Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, let me express my appreciation for granting me the privilege of appearing before you and your Subcommittee on National Parks. At the request of the Pennsylvania Department of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, on January 6 of 1961 I introduced H.R. 2326, a bill to provide for the establishment of national cemeteries in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. H.R. 2326 is one of more than 50 bills pending before your committee providing for the establishment of new units of the national cemetery system or to enlarge existing units. You stated in your letter to me of February 1 that the purpose of these hearings is to develop material on cemetery policy, national cemetery policy as a whole. With this in mind, and in support of my bill, H.R. 2326, I would like to read to you from a letter received by me dated January 6, 1961, from Leonard R. Santore, then the department commander of the Department of Pennsylvania, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. To save your time, Mr. Chairman, I will just read several paragraphs from the letter and request consent to put this letter in the record in its entirety. Mr. Santore says: There are two national cemeteries located in Pennsylvania, one in Philadelphia, established in 1862, in which there are approximately 10,844 interred. The cemetery is considered as being closed and there is no undeveloped acreage in the vicinity for expansion. The Department of Pennsylvania, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the director of the National Legislative Service of the Veterans of Foreign Wars will be glad to testify before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs as to the need for a national cemetery in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As you will note, Mr. Chairman, Past Commander Santore, Department of Pennsylvania, Veterans of Foreign Wars, in his letter states that the members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and ladies auxiliary are in favor of a Federal policy to establish new units of the national cemetery system, and several of these units, we hope, will be located in Pennsylvania. In addition, they are in favor of the Federal Government including in this new program the enlargement of existing national cemeteries. As mentioned, we have two national cemeteries in Pennsylvania. The one at Philadelphia is unable to accept any more burials, and for that reason has been closed for some time. The other is at Gettysburg Battlefield and, according to the information furnished me late last year, there was only space left for about 150 graves. It is only a question of time before the Gettysburg Cemetery will be closed to new burials. In concluding my statement, I wish to emphasize that over 150,000 members of the VFW and its ladies auxiliary in Pennsylvania are definitely in favor of a new national cemetery system and wish to commend this subcommittee for giving consideration to the subject. It is hoped that the piecemeal approach in solving the national cemetery problem will be abandoned and a more realistic program adopted by Congress as it speaks for all Americans in expressing their gratitude for having served this country in time of war. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. (Mr. Santore's letter follows:) VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT, DEAR CONGRESSMAN VAN ZANDT: On behalf of the veterans of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it is requested by the Department of Pennsylvania, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, that the enclosed bill to provide for the establishment of national cemeteries in the State of Pennsylvania be introduced by you in the 1st session of the 87th Congress. There are two national cemeteries located in Pennsylvania, one in Philadelphia, established in 1862, in which there are approximately 10,844 interred The cemetery is considered as being closed and there is no undeveloped acreage in the vicinity for expansion. The other cemetery is in Gettysburg and is under the Department of the Interior, as it is considered one of the national monument group. The exact date for establishment is not of record; however, there are a few buried there who are unidentified, as the result of the Battle of Gettysburg. There are approximately 4,579 interred in this cemetery. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has had a great number of her sons and daughters serve in the Armed Forces of these United States, many who desire to be buried in a national cemetery in their home State. Therefore, your assistance in obtaining a new national cemetery in the State of Pennsylvania is requested. The Department of Pennsylvania, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the director of the national legislative service of the Veterans of Foreign Wars will be glad to testify before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs as to the need for a national cemetery in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On behalf of the Department of Pennsylvania, Veterans of Foreign Wars, I wish to thank you in advance for your cooperation and for any assistance you may render in obtaining a national cemetery in the State of Pennsylvania. Very truly yours, LEONARD R. SANTORE, Department Commander. Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, Mr. Van Zandt. I left out one extra title the gentleman has. He has also served as my commanding officer in the Navy Marine Corps Reserve unit. Are there any questions from the members of the subcommittee? Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I have a question, because I think that Congressman Van Zandt perhaps understands the problem we have as much as anybody. I am advised, Mr. Van Zandt, that up to the present time there have been approximately 7 million veterans who have died, and 14 percent of that group have asked for interment in national cemeteries and a good many of their dependents have asked for interment in a national cemetery. Now with the figure of 221/2 million staring us in the face, 14 percent of that would be a rather large figure if the same ratio of desire were maintained. Where do you think we stop in this problem? And when do we stop? Mr. VAN ZANDT. I think the figure of 40 million should be studied. If my memory serves me correctly, it is not possible for a widow of a deceased veteran to be buried in a new grave; she must be buried in the same grave. Therefore, it would not require additional acreage as far as the widow is concerned. Therefore it appears that figure of 40 million is not an exact figure. It is my opinion we should use the figure of 2211⁄2 million, which represents the total veteran population in the country today. It might be well to go back to the days of George Washington when there was conceived a policy of compensating those men who fought for their country by giving them grants of land and other benefits. Year after year the Congress of the United States has recognized this policy by adding additional benefits, until today we have a schedule of them ranging from dollar benefits to civil service preference as well as burial in a national cemetery. Many of us in the room here today lived through World War I, World War II, and the Korean conflict and know that prior to World War II and the Korean conflict, these schedules of benefits were widely advertised to the young men and women of this country called to serve their country as a member of the Armed Forces. Not all, but I imagine most of them were familiar with the benefits they would be entitled to once they received an honorable discharge and thus became a veteran. Mr. ASPINALL. You are not saying that most of us who served through those times had any idea about a benefit such as that of being buried in a national cemetery when we enlisted are you? Mr. VAN ZANDT. I am saying, Mr. Chairman, prior to World War II and the Korean conflict, publicity was given to this schedule of benefits. So some may have read the publicity and others may have not. But I insist that many were encouraged by these benefits, in some respects, to enlist in the armed services. As I said in my statement, this subcommittee is meeting for the purpose of studying the problem, and the cost figure mentioned is part of the problem. Mr. ASPINALL. My question to you was whether or not you would suggest to this committee that we make provision, by establishment of congressional policy, to take care of all of these 222 million by military cemetery burial facilities, or a percentage of it, or whether we start at the present time to call a halt to this? Mr. VAN ZANDT. I was coming to that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ASPINALL. Fine. Mr. VAN ZANDT. As I said, the purpose of this subcommittee meeting is to study this problem, and I refer to the figures that you mentioned. As the chairman stated in his release some weeks ago, the approach by the Government to this problem has been piecemeal. Therefore, this committee hopes to adopt a policy to apply itself to the overall problem. Now to your question. I think you all know of my great interest in the field of veterans. I have never blindly permitted myself to be led into a position where we should bankrupt the country to take care of the veterans. But I do believe, and I have always believed, that the American people want the veteran taken care of. If they do not, I think they would have spoken time and time again through the Congress. Veterans expenditures today run around $6 billion and whether or not we should go beyond the point of $6 billion is the responsibility of Congress. There are some areas where I think dollars could be saved in the field of veterans' benefits, and there are some areas where more money should be spent. I do not have at my fingertips all of the statistical information such as the chairman has used in his statement a moment ago, but I am willing to depend upon that information and the decision of the subcommittee as to what is right for the country as a whole as well as the veteran. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for holding the hearings and also for establishing the objective you have, and that is to eliminate this piecemeal approach and come up with a new policy as far as the veteran and his interment in the national cemeteries is concerned. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, that is very good, but I do have one more followup question I would like to have put in the record. No one knows exactly what the average cost to the Federal Government would be, but they suggest it is about forty-five dollars and a half for the lot, $3.12 for annual perpetual care, and perhaps around $20 for a grave marker, which we will say is $70. If it were a hundred dollars, the cost to the United States overall would be $24 billion, just to bury these veterans, if all of them had this privilege and they accepted it. Now the cost to maintain such facilities for a year would be $6612 million, for perpetual care alone. Those are some of the figures that we are looking into as we go into this picture. Mr. VAN ZANDT. Yes. Mr. ASPINALL. We cannot set aside one veteran from another by rank and say that one is entitled and one is not entitled, and we cannot say that one is entitled because of valor shown and one is not, because the question of valor and recognition for such is largely a matter of chance, as my colleague knows. All I was wondering is whether or not there is a place we should stop, if so, where the place is, whether we should go ahead and carry this to its ultimate. I thank my colleague. Mr. VAN ZANDT. Thank you. Mr. RUTHERFORD. Are there other questions from the subcommittee members? The gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. SAYLOR. I want to join with the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee in congratulating my colleague from Pennsylvania, from the adjoining district, for coming before us. Jim, one of the real problems I think this committee is faced with grows out of what our policy should be with regard to Arlington. It has come to our attention that many members of the armed services who come from all 50 States, when they retire, are indicating that their place of residence is Metropolitan Washington. They do this for one purpose: They want to be buried in Arlington Cemetery. Now I think everyone I have talked to on this committee agrees that we should have, and always maintain, a national cemetery here at Arlington. But if everybody is going to move into this area and wants to be buried in Arlington, there is certain limitation of just space itself. There must be limits. Do you have any suggestions or ideas to give to this committee on what the requirements should be to be buried in Arlington Cemetery? Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, in addition to Arlington, you should take a look at the cemeteries at Annapolis and West Point. When you speak of retired personnel, their request for burial is either for Arlington or at the Academies from which they graduated. From an acreage standpoint, I think you will find both Annapolis and West Point are faced with the same problem as Arlington. As Mr. Aspinall has said, there is a dollar problem and some curb inust be applied. When a man enters the Academy, whether it be the Air Force, Army, or Navy, he understands that in the event of death, he is to enjoy the privilege of having his body interred either in Arlington, Annapolis, or West Point. Therefore, if you are going to make any changes in the policy, there should be a savings clause to protect those men who had this understanding, or who considered the privilege part of their contract. What the policy should be for those who enter the Academies after the law is amended is entirely up to this subcommittee. I think you are going to have to first look at the ability of the Government to buy the acreage and maintain it and then develop a policy as to who should and who should not be buried in the cemeteries. I think the same policy will also have to apply to veterans, because veterans with an honorable discharge in time of war are entitled to be buried in Arlington and other national cemeteries. It is a difficult problem since this privilege has been enjoyed by generations of Americans, and any change of policy this committee suggests will attract criticism. But I would leave it up to the subcommittee and, of course, would like to study the hearings and the committee report before taking a position on the legislation. Mr. SAYLOR. That is all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Van Zandt a question. Do you think, Mr. Van Zandt, that limiting the privilege to just the veteran and the wife and omitting other dependents would be a suitable way of narrowing it down? Mr. VAN ZANDT. The figures Mr. Aspinall mentioned a moment ago worry me as a Member of Congress, especially the cost factor, and I doubt if Congress will approve appropriations necessary to buy all the acreage that is needed from now on. Mr. RIVERS. How about the peacetime selectees who serve when we are not at war. Do they presently have the privilege? war. Mr. VAN ZANDT. We have a schedule of benefits for those men and women who served their country in time of war and another schedule of benefits, much less, of course, for those who did not serve in time of This group is commonly called peacetime veterans. Possibly you should come up with a policy that would permit only those who are receiving wartime benefits from the Government, that is, monetary benefits from the Government, to be interred in a national cemetery. Or it may be you would want to restrict the privilege to service-connected cases only. Mr. RIVERS. Thank you. Mr. RUTHERFORD. Are there other questions of the members of the committee? Thank you, Mr. Van Zandt, for your contribution this morning. Mr. VAN ZANDT. Thank you. Mr. RUTHERFORD. The next congressional witness is the Honorable Arch A. Moore, of the First District of West Virginia. Mr. Moore. |