Mr. BARING. I do not have any questions. I am in full accord with the American Legion position. I have no questions and nothing to add. As a member of this special subcommittee, I will do my very best to see that these points are brought out. Mr. GOLEMBIESKI. Thank you, Congressman Baring. Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Haley touched upon a matter upon which I would like to have your further opinion. Like other members of this committee, I have had communications and conversations with proprietors of cemeteries and memorial parks advocating the setting aside of special areas in all such burial grounds for veterans and soldiers. They indicate, that if that were done, it would not then be necessary to find large new areas for cemeteries, and this would serve in place of them. I wish you would give us your thinking on that point, please. Mr. GOLEMBIESKI. This is a matter that has not been discussed too much within the Commission. As I pointed out earlier in responding to Mr. Haley's question, we felt under the existing information that we had that there would not be too much loss of utilization of these commercial cemetery facilities. The thing that we were a little bit concerned about and the thing I brought out in this morning's statement, at the end of my statement, is that here and there we have heard, and this is the first graphical representation that I have had where a section which had been set aside for veterans was not in a very good state of maintenance or repair. It showed that the gravesites had caved in, the stones had fallen, and that no repair had been made by the filling of land or restoration of the stones to their positions that they should be in. This is the type of thing I presume that we would want to discuss with our Commission at the May meeting, if we may, to determine how they feel. There has been some thought in the past, and I know this was expressed by the American Legion in its statement of 1961, the hearings that were held. It was indicated that the American Legion then would not be opposed to the payment of a sum of money to someone who was not able to use a national cemetery site. In other words, a certain amount would be paid for the acquisition of a gravesite, the opening and closing of the grave, and so on. Whether the organization is for that right now, I would like to discuss with our Commission to see whether they want to assume a position on that. Mr. ADAIR. I would hope that you would do that and then that you would convey the results of that conversation to this committee. Unlike the experience that you have had, I have visited not a great number but a few cemeteries-particularly of the memorial park type, and have found that they had areas set aside for veterans or soldiers killed in combat which were very well kept up with a center flagpole in some cases and suitable, dignified ornamentation. It looked very nice. It had dignity and all the rest of it. So I think that is one of the questions that this committee is going to have to wrestle with as we begin to lay guidelines down. Very frankly, I have a completely open mind on the subject. It would be helpful to me and I think, Mr. Chairman, to others of the committee if we could have the considered views of your organization upon this question. Because I think it is one of the basic questions which we will need to consider. Mr. GOLEMBIESKI. This will be a subject for discussion with our subcommittee of the Commission at the coming NAC meeting the first week in May, and we hope at that time we can come up with a policy of the organization on this question. Mr. HALEY. Will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. ADAIR. Yes, sir. Mr. HALEY. I wonder if the American Legion in its deliberations and study of this matter could come up with some idea that would be helpful, I think to the committee, as to the normal cost of a burial plot such as we have, for instance, in my vicinity in Florida, a cemetery there that you buy a plot and pay so much for that plot. Then you are supposedly and do, as far as I know, have continued perpetual care of that plot. I wonder if your committee could explore all of these things and take that under consideration too. Mr. GOLEMBIESKI. We will do that, sir. Mr. ADAIR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DORN. No questions. Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Everett. Mr. EVERETT. No questions. Mr TEAGUE of Texas. There were a number of factors behind the introduction of this bill. It gives the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs very broad power, very broad authorities. The Legion does agree with what is in the bill as it relates to the power given the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs? Mr. GOLEMBIESKI. Yes, sir. This was based on the Resolution 497 of the 1967 national convention. Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Probably today the greatest interest in any veteran problem is related to national cemeteries. We have had, I think, about 190 different bills introduced, but we have gotten practically nothing from individual veterans or families of veterans across the country expressing an interest. For example, from my district, I don't think I have gotten even one single letter concerning national cemeteries. I wonder where the real interest comes from. Is it veteran posts out across the country? Mr. GOLEMBIESKI. On the resolutions that come to us, we usually don't have the background feeling of the communities. We do have a number of resolutions which we are maintaining in a referred status that deals with the development of national cemeteries in designated geographical areas, but we felt that we should keep those in a referred status until some policy was evolved on the development and programing of the national cemetery. As to individual feelings, we do get letters to the national commander, periodically. They are scattered. I think it was somewhat amplified when the Arlington National Cemetery restrictive order was issued. Probably from that time, people began to realize that national cemeteries were something that were available to veterans and their dependents. I think another reason why we don't have too much dealing is as you know there are 20 States without national cemeteries and many people, even in those States where there are national cemeteries, are not aware of the fact that a national cemetery is available. Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Do you think it is fair to discuss national cemeteries in terms of State boundaries? Mr. GOLEMBIESKI. No, sir, I do not. I think it is a matter of accessibility. If it is over the line the nearest one is the one that should be used. If there is not sufficient population within a particular State, it would seem to me that the national cemeteries around the periphery of that particular State would probably be a more reasonable way to approach this. Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I would hope that before the committee reports a bill that we will amend the language to provide more specific guidelines than are now in this bill. It just seems to me, as much as I respect Bill Driver, that we certainly give a lot of authority to the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. In fact, we just turn it over to him. and say, "You do it." Are there any other questions? Thank you very much. We are glad to have you before the committee for the first time. Mr. GOLEMBIESKI. Thank you. Mr. MATTINGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. We will next hear from Mr. Charles Huber of the Disabled American Veterans. Mr. Huber, you may proceed. Mr. HUBER. Mr. Chairman, I am accompanied this morning by Mr. William Flaherty, assistant director of legislation, and Mr. William Gardiner, assistant director for legislative research. STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. HUBER, NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS Mr. HUBER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I deeply appreciate this opportunity to appear before you this morning and present the views of the Disabled American Veterans on matters relating to the national cemetery system. At the very outset, Mr. Chairman, we want to give recognition to the fact that members of this distinguished committee have, through the years, held to the belief that veterans who have faithfully and honorably served this great country of ours should be entitled to the secure knowledge that we have a carefully drawn plan governing cemeteries for veterans and servicemen, a plan that is equitable now and will sustain in the future. The subject of national cemeteries has, of course, occupied the interest of the Disabled American Veterans for a long period of time. Last October the DAV was pleased to support House Resolution 241, which transferred to the Veterans' Affairs Committee jurisdiction and oversight in matters dealing with cemeteries of the United States in which veterans may be buried. The resolution excluded those national cemeteries located in military forts and battlefields administered by the Department of the Interior. This change in control represents a firm attempt to improve the declining cemetery situation, an attempt which was clearly nourished by President Johnson in his veterans message to the Congress January 30, 1968. As you know, the President told the Congress that every veteran should have the right to burial in a national cemetery situated reasonably close to his home. The President made known that he had asked the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to "make certain that the recommendations of the (Veterans' Advisory) Commission include proposals to assure this right in a meaningful sense." The President's attitude, we are pleased to note, was in marked contrast to the administration's policy which for the past two decades has urged a halt to the expansion of the cemetery system. In an effort to fulfill the President's request, the U.S. Veterans' Advisory Commission, in its recently published report, made the following recommendations: (1) That the entire Federal cemetery function, with exception of the Department of Interior cemeteries, be reassigned to the Veterans' Administration; (2) That, without delay, the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs conduct a study on methods of providing burial grounds for all veterans convenient to their homes: (3) That the Administrator establish uniform criteria for eligibility for burial in the Federal cemetery system; (4) That Arlington National Cemetery be reopened to all eligible veterans until it is completely filled; (5) That the burial allowance for yeterans be increased to $400, $100 of which shall be reserved for payment toward a gravesite for those not buried in national cemeteries; (6) That the burial allowance not be denied to any veteran because of the existence of any other burial or death benefit, public or private. The Disabled American Veterans endorses all six of the commission's recommendations. It is quite obvious that the burial entitlement which veterans have enjoyed for so many years will come to an end unless the national cemetery system is expanded. In practice, that entitlement has been a haphazard one. The national cemeteries are mainly located near Civil War battlegrounds. Inasmuch as decedents are usually buried near where they lived, and where their families continue to live, and since there are no national cemeteries near such population centers as Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, Cleveland, Dallas, Miami, and so on, the burial entitlement has turned, not on the veteran's status, but on the accident of geography. In short, the entitlement is not available in a fair and even-handed manner to all, or even to a majority of eligible veterans. The choices at this point are rather limited. One possibility, clearly, is to preserve the current eligibility rules and gradually bring the burial entitlement to an end as the existing national cemeteries are filled. A second is to narrow the eligibility, thus prolonging the entitlement in proportion to the reduction in numbers eligible. A third is to allow piecemeal expansion of the system in response to particular sectional needs. Finally, the Nation could embark on a program of systematically expanding the national cemetery system so that the burial entitlement would be truly available to every eligible veteran. We cannot conceive of any argument in favor of a piecemeal expansion, which would necessarily preserve the inequities inherent in the present system. If there is to be any expansion at all, it should be orderly, systematic, and with the objective of providing a nationwide distribution of cemeteries so that all eligibles could truly be said to enjoy the same entitlement. Against this course, arguments have been advanced that the provision of graves for veteran population cannot be accepted as the responsibility of the Federal Government, for the expense of doing so would involve literally millions of dollars in developmental costs alone, not to mention the cost of operation and maintenance in perpetuity. Considerations such as those just described have led this and previous administrations to the nonexpansion policy which has been followed now for almost two decades. This policy has been subject to continuous reexamination as various individuals and groups express their disappointment over the loss of convenient burial facilities at particular national cemeteries. However, each reexamination has led to reaffirmation of the basic nonexpansion policy. In this connection, and at this point, we think it appropriate to bring to mind that the Secretary of Defense, on February 10, 1967, announced a new burial policy for the Arlington National Cemetery. The announcement, we feel, is grossly discriminatory and not in keeping with this Nation's historical policy of equal treatment for veterans. It excludes veterans from burial in Arlington, unless they are on active duty at the time of death, elected Federal officials, or members of other limited groups. Shortly after publication of the order, the DAV called upon the Department of Defense to rescind its order and once more make Arlington Cemetery available to all veterans of past wars, regardless of their active or inactive status at time of death. We realize that facilities at Arlington Cemetery are not without limit, but we feel it is an injustice to our veterans to make space at the cemetery a matter of rank or preferential selection. It is quite evident that the Department of Defense has no intention of changing its pronouncement; and furthermore, has no intention of initiating a solution for the day when all the grave spaces in Arlington National Cemetery will have been dedicated to the deceased members of our Armed Forces. We feel it would be a national disgrace to have Arlington National Cemetery gravesites completely filled and another national cemetery not available for months or perhaps years, because of indifference to this important issue. Thoughtful consideration by the Nation's legislators can right this intolerable wrong to the Nation's veterans. Long after Arlington becomes a hallowed shrine, there will still be a need for a comparable cemetery of great national significance in the immediate vicinity of the Nation's Capital. The Washington area, rich in history, has many sites appropriate for the purpose. Two Civil War battlefields: Balls Bluff and Manassas each located within 30 minutes' driving time of Washington, D.C.-immediately recommend themselves. It is fitting, we think, that the military descendants of the Union and Confederate Armies should find final resting places on these 92-497-68- -3 |