the responsibility to investigate and determine policy, must determine, I think, how much money they are going to spend on this particular type of veterans benefits. After that determination has been made, then it seems to me there has to be a refinement of the qualifications or the degree of eligibility of the veteran. So that, if the committee decides that, because of national security or because of the national welfare, only X dollars can be spent out of the veterans budget for this particular facility, then it seems to me there has to be some consideration given to the degree of eligibility, and, as we all know, if the eligibility is in any way reduced, this in itself will reduce the desire on the part of the veteran for interment in a national cemetery. It does seem to me, as an observer, that certainly every veteran should be given, if at all possible, the right of burial in a national cemetery. And since it has been indicated to me that the spouse will be interred in the same grave with the veteran, then it seems to me that does not in itself present any further problem. The question of whether or not the eligibility should continue on to his family, whether others outside of veterans should be permitted to be buried in national cemeteries, is a problem that I think poses for this committee some tremendous decisions. I am not going to burden the committee any further except to say that I, as a Member of this Congress, am personally pleased, as are my constituents, that this committee has seen fit to take a long, hard looksee at the problem, and we are satisfied, based on your past performance under the able leadership of Mr. Aspinall, that this committee will, as usual, come up with sensible, rational recommendations that will not only have the good of the veteran at heart, but will also have the good of the country at heart. Thank you very much. Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, Mr. Cahill. Are there any questions? Mr. SAYLOR. I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RUTHERFORD. The gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Cahill, in line with some of the other questions which have been asked, although this is a complete change of policy, what would you think of a requirement that the veteran be required to pay for the cost of preparing a grave? I realize this is a small part of the whole thing. But, since this would almost be a uniform cost, what you would think of it. Mr. CAHILL. I think the troublesome feature of that, Mr. Saylor, is the fact that heretofore we have not required it, and to do so now, it seems to me, creates a great inequity on the other veterans. You will have, for example, a family where one brother did not have to do it and another brother would have to do it. Of course, that is a great inequity. Mr. SAYLOR. Of course, inequities exist every day. Mr. CAHILL. Yes. We all recognize this is a very sensitive matter. Mr. SAYLOR. Any change we make is going to create an inequity. Mr. CAHILL. That is true, except, very frankly, I think this myself: I think the only way you are going to see any sunshine in this particular problem is after you gentlemen have heard and looked at and personally studied the overall situation, and then it may be when all of the facts are in, a solution will become evident. Certainly all of the facts are not going to be at the disposal of any individual member until they hear all of the testimony that is presented before this subcommittee. I think, Mr. Saylor, very frankly, your committee is serving a very useful purpose in permitting this week of testimony, because it well may be that someone outside of the Congress, and even outside the veterans organizations, may come up with a real sensible solution to this problem. I personally do not have one myself, except to say that we see in New Jersey the inequity that is existing under the present plan. We recognize, for example, that here we have a cemetery that we know statistically is about to exhaust its facilities within the next 4 years. We also know there is ground close by that at the present time can be obtained at what we think is a reasonable price. We think it should be done, but we recognize that this is probably true in many other areas, so we are looking now for a set of rules by which we can govern our conduct in the future. I think, regrettably, as far as you are concerned, this is the responsibility of this subcommittee. Mr. RUTHERFORD. Are there other questions by members of the subcommittee? Thank you, Mr. Cahill, for your statement and contribution to this major problem. Mr. CAHILL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RUTHERFORD. Without objection, the letter from the chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Honorable Olin E. Teague, addressed to the chairman of the full committee, will be placed in the record at this point, and also a statement by Congressman J. Vaughan Gary, of Virginia, will be placed in the record at this point, and without objection, those statements are admitted to the record. (The statements follow :) Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR WAYNE: Thank you for your kind letter of February 8, 1962, inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee on National Parks during hearings which begin March 5 on the question of establishing national policy for cemeteries operated by the Federal Government. You flatter me by your statement when you refer to my "vast knowledge and experience in this area." Actually this is a matter which has never come before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The cemeteries which the Veterans' Administration operate are all in connection with the VA centers and, as you may recall, most of these were inherited from the National Homes for Disabled Voluntary Soldiers. Now they are largely operated in connection with domiciliaries and the only patients buried there are those who express a particular wish to be so buried prior to their death or their families arrange for it after death. In my opinion, the present program is working well. Admittedly, on some occasions it is confusing to the public to know just who is in charge of cemeteries. For example, Arlington comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior but the military funerals are arranged by the services involved. Thank you again for your kind invitation and I regret that I cannot give you any more information or suggestion other than that indicated above. Sincerely, OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman. STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE J. VAUGHAN GARY I have introduced legislation to provide for the transfer of the Nevius tract of land in Arlington County to the Secretary of the Army to be used for the enlargement of Arlington National Cemetery, because this tract is the only unoccupied land bordering this famous national cemetery which is rapidly being filled. The tract is already owned by the Federal Government, having originally been purchased for a Veterans' Hospital and later considered as a site for construction of an additional war memorial, before the needs of the Arlington National Cemetery had become fully apparent. Informal estimates I have received indicate that the current rate of use of land for burials in the cemetery is approximately 12 acres annually, and at this rate the 100 remaining acres of Arlington National Cemetery land suitable for burials will be used up by 1968. However, this rate of use may be tremendously increased, because the main impact of World War II veterans' deaths have not yet occurred. More than any other national cemetery in the United States, Arlington is hallowed as the last resting place for veterans of our most recent wars, many of whom retire and die in the Washington area. I hope that the Congress will see fit to authorize transfer of the Nevius tract to the Secretary of the Army for cemetery use, because at no additional cost to our Government, this transfer would add about 20 acres of contiguous land to Arlington National Cemetery. Although it is obvious that this cemetery will some day have to be closed to new burials, it would certainly be a tragedy if the only available tract of Government-owned land contiguous to the cemetery, and which is beautifully adapted for cemetery use, were to be lost for this one last possible expansion into unused ground. Mr. RUTHERFORD. We have a statement of an individual constituent that Mr. Rhodes of Arizona, has submitted. It will be placed at the appropriate point of the record where individuals are addressing themselves to the question. At this point in the record, Mr. Haley, of Florida, member of the full Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, will be permitted to place a statement in the record. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. HALEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to place before your committee my views in support of my bill H.R. 4513, which would provide for a national cemetery in the county of De Soto, State of Florida. This bill is of great importance to the veterans of my State. In Florida our veteran population has grown from 250,000 veterans in 1946 to approximately 600,000 veterans in 1962. Many of our older veterans are continuing to retire and move to Florida upon the advice of their doctors. Our veteran population will continue to grow and our needs will be even greater in the future. We have two national cemeteries in Florida. The one at St. Augustine has been closed since 1949 and there can be no expansion because of space limitations. The second national cemetery is located at Fort Barrancas, near Pensacola, in the western panhandle of Florida. The expense and difficulty of shipping the body of a decedent from southern or central Florida are great. The distance from Miami to Fort Barrancas is greater than the distance from Jacksonville, Fla., to the Arlington National Cemetery. Our veterans laws clearly set forth the veterans entitlement to burial in a national cemetery. While this law remains, it is incumbent upon us to provide the space necessary for the interment of those veterans. I firmly believe that the executive department should take the action necessary to provide for our national cemetery needs or it should recommend the repeal of the laws which grant this statutory entitlement to our veterans. (Subsequent statements from Members of Congress later received by the committee pursuant to a general permission follow :) PETITION SUBMITTED TO HON. CLIFFORD CASE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY We, the undersigned residents of Edgewater Park Township, Burlington County, N.J., are sending you this petition wherein we voice our protest to any further expansion of the Beverly National Cemetery within the boundaries of Edgewater Park Township. No one signing this petition is opposed to the Government's policy of providing a last resting place for those who have served us all in the armed services. Expansion of the Beverly National Cemetery in the past has not only taken valuable land off our tax rolls but has resulted in the closing of streets which were needed to permit movement of traffic within our municipality. The taking of the proposed additional ground would close the one remaining artery between the eastern and western portions of Edgewater Park Township. This would create an intolerable condition for those of us who live here. Furthermore, at the present time approximately 7 percent of our entire acreage is tax free and as a small community we cannot afford the transfer of additional taxable land to the tax-free status. The land which this proposed expansion would take is the heart of an area which has been zoned for light industry to help offset the tremendous tax burden which we have as a result of our population increase over the past few years. May we call your attention to the fact that while some of our own citizens are members of some of the organizations sponsoring this expansion, the vast majority live in other areas and are therefore not concerned about the injustice and hardship this would impose upon our community. Our contention is that the Beverly National Cemetery is large enough and there are many areas in the southern part of New Jersey where a new national cemetery can be placed without creating a tax and transportation hardship on local taxpayers. We urgently request you, as our Congressman, to take steps to defeat this proposed expansion. If you are unwilling to do so then we respectfully request that before any further hearings are held or action is taken in Washington, that a public hearing be held here in the municipality affected so that a clear picture of what this means to us may be presented. Our township officials have agreed to sponsor such a meeting to be presided over by you with the proponents of the expansion to be invited. Respectfully yours, RESIDENTS OF EDGEWATER PARK TOWNSHIP. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM W. SCRANTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA For many years, the veterans of Pennsylvania and, in fact, all the people of Pennsylvania, have been interested in the establishment of one or more additional national cemeteries in this, the third largest State of the Union. Pennsylvania's veteran population is very sizable, approximately 1,700,000, and almost a quarter of these are over 50 years of age. Obviously, this is a propitious time to establish such a cemetery in Pennsylvania. It could be near the present historic Civil War battlefield at Gettysburg, which makes a perfect site for a burial center for veterans of many States. This should be especially well considered at this time, since the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg takes place next year, 1963, which would be a most appropriate time for the dedication of the new national cemetery. In view of the very sizable number of veterans in Pennsylvania and the adjoining States and the need for such a cemetery, I sincerely hope that the committee will give due consideration to H.R. 4595, a bill to provide for the establishment of national cemeteries in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, introduced by me on February 21, 1961. Incidentally, this and companion bills have the support of the various veterans' groups in Pennsylvania. STATEMENT OF PAUL B. DAGUE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate deeply this privilege of placing before your committee my views in support of my bill, H.R. 943, or a similar measure whereby a national cemetery, or cemeteries, would be authorized for Pennsylvania. Your committee has already heard emphasis placed upon the traditional custom of providing a public resting place for our honorably discharged veterans and their spouses and the custom has been accepted and generally approved by those who consider this as a minimum honor that should be accorded the Nation's defenders. Originating generally with the burial on the battlefields of the Civil War of those who had fallen in a particular battle, the program has been brought down to the present with the veterans of subsequent wars insisting on this privilege, as a matter of right, of the same honor extended to their valorous forebears. Over the years the expenses of interment have increased so that today the average cost of a decent funeral in our State approaches $700, which includes the cemetery lot and all incidental services. Federal and county allowances (there are no State contributions in this field in Pennsylvania) barely reach a third of this amount and as a result without a public burial site, such as would be afforded by a national cemetery, the families of many of our veterans would be hard put to decently inter these honorably discharged defenders of our country. A survey in Pennsylvania reveals that there are almost a million and a half living veterans in the Commonwealth, many of whom will have to depend upon Government allowances for burial. Almost two-thirds of this number live within 50 miles of the metropolitan centers of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, which presents a telling argument for the creation of two cemeteries-one in the east and one in the west-in order that such facilities as may be provided shall be readily available for those who will require this final resting place on dedicated public lands. On the other hand, it is generally conceded that probably not more than half of the veterans now residing in our State would want to avail themselves of this privilege, thus reducing the actual size of the tracts to be provided. The veterans' organizations are actively supporting the proposition that our State should be provided with two national cemeteries but a realistic evaluation of the situation prompts the conclusion that all interested parties will be willing to compromise on a single site, providing it can be centrally located and be readily accessible to all four corners of the Commonwealth. The urgency calling for the enactment of suitable legislation in this field is readily appreciated when account is taken of the fact the two existing national cemeteries in Pennsylvania-located at Philadelphia and Gettysburg—have long been closed to additional interments. Substantial precedent has been set in the matter of providing public burial sites for honorably discharged veterans and I urge prompt action on one of the bills which are now before this committee in order that the veterans of our more recent wars will not charge us with discrimination. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. J. T. RUTHERFORD, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., March 8, 1962. Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, GENTLEMEN: Col. William B. Freeland, Deputy Adjutant General, Veterans Affairs, Pennsylvania Department of Military Affairs, has submitted a comprehensive statement urging a national cemetery for Pennsylvania. He also urged that this cemetery be located near to Gettysburg. Gettysburg, of course, is one of our great national shrines and it would certainly be an ideal place for a national cemetery. Colonel Freeland's figures |