Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

$100.00 per burial as at present, brought out above, there would be $300,000,000 return on the investment.

However, a reasonable charge for a burial vault in this case would be, say $50.00, so that the gross return for this valley or canyon would be $150,000,000. If that is not sufficient, the addition of $5.00 per vault would increase the gross by $15,000,000. It would seem that a government or state subsidy would be required to start and complete the plan but the savings to the family and return to the government, state or stockholders would be well worthwhile.

A rough outline of the method of construction would be:

First: Purchase the canyon.

Second: Clear it, top to bottom. (Only over such of its length as present plans necessitates.)

Third: Construct adequate drainage.

Fourth Concrete base.

Fifth Construct of concrete and steel, if so desired, individual vaults or lockers, say 21⁄2 feet by 22 feet by 8 feet, approximately 50 cubic feet, one alongside, and over the other.

Each corpse interred therefore would have its own safety vault similar to a safe deposit bank strong box, but of concrete, and sealed and safe forever.

As necessity demanded, future generations could easily extend construction. Five such canyons would take care of all the soldiers, sailors and marines of the present war, who are now dead or will die either during or after the war. However, in a National Cemetery, a soldier is buried separate from the graves of his family. In this plan, his grave would be with those of his family. The soldier graves could be made easily distinguishable.

It would provide work on a self-paying basis for hundreds of thousands of men, and would solve the post-war employment problem to a great extent.

As stated, there are estimated to be 1,400,000,000 graves in the United States. These are under 1,400,000 acres of tillable soil. Unless they are removed, time and progress will remove them.

We could have them all removed to our 100 mausoleums, where time and progress will not disturb them. The reclaim value of the recovered acreage will in most cases off-set the cost of removal and permanent interment.

Many people will argue against this, using the argument that they would rather have their buried dead rest in peace, where they are. But they won't rest in peace where they are. In a matter of time, they will be excavated and put anywhere. This plan will put them in a definite spot. Why wait for the excavators? The reclaimed granite and marble used as memorials at present could be used to build the mausoleums.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that there is no limit to the size of the valley or canyon selected. These can be selected as desired.

For instance, if we were to select a valley 2 miles long; 100 feet wide at the base; and 2000 feet wide at the top; and 1000 feet high, there could be interred in this space 300,000,000 bodies, which is just about the number of burials there will be in the United States in the next 100 years, each generation of course to construct as needed.

This surface area is about 460 acres. To bury 300,000,000 bodies under present methods, would require 300,000 acres. All this acreage is then lost.

(Note: For good reason choice farm lands are selected for cemetery sites.) If this practice continues and perpetual care is required, if we wait long enough all the tillable land in the United States will become cemeteries. If we wait long enough.

Mr. DORN. Next we have Mr. Ralph E. Hall, national executive director, AMVETS.

Commander, we are glad to have you with us.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Adair.

STATEMENT OF RALPH E. HALL, AMVETS NATIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, we of AMVETS welcome this opportunity to participate in the presentation of testimony relative to the all-important question of the burial

92-497-68- 4

policy to be followed in the future interment of those who served in defense of our Nation.

Although eligibility for burial in federally operated cemeteries legally extends to approximately 26 million living ex-servicemen, in practice eligibility is limited by the restricted availability of space and by the geographical location of the respective cemeteries.

Four cemetery systems are presently being managed by different Federal agencies. Eligibility for burial in each of these cemeteries varies with the operating agencies.

With the present jurisdictional arrangements involving four agencies of the Government, only the Battle Monuments Commission has as its primary mission the management of cemeteries.

In the June 1966 hearings before the Subcommittee on Hospitals of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a spokesman for the Department of the Army stated that in 1947 the Army favored H.R. 516 to provide a national cemetery for each State in the Nation. This policy was later changed, apparently, because the cost of land acquisition was found to be prohibitive.

However, the provisions of the United States Code for national cemeteries authorizes the Secretary of the Army to accept land donated by any State for the establishment of a national cemetery. This statute indicates that Congress with foresight recognized that, as the national cemetery system needed expansion from time to time, such a provision was needed and accordingly was written into the law.

On March 16, 1967, AMVETS made an extensive study of the availability of State and federally owned land that might be used for national military cemeteries.

Questionnaires were sent to the 50 Governors of our respective States asking about the availability of land in their States, and whether a program was already underway to correct this growing problem. Thirty-six replies were received and it was determined that the problem of diminishing burial space for veterans had been recognized by the States and the following proposals were suggested or are already being attempted:

(1) A State program, establishing military cemeteries on State land.

(2) Donations of State lands to be used by the Federal Government for cemeteries.

(3) Use of federally owned land adjacent to Federal institutions already existing in the State.

(4) Purchase of land on a combined State and Federal plan for future use for cemeteries.

AMVETS believe that the fundamental necessity for a long, honest, and forward-looking review of the national cemetery program has definitely been established. The problem now is to decide on what the sequence of corrective measures should be to start this program.

AMVETS believe these measures were started when, on October 20, 1967, the House of Representatives transferred jurisdiction of all Federal cemeteries where veterans are, or may be, buried in this country and abroad, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to the Veterans' Affairs Committee, with the exception of those few national cemeteries administered by the Secretary of the Interior as part of the national park system.

Since the Veterans' Administration is the Federal agency created to oversee the varied programs related to veterans, AMVETS feel the Veterans' Administration is the most logical choice for administering the important problem of cemetery management related to the burial of veterans.

AMVETS further recommend, Mr. Chairman, that the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs initiate a comprehensive study on methods of providing for burial of all veterans convenient to their homes, as requested by President Johnson in his message of January 30, 1968. In this respect, also, the Administrator should make every effort to establish a uniform criteria for eligibility for burial in the Federal cemetery system.

AMVETS would further recommend that consideration be given to the appointment of a national cemetery site committee, similar to the U.S. Veterans' Advisory Commission, on which there would be again representation by the major veterans organizations, to assist in an overall study of a permanent plan for the future burial of our deceased veterans.

In addition, we would recommend:

(a) That Arlington National Cemetery be reopened to all eligible veterans, until it is completely filled, thus avoiding any possible claims of preferential treatment in burials there.

(b) That veterans who have committed a crime against the country, although otherwise eligible for burial, be prohibited from being buried in a national cemetery. I cite the cases of Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Thompson which occurred this year.

(c) Burial allowance for veterans be increased to $400, of which $100 shall be reserved for payment toward a gravesite for those not buried in national cemeteries.

(d) Consideration should be given to the continuing overhead cost of a closed cemetery when it is filled and not being used, as against the small addititonal cost of purchasing more adjoining land and continuing the burials. We recommend that each national cemetery be considered individually as costs of additional land will vary with each location.

AMVETS is indebted to you, Mr. Chairman, and to this committee, for its continuing efforts to perfect and project legislation relative to the future resting places of our deceased veterans.

In summation there are some points I would like to bring out to you. Mr. Haley requested information with regard to cost. In 1947 the Department of the Army stated, in its testimony in support of H.R. 1516, that the establishment and administration of some 57 new cemeteries proposed at that time would cost $122,938,000.

A couple of questions were asked here today with regard to specific instances of cooperation with States or cities of the acceptance of donated land from respective States. Our organization contacted all 50 Governors. I would like to read to you the reply from one of the States, the State of California:

Uniquely, California is the residence of approximately 11 percent of all the Nation's veterans, thus caring for them in death as well as in life is a very real and important concern.

However, the more important part is this paragraph, your thoughts concerning land acquisition are certainly worthy of consideration. The Federal Government

now owns the excess of 151⁄2 million acres in the State of California, not includ-ing national parks and forests.

As a result of the huge military reservation programs set up during World War II substantial parcels of Federally owned land are located in practically every area of California. It is believed that should additional national cemeteries in California be authorized, there is currently sufficient Government acreage that could be declared surplus for this purpose.

In addition to that we heard from all of the States and the California letter cited one specific instance in the State of Utah. They advised us that 78 percent of the land of the State of Utah is federally owned.

In the State of Maine they cited an example where they recognized the problem and during the past year $147,000 was appropriated by the Legislature of the State of Maine to establish a State military cemetery.

I think in answer to some of the questions that were raised here this morning that the jurisdiction afforded the Veterans' Administrator in this case, as Mr. Teague has stated, gives broad power to the Administrator, but we of AMVETS feel there is no place greater to invest that power than in the Veterans' Administrator, and to go back a step further our recommendations were that the overseeing of the legislation relating to this veterans problem most certainly should be vested. in your committee here.

But the future administration of that policy, we feel, should be vested in the Veterans' Administration. In answer to your question, Mr. Adair, about jurisdiction of the VA with regard to overseas cemeteries, we feel this should encompass both the overseas and U.S.. cemeteries. You are probably aware of the fact that already the VA is sending contact men into the Vietnam area for counseling, so this will just be a step further in that direction of jurisdiction of overseas operations.

With regard to the use of private cemeteries, which you raised, I would somewhat have to agree with the statement made by the Veterans of Foreign Wars a few moments ago, that if at all necessary the use of private cemeteries we feel would have to be a very last resort— that this could not serve in lieu of burial in an actual national cemetery. However, I think that the result of the survey that AMVETS made this past year throughout the various States indicated that the problem of the burial of veterans is an acute one and is being recognized in each and every one of the States.

So if the action is taken by the States initially in cooperation with the Federal Government, perhaps it will never get to the point of being necessary to use private cemeteries.

However, I think that point has been looked into and is being acted upon in the respective States.

Mr. Haley raised the question with regard to using the national battle monuments for national cemeteries. Just a couple of years ago there was a big drive on in the Gettysburg for fundraising to try to buy land to preserve it against encroachment by land developers. I can see nothing wrong with using battle monument areas such as this for the use of national cemeteries, because certainly national cemeteries would add much more beauty and dignity to a battle monument area than would any form of housing development.

I had the opportunity this past year to visit the national cemetery

outside of Anzio, and during last year, during the Pearl Harbor reception ceremonies, 25th anniversary ceremonies at Hawaii, we visited the Punchbowl Cemetery there. Any of you who have been there would agree, I think, that there are no more beautiful spots on earth than these national cemeteries.

I don't think that cemeteries should be looked upon from the point of view that they would be detracting from the beauty of battle monument positions or shrines or anything of that nature.

Mr. Teague raised the question of where are these inquiries coming from. As a member of the Veterans' Advisory Commission, we heard testimony all over the country with regard to the need of attention to the national cemetery program. It may not be coming directly from the veterans themselves or from the families themselves, but our information is coming from the respective posts who are in turn being contacted by the families of the veterans involved.

The families just don't feel they know what direction to go or the best place to get their information. Secondly, they feel embarrassed about talking on a subject that they don't know as much about as they would like to, so they approach the individual veteran posts.

I think that just about winds up my testimony, Mr. Chairman. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them.

Mr. ADAIR. Thank you very much for your answers on some of these questions that have been raised. That has helped.

Mr. DORN. Thank you. That was a fine statement.

Next we have Hon. Philip F. O'Brien, the national commander of the Veterans of World War I, USA, Inc. Commander, I am glad to have you.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I am glad to be here.

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, I may say that the commander was not too long ago in my native State.

Mr. O'BRIEN. We gave you a nice feed, didn't we, Congressman? This is going to be a very brief statement because we feel that the commission appointed by the Governor has brought the matter to the grassroots all over the country, and we feel that we could not add too much to what they have already done.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP F. O'BRIEN, NATIONAL COMMANDER, VETERANS OF WORLD WAR I OF THE U.S.A., INC.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee, for as long as this organization of Veterans of World War I of the United States of America has been in existence, each national convention has brought forth a number of resolutions concerning the national cemetery problem, and resolutions for it.

We have been gratified to note the attention given this subject by your Subcommittee on Hospitals in June of 1966, when the situation became increasingly acute. Often, your distinguished committee has dealt with this problem in conjunction with other veterans' legislation, and we were especially pleased when the entire veterans' cemetery legislation was turned over to your committee, in the first session of the 90th Congress.

Being fully cognizant of the veterans' problems and more familiar

« ZurückWeiter »