- MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2016

[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2016

_______________________________________________________________________

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

_______________

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania, Chairman

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida SAM FARR, California
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
DAVID G. VALADAO, California BARBARA LEE, California
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking
Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

Maureen Holohan, Sue Quantius, Sarah Young, and Tracey E. Russell,
Subcommittee Staff

__________

PART 3

Page
Hearing--Related Agencies...................................... 1

American Battle Monuments Commission........................... 117

Arlington National Cemetery.................................... 139

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims....................... 161

Armed Forces Retirement Home.................................... 189

Outside Witness Testimony--American Psychological Association.... 235

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

_______

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

PART 3--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2016

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2016

_______________________________________________________________________

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania, Chairman

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking
Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

Maureen Holohan, Sue Quantius, Sarah Young, and Tracey E. Russell,
Subcommittee Staff

______________

PART 3

Page
Hearing--Related Agencies...................................... 1

American Battle Monuments Commission.......................... 117

Arlington National Cemetery.................................... 139

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims...................... 161

Armed Forces Retirement Home................................... 189

Outside Witness Testimony--American Psychological Association... 235

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

_____

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

97-301 WASHINGTON : 2015

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

----------
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
KEN CALVERT, California SAM FARR, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BARBARA LEE, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas STEVE ISRAEL, New York
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska TIM RYAN, Ohio
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DAVID G. VALADAO, California MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland DEREK KILMER, Washington
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi

William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director

(ii)

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2016

----------

Wednesday, March 18, 2015.

RELATED AGENCIES

WITNESSES

HON. MAX CLELAND, SECRETARY, AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION
PATRICK K. HALLINAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL MILITARY
CEMETERIES
JUDGE BRUCE E. KASOLD, CHIEF JUDGE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
VETERANS CLAIMS
STEVEN G. MCMANUS, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT
HOME
Mr. Dent. Thank you all for being here. The committee will
come to order. I want to welcome all of you here today. We
really appreciate you being here on the four related agencies
that are funded through the MILCON/VA bill, the American Battle
Monuments Commission, Arlington Cemetery, the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and of course the Armed
Forces Retirement Home. We thank you all for being here this
morning.
Before I proceed, I would like to yield to my very
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Bishop, for any opening
remarks he might like to make.

Ranking Member Opening Statement

Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am just delighted to be here because today we have the
pleasure of having before us a true American hero and a friend
of longstanding, Secretary Max Cleland. Secretary Cleland was
Secretary of State, he was a State Senator, and he was our U.S.
Senator. And he has just been a friend for many, many years,
and I am delighted, with his life of public service, to have
him here, as well as the other members of the distinguished
panel.
Judge Kasold, Mr. McManus, it is good to have you back.
And, of course, Mr. Hallinan, welcome. It is your first
time, I believe.
The last time our subcommittee had a related agencies
hearing we were dealing with sequestration, and unfortunately I
think we still may be dealing with the threat of sequestration
again. We have already heard from the Department of Defense
regarding how the budget caps of sequestration will affect our
national defense, but I am sure it is the same for the related
agencies as well. My side of the aisle has grave concerns about
the nondefense discretionary priorities, and of course the
other side has concerns about the defense discretionary
priorities if the caps were to stay in place.
Mr. Chairman, it is obvious both sides believe it is time
we get rid of these budget caps and the threat of sequestration
and tackle the real problem, which we all know isn't
discretionary spending. I look forward to the witnesses'
thoughts on this, as well as the 2016 budget request.
And I just have to take a point of personal privilege, Mr.
Chairman. During the break I had the opportunity to do some
travelling with the Appropriations Committee chairman, and
among the places we went were a couple of very, very impressive
American battle monuments locations in North Africa and the
Rhone National Cemetery, and it was just phenomenal. It was
inspiring.
And I just want to salute you, Mr. Secretary, and let you
know that your folks are doing a good job. And at Rhone all of
us were in tears. The presentation that the young lady made,
she just brought it to life, and it was just quite an
experience.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Opening Statement

Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. And, yes, I heard that was
quite a meaningful experience that you all had, and I know a
few members of the subcommittee went, along with the chairman,
Mr. Rogers, and I look forward to taking a similar trip at some
point in the future. And glad to hear about that experience.
I would like to introduce the four witnesses we have before
us today. I would also like to note the extraordinary public
service represented here among the four. Each of our witnesses
has served in the armed services, either in the Army or the
Marine Corps. All have chosen to continue to serve as civilians
and have done so in a remarkable fashion. In total, I think we
have before us, we have calculated, close to 160 years of
exemplary service to our country, and I must tell you that none
of you look 160 years old or even close. On behalf of this
subcommittee, let me say that your dedication is truly
appreciated.
I will introduce one of you first, the Honorable Max
Cleland. And as was mentioned by Mr. Bishop, a great American
hero and has had a great, distinguished career, including the
United States Senate. And he was appointed Secretary of the
American Battle Monuments Commission in June of 2009.
We have Mr. Patrick Hallinan, who has been the Executive
Director of the Army National Cemeteries Program since June of
2013. Prior to that he was Superintendent at Arlington.
Third, we have Judge Bruce Kasold, who has been the Chief
Judge, United States Court of Veterans Claims since August of
2010, and has served as a judge on the Court of Appeals since
2003.
Mr. Steve McManus, we have before us as well. He assumed
the role of Chief Operating Officer for the Armed Forces
Retirement Home on September 25 of 2011, and he has been with
that agency for 12 years.
So with that, I would like to thank all of you for being
here today, and without objection, your written statements will
be entered into the official record. I would ask each of you at
this time to briefly summarize your statements. And then at
every hearing we also will observe the 5-minute rule for member
questions so we can maximize discussion. So, again, if each of
our good friends here today could just summarize their
statements, and then we will go right to questions.
Secretary Cleland.
Mr. Cleland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. May I say
that sometimes I feel like the combined 160 years of public
service on my body and on my shoulders. I am honored to be with
all these gentlemen here, and we thank you for all your kind
words. We thank the ranking member, Congressman Bishop, my dear
friend from my home State.
And I am so glad you got out of Tunisia just in time.
And for all of the members, we are honored to be with you
today.
Let me just say a few words about Tunisia. The attack there
put us on maximum alert. We shut down the cemetery within 15
minutes. We lowered the flag in order to lower the visibility.
Part of our strategy, Mr. Chairman, around the world is to hide
in plain sight. You can't hide a cemetery. You can't hide what
the story of Americans is in terms of the 14 nations that we
are in. So you can't hide. But we try to hide in plain sight.
We try not to make ourselves visible, too visible and too
vulnerable. Actually months ago we doubled the security at
Tunisia, and it is now 24/7. It is still risky there because
the State Department will not allow us to send an American as a
superintendent. It is the only place where we don't have an
American running our cemetery.
So Tunisia we think is under control as far as our cemetery
is concerned. About 3 years ago I had a revisitation of my time
in Vietnam where I was a young lieutenant, and it was hard to
believe I had tanks outside the gate, machine gun fire, and so
forth, and I almost thought I was back in a combat zone here
listening to my superintendent at the time talk 3 years ago.
Now we feel like we are much further along. We are ahead of
the game. The most recent attack was in downtown Tunis. So we
feel like we are okay there, but it is a very risky world out
there, as you know, sir, and we have taken precautions. We are
now putting our security number one, and we have a former Navy
SEAL officer as our director of security worldwide operating
out of Paris.
So with those few words, I will turn it over to my
colleagues here. But thank you.
And I am glad you are back from Tunisia, sir.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Hallinan. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Bishop, committee members. I am honored to be here. I am
honored to present and testify with the gentlemen to my left
and right. Former Senator Cleland was my old boss many years
ago, and it seems like we just keep running into one another in
our federal service. I am glad to be here. I do have a short
oral statement that I will move to quickly if that is okay with
the chairman and the committee.
Mr. Chairman Dent, Ranking Member Bishop, distinguished
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
present the President's budget for the Department of the Army,
Cemetery Expense Program, fiscal year 2016. As the Executive
Director, I am responsible for both Arlington National Cemetery
and the U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. I
assure you that the Army is committed to rendering public honor
and recognition and dignified burial services for members of
the armed service and their loved ones. On behalf of the
cemeteries and the Secretary of the Army, I thank Congress for
the support you have provided over these years.
Since the testimony to this committee 2 years ago, we
continue to build upon our tremendous progress. We are setting
industry standards for the best practices, and we have become a
center of excellence, while working closely with our partner
organizations, and I am honored to testify with each of them
today.
The President's fiscal year budget 2016 recently increased
Arlington's Budget Control Act funding level from $45.8 million
to $70.8 million. This level of funding is adequate to maintain
and sustain Arlington's operating budget into the foreseeable
future, not including anticipated capital costs. The additional
$25 million for funding for infrastructure revitalization and
sustainment is also sufficient to continue restoring
facilities' infrastructure to a level befitting the Nation's
premiere national shrine.
Our priority is to extend burials for Arlington as long as
we possibly can. Since fiscal year 2011, we have been working
to increase the burial capacity at the cemetery with three
expansion projects.
Our first project, the construction of Columbarium Court
#9, is complete and was dedicated in May of 2013, and it
increased above-ground inurnments through the year 2024.
The second project, the Millennium Project, as you see with
the map we provided with my written statement, is at the
northern tip of the cemetery. This project is well underway and
is on track to be completed in fiscal year 2016. It will
increase our first interment capacity through the year 2036.
The final project I want to call attention to is the
Southern Expansion, formerly referred to as the Navy Annex,
which is located at the southern edge of the cemetery. The
planning and design for this project has begun, and this
project will extend the first interments in the cemetery
through the 2050s. However, without enacted funding Arlington
cannot move forward with the final phase of this expansion.
Projected construction is estimated to begin in the 2018
timeframe at an estimated cost of around $300 million.
Funding for this project has not yet been identified, and
Arlington National Cemetery faces a challenge in resourcing
this requirement as current congressional language prevents the
Department of Defense from using its funding for this
requirement and Arlington National Cemetery's Budget Control
Act level of funding is well short of the amount required.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your support
for Arlington National Cemetery, for the capital investments
that we truly need to sustain, maintain, and expand the
national shrine. Thank you, and I look forward to answering any
questions you and the committee have.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Dent. Judge Kasold.
Judge Kasold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bishop, members
of the committee. It is a pleasure to testify before you today
on our budget and with this distinguished panel.
I would like to note that I have with me Judge Hagel, who
will be the Chief Judge come this August when I finish my term
as Chief Judge. We also have Judge Bartley and Judge Pietsch,
who have come here today, as well as the clerk of our court,
Greg Block, and the person who prepares our budget, very
important, Eva Armah.
I will summarize. We are asking for a little over $32
million, which is about a $700,000 increase over the prior
year. This committee and our authorizing committees have been
very supportive of the Court. This is very adequate funding for
the numbers that we have had and the numbers that we project
over the next year for the fiscal year 2016.
The one point I would like to make is that we are
permanently authorized seven judges. We are temporarily
authorized nine judges. We revert to eight judges this August
when one of those judges retires. This budget includes funding
for nine judges. I coordinated that with the staff of the
Appropriation Committees. I have talked to the authorizing
committees. There is already legislation on the House side to
reauthorize nine judges temporarily through 2020, I believe. I
want to make that point clear. The expense is about a million
dollars for each judge, including the five staff that support
the judge.
And the rest of the budget is pretty straightforward, I
believe. I will answer any questions that you have when we get
there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Dent. Mr. McManus.
Mr. McManus. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to recognize
two individuals that came with me, our Resident Advisory
Committee Chair, Phil Ford, and my CFO, Vicki Marrs.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as the Armed
Forces Retirement Home Chief Operating Officer, I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before you today and present the
Armed Forces Retirement Home fiscal year 2016 budget request.
The homes are financed by appropriations drawn from the Trust
Fund. Today AFRH residents are veterans who have served in
every military campaign since World War II.
For almost a decade, AFRH management has worked to
strengthen the Trust Fund through cost-reduction efforts. In
recent years we have reduced operating costs and undertaken
several major construction projects. Our duty is to preserve
the assets in the Trust Fund while taking withdrawals at great
discretion. The Trust Fund is funded by fines and forfeitures,
resident fees, 50-cents monthly payroll withhold from Active
Duty, interest from securities, estates, and gifts, and sales
or lease.
AFRH operations continue to require strong fiscal
management. Over the last several years, we have experienced
unanticipated reduction in our largest revenue stream, fines
and forfeitures. In 2009 we were funded at or received revenue
in total of $41 million. At the end of 2014 we had $28 million,
a significant reduction in a very short period of time. AFRH
carefully tracks and projects revenue using historical trends
and has never experienced this reduction of this magnitude,
even if you go back to as far back as the Korean War when they
had reductions after the Korean War, they never received this
significant reduction.
Because of the unanticipated loss in revenue, operating
costs have exceeded revenue itself, significantly reducing the
Trust Fund balance. With the assistance of DOD leadership, AFRH
is planning to implement initiatives in 2016 that will assist
in rectifying the situation to ensure long-term Trust Fund
solvency. We are planning to implement a reasonable and
equitable resident fee. We are also planning to increase the
50-cents Active Duty monthly withholding to a dollar. We are
initiating an audit of fines and forfeitures for the last 3
years to ensure that the amounts being collected are actually
coming to AFRH. And we are implementing our Washington, D.C.,
master plan to lease 80 acres of underutilized property on our
southeast corner for development.
Our budget request of $64.3 million for 2016 includes $63.3
million O&M and $1 million in capital. The O&M request requests
reflects $900,000 increase above the 2015 level, and the
capital request is constant at $1 million.
The fiscal year 2016 O&M budget request also allows the
AFRH to continue meeting the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services' recommended increased staffing ratio for our upper
levels-of-care residents. The staff ratio increased nursing
staff/resident ratio from 3.5 to 4.1. To officially meet this
requirement, additional nursing staff personnel hires have been
programmed.
Despite increasing our upper-levels-of-care nursing staff,
the AFRH has also implemented key initiatives to contain
healthcare costs by keeping our residents in their independent
living rooms environment longer. Our highly successful pilot
program, Independent Living Plus, will be established as a
permanent level of care in 2015. In 2016 we will go for
accreditation with the Joint Commission.
Our ILP program provides basic living assistance for
residents who need additional care and allows them to remain
independent longer. This program is a cornerstone strategy in
AFRH's Aging in Place initiative. During fiscal year 2014 this
pilot program allowed over 100 residents to remain independent
in their current room.
As previously discussed, the solvency of the Trust Fund is
our most crucial challenge. Our best option for increasing the
Trust Fund is our aggressive pursuit of leasing underutilized
Washington property. This effort should take place by the end
of 2017.
In summary, we believe that fiscal year 2016 will continue
to show benefits and cost containment for our new energy-
efficient buildings, reduce Washington campus footprint, and
cost-saving initiatives. As we close fiscal year 2014 and begin
2015 on a positive note, including initiatives to bolster our
revenue, we are continuing our focus on vibrant and economical
operations for our heroes that we serve, welcome new residents
to enjoy the benefits of the homes, and focus on greater
independence for our residents.
I respectfully request the subcommittee's favorable
consideration of our 2016 budget and thank you for the
opportunity to address the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, this
concludes my testimony.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. McManus.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

INTERPRETIVE PROGRAMS

Mr. Dent. I know you are preparing for some pretty big
visitors tomorrow. Is that right?
Mr. McManus. We are, sir. We are looking forward to it,
having the Prince come out, plus the Duchess of Cornwall.
Should be a good visit.
Mr. Dent. I am sure. I look forward to learning about it.
Secretary Cleland, as we discussed last week, and as you
highlight in your testimony here today, the importance of
interpretive work, or telling the story, I think, as you like
to say, of those who sacrificed in the wars that are 70 to 100
years in the past. This subcommittee has strongly supported the
Battle Monuments Commission's efforts for all visitors to
understand the significance of the people, the place of the
cemetery or the monument, and that is what touches us. Your
fiscal year 2016 budget request for interpretive programs is $7
million, more than double last year's funding level of $3.1
million, I believe.
Please tell us about the educational programs that you have
initiated and what the budget increase will buy, and describe
what we will see and experience and when we will visit one of
the new centers.
Mr. Cleland. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for highlighting
the interpretive program. The Park Service calls it
interpretation. We call it telling the story. I have felt, and
maybe it is because I am a history guy, but I have felt that
the American Battle Monuments Commission is really America's
premier storyteller of our story abroad, and we fail if we
don't tell that story every way we can and every time we can.
For the details that you point out and request, I have
three people here that can relate to that. First of all, the
Deputy Secretary, Rob Dalessandro; secondly, Matthew Beck; and
third, Mike Conley might want to chip in.
Rob, why don't you take it.
Mr. Dalessandro. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, Rob Dalessandro, and I am the Deputy
Secretary of the American Battle Monuments Commission, and it
is a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk to you, ladies
and gentlemen, about something that is so near and dear to our
hearts, and that is this interpretive mission.
Some people think that ABMC exists to maintain the
cemeteries and memorials overseas. But far larger is our
mission to be a voice to those generations that can't speak. I
am talking about the World War I generation, we have already
lost that generation, and the World War II veterans that are
leaving us in great numbers.
To your question. Most of the money that is tied up in
interpretation is devoted to new visitor centers that will
open. We opened the Normandy visitor center. It has been a
tremendous success. Didn't increase visitation, but it greatly
enhanced visitor experience and provided context.
What we have found in the last few years is that Americans
lack context. If you go to a place like Henri-Chapelle or to
Tunis, we get asked, why are these people resting here? We want
to provide that background.
We have three upcoming projects that are critical. All of
them are near and dear to our hearts. Those projects will
highlight the centennial of World War I, two of them. There
will be a project that will cover the troops in the north. We
detached a corps, part of a corps, and two divisions to the
British in World War I. That is the 30th Division from North
Carolina, 27th from New York. Those divisions served on the
British front and at Somme and Flanders Field. We will open a
visitor center at Flanders Field.
The big American offensive of World War I is the Meuse-
Argonne. That is our largest World War I cemetery in Europe.
And we will open an interpretive center at Meuse-Argonne to
tell the story of those Americans that fell up there.
So those are our two World War I projects. Additionally,
there will be a contact station at the Chateau Thierry
Monument, about 40 minutes outside of Paris. It will have a
couple of different important missions. One of them will be to
tell the story of the initial American operations overseas in
World War I, and then it will introduce Americans to the ABMC,
so if they are travelling across Europe they will know where
they can stop to see both our World War I--

TELLING THE STORY TO THE YOUNGER GENERATIONS

Mr. Dent. May I ask you briefly too, since you are telling
the story, are you trying to tell the story to younger
generations? How are you using technology? This is a tech-savvy
population. What are you doing?
Mr. Dalessandro. You are talking to an 18th century person
here. But thankfully I have got great staff people.
We are leveraging social media and the Internet in
incredible ways. In fact, I have to brag a little bit. Our Web
site was one of the top 10 government Web sites selected just
recently. And we are working in partnership with Virginia Tech
and a number of other institutions to get at the youth through
a number of apps. We have now three iPhone apps already
unveiled. They are available on a number of other platforms,
one for Pointe du Hoc, one for Normandy, one coming up on World
War II, one coming up on Meuse-Argonne.
So we are trying to stay fully engaged, Twitter, Facebook,
et cetera, and we are getting great feedback on that. So this
is something that thankfully we have got tech-savvy folks that
are working.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. My time has expired already.
Mr. Dalessandro. I am sorry I gave a lecture.
Mr. Dent. That is all right. We wanted to hear about this,
so it is important that you tell the story.
So I am going to turn right now to our distinguished
ranking member, Mr. Bishop, for his questions.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
There is not enough that can be said about the active
interpretive centers. The one at Normandy is phenomenal, and
Mr. Young and Mr. Murtha did a great deal of investment in
that. I had the opportunity to go and visit it, and it is
tremendous, and the Rhone American Cemetery, with the in-person
interpretations, which is overwhelming. So it is well worth it,
and it certainly puts it in the historical context and makes
the visitor appreciate the contribution, as well as the
residents, the people, the inhabitants in the area appreciate
the contributions that Americans have made.

COMMISSION'S CAPITAL PROGRAM

Mr. Secretary, in 2012, to save money, the Commission chose
to delay engineering work and capital expenditures, and then
sequestration hit. Can you provide the subcommittee with some
insight on the Commission's current capital program, what types
of infrastructure and maintenance projects that we should
expect to see in the future?
Mr. Cleland. Thank you very much, sir.
May I ask Matthew Beck if he wants to try to deal with that
one.
Mr. Beck. Good afternoon. Matthew Beck. I am the Budget
Officer for the American Battle Monuments Commission.
With the current budget request before you for 2016 and
including 2015, we believe we are fully funded on our
maintenance and infrastructure programs. We don't believe we
have a deferred maintenance problem or any funding issues which
are related to that. I mean, if we receive our full fiscal year
2016 request, we believe we will be adequately funded to
address any and all maintenance issues at our cemeteries.

MAINTAINING CLARK VETERANS CEMETERY

Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Public Law 112-260 authorized the Battle Monuments
Commission to operate and to maintain Clark Veterans Cemetery.
Since the Commission has taken over at Clark, what improvements
have been completed, and what do you expect to take place in
the future? And do you have an estimate of the costs for
maintaining the Clark Cemetery, and is there any concern that
the cemetery will sort of suck up all of the resources for the
Commission?
Mr. Cleland. Thank you very much for the question.
This was a baby that was dropped on our doorstep. So we are
looking around to get enough milk to keep it alive, not just
keep it alive, but to dramatically improve it, and we have done
that. What we want to do is look at the full requirement for
maintaining Clark in a dignified manner.
I would like to ask Rob Dalessandro to elucidate on that a
little bit.
Mr. Dalessandro. Thanks, boss.
Sir, Clark Cemetery is a little bit of a challenge. It has
got a little something for everyone. What we are up to right
now is finishing a survey, both of its grounds and its history.
And just for everyone's knowledge, Clark was a consolidated
cemetery that was moved as a result of a battle that occurred
where Clark's interred originally were, and then the collapsing
of several other installations in the Philippines.
So right now what we need to do is do a historical survey,
which we are about 50 percent through, that will tell us what
we have at Clark Cemetery. That will shape the way ahead. As
part of that survey, we are leveraging our compatriots at
Arlington National Cemetery--in fact, they will be out there
this spring--to give us some ideas of what the best way ahead
is. We want to spend in a way that is well thought through. We
are not there right now, but I am confident that we will be
there by the end of the fiscal year.
So I think we are on track on Clark Cemetery. We will spend
some infrastructure funds to get some things spun up that we
need at Clark, but we are funded to do that currently, so we
are okay.
Mr. Cleland. I would say, sir, that we are okay for the
present time, but no one is saying that we are okay for the
long run because we have to define what the long run really is.
It is going to cost us many millions of dollars, and we don't
want to pull that from our other cemeteries, like Normandy and
Rhone and Tunisia and so forth. So we will be coming to you and
be totally transparent about our proposals. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
My time is about up, so I will yield back.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.

FLORAL FUND PROGRAM

And we are going to recognize members in the order in which
they arrived, starting with Mr. Jolly.
Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. I had a question for you, but it is
probably best answered by Mr. Dalessandro, about the Floral
Fund Program. I understand it is due to be terminated in about
10 days. This is a program, where individuals can deposit money
in an account that allows for flowers to be placed at a loved
one's plot overseas.
Can you explain the decision that went into this, maybe how
widely it is used, what is the actual cost to the agency or the
Commission?
Mr. Cleland. Thank you very much, sir. May I say that, and
Rob can clarify this some more, the whole concept of the
ability of a next of kin to be able to put flowers on the grave
of a loved one in one of our national cemeteries abroad came
about as a measure of post-World War II feelings of loss and
grief, that therefore the American Battle Monuments Commission
that ran the cemeteries should somehow be an intermediary on
this. We can't find any real legislation or authority to do
this. Maybe somebody just said this might be a good idea, and
all of a sudden the Flower Fund got created.
Now, what happened was that people were sending us checks.
We were in the check business. And I guarantee you we dodged a
bullet by not screwing that up over the past few decades.
The point is now we have technology that was not available
in the 1950s for anyone that wants to put flowers on a grave.
There is e-commerce. You can go on all kinds of Web sites and
get flowers delivered to Tunisia or Manila or whatever to put
on any grave. So the ability to place flowers on a grave still
exists. It is now done through e-commerce. We are just getting
out of the check-writing business. We don't take checks
anymore. And Rob can talk about this a little bit.
Mr. Jolly. And I guess, Rob, before your comments,
obviously we live in an e-commerce world. But the notion that
it would be easy for me today to put flowers on one of the
plots that Mr. Bishop and I had the opportunity to visit last
week, I had an opportunity to stand in front of somebody from
Florida, I don't know how I would find a florist on the
Internet and be able to describe where to go and so forth.

TECHNOLOGY WITHIN ABMC PLATFORM

Mr. Cleland. Mr. Congressman, just go to our Web site,
ABMC.gov.
Mr. Jolly. So that is my question. Is there technology
within the VA platform?
Mr. Cleland. Not the VA, the American Battle Monuments
Commission.
Mr. Jolly. That is right. Of course.
Mr. Cleland. Yes, sir. The answer is yes.
Mr. Jolly. So what is the current system once the Flower
Fund goes away in 10 days?
Mr. Dalessandro. I am glad you asked this question, sir.
Let me first start by saying that it isn't in 10 days. We will
continue to run the current program through Memorial Day. So
all orders through this Memorial Day we are going to run under
the old program.
We are confident, we actually checked it in Tunisia, we
have a list of vendors that you can go to directly, we are
confident you can from here or from Omaha order flowers and
have them put on a grave site at ABMC. We are working through
right now one thing that has become a sticking point, which is
we were providing direct next of kin photographs of the flowers
in place. Now we are working to figure out how we are going to
do that, but we will still provide that service at this point.
But if I left you with nothing else, I would tell you that
the ability to leave flowers on a grave is not going away.
Mr. Jolly. Sure.
Mr. Dalessandro. We are just getting out of the middle of
this. And we think this is going to be wholly more efficient.
The cost to the government----
Mr. Jolly. What is the cost?
Mr. Dalessandro. We are putting hundreds of man-hours. I
have a fact sheet.
Mr. Jolly. But do you know the cost, not the man-hours? And
how widely is it used?
Mr. Dalessandro. I would say 2,000 floral orders a year are
used----

SAVINGS FOR FLORAL FUND PROGRAM

Mr. Jolly. The termination seems to be a disruption
personally to a number of people who have relied on this
program. I mean, it doesn't sound like this is a big pay-for in
the overall budget.
Mr. Dalessandro. Actually it is a big savings. The problem
that we have is that--the cemetery at Normandy is a great
example--the cemetery staff at Normandy during the Normandy
anniversary are devoted almost three-quarters of their time to
placing flowers. Back to our intrepretive program, we want to
retrain those people and get them to provide an intrepretive
experience there. When we built the visitor center there one of
our goals was not to lessen the crosses row on row, but we feel
like the flowers are taking it over at this point.
Mr. Jolly. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dent. Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought I was so late
that I would be here long after you guys went home.
Mr. Dent. Perfect timing.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
Secretary Cleland, Senator, I just want to tell you how
much I owe you a debt of gratitude. I met you 41 years ago in
the backyard of a chicken farm in Prunedale, California, which
we call Prunetucky, and you were there with a former governor
of Georgia that nobody had ever heard of called Jimmy Carter.
And I was so inspired by the two of you that six months later I
ran for public office. That visit changed my life, so I
appreciate all the work you have done in your public service
and service to our country.
First of all, I wanted to say that Congress authorized a
Veterans Oral History Project, it has been going on for about a
decade now, and all those oral histories have been collected
voluntarily. It is interesting that the older vets are now
beginning to want to tell the stories particularly to their
grandchildren, the stories they haven't told to their spouse or
their own children. We have used it very extensively in our
district. Those are all stored in the Library of Congress.
Perhaps you could start using some of those stories to
start interpreting abroad. I am glad you are doing that. I went
to the Philippines, and it was fascinating. There is so much
there to learn. We just kept asking questions. And if we hadn't
been a VIP delegation, I don't think those questions would have
been answered. So the visitors really need this. All those
tiles that were done of all the battle scenes in the Pacific, I
heard they were done by an artist in my hometown. So that was
kind of interesting and it would have really been fascinating
to be able to bring some press along.
I appreciate your effort to extend the life of Arlington
Cemetery. That cemetery is going to be extended well into the
2050s, but then you are going to have to find a new spot. I
have been arguing that the majority of the burials in that
cemetery come from east of the Mississippi, and yet the
majority of veterans are on the west of the Mississippi, I
think the next cemetery ought to be on the west coast,
particularly at former Fort Ord, where, by the way, we just
inaugurated last Friday and broke ground on a veteran's
cemetery. So perhaps we can extend that to be an ``Arlington
West.''

ESTABLISHING A NEW DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CEMETERY

I just wondered, have there been any discussions regarding
the establishment of a new Department of the Army cemetery of
the same stature as Arlington anywhere else in the country, and
if so, does the west coast play in that? I would also like to
know, since we asked several years ago, the data on the home
locations of the burials at Arlington. Are they still
collecting that data by geographical location?
Mr. Cleland. Mr. Farr, thank you very much for those kind
words. I remember that time, and I hope your public service has
been rewarding over the last 40 years. Thank you.
Let me just say the Veterans History Project out of the
Library of Congress was started by some U.S. Senator from
Georgia named Cleland and some unknown guy, now a private
citizen, named Chuck Hagel. So we teamed up in the Senate and
we put together the Veterans History Project, and believe it or
not it has collected well over a million stories now, part of
which we access. We have stories of 125,000 dead that we want
to tell, and we tell one every day on our Web site, as a matter
of fact. But what you point out is that there is a great
repository of material that we want to get out.
Secondly, in terms of Manila, that is where we do want to
put together an interpretive center so that it is not just the
crosses row on row and the ceramic tile that tells the story of
the battle of the Pacific, but there is interpretation there,
as Rob said, who is also, by the way, Chairman of the World War
I Commission. He is dual hatted. He is my deputy, but he is
Chairman of the World War I Commission. But we want to put some
flesh and blood behind those crosses and those names of the
missing.
So that is our earnest effort. And I would like to turn
over to my colleague here the other part of your question,
which is the question of extension of Arlington. However, I am
the Chairman of the Advisory Committee for the Secretary of the
Army on Arlington National Cemetery, and we have been working
mightily to expand the Arlington that we know and love here.
That is an Army cemetery, and whether the Army decides to do
something else or create an Arlington somewhere else, I do not
know. But we hope to extend this Arlington beyond 2050.
Mr. Farr. So the question, what is the Army considering for
the next step?
Mr. Hallinan. Congressman Farr, I have two questions, one
is the Arlington of the West and the other is a question on
data on geographics, locations of where veterans are coming
from, the east coast versus west coast.
To your first question, the Army does not plan on creating
another Arlington of the West. When Arlington closes to first
interments in the 2050s, it will assume the role that is very
similar that ABMC has now. In the American psyche, Arlington is
a national shrine, it is a special place. The Army is not in
the cemetery business. That role has been given to the
Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Cemetery
Administration, so when we do close for first interments, that
will be a duty and a responsibility of the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Farr. But haven't you had an advisory committee looking
at that? I mean, we talked about that the last couple of years.
Mr. Cleland. I am the chairman, and we are focused on this
Arlington. But the question of another Arlington is up to the
Department of the Army.
Mr. Hallinan. And to answer your question, Congressman, the
Army has no plans on designing and building an Arlington of the
West at this time. We believe that is a role for the Department
of Veterans Affairs by law. That is their duty and
responsibility.
Mr. Farr. Well, this is the first we heard it. I mean,
essentially after our Arlington, then you stop the
responsibility. That is it?
Mr. Hallinan. Well, it is a finite footprint, Congressman,
and some day it will be filled up, as many of our national
cemeteries and even our overseas cemeteries are. You have been
out to Arlington Cemetery, have walked the grounds and have
seen the footprint, what surrounds the Cemetery. Arlington
Cemetery is difficult to expand or displace people.
The Army doesn't consider its role to be opening new
national cemeteries. That is a role that Congress has given to
the Department of Veterans Affairs and one they do an excellent
job with. I have a lot of families and friends that I have
worked with that are buried and interred at the VA national
cemeteries, and when my day finally comes, just like in life, I
will be honored in death to lie next to them in a VA national
cemetery. They are being honored.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
Let me recognize Ms. Roby at this time.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
Thank you all for being here today.

CASELOAD AND BACKLOG

Judge, you mentioned in your testimony about the need for
the funding to remain in place for the ninth judge, and I can
only assume that that is because of the caseload and the
continued backlog. And so I thought it might be helpful for you
to give us an update on your caseload. We know that there have
been some improvements, but we still have a very long way to
go. And so I think it would be helpful for us to hear from you
about that.
Judge Kasold. Thank you.
I would first like to say that the caseload that we have is
directly proportionate to the number of cases that the Board
decides. You can say it is somewhere around 8 percent. It could
be 10 percent, it could be 7 percent, but use 8 percent.
In 2013, the Board decisions dropped in numbers because of
a reduced staff, et cetera, and we have had a drop in the
numbers in 2014, and we have no backlog at the court at this
particular time. But we are looking at numbers that are very,
very high. The Board predicts they are going to put out
somewhere around 58,000 decisions this coming year. That is
going to be close to 5,000 appeals if you just take close to
the 8 percent rate. Could be a little bit higher.
That is why I have the funding in here for the ninth judge.
If we were to stay where we are today, I think that eight
judges would go ahead and process those cases very--I am not
going to say rapidly because the appellate process takes time--
but promptly.
Mrs. Roby. Sure.
Judge Kasold. First off, you have a record that has to be
prepared. You have mandatory consultation. You have 60 days for
an appellate's brief. You have 60 days for a reply brief, 15
days beyond that, and you are out at 270 days before it can get
to the judge. And that doesn't count the delays, and there are
a number of delays requested by each of the parties.
But cases that get to the judges, if they are a single
judge, they are being decided within a 90-day period. If it is
an affirmance, that is the end of the case unless it gets a
limited appeal up to the Federal Circuit.
Mrs. Roby. And if you didn't have this additional judge?
Judge Kasold. Well, we go to eight, so each judge is doing
about 200 cases. And when you go to eight, you spread the 200
among the eight judges. Again, right now that takes time to get
through the process, et cetera.
Mrs. Roby. Sure.
Judge Kasold. But if they did not authorize that ninth
judge, with the increase in appeals that we have already seen
within the last 6 months that will slow down the time that it
takes to get a decision out. So that is why we have asked both
of our authorizing committees and coordinated with your staff
on the funding for the ninth judge. I think it is very
important to do that.
We also have the capability to recall our senior judges.
When I first became Chief Judge there was a backlog, if you
will, to use that word, we don't like to use it. But it was 700
cases sitting in our central legal staff, and many of the
judges had over 100 cases in their chambers.
With some reorganizational things that we did, and the help
of the senior judges, that has all been eliminated. And our
senior judges can be very helpful. This current year, I have
not recalled any senior judges, because the nine that we have
are processing the cases, as I said. Last year we recalled one.
I anticipate that with the numbers that we are likely to
have, probably next year, or certainly by the next, when the
follow-on Chief Judge would be doing the recall, we will start
to recall the senior judges, particularly if we don't get that
ninth judge. Even if we do get the ninth judge, within about a
year we will start to recall the senior judges because of the
numbers that we are looking at. They really are very high.
Mrs. Roby. Okay. I appreciate that.
Sir, I don't want to mispronounce your last name, Mr.----
Mr. Hallinan. Hallinan.
Mrs. Roby. Hallinan. Okay. Thanks. You mentioned some of
the challenges that Arlington is faced with given
sequestration. I would like for you to provide a little bit
more detail in light of what is going to happen on October 1,
fiscal year 2016, should we fail here in Congress to address
it.

SEQUESTRATION

Mr. Hallinan. Thank you for your question.
Sequestration will affect Arlington specifically, like many
other organizations, our ability to carry out the mission. It
is not an excepted appropriation. If we face sequestration and
we don't have the funding to cover operations, it will impact
our funeral services. It will impact daily operations. It may
result in furloughs of staff. It will have a significant impact
immediately, and it will impact the entire country, because
family members come from all around the country, they plan
months in advance to schedule the funerals, they fly in, they
have the remains transported here. So that is an immediate
impact that we will face.
The other impact is the daily impact on the maintenance
plans that we have, on the current contracting issues. If we
can't meet those debts or bills, we don't have the resources, I
see a serious and immediate impact on the daily operations.
But as I have testified previously, these expansion
projects that are underway, the ability for the Army Corps of
Engineers in Norfolk District that does most of our major
projects, for them to plan and design and then contract our
major expansion projects, if the money is not available, if we
are in sequestration, I could see that impacting those
projects. So I can see it having an impact even longer term
than the sequestration.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.

INCREASE IN APPEALS

Mr. Dent. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here today.
Chief Judge Kasold, following up on the distinguished lady
from Alabama's question, what do you attribute to the overall
increase in the appeals? Is it the aging veteran population? Is
it more veterans in the system? Do you have any thoughts about
why the number of appeals has increased so drastically.
Judge Kasold. My thoughts are--I don't have the data to
support this--but I believe there is a better understanding of
the breadth of benefits that are available to veterans than
existed years ago. And there may have been some kind of stigma
associated years ago with some people thinking that it was for
people who lost limbs, et cetera.
That is not the case today, as I see it, with all of the
veterans, not just those who are retiring soon, but also those
who retired in the past. And you add to that the fact that they
are getting older and there are other problems that they see,
and somehow they are trying to relate their condition to
service.
Interestingly, we don't see or have not seen very many
claims from people who have recently served. We are still
seeing the older veterans coming in on the appeals, trying to
establish service connection. Even in the liberal system that
VA has, you still have to have some kind of connection between
your current disability and service. So those are the cases
that we are seeing.
And then the increased rating. Again, it is a very liberal
system, so if somebody had a 10 percent or a 20 percent rating
and in their mind it gets a little bit worse over time and the
Board didn't approve an increased rating--we are seeing the
appeals on those also.
I think it is just a better understanding of the breadth of
VA benefits that are available that is causing this significant
increase, but VA may have a better handle on that.

BREADTH OF BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO VETERANS

Mr. Joyce. And the increase then, you have an aging veteran
population that is getting better educated to the potential
benefits, and from part of your answer, people who are serving
now, could we expect even a larger caseload going forward?
Judge Kasold. I don't know what the breakdown is in the
roughly 1-point-4 million claims within VA as far as how many
veterans are from the recent conflicts and how many are the
older veterans. I am saying we see the older veterans.
Remember, of 1.4 million claims, maybe close to 60,000 are
appealed to the Board. I understand that they have another
300,000 floating in their whole process of development on the
appeal. But from those 60,000 decisions, we are seeing
somewhere around 4,000 to 5,000 decisions. While that is a lot
for our court, it is small within the big number of decisions
that are being done.
We are also seeing, and I think VA is seeing this too--not
only are the number of veterans filing increasing because they
know about it, but instead of just seeking benefits for one or
two disabilities, we are seeing five, six, seven disabilities.
And so for each of those, even if you get four disabilities
approved, you still have two left that you might want to appeal
to the Board or then to the Court.
So that, again, ties into what I think is a better
understanding of the breadth of benefits that are available to
a veteran. And you can file at any time. There is no
limitation. So those veterans who never filed and are 70, 60,
whatever age, they can file.
My advice to veterans, is that when they leave service is
the best time to file for benefits because your service
connection is either there or it is not. You can always file
for increases later on. But the longer you wait, the more you
are going to find issues there. That is from the appellate view
looking down.
Mr. Joyce. Well, it is a good viewpoint to figure out how
we can lighten your load by potentially doing this earlier on
in the process. That is a good point.
Judge Kasold. I think you would lighten the service
connection load. Again, increased ratings can be filed at any
time. And if a veteran is not satisfied, they have an absolute
right to go to the Board, an absolute right to come to our
Court. On limited issues of law they could go to the Federal
Circuit. I think 130 of our cases were appealed last year. Most
of those the Federal Circuit doesn't have jurisdiction over
because the appellant is really just unhappy with the factual
determinations, and that is not within the jurisdiction of the
Federal Circuit. They may only review questions of law.
Mr. Joyce. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Secretary, very nice to see you again.
And thank you all, gentlemen, for coming today.
Mr. Cleland. Thank you.
Mr. Fortenberry. I was reflecting on something. In August
of 1944 there was a young medical doctor who left his wife and
two children and initially was assigned to a field hospital in
the Army in England. And at some point after that he was sent
into France, and near the town of St. Mere Eglise, between St.
Mere Eglise and Cherbourg, he was killed by exploding ordnance.
And he was buried there at the town of St. Mere Eglise, one of
the key battlefield sites where our paratroopers landed the
night before into the German column there and fought it out.
He was later reinterred here at Arlington National Cemetery
when all of the smaller cemeteries were consolidated and
families were given a choice whether or not to leave their
loved ones there at Omaha Beach or to bring them home.
He was my grandfather. And as I have gotten older it
becomes apparent to me, and as I am the last remaining male, it
is necessary for me not only to own the fullness of this story,
but to pass it on to my children as well. And we have visited
his grave here, and perhaps at that point they were too little
to understand, but I wanted to give them some initial exposure
to this important part of my own family's history, the
sacrifice that my own family made for the well-being of our
country. But also to participate in something deeper, the honor
and commitment of it all, the profound nature when one lays
down their life for their friends, for their country.
Mr. Secretary, I think you have the best job in America, to
be frank with you, because you are not only preserving our
history and sharing our history, now you want to evolve it into
fully interpreting that history. Just like you are trying to
meet, in my own way I am trying to meet that need for my
family. Your work is assisting me to do that and so many other
countless Americans.
So, look, we have the responsibility here to take a hard
look at your budgets and all that, and that is what of course
we will do. I think you do beautiful things, though, and I
wanted to commend you for it.
Back to the point that Mr. Dalessandro was making, I had a
recent visit to Normandy, and again the orderly rows of white
crosses punctuated with an occasional Star of David is just
such a profound reminder of the sacrifice and is really one of
the most beautiful places, I think, in the world. And to move
to the next level, and I was told that of the approximately
10,000 graves that you have there, you have only got about
1,000 stories.
And part of the new evolving mission is to understand each
one of those names that was there, just like Captain Luther
Sexton Fortenberry, my grandfather, his own story. The young
French guide that I had there that your excellent staff set up
for me was so enthusiastic. He had been on the job maybe 2
weeks. He was so prepared, a little bit overprepared for a
Congressman that can't listen to a lot of details. You know how
that is. But nonetheless, did just a beautiful job of relating
to us and telling us another story of another soldier who had
been killed, who had actually gone through the area where my
grandfather was killed.
So in regard to this evolving idea of interpretation, I am
completely with you, I think that is very, very important. I am
curious, though, as to your comment as to why this has not
increased visitors yet. Now, you are not in the tourism
business. I get that. But at the same time I would think that--
let's unpack that a little bit--and I would think that, again,
our opportunities to enhance this essential part of America's
experience and pass it on to generations are abundant. Do you
have any insights?
And they had talked to me a little bit, frankly, I was
primed for this, they had talked to me a little bit about it at
the Omaha Beach Cemetery.
Now, I have given another speech, and I am almost out of
time. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
But before I am out of time, if you could address that. And
I do want to add one little note of caution. Be careful about
the overreliance on technology, because the person-to-person
story, the ability of your young French national who works for
us to relay the details of that combat soldier whose story he
wanted to tell to us was an extraordinary part of the
experience. And sometimes in our modern age we think we have to
have the next machine or glitzy thing to do it better. It is
human-to-human, person-to-person contact that is most
effective.
Mr. Cleland. Sir, I would really agree with you. Mr. Bishop
mentioned Allison, the incredible woman, our interpretive
guide, our associate at Rhone. When she starts talking about
her boys, you can't help but have tears well up in your eyes. I
heard that story in Henri-Chapelle up near the German border in
Belgium, and she is based in Rhone. And she is on our
Superintendent Leadership Council. She is awesome. If I could
just replicate her in every one of our cemeteries, we could
just all pack up and go home, I mean, because she has got it.
Now, we do rely to a certain extent, and not as a
substitute, but we are playing in the field where a lot of
young people play, which is the Web site with the Twitter and
the social media and the Facebook and all that kind of stuff,
and that is increasing. But most of our visitors, believe it or
not, in these 14 countries are, shall we say, foreign. They are
not American. So the story is really getting out to the world,
and we would like to tell the story to more and more Americans.
Rob, do you have anything to say about that.
Mr. Dalessandro. I do. And I know we are all over time, but
I feel like that is such a great question.
Our biggest challenge is to educate Americans, I feel. It
is nice when we have 100 percent grave adoption, and we do at
Margraten and places like that. And I love the dedication of
going to a place like Saint-Lo and having the mayor drop
everything he is doing to honor us because American
paratroopers of today are visiting.
But we are really working hard to get exactly what you are
talking about. I feel like every American that goes to Europe
or goes to the Pacific ought to stop at one of our sites. We
are working as hard as we can to make that happen, but I will
be honest with you, I am not sure that we are very good at it.

CASELOAD WAITING TIME

Mr. Dent. Thank you. We are moving to the second round of
questioning. We are going to start with the ranking member, Mr.
Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Judge Kasold, in terms of your caseload, you said you were
averaging 343 cases filed a month since fiscal year 2005. What
is the average wait time between the time a case is filed for
court and the time it is adjudicated? And over the past 5
years, has the wait time increased, been stable or gotten
shorter? And what are you doing to try to deal with an
increased caseload?
Judge Kasold. As I stated earlier, we actually are in a
lull, and the cases are being processed at this time as fast as
they can be processed. It is an appellate court and there is
required briefing that goes with that. As I said, single judge
decisions are decided within a 90-day period, actually a little
faster than that with the judges today. Panel cases take a
little bit longer because we usually have an oral argument and
then three judges get together to come up with a decision.
The time period is about a year, when you count in all the
briefing and everything else that takes place with the case. We
have a very aggressive mediation consultation process. If you
are represented by an attorney, it goes through that process,
and there is a 50 percent settlement rate in that process. By
``settlement,'' I don't mean the case is settled with an award
of benefits; it is a remand back to the Board. I think you have
to give credit to VA because their counsel are recognizing some
of the reasons that a case might get remanded, such as failures
in the continued duty to assist a veteran, and the requirement
to render a decision that addresses the issues, in particular
the favorable material, and explain why that favorable material
does not support an award.
So, at this particular time, we are handling the caseload
as rapidly and professionally and judicially as we can.
However, the numbers that we are looking at will potentially
bring us back to what it was when I first became the chief
judge if we don't get that ninth judge. If the number of appris
stay at the 5,000 level I think we are going to be fine, but if
we go into the six, seven, 8,000 case range, we might be back
looking for additional judges, and we will already have all the
senior judges recalled.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Judge Kasold. But at this time we are doing very well. And,
again, we thank Congress, because Congress did authorize the
eighth and ninth judges and has supported us very well. Thank
you very much.

TRUST FUND

Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. McManus, as you know, the deductions from the pay of
enlisted members, warrant officers and limited duty officers
are from the trust fund for the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
What affect will the reductions in the military end strength
have on the trust fund, and are you prepared to deal with lower
contributions as a result of the reduction in that end
strength?
Mr. McManus. We think one of the significant impacts is the
fact in our fines and forfeitures, where we are starting to see
those significant reductions, where in 2009 you had $41 million
in fines and forfeitures and now with the decrease in fines and
forfeitures, we are down to $28 million, $13 million loss in a
year from what the high was in 2009. We are also seeing
probably about 500,000 a year in end strength, 50 cent dollar
value, but collectively, it is a significant loss.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. I just want to follow up, Mr. McManus,
before we let you go today, and before you have to take care of
your important business tomorrow, with the prince and the
duchess, just to follow up on the whole trust fund issue. If
the fines and forfeitures don't increase, how long before this
trust fund goes insolvent? Do you know?
Mr. McManus. Sir, we are on a track right now, if we took
no action in 2017, we would have issues. If we take the action
that we proposed in testimony, which is about $8.5 million in
revenue, we expect that to extend the life of the trust fund,
but depending on the decrease in fines and forfeitures, we are
expecting now from a $13 million loss to add another $4
million. So, you take the collective loss potentially another 6
years that we would have by--if we increased, at $8.5 million
annually. But, we do believe if we do something with our master
plan and we are successful, that we can stabilize the trust
fund.
Mr. Dent. How would you bring in that $4 million in revenue
that you just alluded to a moment ago?
Mr. McManus. Sir, what I was talking about is the--in the
fines and forfeitures, based on the tracking that we are seeing
right now, we are on track to lose another $4 million in
revenue out of fines and forfeitures. So, instead of finish, as
we did in 2014 at $28 million, we are on track to finish at $24
million.

REDUCING OPERATING COSTS

Mr. Dent. Okay.
Mr. McManus. Significant loss.
Mr. Dent. Yeah. The other issue I had, too, what have you
done to reduce your operating costs without sacrificing quality
of care for your residents? I know one of the key initiatives
you highlighted, I think, in your testimony is the Independent
Living Plus pilot program, and how does this improve care and
contain healthcare costs as well?
Mr. McManus. That is probably one of our most significant,
from a resident perspective, trying to keep them independent in
place. Plus in the past, what we have found by looking at why
our residents were going into their upper levels of care,
statistically there were three main factors. The number one
overriding reason of moving into higher level of care was
medication. Typically, whether it is for memory, whether it is
because of shaking, they start to have problems with
medication. The second reason we always had to move them up was
for their room, taking care of their room. They just lost the
ability to keep their room clean and upkeep. And then the third
reason was just bathing, their normal appearance and helping
them.
We felt if we could do those three things, we could keep
residents inside their room. And that is really what the
program is focused on, helping them stay in their room. But if
you keep a resident--by going to them, keeping them from being
on meds, you avoid the staffing ratios, what we are going to
from 3.5 to 4.1, by moving them into upper levels of care,
significant.
The other things that we really tried to do is to reduce
our footprint in D.C. 272 acres, golf course. The importance of
the golf course, of course, is there is a water reservoir under
it that is extremely important to us, but the--to do something
else with that property so we don't have the infrastructure
costs, but we have revenue from it, we feel is a significant
need to help our trust fund.

GREATEST CHALLENGES AND THE MILLENIUM PROJECT

Mr. Dent. Just going back to--shifting back to Mr.
Hallinan, briefly, Arlington Cemetery has certainly undergone a
transformation, some pretty difficult times about 5 years ago.
You are now on the other side of that trial and are setting
industry standards for best practices, and so two questions.
You know, one, what do you see as the greatest challenge at
this point? What are your greatest challenges at this point?
And the second question deals with the Millenium project. And
if you would just give us an update on that project and the
completion date, what the total cost of that project you think,
you project will be, and how much burial space are we going to
be getting? And I understand there is a stream and the site is
fairly hilly, which can rent some challenges. Is this project
running on time and on budget?
Mr. Hallinan. Mr. Chairman, excellent questions. I
appreciate the opportunity to answer your questions.
As far as the Millenium project, it is on time and it is on
budget. And I want to give credit to the Army Corps of
Engineers and Norfolk District. The 27 acres will give us
approximately 27,282 burial opportunities within those rolling
hills. They also have done an excellent job of restoring the
stream, so that will be available for visitors as they walk to
it. It will add some serenity to that national shrine.
Completion, we are looking towards August, September, the end
of fiscal year 2016. I am optimistic, but it is a challenging
site, but progress has been good. The total cost of that
project has been $81.8 million.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
At this time I would recognize Mr. Farr for any questions
that he might have in the second round.
Mr. Farr. Mr. McManus, a couple of questions. We got into
the rest home business in, when, 90--about 1991 or 1992?
Mr. McManus. The homes actually existed prior to that, but
that is when they merged the two homes with the trust fund.
Mr. Farr. And so we are only operating those two for the
whole country?
Mr. McManus. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Farr. Wow. Talk about an unmet need. How many States
have rest homes for veterans?
Mr. McManus. I don't know. I could come back to you on
that.
Mr. Farr. Please do.
Mr. McManus. There is about 48 states that have--Sir?
Mr. Farr. We ought to try--please do. I mean, States can
build veterans cemeteries--if they have the authority and law
to build veterans homes, we ought to encourage more of that.
[The information follows:]

State Veterans Homes are located in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

VSOS OPERATING REST HOMES FOR VETERANS

Mr. Farr. Are there any VSOs that operate veteran rest
homes?--Is there anything outside of State and Federal
Government that operate rest homes for veterans?
Mr. McManus. Not to my knowledge, sir. I know the VSO is
actively involved with us and I know they are actively involved
with the VAO--or VA as well.
Mr. Farr. I mean, you have property leased here in
Washington. You had gotten approval back in 2008 and then the
economy flipped. It is now back on track?
Mr. McManus. We put together a request for solicitation
that we hope to release in the next couple of months to the
public for companies to come in and bid. We had an open house
basically for companies to come in and we showed them the
property. And we had 75 companies. We think the competitive
market in D.C. is good, it is strong. We see that through what
is going on in D.C. in terms of building, so we believe it is a
very competitive environment that we could be very successful
with, to help the trust fund.
Mr. Farr. So for the States, who picks up the cost of the
month--for the veteran? Is it a Federal benefit you get? If you
operate--the ones you own, the rental costs are probably a lot
lower. You say you are going to increase the fee. How much is
that increase going to be?
Mr. McManus. It depends on what ultimately is approved, but
we feel that it is going to be about $1.4 million in revenue.
Mr. Farr. Well, what is the veteran going to have to pay?
Mr. McManus. Each veteran, based on the level of care, if
they are Independent Living Plus, it is 35 percent of their
income. So, it would depend on the monthly income of the
resident to give you an example of what they pay, but the
average cost for independent living is somewhere between $800
and $900.
Mr. Farr. Isn't there a market? I mean, I can just imagine
thousands of veterans just in my own State who are dying to
find an affordable rest home.
Why can't we use the market incentives like we do in the
RCI projects, residential community initiative for active duty
military, to have the private sector build these retirement
communities? Because you can do it on public property, and you
don't have to buy the real estate, they essentially collect a
housing allowance. Why not do the same thing for veterans?
Mr. McManus. You mean privatize the----
Mr. Farr. Yeah.
Mr. McManus [continuing]. The development?
Mr. Farr. Yeah. There is no way in the world you are going
to be able to meet the demand out there unless we change the
lay. When Mr. Hobson was chair of this committee, implementing
this housing for active duty military was essential.
What was happening was that Congress would approve the
funding and then we would have the Corps of Engineers design
the housing, and they would build it on the bases with private
contractors, and then soldiers and their families didn't want
to live there. They took their basic housing allowance and
said, ``We are going to live in town.'' ``These houses don't
fit our needs.'' And finally we woke up and said, ``well why
are we doing this in the first place?'' ``Why don't we get the
private sector to build the housing, and by the way, you are
going to have to build to local code standards and
architectural standards which none of the housing before that
did. I know, because we received a closed base, and no one
could live in any of those units, because they violated every
code you could possibly imagine.
These projects have been really successful. I think for the
people that built it, they did competitive bidding. So,
whatever benefits that veterans get that could be applied, plus
their Medicare or Medicaid for long-term care. We ought to try
to stimulate this need. Veterans need these homes badly, and
they are certainly going to be more affordable.
So, what is the wait list to get into Veterans Home now?
How long is that?
Mr. McManus. The----
Mr. Farr. How big is it?
Mr. McManus [continuing]. Wait list is about 2 years to
get----
Mr. Farr. How many?
Mr. McManus. Sir?
Mr. Farr. How many on the wait list?
Mr. McManus. There is--I want to say it is, like, 250 on
the Gulfport list. It is about a 2-year wait list. In D.C.
there is not a wait list.
Mr. Farr. In D.C., but they are veterans from anywhere in
the United States could----
Mr. McManus. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. But most people don't want to move at that age
and retire someplace so far away from their family and homes.
Wait. Let's take it back and figure out. If we have got so
many States participating, why can't we increase that ante, and
what incentives can we use to get the private sector involved?
If we use publicly-owned real estate, we could lease it to them
for a dollar a year and then they collect. It is certainly
below market.
Mr. McManus. I think, sir, one of the--one of the benefits
of the home, it is subsidized, when you really look at the
program and where the fundings come from. If you take a private
developer and privatization programs, they are basically being
funded through, whether it is the bachelor housing allowance or
some other type of funding that is part of that privatization
that offsets their costs to do it.
Mr. Farr. Well, veterans have won these appeals, they have
these claims, they have for-life income. That is subsidization.
I mean, what they don't have is a place to live.
Mr. McManus. No, I am not arguing that at all, sir. I am
just saying that I think one of the benefits of the home is the
fact that the cost for the home is being offset by--
Mr. Farr. I understand that. And you can offset those costs
by not having to sell the real estate to the developer. I mean,
building costs are the same. The biggest variation in building
today is real estate costs.
Mr. McManus. That is true, sir.
Mr. Farr. Well----
Mr. McManus. And that is--that is why we are trying to do
the initiative that we have for our southeast part of
Washington, D.C., to generate that revenue to put back into the
home for the veterans.
Mr. Farr. Well, time is up, but you are the specialist on
veterans homes. There is nobody else in the Federal family that
knows more about it than you. I am suggesting, think outside
the box and think about how we can have a veterans home in
every State, and as many as possible, because the demand is out
there.
My wife does end-of-life planning, and I will tell you it
is just terrible when people realize that they can't afford to
die. They cannot afford to get old. They can't stay in their
homes. It is too expensive. They can't even afford to go
anywhere, and there is nothing picking that up. So, we have an
opportunity here.
Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Farr.
Before we conclude, Mr. Hallinan, did you want to make an
additional comment?
Mr. Hallinan. Mr. Chairman, I didn't answer your second
question about the two biggest challenges that I think
Arlington faces in the future. The biggest challenge we face
is, number one, infrastructure repair, which we made great
progress on but we haven't finished yet. We identified about
$75 million back in 2010, 2011, deferred maintenance, and I am
being kind when I use the term ``deferred maintenance.'' We
have made great progress, with over $60 million which has been
applied.
We must shift toward sustain and maintain so we don't come
in front of Congress again 19 years from now and the bill is
much higher. Once we have gotten the investments and the
appropriations from Congress, we are doing a great job, but how
do you sustain and maintain that? I see that as the big
challenge going forward.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
And this pretty much concludes our hearing. I want to thank
Chief Judge Kasold in particular. This is your last appearance
before our subcommittee. We will miss you, but thank you.
And also I just wanted to mention that tonight I believe
Secretary Cleland has a little program going on. There is going
to be a panel discussion and a screening of ``Debt of Honor'',
and Tammy Duckworth, I believe, our colleague is going to be
joining you, as well as a few others. And I think that event
tonight is from 6:00 to 8:30 in the Capitol Visitor Center. So
please show up. Even if you didn't RSVP, go ahead, show up.
Judge Kasold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dent. So, I just wanted to mention that. And, again,
thank you all for joining us.
Members are advised that our next hearing is tomorrow,
tomorrow morning March 19 at 9:30 a.m. in room 309 in the
Capitol in the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, in
their hearing room. The Inspector General of the Department of
Veterans Affairs will be there.
So, again, thank you all for being here today, and this
meeting is adjourned.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]