    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                             Wednesday, March 13, 2013.

                            RELATED AGENCIES HEARING

                                   WITNESSES

    MAX CLELAND, AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION
    KATHRYN A. CONDON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL CEMETERIES
    BRUCE KASOLD, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS
        CLAIMS
    STEVE McMANUS, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME
        Mr. Culberson [presiding]. [Off mike.]

                        Ranking Member Opening Statement

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Today we are glad to be
    here.
        And we have appearing before us a true American hero, and a
    friend of long standing, my good friend, Secretary Max Cleland.
    We go way, way, way back to our Georgia political days, and
    glad to have him here and to welcome him to the committee
    again.
        In addition, of course, today marks the last appearance of
    Ms. Kathryn Condon. She has decided after 25 years to retire.
        I have to tell you, we just need to say thank you for your
    service. And I trust and I assure you that your successor will
    have some big shoes to fill.
        Judge Kasold and Mr. McManus, it is good to have you here,
    as well.
        As you are aware, March 1st marked the beginning of the
    sequestor, which CBO predicts will reduce the GDP by 0.6
    percentage points and estimates that up to 1.4 million jobs are
    at stake if the sequestration is fully implemented. In
    addition, to CBO, the George Mason University study predicts
    that it could be as many as 2.14 million jobs lost.
        Sequestration was included in the Budget Control Act to
    force Republicans and Democrats to work together to resolve the
    fiscal problems, and we have, of course, already heard from the
    service chiefs regarding how sequestration will affect the
    national defense. Today we get to hear from you as to how it
    will affect the agencies charged with preserving the legacy,
    whether in gravesites at Arlington or on monuments across the
    world.
        I have said numerous times, Mr. Chairman, that there is no
    question that we have to cut the deficit, but it needs to be
    done in a balanced, thoughtful way that protects investments,
    protects the middle class, and it doesn't jeopardize our
    national priorities. Look forward to the witnesses' thoughts
    today and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to have
    those few words.
        And I yield back.

                           Chairman Opening Statement

        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. It is a privilege to
    serve with you.
        And also want to be sure to also thank you, Ms. Condon, for
    your service and wish you all the very best in your retirement.
    I know you are looking forward to getting to spend a little
    more time with your family. It is always a blessing.
        We deeply appreciate your being here. Thank you so very
    much. I want to be sure to, if I could, to introduce each one
    of you for the record.
        The Honorable Max Cleland was appointed as secretary of
    American Battle Monuments in June 2009.
        Sir, I am delighted to have you here, and thank you for
    your service to the country in uniform and as a member of the
    executive branch. Deeply appreciate your service.
        Ms. Kathryn Condon has been executive director of the Army
    National Military Cemeteries since June of 2010.
        And again, our very best wishes to you, and thank you so
    very much.
        Judge Bruce Kasold has been chief judge of the United
    States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims since August of
    2010.
        We thank you, sir, for your service and for being here
    today.
        And Mr. Steve McManus has recently assumed the role of
    chief operating officer for the Armed Forces Retirement Home on
    September 25th of 2011.
        We deeply appreciate your presence today and your
    testimony. Without objection, your written statements will be
    entered into the record.
        We have a bit of a complication in that, of course, right
    when we start they have called a vote, and I think there are
    going to be a couple of votes, I believe--three. So forgive us,
    but we will probably go until we get right to the tail end of
    this vote and then we should probably head down and go vote and
    then--so we will briefly--if we could, we wanted to get
    started.
        I ask you to each briefly summarize your statements. We
    will run down and go take care of these votes and as soon as
    Sanford and I finish that and start on that third vote we will
    come back up and reconvene. But we will recess briefly.
        Thank you very much, and at this time we welcome each one
    of your statements. And without objection, your written
    statements will, of course, be entered into the record. Thank
    you very much.
        Mr. Cleland. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
        [Off mike.]

                      Secretary Cleland Opening Statement

        Mr. Cleland [continuing]. Vietnam battle maps at the
    Honolulu Memorial. The Punchbowl Cemetery is run by the
    Veterans Administration.
        The American Battle Monuments Commission runs a memorial in
    honor of the missing in the Nimitz Theater of Operations in the
    Pacific from Honolulu to the Mariana Islands. We have there the
    names of 18,000 missing in World War II and the World War II
    battle maps, showing the battles in the Pacific. We have the
    names of 5,000 missing from the Korean War and the battle maps.
        We have the names of 2,500 missing, but 800 of which have
    been identified through new DNA studies. But we also now have,
    since Veterans Day of last year, the battle maps. So that
    memorial is complete.
        In terms of the Pacific also, later this year, hopefully in
    time for the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Korean
    truce, and although North Korea has said maybe that truth
    doesn't--truce doesn't apply to them very much--they have said
    that before--nevertheless, the 60th anniversary of the truce
    was a key moment in the Korean War. We hope to be able to
    dedicate in the United Nations Cemetery in Pusan, Korea, the
    only cemetery that they run in the world, an American memorial.
        There were 11 nations that fought the Korean War. Ten of
    them have memorials; we don't have one, in terms of the United
    States. So that was called to our attention by an individual a
    few years ago and by the U.S. embassy there. We hope to
    dedicate that memorial this year.
        In terms of the Pacific some more, Manila is our big
    Normandy of the Pacific--17,000 graves there, and thousands of
    names of the missing, from the MacArthur effort in Guadalcanal,
    New Guinea, and up to the Philippines. So he had his area of
    operations; Nimitz had his area of operations. So in Manila we
    have the Normandy of the Pacific.
        We have completed the master plan for Manila and for the
    four sites in the Pacific that we maintain memorials--Saipan;
    Guadalcanal; Papua, New Guinea; and one other, Cabanatuan. So
    we are upgrading our sites in the Pacific and really looking at
    how to make that Manila Cemetery really permanent.
        In the Manila area we have squatters that sometimes come
    into our area. It is, after all, Asia. So we are putting a
    permanent wall around our property there--formerly Fort
    McKinley, formerly an Army post.
        Now, in terms of telling the story worldwide, we are going
    into the social media world, as I mentioned, with the Pointe du
    Hoc app. We are redesigning our Web site and we are able to
    tell the story now more and more effectively worldwide.
        Now, the real challenge for us coming up is Clark. The
    Congress gave the American Battle Monuments Commission Clark
    Cemetery. Clark Cemetery was an old Army cemetery and then
    later an Air Force cemetery at what became known as Clark Air
    Base. I flew through Clark en route to Vietnam.
        But with the Philippine government in effect kicking the
    United States out of the Philippines, that cemetery was
    abandoned. Then you have an eruption of a volcano nearby which
    dumped a massive amount of ash on those gravesites--about 8,000
    of them.
        They are not necessarily war-dead. They are civilians; they
    are children; there are all kind of people buried there over
    the last 100 years or so. Now, there is one war-dead there from
    Iraq because the father chose to bury the son there, but we are
    hard-pressed to really get at what is there because there are
    no records. We have no records. We are going in there cold.
        We have been given the mission by the Congress to take over
    Clark Air--Clark--what used to be Clark Air Base Cemetery. We
    have been given that mission. We have been authorized by the
    Congress $5 million but none--no money has been appropriated.
        So we will be doing a study to find out how much it will
    cost to basically just cut the grass, pick up the trash, deal
    with making it somewhat presentable. Veterans still will be
    responsible for any burials that they do there.
        So we will be running that cemetery out of Manila. We won't
    be putting a superintendent there. It won't look like an
    American Battle Monuments Commission cemetery anywhere else in
    the world because it stands on its own and it is unique, and so
    we can't expect it to be another Normandy of the Pacific. But
    we will clean it up and make it as presentable as humanly
    possible.
        That is basically our issues, Mr. Chairman. Most of them
    are good issues and we can do our business with the budget
    issues facing the Congress.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Secretary.
        I know we will have some questions, but in order to--we
    will go ahead and proceed, Ms. Condon, with your statement,
    please? Thank you very much.

                          Ms. Condon Opening Statement

        Ms. Condon. Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop, I
    want to personally thank you and, in particular, the members of
    the committee and your staff for the continued support that you
    have given Arlington National Cemetery in the last 2 years and
    the support to me personally. Rest assured, long gone are the
    typewriters, the three-by-five index cards, and the paper maps
    that were reported in the past. Today, less than 2 years, we
    are the first national cemetery to geo-spacially manage our
    cemetery operations.
        Arlington has achieved, as directed by Congress, the
    baseline accountability of its burial records, and we have
    created a single, verifiable, and authoritative database. In
    this, literally we can document everyone who is buried at the
    cemetery.
        And this database is now linked to our digital mapping
    system, so now we assign, manage, and track all of our
    gravesites digitally. We are no longer using paper.
        With leadership, proper equipment, established standards,
    training, and holding people accountable for standards, have
    made all the difference at Arlington, and we are extremely
    proud of what we have accomplished in the last 3 years. We have
    changed our acquisition and procurement processes and
    procedures to be not only good stewards of the dollars that
    this Congress gives us, but to remain compliant with all
    regulations, which was an issue in the past.
        We have implemented energy, sustainability, and
    environmental initiatives that enhance our natural green space
    at Arlington. And by leveraging technology we have launched ANC
    Explorer, and that is the free, Web-based application that
    allows families and the public to locate gravesites, events,
    and other points of interest throughout the cemetery. It
    generates a photo of the front and back of everyone buried at
    Arlington and it actually gives you directions on how to get to
    that gravesite.
        And with the great support of this committee, in less than
    2 years we not only broke ground but we have built the ninth
    columbarium court, and increasing our niche space in the
    cemetery by 20,249 niches. And the good news is we are going to
    dedicate the columbarium on the 9th of May, so I want you all
    to hold that date because you will be getting invitations to
    attend that.
        Yet, like most federal organizations, I am very concerned
    for Arlington's immediate and long-term operational future due
    to the fiscal uncertainty that we face as the result of both
    the continuing resolutions and the sequestration designated by
    the Budget Control Act of 2011. In the event of a full-year
    continuing resolution, our funding will be reduced to $45.8
    million.
        Our President's fiscal year 2013 budget request, as you
    know, was $173.8 million, and operating under a C.R. would drop
    our budget by $103 million. And what that would mean is we
    would not be able to start the expansion projects for the
    future burials of our veterans, and it also will not be able to
    fund the $25 million that we requested for backlog of
    maintenance and repair.
        Due to sequestration, our--Arlington National Cemetery's
    funding will be reduced by an additional 5 percent of our
    continuing resolution level. We can absorb that sequestration
    amount this fiscal year, but if that sequestration amount goes
    against our budget for the continuing years following that it
    will impact burial operations at Arlington National Cemetery.
        But the decision was finally made to the good news that all
    of the staff that we have paid out of the cemeterial account
    Army will not be furloughed, so what that means is that will
    not delay burials at Arlington, as was previously reported. We
    just got that news that we would not have to furlough our
    staff.
        I could not be more proud of the Arlington staff. All are
    committed to sustain the sacred trust that we have recently
    reclaimed. And despite the challenges of sequestration and the
    continuing resolution, we can assure the Nation of this, that
    burial services at Arlington will continue to be conducted with
    honor and dignity, and we remain focused from here on forward
    to improve our service to our veterans and their families.
        Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Culberson. Ms. Condon, thank you very much.
        Judge, Mr. McManus, if we could, we need to go vote.
        You probably already voted?
        I think we are probably going to need to recess and go
    down. We will come back up. As soon as this third vote starts
    we will vote and come back up, so we will stand in recess
    briefly until we get back. Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Culberson. Committee will come to order.

                         Judge Kasold Opening Statement

        Judge Kasold. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
    Member Bishop, and Mr. Farr.
        In response to sequestration, we have examined our
    appropriations and our spending rate so far. Because of the
    number of positions that have not been filled--for example, we
    just received an appointment of a judge at the end of the last
    calendar year--we have enough funding so that we will not have
    to lay anybody off. We will have to underfund the judges'
    retirement fund by about $400,000, and if that is the only year
    that we do that, we can adjust that and work through it. So as
    to sequestration this year, we do not have to have a furlough.
        In handling over 4,350 appeals in fiscal year 2012, almost
    200 requests for reconsideration or panel review, over 140
    petitions for extraordinary relief, and almost 2,300
    applications for reimbursement of attorneys fees under the
    Equal Access to Justice Act, as well as thousands of motions,
    the court remained one of the busiest federal appellate courts
    in the Nation. And for much of fiscal year 2012, the court
    performed its duties at two-thirds strength, operating with
    only six of our authorized nine judges. I am happy to report
    that with the confirmation of two new judges in the last
    quarter of fiscal year 2012 and the appointment of the third in
    the first quarter of fiscal year 2013, we are now up to full
    strength and positioned to be as efficient as possible.
        To be sure, litigation is a time-consuming process. Once an
    appeal is filed, a record has to be compiled, representative
    parties enter into mandatory consultation, and for cases that
    are not resolved at that level, an appellant has 60 days to
    prepare a brief followed by 60 days for the secretary to file a
    brief and another 30 days for the appellant to reply.
    Thereafter, the case would be assigned to a judge, and
    generally they are being decided within 90 days after
    assignment to the judge. Panel cases, of course, take many
    months longer, as the issues are more complex and, therefore,
    time generally is allowed for oral argument and preparation.
        We managed our caseload in fiscal year 2012 by recalling
    all of our senior judges, continuing an aggressive pre-briefing
    consultation program, and improving the way we process cases.
    Specifically, our senior judges judicially reviewed hundreds of
    appeals, freeing up the active judges to concentrate on
    deciding the more complex matters. And our central legal staff,
    through our mandatory pre-briefing conferencing program,
    consulted with the litigating parties when represented and
    resolved about half of those appeals by securing joint motions
    to remand the cases for further gathering of evidence and a new
    decision below.
        Finally, we streamlined our internal processes for certain
    types of cases, reducing the number of legal memoranda prepared
    by the central legal staff and preparing cases for additional
    review, and ultimately cutting about 60 days of processing time
    in those appeals.
        Turning to our budget, to properly fulfill our mission, the
    court's fiscal year 2014 budget is just under $33 million, with
    an additional $2.5 million requested on behalf of the Veterans
    Consortium Pro Bono Program, for a total budget request of
    about $35.5 million--just under that. Since fiscal year 1997
    the Legal Services Corporation Pro Bono Program's budget
    request has been provided to Congress as an appendix to the
    court's budget request, although the court functions merely as
    a pass-through for that amount. Accordingly, I have no comment
    on that portion of our budget request.
        As to the court's operating expenses, our fiscal year 2014
    request reflects an increase of just under $3 million over our
    fiscal year 2013 request. With some slight offsets in other
    areas, this increase results primarily from an increase of
    about $3 million in the statutorily required contribution to
    the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Retirement Fund, which
    is statutorily required to be fully funded.
        The increased request for the retirement contribution for
    fiscal year 2014 is based on several drivers, which include:
    the addition of the three judges who were appointed to the
    court within the last year; changes in the actuarial estimates
    for length of life, which is the first change, I understand, in
    12 years, so you have an additional expected lifespan;
    continued extremely low treasury yields; and an increase in
    judicial salaries and retirement pay, pursuant to the Federal
    Circuit case Beer v. United States.
        For fiscal year 2014 the court requests just under $18.5
    million for personnel compensation and benefits, an increase of
    $130,000. The number of full-time employees remains at 127,
    unchanged over the last 2 years.
        For fiscal year 2014 the court requests just over $7.5
    million for all other operational expenses, a decrease of
    $77,000 from fiscal year 2013, which was a decrease of almost
    $200,000 from fiscal year 2012. The court takes seriously its
    obligation to perform efficiently and continues to strive to
    reduce those expenses where there is some flexibility.
        Over the past several years I have testified before our
    authorizing committees and this subcommittee regarding a
    proposal to establish a commission to evaluate the process of
    appellate review. Rather than continue to read, I will just
    reiterate that we continue to recommend a commission be
    appointed to take a look at the two rights to judicial review
    on questions of law that exist in this system--which is our
    court and then, again, at the Federal Circuit Court. I think a
    commission could be helpful in that area.
        And the last thing I will mention, again summarizing, is
    the Veterans Courthouse. As you know, we came very close a
    couple years ago, when the Nation realized its fiscal
    situation, and at the same time we had a significant increase
    in the cost of that courthouse. Recognizing the fiscal problems
    the Nation is facing, we still stand behind those veterans who
    say, if you are going to build a courthouse, the Veterans
    Courthouse should be one of them.
        Thank you very much.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Judge.
        Mr. McManus.

                         Mr. McManus Opening Statement

        Mr. McManus. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bishop,
    Congressman Farr, thank you for inviting me here today to
    testify.
        In 2009 testimony we highlighted how the AFRH was
    revitalizing a mammoth 19th century institution into a modern
    21st century community. We noted this transformation was a
    direct result of the new perspective on aging. Today
    progressive senior care includes services to help people
    maintain independence in their home of choice and continue to
    be active members of the community.
        Over the past 2 years AFRH has been modernizing to promote
    an aging-in-place philosophy and to uphold the century-old
    promise to care for our heroes. Since 2002 we have been
    transforming the AFRH, striving to reduce inefficiencies,
    enhancing operations, and meeting the needs of our current
    residents.
        After damage from Hurricane Katrina in 2005, our Gulfport
    facility rebuilt to be energy efficient and more compatible to
    meet the needs of the next generation of eligible military
    veterans. Built with federal emergency fund, Gulfport has now
    opened for 2 years.
        In Washington the Scott Project, funded by withdraws from
    the trust fund, is nearing completion. And similar to the
    Gulfport facility, the new Scott Building is built for energy
    efficiency and our aging population.
        Additionally, both facilities have adopted the small-house
    concept, which allows our staff to provide individualized,
    person-centered care to our residents.
        Multiple facilities on the Washington campus suffered
    significant damage as a result of the August 2011 earthquake
    that was followed by a category one hurricane 4 days later. The
    structural damage to the 150-year-old historic landmark, the
    Sherman Building, necessitated moving our business operations
    to rooms designated as resident dormitories.
        Thanks to Congress and the president, we have restored the
    historical Sherman Building and other facilities with the $14.6
    million payment from the general fund to the trust fund. To
    date, all administrative functions have resumed operations in
    the Sherman Building.
        AFRH is in the last part of the transition years, 2010 to
    2013. As we establish and expand operations in Gulfport and
    effectively transition to a reduced footprint in Washington,
    many of the infrastructure and new facility changes occurring
    at AFRH will have a positive, direct impact on the solvency of
    the trust fund.
        Although negative growth occurred between 2011 and 2012 as
    we spent for the Scott Project, we stayed on course with our
    growth predictions. By the end of the transition period we
    expect positive growth. Also, as part of our master planning,
    DOD, Arlington National Cemetery, and AFRH are studying
    possible trust fund revenues from ANC's use of surplus
    buildings and the land at the Washington campus.
        In fiscal year 2011, AFRH expanded funds--expended funds as
    a strategic investment in the future generation of residents
    via the Scott Project. This reduced the trust fund balance to
    $115 million, from a high of $186 million, by the end of 2012,
    as reflected in the graph below.
        Our economic analysis, as reported in our long-range
    financial plan, tested possible scenarios. Analysis states that
    the trust fund will remain solvent and its balance will
    increase to its former levels again, but it will not be easy;
    it will take work.
        A little bit about sequestration before I close: Our hit
    under sequestration is $3.3 million. We have done it, like many
    other agencies who haven't furloughed or had to furlough. We
    have hit contracts that are low-lying, like an example would be
    grounds maintenance, where instead of doing a lot of edging
    that is really workload intensive, you don't edge. So you
    modify your contract to take out some of the higher-labor parts
    of the contract to reduce the cost.
        We have also frozen hiring. Much like my colleagues here, a
    lot of our hiring that hasn't taken place, we have put that on
    freeze except for health care, so we have minimal impact on our
    health care as part of the sequestration.
        Our unknown is utilities, probably, most in our area,
    because depending on how that comes in, the $3.3 million may be
    a greater impact towards us. But right now we believe that we
    will not have to furlough as part of the sequestration and
    would hope that it wouldn't be carried forward into next year
    because we would also have major concerns.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be
    pleased to respond to questions from the subcommittee.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. McManus.
        And in fact, each one of you, if you--I could, ask you to
    be specific about what, in your opinion, would happen if there
    was sequestration again next year. And thank you very much.
    Glad you were able to cushion the blow this year.
        But in the event that it occurs as the statute says it
    would, just give us each something we can each talk to our
    colleagues about in tangible terms of what that would mean for
    each one of you if sequestration occurred in fiscal year 2014.
        Mr. McManus. Tough thing, the more residents we bring in,
    it drives our upper levels of care to a higher population, and
    that is our highest cost. So to help control that cost we would
    stop bringing in residents until we had the ability to manage
    our costs at that point. That would probably be the most
    significant impact.
        Mr. Culberson. Anything else?
        Mr. McManus. No, sir.
        Mr. Culberson. Essentially, you would continue, obviously,
    the hiring freeze. You would have to continue to look at
    contracts, worry about utilities.
        Mr. McManus. We would continue that same----
        Mr. Culberson. But above all, you just have to stop
    bringing in new residents.
        Mr. McManus. And keep the----
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Judge Kasold. I guess I will ask the question first, to
    just show my ignorance----
        Mr. Culberson. If you are not quite ready yet, if you all
    want to visit for a minute just to give us a ballpark idea, I
    think it would be helpful to----
        Judge Kasold. Is sequestration the same funding that we
    have under the sequestration now? For example, if we have about
    $29 million this year will it be $29 million next year?
        Mr. Culberson. Well, I know we obviously have got a number
    of problems to get over. You have got to make sure, obviously,
    that we get a budget resolution----
        Judge Kasold. Well, let's assume that----
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Having a budget number for the
    committee to work from. Then we hope to heavens we are going to
    actually get a bill, which would be nice. Ours is the most
    likely of any of them to get through, and of course, everyone
    in Congress wants to make sure veterans and military
    construction is funded, so we have got, of all the
    subcommittees, ours and DOD are the highest likelihood of
    getting done. And whatever that 302(a) number is and then our
    sub-allocation, but if, in looking ahead, I know, have had to
    think about this, what sort of impact would it have on the
    courts?
        Judge Kasold. Well, if sequestration remained at the same
    funding as sequestration this year, which is just under $29
    million for our court, we would have to furlough people. I
    don't have the exact number of days that we would have to do
    that. One thing that we could also look at though, is the
    retirement fund. Although statutorily it is to be fully funded,
    I would work with your committee and committee staff with
    regard to that, and with your approval, we would underfund that
    for a little bit of time. Obviously you can't carry that on too
    long because eventually you won't have the funds to even carry
    what you have to pay out.
        Mr. Culberson. Sure.
        Judge Kasold. But that is one area that we might have a
    little bit of flexibility on if we work with your committee on
    it, and then an area we could look at for a year or so.
        Other than that, we would have to furlough people. I can't
    answer specifically beyond that.
        Mr. Culberson. And you are obviously short of judges.
        Judge Kasold. Right now, the $29 million----
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Those two new judges.
        Judge Kasold. The $29 million, the reason we can do it this
    year is because one of the chambers didn't even come on board
    until the end of last year, and each chambers is about $1
    million. You had two judges that were appointed at the end of
    the FY12 and their staff were not fully on board that year. I
    think one is still not fully on board, so there are some people
    there.
        We have had three positions that we have not filled
    expecting the new judges to be appointed. These were a
    commissioner, for example, a secretary for the senior judges,
    and a CLS person to assist the senior judges. We have assisted
    the judges out of our own resources because we didn't want to
    hire permanent staff when we had these nominees waiting to be
    appointed. Now that they have been appointed--at the time we
    did the budget we had only two appointed, and I wanted to see
    how we would work without the three positions being filled
    before we decided if we were going to----
        Mr. Culberson. Yes.
        Judge Kasold [continuing]. Come to you and drop them. So
    those positions don't have to be filled.
        So we can work with the $29 million this year, but to do it
    next year with the full chambers staff on board, we will
    clearly have to take a look at furloughs.

                    CONTINUING RESOLUTION AND SEQUESTRATION

        Mr. Culberson. One other twist, if I could--and I would go
    back briefly to you, Mr. McManus. I forgot to also ask: If,
    heaven forbid, we have to go under a C.R., the Senate hasn't
    acted yet, can't take anything for granted around here. Heaven
    forbid they get tangled up and we are stuck with a C.R. for
    much longer, what effect would that have on you for this year,
    sir?
        Mr. McManus. Sir, just a point of clarification, it is C.R.
    versus sequestration?
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, because you have got two different
    moving pieces. And if they get tangled up, for whatever reason,
    and we are left under a C.R. in another month or 2, what effect
    would that have on you? And answer the question about
    sequestration, because they are two different pieces.
        Mr. McManus. Actually, it would be better for us to be
    under--or not sequestration----
        Mr. Culberson. C.R.
        Mr. McManus [continuing]. But C.R. Because we are--our
    funding is level from last year.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Mr. McManus. Our impact--the $3.3 million--is because the
    C.R. and the sequestration applied to us.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Judge, the same question----
        Judge Kasold. Basically, as I understand it, if the C.R. is
    approved we are still stuck with sequestration, so our C.R. is
    higher than our sequestration. So as long as you continue to
    approve some funding and it is a sequestration level the answer
    remains the same: We can make it this year.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Mr. McManus. Sir, can I come back on mine?
        Mr. Culberson. Yes.
        Mr. McManus. One thing I haven't mentioned under C.R. or
    sequestration which is important is the capital program that we
    have. Under C.R. we do not receive our capital program. Under
    sequestration because of C.R. we do not receive our capital
    program.
        There are certain capital programs as part of our new
    footprint that are really important to us as part of the
    transition to our new facility. One is what we call our
    HomeFree or our lifeline system--nurse call system where we
    have shut down. I will call it our long-term care facility, and
    now we have moved it into two new facilities. One piece to
    that, we need the capital for the nurse call system. It is the
    capital piece that is most important to us.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Mr. McManus. Under sequestration--or, under C.R.
        Mr. Culberson. Yes. Under the C.R. And then if there is
    sequestration again for 2014 the cut would be 7 percent. And we
    hope all this can be resolved, but it is important, just in an
    abundance of caution, to know that that possibility is out
    there because you always want to be sure you are ready.
        And if I could, Ms. Condon, ask you about those two
    scenarios: One, a continuation of the C.R.
        Ms. Condon. Okay. A continuation of the C.R. of this year--
    --
        Mr. Culberson. And secondly, this 7 percent next year.
        Ms. Condon. Okay. With the continuation of the C.R. that
    means that we just get the base budget, so the $103 million
    that we put in for the expansion projects for Arlington
    National Cemetery will impact the future first-time burial of
    our cemetery because it takes 10 years to do that. So we will
    impact the future burials of our veterans and their loved ones.
        And it will also impact the other request was for the $25
    million for our critical maintenance and repair. We are going
    to have more catastrophic failures if we don't fix those things
    that need to be fixed at the cemetery.
        Sequestration, sir, if we just do our base budget, our base
    budget is predominantly service contracts and our pay of the
    staff at Arlington National Cemetery. With a reduction of 5
    percent, that will impact the operations at the cemetery in the
    future.
        Mr. Culberson. Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Cleland. Mr. Chairman, I have been advised by staff
    that if sequestration lasted another year that when we come
    back in this maybe same room and talk to the committee, if the
    situation continued, that we would be talking about a 5 and 10
    percent cut in the American Battle Monuments Commission,
    somewhere around $3.9 million, we would have to take that out
    of engineering and interpretation. We will still be keeping the
    headstones white and the grass green but that is about all we
    will be able to do.
        We have been able to manage all this--a 5 percent reduction
    last year and sequestration early here--we have been able to
    manage that and say we will be all right, but if this situation
    continues another year we will be in trouble.
        Mr. Culberson. And we all hope that doesn't happen, but it
    is important for the record and for each one of us in our
    conversations with our colleagues to have a feel for that
    because the work that you do is so vital, and all of us in
    Congress want to make sure that you are fully funded and taken
    care of.
        Mr. Bishop.

                              TRUST FUND REVENUES

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me go first to Mr. McManus.
        In your testimony you indicate that as a part of the
    retirement home's master plan that you are studying possible
    trust fund revenues from Arlington Cemetery's use of surplus
    buildings on your Washington campus. Can you take a few moments
    to explain this to the committee?
        Mr. McManus. [Off mike.]
        Mr. Bishop. Ms. Condon, do you have any thoughts on that?
        Ms. Condon. Sir, yes I do. Just so you know, we average
    only around 7 to 10 burials a year at the Soldier and Airmen's
    home. Right now we do not see a near-term need to expand the
    cemetery at this time, based on the average of just 7 a year,
    versus the 27 to 30 that we do a day at Arlington.
        Mr. Bishop. Okay.
        Mr. McManus, let me follow up. Deductions from the pay of
    enlisted members, warrant officers, and limited duty officers
    fund the trust fund. What effect will the reduction in force
    and end-strength have on the trust fund?
        Mr. McManus. [Off mike.]
        Mr. Bishop. Okay.
        I had some questions for Secretary Cleland but he answered
    them in his remarks, so I don't have to ask.
        So I thank you for that.

                               MILLENNIUM PROJECT

        Let me ask Ms. Condon about the Millennium Project.
        Would you just take a couple of minutes to explain to the
    subcommittee how the Millennium Project will help Arlington in
    regards to providing burial services? Are there benefits to the
    project in addition to more burial spaces?
        Ms. Condon. Well, sir, first of all, we are ready to award
    the contract if we get the dollars in this fiscal year to do
    that because right now we will run out of in-ground first
    interment burial space in 2024. That is why it is so key to
    start the Millennium Project this fiscal year because it takes
    approximately 10 years for the in-ground burial part of that
    project. Once we put up the columbarium courts you can use
    those, but for the in-ground burial, which is a good portion of
    the Millennium Project, we need to start that this fiscal year.
        We have our designs. We are being very environmentally
    sound. I think there has been a lot of confusion with the
    Millennium Project from previous designs, and this Saturday we
    are literally having an open house for the public to come walk
    the grounds so they can see our plans for the project and that
    we are going to have the construction of the Millennium Project
    fit into the environment. So so far, if we stay on track and we
    do get funded this year, we should be completed in 2024.
        Mr. Bishop. Why would it take 10 years for in-ground
    burial?
        Ms. Condon. Sir, the bottom line is, first of all, the
    ground has to settle for two years, and we have to design
    around the topography. It is going to be a major cut-and-fill
    project as well, but the ground has to settle for at least 2
    years before you can do an in-ground burial, and that is based
    on, other cemeteries like those in Veterans Affairs. So the
    ground has to settle first, so that is really the long pole in
    the tent is having the ground settle.
        Mr. Bishop. That is only 2 of the 10 years----
        Ms. Condon. But the bottom line, sir, is, If you look at
    the project, a lot of it has to do with the topography and what
    we have to do to get the grounds right, and to build the
    columbarium court, and to restore the stream there. So the
    project will take 10 years.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you----
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
        And I will take members in the order in which they arrived,
    so I am going to recognize Mr. Farr.
        Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Condon, I just have a question, is--does Congress have
    the authority to nominate people that we would like to have
    buried there right away? Because I have some members that I
    think we could----
        (Laughter.)
        Anyway, I really might----
        Ms. Condon. Sir, we don't take reservations; we accommodate
    you at your time of need.

                            APPELLATE REVIEW PROCESS

        Mr. Farr. We just have to make it happen.
        I want to ask Judge Kasold--it was very interesting in your
    statement, on page 7 you talk about how you have recommended
    the establishment of a commission to evaluate the process of
    appellate review of veterans' benefits decisions and to make
    recommendations on how to improve the system. I am very curious
    about that, because what we have heard from Secretary Shinseki
    is we are really cleaning up the filing process, making sure
    that veterans file complete claims so that they don't get
    remanded back and increase the backlog. And I am sure that in
    the long run there is going to be some savings there, the cases
    that don't get appealed because they get resolved in the first
    instance.
        It is probably a very timely moment to have this
    commission. What has been the reaction?
        Mr. Chairman, maybe this ought to take the lead on that.
    Because in the long run, I think if you make recommendations on
    how to improve the system, you are going to come up with some
    savings.
        Judge Kasold. My recommendation is that they take a look
    primarily at the two-tiered judicial review that is----
        Mr. Farr. Yes.
        Judge Kasold. I think General Shinseki is talking about the
    claims processing----
        Mr. Farr. No, he is not talking about--no, he is talking
    the claims processing, yes, when you file, but----
        Judge Kasold. Right.
        Mr. Farr [continuing]. It is when those filings--when you
    don't get a satisfactory decision that you enter your system,
    right, and you make the claim?
        Judge Kasold. That is correct, sir. There are about 1.3
    million claims down in V.A., as I understand it. About 40,000
    to 60,000 go to the board, depending on their activity, and
    about 4,000 or 5,000 come to us.
        And then you have a second--it is very unusual in our
    system, unique in the system--right to appeal to the Federal
    Circuit.
        Mr. Farr. And that is the number that has gone up, as I
    understand from your testimony.
        Judge Kasold. The Federal Circuit?
        Mr. Farr. Yes, the Circuit appeals have gone up from about
    200--historically, approximately 200 appeals to the court were
    filed monthly in fiscal year 1999 through 2004, and since 2005
    the court has averaged about 400--343 cases per month.
        Judge Kasold. Those are to our court, sir.
        Mr. Farr. Yes.
        Judge Kasold. There is the regional office, there is the
    board, and then there is our court, and ours is the judicial
    review over the secretary's actions and the board's actions--
    primarily the board's actions.
        Mr. Farr. But----
        Judge Kasold. And then there is a Federal Circuit review
    that you can also request. When you come through the system you
    take however long it takes within V.A. to get a regional office
    decision. That is one level that they have. Then you go to the
    board and that takes time, and there are remands between the
    board and back to the secretary that take place for development
    of evidence.
        And then you step into the judicial arena, where you have
    the secretary and you have the veteran or the other claimant
    who are both making their arguments to the court, and we do the
    judicial review on the case to ensure that in the system down
    below--all the rules and regulations have been followed to
    ultimately reach a decision.
        Then you can take another appeal of right. If you lose, for
    example, or either party loses in our court, you can take
    another appeal of right on questions of law to the Federal
    Circuit. And questions of law generally are going to be cases
    that have greater ramifications down below.
        And so you have a year's time or more, up at the Federal
    Circuit, for that decision to be made. And it is an additional
    review, and as Justice Jackson has said in the Supreme Court,
    you know, they are not always right except for the fact that
    they are final, and so you have this unique system.
        Mr. Farr. Yes. And of these appeals, how many are filed by
    the government, thinking that it is erroneous----
        Judge Kasold. Let me just check. Most of them are veterans,
    sir. There are a number of the----
        Mr. Farr. The point and I would hope that it might support
    your idea for a commission, is--if we can get it right in the
    first instance you are going to have fewer appeals.
        Judge Kasold. I agree. And in fact, my suggestion was for
    the review of the judicial system, and I believe the
    authorizing committees had a proposal, I think from the House
    side, if I am not mistaken, last year or the year before, to
    review the entire system.
        And within V.A. I am sure General Shinseki can talk about
    what process and procedures he can undertake to do things
    better there, but within the judicial system we do have this
    additional unique review that is going to add time to the
    system. And whether or not there is a cost-benefit analysis
    associated with that is what I had suggested might be reviewed,
    because the court has been around now for almost 25 years. We
    have established a significant body of case law that didn't
    exist in the beginning. And the idea came to a number of us who
    have a military background.
        A similar situation had occurred with the Court of Armed
    Forces--what is now the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces--
    COMA back then. And its decisions used to be subject to not
    appeals, but habeas corpus review constantly in the civil
    courts before there was Supreme Court review over the Court of
    Appeals for Armed Forces. And so that type of concept seemed to
    make sense for this system, at least to be looked at now that
    the court has been around for about 25 years.
        But if they were to include, as the legislation has
    proposed, a review down below, I will defer to the senator--
    excuse me, the secretary for his comments with regard to V.A.

                                   NAVY ANNEX

        Mr. Farr. Thank you.
        Ms. Condon, I am wondering if the Navy Annex, which was
    scheduled to be completely demolished this August, isn't it----
        Ms. Condon. This August, sir.
        Mr. Farr. Would sequestration delay that demolishing?
        Ms. Condon. Right, because part of our budget request for
    this year was the $19 million to do the planning and design of
    the Navy Annex. The buildings are coming down. That was
    Washington Headquarter Services, and the Pentagon is funding
    that. The buildings will be down this August.
        My concern is, if we don't get money to start the planning
    and design for the building, the ground is going to be fallow
    but we can't start planning for the future of the Navy Annex
    without those dollars.

                        STATE-OPERATED RETIREMENT HOMES

        Mr. Farr. And, Mr. McManus, you are the chief operating
    officer for the retirement home. Who manages the budgets for
    the state-operated retirement homes? Is that a Department of
    Veterans Affairs?
        Mr. McManus. I know----
        Mr. Farr. Is it separate from your----
        Mr. McManus. It is separate----
        Mr. Farr. We have a federal retirement home, which you
    operate, and then we have state-operated retirement homes. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. McManus. That is correct.
        Mr. Farr. But they are not managed under the same
    jurisdiction.
        Mr. McManus. That is correct.
        Mr. Farr. So there is an account in the Department of
    Veterans Affairs that deals with that?
        Mr. McManus. I really can't talk to the state homes, sir,
    because they don't fall under me. I know that V.A. has grants
    that go to them to help fund them, but I believe it falls under
    the state, but I really do not know.
        Mr. Farr. Is there anybody that looks and sees whether the
    standards are equal?
        Mr. McManus. Yes. V.A. does have certain--in terms of
    accreditation?
        Mr. Farr. Yes, and in terms of just the compliance with
    codes, is the federal standard stronger than or equal to the
    states'? Is there a quality of review as to whether the states
    are living up to a standard that you have to live up to in your
    retirement homes?
        Mr. McManus. We are required to have an accreditation, just
    as the states' home have an accreditation.
        Mr. Farr. Okay. It is an accreditation process.
        Mr. McManus. That is correct.
        Mr. Farr. And that is a physical review of the facilities,
    everything like that?
        Mr. McManus. And the services----
        Mr. Farr. All right.
        Mr. McManus [continuing]. To make sure that they are--of
    the service standard.
        Mr. Farr. But that is outside of your jurisdiction.
        Mr. McManus. For the states. For the state homes, that is
    correct.
        Mr. Farr. But it is the same commission that looks at both,
    or the certification is both?
        Mr. McManus. No. We will require you to ticket
    accreditation. We have it with CARF; prior to that we had it
    with JCAHO. I am not sure on the state homes who they are
    accreditation is through. I could find out and provide an
    answer to it, but I honestly do not know.
        Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Farr.
        And my good friend from Nebraska, Mr. Fortenberry.

               IMPORTANCE OF AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION

        Mr. Fortenberry. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And appreciate you all being here today.
        Mr. Secretary, last year--about a year ago--I think it was
    in February, actually--I visited the American Cemetery at Omaha
    Beach, and the gentleman who met me there did an outstanding
    job. I don't recall his name.
        But he also introduced me to another employee that you have
    had there. In fact, the family has worked there for three
    generations. She was a French national but our employee. And
    they, of course, wanted to treat me very specially, but I said,
    ``Let's just walk down to the beach.''
        And I have to tell you, standing on the water's edge and
    looking back across those hundreds of yards of open beach and
    up those steep cliff hillsides and trying to get your mind
    around what those must have faced on that day is not only a
    powerful and frightening experience, but one that I think left
    a deeply--a deep impression on me, so much so that I consider
    that one of the most meaningful days that I have actually had
    in Congress.
        And we proceeded up the hillside there and stood in one of
    the German bunkers that was occupied by a German soldier named
    Sevrilow, who, at the end of his life, wrote a book and
    apparently had fired his weapon about 9 hours straight. And
    standing where he stood or laid, the wide open nature of that
    beach, again, just reminded you very powerfully of the--not
    only the gravity of that situation but just the horror of it.
        Apparently Sevrilow wept as he fired his weapon, as he
    recalled later in life. But these were all facts that were
    given to me by your outstanding staff who were there.
        Now, later in the day on my own I went to Pointe du Hoc and
    over to Sainte Mere Eglise. In August of 1944 a surgeon left
    his wife and two young children and joined the army and became
    a captain, and he, as best we can tell, was in a field hospital
    in England but then transferred quickly to France, and
    following up Patton's movements through Northern France. He was
    killed by an ordnance explosion and buried at Sainte Mere
    Eglise, and he was my grandfather. And so I had attempted to
    find the original gravesite but was able to learn that those
    had all been consolidated into the one cemetery there called
    the American Cemetery at Omaha Beach.
        Something else, though, that I learned: The young French
    woman was my guide--her grandfather was initially employed in
    1944 by us. He helped prepare our dead for transport back home.
    And in the war records, even though they are a bit sparse, of
    my own grandfather's death, I noticed that he was transported
    from his initial burial site at Sainte Mere Eglise to--through
    the Port of Cherbourg, which is where this young woman's
    grandfather had also worked.
        So to stand there and imagine that maybe her grandfather
    handled the remains of my grandfather as he came to his final
    resting place, which is under your domain here in Arlington
    National Cemetery, again, was perhaps the most powerful day
    that I have had in Congress thus far.
        I tell you all this only to say that I basically had to
    place myself--it was winter time but it was a lovely day. Your
    employees there are highly dedicated, honorable, noble people
    who deeply believe in this mission, as clearly all of us who do
    who are on this subcommittee.
        To continue the memories of those who have gone before us
    and sacrificed with everything that they had is not only the
    right thing to do, it defines us as to who we are. Even though
    that is the past, I think it still defines us as to who we are.
        I have taken my five daughters. I have taken my five
    daughters to visit my grandfather's grave at Arlington
    Cemetery. And it is a little bit hard for them to relate to
    that, but still, I think that is important for them to do,
    because I only grew up with stories about this and it wasn't
    until I was able to come to Congress--because my own father
    died when I was young--I was able to unpack the fullness of the
    story here.
        So I don't have any hard questions for you, to be honest. I
    just really deeply appreciate what you do, what you have
    dedicated yourselves to doing. It had an extraordinary impact
    on me, as I know it does millions of other Americans who
    interact with you throughout--on an annual basis.
        So I just wanted to give--put that out there for you.
    Sometimes these hearings can be a little bit tense and back and
    forth because we are all struggling with budgets and audits and
    all that. Just work hard to get it right, as I know you will
    do, and help us to do both missions--to manage this reasonably,
    in terms of tight economic times, but also, let's stay tethered
    to what you know is right, in terms of honoring particularly
    our war-dead and those who have gone before us.
        So with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. A great story, and it truly is but for the
    work that you all do would not be possible for us, for our
    kids, for future generations to really understand or even begin
    to relate to the sacrifice of the men and women who made it
    possible for us to be here.
        Mr. Cleland. Mr. Chairman, may I respond?
        Mr. Culberson. Please.
        Mr. Cleland. Thank you very much, Congressman Fortenberry.
        Anyone who visits and doesn't come back awed by that
    experience doesn't have blood in their veins.
        I have never seen such dedicated people in the work of our
    government as the French, Americans, foreign service nationals,
    and our superintendents in caring for the combat dead of
    generations ago like they were their brothers and sisters.
        We actually have an employee--it is hard to even say the
    word ``employee'' they are so committed they are like family--
    at our Flanders Field Cemetery that, on his own, took it upon
    himself to go back and read about and study and find out about
    the lives of all 400 men who were buried at Flanders Field and
    then write a book on his own about it. I mean, that is the
    sense of dedication that these employees bring to their task.
    And until one actually goes to one of our overseas cemeteries
    and experiences that for themselves, it is hard to describe.
        I will say that that is in keeping with the spirit in which
    the American Battle Monuments Commission was created, which
    General Pershing talked about when he would use the phrase,
    ``Time will not dim the glory of their deeds.'' That is our
    motto. That is our goal. And everything we do is measured on
    that.
        So thank you very much for your visit. Please come back.
    And thank you very much for that insight.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
        Just a couple other quick questions. I did want to ask
    about, apparently there was an outstanding balance left over in
    Arlington's accounts. I wanted to ask how that was and how you
    all applied that.
        Ms. Condon. Sir----
        Mr. Culberson. Unobligated balances----
        Ms. Condon. Okay, the recovered funds from prior years.
    That was what enabled us to fully fund the ninth columbarium.
    Of those dollars we spent--that was about $14 million--$8.5
    million of that was to take care of our backlog of maintenance
    repair. That is how we repaired the sewer system. We are
    repairing the eternal flame for President Kennedy because it
    has just not been taken care of. It is 50 years coming up, so
    we need to make sure we take care of that.
        Our roads, our infrastructure, our water lines, $2 million
    of that was for our I.T. advancements. So we literally have
    tried to heal ourselves the best without having to come to this
    committee for additional dollars by taking the unliquidated
    obligations from the past and putting it towards the
    maintenance and repair and the major projects that we have
    needed to do.
        Mr. Culberson. How much of that maintenance backlog is
    left?
        Ms. Condon. Sir, that is why we put the bill on the table
    for $25 million this year. When we did our study, we have
    probably close to $70 million in backlog of maintenance and
    repair.
        The sewer system had catastrophic failures, the water lines
    are all 50 years and older. The buildings were not taken care
    of. We had, too, catastrophic air conditioning. But what we are
    doing, sir, is as part of our master plan is programming out
    the maintenance and repair, doing the life, safety, and health
    issues first.
        Mr. Culberson. By the way, do you all also have
    jurisdiction over and providing funding for the Arlington
    House?
        Ms. Condon. No, that is National Park Service.

                  AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION AUDITS

        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Mr. Secretary, there is--it is my understanding that the
    Government Accountability Office will no longer conduct audits
    on the American Battle Monuments Commission. Can you discuss
    how the commission will be audited going forward and where you
    are in the process of ensuring those audits?
        Mr. Cleland. For the last 15 years the Congress has
    directed that annually the American Battle Monuments Commission
    be audited by the GAO. They have been good partners.
        But now this is their last audit, and we will then have to
    spend some money to hire an outside audit firm----
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Cleland [continuing]. And get that worked on, so that
    is what we will do. It is one of our fixed costs going forward,
    as one might say, that present a challenge as we bump--if we
    had to bump up against sequestration a year from now.
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
        What about the--some of the outstanding GAO
    recommendations. How will you track those?
        Mr. Cleland. They shift them into two categories. One is
    management and the other is financial findings.
        We have been clear for 15 years on the financial findings.
    We have management issues with which we deal. They will come up
    again this year. We track those.
        We have been pretty good at basically clearing those up.
    About 60 or 70 percent of those are cleared up annually, but
    then there are always new ones with the GAO audit. So, you
    know, we are on top of it. We work closely with them.
        I will say this: To a certain extent I feel that the ABMC
    is being better managed now than it was when I got there
    because--not because of me but because we have the power of
    technology here managing our finances now through a financial
    management system, which has driven everybody crazy but now
    they are adapting to it worldwide. But before we were back in
    the Kathy Condon's world of three-by-five cards and pens and
    pencils.
        Ms. Condon. The former world.
        Mr. Cleland. Former world. Sorry. Sorry about that.
        Now we have a financial management system. If you speed
    things up, bad things seem to pop out faster. So, but we have a
    new financial management system that is in place and we are
    doing a better job of managing our finances worldwide and
    everybody is beginning to adapt to it. I think there are other
    things that we are more on top of now than we were 3 or 4 years
    ago.
        Mr. Culberson. I suspect you had a fair amount to do with
    it.
        Mr. Cleland. Well, the ones that weren't on top of it
    were--are not there anymore.
        Mr. Culberson. Deeply appreciate it.
        I will have other questions for the record for each one of
    you.
        I am going to pass it to my good friend, Mr. Bishop.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        Just one question, Ms. Condon. The budget included $84
    million for the Millennium Project, and of course, that funding
    is tied up in the C.R----
        Ms. Condon. Yes, sir.

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Mr. Bishop [continuing]. And now your budget is being hit
    by sequestration.
        What impact will the sequestration have on Millennium
    Project, and at what point will the delay in the new start
    authority affect the starting date?
        Ms. Condon. Sir, if we do not award the contract for the
    Millennium Project this year and do not get the funding that
    will flip us beyond having their in-ground burial space in
    2024, as I said, because it literally will take 10 years to do
    that. So we need to get that project started this fiscal year
    and award that contract.
        Mr. Bishop. So you need the C.R. to be untied?
        Ms. Condon. We need to do that because the bottom line,
    what it does, it will impact the future burials for our
    veterans and their loved ones.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.

                                   MEMORIALS

        Mr. Farr. [Off mike.]
        Mr. Cleland. Sir, it is--the American Battle Monuments
    Commission Memorial on the west coast, there--the Presidio in
    San Francisco has the names of the missing of those who died in
    the coastal waters of the United States in World War II--1941
    to 1945--the coastal waters. That is the West Coast Memorial.
    We have one that honors the missing on the coastal waters of
    the Atlantic in Lower Manhattan in Battery Park.
        So we have an East Coast Memorial honoring those missing in
    the coastal waters of the United States in World War II in
    Battery Park and one honoring those who lost the----
        Mr. Farr. [Off mike.]
        Mr. Cleland. Those are confined to 1941 to 1945. That is
    the mission of those memorials.
        Now, we keep finding new evidence from time to time--it was
    about 3 years ago that we added two names to the East Coast
    Memorial in New York. There were about 200 ships that were sunk
    between 1941 and 1945 by German submarines along the coastal
    United States, and a lot of those men came up missing. Those
    names are on the wall in Battery Park in our memorial there,
    and the same goes for the west coast.
        But otherwise we have no memorials in the United States. We
    are the overseas people. We are all overseas.
        Mr. Farr. [Off mike.]
        Mr. Cleland. Congressman, I am----
        Mr. Farr. [Off mike.]
        Mr. Cleland. Yes, sir. The secretary of the Army has asked
    me to be the co-chair of an advisory committee, now, because
    full-blown statutory authority now, thanks to the Congress--to
    advise the secretary of the Army on matters concerning
    Arlington. That issue of a west coast Arlington will be on the
    agenda later in the spring when we meet as an advisory
    committee.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
        Thank you very much. Truly, from the bottom of our heart we
    thank you for your service to the country, to the men and women
    in uniform present and past. Deeply appreciate the sacrifice
    you make on behalf of the country.
        And we will submit further questions to you individually
    for the record.
        Thank you very much, and the hearing is adjourned.
        [Questions for the record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]