accord with the needs of those who have earned the right to burial in a national cemetery. We believe, too, that the dimensions of the national cemetery system cannot be measured by the limitations of the existing national cemetery installations, but that they can only be measured in terms of the entitlement which Congress bestowed on individuals subject to the extent to which that entitlement is utilized by or in behalf of those concerned. And finally, we believe that the national cemetery system must conform to this yardstick unless the intent of Congress and the will of the Nation is to be thwarted. As National Commander Galbraith said in his statement before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on March 5, 1968: We are pleased that the House of Representatives by approval of Resolution 241 on October 20, 1967, amended its rules to provide that national cemeteries other than those under the Department of Interior, are now under the legislative oversight of your Committee. We commend the House of Representatives for this constructive step to establish a national cemetery system, a step which will add reality for many to the privilege of the right of burial in a national cemetery. While all those eligible will not take advantage of it, their right to do so should not be abridged. The American Legion-supported bill which would accomplish the purpose of our 1967 National Convention Resolution 497-copy of which is submitted herewith-is H.R. 12801, introduced by you, Mr. Chairman, on September 11, 1967. This bill would, if enacted (1) transfer to the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs existing national cemeteries presently under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, Department of Interior, and the Department of the Army; (2) provide the Administrator of Veterans Affairs with authority and responsibility for the operation, care, and maintenance of these cemeteries; (3) direct the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to plan a system of national cemeteries and to establish a program of expansion of existing national cemeteries and creation of additional ones so that the capacity and distribution of national cemetery sites shall at all times be sufficient to assure burial in the national cemetery for those who so desire; and (4) authorize the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to acquire such lands as are needed: by gift, purchase, condemnation, transfer, or by any other means. Development of such a national cemetery system, we hope, Mr. Chairman, will lead to the rescission of the discriminatory order of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, dated February 10, 1967, on burials in Arlington National Cemetery. Again, may I say that the American Legion appreciates your scheduling these hearings on national cemetery matters, and for the opportunity to present our views. We can appreciate the tremendous task which lies before you, and the others of this Congress. Mr. Chairman, since the statement was prepared a retired Colonel Ryan of the Corps of Engineers brought to my attention some pictures which were taken at the Evergreen Cemetery in Tucson, Ariz. on February 10, 1968. As you know there is not a national cemetery in the State of Arizona. These pictures graphically bring out the disrepair and disorder that results where there is not an orderly program of caring for a section of a cemetery in which veterans are interred. There are about 1,320 veterans in this particular site and they date from the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, and the Korean conflict. This concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. (The document referred to follows:) Evergreen Cemetery, Soldiers Plot A few of the 1320 American Soldiers interred: Arthur C. Hissrich: G.M.B. U.S.N., World War I, De- Gilbert H. Flewilling: Pvt C.A. 5th Eng Bn, World War Merrit Jon. Cooper: Sgt. 36th Serv. Co., W. War I.___ Richard R. Drum. Sgt. 7th Inf. Reg. 3d Div, Korea Robert Bent Gum, Dec. 1927-Dec. 1947- State Arizona. Pennsylvania. Arizona. Ohio. California. Texas. Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Do you have any questions, Mr. Haley? May I ask the witness this. One of the problems, of course, that we will have in attempting to establish additional national cemeteries is supposedly the high cost of land. What would be the position of the Legion if we could work out some program where we could use national monuments where lands are available for the enlargement of the cemeteries? After all, we have already the constant care of those national monuments and it would seem to me that certainly it would not be a great deal of additional expenditure to maintain, at a national monument where you have sufficient space, the burial plots of veterans who are entitled to be buried in a national cemetery. What would be the position of the Legion on that? Mr. GOLEMBIESKI. Mr. Chairman, although I have not seen anything in the way of a policy position on this, I would assume that the American Legion would not oppose such a plan because I believe they would agree that this would enhance the national cemetery that is situated therein that it is already in a national park and we personally feel that there would be no greater glory that could be paid these individuals than the use of these public parks and lands for this purpose. Mr. HALEY. It just seems to me that with the tremendous holdings of lands that the Federal Government now owns, in the way of national monuments, national parks, forest reserves, and so forth, it would seem to me that certainly it would bring about a great reduction in the cost of lands, especially in these more or less congested centers. Inasmuch as we are going to keep them up anyway, it seems to me that we could utilize those lands for this purpose. Don't you think that would be possible? Mr. GOLEMBIESKI. I think, too, sir, in doing this you would have to give consideration to the accessibility; that is, whether it is, we will say, a reasonable traveling distance of an urban area or to those areas of the population that would have access to these national parks and the cemeteries that would be created within them. Mr. HALEY. Of course, that would have to enter into the consideration of these things. But take my State of Florida, for instance-while we have cemeteries, one of them is closed, and Fort Barrancas is rapidly filling up. Up until a short time ago, until the new rules became effective insofar as Arlington is concerned, it was more convenient and consumed less time, if you want to put it that way, to bring a deceased veteran from Florida to Arlington National Cemetery than it did to take him to Fort Barrancas. Certainly, in Florida, we have the Ocala National Park, and we have several national monuments. As a matter of fact, my great State of Florida offered to give to the Federal Government a plot of land within 80 miles of the city of Miami. They just said, "Take it and develop it and so forth", but it seemed like we ran into an awful lot of opposition from these people who own memorial parks and so forth. But this is a situation, and I think that we are going to meet a great deal of opposition from various sources, but it seems to me that this is an obligation that we have to service personnel and their dependents, and we should either supply the space or we should rescind the laws that say they have the entitlement. Of course, I am not in favor of rescinding those laws, I might say, but if these people continue to oppose the increasing of the land base and so forth, for national cemeteries, I think that they should come up with some alternate plan. Some of them may have, where they suggest setting aside a certain part of the memorial park or cemetery for deceased soldiers, at a nominal cost. Nevertheless, that is not quite the thing that we have promised these people, these men and their dependents. So I think that the Congress should move ahead and do one of two things, either broaden the cemetery program or we should say, "All right we are going to deny it to you, you are not entitled to that any more." Wouldn't you agree with that? Mr. GOLEMBIESKI. I don't think that all of the facts are in yet. If you are going to provide an adequate system, the studies that were conducted by the Department of the Army in 1961 that pertained to the numbers they have utilized, the then existing national cemetery system indicated that only 40 or 50 percent of those who died within a 50-mile radius were taking advantage and the others were using commercial facilities because of family reasons or personal reasons or for some other reason. So I don't think, personally, that this would seem to infringe too far on the commercial aspects. Of course if you develop a system and it is accessible to a larger number of the veteran population and those others who are eligible, it may be that the 40 or 50 percent utilization will go up. Mr. HALEY. I agree with you on that. A few years ago I introduced a bill, when this problem was in another committee, to create a cemetery in Florida, and if you had ever had the roof fall in on top of you, you ought to have been at the hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Baring. |