Successive administrations of both political persuasions have, in recent years, held the line on expansion of national cemeteries, following the generally wise policy that direct cash subsidy to individuals provides the same effective result without saddling the government and the taxpayer with heavy capital investment and heavy future maintenance of investment. It is no accident that when the government set up the G.I. Bill of Rights on education, it did not create schools for veterans and their families, even though schools were far more sorely taxed for space than cemeteries. Such a solution would have been preposterous. Yet, we are faced with a parallel situation in regard to the creation of cemeteries. The only thing different is that we had a precedent for cemeteries for veterans, whereas we did not have one for schools for veterans. Were it not for that precedent, borne of another age for the needs of that age, establishment of veteran cemeteries would be recognized as being as financially preposterous as veteran schools. Take the example of housing. No legislators, to my knowledge, indicated that veterans who fought together also have a driving urge to live together. The various housing benefits for veterans were also on a direct individual basis which permitted the veteran to live where he chose. And for that rare breed of citizensoldier who may not have had his fill of communal living in service, I do not recall that the government went so far as to provide him with a Veteran City. What is the driving necessity to provide in death what has not been necessary to provide in life? I am not speaking of the career military man. He has a perfect right to seek an honored place in death, closely related in every way to the nature of his life. Nor am I speaking of any man or woman whose life was cut short by its sacrifice in the service of their country. It is a cruel fame but it is still a fame and one their families might reasonably wish to honor in a cemetery specifically designated for that purpose. However, a death under these circumstances has just as much reason to be honored in the individuals own community with burial among his family and friends. For these situations we should have an Arlington Cemetery, and such a facility may reasonably have to be expanded because the need it meets is a reasonable one. I am speaking of the great mass of us--the millions of us who are citizen soldiers, not by our choice, not by our preference, but out of the necessity of contributing to the welfare of our country. Undoubtedly, we all were shaped to some extent by our service but we do not bear some indelible mark that sets us off from the rest of the world as some sort of secret society. We did what had to be done with varying degrees of enthusiasm and good will, and then we returned to our families and our particular and various ways of life. Our soldiering experience carved out an unforgettable niche in our lives-but still only a niche when measured over the whole span of a man's life. We identify with each other not by whether we were veterans but by the jobs we hold, the beliefs we practice, the families we raise, and the communities in which we live. When we die, I think most of us hope that we will be remembered for our part in these things rather than for a murky memory out of the past. American institutions may not be perfect but in general they are more than adequate to serve the needs of society. Our schools, our housing, our cemeteries can be better, but they are far, far removed from being so inadequate as to demand a duplication of facilities for a special group whose claim to special treatment is even doubtful in their own minds. Figures change-and unfortunately usually go up, but right now it costs a minimum of $10,000 an acre to develop a cemetery, and $1,000 an acre per year to maintain it adequately thereafter. One 200 acre cemetery, therefore, costs a million dollars to take care of in a five year period. And proliferation of national cemeteries once begun has no reasonable end except financial prudence and that is the very reason why it should not be begun. If a regional national cemetery— without tradition and without historic significance is 100 mile away, it might as well be 1,000 miles away for all the impact it will have on the great mass of eligible users. People will continue to be buried among those with whom they lived and worked, but they will still be paying for the upkeep of these national garden spots. They will sit in pristine beauty with a surge of interest only in times of national tragedy. They will, of course, be used to some extent but chiefly by the local residents in the immediate area who may qualify for them, for after all, they are not unattractive cemeteries. The result would simply be that what was created for a national need ends up becoming, for all practical purposes, a local cemetery where most of the population will have a right to be buried. And soon city B wants a similar cemetery because after all, one hundred miles is a long way to go. And so the government enters the cemetery business, on a greater and greater basis. I have no doubts that the government can administer cemeteries effectively. They can do most things effectively when they put their minds to it, the calumnies of the business world notwithstanding. The points, why? There is an old principle the principle of subsidiarity--that says in effect, don't do anything that someone else can do just as well, particularly if they are further down the line than you, and particularly if they can do it less expensively. The prospect of a growing number of national cemeteries makes mincemeat of this sound legislative philosophy. The soundest, most practical, and least expensive approach to the question of veteran burials is the direct cash subsidy for whatever services are deemed proper for the veteran to have. It also has historical validity in terms of its effectiveness in other veteran benefit situations. It would be far preferable to increase, modify, improve, or dress up this approach even if emotion rather than logic is the guide rather than embark on a commitment to start new cemeteries. An unwise, hastily conceived appropriation can be re-studied and revamped in a more judicious climate. A new cemetery on the other hand is with you always. Mr. DORN. Without objection, correspondence furnished to the subcommittee by the Honorable John Saylor, who is a member of the committee but unable to be here today because of pressing business in another committee, will be included in the record of hearings at this point. (The material referred to follows:) CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., March 5, 1968. DEAR FRIEND: I am forwarding the attached to you in this manner because it relates to a subject in which you are interested and is the most expeditious means of transmittal. With every good wish, Sincerely, JOHN P. SAYLOR, DEAN W. CLINE FUNERAL HOME, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN P. SAYLOR, Congress of the United States, MY DEAR REPRESENTATIVE SAYLOR: Realizing how late I am with this information for you, I am still submitting a sample billing of charges that could appear on a statement from my funeral home should the next of kin so need or desire these services. Removal from airport or train depot to Leechburg-___-- Funeral services for serviceman' $35 Cemetery grave space (if not previously purchased by family) (one grave space with perpetual care-$125 to $175) 175 Cemetery grave opening with tent service____ 110 Outside vault (priced from $130, $195, $195 to $295). 195 Newspaper notices (price varies with each newspaper). 35 Phone calls (family is charged for all long-distance calls). 10 30 Flower car and minister car.. 20 Gratuities where required and often demanded (approximately) ______2_1 Memorial folder of prayer cards and printing; register book, completed, and acknowledgement cards__. 15 30 Use of funeral home, personnel services and professional services of Dean 450 Probable total amount___ 1, 105 92-497-68 -5 In counseling my families I explain what the charges are for the items that áre necessary and which they, to a certain extent, have little or no control over; and also the items which they personally desire these charges are also explained. Any allowances by the government and organizations may be applied toward the total charges. They will be obliged to pay the remaining balance out of their personal funds. May this information still be informative to you and your Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sincerely, DEAN W. CLINE. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Washington, D.C. DEAR TIGER: The attached refers to a matter in which you are interested and I am, therefore, forwarding it for your information and attention. With every good wish, Sincerely, JOHN P. SAYLOR, JOHN HENDERSON CO., Johnstown, Pa., February 15, 1968. HON. JOHN P. SAYLOR, House of Representatives, DEAR JOHN: Thank you for your letter of inquiry dated February 8, 1968 concerning the funeral costs of service men. At the time I received your letter I was very much concerned about the Department of Defense reimbursement or allowance to families in the case of the death of a service man. Since that date I have learned that the Defense Dpartment has changed these allowances and as they stand now, effective February 1, 1968, these allowances seem very adequate in my opinion. Prior to February first I would have said they were inadequate and I would cite for example the two hundred dollars in the case of a service man, Grandview Cemetery charge here in Johnstown would be eighty-five dollars and the cemetery would insist on some type of a cave-proof container, the minimum of which would be eighty-seven dollars, so you can see that cemetery charges alone would eat up one hundred seventy-two dollars out of the alloted two hundred dollars. There isn't a funeral director in the country who could render any kind of service for the remaining twenty-eight dollars, There was some comment in the newspaper some time ago, and I think I read it in one of the periodicals, that some families had made requests to replace the casket which was supplied by the Defense Department. Of the two funeral services which I had, one from the Air Force and the other from the Marine Corps, I can see no reason for any casket replacement. Both units were above average and in my personal opinion were entirely acceptable as they were sent to us. I am enclosing a copy of a release just received by me from the National Funeral Directors Association which is self-explanatory. John, if you feel that you need more detailed facts and figures in terms of dollars and cents for service rendered I would suggest that you write, or I will obtain them for you, to the National Funeral Directors Association 135 West Wells Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and request a copy of the Foran Report, 1967 Edition. I also know that the Federated Funeral Directors Association in Springfield, Ill. which is an accounting firm who maintain the books and records of approximately six hundred funeral directors throughout the country would be glad to supply you with any facts or figures. I have discussed this with both organizations and they would be more than glad to help you in any way. If it would help you any I would be glad to appear before the Committee if you think I could be of any service. Thank you very much for all your kindness, I remain, Very sincerely yours, JOHN HENDERSON. NATIONAL FUNERAL DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC., Milwaukee, Wis. ARMED FORCES BURIAL ALLOWANCES RAISED Both the primary and secondary burial allowances for service personnel who die while on active duty will be raised as of February 1. The present primary allowance for those who die in the United States where a U.S. contract funeral director is not used to prepare and casket the body is the amount of the contract in force in the area if there is such a contract funeral director available. Where there is no contract funeral director, the amount is $400. As of February 1, this will be raised to $500. The secondary allowance is applicable where the body is prepared and casketed as part of the mortuary program of the Armed Forces regardless of where death occurs. These allowances, present and future, are— $75 maximum if the body of the serviceman is sent directly to a National Cemetery or post cemetery. This figure remains the same. $150 maximum if the body of the serviceman is to be buried in a National Cemetery or a post cemetery and the services and/or facilities and/or merchandise of the funeral director are desired. This amount will be $250 maximum on and after February 1. $300 maximum if the body of the serviceman is to be buried in a private cemetery. On February 1 the maximum amount available is $500. During the time the Department of Defense was reviewing the allowances for the burial of servicemen, NFDA Executive Secretary Howard C. Raether accepted an invitation to appear on January 16 in the Pentagon in Washington before a group of persons representing each of the Armed Forces and the Department of Defense. The purpose of this appearance was to relate the position of the funeral director in providing his services, facilities and merchandise in the funerals and burials for those who die while in one of the services and to relate some of the experiences and practices of funeral firms. Mr. Raether emphasized the desires and demands families often have. He also explained the great variations in costs due to charges over which the funeral director has no control. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, DEAR OLIN: The attached refers to a matter in which you are interested and I am, therefore, forwarding it for your information and attention. With every good wish, JOHN P. SAYLOR, P.S.-You may want to add these to the previous letters sent you on this subject. ROBINSON-LYTLE, Indiana, Pa., January 31, 1968. DEAR SIR: We are writing to you relative to your study of funeral costs for servicemen killed in action. During the past year we have conducted services for three men who were killed in Vietnam. The services cost their families $311.85, $395.00, and $514.64 respectively. Federal allowances plus Indiana County's $75.00 allowance covered the expenses in two of these cases but private funds were necessary in the third instance. It should be observed that funeral service costs are usually materially lower in our service area than they are in metropolitan areas such as Allegheny County. We would respectfully suggest that your Veterans Affairs Committee recommend an increase in the burial allowance for servicemen killed in action. A larger allowance would be more realistic in today's economy. Sincerely, R. MCKAY LYTLE, JR. Hon. JOHN P. SAYLOR, ALONZO P. MERWIN, FUNERAL DIRECTOR, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SAYLOR: Your letter of January 15th received in requesting information in regards that many American families must bear a part of the funeral costs for servicemen killed in action. At the time your request was received, I was in the process of arranging funeral service for a serviceman killed in Vietnam. First I must say the cooperation and prompt service in returning these deceased servicemen to the United States are very gratifying. The Escort and service of nearby local Barracks are a god send to the bereaved families. All American families wish to bury their dead to the dictates of their hearts and traditions of their religious beliefs. Therefore a serviceman returned to his home town for burial, the family must arrange for a funeral director to take charge, just as if the death had occurred at home. Arrangements must be made for a viewing place (mostly the funeral home) where friends and relatives may visit for two to three days. Other services needed are Professional Service of the Funeral Director: Service of Assistants; Other Facilities: Car for the Clergyman; Flower Car; Register Book; Cards; Special Religious Equipment, etc. Also needed is a required Grave Receptable at the Cemetery: Opening and Closing of the Grave; Newspaper Notices; Hearse service and Tent service. In many cases there must be a purchase of grave plot; flowers and a possible charge or donation for use of Churches. No, Mr. Saylor, funeral costs cannot be kept within the allowable limits, provided by the United States Government. I would venture to say the amount provided for, would only cover perhaps about half the expense. Should you wish further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for inviting me to participate in this forthcoming report. Sincerely yours, ALONZO P. MERWIN. ARMSTRONG FUNERAL HOME, Hon. JOHN P. SAYLOR, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SAYLOR: Thanks for the inquiry pertaining to costs of burial of returned servicemen. I understand the amount allotted is $300. My understanding was that the $300 was set up as a basic, just to have the serviceman returned and buried without any time lapse for viewing and use of funeral home, equipment and funeral directors time. As is the custom in our area, there is a two or three day viewing by friends, a time set for a religious service, and their burial. This should all be explained to the family, and what ever other costs over and above cemetery and hearse, such as vault, use of funeral home and time involved, should be an expense of the family. Most areas, the $300 will purchase a grave space, pay for opening grave, and hearse to cemetery. In Pennsylvania we have an additional $75 allowed by County Commissioners of the county in which the serviceman resided. My father and Charles Armstrong, a state representative at that time, had this bill enacted. (1921) Looking back in my father's ledger, he only charged the families of returned servicemen of W.W. 1 for such items as had a charge for it. Nothing for his time or service. He said this was his contribution for their sacrifice. No matter how much you may allot for the burial, there will always be somebody trying to get more. Respectfully, T " 1 J. BRUCE ARMSTRONG. |