ROSECRANS. No, sir. No, sir. But when the Department of State called and asked if we could verify that Mr. Lawrence was, in fact, a Merchant Mariner, that was an informal request.
Mr. SNYDER. Okay.
Captain ROSECRANS. And it was handled as such. There was no written reply, and there was no record of it.
Mr. SNYDER. And so there's no log-in of the phone call then?
Captain ROSECRANS. No, sir.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SNYDER. Okay. I assume you've read through this statement from the August 13, 1993 little statement that's in Mr. Lawrence's Department of State file?
Captain ROSECRANS. I've seen the response the Department of State sent recently to this committee.
Mr. SNYDER. It's a weird thing to read through. It kind of reminds me as a family doctor of hearing a patient repeat back to me what I said about a medical procedure; it was like somebody didn't have the information about—you know, kind of put in words and—but you haven't looked at it, the statement itself?
Captain ROSECRANS. Sir, I've seen the Department of State's response to this subcommittee on questions. That's the only statement I've seen concerning that.
Mr. SNYDER. When you all first started the, I guess the revisiting of this issue of Mr. Lawrence's records after this story broke a couple of three months ago, what information by that point did you have already available at your place? For example, did you just go in and say ''Bushnell,'' and pull the list and have it right there? Was there more effort that you had to put in than that? I mean, what was the story there?
Captain ROSECRANS. I'd like to ask Mr. Kerlin, who was directly involved in that search, to answer that question.
Mr. SNYDER. Yes.
Mr. KERLIN. With regard to the Horace Bushnell, we put in a request to the Federal Records Center for the information, and we normally get pickups twice a week, and within a couple of days we got our request fulfilled, and we had the shipping articles, for example.
Mr. SNYDER. And is the implication—about the implication, I think the statement from the folks at the State Department, based on this comment here, this August 13th of 1993, is that this person was advised that the information wasn't readily available and that records weren't good; they were going to be hard to find, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Did you—was that—are you saying then that that was not your experience when you all—you didn't—I mean, I assume you may have gone a full court press trying to locate the records of Mr. Lawrence. Is it fair to say—are you saying that it was difficult to find them?
Mr. KERLIN. No, sir.
Captain ROSECRANS. As a matter of fact, we've had 95,000 requests in the last 10 years. This is routine business for us to retrieve these records.
Mr. SNYDER. On the Merchant Marine?
Captain ROSECRANS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SNYDER. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. I would note that apparently Secretary West—some streets are flooded, and that he is having a rough time getting here, but he's trying to get here as quickly as possible.
Also, for the record, I would ask unanimous consent to have Mr. Albertson's declaration submitted.
[The declaration of Mr. Albertson appears on p. 149.]
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Spence? Mr. Buyer?
All right, I want to thank this panel for appearing before us.
And at this time we would call panel No. 5, Mrs. Norma Nicolls, former personal assistant to M. Larry Lawrence.
Mrs. Nicolls, before you're seated, would you please raise your right hand?
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. Please be seated.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TESTIMONY OF NORMA C. NICOLLS, FORMER PERSONAL ASSISTANT TO M. LARRY LAWRENCE
Mrs. Nicolls, do you have any Federal grants or other business before the Federal Government related to your testimony?
Ms. NICOLLS. No, I don't.
Mr. EVERETT. Okay, thank you. I'll recognize you for any statement you may have.
&nbs