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.

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. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Adair.

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. HALEY. Thank you.

Mr. ADAIR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Dorn
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.