[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]