After World War II, however, the Army reversed its stand. A quartermaster study concluded that no fewer than 79 new cemeteries should be opened at a cost then (1947) estimated at $122,938,331. The constant rise in costs was reflected when a far less ambitious program, proposed in 1961, was very conservatively priced at over $2 billion. The bulk of this sum would have been used to purchase expensive land near urban areas, where existing national cemeteries are already surrounded by highrise apartments, and other valuable commercial property. Only a fraction would have been needed for engineers' studies of cemetery layout and landscaping, the other major costs in establishing a cemetery. The comprehensive plan was gutted by Congress and, on final passage, authorized only minor expansion at two existing installations. Actually, the National Cemeteries Act of 1948, which codified the eligibility requirements for burial, left all the decisions on expansion in the hands of the secretary of the army. But even though specific legislative authority was not needed, the Army took the position that major additions to the "system" were matters of public policy that should be decided by Congress. After the anti-expansion policy was confirmed in 1961, the Army has preferred to show the other side of the legal coin: The 1948 act, Colonel MacFarland testified in 1966, "lists the categories of persons who may be interred, but imposes no requirement that the Department of the Army provide the necessary grave sites." True enough. But the emotional pressures of the expanding war in Vietnam have since added a new dimension to the national cemetery debate. PROTESTS AGAINST SHUTDOWNS Early in 1966, New Jersey veterans' groups began to write urgent and indignant letters to Senator Clifford P. Case, urging him to do something about the scheduled shutdown of the state's big Beverly National Cemtery. Despite his status as the lowest-ranking minority member of the Public Works Appropriation Committee, Case succeeded in securing full Senate passage of a $200,000 amendment to the public works money bill to keep Beverly and four other big-city cemeteries open. Senator Allen J. Ellender, of Louisiana, objected strongly, but the majority leader, Senator Mike Mansfield, and Senator Margaret Chase Smith, of the Armed Services Committee, made special appearances to argue that Vietnam should be reason enough to keep the five installations going. "That really put it over the top," a Case staffer recalls, "and Vietnam had an awful lot to do with it. Mansfield said it would be a shame if men who had been fighting and dying in Vietnam couldn't be buried close to home." Senator Ellender planted enough doubts in the collective mind of a HouseSenate conference committee to have the measure killed in 1966. But when a more confident Case announced he would submit the same amendment in 1967, he found that the Army had beaten him to the gun. Tipped off by the senator's hold-for-release press notice, the Army announced that it was undertaking, on its own initiative, to expand the same five cemeteries to the tune of $642,500. Besides Beverly, the others are Fort Rosecrans (San Diego) and Golden Gate (San Francisco) in California; Fort Harrison (Richmond), Va.; and Camp Nelson (Lexington), Ky. The only other exception to current policy is the enlargement and refurbishing of Arlington National Cemetery, which is now under way. Plans call for the eventual addition of the 190-acre South Post of nearby Fort Myer. When completed in 1977, the extra space will stretch out Arlington's operations for another decade. Before burials of veterans and their dependents were barred in February 1967, about 600 interments were taking place each month, a rate which would have forced a shutdown this year. Previously, only about 30 per cent of the burials were accounted for by active-duty personnel. ROLE OF VA CEMETERIES Although Senator Case's effort represents the first successful challenge to the administration's anti-expansion policy, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee is exploring a possibility which could add 77,000 new graves-and the potential for 272,000 more-with a minimum of fuss and expense. That would be absorption of the 21-cemetery system run by the Veterans' Administration (VA) as adjuncts to its hospitals. The VA cemeteries have served primarily as places of burial for those dying in VA hospitals who have no means or close relatives. Compared with the Army cemeteries, they are under-used-about 3,000 interments a year, as against 44,000. The restrictions weren't "largely necessary until President John F. Kennedy was buried in Arlington," said Forrest I. Rettgers, administrative assistant to Virgina's Senator Harry F. Byrd Jr. and architect of another approach to the Arlington problem. The Kennedy grave deepened the "Valhalla" mystique already associated with Arlington, Rettgers said, "and even people from California were entering in their wills that they wanted to be buried in Arlington." Byrd, as the state's senior senator, was subjected to heavy pressure from veterans' groups to find some way around the Arlington restrictions. Rettgers, sitting at home one night with a biography of Confederate cavalry leader J. E. B. Stuart, was reminded that the first burials at Arlington were soldiers who died of wounds suffered at the first battle of Manassas (Bull Run to Yankees). That provided some historical precedent for converting part of the Interior Department's Manassas National Battlefield Park-only a few miles away—to cemetery use, and calling it "Arlington Annex." This could be accomplished through executive order, on the initiative of the secretary of the army, with the concurrence of the secretary of the interior. Byrd approached DA with the idea, but the secretary refused to entertain it. He then introduced a joint "sense of the Congress" resolution, urging that this be done. Even this has yet to pass, however, due to House inaction on a Congressional reorganization bill that would establish a Senate veterans' affairs committee. Byrd's resolution is to be the first referral to the new committee, if and when it is set up. About two-thirds of the available VA grave sites have already been occupied, so no one realistically looks to this solution to dispose of the matter for all time. But it does provide an opprtunity to "flesh out" the national cemetery program, which is probably what the committee will recommend. "It's doubtful that they [the VA cemeteries] have served any real national purpose," said Mr. Meadows, who is planning the committee hearings. "There arent't many pre-conceived notions around this committee as to what should happen to national cemeteries. "It's perfectly obvious that we're not going to scrap them. I think we'll just be piecing the system out-that's what we're talking about." WHAT KIND OF SYSTEM Meadows is skeptical of the multibillion-dollar price tags placed on such cemetery expansion proposals as the one that went to Congress in 1961. He noted that no survey of the various categories of available federal lands has ever been made, "because nobody has yet decided what kind of a system it should be." If authority insists that new cemeteries be located near the heart of urban areas that do not now have them, he points out, the cost will naturally be astronomical. But these locations may not be strictly necessary to solve the geographical problem. "While I have no personal impression," he said, "we have so much federal land of our own, that I can't imagine a figure in the several billions. "It's pretty hard to believe that you couldn't find a corner of a vast post like Fort Belvoir [Va.] where you could set up a cemetery without bothering anybody. "And there are still plenty of places around the country where you can buy a couple-hundred-acre farm without going bankrupt." Any survey, he added, should begin with land around those cemeteries "which are closed or closing," and then proceed to a catalog of military posts, national forest, federal grazing lands, and the like. AMERICAN VETERANS COMMITTEE, Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman, House Veterans Affairs Committee, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN TEAGUE: The American Veterans Committee, whose philosophy is 'Citizens First, Veterans Second" passed a resolution at its National Board meeting March 30th in Chicago, Illinois, opposing the expansion of the National Cemetery system. This organization supports the transfer of jurisdiction of the national cemeteries from the Interior and Defense Departments to the Veterans Administration. However, for the reasons outlined below, the American Veterans Committee opposes the expansion of the present system when the available spaces give out, except for active-duty servicemen and for veterans, under very special circumstances, where Negro-American, Indian-American or other minority group servicemen, have, for example, been recently discharged. The National Cemetery system, which came into being during the Civil War because of the necessity to accommodate American servicemen who gave their lives in the service of their nation, has been a benefit for servicemen, veterans and their families in the past. Also, these national cemeteries provided a focus for patriotic feeling connected with giving military service that is commendable. Now with the situation whereby somewhere between 26 and 40 million individuals would be eligible for burial under this system, and with the available space almost zero, it seems to us a very hard look should be given to this program and the expense it involves in the context of the total needs of the nation. The expansion would of necessity far remove the system from the original purpose and scope of the program. We cannot see the justification of an expense of billions of dollars and the using up of public lands which could be used for other purposes. AVC urges that this program, together with other veterans programs, must be considered within the framework of the total needs and goals of the nation. Therefore, we urge that no further plans for increasing the number of burial plots in national cemeteries should be contemplated except for the special cases indicated above. The needs of the living should be the primary consideration in setting forth the objectives of our domestic program. We are supporting the view that except for the instances mentioned above, burial should be a private responsibility. However, we fully recognize the "high cost of dying" and do not in any way condone the outrageous prices and the gouging attitude of the cemetery lobby. We urge all steps that will bring the prices of burial to a reasonable level be taken. Not only should other means, such as cremation, be investigated, but ventures which would reduce costs, like cooperative associations, should be encouraged. DEAR CONGRESSMAN TEAGUE: The United Veterans Council of Philadelphia would appreciate having the attached statement of our Cemetery Committee entered into the records of the current National Cemetery hearings, which is being conducted by your committee. We urgently request Congressional approval of our need for additional National Cemetery space in or near Philadelphia and hope your findings support our contentions. Truly yours, Attested to: METRO OSTASH, Commander. CASPER J. KNIGHT, Jr., UNITED VETERANS COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA STATEMENT OF NEED OF NATIONAL CEMETERY IN PHILADELPHIA Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this committee. The United Veterans Council of Philadelphia consisting of 30 veterans organizations reiterates its support for expanding the National Cemetery System in general, and urge the placing of a cemetery in or near Philadelphia, in particular. A Our Council has been in the forefront urging a change in National Cemetery policy since we have experienced the hardship of having the last burial space at Beverly, New Jersey, National Cemetery, being assigned on February 4, 1966. As a result, we had the extreme privilege to present testimony on this subject to the Subcommittee on Hospitals of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs on June 23, 1966. The official record of that committee's hearing on the National Cemetery policy still reflects our current position. We wholeheartedly support the expansion of the National Cemetery System under the guidance, control and direction of the Administration of Veterans' Affairs. Many of our veterans feel that they are being deprived because they built up a "security" that they were promised a burial space. This feeling (correct or incorrect) has been, and still is being generated for enlistment purposes and is promulgated in Veterans Administration literature detailing veterans benefits. This perpetuates a promise that space is available. Our Federal Mandamus action concerning the right for burial space near a veterans home was denied in the Federal District Court and the Appeals Court in Philadelphia. This greatly disappointed us, but our main argument before the court was a moral issue. This moral issue seems to have become a moral victory, when the President of the United States mentioned in his Message on Servicemen and Veterans the following statement, "Every veteran who wants it should have the right to burial in a National Cemetery situated reasonably close to his home." The President's message was forwarded to Congress on January 30, 1968. His words echo our contention in the mandamus action. We highly recommended congressional approval along these lines. The Veterans Council therefore supports all general legislation for new cemeteries. This support relates to our backing H.R. 7226 to estabilsh National Cemeteries in Pennsylvania, and was submitted to your committee by Congressman Joshua Eilberg of Philadelphia. We, in particular, approve and urge support for a National Cemetery located in the Philadelphia area for our native servicemen and veterans. The United Veterans Council thanks this committee for considering our statement and the past recognition given to our cause. VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, DEPARTMENT OF MICHIGAN, DEAR SIR: We are pleased to submit for the record the following information relative to the establishment of a National Cemetery at Fort Custer, Michigan. The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Department of Michigan, has gone on record supporting the continuation of our present National Cemetery System. This subject, we are sure, has been presented to you in the past, that the State of Michigan with a veterans population of over a million veterans of all wars does not have a National Cemetery. By comparison, the State of Missouri has 3, Illinois 2, Indiana 2. Michigan's contribution to the National Economy should qualify this great state for at least one National Cemetery within its boundaries. With the Department of Defense declaring the 700 acres Military Reservation at Fort Custer, Michigan excess property, and with its existing Military Cemetery of 4,438 grave sites, presently only 130 persons are buried there. By developing this Military Cemetery into a National Cemetery for the State of Michigan it would not affect the planning of further Federal, State or private use of other portions of this Military reservation. A post Chapel and Administration Building, suitable for temporary use are available. The area is served by two four-lane highway approaches, as well as numerous smaller roads connecting with interstate highway I-94. The need for additional National Cemeteries has been indicated by limitation of burials in existing National Cemeteries. The property is now already in the possession of the Federal Government, and the establishment of a cemetery would merely involve a transfer of lands. Both houses of the Michigan Legislature have passed resolutions memorializing the Congress of the United States to approve and establish a National Cemetery at Fort Custer, Michigan. In the event that a National Cemetery is eventually established, and inasmuch as this area is closely associated with the late General Custer, we respectfully suggest that the name of General Custer be considered as an appropriate name for the cemetery. With kindest regards, we remain, OLIVER E. MEADOWS, RICHARD PAT FOLEY, NEW JERSEY VETERANS CEMETERY COMMITTEE, Staff Director, Committee on Veterans Affairs, DEAR MR. MEADOWS: Enclosed are copies of our Interim Report with a file copy for your office and extra copies for each of the members of the Committee. Should you want us to appear again before your Committee to bring you up to date on the views expressed at the hearings conducted June 28, 1966, by Richard J. Miele and myself, please contact me. Respectfully, JOSEPH A. SAMELSBERGER, NEW JERSEY VETERANS CEMETERY COMMITTEE *Joseph A. Samelsberger, temporary chairman (Clifton), Past National Service Officer, Disabled American Veterans Pension agent, Veterans' Administration, 201-274-3729 *Charles E. Kinney (Newark), 250 Kerrigan Blvd., Past Department Commander, Veterans of Foreign Wars (NJ), 201-371-3773 *Albert J. Schwind (Clifton), 351 Valley Road 07013, Past State and National Commander, Catholic War Veterans, 201-523-1607 *Benjamin J. Spitz (Paterson), 35 Church Street 07505, Past Department Commander, Jewish War Veterans, 201-684-1168 *Richard R. Stout (West Allenhurst), 301 Main Street, Allenhurst, N.J. 07711, Past Exec. Committeeman, American Legion, Monmouth County State Senator, Monmouth and Ocean Counties, 201-775-0503 *Charles F. Sullivan (East Brunswick), 47 South Drive, National Executive Committeeman (AMVETS), 201-545-5965 Kenneth R. Haley (Toms River), Executive Secretary (USN Ret), 235 Silverton Road, Toms River, N.J., 201-349-4997, 349-6521 John Mulhern (West Orange), 3 Aspen Road 07052, Recording Secretary (USN), 201-RE1-5360 MEETING OF NEW JERSEY VETERANS CEMETERY COMMITTEE HELD MARCH 6, 1968, AT 3:30 P.M., SUITE C, HOVNANIAN BLDG., TOMS RIVER, N.J. The following statement and supporting documents were approved and ordered spread upon the minutes, following a lengthy explanation of present and future plans for Veterans Memorial Garden program of Ocean County Memorial Park Association by Richard J. Miele, Pres. and his associates: HISTORICAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVES, NEW JERSEY VETERANS CEMETERY COMMITTEE For some years the veteran population of New Jersey has been expressing growing concern over the dwindling availability of suitable burial space for veterans in the National and State systems. As matters now stand there is no available space in the National Cemetery at Beverly, N.J. While it is true that the Federal Government expects to open up a new section at this location during *Voting members (7 maximum) with the right to elect their successors and appoint area veteran subcommittee members. |