':?n
OVERSIGHT OF H.J. RES. 131, NATIONAL
CEMETERY SYSTEM, AMERICAN BAT-
TLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION, AND
ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
Y 4. V 64/3: 103-49
Oversight of H.J. Res. 131/ Kationa...
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MAY 24, 1994
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Serial No. 103-49
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
84-882CC WASHINGTON : 1994
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Document.s, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-046398-X
■f^l
\^
OVERSIGHT OF H.J. RES. 131, NATIONAL
CEMETERY SYSTEM, AMERICAN BAT-
TLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION, AND
ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
Y 4. V 64/3: 103-49
^ Oversight of H.J. Res. 131. Hationa...
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MAY 24, 1994
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Serial No. 103-49
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
84-882CC WASHINGTON : 1994
For sale by the U.S. Govemmeni Printing Office
Superintendent of Document,s. Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-046398-X
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
G.V. (SONNY) MONTGOMERY, Mississippi, Chairman
DON EDWARDS, California
DOUGLAS APPLEGATE, Ohio
LANE EVANS, Illinois
TIMOTHY J. PENNY, Minnesota
J. ROY ROWLAND, Georgia
JIM SLATTERY, Kansas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, II, Massachusetts
GEORGE E. SANGMEISTER, Illinois
JILL L. LONG, Indiana
CHET EDWARDS, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, CaUfomia
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
BOB FILNER, California
FRANK TEJEDA, Texas
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, lUinois
SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky
SANFORD BISHOP, Georgia
JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
MIKE KREIDLER, Washington
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
BOB STUMP, Arizona
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
THOMAS J. RIDGE, Pennsylvania
FLOYD SPENCE, South CaroUna
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
STEVE BUYER, Indiana
JACK QUINN, New York
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOHN LINDER, Georgia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
PETER T. KING, New York
Mack Fleming, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
GEORGE E. SANGMEISTER, Illinois, Chairman
SANFORD BISHOP, Georgia
MIKE KREIDLER, Washington
G.V. (SONNY) MONTGOMERY, Mississippi
DAN BURTON, Indiana
FLOYD SPENCE, South Carolina
STEVE BUYER, Indiana
(11)
CONTENTS
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman Sangmeister 1
Hon. Dan Burton 6
WITNESSES
Bowen, Jerry W., Director, National Cemetery System, Department of Veter-
ans Affairs accompanied bv Roger Rapp, Director, Field Operations; Doro-
thy MacKay, Director, Budget and Planning; and Vincent Barile, Director,
Operations Support 2
Prepared statement of Mr. Bowen 45
Brown, Jerry, Executive Director, National Concrete Burial Vault Association,
Inc 36
Prepared statement of Mr. Brown 93
CuUinan, Dennis, National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars 27
Prepared statement of Mr. Cullinan 81
Davis, Gen. Ray, USMC, (ret.). Chairman, Korean War Veterans Memorial
Advisory Board accompanied by Robert L. Hansen, Executive Director,
Advisory Board 32
Prepared statement of General Davis 84
Dola, Steven, Assistant Secretary, Management and Budget, Department of
the Army accompanied by John Metzler, Superintendent 14
Prepared statement of Mr. Dola 49
Foltynewicz, Richard, public witness 40
Prepared statement of Mr. Foltynewicz 100
Goldfarb, Lee, President, National Pearl Harbor Survivors Association 39
Prepared statement of Mr. Goldfarb 98
Grandison, Terry, Associate Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of Amer-
ica 23
Prepared statement of Mr. Grandison 65
Rhea, Larry D., Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs, Non Commissioned
Officers Association 21
Prepared statement of Mr. Rhea 59
Ryan, Col. William E., Jr., Director of Operations and Finance, American
Battle Monuments Commission accompanied by Col. Frederick C. Badger ... 18
Prepared statement of Colonel Ryan 55
Surratt, Rick, Associate, National Legislative Director, Disabled American
Veterans 26
Prepared statement of Mr. Surratt 75
Vitikacs, John R., Assistant Director, National Veterans Affairs and Rehabili-
tation Commission, The American Legion 24
Prepared statement of Mr. Vitikacs 71
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Statement:
Michael P. Cline, Master Sergenat (ret.). Executive Director, The Enlisted
Association of the National Guard of the United States 107
Written committee questions and their responses:
Congressman Burton to Department of Veterans Affairs Ill
(III)
OVERSIGHT OF H.J. RES. 131, NATIONAL CEM-
ETERY SYSTEM, AMERICAN BATTLE MONU-
MENTS COMMISSION, AND ARLINGTON NA-
TIONAL CEMETERY
TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1994
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Housing and Memorial Affairs,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in room
334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. George E. Sangmeister
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Sangmeister, Kreidler, and Burton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SANGMEISTER
Mr. Sangmeister. I will call the subcommittee to order. I am
pleased to welcome all of our witnesses to discuss the programs
and operation of the VA's National Cemetery System, the Arlington
National Cemetery and the American Battle Monuments Commis-
sion.
I am particularly pleased to acknowledge the presence of Mr.
Richard Foltynewicz, who flew in from my district to share his
views on H.J. Res. 131, my bill to designate December 7th of each
year as national Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. Dick has already
felt his presence known as I have seen him working the crowd out
here. Dick, welcome.
The VA's National Cemetery System consists of 114 national
cemeteries, 59 of which are open to first family interments, while
55 are closed except to eligible family members of those already
buried.
Over the next decade we must focus our attention on identifying
additional gravesites in our national cemeteries to meet the needs
of an aging veteran population. Not only must we ensure that the
honor of burial in our national shrines is available to our veterans,
but we must strive to ensure that all graves are perpetually main-
tained at the highest standards possible.
In two separate reports to the Congress, as required by Public
Law 99-576, the VA identified 10 areas of the country most in need
of a national cemetery. While only one of the 10, San Joaquin Val-
ley National Cemetery in California, has opened, I look forward to
receiving updates on the status of the remaining sites.
In addition to hearing fi-om officials of Arlington National Ceme-
tery and the American Battle Monuments Commission, I would ap-
(1)
predate it if the witnesses would comment on my bill, H.J. Res.
131. I know it does not fall within this subcommittee's jurisdiction.
However, I believe that it is of importance to all veterans to com-
memorate the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
That attack, killing more than 2,000 citizens of the United States
and wounding another 1,000 marked the entry of the United States
into World War H. Between the period of December 7, 1941, and
December 31, 1946, over 16 million Americans served in the Armed
Forces of the United States. Of that number, 671,000 were wound-
ed in action, 292,000 were killed in action, and an additional
114,000 died of nonbattle causes for a total of 406,000 Americans
making the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom around the
world. I believe that H.J. Res. 131 will promote a greater under-
standing and appreciation of this sacrifice.
There are 231 cosponsors as of this date in the House indicating
strong support. Although the House Post Office and Civil Service
Committee, which has jurisdiction over this bill, does not plan to
move it out of committee because of a rule which prohibits perma-
nently establishing commemorative days, I plan to file a discharge
petition later this week so that we may bring this resolution to the
Floor for a vote, £ind I am going to ask all the veterans' organiza-
tions to help support that with your various Members of Congress
so that we can successfully discharge the committee and bring this
before the Floor.
Mr. Burton is not here yet. Mr. Kreidler, do you have any open-
ing statement you would like to make?
Mr. Kreidler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just to commend you
for holding this hearing and looking very much forward to hearing
fi-om the witnesses here today. This is an issue that has a growing
importance to my State because of us being one of the designated
areas where a new cemetery is going to be built.
Mr. Sangmeister. That is right, it is, and we are planning on
holding a hearing out there in July, and we will be setting on the
date shortly. We will commence with the witnesses.
The first panel will be Jerry Bowen, Director of the National
Cemetery System. He will be accompanied by Mr. Roger Rapp, the
Director of Field Operations, Ms. Dorothy MacKay, Director of
Budget and Planning, and Mr. Vincent Barile, Director of Oper-
ations Support. Welcome to all of you.
Jerry, it is always good to see you. We have your written testi-
mony. You may proceed as you see fit.
STATEMENTS OF JERRY W. BOWEN, DmECTOR, NATIONAL
CEMETERY SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
ACCOMPANIED BY ROGER RAPP, DIRECTOR, FIELD OPER-
ATIONS; DOROTHY MACKAY, DIRECTOR, BUDGET AND PLAN-
NING; AND VINCENT BARILE, DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS
SUPPORT
Mr. BowEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Distinguished members
of the subcommittee, I welcome the opportunity to appear here
today to address the status of the National Cemetery System. Your
continued support and interest in our program is greatly appre-
ciated.
Mr. Chairman, it is with deep personal regret that I note your
departure from Congress after this current session. Your leadership
has been outstanding, your concern for our Nation's veterans has
been sincere, and your accomplishments have been truly signifi-
cant. We will sorely miss your leadership.
On behalf of the men and women of the National Cemetery Sys-
tem, I wish you continued success in your future endeavors.
Mr. Sangmeister. Well, thank you very much. It has been a mu-
tual relationship. All I can say at this point is let's look forward
to the 7 months left to get a lot of things done. Go ahead.
Mr. BOWEN. The National Cemetery System is one of VA's three
operating agencies providing direct services and benefits to the Na-
tion's almost 27 million veterans and their families. Burial in one
of our national shrines is the final tribute of a grateful Nation hon-
oring the memory and sacrifice of those who have served in our
Armed Forces.
Last year we provided burial for 67,329 veterans and eligible
family members. We are projecting 70,200 interments in fiscal year
1994. This is a 4.2 percent increase over last year.
In January of 1994 we reached a significant milestone. We now
maintain over two million gravesites within our system of 114 na-
tional cemeteries. In fiscal year 1994 we project that we will pro-
vide 313,000 headstones and 294,000 Presidential Memorial Cer-
tificates.
Through our services, NCS reaches out and touches the lives of
hundreds of thousands of American veterans and their families
each year. In recognition of the fact that demand for burial in a na-
tional cemetery will continue to increase until well into the next
century, we have developed a three-pronged strategy to meet this
challenge.
First, establishing new national cemeteries when feasible; sec-
ond, acquiring additional land to extend the service life of existing
cemeteries; and, third, encouraging States to participate in the
State Cemetery Grants Program.
Now, concerning new cemeteries. As you previously mentioned,
the 1987 Report to Congress identified 10 areas of the country in
greatest need of a new national cemetery. You also said that since
1987, only one new national cemetery has been constructed — the
San Joaquin Valley National Cemetery in Northern California,
which was opened in June of 1992.
We are pleased to report, however, that funding has been ap-
proved for land acquisition and master planning at five other sites:
Albany, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, and Seattle. Construction
funds for the Seattle cemetery are contained in the fiscal year 1995
budget request. Given current budgetary realities, it is no longer
considered viable to plan for additional construction other than
those five sites until after the year 2000.
The second prong of our strategy involves acquiring adjacent
land so that existing national cemeteries can remain open. I am ex-
tremely pleased with our progress this year. We have completed
purchase of 16 acres of land adjacent to Fort Gibson National Cem-
etery in Oklahoma and accepted a 10-acre donation of land at Fort
Scott National Cemetery in Kansas. These acquisitions will permit
both cemeteries to continue operations beyond the year 2030.
In Port Hudson, Louisiana, we have been negotiating with the
Georgia-Pacific Corporation to acquire 12 acres of land adjacent to
the Port Hudson National Cemetery, which was closed in 1992.
Our third approach is to utilize the State Cemetery Grants Pro-
gram to complement our national system. This program has been
very successful to date; however, interest has declined in recent
months. Most state officials appear to have taken a wait-and-see
attitude concerning passage of legislation changing the Federal/
State share from 50/50 to 65/35 funding as provided for in House
Resolution 949. Recent requests from States have involved im-
provements to existing cemeteries rather than applications for new
State cemeteries.
I am pleased to bring to your attention a recently completed NCS
initiative to improve customer service, the reintroduction of the up-
right granite headstone option. Initially, the new granite
headstones will only be available in private or state veterans ceme-
teries. We will then assess their acceptability by the veteran com-
munity before deciding their suitability for use in our national
cemeteries.
In closing, the National Cemetery System continues to seek ways
to meet the increasing workload demand and to satisfy the high ex-
pectations of the public we serve. Our fiscal year 1995 budget re-
quest contains an additional 25 FTEE to perform interment and
maintenance functions within our national cemeteries. In addition,
we have initiated a streamlining effort which has resulted in a re-
duction of seven FTEE in our Central Office. These FTEE will be
rechanneled to our field facilities beginning 1 October.
I plan to continue these efforts to decentralize functions and to
streamline our organization when and wherever possible. I appre-
ciate the opportunity to provide this update concerning the Na-
tional Cemetery System, and I welcome your questions at this
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bowen appears on p. 45.]
Mr. Sangmeister. Well, thank you, Jerry. I don't think you
would anticipate the first question that I am going to ask, but obvi-
ously fi*om a parochial standpoint, Chicago is one of the areas that
we are looking at for a new national cemetery. When can we expect
a decision to be made by the Secretary?
Mr. Bowen. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, Chicago was one
of those 10 areas that were identified in the 1987 Report to Con-
gress and was revalidated in 1994. Last week we completed the
final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the HofF
Woods site on the Joliet Army Arsenal. It was signed by the Sec-
retary last week, and has gone back to the contractor, the engi-
neers that did the environmental impact study, for publication in
the Federal Register,
This information should be published next week on the 3rd of
June. We then have a mandatory 30-day waiting period, that would
then conclude approximately on the 5th of July. Within 2 weeks of
that date, I will recommend the site to the Secretary and we expect
him to sign the record of decision in mid-July of this year.
Mr. Sangmeister. Okay. Well, it is nice you are getting down to
a final date of when that is going to be done. If Joliet, and, of
course, it is an if at this point, should become the site, does the VA
anticipate obtaining the land at no cost from the Department of the
Army based on the provisions of P.L. 100-180?
Mr. BOWEN. Yes, sir. We have a written opinion from VA's Gen-
eral Counsel, which states the more reasonable interpretation of
Section 2337 of the law that you mentioned, that the land transfer
is to be consummated without compensation. I will recommend that
the VA assert such a position in future discussions with the Army.
Mr. Sangmeister. Well, that is good to hear. I need to talk to
you. I have been thinking about different things that we need to
do with the Joliet arsenal and I am thinking about some legislation
which will affect the whole 23,500 acres. I want to make sure that
the legislation is drafted properly if, in fact, Joliet is selected as a
site — that we are in sync as far as getting that property at no cost
to you.
Mr. BowEN. At your convenience, sir.
Mr. Sangmeister. All right. H.R. 949, which is sitting over in
the Senate, would enhance the State Cemetery Grant Program by
paying the $150 plot allowance to States for burying any veteran
eligible for burial in a national cemetery, including peacetime vet-
erans, and would increase the VA's proportion of the matching
grant program from 50/50 to 65/35.
We are currently in negotiation with the Senate, and I know that
the VA is opposed to these two provisions. Do you have any per-
sonal opinion as to which proposal would you consider to be the
most beneficial provision of H.R. 949?
Mr. BowEN. It would be difficult to speak for the States as a
froup. I think that certain provisions of H.R. 949, for example, the
150 plot allowance for all veterans would greatly assist those
States that already have established State cemeteries because this
would reduce their operating costs.
The plot allowances would be used to defray the operating cost
of the cemeteries because matching funds are only for the construc-
tion, expansion, or improvement of cemeteries. So plot allowances
are one of the ways that they receive their operating capital.
For example, Maryland has five State cemeteries, Tennessee has
three. North Carolina has two. For these States the $150 plot al-
lowances would help them more. But for those States that are con-
templating constructing new State cemeteries, the increase from a
50/50 to a 65/35 ratio would be more helpful initially. In conjunc-
tion with that idea, in March of this year we sent a letter to each
of the Governors advising them of the availability of Federal funds.
We didn't mention any pending legislation or that the share may
be increased, but just wanted to make sure that they all knew
about the opportunity to establish or expand State veterans' ceme-
teries.
One of the interesting letters that we received back was from
Alabama. In that letter, the Governor mentioned that should Con-
gress pass legislation to provide States with more financial support
in the creation and operation of the State Cemetery Program, he
was confident that Alabama would be most interested in pursuing
such an effort. So we do have the interest out there, but as I men-
tioned in my statement, there seems to be a wait-and-see attitude
right now.
Mr, Sangmeister. So actually H.R. 949 is in some respects creat-
ing a problem as we just sit on it here because the anticipation it
may pass, it may not, is affecting the States' view of this whole
thing?
Mr. BOWEN. That appears to be the case, yes, sir.
Mr. Sangmeister. Okay. I have more questions here, but at this
point does the gentleman from Washington have anything in par-
ticular he would like to explore with the director?
Mr. Kreidler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a rather spe-
cific question that Mr. Bowen probably can anticipate, too. First,
though, I would like to express my appreciation personally and cer-
tainly for the veterans and their families in the State of Washing-
ton for your work on the Seattle/Tahoma National Cemetery. As
you pointed out, in the President's fiscal year 1995 Budget Request
there is a request for the construction of the Seattle cemetery
which is certainly very great news for our State. I need to and do
most willingly express my appreciation and gratitude to Secretary
Brown and to the President for their support in seeing that this is
included in this fiscal year budget request.
I am wondering, Mr. Bowen, if you could respond to giving me
any update as to where we are at right now relative to the Tahoma
National Cemetery. Is it still on schedule for completion in 1996 as
originally planned or not?
Mr. Bowen. Right now, sir, we are anticipating an opening date
of Veterans Day 1997. That gives us a little bit of wiggle room, but
we hope that would be the latest date. As we proceed, it appears
that that date will become a reality. We are moving forward with
the award of the contract for design. These steps take time, but ev-
erything is on track.
We are waiting for the approval of our 1995 budget request,
which includes construction dollars for Seattle.
Mr. Kreidler. Well, there certainly are certain provisions of that
budget request that I am going to be most interested in supporting,
along with many other things. Thank you very much, Mr. Bowen.
Mr. Bowen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sangmeister. The Ranking Minority Member of the Sub-
committee has arrived, Mr. Burton, the gentleman fi'om Indiana.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have
a statement I would like to submit for the record, and I congratu-
late you for holding this hearing. I think it is very timely.
Mr. Sangmeister. Okay, without objection, we will so do.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Burton follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too, beUeve that we should permanently designate
December 7th of each year as "National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day." So, I
would like to commend you for introducing House Joint Resolution 131, and hope-
fully, it will come to the House Floor for a vote before this session of Congress ends.
I also want to commend you for calling this hearing to discuss the state of the
VA's National Cemetery System. The 1994 VA Benefit Handbook states that "burial
benefits in a VA national cemetery include the gravesite, opening and closing of the
grave, and perpetual care." In my opinion, providing a final resting place for veter-
ans who have served in defense of this country should be a simple way to dem-
onstrate our government's commitment to veterans.
I am very interested to learn if we are meeting this commitment. Unlike past
years, I have not heard any horror stories of unsightly cemeteries. At the same time,
testimony provided by the representatives of the veterans' service organizations,
who are here today, causes me some concern. In testimony provided by The Amer-
ican Legion, concern was expressed about the growing equipment backlog, which is
projected to total $6.7 million by end of this year and $7.8 million by the end of
fiscal year 1995. In testimony provided by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, con-
cern was expressed about the aging infrastructure in our cemeteries, and it was rec-
ommended that $2 million be spent on repair projects. These are not good signs.
The solutions to the National Cemtery System's problems are easy. If some grass
is brown, a VA cemetery should water it. If some dirt needs seeding, then a VA cem-
etery should seed it. If the VA lacks the money to maintain a cemetery, then it
should ask for more. If the VA won't ask for the money necessary to provide a prop-
er burial and a dignified resting place for our Nation's war dead, then our Sub-
committee and the Appropriations Committee must find some way to provide it.
Mr. Chairman, once again, thank you for calling this hearing, and I am looking
forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses.
Mr. Sangmeister. This is kind of a broad question to you admit-
tedly, but some of the veterans groups have testified that the VA
must do more to expedite the processes involved in site selection,
environmental assessments and construction to establish new
cemeteries. What recommendations do you have that would
streamline and shorten the number of years to build new national
cemeteries if you have any ideas along that line?
Mr. BOWEN. Well, my primary effort right now has been to get
the process moving in the same fashion as we have done in Seattle
and we hope to do in Chicago. There is an initiative that we have
undertaken with the Seattle Cemetery, called design build.
There are about six or seven processes that we go through for
new cemetery construction. We do the Environmental Impact
Statement, then the master plan to get a concept of what the ceme-
tery is going to look like, and then the design phase which actually
outlines the various details of the administration building and
other cemetery facilities. Then we develop the construction docu-
ments, and from that actually award the construction contract.
What we are planning to do with Seattle is combine the design
and the build phase and which will compress that process by about
8 to 10 months. That is a comcept that we are testing in the Na-
tional Cemetery System and which has been utilized by VHA in
their construction of hospitals. By doing this, we can combine at
least two steps in this process and eliminate almost a year of plan-
ning time.
Mr. Sangmeister. I think you are to be commended for that. I
think that is exactly what the various veterans' organizations are
talking about. Like most things that happen through here, it seems
like a long, prolonged area to work through and we need the ceme-
teries and we need to progress.
You touched on this question, but I would like to explore it a lit-
tle bit more, and that is extending the life of currently open na-
tional cemeteries. With 55 cemeteries closed and more than 10
scheduled to close before the year 2000, how has the VA deter-
mined its plans to acquire additional land for gravesite expansion
at existing national cemeteries? I believe you mentioned in your di-
rect testimony. Fort Gibson, was it, where you bought additional
land?
Mr. Bowen. That is correct.
Mr. Sangmeister. Was there one other?
8
Mr. BOWEN. We purchased the land at Fort Gibson National
Cemetery in Oklahoma, a 16-acre tract from a private Igindowner,
with appropriated funds. At Fort Scott National Cemetery in Fort
Scott, ife, several veterans organizations there combined to have a
fund-raising project to purchase 10 acres of land, and then donated
it to VA to keep that cemetery open.
This is an interesting item to note here. I have focused my efforts
on keeping those cemeteries open that are scheduled to close before
the year 2000. If we did nothing, 12 cemeteries would have to close
between 1990 and 2000. With the efforts we have now, we are still
going to have to close seven; there just isn't any way that those
cemeteries can be expanded. This is primarily true for those Civil
War era cemeteries that are now surroiuided by cities. But here's
what happened at Fort Scott. That cemetery was not scheduled to
close until the year 2012, so we did not have it on our priority list
to acquire additional land. But the veterans didn't want to wait, so
they purchased the land and then donated it to us although we
won't start burying there until after the year 2012.
Mr. Sangmeister. For all the national cemeteries there is always
a survey of the surrounding land to find out if there is any avail-
able that may be used? You have an ongoing program for that?
Mr. BowEN. That is correct. And even in one case I mentioned
Port Hudson, LA earlier. That cemetery actually closed in 1992.
Now, with negotiation with Georgia-Pacific we hope to acquire al-
most 12 acres, and then reopen that cemetery. So we are not only
keeping the ones open if we can, but we will go back and reopen
those where possible; however, I don't know of any other situation
where we will be able to do that.
Mr. Sangmeister. The 1995 fiscal year budget for the general
operation of the National Cemetery System is $72.6 million. Al-
though this reflects a $2.2 million increase over 1994, how does the
NCS plan to prevent a decline in services to veterans and in the
physical appeareuice of our cemeteries as workloads continue to in-
crease based on an aging veteran population? And then to supple-
ment that question a little bit further, would burials be delayed as
cemeteries reduce the number of interments performed on a daily
basis, and would lawn and maintenance be curtailed, grass cut
once every seven versus 5 days, one versus two applications of fer-
tilizer? In other words, where is the economy going to come under
the money you have got to work with?
Mr. BowEN. Yes, sir. There are two ways that we are going to
increase the number of FTEE that are actually working in the
cemeteries. One of those was through our budget request for 1995
with 25 additional FTEE.
Now, those will all go to the cemeteries. None of those will go to
the Central Office. None of those will go to our three area offices.
One of the interesting things here, we can take that 25 FTEE and
hire temporaries in the summer and we in effect get 50 people.
Now, the other way that we put more people working in the
cemeteries is through the streamlining efforts that I mentioned in
the Central Office. This will move an additional seven spaces out
to the field.
We are also looking at the varieties of grass that we use, particu-
larly the improved varieties that will not require mowing as fre-
quently. We can also apply chemicals in some areas to retard the
growth of grass. These are some of the action that we are under-
taking to economize.
I think that we can continue to maintain the high level of main-
tenance that the public expects, and we are certainly not going to
deny burial services. We provide service on demsind. When the cor-
tege pulls up to the gates of a national cemetery, we provide the
service, and we don't anticipate that we are going to make any
changes to that.
Mr. Sangmeister. Not that I have visited a lot of our veterans
national cemeteries, but the directors with whom I have met,
raised questions about their equipment. The equipment is getting
older and older, and they are just patching and trying to make do.
The fiscal year 1995 budget states that the equipment backlog will
be reduced to $6.7 million at the end of fiscal year 1994, and that
an additional $2.7 million is scheduled for replacement in fiscal
year 1995.
If this is the case, and considering the current budget climate,
it appears that increases will continue to mount in the area of
equipment backlog. I presume this is a concern of yours. I appeared
before the Appropriations Committee and asked for, I believe, $8
million, the fiill amount needed to bring the equipment backlog up
to date. I would like to think I got a little bit of their ear down
there, but you never know when shove comes to push because it
is easy to say they can get by another year on the equipment. What
have you got to say about this equipment backlog?
Mr. BOWEN. I appreciate your efforts on our behalf in this area.
This is a real problem. Our equipment backlog is projected to go
up. We had worked our backlog down to $5.0 million at the end of
fiscal year 1993. At the end of 1994, we project that will go up to
$6.7 million. That is going to be an increase in our backlog of $1.7
million.
At the end of 1995, even though we are putting effort in that
area, our backlog will continue to increase to $7.8 million, and that
will be an increase of $1.1 million. The good news is that even
though the backlog is increasing, it is increasing at a decreasing
rate. You mentioned your visits to the cemeteries. I have been on
board exactly one year this week, and during that time I have vis-
ited 36 of our 114 national cemeteries, and equipment backlog is
one of the questions that I always ask the directors.
For fiscal year 1995, we made the decision that of the $2.2 mil-
lion increase that we are requesting, the bulk of that will go to pay
for our additional 25 FTEE. Because when I talked to the cemetery
directors and I presented them with that choice, do you need newer
equipment or do you need more people, not unanimously, but most
of the directors told me to give them the people. Good people can
make the equipment last longer, so that is a conscious effort on my
part to try to stretch the service life of our equipment by providing
them with more people in the field.
Mr. Sangmeister. Well, it is obviously an important area that
you are addressing and it is needed because we certainly want to
keep these cemeteries looking the way they should. All of our veter-
ans' organizations and people in general are very impressed when
they go to a national cemetery. To go there to see one falling into
10
disrepair because of lack of equipment would not be a good thing
for us.
Does the gentleman from Indiana have any questions?
Mr. Burton. I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. First
of all, I want to congratulate the chairman on going to the Appro-
priations Committee and fighting to get adequate funding for the
equipment that is necessary to maintain these cemeteries. We have
made a commitment to, I believe, the people who have served in
our military to provide them an adequate final resting place. If we
don't have the equipment and if they don't take care of the ceme-
teries and they don't look right, then I think there is a real prob-
lem. We ought to do everything we can on this committee and the
Appropriations Committee to make sure there is adequate funds to
t^e care of those who served in the Armed Services. So, Mr.
Bowen, I hope that if you and your colleagues find in the future
that there is going to be a shortfall, you will take the initiative and
contact the chairman or myself or somebody on the committee and
let us know so that we can be ahead of the curve and try to deal
with it.
We were just talking about the construction of columbaria, and
we were discussing whether or not it would be cost-effective in the
long term to have more of those facilities built because of the budg-
etary constraints we are facing. If there are some real economies
to be made, could you illuminate that issue a little bit, and tell us
if you have any projections long term what kind of impact that
would have on the cemetery system.
Mr. BowEN. Yes, I would like to ask Mr. Roger Rapp, who is Di-
rector of our Field Operations, to answer that question. That is one
of the things when I first came on board that I wanted to look into.
I think there are some opportunities in that area, but there are
also some problems and some challenges that I was not aware of.
Mr. Rapp has been working with this particular problem for quite
some time, so I would ask him to respond.
Mr. Rapp. Generally, we try to include columbarium in our de-
sign of new cemeteries. Our hope when we design the Seattle ceme-
tery would be to include a columbarium. By using the major con-
struction funding, we have, I believe, the right amount of money
available to build columbaria. In our existing cemeteries where we
have land, in-ground cremation is probably a better use of our dol-
lars than trying to construct a columbarium at an older cemetery.
The cost of a columbarium is quite expensive. It is hard to fund
and get a 5deld that is equal to what the cost of land might be at
a cemetery that has adequate acreage.
At some of our closed cemeteries in California we have been of-
fering cremation options even though we have no room for casketed
burials, and we have used in-ground cremations to a point where,
at one site. Fort Rosecrans in San Diego, we have exhausted all the
in-ground space available. We have constructed columbaria there.
We have constructed columbaria in two phases using our minor
construction dollars, and the cost per niche, when we prepare the
site and comply with some other issues, is $200 to $250, even using
economy of scale. We have built approximately 1,200 niches for
around $400,000 or $500,000, and we filled that columbarium up
in one year. So then we built another one that is in the several mil-
11
lion dollars range. We are getting that ready, which will have a few
thousand niches available.
We are told there are about a thousand cremations ready to fill
up that columbarium. We are finding that in some cases we can't
build them quickly enough and large enough to accommodate the
demand, yet the costs are such that at $200 to $300 a niche, that
is a niche per family, we have to ask ourselves how many dollars
can we spend just building columbaria. The best answer would be,
it is a selective option that makes sense at places where we have
the funding in our major construction program where we are mas-
ter planning and building brand new cemeteries.
At existing cemeteries where we have the space, in ground seems
to be the way to go in terms of cost, and in terms of choice. We
have found that when we have had columbaria and in-ground space
available, generally people choose the in-ground option. If we have
only columbaria available, then that is their choice.
Mr. Burton. You have alluded to the comparative cost. Can you
give us a comparison or does it vary greatly by area?
Mr. Rapp. Per columbarium?
Mr. Burton. You said that the per columbarium cost was ap-
proximately $250. What is the expense for interment in the
ground?
Mr. Rapp. Around $30 to $40.
Mr. Burton. Is that all?
Mr. Rapp. In terms of the space. That would be in places where
we actually have the land available and we can fit cremations in
the ground in a much more convenient manner because of the
smaller gravesite size.
Mr. Burton. So the initial cost is about seven or eight times
higher?
Mr. Rapp. Yes.
Mr. Burton. How about the long-term maintenance costs? You
have to cut the grass and maintain the grounds and everything. I
just wondered
Mr. Rapp. Well, there are some folks who believe that the long-
term maintenance costs of the columbarium are much cheaper, in
that the structure itself may not require maintenance for quite a
while. Generally, for the cremation areas in ground, the mainte-
nance would be a little bit more, but not as much as a gravesite
with a casket in it. Once the cremains are placed in the ground we
don't have the same maintenance challenges that we do in casketed
sites in terms of sinking graves and refilling graves.
Mr. Burton. One more question, Mr. Chairman. Over a long pe-
riod of time, have you done any projections over, say, a 10 or 15
or 20-year period as far as maintenance cost comparisons?
Mr. Rapp. Not
Mr. Burton. We are looking at long-term costs now and long-
term budget problems. Maybe you could provide some cost compari-
son figures for the record that show the maintenance costs, over
the next 12 to 20 years, of a columbarium proposal as compared
to a conventional cemetery. Those comperative figures would be
helpful in giving us an idea of what the long-term costs were going
to be.
12
Mr. Rapp. We will be willing to provide that information, to take
a look at it. I just want to emphasize one part of my answer. The
dollars that we use to build columbaria in existing cemeteries come
out of our minor construction program. Those are the same dollars
that we use to buy land to keep cemeteries open, and that we use
to develop land at places like the examples that Mr. Bowen has
given at Fort Scott, Fort Gibson, Fort Sam Houston — places where
we are expanding existing cemeteries. We use the same minor con-
struction dollars to develop casketed gravesites, so much like the
equipment dilemma, we have the same dilemma on using our
scarce resources most effectively.
We are trying to balance that and use columbaria at selected
sites.
[The information follows:]
LONG TERM MAINTENANCE COSTS
COLUMBARIA TO IN-GROUND BURIAL OF CREMAINS
The National Cemetery System (NCS) has carefully reviewed the issue of
columbaria construction for the interment of cremated remains in national ceme-
teries. The focus to date has been to compare the initial cost to construct columbaria
to that of the cost to provide in-ground sites for cremains. Columbaria units must
be adapted to existing terrain features at individual sites (i.e. sloping hillside; need
for a retaining wall, etc.) which results in a considerable increase in the cost per
niche.
Columbaria niches generally cost between $300-$400 per niche, once the project
is scoped. This cost is contrasted with the cost for burial of cremated remains in
in-ground cremain sites. The estimated cost to develop land is between $55,000 and
$75,000 per acre, including roads, curbs, irrigation, landscaping, and site grading.
Approximately 2000 plots, measuring 3' x 3', could be developed for the burial of
in-ground cremains at a cost of $30 to $40 per plot. There is a distinct disparity
between the initial cost of one niche and one cremain site.
NCS has conducted no formal studies on the long-term costs associated with
columbaria versus in-ground burial of cremated remains. We are, however, in the
process of developing unit costs associated with our workloads, such as cost per
casketed interment, cost per cremain interment, cost per gravesite maintained, and
other relevant indicators. These will be developed over the next several years as we
are challenged to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act.
Currently, we do have considerable experience in both types of burials and have
reviewed and analyzed their associated costs and benefits. As with any structure,
columbaria units require upkeep. Exposure to the elements necessitates periodic
washing of the unit to clean off accumulated dust, dirt, and bird droppings; repair
of cracks; caulking of seams; and maintenance of the landscaping surrounding the
columbaria. In-ground cremain sites require trimming and mowing; however, the
same maintenance challenges that exist with casketed sites, such as sinking and re-
filling of graves, do not exist.
The real issue here is how to best utilize available NCS resources. Since both de-
velopment of in-ground sites and construction of columbaria are funded through the
Minor Construction Appropriation, it becomes more an issue of available funds. The
initial high cost to construct columbaria has led NCS to be prudent and selective
in choosing the cemeteries that would benefit most from this option. As NCS be-
comes more experienced with the use and placement of columbaria, the issue will
continue to be reviewed and analyzed for its application within the system.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sangmeister. Do we have any further questions from the
gentleman from Washington?
Mr. Kreidler. I would be curious in just following up if you
had — I would be interested in a written response, too, to Mr. Bur-
ton's question, but also curious as to whether you have at some
point kind of penciled it out as to what the long-term costs are over
13
a number of years, maintenance and operation of a cemetery as op-
posed to a columbarium?
Is there any rule of thumb that you have right now that you can
say that over 20 or 30 years what the difference is in cost, con-
struction up front as opposed to construction plus maintenance and
so forth?
Mr. Rapp. If we have a brand new cemetery like the one we will
be building in Seattle, developing a gravesite is more reasonable.
We can provide the exact figures and provide a paper to you. It is
much cheaper to develop a gravesite than it is a columbarium
niche, even though gravesites are on land that we have bought.
The project to develop 90,000 gravesites, for example, at Calverton
National Cemetery was around $5 million or $6 million; to develop
a columbarium of a thousand niches would be close to $3 million.
So there is an example of how you get a lot more gravesites in the
ground developing turf than structuring a marble-type mausoleum.
Mr. Kreidler. How about the salaries and operating expenses
over a very extended period of time, what the differences would be
if you calculated that into the equation. I am assuming the col-
umbarium is much lower intensive maintenance than with all of
the grass and turf and so forth for a cemetery.
Mr. Rapp. That is true. While the interest in cremation as an op-
tion has increased, by and large the majority choice is still for
casketed burials, and that is where our most ideal opportunity is
with a brand new cemetery. Let's build a cemetery that has the
funding to allow us to construct the appropriate ratio of casketed
gravesites, in-ground cremation, and columbaria. In regard to the
initial question, columbaria make sense at our brand new ceme-
teries.
To go back into a confined existing cemetery that has been devel-
oped and then try to, in addition to the maintenance that we are
going to have to do there, forever build another columbarium out
of a funding pot that is not as large as we would like ti to be, that
is where the tough choices are and that is where, frankly, we have
had to decide not to do it.
Mr. Kreidler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sangmeister. Thank you. Director. We appreciate your
being here this morning and we have all, as usual, learned some-
thing. As I said to you earlier on this other item, I will be calling
you to discuss if I, in fact, do some legislation along that line.
Mr. BOWEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your interest,
your concern, your questions, and those of the other distinguished
Members. We will provide that and other information to you as
soon as possible. Thank you.
Mr. Sangmeister. All right. Thank you.
Panel number two for this morning, pertaining to Arlington Na-
tional Cemetery, we have Mr. Steven Dola, who is the Deputy As-
sistant Secretary for Management and Budget, the Department of
the Army. He is accompanied by Mr. John Metzler. Both the gen-
tlemen are here. And from the American Battle Monuments Com-
mission, Col. William E. Ryan, Jr., Director of Operations and Fi-
nance, accompanied by Col. Frederick Badger. Welcome one and
all. Mr. Dola, we have, as you know very well, all of your written
14
testimony as part of our record, which is read and digested by all
of us, but you proceed as you see fit this morning.
STATEMENTS OF STEVEN DOLA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, MAN-
AGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AC-
COMPANIED BY JOHN METZLER, SUPERINTENDENT; AND
COL. WILLIAM E. RYAN, JR., DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND
FINANCE, AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION
ACCOMPANIED BY COL. FREDERICK C. BADGER
STATEMENT OF STEVEN DOLA
Mr. DOLA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of
the subcommittee. I do appreciate the opportunity to appear before
the subcommittee to testify on the operation of Arlington National
Cemetery. The Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery, as
you indicated, Mr. John C. Metzler, Jr., is with me and will assist
with the testimony.
With your permission, as you indicated, I ask that my full state-
ment be included in the record of the hearing and, if I may, I would
like to briefly, very briefly highlight two topics. First, the 1995
budget request. The budget request for fiscal year 1995 is
$12,017,000. This amount will finance operations at both Arlington
and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries.
It supports the work force, will assure adequate maintenance of
the buildings and grounds and will permit the superintendent to
acquire necessary supplies and equipment. Major new construction
projects proposed for fiscal year 1995 include repairs to existing
structures. A total of $1.3 million is requested for design and con-
struction to repair and restore the McClellan Gate, the Kennedy
gravesite electrical system and the upper deck pavement at the
parking facility, and a totsd of $1.1 million is requested for design
only of the two remaining unstarted projects in the 1967 master
plan; namely, Project 90 land development, which involves 52 acres
of land and over 30,000 potential gravesites, and the Custis Walk
Replacement Project.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention Public Law 103-
160, which was enacted on November 30, 1993. Section 1176 of this
law extended eligibility for interment in Arlington National Ceme-
tery to any former prisoner of war who, while serving in the active
military. Naval or air service and who dies or died on or after No-
vember 30, 1993.
A proposed rule implementing this provision is anticipated to be
published in the Federal Register next month, that is, June 1994.
That completes my summary, Mr. Chairman. We will be pleased to
attempt to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dola appears on p. 49.]
Mr. Sangmeister, One of the things that was on everybody's
minds yesterday was Mrs. Kennedy or Mrs. Onassis' funeral. When
an event of this magnitude takes place, how is this coordinated
among the other funerals? I understand you had 23 other funerals
yesterday. How do you coordinate something like that?
Mr. Dola. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the superintendent
to answer that question since he was deeply and intimately in-
volved yesterday and all weekend.
15
Mr. Sangmeister. Mr. Superintendent good to see you again. Go
ahead.
Mr. Metzler. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we had 23
other funerals yesterday, and I am very happy to report that none
of those funerals were impacted and that we conducted our busi-
ness as we normally would and that we worked right around the
Kennedy service, and the other funerals were serviced as they
would be each day.
Mr. Sangmeister. Obviously, people were not only not encour-
aged to come out, they were prohibited. I imagine you had to sepa-
rate out the families and the other funerals. That must have been
difficult.
Mr. Metzler. It was. We had a security ring around the Ken-
nedy gravesite at the famil^s request so that the funeral itself
would be private, and that the media was limited to a very small
area, but the other funerals that were in the adjacent area of the
security ring were allowed to come in and conduct their normal
service. At the same time that the Kennedy service was going on
there was a funeral being conducted less than 500 yards away in
the adjacent section.
Mr. Sangmeister. Do you get supplemental funds for something
special like that or does that come out of your existing funds?
Mr. Metzler. No, that comes out of our existing funds.
Mr. Sangmeister. If it comes out of your existing funds, maybe
it is not that much, but does that affect the overall operating budg-
et? Maybe it is not that significant an expenditure, I don't really
know.
Mr. Metzler. There is some overtime involved, obviously. We
worked all weekend, and we worked last night to complete the
gravesite closure, but overall it was a minor expense to the ceme-
tery overall budget.
Mr. Sangmeister. What do you anticipate is going to be the im-
pact of Public Law 103-160, which provided burial eligibility for
former prisoners of war?
Mr. DOLA. Mr. Chairman, the increase in burial activity related
to former prisoners of war who are not already eligible will prob-
ably be very small in overall numbers at Arlington. As best we can
determine, most former prisoners of war will have received the
Piuple Heart, 30 percent disability or greater before 1949 and re-
mained in the military until retirement.
The ones who are not in this category will not have a severe im-
pact. The superintendent has estimated that probably no more
than one or two burials a month would be the impact.
Mr. Sangmeister. How is the new graveliner program proceed-
ing?
Mr. DoLA. Mr. Superintendent.
Mr. Metzler. The new graveliner program is proceeding very
well. It has cost us a little bit more per unit and more units are
being used than we originally anticipated. The program has become
very popular. To date we have spent $175,000. We will need to add
some more money into that program to finish out this fiscal year,
but the overall cost benefit for the long-term maintenance of the
cemetery will greatly be appreciated by this program being imple-
16
merited and I certainly want to thank you and the other Members
of Congress for allowing us to do that.
Mr. Sangmeister. Okay. I think you stated that the Federal
Government is going to receive approximately $500,000 in income
from the parking garage to Arlington. Do you directly receive those
proceeds and if not, who makes the determination where that is
going to go?
Mr. DOLA. Mr. Chairman, the amoimt under the new lease agree-
ment that we have put into effect on January 16, 1994, provides
for $500,000 plus an amount in addition to that. Depending on the
usage we have of the parking facility, for example, if we had the
same usage for buses and cars as we had in 1992, and if the aver-
age stay of the people who visited Arlington and used the cemetery
was the same, we estimated that we would receive some $929,000.
That money would not go to Arlington, because, you may recall, in
1986, when Congress appropriated the funds for the parking facil-
ity, proceeds from the lease of property under DOD control were to
be deposited by law into the miscellaneous receipts category of the
general Treasury, and consistent with that statutory requirement
at the time and consistent with the understanding that we had
with the Appropriations Committees and, namely. Chairman Bo-
land, we consistently have followed that practice. We haven't
changed it.
I want to say, however, that in 1990 Congress amended the Mili-
tary Leasing Act to require the military departments to deposit
such funds into a special treasury account, for property that pro-
duced rental income under their control, and we have had an indi-
cation that that money could be appropriated for later use at Ar-
lington. In fact, some monies were, but we have not, in fact, used
it. We are going to honor the original agreement in 1986 to return
the funds that are collected until the parking facility is paid. That
is our position, the Army position on what should be done with
those funds.
Mr. Sangmeister. Until the facility is paid for?
Mr. DoLA. Yes. That certainly is our view.
Mr. Sangmeister. What was the figure that that was estimated
at, the cost of the facility?
Mr. DoLA. As I recall, it was something over $9 million, so
maybe nine or nine-and-a-half milhon dollars would be the ulti-
mate cost of construction, and, to date the information we have in-
dicates that three-and-a-half million dollars has been collected in
revenues and deposited in the account.
Mr. Sangmeister. In your statement you outline a number of
projects for the 1995 budget. Is your funding going to be adequate
to do what you want to do?
Mr. DOLA. Mr. Chairman, yes. There are some new construction
projects. We are very pleased to have those projects, and we think
that the monies that we have requested will be adequate to carry
out the new projects that I mentioned, and we do think these are
the important ones to be done in 1995 budget.
I obviously heard the discussion on the columbarium and I want
you to know that Congress has supported our request at Arlington
for funds to design the third phase of the columbarium which we
have, and we would hope that in the 1996 budget we could submit
17
to the Office of Management and Budget and then later to Con-
gress a proposal to construct a third phase of the columbarium.
Mr. Sangmeister. The gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the gentleman
on the previous panel indicated that when you have an existing
conventional cemetery like we have at Arlington that when you
build a columbarium, it is never going to be economically feasible.
Has that been taken into consideration since you are talking about
expanding the columbarium up there at Arlington?
Mr. Metzler. The columbarium at Arlington is a little bit dif-
ferent. Its original concept was to provide eligibility for burial for
those veterans who lost their eligibility in 1967 when the burial
regulations changed that restricted eligibility at Arlington, so the
cost factor is not the driving motivation here. The driving motiva-
tion is to provide the service to all those veterans who lost the eli-
gibility.
In our case we had a 50,000 niche complex which was divided
into five phases. The first phase was completed in 1980, and we
have continued to provide a columbarium complex since that time.
We are getting ready to start phase three now, which would be
10,000 additional niches or two more buildings of 5,000 each.
The cost is estimated right now at a very rough figure of about
$8 million, which is about $800 per niche. It is certainly expensive,
but I agree that in the long run the cost benefit is much greater
to Arlington Cemetery to have the columbarium complex and to
provide the service to those deserving veterans.
Mr. Burton. I have one more question, Mr. Chairman. Some of
the people on our staff have been noticed wheelchair veterans wait-
ing in line following national ceremonies for the two-chair elevator
at the memorial amphitheater. That problem might be alleviated if
there were a ramp of some kind built there.
Have you considered building a ramp at the amphitheatre to
take care of that problem, because in the cold of November those
people are sitting in wheelchairs for long periods of time waiting
for that two-member elevator.
Mr. Metzler. We have not considered a ramp at this point. The
elevator has been the primary means for moving wheelchair veter-
ans from the ground level up to the amphitheater itself. We will
definitely consider that in our renovation project of the amphi-
theater. However, that was not one of the primary items that we
had looked at, but I will take that back and ask that question.
Mr. Burton. When we passed the Americans With Disabilities
Act, one of the provisions in it was that there be accessibility for
people with handicaps. A lot of us agreed with parts of the bill and
disagreed with other parts of it, but that was the thrust of the law
that was passed, and if you have got a problem over there when
it is cold and there are a lot of these veterans sitting out there in
those wheelchairs, it could be a health hazard as well being very
uncomfortable. So if you could give this committee some idea what
it would cost to build a ramp at the amphitheatre and if it is rea-
sonable, maybe we could incorporate that into our budgetary think-
ing for the future.
Mr. Metzler. Yes, sir. One of the things I would like to point
out that we do work very closely with the Paralyzed Veterans Asso-
18
elation each Memorial Day and each Veterans Day or any time we
have a major activity to ensure their members' participation is the
maximum effort we can do for them, providing them ushers, pro-
viding them assistance, and we will continue that support, but I
will look into the feasibility of a ramp to see if that will be worked
into our projects.
Mr. Burton. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sangmeister. Okay, switching over to the American Battle
Monuments Commission, Colonel Ryan.
STATEMENT OF COL. WILLIAM E. RYAN, JR.
Colonel Ryan. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the sub-
committee, the American Battle Monxmients Commission thanks
you for the opportunity to be here today and to provide information
to the subcommittee on its operations and the Korean War Veter-
ans Memorial.
The President has just appointed Lt. Gen. Joseph S. LaPosada,
U.S. Army, retired, as the Secretary of the American Battle Monu-
ments Commission. He is looking forward to representing the com-
mission at the next oversight hearing.
As you have copies of my prepared statement and it will appear
verbatim in the record, with your permission I will summarize its
consents.
Mr. Sangmeister. Go right ahead.
Colonel Ryan. The principle functions of ABMC are to commemo-
rate the achievements and sacrifices of the U.S. Armed Forces
where they have served since April 6, 1917 through the erection of
suitable memorial shrines; to design, construct, operate and main-
tain permanent American military burial grounds on foreign soil,
and to control the design, construction and care of military monu-
ments erected in foreign countries by other Americans, both public
and private.
You can be assured that the guardianship of our war dead in-
terred on foreign soil is a sacred trust which all of us here in
ABMC hold in the highest regard and one for which we are ex-
tremely proud to be responsible.
Currently, ABMC administers, operates and maintains 24 per-
manent American military buri^ grounds and 49 memorial struc-
tures in 12 foreign countries and the commonwealth of the North-
em Marianas. Additionally, it administers four memorials on Unit-
ed States soil. Interred in ABMC cemeteries are 125,000 U.S. war
dead, 31,000 of World War I, 93,000 of World War II, and 1,000 of
the Mexican War.
Additionally, 6,600 American veterans and others are interred in
the Mexico City and Corozal American cemeteries. ABMC's budget
authority for the current year is $20,211,000. Its appropriation re-
quest for fiscal 1995 is $20,265,000, $54,000 more than the current
year.
Beginning in 1968, this commission will have experienced a 16
percent reduction in authorized personnel by the end of the next
fiscal year, even though it has assumed responsibility for an addi-
tional cemetery and a number of memorials around the world. De-
spite the mandated reductions in personnel, being a service organi-
19
zation, over 75 percent of ABMC's budget still must go to defray
personnel and benefits costs.
The remaining funds must defray all other administrative, care,
maintenance and repair costs. Each year the foreign governments
where our installations are located decree cost-of-living salary in-
creases of at least $400,000. When our budget does not increase by
a similar amount, we must deft-ay these increases with funds budg-
eted for the care, maintenance and repair of the shrines for which
we are responsible and the scheduled replacement of supplies, ma-
terials, spare parts and equipment.
Final construction of the Korean War Veterans Memorial has
begun. It is scheduled to be completed in June of next year and to
be dedicated the following month. The total cost will be about $17
million, of which $16 million was raised and $1 million was appro-
priated.
Last fall. Public Law 102-32 was enacted authorizing ABMC to
establish the World War II Veterans Memorial in the Washington,
DC area. Shortly thereafter, the Department of the Interior was re-
quested to petition the Congress to enact legislation authorizing
placement of the memorial in area one as defined by the Com-
memorative Works Act.
Once this has been done, a site can be selected, a concept for the
memorial established, and a fund-raising campaign placed into full
swing. Regarding H.J. Res. 131, the American Battle Monuments
Commission supports its enactment, designating December 7th
each year as Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. This completes my
summary. We will be pleased to respond to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Ryan appears on p. 55.]
Mr. Sangmeister. One of the questions I presume you antici-
pated in light of the discussion that we had in my office some
months ago is the question of a cop5n-ight as it relates to the Ko-
rean War Memorial. As you know, the veterans £ire concerned that
if they make copies of that memorial and put it on T-shirts or
something that tney are going to have to pay a royalty to the archi-
tect. We discussed how that was going to be handled, and if I recall
correctly, at that time you indicated that when Cooper/Lecky sub-
contracted with the sculptor and the muralist for their work, that
their contracts did not address copyrights. The two individuals as-
sumed they would own the copyrights, so I guess my question to
you is where are we today with this thing?
Are we any further than when we discussed it in my office? I an-
ticipated also possibly filing some legislation addressing this mat-
ter. It gets rather technical. I have talked with staff on the Judici-
ary Committee on which I also serve. There are some problems; but
at the same time veterans that believe once a memorial is created,
it is theirs. It doesn't belong to the sculptor or the architect; and
if they want to make copies of it or sell replicas to help fund their
own organizations, they ought to be able to do that without paying
a royalty to the sculptor or architect.
Anything further, particularly as to the Korean War Memorial?
Colonel Ryan. Yes, sir. Let me go back a little bit and tell you
what occurred. The Army Corps of Engineers, on behalf of the com-
mission, wrote the contracts for the AE firm of Cooper/Lecky Archi-
tects of Washington, DC to develop the design concept for the me-
20
morial into a final design solution acceptable to the Commission of
Fine Arts, National Capital Planning Commission, and the Sec-
retary of the Interior, and, of course, ourselves. Included in that
contract in error was a statement that the American Battle Monu-
ments Commission retained the copyrights for the memorial. Sub-
sequently, Cooper/Lecky
Mr. Sangmeister. Did I hear the words in error?
Colonel Ryan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sangmeister. Go ahead.
Colonel Ryan. Subsequently, Cooper/Lecky contracted with the
sculptor and muralist to assist in the work. The artists later
learned that the copyrights for their own artistic work on the
project had been retained by ABMC. They immediately informed
Cooper/Lecky that they would withdraw from their contract unless
they received the copyrights for their own work.
If they had withdrawn, completion of the memorial would have
been delayed at least for an additional 2 years. Believing it to be
in the best interests of the Government to complete the memorial
in a timely fashion, ABMC at that time agreed to relinquish the
copjTights to the artists. In the negotiations with the artists to re-
linquish the copyrights, they made reference to Title XVII, Section
101 of the United States Code.
On researching it, we learned to our and the Corps of Engineers'
chagrin that artists who create sculptor, murals and architectural
designs own the copyrights for their work even though the work is
being performed for somebody else. In short, the U.S. Government
has never owned the copyrights for the memorial and will not re-
ceive any of the royalties paid for their commercial use.
Mr. Sangmeister. Well, I understand that one of the problems
was potential delay of the Korean War Memorial. No one really
wanted to see that happen, after 2 years of hard work and negotia-
tions. A World War II Memorial is now authorized under Public
Law 103-32. Are we going to be faced with the same situation
there?
Colonel Ryan. Sir, unless the law is changed, the copyrights will
belong to the artists concerned.
Mr. Sangmeister. Okay.
Colonel Ryan. We use the Corps of Engineers legal counsel as
much as we can. We don't have one of our own, but we have no
choice but to comply with the law.
Mr. Sangmeister. If we file that legislation and we call you to
come forward and testify regarding it, what is going to be your po-
sition?
Colonel Ryan. I would suspect that we would support it, sir.
Mr. Sangmeister. Okay, good to hear that. I think that may be
what we will have to do in the long run because I don't think that
is right. The architect and the sculptor ought to be paid a good
wage for whatever their work is worth in the open market; and be-
yond that I don't see why they should have in perpetuity royalty
rights for, what, the next 20 some — I don't know how many years
it is under the copjrright law?
Colonel Ryan. It is a large number of years, yes.
Mr. Sangmeister. And meanwhile we find veterans' organiza-
tions are being sued because they make copies of this stuff mostly
21
because they are not cognizant of what the law is. I think we need
to do something about that. I would say to you that we want to
consider legislation on that. Any questions?
Mr. Burton. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sangmeister. All right, gentlemen, thank you both for being
here. We will proceed accordingly.
Colonel Ryan. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Sangmeister. The third panel is Mr. Larry Rhea, Non-
commissioned Officers Association, John Vitikacs, from the Amer-
ican Legion; Mr. Terry Grandison from the Paralyzed Veterans;
Rick Surratt from the Disabled American Veterans, and Mr. Den-
nis Cullinan from the VFW. It is good to have everyone here.
You have heard our discussions that we have had this morning.
Mr. Rhea, why don't we start with you and hear your comments
on the subject of the day.
STATEMENT OF LARRY D. RHEA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LEG-
ISLATIVE AFFAIRS, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSO-
CIATION; JOHN R. VITIKACS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NA-
TIONAL VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION COMMIS-
SION, THE AMERICAN LEGION; TERRY GRANDISON, ASSOCI-
ATE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF
AMERICA; RICK SURRATT, ASSOCIATE, NATIONAL LEGISLA-
TIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; AND
DENNIS CULLINAN, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VET-
ERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
STATEMENT OF LARRY D. RHEA
Mr. Rhea, Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to you
and to the subcommittee members. The Noncommissioned Officers
Association thanks you for the invitation to appear and testify this
morning. As we began: in our prepared remarks, I think it is ap-
propriate to begin in my oral comments here to express to you and
to the subcommittee members our deep appreciation for the rec-
ognition that was recently extended to members of the National
Guard and Reserve.
I am referring to the action taken in 1992 to provide burial flags
and grave markers and the recent signing into law of H.R. 821,
which extends burial in national cemeteries to retired or retire-
ment-eligible Guard and Reserve Members. It is clear, Mr. Chair-
man, that these successes would not have occurred had it not been
for your persistent efforts.
NCOA commends the subcommittee's efforts to recognize with
dignity and respect all members of the total force and for that ef-
fort you have our deep and abiding thanks. NCOA does not con-
sider it necessary in these brief oral remarks to recite the numbers,
the percentages and so forth which depict the current situation and
the future outlook for the National Cemetery System. Those facts
are presented in our prepared statement, and they are well known
to the subcommittee.
The situation, as reflected in the 1995 budget and as reflected in
the 1994 report of the National Cemetery System paints a pretty
clear picture, and that is that the National Cemetery System con-
tinues to fall farther behind in its efforts to keep pace with an in-
22
creasing workload, mounting equipment backlogs, and insufficient
resources in both funding and employees.
I will point out, though, that NCOA is pleased with the work of
Director Bowen, his staff at the national level, and the employees
across the Nation who comprise the National Cemetery System.
Given the constraints under which Mr. Bowen is required to oper-
ate, he and his people are doing an admirable job. NCOA extends
our thanks to him and his employees.
In these brief remarks, Mr. Chairman, NCOA would like to high-
light one concern regarding the National Cemetery System and to
address a specific concern regarding Arlington National Cemetery.
First, NCOA is concerned about the slow, but steady defining
down of the goals for national cemetery construction and expan-
sion. NCOA remains committed to the goal that was established
several years ago of burial in a national or State veterans cemetery
for 90 percent of veterans within 50 miles of their home. Even in
the face of rather harsh fisc£d realities, NCOA believes that this
overall goal should not be compromised.
Admittedly, it will be difficult to achieve in the foreseeable fu-
ture, but that alone should not be cause to dilute the goal and in
the process disenfi*anchise even more veterans. Secondly, NCOA
does have one overriding concern regarding Arlington that we are
compelled to address. The association's concern is that the epithat
that Arlington National Cemetery symbolizes to the men and
women of the United States Armed Forces not be diminished.
Putting this in as delicate terms as I possibly can, NCOA was
disappointed by congressional approval of S.J. Res. 129 to place a
memorial cairn in Arlington that will, in effect, honor 245 non-
military individuals, 81 of which are non-U.S. citizens.
Mr. Chairman, it is not the association's intent to rehash that de-
cision by the Congress. The association is obliged, though, to re-
mind this subcommittee and the Congress of the purpose of Arling-
ton National Cemetery and of its legacy to the men and women of
the Armed Forces of the United States. For more than a century
it has become the preeminent and cherished shrine commemorat-
ing the lives and sacrifice of service in the Armed Forces. It is
NCOA's humble wish that Arlington National Cemetery remain so
always.
Therefore, we request that Congress reaffirm the purpose and
legacy of Arlington National Cemetery to the men and women of
the Armed Forces of the United States by codifying the qualifica-
tions of eligibility for burial or commemoration in Arlington Na-
tional Cemetery.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, NCOA wholeheartedly and fully sup-
ports H.J. Res. 131, the joint resolution to designate December 7th
of each year as National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. Rest as-
sured, Mr. Chairman, you will have NCOA's fiill support in your
efforts to discharge the bill. Also, NCOA would like to thank the
members of the American Battle Monuments Commission for their
stellar work.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity you have given us today,
Mr. Chairman. In our opinion, aggressive oversight of NCS will
continue to be needed if we are to ensure that veterans, as a final
23
act of a grateful nation, are bestowed with the honor, respect, and
dignity that they have earned. Theink you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rhea appears on p. 59.]
Mr. Sangmeister. Thank you. Very nicely said.
Mr. Grandison.
STATEMENT OF TERRY GRANDISON
Mr. Grandison. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of
the subcommittee. Paralyzed Veterans of America appreciates this
opportunity to present testimony concerning the oversight of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, National Cemetery System, the
Korean War Veterans Memorial, and House Joint Resolution 131.
PVA strongly believes this Nation must continue to provide a dig-
nified resting place for the men and women who have honorably
served in the Armed Forces.
In order to maintain an efficient and responsive National Ceme-
tery System, PVA believes it is incumbent on Congress to address
the following problems: Chronic underfunding, lack of burial space,
equipment backlog, aging infi*astructure, significant workload
growth, and lack of an adequate information system.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to touch briefly on each of those
points. First, funding. The National Cemetery System has shown
no real dollar growth in programs, with the exception of a congres-
sionally mandated fiscal year 1991 infusion of $10 million.
PVA recommended an appropriation of $81 million for fiscal year
1995. In addition, this request included an increase of 90 FTEE.
This would insure the proper maintenance and the preservation of
the park-like beauty of these national shrines. Moreover, funding
at this level would allow the NCS to meet increasing demands of
the aging veteran population.
Second, lack of burial space. The need for burial space is ex-
pected to peak in the year 2009. To meet this great demand, suffi-
cient funds will be needed to acquire adjacent lands to keep exist-
ing cemeteries open, to open new cemeteries, and seriously under-
served areas and to develop columbaria in existing cemeteries to
preserve a burial option for veterans and their families.
In addition, PVA continues to advocate for the location of a VA
cemetery in every State and a national cemetery within reasonable
driving distance of each major veterans' population center.
Third, the equipment backlog. The equipment backlog within the
system is unacceptable. A 1990 study revealed that more than 50
percent of the heavy equipment was well beyond its scheduled re-
placement date of 5 years. The current equipment backlog stands
at $6 million. This figure does not fully capture the seriousness of
the situation. This figure does not reflect lost productivity of staff
because of equipment breakdowns or graves that cannot be ade-
quately maintained. PVA recommends funding of at least $2.3 mil-
lion to begin partial reduction of the equipment backlog.
Four, the aging infi-astructure. PVA is concerned with the aging
infrastructure of the NCS. The NCS is composed of numerous his-
torical buildings, hundreds of maintenance buildings, and other
purpose buildings. The NCS has more than 10,000 acres of land
intersected with hundreds of miles of roads. In many cases, repairs
24
to old roads and structures are simply beyond the capability of
cemetery personnel.
In order to maintain the shrine-like quality of national ceme-
teries, PVA recommends that $2 million should be directed for
funding of repair projects.
Five, the workload growth. The rapidly aging veteran population
will increase the NCS workload in all program areas. The NCS
must have sufficient personnel to facilitate this growth efficiently.
PVA recommends $1.4 million and 40 FTEE for incremental work-
load increases.
Lastly, adequate information system. NCS's information needs
are critical to its overall operations. The computer system for the
Office of Memorial Programs is antiquated and often unreliable.
PVA believes the procurement of an updated computer support sys-
tem could provide an FTEE savings to the system. Therefore, PVA
urges Congress to appropriate $800,000 for this system in fiscal
year 1995.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to shift to discussion
of the Korean War Veterans Memorial. PVA is a proud supporter
of the establishment of the Korean War Veterans Memorial. PVA's
support and commitment to the erection of a Korean War Veterans
Memorial is longstanding. Actual construction began on the memo-
rial in April 1994. The dedication of the memorial is planned for
July 27, 1995.
PVA, the veterans community, and all Americans look forward to
the completion of this well-deserved acknowledgment and tribute to
Korean War Veterans.
H.J. Res. 131. This joint resolution would designate December
7th of each year as National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt characterized the attack on Pearl
Harbor as "a day that will live in infamy." PVA believes that a Na-
tional Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day is necessary to make Presi-
dent Roosevelt's prophecy a fact. PVA strongly supports the pas-
sage of this resolution, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I will be happy to
answer any questions that you or this subcommittee might have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grandison appears on p. 65.]
Mr. Sangmeister. We will hold all questions to the end. Mr.
Vitikacs.
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. VITIKACS
Mr. Vitikacs. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
the American Legion appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the operations and strategic planning activities of the National
Cemetery System. Mr. Chairman, a veteran who dies today can be
buried in a national cemetery or State veterans cemetery provided
an open veterans cemetery is geographically accessible.
In this scenario, the veteran's family or State would not have to
incur some of the expenses associated with burial in a private cem-
etery. Fortunately, the option of interment in a national or State
veterans cemetery is available for veterans and their families. On
the other hand, only a small portion of eligible veterans are in-
terred in veterans cemeteries.
25
For many veterans, burial in a national or State veterans ceme-
tery is not a realistic option. Due to recent legislation, many veter-
ans are no longer eligible to receive a plot burial or headstone al-
lowance. Mr. Chairman, the American Legion believes that similar
burial benefits should apply to all honorably discharged veterans.
Oftentimes the only benefit a veteran will ever consider using is
the burial benefit.
Now, the eligibility for this benefit is as conftising to veterans as
is the eligibility for medical care. In the long term restoring, the
prel990 burial benefits would provide veterans an alternative
choice to burial in a national or State veterans cemetery. Current
VA plans call for the construction of new national cemeteries in
five urban locations.
The American Legion supports these projects. We hope the pro-
posed construction of the new Seattle-Tacoma, Washington Na-
tional Cemetery takes place as proposed beginning in fiscal year
1995. In addition to Seattle, it is essential that the Congress pro-
vide funding for the construction of new national cemeteries by the
end of this decade near the cities of Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas-Fort
Worth, and Albany, New York.
Additional planning for the construction of new national ceme-
teries should proceed in the locations identified in the February
1994 VA report to Congress on the National Cemetery System. VA
also needs to explore the possibility of expanding acreage at exist-
ing national cemeteries where feasible, as we heard this morning
they are in the process of doing. Mr. Chairman, the Congress needs
to do more to fiirther encourage participation in the State Ceme-
tery Grants Program.
The Legion supports legislation to adjust the Federal-State allo-
cation for funding of State veterans cemeteries from the current 50/
50 share to 65 percent Federal, 35 percent State. We also strongly
support providing a plot allowance of a minimum of $150 for each
eligible veteran buried in a State veterans cemetery.
We hope legislation, H.R. 949, which has passed the full House,
will be favorably considered in the Senate. It is ironic, however,
that H.R. 949 would reinstate most initial provisions of Public Law
95-476, enacted in 1978, which created a Federal program of aid
to States for the establishment, expansion, and improvement of
veterans cemeteries.
With regard to House Joint Resolution 131 designating December
7th of each year as National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, the
American Legion is mandated to support the establishment of such
an initiative.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, the American Legion deeply appre-
ciates the continuing involvement of the advisory board to the Ko-
rean War Veterans Memorial. This advisory board has played a
large role in the accomplishments of the Korean War Veterans Me-
morial. The board should remain an active component of the dedi-
cation planning process.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vitikacs appears on p. 71.]
Mr. Sangmeister. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Surratt.
26
STATEMENT OF RICK SURRATT
Mr. SURRATT. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
good morning. On behalf of the DAV, I would like to thank you for
inviting us to participate in this hearing on the four matters on the
agenda today. The primary mission of the national cemetery sys-
tem is to maintain the national cemeteries and provide for the in-
terment of the remains of eligible deceased service members and
veterans, their spouses, and eligible family members.
To fulfill that mission, new cemeteries must be established, exist-
ing cemeteries must be expanded where possible, and States must
be assisted in establishing State veterans cemeteries. In meeting
that mission, it must not only be noted that an aging veterans pop-
ulation is expected to increase demand for space in national ceme-
teries over the next 10 to 15 years, but also in addition to those
cemeteries already closed, several others are expected to become
full within that period.
The rate of interments is expected to increase from an estimated
73,000 this year to a high of about 100,000 in the year 2008. VA
is in the process of increasing its capacity. New cemeteries are al-
ready slated for Seattle, Washington, where land has been pur-
chased; Cleveland, Ohio; Dallas, Texas; and Albany, New York,
where VA is close to purchasing land; and Chicago, Illinois, where
site options are being studied, as we heard.
VA has acquired or is acquiring land for expansions at other lo-
cations. H.R. 949, passed by the House in September of 1993,
would make State participation in the State Cemetery Grants Pro-
gram more attractive by increasing the Federal grant for State
cemeteries fi-om 50 to 65 percent of the cost.
Mr. Chairman, as is the case throughout VA, the cemetery sys-
tem is operating under the effects of budget restraints. However,
it is striving to fulfill its mission, and the DAV applauds these ef-
forts.
House Joint Resolution 131 would designate December 7th of
each year as National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day in recogni-
tion of the historical and patriotic importance of this anniversary
of the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The
DAV certainly supports this admirable expression of appreciation
for the sacrifices of those who were affected by this event that
marked our entry into World War II.
Many of our members are among that group of distinguished vet-
erans, and I am certain they appreciate your initiative and this
subcommittee's initiative on this resolution.
As with the other national cemeteries, Arlington National Ceme-
tery, under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army, must
expand if it is to provide burial spaces after the year 2025.
Currently, the cemetery has 612 acres of land with approxi-
mately 50 remaining acres undeveloped. There is space for approxi-
mately 76,000 more gravesites within the existing developed and
undeveloped land. Cemetery officials are therefore considering a
new master plan for expansion.
We are also informed that Arlington, like the National Cemetery
System, has so far been able to cope with the budget restraints, al-
though there may be an increased demand for resources as the
aging veterans population places more demand on the cemetery.
27
Mr. Chairman, in October 1986, Congress, by Public Law 99-572,
authorized a memorial for Korean War veterans to be built in
Washington, DC from predominantly private contributions. This
law also established the Korean War Veterans Memorial Advisory
Board, whose 12 members were to be appointed by the President.
The advisory board, working in conjunction with the American
Battle Monuments Commission, was charged with recommending a
site and selecting a design for the memorial. The advisory board
was also given the responsibility of promoting establishment of the
memorial and encouraging donation of private funds. Although
Congress authorized the advisory board to expend up to $125,000
a year out of donations for its operation, the advisory board has
funded its expenses solely from interest earned on contributions.
Nearly $17 million has been donated, and this is sufficient to
meet the budget for construction of the memorial. The second
phase of construction began in April of this year and is well under-
way. It is expected that construction will be completed in May or
June 1995 with dedication of the memorial set for July 1995.
Mr. Chairman, the DAV wishes to acknowledge the contributions
of the Korean War Veterans Memorial Advisory Board. It is by the
perseverance of the distinguished members of this board that we
are about to see the realization of this memorial. It is through their
tenacity and vision that generations yet to come will appreciate Ko-
rean War veterans' sacrifices and dedication to the cause of free-
dom. This concludes our remarks, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Surratt appears on p. 75.]
Mr. Sangmeister. Thank you.
Mr. CuUinan.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS CULLINAN
Mr. CULLINAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and mem-
bers of the subcommittee. On behalf of the 2.2 million members of
the Veterans of Foreign Wars, I wish to thank you for inviting us
to participate in today's important hearing. The VFW remains com-
mitted to the proposition that all veterans should have convenient
access to a national cemetery so that they are not denied the final
veterans benefit.
Also under discussion today will be the operation of the Arlington
National Cemetery, the American Battle Monuments Commission,
and of course your legislation, Mr. Chairman, H.J. Res. 131. We
will be pleased to comment on all of these important areas.
In recent congressional hearings, and as articulated through the
independent budget for VA, the VFW has complimented NCS man-
agement on a job well done and we do so here again today. None-
theless NCS is not without problems.
Equipment replacement backlogs within the National Cemetery
Service continue to be of major concern. Additionally, the National
Cemetery Service must implement critical maintenance and repair
projects to maintain the cemetery's infrastructure of 400 buildings
and 100 miles of roads.
The National Cemetery System has shown no real dollar growth
in its programs in recent years. The VFW recommends an appro-
priation of $81 million or an increase of $7.5 million over the fiscal
year 1994 appropriation level. This is to ensure proper mainte-
28
nance and the preservation of the park-hke beauty of these na-
tional shrines. We further recommend a total of 1,405 employees in
order to go along with the required budget figure. This would allow
the National Cemetery System to address the increasing demand
to the aging veteran population and will also enable the system to
maintain the cemetery grounds at a level befitting a national
shrine.
With respect to the Arlington National Cemetery, the VFW con-
tinues to view this as a well-run cemetery and compliments its
management. We do note, however, that Arlington is rapidly run-
ning out of burial space and we recommend that Fort Myers land
adjacent to Arlington be turned over to it so that veterans may con-
tinue to be properly buried there.
The VFW also views the American Battle Monuments Commis-
sion as being very well run and of unquestionable importance in
memorializing the sacrifices and accomplishments of America's vet-
erans. We can only ask that it continue to serve so admirably in
this capacity.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the VFW strongly supports the enact-
ment of your legislation, H.J. Res. 131. On December 7, 1941, over
2,000 American men and women in uniform died for our fi-eedom
and many thousands more were injured. It is absolutely inconceiv-
able to us that there are those who would hinder making December
7th an annual day of Pearl Harbor remembrance, and I can assure
you of our ongoing support in this regard.
I would also say that if you choose to undertake the very tough
and tricky proposition of assuring a copyright empowerment for the
various veterans' organizations for the Korean War Memorial, for
the World War II Memorial, for any veterans memorial, we will
back you on that to the hilt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cullinan appears on p. 81.]
Mr. Sangmeister. Mr. Burton advises me that he is going to
have to leave and he would like to make a statement before he does
that.
Mr. Burton. Yes. First of all, I think the chairman and I and
probably everybody on the Veterans Affairs Committee agree with
you on 99 percent of the issues that have been raised, maybe 100
percent.
One of the problems we are facing right now is severe fiscal con-
straints, and I am sure you are aware of that. So I would just urge
all the veterans' organizations and all of you who came to testify
today who are concerned to follow up with this at the appropriate
Appropriations Committee meetings because that is where the rub-
ber hits the road, and we really need you to help make the case
that we are going to be making as well.
The Chairman has made the case before the Appropriations Sub-
committee dealing with Veterans Affairs, and others have as well,
but we really need for you to help put the pressure on those appro-
priators as well because if you don't we probably won't get the
money necessary to do the things that, you and I know, need to be
done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sangmeister. Thank you, Dan. In listening to all of your
testimony, one thing I guess you certainly agree on is we need to
have more national cemeteries within, Mr. Rhea, did you say 50
29
miles, to pick out a particular distance, but that is a concern of all
of yours that it is filling up — and we are getting a no from Mr.
Mr. VITIKACS. That is not the position of the American Legion,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sangmeister. Okay. So you are not concerned about the
amount of burial sites that are within the metropolitan areas, how
close the cemeteries may be?
Mr. ViTlKACS. I believe I heard you ask the question of whether
we would support a national cemetery within 50 miles of peo-
ple
Mr. Sangmeister. I guess that is very arbitrary.
Mr. VlTlKACS. I am responding to that particular comment.
Mr. Sangmeister. The question is, are we locating our national
cemeteries close enough to our metropolitan areas?
Mr. Rhea. Mr. Chairman, let me clarify what I said there. Back
several years ago, the Veterans' Administration had a goal of estab-
lishing national or State veterans cemeteries so that 90 percent of
veterans could be buried within 50 miles of their home. My point
that I was making, and I will reiterate here, is NCOA believes that
that remains an admirable goal.
What we are concerned with is because of fiscal constraints and
all of the other problems that we are having to deal with here is
that that goal is being compromised. We were going to a 75-mile
radius. There is new talk of a 100-mile radius, all the time fewer
will be buried closer to home. We can include more veterans in a
broader radius, but I think that misses the point.
The point that I was trying to make is that the goal was widely
ascribed to and endorsed at the time. NCOA believes that it re-
mains a good goal, and we just hate to see it continually reduced
and further disenfranchising more veterans. That was the point I
was trjdng to make, sir.
Mr. CULLINAN. Mr. Chairman, by a national resolution, the VFW
is asking for at least one open national cemetery in every State.
The spirit of that resolution is such, though, that we are highly
supportive of a national cemetery or at least 90 percent of the vet-
eran population being within 50 miles of a national cemetery, and
that is not something that is going to go away within our organiza-
tion, so we are very concerned about space.
Mr. Grandison. Mr. Chairman, PVA is very flexible. We define
the need in regards to reasonableness. If 50 miles is reasonable or
75 miles is reasonable, then we can agree on that, but it has to be
in terms of a reasonable distance, specifically those areas where
the veteran population is heaviest.
I think the question is whether or not veterans in heavily popu-
lated areas are being underserved or not. That is the real question,
are they being underserved, and it should be based on a case-by-
case or State-by-State or geographic-by-geographic analysis.
Mr. Sangmeister. Mr. Vitikacs, you wanted to reply.
Mr. Vitikacs. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ar-
ticulate the views of the American Legion on this subject. We cer-
tainly support the development of new national cemeteries in major
urban locations, and that is what the planning currently is under-
taking right now. The five sites that are now under active planning
as well as the other sites identified in the 1987 and the February
30
1994 VA report on future needs. Let it be noted that the areas of
Detroit, Miami, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma have also
been identified in various reports of VA.
Considering the fiscal situation that Congress is operating under,
it would be desirable, but I don't think realistic to have an open
national cemetery in every State. Desirable but not realistic. I
think that there is a combination of factors that would work most
appropriately, and that would be new national cemeteries in major
urban locations, the development of State veterans cemeteries
through the various initiatives that are currently in place, as well
as being considered, H.R. 949 for one.
Mr. Sangmeister. You heard the director testify that he thinks
H.R. 949 sitting where it is sitting is really hurting the situation.
Do you have any feel for that or do you agree with him?
Mr. ViTiKACS. I am not certain what his meaning was behind his
statement, "it is sitting where it is sitting," you mean in the
Senate?
Mr. Sangmeister. Yes, right.
Mr. ViTiKACS. It has to be moved forward. It has to be moved
along, and that is our goal. It has to be moved along. It is hurting
the situation right now in States coming forth with new applica-
tions, and as you heard, they are coming forward with applications
for improving existing cemeteries, but not for new cemeteries.
Those are two initiatives. New national cemeteries in major urban
areas. State veterans cemeteries, we would certainly encourage the
development of a State cemetery in every State, minimally in every
state.
Thirdly, the expansion of existing national cemetery space where
feasible, and lastly, Mr. Chairman, and very importantly, the res-
toration of burial plot and headstone allowances to provide veter-
ans with a realistic option of where they will be buried. Many vet-
erans no longer have a realistic choice of being buried in a national
cemetery or State cemetery because of geographic inaccessibility,
and penny-wise, pound-foolish, eliminating these allowances.
In the long run, it is going to cost more to maintain the veterans
burial program by eliminating these allowances, so it is a four-
pronged approach here that that is the position of the American
Legion. Thsuik you.
Mr. SURRATT. Mr. Chairman, in answer to your question, the
DAV also has a resolution supporting a national cemetery in each
State, but certainly to the extent that the 50-mile goal would ex-
ceed that, we would not oppose it.
Mr. Sangmeister. Okay. Let's switch things for just a little bit.
You heard the Battle Monuments Commission testify here. Are you
hearing from your members regarding copy rights? I am certainly
hearing, not from a lot of them, but I am hearing from a number
of them.
The Korean War veterans are the ones that are most upset at
what is going on with the current memorial, and you heard what
the testimony was. We couldn't change anything because the law
has to be changed, £ind they couldn't do anything in their contracts
at this time because it would slow down the memorial for a couple
of years and all this kind of stuff. I would like to know, if I am
going to introduce legislation, and I just might do that because I
31
also sit on the Judiciary Committee that would hear that, but I
would certainly want all of your support for that. Is that something
worth getting involved in or not? WHioever wants to respond.
Mr. CULLINAN. Mr. Chairman, I have already expressed the
VFWs support of such an undertaking. We admire you for taking
something like that up. It is a tough proposition.
Mr. Sangmeister. Don't you think it is kind of abhorrent that
we hire somebody, pay them, as I understand it, very good money
to design or sculptor these things and then all of a sudden they
hang on to all of the copyrights. I was not aware of that until I got
involved in this, that that was the situation.
Mr. CULLINAN. I remember when it came up, Mr. Chairman, and
we were hoping that some resolution could be struck.
Mr. Sangmeister. It is not going to be now. Apparently the only
thing is legislation. Could we get support from you, from the rest
of you for that?
Mr. VlTlKACS. Mr. Chairman, from the American Legion, we at
this time do not have any resolution on that issue, but it is some-
thing that I will discuss once this hearing is completed, and I
would be glad to provide your office with a response.
Mr. Sangmeister. I would appreciate your organization doing
that. I would like to know if we are going to have support from the
veterans' organizations because I think that legislation will be vig-
orously opposed for a lot of legal reasons and the practicalities of
long-time copyright law. I can see all the arguments against it that
are going to come, so we need your support.
Mr. Surratt. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the DAV I, too, will
have to consult with the organization.
Mr. Sangmeister. I would like to hear from each one of you in
writing as to whether or not you would support that legislation. I
am not going to file it until I hear from you, okay?
Mr. Rhea. NCOA can state pubHcly today that we would support
your efforts on that, but we will also provide that in writing, sir.
Mr. Grandison. PVA will also provide a written statement to
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sangmeister. The other issue I want to discuss with you is
H. J. Resolution 131 to make Pearl Harbor Day a national com-
memorative day, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Post Of-
fice and Civil Service Committee. The rules of the Committee are
that you have got to do it every year. I have one of my own veter-
ans here who will be testifying a little later.
The only way we are going to get this done is to discharge the
committee to get that bill out on the Floor. A lot of people think
if you have 231 cosponsors, you just go back and ask them to sign
a discharge petition.
Well, there is a lot of hesitancy to sign discharge petitions, even
though you are a cosponsor of that legislation, because obviously
there is a problem with going against the committee Chairman and
the individual committee rules. I think that is the only way we are
going to get this done. I think it is important. I wouldn't have filed
that legislation if I didn't think so. But here again, I am going to
need the support of everybody. When the petition is ready, you are
going to have to contact your individual Congressmen and tell
32
them to go down to the well and sign that discharge petition so we
can get it out because that is the only way it is going to be done.
I will obviously contact everybody that is a cosponsor and ask
them to do that. There will be a natural reluctance, but if they
hear from you, I don't think there will be.
Is there anything else that you would like to have this committee
know about? I think we have discussed the main issues, so if not,
thanks to all of you. Again, it is always a pleasure to have all the
service organizations here because you represent the people that
we represent, and we want to make sure we are on the right track.
Thank you all. The next panel is Gen. Ray Davis, United States
Marine Corps, Retired, Korean War Veterans Memorial Advisory
Board, and Jerry Brown from the National Concrete Burial Vault
Association. General, we are pleased to have you here this morn-
ing. You know the topics that we are talking about, £ind from your
perspective we would like to hear what you have to say. We obvi-
ously have your written testimony, but you may proceed as you see
fit.
STATEMENTS OF GEN. RAY DAVIS, USMC, (RET.), CHAIRMAN,
KOREAN WAR VETERANS MEMORIAL ADVISORY BOARD AC-
COMPANIED BY ROBERT L. HANSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ADVISORY BOARD; AND JERRY BROWN, EXECUTIVE DIREC-
TOR, NATIONAL CONCRETE BURIAL VAULT ASSOCIATION,
INC.
STATEMENT OF GEN. RAY DAVIS
General Davis. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Members, ini-
tially I would like to indeed support the establishment of Pearl
Harbor Day on a permanent basis on behalf of the many friends
I have who served there, and I was impressed by the actions of
these gallant warriors who fired the spirit of this Nation and point-
ed us towards a total victory in that conflict.
Mr. Sangmeister. We agree with you, sir, and any help you can
give me would be greatly appreciated.
General Davis. Certainly, my full support, sir. I would like to
thank those who commended the work of our advisory board here.
That was unsolicited but appreciated. We have struggled with it for
7 long years, but we see the light at the end of the tunnel. It is
an honor, indeed, to brief you on the significant progress of the Ko-
rean War Veterans Memorial in the Nation's Capital.
Under Public Law 99-572 of October 28, 1986 we did several
things. First, it authorized the American Battle Monuments Com-
mission to erect the memorial in Washington on Federal land with
funds obtained from private contributors. Second, it directed the
President to appoint our board, 12 Korean War veterans who had
the following task: recommend a site, and we got the ideal site by
the Lincoln Memorial; select a design through a national competi-
tion; and to promote the establishment of the memorial and encour-
age donations of private funds.
Another part of the law was directed compliance with the Com-
memorative Works Act, Public Law 99-652. Our tasks are nearly
complete, the site selected, known as Ash Woods, south of the re-
flecting pool near the Lincoln Memorial, gives balance to that end
33
of the mall. A perfect triangle is formed with the Lincoln Memorial,
the Korean War Veterans Memorial and the Vietnam Veterans Me-
morial at each vertex. The memorial and design is unique, one of
a kind. We consider it a masterpiece.
Three main features. There is a column of 19 troops representing
those who fought the war on foot; a wall to commemorate and dis-
play the array of those in support in three segments, the air, the
sea, the ground support; a commemorative area for those killed in
action, missing in action and the POWs. The troops are positioned
in an open field with several emerging fi'om the woods giving an
impression of legions which might follow.
The highly polished granite wall is 164 feet long and will have
thousands of images etched into a mural recognizing, as Congress
intended, the totality of the Armed Forces effort. These photo-
graphic images on the wall are from the National Archives in oper-
ational mode, the nurses, the chaplains, the airmen, the gunners,
the mechanics, the cooks, the helmsmen, among many others, sym-
bolize the vast effort which sustained the foot troops.
Whenever you look at the photograph, you can usually see some-
one you think you might recognize, and for that reason this memo-
rial should live forever. The commemorative area, a still reflecting
pool, is a suitably solemn tribute to our fallen comrades.
The advisory board and the Battle Monuments Commission in
addition have approved a computerized database of all the known
lost. The visitor will not only be able to see the name, the rank,
the serial number, and the home of record and even a picture, but
with the details such as the date, time and location of the action
that had caused his loss or her loss.
The visitor can then take a printout of the information with them
as a memento for their visit to our memorial. The advisory board
is acutely aware that it is a surrogate to nearly five-and-a-half mil-
lion Americans who served in the Armed Forces during the Korean
War and those patriotic Americans who have contributed so much
to its reality, $14 million in actual contributions, with the balance
coming from interest raised on the principal.
About 80 percent of these came from veterans themselves or
their organizations. They have either contributed directly or bought
coins from the silver dollar commemorative coins authorized by the
Congress.
Korean American corporations contributed near $2 million,
American corporations near $1 million. The formal ground break-
ing took place on Flag Day, June 14, 1992. Site stabilization start-
ed last spring. Phase II of the construction began April of this year
and due to be completed May/June of next year. Dedication is
planned for July 27, 1995, the 42nd Anniversary of the Armistice
that ended the armed hostilities of the war.
It has taken this country nearly 40 years to appreciate that this
armistice not only stopped the spread of Communist aggression to
the Pacific Rim countries, but in fact led us towards the demise of
communism today throughout Europe. It is no longer, as we said
before, a forgotten war, but in fact a forgotten victory which this
memorial will document for all time to come, and thus, a fitting
celebration for several days including a muster, a parade, enter-
34
tainment and fireworks, all these will accompany the actual dedica-
tion ceremonies in July of next year.
The ceremonies will be funded by private donations,
nonappropriated funds designated for these specific purposes. The
Korean War Veterans Memorial in our national capital is a great
tribute to all Korean War veterans, those who came home, as well
as those who did not. Korean War veterans, in particular, but all
veterans, I am convinced, will stand tall with pride when they visit
this memorial knowing that they, too, served the cause of fi*eedom
so nobly, indeed, a memorisd for all veterans of all times.
This is my brief summary. Thank you very much and may I re-
spond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of General Davis appears on p. 84.]
Mr. Sangmeister. Well, thank you. It must have been very inter-
esting serving on the committee. It must have also been very frus-
trating at times. I think the amount of private money you were
able to raise is outstanding. I served during the Korean conflict
myself. I will be looking forward to July 27, 1995, for the dedica-
tion. We will certainly be here for that.
Seeing as you have gone through this and now we have the
World War II Memorial that we are talking about, is there any-
thing that you have gleaned along the way that you could tell us
that is the right way to do things or the wrong way to do things?
If some things went awry, maybe we can avoid it with the Korean
War Memorial.
General Davis. I could make a speech about that, but I won't.
Very briefly, they need some clarification in the review process.
You know, six entities, our board, the Battle Monuments Commis-
sion, the Fine Arts Commission, the historical board, the memorial
board, the fine arts, there was inadequate coordination between
those.
We would actually go through with a concept, have it approved
and come back with the final product, and it had enough members
change on the board where they would disapprove the whole thing
and we would start over. That is why it took 7 years, but if any-
thing could be done to firm up that organization so that those
boards and commissions could
Mr. Sangmeister. Are working together and not working against
each other and doing duplicate work. Okay. I don't know whether
you want to get involved in it or not because it is past tense for
you, but you heard the discussions regarding copyrights as far as
these memorials are concerned. Do you have any thoughts about
where that copyright ought to go?
General Davis. Yes, I do. To me, it was a fairly simple process.
I know the artist and the sculptor and I believe them when they
said they made a contract under the law which provided them with
copyright, so if we are not going to give them the copyright we
should give them — buy them off somehow to take care of that gap
in the money that they had conceived that they would do.
A main point to me is I worked for this thing for 7 years without
any idea of anybody making a profit off of it. I made none. I have
put more money in than I have got out. So if somebody is going
to make a profit out of it, under the law, if they are going to sell
15 million T-shirts and make $20 million profit, they ought to give
35
a few pennies to the guy that designed it. That is the way the law
says, so if you change it, I don't think it will change our situation
at all.
Mr. Sangmeister. I was told that there are limited number of —
which I find a little hard to believe — a limited number of artists,
sculptors, muralists I guess they are called, who have the capabil-
ity of doing that kind of work. Through your work did you find that
was true? Were you in charge — the commission actually itself is-
sued the contract, did they not?
The question is how much of a relationship did you have when
it came to the selection of the artist or the sculptor?
General Davis. We sat in on it and discussed it, but we had no
decision authority, so they made the selection, but again I think
they were honest in their — they knew what the law was. The law
f)rovided them with a copyright, so they made a contract under the
aw where they rated a copyright, so I think they went into it hon-
estly.
Mr. Sangmeister. I don't think there is any question about that.
As I understand, they get paid quite well for their work. I suppose
that is a matter of how you view it, but if that is the case, maybe
they ought to be paid a little bit more and then whatever can be
generated off" of that memorial should go to some of our veterans'
organizations, but that is something to be discussed in the future.
General Davis. Mr. Chairman, could I ask our Executive Direc-
tor, Mr. Hansen, who has been involved with this to make a brief
statement about the cop3rright.
Mr. Sangmeister. Go right ahead, sir,
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, General
Davis. Mr. Chairman, I would like to try to put the copyright in
a little bit different perspective, if I could. Simply from the stand-
point of the entrepreneurs out there who would think they are pos-
sibly losing something if the artist holds the copyright, if you can
think for a moment of the T-shirts as an example that are sold cur-
rently all throughout Washington, that T-shirt in quantity costs ap-
proximately $5 to produce. They can sell them on the mall for $15
or more, providing a margin of profit of $10.
The law stipulates that the royalty to be received by the artist
holding the copyright cannot exceed 10 percent, so at best of that
$10 margin of profit, $9 is going to the entrepreneur who has had
the risk of producing the T-shirt and $1 is going to the artist, so
the concerns expressed by some of the veterans that I have heard
from and that the advisory board has heard fi*om that the artists
are going to get rich is, I think, a misplaced concern. And secondly,
sir, as a Korean War veteran yourself, I would like to say that we
don't build memorials as fund-raising mechanisms. We build them
to honor the dedication and service that the veterans have given
to this country for the cause of freedom and that they are not a
fund-raising mechanism.
Mr. Sangmeister. You are probably right in theory on your last
point, but I think all the veterans' organizations are always looking
for some way to raise some money to support themselves, and that
seems kind of a natural way to do it, and I could see where they
are coming fi*om. I don't know what the exact figures are. If you
are correct, then, you are making a point that it is not as big as
36
it is, but I guess trying to play devil's advocate on the other side,
we do know of a number of veterans' organizations apparently that
have been sued by the architects or the sculptors because either ig-
norance of the law, didn't realize that they had to pay a portion of
what they took in on those projects or not.
Well, we will see how the future goes on that, but thank you, ap-
preciate your being here and giving us your feeling on that.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
Mr. Sangmeister. All right. Now, Mr. Jerry Brown.
STATEMENT OF JERRY BROWN
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The National Concrete
Burial Vault Association was founded in the 1930s, and is made up
of concrete burial vault msmufacturers from the United States and
Canada. Our association represents the national franchisers as well
as a host of independent burial vault and graveliner companies.
We thank the members of this subcommittee for your continued
involvement with and the oversight of the National Cemetery Sys-
tem. The National Cemetery System is a source of pride, tradition,
£ind profound national awareness. Programs within the jurisdiction
of this subcommittee are critical to preserving and perpetuating the
quintessential concept of memorializing the lives and deeds of
Americans who have died in the service of our Nation.
The National Cemetery System provides the means for the prop-
er perpetual memorialization of our deceased veterans. In all soci-
eties, when a death occurs, we feel the need to respond individ-
ually, as a family, as a commimity, and culturally. Our national
cemeteries are an integral part of this cultural response. National
shrines such as the Arlington Cemetery are visited by thousands
of veterans and family members each year, furnishing a sense of
continuity with the past and reinforcing the importance of the role
the veterans played in our history.
For over two centuries, the courage and patriotism of our Na-
tion's armed servicemen and women have been enshrined in the
monuments and memorials bearing proud testament to their sac-
rifice and dedication for a fi-ee and Democratic society. The Na-
tional Concrete Burial Vault Association vigorously supports House
Joint Resolution 131, designating December 7th of each year as
National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, and certainly the Ko-
rean War Memorial as integral parts of the memorialization proc-
ess.
Since the dawn of human kind, world cultures have responded to
death with ceremony, sensitivity, and sociological and religious fer-
vor. The funeral embodies the fundamental equation for the recov-
ery process, as it provides order and direction in the time of loss
and certainly manifests our beliefs through the ceremony of choice.
The ceremony brings people together to share their feelings of
grief and sorrow and bears testimony to the life of one who was
known, loved, honored cuid remembered. Within the circle of the
death guid memorialization experience, the place of bestowal, the
cemetery, emerges as the final chapter of the death and fiineral ex-
perience and becomes the place where family and fiiends may re-
turn to reflect, remember, and recreate the images of a life that
has been lived and as a footnote, the flags that have been flown
37
at half staff in our Nation this past month and certainly the touch-
ing and moving ceremony that occurred yesterday at Arlington Na-
tional Cemetery punctuates and underscores our culture's need to
memorialize and to remember.
Throughout the long and mobile history of the national cemetery
network, what has been phrased as the dynamics of earth inter-
ment has played a significant role in the operational, logistical and
economic and political profiles of the cemetery system. Specifically,
the position and fiinction of the burial vault and/or graveliner with-
in the sphere of national cemetery policies, regulations and oper-
ations has become one of the primary focal issues of the past two
decades.
For millenniums, the dynamics of earth burial have evoked var-
ious forms of entombment or protective enclosures to encase, sur-
round, protect and memorialize the deceased. Even today, ancient
pyramids, catacombs and sealed crypts remain as silent testament
to man's compelling need to safeguard the dead and memorialize
the place of interment.
In recent decades, the preference for some form of outer burial
receptacle to encase and protect the casketed body in earth burial
has expanded to include the aesthetic, functional and economic con-
cerns of cemetery management, as well as fulfilling the cultural
values and traditions of our society.
Since 1968, the National Concrete Burial Vault Association has
worked with the National Cemetery System and the House Com-
mittee on Veterans Aflfairs, Subcommittee on Housing and Memo-
rial Affairs to develop and implement a graveliner program.
In 1984, our association submitted to the subcommittee a study
entitled, "The Economic and Aesthetic Impact of Using Outer Bur-
ial Receptacles in National Cemeteries," which detailed the dynam-
ics of earth interment and its subsequent effects upon the physical
and fiscal condition of the National Cemetery System.
The NCB VA continues to support the fundamental position of
requiring outer burial receptacles for interments within the Na-
tional Cemetery System, which corresponds with the policies of
over 90 percent of the Nation and public, private and denomina-
tional cemeteries with the enactment of Section 504 of Public Law
101-237, effective January 1990.
The Government must provide a graveliner for each new grave
in an open cemetery within the National Cemetery System in
which remains are interred in a casket unless a burial vault has
been selected by the next of kin. Proper maintenance of the Na-
tional Cemetery System is enhanced by the use of outer burial re-
ceptacles such as those manufactured by our association.
When a casket is interred without some form of outer burial re-
ceptacle, anywhere from 5 to 11 restorations of the gravesite would
be required in a 25- to 50-year period. In order to provide the high-
est quality product to the national cemetery system, the member-
ship of the NCB VA adopted performance standards at its annual
meeting in 1991. The NCB VA promotes safety and training in its
member plants and in the handling and delivery system of concrete
burial vaults and graveliners throughout the cemeteries with a vig-
orous comprehensive inspection and certification program for its
members.
38
Our World War II veterans are now in their late sixties and
early seventies and by the end of the century will be in their late
seventies and early eighties. Korean veterans are now in their late
fifties and by the year 2000, Vietnam veterans will be in their fif-
ties. There are nine million living World War II veterans, five mil-
lion Korean veterans and eight million Vietnam era veterans. The
strain on our national cemeteries to provide an appropriate burial
benefit to these veterans along with the proper and continued
maintenance of these national shrines will be immense. The Na-
tional Concrete Burial Vault Association supports this committee
and your endeavors. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown appears on p. 93.]
Mr. Sangmeister. Thank you, Mr. Brown. If you can, it may be
a difficult question to answer, but how many graveliners do you es-
timate your members provide to the national cemetery? Our facts
are that there are about 67,000 burials a year.
Can you give us an idea how many graveliners?
Mr. Brown. Roughly, sir, approximately of the 67,000 veterans
interred in national cemeteries annually, and I can speak for the
Snelling National Cemetery, which I believe is the third largest na-
tional cemetery within the system. The percentage of graveliners to
burial vaults that are selected by the next of km is probably run-
ning about 70 percent, and I think extrapolating that with
Mr. Sangmeister. Seventy percent are choosing graveliners?
Mr. Brown. Are selecting the graveliners; that is correct.
Mr. Sangmeister. If you had a recommendation to make to us
to either improve the work relationship with the national ceme-
teries system or the graveliner program, do you have any rec-
ommendation you would like to make? Or is the program going
well?
Mr. Brown. Well, the program, I do believe, is going well. We
have testified at this hearing in the past relative to some of the fis-
cal constraints, I believe, the budget concerns relative to the Na-
tional Cemetery System, and fi'om time to time we have felt num-
ber one, I believe, that all of the superintendents of the various na-
tional cemeteries will concur that the graveliner program or some
form of permanent outer receptacle is indeed cost-effective.
I indicated in my report that we did a study and a burial that
takes place without some form of outer receptacle, the grave will
require restoration anywhere fi'om five to eleven times during the
life cycle of the grave, so it is cost-effective. I believe that we have
suggested that maybe to improve the fiscal condition of the Na-
tional Cemetery System that some thought might be to retain the
requirement and have the next of kin provide some form of either
burial vault or graveliner fi*om other sources, but as far as the pro-
gram itself, sir, it does seem to be going very well.
Mr. Sangmeister. Well, that is what we are here to find out and
are pleased that it is. So thanks to both of you. General Davis, for
taking time to come over and updating us on the memorial. And
Mr. Brown, thank you for your comments.
Mr. Sangmeister. We will move on to Lee Goldfarb.
The other witness is fi*om my district, Mr. Richard Foltynewicz.
39
STATEMENT OF LEE GOLDFARB, PRESmENT, NATIONAL
PEARL HARBOR SURVIVORS ASSOCIATION; AND RICHARD
FOLTYNEWICZ, PUBLIC WITNESS
STATEMENT OF LEE GOLDFARB
Mr. GOLDFARB. Mr. Chairman, before I give my testimony, I
think I would be remiss if I did not thank you for your leadership
in this fight to make December 7th a national day of remembrance.
Your dedication has been a terrific boost to the Pearl Harbor survi-
vors since, as you know, we have run into a stone wall with the
Post Office and Civil Service Committee. However, it is your lead-
ership, sir, which we believe will breach that wall and make De-
cember 7th a national day of remembrance a reality, and for that
we thank you.
Just one other statement, if I may, one quick one, I would like
to thank the fellows behind me with the white caps who came here
in support of our position. They are Pearl Harbor survivors fi'om
Maryland and fi"om Virginia, and I am truly grateful for their ap-
pearance here.
Mr. Sangmeister. You are more than welcome. Thank you for
your kind comments.
Mr. GoLDFARB. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing
me to testify on behalf of H.J, Resolution 131. As you know, to our
organization, December 7, 1941, is one of the most important days
on the calendar. It brings to mind a day in which 2,403 shipmates
and comrades lost their lives in what can best be described as a
sneak attack. This attack took place while the representatives of
the Japanese Government were in Washington talking peace. We
should never allow the events of that day to be forgotten or over-
looked. That is why it is important that H.J. Resolution 131 be
passed.
Mr. Chairman, I believe I can explain our feelings if you will
allow me to read the letter I wrote to the Honorable William Clay,
Chairman, Post Office and Civil Service Committee concerning H.J.
Resolution 131. It is the Committee policy for consideration of com-
memorative legislation for the 103rd Congress which provides the
stumbling block, and before I read the letter, I would like to quote
paragraph two, line (e), which says: "The following types of propos-
als shall not be reported: Any proposal providing for recurring an-
nual commemoratives," and the letter follows.
Mr. Sangmeister. You may proceed with that letter, if you want
to read the letter into the record, that is fine.
Mr. GOLDFARB. Yes, sir, I do, may I?
Mr. Sangmeister. Go right ahead.
Mr. GoLDFARB. "Dear Chairman Clay: It is with more sadness
than anger that I write this letter. It is inconceivable that with in
excess of 200 cosponsors who have signed on in support of H.J.
Resolution 131 you would not permit this bill to be released. I un-
derstand the reason behind your reticence, but I find it difficult to
understand.
"The thought that many finvolous organizations would seek in
one form or another a day of remembrance leaves you with the con-
clusion not to have any. On behalf of the 2,403 who were killed
that Sunday morning, I find it unconscionable that you would
40
equate the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association with the Pickle
Growers Association or the 42nd Street Ballet Dancers, ad nau-
seam. Perhaps my language is slightly strong, but perhaps it will
help make my point.
"The reason we are determined to pursue the matter at this time
is because it is now evident that we are in the final stages of our
allotted time on this mortal coil, and we see no one in the foresee-
able future who will labor annually for a National Pearl Harbor Re-
membrance Day. Let the last of us depart and the slogan, 'Remem-
ber Pearl Harbor' will depart with us.
"Mr. Chairman, please understand our concern, please under-
stand our fear, and please understand you are our only hope.
"Mr. Chairman, please join us in our crusade and please be our
ally. Perhaps it is not fitting, but I subscribe to the adage that for
every rule there is an exception. With much gratitude."
And at this time, if you have any questions I will be glad to an-
swer them, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldfarb appears on p. 98.]
Mr. Sangmeister. The obvious question has got to be did you get
an answer to your letter?
Mr. Goldfarb. Did Congressman Clay answer the letter?
Mr. Sangmeister. Yes.
Mr. Goldfarb. Not yet, sir. Maybe being from the Post Office
Committee he can't afford the 29 cent stamp.
Mr. Sangmeister. Well, not commenting on that, what is the
date of your letter?
Mr. Goldfarb. I don't see a date on here, but it is approximately
3 weeks ago.
Mr. Sangmeister. Three weeks ago you sent that? Okay, well,
we are glad you sent that letter, and I presume you will be getting
a response. Before we go into any further discussion on this, Dick,
it is nice to have you here.
You know, Mr. Goldfarb, you gave me credit for going ahead and
doing this and I feel very sincerely about it. It is a pleasure to do
it, but the one man who has been a stimulus for me, and, of course,
we always try to respond to people from our district, but beyond
that, as you know, he is not a Pearl Harbor survivor, but he feels
so firmly about this that he moved me to do this.
Mr. Goldfarb. Well, you know, we were aware of this gen-
tleman, and we certainly honored him at our convention and 50th
anniversary.
Mr. Sangmeister. It was very fitting. We are very glad you did.
Mr. Goldfarb. To be very honest, we will take any help we can
get in this direction.
Mr. Sangmeister. Dick, what do you have to say?
STATEMENT OF RICHARD FOLTYNEWICZ
Mr. FOLTYNEWICZ. Well, one gentleman before us said one thing
about the cemetery. He stated that you are going to retire, and that
you are going to be missed by his group and the group here. Well,
I am personally going to miss you because I represent the veterans
in our area, as you well know, and I know they are going to miss
one heck-of-a-good supporter for our veterans' rights.
41
Mr. Sangmeister. Thank you for that, Dick, but no one is irre-
placeable, and I am sure someone is going to come along.
Mr. FOLTYNEWICZ. I know, but that letter last Friday that we re-
ceived from you to Secretary Jesse Brown, that was the most won-
derful respect that anybody could do. This was in regards to the
outpatient hospital. I appreciated that.
Mr. Sangmeister. Okay, you are more than welcome for that.
Mr. FOLTYNEWICZ. Again, I certainly do want to thank you for in-
viting me to come here. It is, indeed, a great honor and privilege
to come here and represent what I have been doing, something that
is very dear to my heart.
As in my statement, I have an article in the World War II Times.
Getting our congress to recognize December 7th as National Pearl
Harbor Remembrance Day is a tough job, a task. It has been very
tough.
Although the Japanese attack there on December 7, 1941, is one
of the most significant events of this century, the bill to establish
an annual commemoration date is stalled in a subcommittee with
little chance of release because of Federal rules governing com-
memorative days.
House Joint Resolution 131 has 231 cosponsors of now. The re-
quirement is 218 to have it come out of committee, to have the bill
come to the Floor for a vote. Even so. Representative William Clay,
Chairman of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee,
has not authorized the bill's release from the Population and Cen-
sus Subcommittee.
It should be noted that the House Joint Resolution bill 131 des-
ignates December 7th as a working holiday similar to Flag Day on
June 14th. It also requests the President to issue an annual procla-
mation calling upon citizens to observe the day with appropriate
ceremonies and activities. The United States flag, our flag would
be flown at half staff that day by all Federal agencies and inter-
ested groups in honor of those Americans who died in the sneak
attack.
Representative George Sangmeister, who is retiring this year
from Congress, said that in the 1970s the subcommittee estab-
lished rules which prohibit commemorative days in the belief that
eventually every day would become a commemorative day. How-
ever, Sangmeister added, this is not just another event we are talk-
ing about. This is an event which changed the course of history for
America and also the world, the whole world, not just the United
States.
Interestingly, since the subcommittee's rules were adopted, there
have been days set aside for perpetual commemorations. Those
were accomplished by tacking them on to legislative bills which is
one way of doing it. Included among the commemorations are Fed-
eral Lands Cleanup Day, National Disability Awareness Month,
and National Forest Products Week. Thus, tacking House Joint
Resolution 131 on to a piece of must-pass legislation as a rider
could be an alternative course to get the bill out of the subcommit-
tee and on to the Floor for a vote.
We certainly didn't want to do that. It is not in the middle of the
night. It is too significant of an event to do that. The idea to offi-
cially commemorate December 7th came to me during my sister's
42
birthday party in March of 1990. The next day, I contacted Rep-
resentative Dennis Hastert of Saint Charles with the suggestion.
He sponsored a resolution that would designate December 7th as
Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, December 7, 1991. At that time
I didn't know that the word of each year should have been incor-
porated in that, but it wouldn't have made any difference. He
wouldn't have done it because they wouldn't have passed it then
as they are not doing it now, so in order to get this bill passed and
on its way, we went along with the appropriate way at the time.
Since then, I have formed the Foimdation for a National Pearl
Harbor Day to push for the commemoration. I also set up the Pen-
nies for Pearl Fund, which raised funds for a bronze plaque which
I presented to the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association at Pearl
Harbor on December 7, 1991. They honored me by letting me
march with our Pearl Harbor survivors of our State of Illinois that
day, and I have wonderful movies of that. It is very gratifying to
me to have that privilege.
Why is this legislation so important? Well, I was 15 years old
when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. That event left an indel-
ible impression on me, and 18 months later I joined the Marines
to serve in the Pacific theater.
This commemoration will enable future generations of Americans
to recognize the significance of the date and to be reminded of what
can happen if our country is unprepared to protect our cherished
freedom. I second that very highly. We should never, never let our
country be in such a position as it was then.
Congressman Sangmeister recently said, as a result of the at-
tack, 16-and-a-half million Americans rallied to fight World War II,
with 460,000 eventually losing their lives. As a military veteran, it
saddens me to think that the significance of this event may be lost
to future generations. I hope it doesn't. I hope we will get House
Joint Resolution 131 passed, and with this I have just one more.
Please let your voice be heard today. Please help pass House Joint
Resolution Bill Resolution 131. Please be aware that there is no fi-
nancial obligation here. It will not cost the taxpayer nor will it in-
crease the deficit.
It will, however, put a warm glow within you to know that you
did what you could to honor the military men and women who of-
fered the ultimate sacrifice on that infamous Siuiday morning, De-
cember 7, 1941, in Hawaii at Pearl Harbor by establishing for them
a permanent day of remembrance. I certainly thank you, sir, for
having me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Foltynewicz appears on p. 100.]
Mr. Sangmeister. I want to thank you both for being here, and
I want to thank all the Members sitting in the back, too. You are
kind of special to all of us. You really are, and I think we need to
fight this thing through. I can understand where the committee is
concerned about starting some kind of a precedent, but Dick indi-
cated a few places, I believe those were passed by tacking it on in
the Senate. It is more difficult to do that in the House, but an5rway
regardless of that, we need to get this job done, and of course the
only way we are going to get it done is through organizations such
as yourself.
43
You heard all the veterans' organizations are willing to sign on.
We need a massive writing. What I will provide to you and to all
the other veterans' organizations is a list of the cosponsors broken
out by State, and I think that is one way that your Members from
each of the States can say look, thank you very much for signing
on to H.J. Res. 131. We now need this additional step in order to
get the job done or something like that, and each of you from the
respective States get into those particular representatives already.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't be talking to people that are not
cosponsors. You can do that as well.
Mr. GOLDFARB. May I say one thing, sir?
Mr. Sangmeister. Surely.
Mr. GOLDFARB. We had a fact-finding sheet that we used. We put
it in our magazine. The fellows were able to extract that from the
magazine, and sent it to their Congressman and also some of the
fellows sitting back here and myself, we literally walked the halls
of Congress handing this sheet in just about every office. It is very
short. I would like to read it. May I, sir?
Mr. Sangmeister. Surely you may.
Mr. GOLDFARB. Then I will explain why I want to do that. It is
a fact-finding sheet. "H.J. Resolution 131. Honorable George E.
Sangmeister, Member of Congress from Illinois has introduced H.J.
Resolution 131, which asks that December 7th of each year be per-
manently designated as National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day.
We, the members of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association, re-
spectfully ask your support of this resolution. We look to the future
when we will be no more, when there will be none of us left to ask
every year for a national day of remembrance. If the legacy of Pearl
Harbor is to be remembered, we can think of no better vehicle than
H.J. Res. 131. This will tell the children of our beloved country
what occurred on December 7, 1941, and this will explain why the
flags are at half staff. Won't you join so many of your fellow Con-
gressmen in cosponsoring H.J. Res. 131? This will indicate to the
Pearl Harbor survivors that you truly remember Pearl Harbor."
Now, you mentioned that you were going to have — and I am not
sure I know the proper wording — a discharge petition.
Mr. Sangmeister. That is correct.
Mr. GOLDFARB. Does that have certain wording in it?
Mr. Sangmeister. It will have a number assigned to it that will
make it a lot easier for you.
Mr. GOLDFARB. If we could get that information, I promise you,
sir, that Tony de Lorenzo and the rest of these fellows and myself
will once again walk around the halls with that, plus the fact-find-
ing sheet and do it again. I promise you.
Mr. Sangmeister. My staff will be happy to help you. All you
need to do is just slightly amend your original declaration and we
will give you the information as to the discharge petition number
that they should go down and ask for when they want to sign it.
Mr. GOLDFARB. If we get that information, you will have our
word.
Mr. Sangmeister. Also, I guess we can break this out by State
for the number of people who are already cosponsors, and I think,
you know, you did such a great job before, I obviously solicited ev-
erybody I could, but I didn't get all those signatures. I know that.
44
You got them. If you could just redo that, we could get this thing
done.
Mr. GOLDFARB. Does that discharge petition only go to those who
have cosponsored or to anybody?
Mr. Sangmeister. No, no, it goes to anyone. I want to make that
very clear. You don't have to be a cosponsor of the resolution to ask
for it to be discharged. Any member, so someone who is not a co-
sponsor who is now willing to help discharge that can sign just as
well. In fact, you should approach everyone.
Mr. GOLDFARB. Well, we promise you we will, sir. The only re-
ward we want is a new pair of shoes when we get done, that is all.
Mr. Sangmeister. We will see what we can do. I don't know if
we have the money to provide that for you. Dick?
Mr. FOLTYNEWICZ. Congressman Sangmeister, I have the com-
mitment of all these fellows that were sitting here, all these veter-
ans because I belong to most of their organizations out here in the
hall, and especially the most important one was the VFW Action
Corps, and now all they asked me to have you to do is get that pe-
tition number to them, and this one VFW, Dennis the Menace, he
said that get that and they will give a double whammy because I
am on that action corps, and I have given them heck along the way
because they haven't supported it.
Mr. Sangmeister. Have you really? That surprises me, Dick.
Mr. FOLTYNEWICZ. Well, anyhow, they assured me that we have
unity, we have strength, and it will be out.
Mr. Sangmeister. I think we can do it, then. If you will just
defer one minute here, can we as of tomorrow have that petition
number? We got all the mechanics worked out to get that laid to-
gether so by tomorrow we can let them know what the petition
number is? Okay. Fine, we should have it all by tomorrow.
Mr. GOLDFARB. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Mr. FOLTYNEWICZ. Thank you.
Mr. Sangmeister. Thank you all. Take care. The subcommittee
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
statement of the Honorable Jerry W. Bowen
Director, National Cemetery System
Before the House of Representatives Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Housing and Memorial Affairs
Hay 24, 1994
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of this Subcommittee. Z
welcome the opportunity to appear here today to address the status of the
National Cemetery System. Your continued support and interest in our program
is greatly appreciated. Mr. Chairman, it is with deep personal regret that I
note your departure from the Congress after this current session. Your
leadership has been outstanding, your concern for our nation's veterans has
been sincere, and your accomplishments have been truly significant. We will
sorely miss your leadership. On behalf of the men and women of the National
Cemetery System, I wish you continued success in your future endeavors.
Let me begin my testimony by stating that after 26 years of active Army
service, it was a great personal honor to be asked by the President to direct
this fine organization. NCS is one of VA's three operating agencies providing
direct services and benefits to the nation's 27 million veterans and their
families. Burial in one of our national shrines is the final tribute of a
grateful nation honoring the memory and sacrifice of those who served in our
Armed Forces. This memorialization is everlasting through the provision of
perpetual care of our national cemeteries. It is a benefit available to all
veterans, without regard to gender, race, religious affiliation or econoaic
circumstances. We are projecting 70,000 interments in FY 1994. In January
1994, we reached a significant milestone — we now maintain over two million
gravesltea. Approximately 313,000 headstones and markers and 294,000
Presidential Memorial Certificates are projected to be provided in FY 1994.
Through our services, NCS reaches out and touches the lives of hundreds of
thousands of Amarlcan veterans and thsir familiss ssch yssr.
In rseognitloa of tha fset that dsasnd for burial in • nstioosl rrssMts ry will^
eoBtiniM to iacr—mm until ««11 into tiM ttmmt eaotury, ««• bsv* ds»slop«d •
(45)
46
three-pronged strategy to carefully manage existing resources and to identify
future opportunities to acquire additional burial space. The strategy
includes (1) establishing, when feasible, new national cemeteries; (2)
acquiring additional land through purchase or donation to extend the service
of existing cemeteries; and (3) encouraging states to provide additional
gravesites through participation in the State Cemetery Grant Program.
The expectation of the aging World War II veterans is that there will be
burial space available near their community at their time of need. Our
strategy is designed to meet that expectation to the greatest extent possible.
We are focusing our efforts on large population centers which currently are
not served by an open national or state cemetery. The first report to
Congress required by Public Law 99-576 identified ten areas of the country in
greatest need of a new national cemetery. The second report submitted this
year re-validated eight of the original ten sites identified in the first
report and identified three new areas. Since 1987, only one new national
cemetery has been constructed — the San Joaquin Valley National Cemetery in
Northern California was opened in June 1992. Funding has been provided for
land acquisition and master planning at five other sites: Albany, Chicago,
Cleveland, Dallas and Seattle. Construction funds for the Seattle cemetery
are contained in the FY 1995 budget request. Given current budget
constraints, it is no longer considered viable for NCS to construct new
national cemeteries, other than those just mentioned, before the year 2000.
The second prong of our strategy involves acquiring adjacent land so that
existing national cemeteries can remain open. I am extremely pleased with our
progress this year to accjuire additional acreage through purchase and
partnerships with veterans service organizations and other private concerns.
In March 1994, the VA announced the purchase of 16 acres of land adjacent to
Ft. Gibson National Cemetery in Oklahoma. The land, which was purchased from
a private owner, will yield approximately 10,000 gravesites and allow Ft.
Gibson to remain open beyond 2030. In Fort Scott, Kansas, the veteran
community banded together to purchase and then donate ten acres of land, which
will allow the Ft. Scott National Cemetery to give full service to veterans
and their families beyond the year 2030. And in Port Hudson, Louisiana, th«
47
VA has been negotiating with the Georgia-Pacific Corporation to acquire nearly
12 acres adjacent to the Port Hudson National Cemetery, which closed in 1992.
Alexandria National Cemetery, the only open national cemetery in Louisiana, is
scheduled to close later this year; therefore, the re-opening of Port Hudson
will permit continuing service to Louisiana veterans and families. We are
pursuing other efforts to acquire land for other national cemeteries wherever
it is feasible and cost effective to do so.
Our third approach is to utilize the State Cemetery Grants Program to
complement our national system of cemeteries. This program has been very
successful to date; however, interest has declined in recent months. Most
state officials appear to be taking a "wait and see" approach on the viability
of paaeage of leqialation changing the federal/state share from 50/50 to
65/35% funding aa provided for in H.R. 949. Recent requests from states have
involved improvements to existing cemeteries rather than applications for new
state cemeteries. This program remains an integral and important component of
our strategy to meet the increasing need for burial space. We must continue
to pursue ways to increase the participation of states in this worthwhile
program.
A recently completed initiative to improve customer service was the
reint reduction of the upright granite headstones. Initially, the new granite
uprights will only be available to marlc veterans' graves in private or state
veterans cemeteries. We will then assess their acceptability by the veteran
coaamunity before deciding their suitability for use in national cemeteries.
The National Cemetery System continues to seek ways to meet the increasing
worlcload demand and to satisfy the high expectations of the public we serve.
Our FY 1995 budget contains an additional 25 FTE to perform interment and
maintenance functions within our national cemeteries. In addition, I have
initiated a streamlining effort which has resulted in a reduction of 7 FTE in
Central Office which will be re-channeled to our field facilities. I plan to
continue these efforts to decentralize functions and streamline our
organisation whenever possible.
48
I thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the National Cemetery
System and welcome your questions. Thank you.
49
STATEMENT OF STEVEN DOLA
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY (MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET),
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON THE OPERATION OF ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
MAY 24, 1994
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
INTRODUCTION
I am pleased to be testifying before this subcommittee on the
operation of Arlington National Cemetery. I am the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for (Management and Budget), Office of Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Civil Works). Assisting me today is Mr. John C. Metzler,
Jr., Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery. We are appearing
on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, who is responsible for the
operation and maintenance of Arlington and Soldiers' and Airmen's
Home National Cemeteries.
My statement covers the following topics:
> Fiscal Year 1995 Cemeterial Expenses, Army, Budget;
> History and Present Day Significance;
> Eligibility;
> Funerals;
> Parking Facility;
> Fiscal Year 1995 New Construction;
> Previously Funded Construction; and
> Main Entrance Hemicycle Rehabilitation.
FISCAL YEAR 1995 CEMETERIAL EXPENSES, ARMY, BUDGET
The budget request for Fiscal Year 1995 is $12,017,000. The funds
requested are sufficient to support the work force, to assure
adequate maintenance of the buildings, and to acquire necessary
supplies and equipment. The funds requested will finance operations
at Arlington and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries.
Construction funds in the amount of $2,690,000 are included in the
budget for repair of the McClellan Gate, Memorial Amphitheater inte-
rior, and roads; upgrade of the electrical system at the Kennedy
gravesite; and design for Project 90 land development and Custis Walk
replacement.
50
HISTORY AND PRESENT DAY SIGNIFICANCE
From its origin during the Civil War, Arlington National Cemetery
has become a great national and military shrine. The 1,100 acre
estate which comprises Arlington National Cemetery and the Fort
Myer military reservation has a rich, historical background. It
became the property of John Parke Custis in 1778 and descended to
his son, George Washington Parke Custis, who built the handsome
Greek revival mansion, now known as Arlington House. The grounds
and house were owned by Robert E. Lee's family at the outbreak of
the Civil War, when the house was taken over by the government for
military purposes.
The establishment of the cemetery dates back to 1864. Today, the
cemetery consists of 612 acres. Over the years, representatives
of all the Nation's wars and conflicts have been buried in Arlington
National Cemetery. Among the more commonly known and deeply cherished
memorials in Arlington National Cemetery are the Arlington Memorial
Amphitheater and the Tomb of the Remains of Unknowns from World War
I, World War II, Korea, and the Vietnam era.
Arlington National Cemetery has become this Nation's principal
shrine to honor the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces.
It is a visible reflection of America's appreciation for those who
have made the ultimate sacrifice to maintain our freedom. During
Fiscal Year 1993, Arlington National Cemetery accommodated approxi-
mately H million visitors, making Arlington one of the most visited
historic sites in the National Capitol Region. In addition to the
thousands of funerals, with military honors, held there each year,
hundreds of non-funeral ceremonies are conducted to honor those
who rest in the cemetery. Thousands of visitors, both foreign and
American, visited Arlington in Fiscal Year 1993 to participate in
about 1,900 non-funeral ceremonies and the President of the United
States hosted the ceremony on December 21, 1993, breaking ground for
a memorial to the victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 disaster.
ELIGIBILITY
The interment eligibility criteria for Arlington National Cemetery
are stated in 32 CFR 553.15. The following categories of decedent are
generally eligible:
> Members of the Armed Forces who die while serving on active
duty.
> Former members of the Armed Forces who have retired with 20
or more years of active service or reserves.
> Honorably discharged veterans who have held certain high
government positions.
> Honorably discharged veterans who have been awarded either
the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air
Force Cross, Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star or the Purple
Heart.
51
> Honorably discharged veterans separated prior to October 1 ,
19'<9, for medical reasons with a service connected disability rated
at 30 percent or more.
> Family members such as spouses and children also are
eligible under certain circumstances.
Public Law 103-160, which was enacted on November 30, 1993, extended
eligibility for interment in Arlington National Cemetery to any
former prisoner of war who, while a prisoner of war, served honorably
in the active military, naval, or air service and who dies or died on
or after the date of enactment of the Public Law. This section is to
be carried out under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the
Army. A proposed rule has been drafted cind is being circulated for
internal coordination prior to publication in the Federal Register.
It is anticipated that the proposed rule will be published in June,
199 i*.
In addition, any honorably discharged veteran whose remains have been
cremated is eligible for inurnment in the Arlington National Cemetery
Columbarium.
FUNERALS
In Fiscal Year 1993, there were 3,056 interments and 1,583
inurnments; and 3,500 interments and 1,500 inurnments are estimated
in Fiscal Year 199^4.
Inurnment activities in the Columbarium continue to increase.
In 1980, the first year of operation, there were 657 inurnments.
Because of the advanced age of World War I and World War II
Veterans, inurnments are now averaging approximately 1,500 per
year. At this rate, all available space in the existing Columbarium
will be exhausted in FY 1998. Design of the next increment of the
Columbarium has begun so that a valid construction cost estimate
could be developed in time for consideration in connection with the
Fiscal Year 1996 budget submission.
At the end of Fiscal Year 1993, there were 191,118 used gravesites
to accommodate 217,153 interments. The total gravesite capacity
is 268,089, leaving 73,971 gravesites available. Current projections
indicate that all available gravesites will be used by the year
2025. The Department of the Army is cognizant of this projected
closing date and remains alert to such possibilities as may present
themselves for expansion of the capacity of the cemetery.
PARKING FACILITY
The Arlington National Cemetery visitors center parking facility
opened to the public in January 1989. This modern facility combines
convenience aind information for visitors to Arlington National
Cemetery. There is parking for 570 cars and U2 buses in the three
story parking facility. There is a fee for parking at this facility.
52
The method of operating the parking facility is by lease to a
private vendor. A new lease began for a term of 1 year, beginning
January 16, 199'*, with a Government option to renew at the same
annual rate, on a yearly basis for the next U years. The fee for
cars under the new lease is $1 .25 per hour for the first three
hours. The fee for buses is unchanged - $5.00 per hour for the first
three hours.
The new lease provides for an annual payment of $500,000 to the
government. In addition, of every dollar earned after $74U,I|22,
ninety six percent is received by the government and four percent
goes to the vendor. Based on the 1992 usage of the facility and the
new fee structure, the annual payment to the government would be
$929,277 compared to $756,861 that was actually received in 1992.
FISCAL YEAR 1995 NEW CONSTRUCTION
Major new construction projects planned for Fiscal Year 1995 include
repairs to existing structures and design for the remaining two
unstarted projects in the 1967 Master Plan.
McClellan Gate - The Fiscal Year 1995 request includes $660,000
for design and construction required to repair and restore the
Gate. Work will include removal and resetting of stone including
some stone replacement, structural repairs, repointing, patching and
cleaning of the entire arch, a new concrete ring foundation, new
copper roofing and flashing, repair and painting of the iron gate,
and new granite cobblestone paving around the arch.
Project 90 Land Development - One of two remaining projects in
the 1967 Master Plan is the development of the final 52 acres of
land in the cemetery for burial purposes. The Fiscal Year 1995
request includes $800,000 to design this project. This development,
providing approximately 31,000 gravesites, will include construction
of new roads, paving, curbing, a new drainage system, installation
of a potable and non-potable water distribution system, 1,500 feet
of ornamental boundary wall and wrought iron fencing, fine grading
and topsoiling, establishment of turf, and landscaping. Design of
the project will be timed to take advantage of and be consistent
with the work being done on the new Master Plan.
Custis Walk - The other remaining project from the 1967 Master
Plan is the replacement of the Custis Walk. The Fiscal Year 1995
request includes $250,000 to design this project. This project will
consist of removing and replacing 2,000 feet of existing deteriorat-
ing bluestone walk and retaining cheek wall constructed in the
1870 's. The replacement with new flagstone and concrete retaining
cheek wall will be compatible with the new walkways throughout the
cemetery.
53
Kennedy Gravesite Electrical System - The Fiscal Year 1995
request includes $300,000 for design and construction required to
relocate existing above ground, pad-mounted electrical equipment
into an existing underground vault, which will be enlarged; remove
the no longer used electrical equipment presently in the vault; and
add a new switch gear to facilitate future electrical maintenance
for the Kennedy gravesite area.
Parking Facility Upper Deck Repair - Pavement on the upper deck
of the parking facility is deteriorating because of heavy usage by
buses. The asphalt pavement in this area will be replaced with
concrete at an estimated cost (including design effort) of $350,000.
PREVIOUSLY FUNDED CONSTRUCTION
Master Plan - Arlington is developing a new Master Plan. The new
plan, which is estimated to cost $1,000,000, will address projected
improvements for the next 30 years, including expansion of the
capacity of Arlington National Cemetery and development of out-year
construction projects. The original 1967 Master Plan consisted of
28 projects. Of the 28, 25 projects are completed. The West Boundary
wall project, which has been partially funded, is not completed. The
two unstarted projects are, one, replacement of the Custis Walk;
and, two, the development of 52 acres of land in the cemetery for
burial purposes.
Memorial Amphitheater Combined Project - In Fiscal Year 1992,
$U.82 million was appropriated for repair of rainwater leaks at the
Memorial Amphitheater. In FY 1993, $^.5 million was appropriated for
a marble restoration to be undertaken in conjunction with the rain-
water leaks repair project. The design for the combined project is
now complete. Although we had expected the construction would now
be underway, resolution of three award protests is required. Actions
required to resolve the protests have resulted in substantial delay
in the construction start; and the previously scheduled completion
date of July 1995 will be delayed by approximately six months.
Facility Maintenance Complex - The construction contract for the
new facilities maintenance complex was awarded on January 25, 199'»,
at a cost of $5.8 million, and construction is now underway. The
facilities maintenance complex will consist of work and storage
areas for three divisions (Facility Maintenance, Horticulture, and
Field Operations), in three separate buildings. There will be another
building for warehouse operations and a building for the administra-
tive functions associated with all of these operations. In addition,
the project will include a vehicle storage area, as well as employee
break rooms, locker and shower rooms, and meeting rooms. This facili-
ty will replace buildings constructed in 1930 that were originally
used as horse stables and converted to a cemetery maintenance facili-
ty in the late 19^0 's. They were not designed to house or service
54
modern cemetery maintenance equipment and they do not meet OSHA
standards. The proposed new facility is sited to facilitate the
efficient performance of the daily operations of the cemetery in
proximity to the planned new grave site development. The facility is
expected to be ready for occupancy in June 1995.
MAIN ENTRANCE HEMICYCLE REHABILITATION
The main gate structures, center plaza, and Hemicycle of Arlington
National Cemetery are located on land belonging to the National Park
Service. The 199^ Department of Defense Appropriations Act provides
$9,538,000, to be available through the U.S. Air Force, only for a
grant to the Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foun-
dation, Inc., to be used solely to perform the repair, restoration
and preservation of the main gate structures, center plaza, and
Hemicycle. These funds shall be made available solely for project
costs, and none of the funds are for remuneration of any entity or
individual associated with fund raising for the Memorial project.
The Hemicycle restoration is envisioned to occur simultaneously with
the construction of the Women in Military Service for America
Memorial, which will be located inside and directly behind the
Hemicycle. As designed the memorial will be composed of an enhanced
and restored hemicycle, as well as a visitor facility behind the
wall. The National Park Service, National Capital Planning Commission
and Commission of Fine Arts have all approved this facility as
a Memorial to Women in Military Service to America. Because the
memorial is to be located on National Park Service lands, the Park
Service is the lead Federal agency responsible for overseeing design
and construction of the memorial. The National Park Service has
indicated that, in an effort to ensure coordination between all
affected parties, it will take the lead in preparing a memorandum of
understanding between the National Park Service, Women in Military
Service for America Memorial Foundation, Inc., the U.S. Air Force,
and Arlington National Cemetery. This memorandum will identify the
responsibilities of the affected parties and address the design,
construction, and operation of the memorial.
The Army supports the memorial to honor women who have served in the
Armed Forces of the United States. As design and construction of the
memorial progresses, Arlington and the Army will endeavor to ensure
that the memorial, in its location at the entrance to Arlington, is
compatible with the sacred character and vision of Arlington National
Cemetery as a national shrine.
This completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. We will be pleased to
respond to questions from the Subcommittee.
55
Prepgired statement of Colonel William E. Ryan, Jr.
BEFORE THE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
MAY 24, 1994
The Americaui Battle Monxunents Commission (ABMC) welcomes the opportunity to
provide information to the Subcommittee on its operations amd the Korean War
VeteroUis Memorial .
The principle functions of 7VBMC are to commemorate the achievements and
sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces where they have served since
i^ril 6, 1917, through the erection and maintenance of suitable memorial
shrines; to design, construct, operate and maintain permcuient American
military cemeteries in foreign countries; to control the design cuid
construction on foreign soil of U.S. military monuments and markers by other
U.S. citizens and organizations both public and private; and to encourage
these orgemizations and individuals to maintain adequately the monuments euid
markers that they have erected. The guardiainship of our War Dead interred
on foreign soil is a sacred tjrust for which all of us in the Commission are
extreme proud.
Currently, ABMC administers, operates and maintains 24 permanent American
military burial grounds and 4 9 memorial structures in twelve foreign
countries amd the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands eind four
memorials here in the United States. These cemeteries, monuments and
memorials are among the most beautiful and meticulously maintained shrines
of their nature in the world. Few others anywhere combine such fitness of
design, beauty of Icuidscaping and memorial features auid immaculate care.
ABMC presently is establishing a Korean War Veterauis Memorial in Ash Woods
at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial . It recently also was charged with
establishing a World War II memorial in the Washington, D.C. environs.
Interred in ABMC's cemeteries are 124,912 U.S. War Dead -- 30,921 of World
War I, 93,241 of World War II, amd 750 of the Mexicaui War. Additionally,
6,573 American veterans and others are interred in its Mexico City and
Corozal Americaui Cemeteries . The World War cemeteries and the Mexico City
Cemetery are closed to further burials except for the remains of American
War Dead still found from time to time in the battle areas . In addition to
their burials, the World War I and II cemeteries together with 3 memorials
on United States soil commemorate individually by name the 94,100 U.S.
service personnel Missing in Action or lost or buried at sea during the two
World Wars, the Koreain War auid the Vietnam War.
The care of these shrines to our War Dead requires a formidable auinual
program of maintenauice and repair of stiructures, facilities, vehicles and
equipment and grounds maintenauice. This care includes upkeep of 131,000
graves and headstones; 53 memorial structures; 41 quarters, utilities auid
maintenauice facilities; 67 miles of roads auid paths; 911 acres of flowering
plamts, fine lawns auid meadows; 3 million square feet of shrubs and hedges;
auid 11 thousauid ornamental shrubs and trees. The estimated replacement cost
of these structures aind facilities is almost 1/3 of a $billion. All of the
plamtings including the lawns and to some extent the meadows must be
cultivated, cut auid/or shaped, fed and treated with insecticides auid
fungicides at regular intervals during the growing season. Additionally,
56
the plantings must be replaced when their useful lives are exhausted or they
receive major storm or other damage. Much of this maintenance and care must
be performed by casual labor as the cemetery staffs are not large enough to
provide it adequately on a daily basis.
ABMC's budget authority for the current year is $20,211,000. Its
appropriation request euid budget authority for fiscal 1995 is $20,265,000,
$54,000 more thcin the current year. The expenses of the Commission fall
into two categories, commemoration of the Armed Forces where they have
served and care and maintenance of the shrines for which ABMC is
responsible. Because of the large number of memorial structures, sculpture,
buildings, headstones, flowering shrubs, ornamental trees, vehicles and
equipment and the meuiy acres of fine lawns eind meadows, ABMC is very lal>or
intensive. Last year, over 75% of ABMC's Budget Authority went to defray
personnel salaries and benefits. The foreign governments where our
installations are located annually decree cost of living increases for our
foreign national employees of at least $400,000. When our Budget Authority
does not increase by a similar amount, there are times we must defray these
cost of living increases with funds budgeted for care and mainteneince and
replacement of supplies, materials, spare parts eind equipment.
The following information eind services are provided on request without cost
to relatives and friends of those seirvicemen and women who are interred in
ABMC cemeteries or commemorated individually by name on its Tablets of the
Missing: name, location and general information cibout the cemetery, monument
or memorial in which they are interested; plot, row and grave numbers if
appliccible; best routes and modes of travel in-country to these shrines;
general information about accommodations in their vicinity; letters
authorizing fee free passports for members of the immediate family
travelling overseas specifically to visit sm ABMC grave or memorial site; a
black cind white photograph of the headstone or section of the Tablets of the
Missing where the name of the decedent is engraved mounted on a large color
lithograph of the cemetery or memorial, together with a booklet describing
the cemetery or memorial in detail; arrangement for floral decoration of a
gravesite or section of the TeQjlets of the Missing where the name of the
decedent is engraved utilizing funds provided by the donor; euid provision to
the donor of a color Polaroid photograph of the decoration in place, weather
permitting.
On August 7, 1992, ABMC dedicated the Guadalcanal American Memorial on
Skyline Drive overlooking Honiara, Guadalceinal in the Solomon Isleinds. It
honors those servicemen who lost their lives during the Guadalcanal
Campaign. The memorial was a joint project of ABMC eind the Guadalcanal/
Solomon Islcinds War Memorial Fovindation. It consists of an inscribed four
foot square pylon of red calca granite rising twenty- four feet cibove its
base and four radiating directional walls. Engraved on these walls are
descriptions of the major battles towards which they point, Savo Island
where four major naval battles took place, "Iron Bottom Sound" named for the
meUiy ships that lay on its floor, Edson's ridge commonly called "Bloody
Ridge" for the fierce fighting in defense of Henderson Field that took place
there, eind Mount Austen where infeuitry units engaged a heavily intrenched
enemy. Two ABMC Commissioners who fought in that campaign; Colonel Badger,
Acting Secretary of ABMC; approximately 300 veterans of the 1st Marine
Division and the Army Americal Division; and other Marine Corps, Naval and
Army veterans of the campaign attended the dedication. General Raymond G.
Davis, USMC(Ret) represented the President at the ceremony.
57
Piiblic Law 99-572 was enacted on October 28, 1986 authorizing ABMC to
establish a Koream War Veterans Memorial in the Nation's Capital utilizing
fimds obtained primarily through private donations. Since then, legislation
was sought euid enacted authorizing erection of the memorial on the Mall; a
superb site for it was obtained in Ash Woods directly across the Reflecting
Pool from the Vietnam Memorial; at the request of the Koream War Veterans
Memorial Advisory Board (KWVMAB) , a national competition was held to obtain
a design concept; and the architecture/engineering firm of Cooper/Lecky was
employed to assist us in obtaining approval of the winning design concept
from the Commission of Fine Arts, the National Capital Planning Commission
amd the Secretary of the Interior. Simultaneously, a fund raising campaign
was initiated to raise the funds needed to establish the memorial, over and
above the $1 million which was authorized to be appropriated by P.L. 99-572.
With the assistance of the KWVMAB, $7,808,000 was raised in private
contributions, $5,820,000 was raised from sale of the commemorative coin and
$2,487,000 in interest is being raised by investing in government securities
funds not immediately needed to esteiblish the memorial, for a total of
$16,115,000. With the $1,000,000 that was appropriated, adequate funds
should availaJDle to complete the memorial. Among its many provisions, the
Commemorative Works Act provides 7 years from the date of enactment of a
memorial's authorizing legislation for the sponsor to obtain a building
permit from the Secretary of the Interior. In order to do so, the following
conditions had to be met: the site and design had to be acceptcible to all
approving authorities; knowledgeable persons qualified in preservation and
maintenance had to be consulted to ensure that the structural soundness amd
durability of the commemorative work would meet high professional standards;
contracts for construction and drawings of the commemorative work had to be
submitted to the Secretary of the Interior; and sufficient funds had to be
available to construct the memorial. As the Korean War Veterans Memorial is
being erected with funds obtained primarily through private contributions,
cui additional sum equal to 10% of the construction cost had to be made
available to the Secretary of the Interior to defray future maintenauice and
repairs to the memorial . The construction permit was issued by the
Secretary of the Interior on October 4, 1993. Installation of utilities and
soil stabilization were completed in March of this year. Construction of
the memorial should be completed in June of next year. Target date for
dedication of the memorial is July 27, 1995, the 42 Anniversary of the
signing of the Armistice in Korea.
Last fall, P.L. 103-32 was enacted authorizing ABMC to esteiblish a memorial
in the District of Columbia or its environs honoring members of the U.S.
Armed Forces who served in World War II and to commemorate the participation
of the United States in that War. The memorial is to be funded by private
contributions and surcharges from the sale of three commemorative coins
minted last year by the U.S. Mint, a $5 gold piece, a $1 silver coin amd a
$0.50 clad coin. There was a surcharge of $35 on each gold coin, $8 on each
silver coin auid $2 on each clad coin. In accordance with P.L. 102-414,
after recovery of minting costs, the first $3 million in surcharges went to
the Battle of Normandy Foundation, a U.S. private nonprofit orgamization, to
erect a World War II Memorial Garden at a French museum in Caen, France.
The next $7 million was to go to ABMC for the World War II Memorial. After
that, any surcharges received were to be split monthly between the two
organizations with 30% going to the Normandy Foundation and 70% to ABMC.
Had all coins authorized to be minted been sold, the total value of the
surcharges would have been $22.5 million. By law, minting of the coins
58
ceased on 31 December 1993. The U.S. World War II Memorial received
$4,599,804 from the surcharges. Last July, the Secretary of the Interior
was asked to petition the Congress to enact legislation authorizing
placement of the World War II Memorial in Area I of the Nation's Capital.
It is anticipated that the petition will reach the Congress shortly. In
accordance with the Commemorative Works Act, the Congress will have 150 days
to enact the legislation, otherwise the petition is disapproved.
ABMC's memorial shrines will be featured prominently in the 50th Anniversary
of World War II Commemorations being held this June. President Clinton,
foreign Heads of State, other U.S. and foreign diplomats, members of
Congress senior military officers and many tens of thouscuids of veterans
will be attending ceremonies at ABMC's Sicily-Rome Cemetery near Anzio, its
Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial overlooking Omaha Beach, . its
memorials at Utah Beach and Pointe du Hoc, and its Cemetery Memorial at
Cambridge, Englcuid. We hope that you will be among those in attendamce.
This concludes my prepared statement. We will be pleased to respond to your
questions .
58
statement of Larry D. Rhea, Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs, Non
Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America
Mr. Chairman, the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the USA (NCOA) sincerely
appreciates the opportunity to present its views on oversight of the National Cemetery System
(NCS), American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) and to comment on H.J. Res 131.
The Association remains generally satisfied with the management and operation of the NCS
although that is not intended to imply that the Association does not have any concerns. NCOA
trusts that its observations will prove useful to the Subcommittee.
A WORD OF THANKS
NCOA considers it appropriate to begin by expressing to the Subcommittee our deep
appreciation for the recognition that has been recently extended to members of the National
Guard and Reserve. The Association is grateful for the action taken in 1992 to provide burial
Flags and grave markers as well as for the recent passage by the Congress of H.R. 821. The
action in 1992 in company with the enactment of H.R. 821, to extend burial in National
Cemeteries, now provides full recognition for the valuable service of Reserve component
members.
These recent accomplishments would not have occurred were it not for the persistent efforts of
the distinguished Chairman and members of this Subcommittee. The Association's 160,000
members commends your efforts to recognize, with dignity and respect, all members of the Total
Force. You have our deep and abiding thanks.
THE NATIONAL CEMETERY SYSTEM
Today's hearing is timely with the recent publication and release of the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs second report on the NCS. The first report in 1987 identified ten areas of the country
60
in "greatest need" (the largest number of veterans without reasonable access to a national or state
cemetery). Similarly, the 1994 report identified the ten most needy areas. A comparison of
the two reports indicates that little has changed between 1987 and 1994 regarding the overall
needs and outlook for the NCS.
A total of 114 national cemeteries comprise the NCS. In September 1992, 53 of the 114
national cemeteries were closed to full-casketed remains. NCS is projecting that in six years an
additional eleven sites will close bringing the total to 64 by the year 2000. Nine other
cemeteries are projected to close between the period 2000 and 2010. In other words, if the NCS
remains on its present course, 65% of national cemeteries will be considered closed in the next
sixteen years.
Nationally, the number of internments for veteran or eligible individuals will continue to
increase. Another annual record of internments (73,000) is expected in Fiscal Year 1995, a 55 %
increase in the last ten years. Similarly, the number of gravesites maintained is estimated to
reach 2.1 million by 1995, a 35% increase in ten years. Since the system's establishment in the
Department of Veterans Affairs in 1973, approximately 1 ,014,000 decedents have been interred
in national cemeteries and 5.6 million headstones and markers have been furnished to mark
gravesites. A total of 330,000 gravemarker applications are projected for Fiscal Year 1995.
VA estimates that staffing shortages of 244 wage grade employees and 41 general schedule
employees will exist in Fiscal Year 1995. During the period 1984 to 1995, full-time wage grade
employees of the NCS have risen from 830 in 1984 to 847 projected for 1995, a 3% increase.
VA estimates that staffing shortages of 244 wage grade employees and 41 general schedule
employees will exist in Fiscal Year 1995.
These staffing shortages requires that VA prioritize its efforts. First priority is given to timely
burial. Second in priority are enhancements of cemetery appearance and infrastructure such as
maintenance and repair of the NCS's approximately 400 buildings and 100 miles of road.
61
The backlog for essential operating equipment remains a critical issue. Although VA has
pursued an aggressive service life extension and maintenance program, there inevitably are
eventual limits. With available funding in 1994, the equipment backlog increased to S6.7 million
and VA projects an additional $2.7 million in equipment due for replacement in 1995. Funding
requested in 1995 to reduce the backlog of equipment replacement is $1.6 million. It is noted
with gratitude that the House Veterans Affairs Committee recommended the addition of $7.8
million for equipment replacement.
NCOA is pleased to note that the DVA has recently purchased land in the Seattle/Tacoma area
to establish a new national cemetery and that construction funds have been provided in the 1995
budget. The Association appreciates the action by Congress to provide land acquisition funds
for cemeteries in Albany, Cleveland, Dallas/Ft. Worth and Chicago. These four sites were
included in the 1987 report as among the areas of the country in greatest need. NCOA also
notes that four other locations identified in the 1987 report (Miami/Fort Lauderdale, Detroit,
Pittsburgh and Oklahoma City) remain as priorities in the VA's 1994 report for establishment
of new cemeteries. NCOA is concerned about the slow progress on these latter four sites and
it now appears that it will be after the year 2000 before VA will focus on these areas. The
reality of the 1995 budget and future indicators clearly show that the establishment of new
national cemeteries will not proceed at a pace to meet expanding veterans needs.
NCOA continues to support the State Cemetery Grants Program and its funding mechanism
because studies have shown that veterans prefer to be buried close to their home. As VA notes
in their 1994 NCS report, the federal government cannot rely though upon the States to open
State veterans cemeteries to compensate for all national cemetery closures. Hence, while this
is a worthy and attractive alternative, the need for new national cemeteries and/or expansion of
existing cemeteries will continue. In NCOA's view, the federal government retains the primary
responsibility to provide a final, dignified resting place for the Nation's veterans. That
responsibility must be protected and continued.
62
NCOA remains committed to the goal of burial in a national or state veterans cemetery for 90%
of veterans within 50 miles of their home. Even in the face of rather harsh fiscal realities,
NCOA believes that this overall goal should not be compromised. Admittedly it will be difficult
to achieve in the foreseeable future but that alone should not be cause to dilute the goal.
The 1995 budget and the 1994 NCS Report reveals that the NCS continues to fall farther behind
in its efforts to keep pace with an increased workload and maintenance of national cemeteries.
NCOA remains hopeful however that this trend can be reversed. In this regard, NCOA urges
the Subcommittee to remain vigilant in its oversight responsibilities to the following areas in
particular:
> Employee levels
> Acquisition, construction and expansion
> Equipment needs and backlog .
ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
AND THE
AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION
NCOA continues to view Arlington National Cemetery as the preeminent shrine of honor to the
Nation's veterans. The Association extends its sincere gratitude to the Administrators of the
Arlington National Cemetery for their excellent management and support to the veterans of this
Nation.
Similarly, NCOA would like to thank the members of the American Battle Monuments
Commission for their stellar work in commemorating the services and achievements of United
States Armed Forces in foreign countries.
63
NCOA does have one overriding concern regarding Arlington National Cemetery that the
Association is compelled to address in this testimony. The Association's concern is that the
epitaph that Arlington National Cemetery symbolizes to the men and women of the United States
Armed Forces not be diminished.
NCOA was disappointed by Congressional approval of S.J. Res 129 to place a memorial cairn
in Arlington that will, in effect, honor 245 non-military individuals, 81 of which are non-U. S.
citizens. It is not the Association's intent though to rehash that decision by the Congress. In
stating our concern, the Association wants to be implicitly clear that NCOA shares the deepest
regret, sympathy and outrage for the senseless act of terrorism which occurred on December 2 1 ,
1988, over Lockerbie, Scotland. Likewise, the Association is deeply grateful to the people of
Scotland for donating to the United States a memorial cairn to honor the victims and families
of Pan Am Flight 103.
The Association is obliged though to remind this Subcommittee and the Congress of the purpose
of Arlington National Cemetery and of its legacy to the men and women of the Armed Forces
of the United States. For more than a century, Arlington National Cemetery has become the
preeminent and cherished shrine commemorating the lives and services of members of the United
States Armed Forces. Within the boundaries of Arlington rest the mortal remains of the honored
dead, the known and the unknown, the great and the humble, who have served our Nation's
Armed Forces from the time of the Revolutionary War. Arlington National Cemetery is a
national "Shrine of Each Patriot's Devotion" for their service and sacrifice in the Armed Forces
of the United States. It is NCOA's humble wish that Arlington National Cemetery remain so
always.
It is difficult for NCOA to articulate this concern regarding Arlington National Cemetery without
the risk of being characterized as unsympathetic for the grief, pain and loss suffered. As a
military and veterans service organization, the 160,000 members of NCOA are all too familiar
with the agony and grief associated with the loss of a loved one or fellow comrade-in-arms,
regardless of the circumstances surrounding that loss.
64
NCOA requests that Congress reaffirm the purpose and legacy of Arlington National Cemetery
to the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States by codifying the qualifications
of eligibility for burial or commemoration in Arlington National Cemetery.
H.J. Res. 131
NCOA fully supports H.J. Res. 132, a joint resolution to designate December 7 of each year
as "National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day."
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, NCOA sincerely appreciates the opportunity you have provided to discuss the
National Cemetery System. In the Association's opinion, aggressive oversight of the NCS will
continue to be needed if we are to ensure that veterans, as a final act of a grateful Nation, are
bestowed with the honor, respect and dignity that they have earned.
Thank you.
65
STATEMENT OF
TERRY GRANDISON, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
OF THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
CONCERNING
THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS NATIONAL CEMETERY SYSTEM
THE KOREAN WAR VETERANS MEMORIAL
AND
H.J. RES. 131
MAY 24, 1994
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans
of America (PVA) appreciates this opportunity to present testimony
concerning the oversight of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
National Cemetery System (NCS) , the Korean War Veterans Memorial,
and H.J. Res. 131.
NATIONAL CEMETERY SYSTEM
For over two centuries, this nation has provided a dignified
resting place for the men and women who have honorably served in
the Armed Forces. PVA strongly believes this longstanding
tradition embodies the final thanks of a grateful nation and must
be protected and continued.
In order to maintain an efficient and responsive NCS, PVA believes
it is incumbent on Congress to address the following problems:
chronic under funding; lack o£ burial space; equipment backlog;
aging infrastructure; significant workload growth; and lack of an
adequate information system. If these problems are not effectively
66
remedied, the system will deteriorate to an unacceptable condition,
not only in appearance but also in stature.
Fiinding :
According to the FY 1995 Independent Budget {IB) , the NCS has
shown no real dollar growth in programs, with the exception of a
congressionally mandated FY 1991 infusion of $10 million dollars.
The IB recommendation for FY 95 is $81 million, or an increase of
$10.5 million over the FY 1994 appropriation of $70.5 million. In
addition, the above IB budget request includes an increase of 90
FTEE. The total FTEE for FY 1994 was 1,315. The IB request would
raise the total NCS FTEE to 1,4 05. This would ensure the proper
maintenance and the preservation of the park- like beauty of these
national shrines. Moreover, funding at this level will allow the
NCS to meet the increasing demands of the aging veteran population.
Lack of Burial Space:
The NCS is comprised of 114 national cemeteries, with thirty-four
soldiers' lots located within municipal and private cemeteries.
The IB stated that of the 67,329 burials in national cemeteries,
25.3 percent or 17,044 were cremains. In addition, the IB revealed
that the cremation rate in national cemeteries is higher than the
rate for private or municipal cemeteries. PVA and the IB co-
authors attribute this higher NCS rate to a number of factors, most
notably the lack of available casketed grave space in many
populated areas, coupled with a greater willingness to accept
cremation burial. Nevertheless, the need for burial space is
expected to peak in the year 2009. To meet this great demand,
sufficient funds will be needed to acquire adjacent land to keep
existing cemeteries open, open new cemeteries in seriously
underserved areas, and develop columbaria in existing cemeteries to
preserve a burial option for veterans and their families. In
addition, PVA continues to advocate for the location of a VA
cemetery in every state and a national cemetery within reasonable
driving distance of each major veterans' population center.
67
Equipment Backlog:
PVA has tracked the NCS equipment backlog and has seen it grow
steadily over the years. A 1990 study revealed that more than 50
percent of the heavy equipment was well beyond its scheduled
replacement date of five years. While the current equipment
backlog stands at $6 million, this figure does not fully capture
the seriousness of the situation,- this figure does not reflect lost
productivity of staff because of equipment breakdowns, or graves
that cannot be adequately maintained. PVA recommends funding of at
least $2.3 million to begin partial reduction of the equipment
backlog.
Aging Infrastructure:
PVA is concerned with the aging infrastructure of the NCS. The NCS
is composed of numerous historic buildings, hundreds of maintenance
buildings and other purpose buildings. The NCS has more than
10,000 acres of land - intersected with hundreds of miles of roads.
Because of years of underfunding this infrastructure has suffered.
In many cases, repairs to old roads and structures are simply
beyond the capability of cemetery personnel. In order to maintain
the shrine like quality of national cemeteries, PVA recommends
that $2 million be directed for funding of repair projects.
Workload Growth:
The rapidly aging veteran population will increase the NCS workload
in all program areas. For example, during FY 1995, interments are
estimated at 73,000, an increase of 3,000 over FY 1994 estimates.
As mentioned earlier, this growth is expected to rise until the
year 2009. The NCS must have sufficient personnel to facilitate
this growth efficiently. Over the years, the need for significant
increases in FTEE to meet workload growth has remained unfunded.
The NCS is estimated to have a shortfall of 250 FTEE for its
current field staffing needs. PVA and the IB co-authors recommend
$1.4 million and 4 0 FTEE for incremental workload increases, along
with a plan to support, in FY 1995, a substantial reduction in the
68
system-wide shortfall of 250 FTEE. PVA recommends SI .8 million and
50 FTEE to address this shortfall.
Adequate Information System:
NCS's information needs are critical to its overall operations.
The computer system for the Office of Memorial Programs (OMP) is
antiquated and often unreliable. According to the IB, OMP's
workload is projected to increase at a rate of 2 to 3 percent per
year. For FY 1993 OMP provided 330,345 headstones and markers.
The FY 1993 total for Presidential Memorial Certificates (PMC) was
269,489. PVA believes the procurement of an updated computer
support system could provide an FTEE savings to the system. It is
estimated that 3.0 FTEE savings could be achieved in the PMC
program and that a 3.5 FTEE savings could be realized in the
headstone and marker program. A new computer system is also
necessary to interface with the burial operation's support system
(BOSS) . PVA urges Congress to appropriate $800.000 for this system
in FY 1995.
PVA would like to thank the Administrators of the Arlington
National Cemetery and the members of the American Battle Monuments
Commission for their efforts to provide excellent support services
to the veterans of this nation.
KOREAN WAR VETERANS MEMORIAL
On June 27, 1953, the hostilities ceased throughout the war-torn
Republic of Korea. During the Korean War's three year duration (21
June 1950 - 27 July 1953) 5,720,000 Americans served in the Armed
Forces. Of those servicemen and women, 34,000 were killed in
action, 8,000 of whom were missing in action and later declared
dead, and 20,000 others died of non-battle causes, for a total of
54,000 deaths in service. Also, 103,000 were wounded, and 7000
were captured or interned; only 4,000 of the latter were returned
by the enemy. These staggering statistics clearly illustrate the
magnificent courage, honor, and sacrifice of America's servicemen
and women during the Korean War. PVA is a proud supporter of the
establishment of a Korean War Veterans Memorial . PVA's support and
commitment to the erection of a Korean War Veterans Memorial is
longstanding. PVA was particularly proud when Public Law 99-572
was enacted on October 28, 1986, authorizing the American Battle
Monuments Commission to erect a Korean War Veterans Memorial in
Washington, D.C.
Since the enactment of P.L. 99-572, more than $17 million have been
collected to build the Memorial. PVA contributed $100,000 to-Aard
the completion of this great memorial. In addition, the contract
for the first construction phase, site stabilization, began on
April 28, 1993. Actual construction began on the memorial in April
1994. The dedication of the memorial is planned for July 27, 1995.
PVA, the veterans community, and all Americans look forward to the
completing of this well deserved acknowledgment and tribute to
Korean War Veterans.
On another related issue, PVA supports H.J. Res. 332. This joint
resolution would provide an annual Korean War Veterans Armistice
Day on July 27th. The passage of H.J. Res. 332 is a fitting
remembrance of those who served in the Korean War. PVA strongly
urges members of this Subcommittee to support H.J. Res 332.
H.J. RES. 131
This joint resolution would designate December 7 of each year as
National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt characterized the attack on Pearl Harbor as: "a day
that will live in infamy." PVA believes it is essential that we
keep the memory of December 7, 1941, alive for the reasons so
eloquently stated by the President on that fateful day. PVA
believes that a National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day is necessary
to make President Roosevelt's prophecy a fact.
70
Mr. Chairman that concludes my testimony. I will be happy to
answer any questions that you, or this Subcommittee, might have.
71
STATEMEKT OF JOHN R. VITIKAC8, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
NATIONAL VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION
THE AMERICAN LEGION
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
O.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 24. 1994
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to comment
on the operations of the National Cemetery System (NCS) . We
value the efforts of the Subcommittee to ensure high standards
for the operations and functions of the National Cemetery
System. Also, we commend the National Cemetery System staff for
the skillful leadership and sound judgement exercised in
directing cemetery operations.
Mr. Chairman, the National Cemetery System must carry out
its mission in a first-class manner because the American public
demands nothing less. When conditions in a national cemetery
are not satisfactory to the survivors of deceased veterans,
those families let us know, and they let their Congressional
representatives know also. Veterans who choose a national
cemetery for their interment and the interment of their families
trust that the federal government will provide an honored
resting place and proper perpetual care. As this Subcommittee
knows, limited funding makes the job of the NCS harder each
year.
Only about ten percent of eligible veterans choose to be
buried in a national cemetery. Other veterans and their
dependents are buried in state veterans' cemeteries. The data
do not adequately explain why so few eligible veterans choose
national or state veterans' cemeteries as a final resting
place. Perhaps one critical factor is that many veterans live
far away from an active national or state veterans' cemetery.
That is why The American Legion has called for an expansion of
existing national cemeteries, where possible, and for the
construction of new national and state veterans' cemeteries.
Until new national cemeteries and additional state veterans'
cemeteries become reality, eligibility for burial benefits will
not be evenly available to all veterans.
Mr. Chairman, because the practical option of burial in a
veterans' cemetery is unavailable to many veterans, The American
Legion supports the restoration and increase of a burial
allowance for veterans who are buried in private cemeteries.
Until 1981, this benefit was available to all veterans. Also,
we support the restoration of the pre-1990 Omnibus Budget
72
Reconciliation Act burial benefits to provide eligibility for a
government furnished headstone allowance and plot allowance.
These benefits were eliminated by the Congress due to budgetary
constraints. The American Legion believes that every veteran
should be eligible for these benefits until all veterans have a
realistic option of burial in a national or state veterans'
cemetery. In the long run these benefits are less costly than
the expenses associated with new cemetery construction and
perpetual maintenance.
For Fiscal Year 1995, the President's budget proposes an
increase of $2,156 million for cemetery operations and an
increase of 25 full time employees (FTE) . The Legion commends
the vision associated with these proposals. Also, we support
the President's proposal to fund the construction of a new
national cemetery in the Seattle/Tacoma area of Washington
State. We believe that the priority areas identified in the
February 1994 VA report on the National Cemetery System,
including: Seattle/Tacoma, WA; Cleveland, OH; Albany, NY;
Chicago, IL; and Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX, should proceed with the
greatest dispatch. The American Legion recommends that these
proposed new national cemeteries all receive construction
funding by the end of this decade. This is an achievable and
feasible goal. We also support the transfer of 43 acres of land
from the Department of Defense to VA to expand the active life
of the Ft. Sam Houston, Texas national cemetery. Since this
cemetery is scheduled to close by 1998, it is important that no
delays occur in this process.
The final supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) on the planned new national cemetery in northern
Illinois is expected to support the development of 900 acres of
the Army's Joliet Arsenal for a national cemetery. The
American Legion supports the construction of a national cemetery
in northern Illinois, and recommends the VA and Congress move as
quickly as possible to make this long awaited cemetery a reality.
Mr. Chairman, the Legion is concerned about the potential
impact of the Administration's proposed personnel reductions
under the Reinventing Government Task Force Report. Any FTE
reductions will degrade the operations of the National Cemetery
System. Every dollar now appropriated to the NCS is wisely
spent. We do not believe that contracting services always
results in reduced costs. In some instances, contracting
services provides the NCS with needed flexibility for the
proper use of authorized personnel. However, required
contracting would not be in the best interest of the NCS.
73
Mr. Chairman, for many years, the National Cemetery System
has not received adequate major construction funding. When
major construction funding for necessary renovation and
restoration projects is inadequate, the planned major projects
are separated into minor projects, adding additional costs of 15
to 3 0 percent over a longer period of time. That is not a good
use of taxpayer dollars. Yet, this practice has continued for
many years. The Legion believes the National Cemetery System's
construction program must be fully and properly funded. No one
would be proud to see these dignified resting places fall into
the same state of disrepair as many of our nation's private
cemeteries, old and new. The Congress must get serious about
providing proper funding for our national cemeteries.
Another issue that impedes the ability to provide the most
efficient burial service is the persistent replacement equipment
funding shortfall. The backlog for replacement equipment at the
end of Fiscal Year 1992 was $5.9 million. By the end of this
year, the backlog is projected to total $6.7 million, and $7.8
million by the end of Fiscal Year 1995. During the current
fiscal year, the National Cemetery System had allocated $3
million toward new replacement equipment. Of this amount, $1.7
million has been redirected as follows: $0.9 million for
locality pay and other payroll increases; $0.6 million for
increased funding for M&R projects; $0.2 million for increased
costs for utilities and data communications.
For Fiscal Year 1995, of $2.7 million identified for new
replacement equipment, only $1.6 million will be allocated for
such purpose.
Mr. Chairman, The American Legion has testified in support
of H.R. 949, a bill to adjust the Federal/State allocation for
construction funding of state veterans' cemeteries from the
current 50/50 allocation to a 65 percent Federal/35 percent
State funding formula. The state construction allocation can be
further reduced up to 50 percent through the donation of land.
This measure would also provide for a plot allowance of $150 for
each eligible veteran buried in a state veterans' cemetery. We
hope this bill, which has passed the House, will be favorably
considered in the Senate.
Public Law 95-476, enacted in 1978, created a Federal
program of aid to States for the establishment, expansion, and
improvement of veterans' cemeteries. The program was advertised
as a Federal/ State partnership in the development and
maintenance of veterans' cemeteries. Originally, VA was to
participate in all costs associated with the program. The
original law required a 65/35 percent share in state cemetery
74
construction costs, a $150 plot allowance aid program for each
veteran burial, and an annual $40 maintenance fee for each
veteran burial.
Mr. Chairman, the State Cemetery Grants Program is a good
deal for VA but not for the states. If not for this program,
VA's national cemetery expenses would be much more costly. On
the average, it costs the states $650 for each veteran's
burial. The return to the states is $150 for the burial of an
eligible veteran. Clearly, the State Cemetery Grants Program is
not cost-effective to the states. Since 1980, the plot
allowance paid to the states has been set at $150. While we
realize the proposal contained within H.R. 949, to pay a plot
allowance of $150 to the states for each eligible veteran's
burial is an improvement over current conditions, we also think
the plot allowance should be increased. With VA participating
in all costs associated with the development and maintenance of
state veterans' cemeteries, the program could provide greater
incentives to the states for their involvement.
Mr. Chairman, with regard to H.J. Resolution 131,
designating December 7 of each year as "National Pearl Harbor
Remembrance Day", delegates to The American Legion 1992 National
Convention, approved Resolution No. 2 30, urging the Congress to
name December 7 as National Pearl Harbor Day. The Legion
enthusiastically supports H.J. Resolution 131.
Mr. Chairman, The American Legion deeply appreciates the
continuing involvement of the Advisory Board to the Korean War
Veterans Memorial, as set forth in Public Law 99-572. This
Advisory Board has played a large role in the accomplishments of
the Korean War Veterans Memorial. The Board should remain an
active component of the dedication planning process.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our statement.
75
STATEMENT OF
RICK SURRATT
ASSOCIATE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 24, 1994
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the
more than 1.4 million members of the Disabled American Veterans
(DAV) and its Women's Auxiliary to present our views on the
operation and status of the Department of Veterans Affairs
National Cemetery System. The DAV appreciates the opportunity
to participate in the oversight process. Additionally, we wish
to thank the Subcommittee for inviting our testimony on House
Joint Resolution 131 designating December 7th of each year as
"National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day"; on the operation of
Arlington National Cemetery; and on the status of the Korean War
Veterans Memorial. And, I would be remiss if I did not express
our appreciation for this Subcommittee's continuing watchful
devotion to the interests of our Nation's veterans.
THE NATIONAL CEMETERY SYSTEM
Mr. Chairman, the heritage of the National Cemetery System
had its beginning with the Civil War. What is now the National
Cemetery System grew out of the 14 national cemeteries
established by legislation signed by President Lincoln in July
1862. Today, after our Nation has endured a number of
additional military conflicts, there are 114 national cemeteries
with more than 10,000 acres of land. Of course, these thousands
of acres are made up of much more than just gravesites. There
are historic structures, miles of roads, and parking lots, etc.,
which combine for the purpose of meeting the highest standards
for form and function.
The perpetual maintenance of the grounds, over 400
buildings, and other structures requires a variety of trucks,
tractors, and other equipment and vehicles. The logistics,
support operations, and other programs under the Cemetery System
involve data processing systems and a variety of publications
ranging from Presidential Memorial Certificates to handout maps
and pamphlets and operations manuals. The varied functions are
accomplished by 1,315 employees. Since 1973, this system has
been a part of the Veterans Administration, now the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) .
76
(2)
Although the activities and responsibilities of the
National Cemetery System generally fall into four broad
categories, its primary mission is to maintain the national
cemeteries and provide for the interment of the remains of
eligible deceased service members and veterans, their spouses
and eligible family members. If the National Cemetery System is
to fulfill its mission, it cannot be allowed to fall victim to
neglect. If it is not properly maintained and preserved, it can
neither serve as a lasting testimonial to this nation's
gratitude for the service of the veterans already interred
there, nor continue to meet the future interment needs of our
aging veterans' population.
The National Cemetery System must be seen and appreciated
as a resource worthy of close and ongoing attention. This
Nation's strength resides in its citizens' values and sense of
moral obligation to those who uphold its ideals, particularly
shown by bestowing honor upon those who have served and
sacrificed to protect our democratic way of life. The National
Cemetery System has itself stood as an enduring symbol of the
special honor the Nation reserves for veterans to memorialize
their patriotic contributions. Certainly if in disrepair,
national cemeteries cannot project the necessary appearance of a
stately shrine, of dignity, and of sanctuary.
The rate of interments is expected to increase
significantly in the coming years from an estimated 73,000 this
year to a peak of about 100,000 in the year 2008. It is
expected that increased capacity will result in increased
demand. VA's plan for increasing capacity includes three
approaches: adding new cemeteries, expanding existing
cemeteries, and involving more states in the State Cemetery
Grant Program.
In Seattle, Washington, the land for a cemetery has been
purchased and the design phase is about to begin. Four other
regions are targeted for new cemeteries. VA is close to land
purchases in Cleveland, Ohio, Dallas, Texas, and Albany, New
York. In the Chicago, Illinois, area where there are over a
million eligible veterans, site options are being studied.
VA has bought land for expansions at Fort Gibson, Oklahoma,
and Fort Scott, Kansas, and is in the process of acquiring land
by donation in Port Hudson, Louisiana. There are a number of
other areas which have been identified for cemetery expansion.
For example, more land is definitely needed for the cemetery at
Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
H.R. 949 would make state participation in the State
Cemetery Grants Program more attractive by increasing the
Federal grant from 50 percent to 65 percent of the cost of the
land for the state cemetery and improvements. The DAV fully
supports this worthy goal.
77
(3)
The VA is increasing its field personnel to meet the
increasing demands. At the same time, it is streamlining its
Central Office staff in order to transfer these FTE
authorizations to its field staff.
Mr. Chairman, as is the case throughout VA, the Cemetery
System is operating under the effects of budget restraints.
However, it is apparent that the Cemetery System is taking
appropriate measures to adjust to increased demand under those
circumstances. The delegates to the DAV annual National
Convention, in August 1993, adopted a resolution supporting
legislation to provide for at least one open national cemetery
in each state. The new cemeteries planned at this time would
not accomplish that goal but are certainly a step in the right
direction. The DAV commends this good work, and we are
confident that this Subcommittee will continue its support.
H.J. Res. 131
House Joint Resolution 131 would designate December 7 of
each year as "National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day" in
recognition of the historical and patriotic importance of this
anniversary of the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor on December
7, 1941. This action stands on its own merits, but the DAV
certainly supports this admirable expression of appreciation for
the sacrifices of those who were affected by this event that
marked our entry into World War II. Many of our members are
among that group of distinguished veterans, and I am certain
they appreciate this Subcommittee's initiative on this
resolution.
ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
Arlington National Cemetery, the best known of our national
cemeteries, is under the jurisdiction of the Department of the
Army. The cemetery grounds are on 612 acres of land.
Nearly 235,000 service members and family rest at
Arlington. There are an average of 18 new burials daily.
Counting those on 50 undeveloped remaining acres, there are
approximately 76,000 available gravesites. Without further
expansion, these available gravesites will only allow Arlington
to remain open until the year 2025. Cemetery officials are
therefore considering a new master plan for expansion.
The Cemetery currently employs a staff of 135, with some
services performed by outside contractors. A new complex is
under construction. This will house maintenance and other
support services. Approximately 4 million people visit the
Cemetery annually.
78
(4)
We are informed that Arlington, like the National Cemetery
System, has so far been able to cope with budget restraints.
However, the aging veteran population can be expected to
increase demands, as is expected with the National Cemetery
System. This will be an important factor in Congress'
consideration of future needs.
KOREAN WAR VETERANS' MEMORIAL
Mr. Chairman, Public Law 99-572, enacted October 28, 1986,
authorized the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) to
erect a Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., on
Federal land with funds obtained primarily from private
contributions. This law also provided for the Presidential
appointment of the twelve-member Korean War Veterans Memorial
Advisory Board.
ABMC was created by an act of Congress in March 1923 to
erect and maintain memorials in the United States and foreign
countries where United States Armed Forces have served since
April 6, 1917, the date of our entry into World War I. ABMC
is an independent agency of the executive branch of the Federal
Government. Its eleven members are appointed by the President
of the United States.
The Korean War Veterans Memorial Advisory Board was given
the responsibility of site recommendations and design selection
for the Memorial subject to the approval of ABMC. The
Advisory Board was also charged with promoting establishment of
the Memorial and encouraging donations of private funds.
There are many notable and unique aspects of the Memorial
project itself. Congress granted $500,000 toward design costs
and another $500,000 toward construction costs. Congress
authorized the Advisory Board to use $125,000 a year from
donations for its operation. It is noteworthy, however, that
the public's donations were placed in escrow, and the Advisory
Board's functions have been funded solely from interest earned
on these contributions.
The initial estimate of the cost of the Memorial was 5
million dollars. Because of unanticipated costs, the current
budget is just under 17 million dollars, however. The public
has generously supported the Memorial, and the donations
received meet the budget. A sum of nearly 17 million dollars
has been deposited in the Treasury. " Contributions are still
being accepted to defray the cost of perpetual maintenance of
the Memorial.
Approximately 80 percent of the total donations have been
from individuals and veterans, veterans' organizations, and a
surcharge on the sale of commemorative coins. The balance, just
79
(5)
under two million dollars, has largely come from Korean-American
companies.
The construction plan includes two phases. Phase I was
ground preparation and installation of utilities. Phase II
includes all remaining construction. Because of the unforeseen
problem of a high water table at the site, ground preparation
required additional time and substantially more money than was
originally projected.
One consideration for dealing with the ground water was to
dig wells and pump it indefinitely. However, to avoid the
possibility of damage to the foundations of the Lincoln Memorial
and Reflecting Pool, an elaborately engineered drainage system
was installed. Site preparation required firm foundations
because of the unstable ground and the necessity that the
Memorial be able to withstand the millions of annual visitors
expected to traverse this striking new addition to the monuments
already located on the Mall, the area between the United States
Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial.
Phase II of the construction began in April of this year
and is well under way. The contractor is working on the site,
the granite for the wall is being engraved, and the statues are
being cast. Construction is expected to be completed by May or
June of 1995. Thus, in spite of delays and substantially higher
than expected construction costs, in addition to a somewhat
stormy and controversial planning and design phase, realization
of a war memorial for Korean veterans is finally near.
The design of the Memorial is truly unique. It will be a
one-of-a-kind work of art, world renowned for its architecture
and beauty, according to Robert Hansen, Executive Director of
the Advisory Board. It will be very befitting for the honor our
nation wishes to bestow upon this group of forgotten heroes.
The dedication is set for July 27, 1995. The theme of
dedication is "freedom is not free - a victory remembered."
This theme is in recognition that the armistice is now
considered a victory although it was not perceived as a victory
when signed. The armistice is now credited with marking the
turning point on the spread of communist aggression to the
Pacific Rim countries, and indeed, leading to the demise of
communism throughout Europe. The Memorial reminds all future
generations that this was once not only a forgotten war but a
forgotten victory.
Because there was originally a public perception that we
left Korea with a lack of victory, there was an inattention and
indifference to the noble deeds and accomplishments of Korean
veterans. There were no celebrations nor public welcoming
home. Korean veterans returned and became citizens who quietly
lived with their own pride and knowledge of what they had really
80
(6)
accomplished. The dedication will finally express this Nation's
gratitude to those who served during the Korean War.
There are currently 4.6 million living Korean War veterans
out of a total of 5.7 million who served during the Korean War.
It is expected that more than one-half million people will
attend the dedication ceremonies. The dedication is expected to
cost approximately 3 million dollars, but the funding will come
from corporate America, not the construction funds.
Mr. Chairman, the DAV wishes to acknowledge the
contributions of the Korean War Veterans Memorial Advisory
Board. The Board has overcome a multitude of unexpected
problems. It is by the perseverance of the distinguished
members of this Board that we are about to see the fruition of
this Memorial. It is through their tenacity and vision that
generations yet to come will appreciate Korean War veterans'
sacrifices and dedication to the cause of freedom.
This concludes our remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
to respond to any questions you and the members of the
Subcommittee may have.
81
STATEMENT OF
DENNIS M. CUI.LINAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WITH RESPECT TO
VA NATIONAL CEMETERY SYSTEM, ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
AND THE AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. MAY 24, 1994
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
On behalf of the 2.2 million members of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the United States I wish to thank you for
inviting us to participate in today's important hearing. The VFW
remains committed to the proposition that all veterans should
have convenient access to a national cemetery so that they are
not denied this final veterans benefit. Also under discussion
today will be the operation of the Arlington National Cemetery
and the American Battle Monument Commission. We will, of course,
be pleased to comment on these important subject areas as well.
The National Cemetery System (NCS) was established in 1973
pursuant to Public Law 93-43. NCS carries out four main
activities. It places deceased veterans and deceased active
members of the armed forces, their spouses, and certain
dependents in national cemeteries that have available
grave space and permanently maintains these grave sites; • it
provides headstones for these burials in national cemeteries and
private cemeteries; it administers grants to states for state
veterans' cemeteries; and it prepares and issues Presidential
Memorial Certificates to surviving family members and others who
request them.
In recent Congressional hearings and as articulated through
the Independent Budget for VA, the VFW has complimented NCS
management on a job well done. We now do so again.
However, NCS has not been without problems. One only need
recall, for example, the deplorable conditions at Riverside
82
(California) National Cemetery a few years ago. Riverside
National Cemetery, due to a lack of equipment and maintenance
dollars, was unable to cope with unexpected heavy rains that
reduced its appearance to that of a virtual pauper's field.
To stop the VA practice of reducing NCS funding due to
budget cutbacks in GOE, congress established a separate budget
line item of the National Cemetery System. This welcomed action
has greatly enhanced the management of NCS.
Equipment replacement backlogs within NCS also continue to
be a major concern. Additionally, NCS must implement critical
maintenance and repair projects to maintain NCS's infrastructure
of 400 buildings and 100 miles of roads.
With the exception of a congressionally mandated FY 1991
infusion of $10 million dollars, the National Cemetery System has
shown no real dollar growth in its programs. The Independent
Budget requests an appropriation of $81 million, or an increase
of $7.5 million over FY 1994 appropriations. To ensure proper
maintenance and the preservation of the park-like beauty of these
national shrines, a total of 1,405 FTEE support is requested
along with this budget figure. This request presents an increase
of 90 FTEE to the base of 1,315. Funding at this level will
allow the NCS to address the increasing demands of the aging
veteran population and will also enable the system to maintain
the cemetery grounds at a level befitting national shrines.
With respect to the Arlington National Cemetery, the VFW
continues to view this as a well run cemetery and compliments its
management. We do note, however, that Arlington is rapidly
running out of burial space, and we recommend that the Fort Myers
land adjacent to Arlington be turned over to it so that veterans
may continue to be properly buried there. The VFW also views the
American Battle Monuments Commission as being very well run and
of unquestionable importance in memorializing the sacrifice and
accomplishments of America's veterans. We can only ask that it
continue to service so admirably in this capacity.
Mr. Chairman, once again, on behalf of the entire membership
of the veterans of Foreign Wars, I wish to thank you for inviting
us to take part in today's hearing.
84
KOREAN WAR VETERANS MEMORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Office of the Executive Director
U.S. Department of the Interior, Main Building
18th & C Streets, NW, Room 7424
Washington, DC 20240-9997
202-208-3561
Fax 202-208-3459
May 24, 1994
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
Subcommittee on Housing and Memorial Affairs
The Honorable George E Sangmeister, Chairman
Mr Chairman
It is indeed an honor to brief you on the significant progress of the Korean War Veterans
Memorial in the Nations Capita! Public Law 99-572, passed on October 28, 1986 did several
things, first, it authorized the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) to erect a
Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC, on Federal land with funds obtained
primarily from private contributions, second, it directed the President to appoint a twelve member
Advisory Board of Korean War veterans to work with ABMC to do the following, a) recommend
a site; b) select the design, and c) promote the establishment of the memonal and encourage the
donation of private fijnds, and third, it directed that the Memorial be established in accordance
with the Commemorative Works Act, Public Law 99-652 The Advisory Board members serve
without pay The Board membership is listed in Exhibit A
These tasks are nearly complete The site selected, known as ash woods to the south of
the reflecting pool near the Lincoln Memorial, balances that end of the Mall A perfect triangle is
formed with the Lincoln, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the newly established Korean War
Veterans Memorial at each vertex. It is an ideal site and one which gives great credit and
historical significance to these three events in our country's history
An open national design competition was held A total of 543 design concepts entered the
competition. All of them were given the option of including the names of the US military dead
of the Korean War Neither the first, second nor third place winning design concepts
incorporated the names of the KIA's from the Korean War The first place winning design
concept was circulated among all veterans organizations, including the Korean War Veterans
Association, for their comments None suggested that it include names of the KIA's
As the selected design concept followed the Commemorative Works Act procedures
obtaining the approvals from the Commission of Fine Arts, the National Capital Planning
85
Commission, the American Battle Monuments Commission, the National Capital Memorial
Commission and the Historic Preservation Review Board many modifications were required to
meet their suggestions It took over three years of presentations and negotiations, longer than it
took to fight the war, to get their full approvals One of the inherent characteristics of the
Commemorative Works Act is, that not one of the reviewing commissions has final authority So
it was a little like a tennis match to get everyone satisfied
This Memorial design is a unique, one-of-a-kind, masterpiece It has three main features,
they are 1) a column of 19 troops representing those who fought the war on foot, 2) a wall
depicting the array of combat and combat support troops in operational mode, and 3) a
commemorative area for the KIA/MIA/POW
The troops are positioned in an open field with several emerging from the woods giving
the impression that there are legions to follow The highly polished granite wall is 164ft long and
will have lOOO's of images etched into a mural recognizing, as Congress intended, the totality of
the Armed Forces effort. These images are presented in a perspective so that it appears that there
are thousands more than those visible These photographic images, from the national archives, in
operational mode - nurses, chaplains, air men, gunners, mechanics, cooks, helmsmen, among
many others - symbolize the vast effort that sustained the foot troops These thousands of faces
will provide the basis for telling the story of the Korean War Whenever you look at a
photograph you usually see someone you think you recognize For that reason this Memorial will
live forever It is a living Memorial, that will be moving to visitors, for all time to come It is not
designed to be a grave stone The commemorative area, a still reflecting pool surrounded by a
grove of trees and benches, is a suitably solemn tribute to our fallen comrades, those still listed as
missing in action and the POW's
The Advisory Board and the ABMC have ah^ approved an additional element which will
include a computerized data-base of names/details of all known KIA/MIA/POW's which will be
accessible at the Memorial by all visitors The visitor will not only be able to see the name, rank,
serial number, home of record and a picture but also the details (such as the date, time and
location of the action) that caused the KIA. The visitor can take a printout of this information
with them as a memento from visiting the Memorial. The system can be updated as new
information becomes available and is verified
It is well to ponder how the three Memorials, at this end of the Mall, will work well
together There are at least three common characteristics to war It takes people, millions of
them to fight a war. There are always those who perform heroic acts during the war and there are
those who make the supreme sacrifice of their lives The single statue of the Great Emancipator,
Abraham Lincoln - truly a hero, is a symbol of the freedom and unification that resulted In a
86
larger context the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, has been referred to by some, as a huge tomb
stone, yes, specifically for Vietnam veterans but symbolically a tomb stone for the war dead for all
time; in like manner the Korean War Veterans Memorial will clearly convey the message that it
takes men and women and lots of them to fight a war That was true in the Civil War, in
Vietnam, as well as in Korea Each Memorial, therefore, has its own unique message which
carries over and relates to the other two in a very distinctive way and as such, fits into the Mall
adding to our Nation's remembrance of veterans and the honor, sacrifice, and hope they represent
for all our countryman
The Advisory Board is acutely aware that it is surrogate for the nearly 5 7 million
Americans who served in the Armed Forces during the Korean War and those patriotic Americans
who have contributed over $14 million to bring the memorial to reality (The balance of the
money raised has come from interest earned on the principal ) It is this interest earned on the
principal that has sustained the administration of the Advisory Board since 1987 Not one penny
of contributed money has been used for the Board's expenses Although complete statistics are
not available at this time it is safe to say that about 80% of the contributions have come from the
veterans and their organizations They have either contributed directly, bought the
commemorative silver dollar from the US Mint in 1992 or otherwise supported this project.
Korean American corporations have given over $2 million. American corporations have
contributed less than $1 million If there are monies left over after the $1 million of appropriated
monies are repaid to the US Treasury in accordance with PL 99-572, it is the intent of the
Advisory Board to create a not-for-profit foundation for the long term benefit of Korean War
veterans and their families
Formal ground breaking took place on June 14, 1992 with President George Bush turning
the first shovel of earth The contractor for the first phase. Site Stabilization, started work on
April 28, 1993 The site is very unstable and will require careful preparation so the final memorial
has a firm foundation upon which to rest The final site must be able to withstand the millions of
annual visitors expected to traverse the greatest new addition to the Mall in this decade Phase II
of the construction began in April, 1994 and is due to be completed in May/June of 1995
While this site work is ongoing, the artist is developing the final design for the mural on
the wall and arranging for the engraving of the photographic images into the granite The
sculptor is finalizing the specific designs for each of the 19 statues They will then be cast in
stainless steel, 7'3" - 7'6" high The final product fi-om both of these efforts must be reviewed by
members of the Advisory Board, as it fiilfills its mandate to select the design, and by members of
the Fine Arts C jmmission
87
Dedication is planned for July 27. 1995, the 42nd Anniversary of the Armistice that ended
the armed hostilities of the war, July 27, 1953 It has taken the country nearly forty years to
appreciate that this armistice not only stopped the spread of communist aggression to the Pacific
Rim countries then, but in fact led to the demise of communism today throughout { irope It is
no longer a forgotten war but m fact a forgotten victory which this Memorial will ilocument for
all time to come And thus a fitting celebration for several days including a muster, a parade,
entertainment and fireworks will accompany the actual dedication ceremonies Exhibit B to this
testimony is the schedule of activities and Exhibit C is our Memorandum of Understanding with
ABMC to facilitate this schedule These ceremonies will be fijnded by private donations, non-
appropriated fijnds, designated for this purpose
This Memorial is intended to honor all those served in the Korean War, particularly those
killed in action, still listed as missing in action or held as prisoners of war It is not intended to be
used as a principal flind raising mechanism There is not a need for ongoing fund raising The
Commemorative Works law requires that lO'-'o of the actual construction costs be set aside with
the National Park Service for a perpetual maintenance fund That is now part of our budget and
will be paid when required There is NO ongoing commitment for maintenance fijnds as now
required by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial The Commemorative Works law was not in effect
when it was built After dedication in July, 1995, the Korean War Veterans Memorial Fund as it
now stands will cease to exist, its purpose being fijlly achieved
Perhaps no monument in Washington has been more widely anticipated than the Korean
War Veterans Memorial Like so many memorials it began with zealous private initiatives and
public support that culminated with Congressional authorization and the selection of a Presidential
Commission Great public memorials have traditionally been conceived and constructed with
sustained commitment and broad-based participation over extended periods of time It is
axiomatic to their success
Public art is collaborative eflFort that demands the active involvement of all parties, from
those charged with the day-to-day production, to those who are selected to be the keepers of the
public conscience Out of the false starts and contentious debate that marked the roller coaster
ride of this Memorial, a truly monumental concept has evolved Site restrictions, legal
requirements, constraints, precedents, etc can have either inhibiting or salutary effects History
teaches successfijl projects meet the clialknges that are integral to all of the great 20th Century
Mall Memorials — the Grant. Lincoln, JetTerson and Vietnam The Korean War Veterans
Memorial's legacy must simultaneously honor past memories as it anticipates fijture public
acceptance and criti>. •! accolades
88
Rest assured THE KOREAN WAR VETERANS MEMORIAL IN THE NATION'S
CAPITAL, as it is currently approved, will be a great tribute to all Korean War veterans, those
who came home, as well as those that didn't Korean War veterans in particular, but all veterans
will stand tall with pride when they visit this memorial knowing they served the cause of freedom
so nobly - indeed a memorial for all veterans.
It will tmly be a work of art and we all will be gratified, especially the forgotten veterans
of the Korean War, who at last will be remembered in a fitting Memorial long overdue and much
deserved Our collective goal is to build a suitable Memorial that we can all be proud of as we
visit it's hallowed ranks and to build it as soon as possible before increasing numbers are
deceased
Respectfully submitted.
General Ray Davis. USMC, (Ret)
Chairman, Medal of Honor, Korea
89
r
it it • • •
The Korean War Veterans Memorial
IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL
KorcBii Wir Wtenns
Memorial Adviv>r\ Board
A Proidnilial Board <PL99'S72|
McCarthy Ro>«mai> t
Colonel. L'SA iReliredl
Vice Chaicmar
McKEVrrr. Jjmes D Mcke
Anomey uLt*
Chairman. Promoiion
WEBER William E
Colonel, L'SA (Reiirtdl
Chairman. Vetcrant Liaison
COMER. John P Jake
Pisl Naliona] Commander
TTie American Legion
DEHNE. Thomas O
Adminislralive Director i Retired)
Disabled American Veterans
McSWEENY. William F
Chairman. Fords Theatre
RODRIGLEZ Carlos
Associate Executive Director
Benefits Service
Eastern Paralyzed Veletans
STALM. John S
l^st Commanderin-Chief
Veterans of Foreign W^rs
oj the United States
Deceased Board Members
General Counsel
ManagemcDI Advisor
THOMPSON. Gerald J
RADM. SC. L'SN iRetiredl
ftrtiser. Coopers & Lybrand
EacuUvt Director
HANSEN. Rohen L
FAX (202) 208-3459
FACTS ABOUT THE ^X/Z/S/y .
KOREAN WAR VETERAJVS MEMORIAL TN THE NATIONS CAPITAL
o Authorized by Public Law 99-572, October 28. 1986. to honor members of the Armed
Forces of the United States who served in the Korean War, 1950-1953. particularly those
who were killed in action, are still listed as missmg in action, or were held as prisoners of
war $1 million of federal funds were authorized to be applied against design and
construction costs and must be returned to the government if adequate fijnds are raised
o On March 28, 1988, Congress approved a Mall site for the Memorial On September 16,
1988, Ash Woods became the official location directly across the Reflecting Pool from the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial
o June 14, 1989, President George Bush unveiled a model of the winning design concept
submitted by a team of architects from State College, PA, Bums Lucas, Leon, Lucas,
Pennypacker Oberholtzer Basis for selection was the powerful imagery a column of statues,
representative of those who fought the war on foot
o June 14, 1992, President Bush broke ground Construction site preparation began April
28, 1993 Phase II of construction began April, 1994 Dedication planned for July 27, 1995
o Design details — The column of troops - the powerful, central feature of the winning
design concept - constitutes a multi-service formation, clad in ponchos with the cold wintry
wind at their backs, arrayed for combat, their symbolic objective, the American flag, waves
aloft at the highest point of the iMemorial The setting is dynamic, individual statues reflect
the ethnic diversity of America and their faces resolutely convey the trauma and emotions
generated by front line service in war .'Kn etched mural wall, 164 feet long, recognizes, as
Congress intended, the totality of the Armed Forces effort Thousands of photographic
images, in operational mode - nurses, chaplains, crew chiefs, mechanics, cooks, helmsmen,
among many others - symbolize the vast effort that sustained the foot troopers These faces
will help tell the story of the Korean War Whenever you look at a photograph you usually
see someone you think you know For that reason this Memorial will live forever It is not
meant to be a grave stone, it is a living Memorial that will move visitors for all time to come.
The flag is surrounded by a still reflecting pool of water with the inscription superimposed
"To Those Who Made the Supreme Sacrifice " Recognition of the role played by the
Republic of Korea's Armed Forces and the 20 other nations which rallied under the UN
banner will be evident The Memorial is a grand and glorious salute to all who served
o Architect of Record, Cooper-Lecky Architects, PC, of Washington. D C . performed
same role for Vietnam Veterans Memorial Sculptor, Frank C Gaylord, of Barre, Vermont,
whose larger-than-life works are displayed throughout the nation, saw action in WW II with
1 7th Airborne Div Muralist, Louis Nelson, of New York City, principal in a design and
planning firm experienced in variety of media and environments, US Army, WWII veteran
o The Memorial will cost about $17 million Those funds have been raised Contributions
are still being received for perpetual maintenance fund and can be sent to the address below
9^
£-x^/B^r 6i
__: "o ~
H
y
Q
u
a
11
u >
%
I
Hi
>
Id
i
E
u
u
>
2
0
E
<u
4>
>
« "5
Memorial Church
Services - all
denominations. Visit
the Memorial
4)
> n
ii
Major
Entertainment****
and Fireworks, Visit
the Memorial
Mall Activities *
Entertainment, tours.
Visit the memorial
1
>
Mass Muster,***
Joint Chiefs
Inspection
to
•c
0
E
u
i>
>
Mall Activities*
Entertainment, tours.
Visit the memorial
CO
3 >,
Wreath Laying,
Tomb of the
Unknowns, Lighting
Freedom Torch
z
0
H
<
y
Q
U
Q
"to
1
■s
>
Mall Activities *
Entertainment, tours.
Visit the memorial
-a
(U vO
C (N
^5
ALL DAY
Check In, Register,
Reunite with
"Buddies"
ALL DAY
Check In, Register,
Reunite with
"Buddies"
ALL DAY
Check In, Register,
Reunite with
"Buddies "
receptions of units,
hospitality suites.
Mall Activities *
a.
UJ
00
c
1
c
0
91
MEMORAWDUM Of UMPERSTAMDIMO
This la a memorandum of understanding between the American
Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) and the Korean War Veterans
Memorial Advisory Board (KWVMAB) for the specific purpose of defining
responsibilities for the dedication of the Memorial and ancillary
activities. It is effective from the date of its signing by both
parties until 30 September 1995, 65 days after the dedication of the
Korean War Veterans Memorial in the Nation's Capital, 27 July 1995.
Given the authority implicit in Section 121-138c of Title 36 of the
U.S. Code and Public Law 99-572, ABMC is authorized to establish a
Korean War Veterans Memorial in the Nation's Capital. Under ABMC
supervision, the KWVMAB is hereby authorized:
1. To plan, develop and execute the program for all ABMC/KWVMAB
dedication ceremonies and its ancillary activities.
2. To conduct a joint in-process review with ABMC at least
quarterly.
3. To enter into working agreements in support of the dedication
with any government agency (e.g. The White House, GSA, MDW, DOD, DOI,
NPS, DOL, DOC, Congress, DC Government, and state and local
governments) as well as federal and state chartered veterans
organizations.
4. To proceed with the following list of activities, though it may
not be all inclusive, as a basis for dedication week activity
planning:
a. A parade of associations, veterans, contingents from active
military forces and civilian marching units.
b. A mass muster for Korean War Veterans.
c. Memorial services.
d. A film festival of Korean War related movies.
e. Receptions/open houses at the embassies of the 21
participating nations.
f. Production of entertainment shows suitable for the occasion
within resources available.
g. Arrangements for the appearance of dignitaries and honored
guests.
h. Emplacement of a time capsule on the Memorial site.
i. Coordination of logistical support (lodging and
transportation) for visiting Korean War Veterans and their families
to the Nation's Capital for the dedication.
92
All monies donated for dedication activities will be turned over to
ABMC which will deposit them in the Korean War Veterans Memorial Fund
of the U.S. Treasury and disburse them for the ABMC/KWVMAB jointly
approved dedication activities. No more than 3200,000 of the monies
in the fund at the time of signing will be used to support dedication
activities. Additional funding requirements must be met with
donations made specifically for that purpose. Donations of monies,
services or materials will be applied to the dedication if so
designated at the time of donation. Acceptance of donations of
monies, services or materials not designated for the dedication will
be made only by ABMC. Neither the ABMC nor the KWVMAB will enter
into commercial ventures to generate funds for the dedication.
The Director of Operations and Finance of ABMC and the Executive
Director of the KWVMAB will be the focal points for coordination and
exchange of information for this memorandum of understanding.
t,^n~- RAYMOND G. DAVIS Jj^ P. X. KELLEY ^ f
^ General, USMC (Ret) T General, USMC (Ret)
Chairman, KWVMAB ^ Chairman, ABMC
^ Pcbruarv, (99-^ 8 February 1994
93
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
DISTBICTNo I
N«» iot% Sui« and N«w England
BOGEB A66ATE
P O Box 330099
Wesi Hartlord, CT 06133-0099
TEL I2C3I 9S3-1060
FAJ( (203) 953-5681
DISTBICTNo 2
i»v*m «nd Soultwm Suits
WILLIAM CLEMENT2
2411 CryslaJ Dnve
Fl Mvere. FL 33907
TEL (613)936-1053
FAX (8131936-7565
DISTBICTNo 3
Ptnntylvana and N«w Jen«v
HAROLD T HAU.. JFl
PO Boi 178
Manasguan. NJ 08736
TEL 1908)363-8733
FAX (908)223-0521
DISTBICTNO 4
RALPH SEISLOVE
2168 S Stale Roula 100
Titlin, OH 44883
TEL (419)447-5473
DISTBICTNo 5
mtkana and Mcf>^)an
MARK R MINNICK
PC Bo> 11100
f 1 Wavnfl. IN 46855
TEL (219)432-5031
FAX (219)432-4568
OlSTBICT No 6
HUGH McQUESTION
12780 w Listxxi Road
Brooktield. Wl S300S
TEL (4141 781-6262
FAX (414) 781-6280
DISTBICTNO 7
wmvm and Soumw«tl«m Suies
JIM WIENS
1 10 BoyO Avenue
Newlon KS 671 14
TEL (316) 283-3790
FAX (316)284-2541
ALTERNATES
DISTBICTNO 1
JAMES A JACOBS
70 OConnof Road
Fa«x>on. NY 14450
TEL (716)377-5100
FAX (716) 377-0727
OlSTBICT No 2
WARREN CHANDLER
4700 Ailania Hignway
Bogan QA 30622
TEL (706)353-1115
FAX (706)353^)774
OlSTBICT NO 3
LARRY BRUEN
P O Box 9
333 Soulh Firsl Street
Bangor, PA 18013
TEL (215)588-5259
FA;< (215) 588-0452
distbictno 4
ROBERT DONATEUI
295 Silver Slreel
Aluon OH 44303-2229
TEL (216) 376-2466
FAX (216) 376-3140
DISTBICT No 5
TIMOTHY BRUTSCHE
PO Boi 1031
Banle Creels Ml 49016
TEL (616) 963-1554
FAX (616)963-6109
DISTBICTNO 6
O J BOLANDER
Hvyy 33 East
P O Box 323
Newton. IL 62448
TEL (618) 783-2416
DISTBICTNo 7
WAYNE ELMORE
P O Box 7361
Oniana. NE 68107
TEL (402) 731-1452
FAX (402) 731-6375
THE NATIONAL CONCRETE BURIAL VAULT ASSOCIATION, INC
P.O. Box 130201, SI. Paul, MN 55113
1-800-538-1423
President
SANDY GRAFFIUS
P O Box 2040
Sinking Spnnq PA 19608
TEL. 1215) 678-4537
FAX (215) 678-7170
Vice Presiaeni
HAROLD T HALL. JR
P.O. Box 178
Manosquan NJ 06736
TEL: (908) 363-8733
FAX: (908) 223-0521
Secretary /Treasurer
MARK B. MINNICK
PO. Box 11100
Ft Wayne IN 46855
TEL (219) 432-5031
FAX: (219) 432-4568
Executive Director
JERRY BROWN
2280 No Hamline Avenue
SI Paul, MN 55113-4289
TEL: (612) 631-1234
FAX. (612) 631-1428
Executive Directors Ex OHiao
The National Concrete Burial Vault %"o'"bo''x 4^'^''
So. Chelmstona, MA 01824
Association ("NCBVA") was founded in the 1930's, J|x 'Iob) 2£»5969
STATEMENT OF NATIONAL CONCRETE BURIAL VAULT
ASSOCIATION BY JERRY J. BROWN
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERAN'S AFFAIRS
MAY 24, 1994
National Concrete Burial
O Box
Battle Creeli Ml 49016
TEL (616) 963-1554
(813)795-0268
FAX (616) 963-6109
General Counsel
J. SCOTT CALKINS. ESQ
223 N Front Street
P.O. Box 1188
HamsOurg. PA 17108
TEL: (717)234-3281
FAX: (717) 232-8411
and is made up of concrete burial vault ^po'^b^^Vmi'^^^
manufacturers from the United States and Canada.
Our association represents the national
franchisors as well as a host of independent
grave liner companies. We thank the Members of
this Subcommittee for your continued involvement
with and oversight of the National Cemetery
System. The National Cemetery System is a
source of pride, tradition and profound national
awareness. Programs within the jurisdiction of
this Subcommittee are critical to preserving and
perpetuating the quintessential concept of
memorializing the lives and deeds of Americans
who have died in the service of our nation.
The National Cemetery System provides the
means for the proper perpetual memorialization
of our deceased veterans. In all societies,
when a death occurs, we feel the need to respond
individually, as a family, as a community, and
culturally. Our national cemeteries are an
integral part of this cultural response.
National shrines such as the Arlington Cemetery
are visited by thousands of veterans and family
members each year, furnishing a sense of
continuity with the past and reinforcing the
94
importance of the role the veterans played in our history. For
over two centuries, the courage and patriotism of our nation's
armed service men and women have been enshrined in the monuments
and memorials bearing proud testament to their sacrifice and
dedication for a free and democratic society. The NCBVA supports
H.J. Res. 131, designating December 7 of each year as "National
Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day" and the Korean War Memorial as
integral parts of the memorialization process.
Since the dawn of humankind, world cultures have responded to
death with ceremony, sensitivity and sociological and religious
fervor. The funeral embodies the fundamental equation for the
recovery process, as it provides order and direction in the time of
loss and manifests our beliefs through the ceremony of choice. The
ceremony brings people together to share their feelings of grief
and sorrow and bears testimony to the life of one who was known,
loved, honored and remembered. Within the circle of the death and
memorialization experience, the place of bestowal - THE CEMETERY -
emerges as the final chapter of the death and funeral experience
and becomes the place where family and friends may return to
reflect, remember and recreate the images of a life that was lived.
Throughout the long and noble history of the National Cemetery
network, what has been phrased as "the dynamics of earth interment"
has played a significant role in the operational, logistical,
economic and political profiles of the cemetery system.
Specifically, the position and function of THE BURIAL VAULT and/or
GRAVELINER within the sphere of National Cemetery policies,
regulations and operations has become one of the primary focal
issues of the past two decades.
For millenniums, the dynamics of earth burial have evoked
various forms of entombment or protective enclosures to encase,
surround, protect and memorialize the deceased. Even today,
ancient pyramids, catacombs and sealed crypts remain as silent
testament to man's compelling need to safeguard the dead and
memorialize the place of interment.
- 2 -
95
In recent decades, the preference for some form of outer
burial receptacle to encase and protect the casketed body in earth
burial has expanded to include the aesthetic, functional and
economic concerns of cemetery management as well as fulfilling the
cultural values and traditions of our society.
Since 1968, the NCBVA has worked with the National Cemetery
System and the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Subcommittee on
Housing and Memorial Affairs to develop and implement a graveliner
program. In 1984, our Association submitted to the Subcommittee a
study entitled "The Economic and Aesthetic Impact of Using Outer
Burial Receptacles in National Cemeteries," which detailed the
dynamics of earth interment and its subsequent effects upon the
physical and fiscal condition of the National Cemetery System.
The NCBVA continues to support the fundamental position of
requiring outer-burial receptacles for interments within the
National Cemetery System which corresponds with the policies of
over 90% of the nation's public, private and denominational
cemeteries for the following reasons:
1. Fiscal;
2. Ongoing maintenance;
3. Perpetuity of cemetery aesthetics;
4. Safety;
5. Dignity (disinterments/relocations under public law
99-576); and
6. Health and environmental considerations (which applies to
lined/sealed burial vaults) .
with the enactment of Section 504 of Public Law 101-237 (103
STAT. 2094), effective January 1, 1990, the government must provide
"a grave liner for each new grave in an open cemetery within the
National Cemetery System in which remains are interred in a
casket. "
The proper maintenance of the National Cemetery System is
enhanced by the use of outer burial receptacles, such as those
manufactured by our association members and used in the national
cemeteries, including Arlington National Cemetery. The NCBVA has
- 3 -
96
worked closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop
and implement minimum performance standards for outer burial
receptacles, as further assurance of their quality and to promote
the use of standard specifications on sizes, design and
construction, workmanship and materials. Most importantly, the
purpose of any outer burial receptacle is to eliminate both short
and long term maintenance on the part of the cemetery.
The dynamics of earth burial can create myriad forces,
pressures and conditions which necessitate a protective outer
enclosure; for example:
1. Crushing/compression force of earth backfill and vehicle
weight plus barometric and freeze-thaw conditions will exert
several tons of pressure upon unenclosed caskets;
2. Water pressure and penetration;
3. Deteriorating effects of soil chemicals;
4. Potential damage due to opening of adjacent graves;
5. Pollution/health considerations;
6. Safety factors; and
7. Maintenance of monument and marker placement and
alignment.
When a casket is interred without some form of outer burial
receptacle, anywhere from five to eleven restorations of the grave
site would be required in a twenty-five to fifty-year period.
Restoration would include the costs of refilling, tamping,
resodding/seeding and marker or monument realignment. The
continued use of outer burial receptacles in our national
cemeteries will prevent the sinking or collapsing of graves and the
tipping or misalignment of headstones, significantly reducing long
term maintenance costs.
In order to provide the highest quality product to the
National Cemetery System, the membership of the NCBVA adopted
performance standards at its annual meeting in June, 1991. The
NCBVA promotes safety and training in its member plants and in the
handling and delivery systems of concrete burial vaults and
gravel iners in the cemeteries through a vigorous, comprehensive
- 4 -
97
inspection and certification program for its members. The
certification program includes facility and equipment inspections
and comprehensive product testing to promote compliance with the
adopted performance standards and to insure delivery of the highest
level of product and service to the cemeteries.
Our World War II veterans are now in their late sixties and
early seventies and by the end of the century will be in their late
seventies/early eighties. Korean veterans are now in their late
fifties and by the year 2000, Viet Nam veterans will be in their
fifties. There are nine million living World War II veterans, five
million Korean veterans and eight million Viet Nam era veterans.
The strain on our national cemeteries to provide appropriate burial
benefits to these veterans, along with the proper and continued
maintenance of these national shrines, will be immense. The NCBVA
strongly supports the efforts of the National Cemetery System in
these areas and provides quality products and service which reduce
the costs of long term maintenance.
- 5 -
98
Pearl Harbor Survivors Association
National Pre«Id«nl
gBSTtMOMY ON H.J. RBS 131
!>« C(>U>FARB
IB Bunker Hud
KmI llwMmr, N.J. 0793(<
(SOI) 887.4Sn
Thank you Mr. Chairman for alloving ma to testify on behalf
of H.J. Has. 131. My nam is Lee Goldfarb and I am the National
President of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association. To our
organization December 7 1941 is one of the most important days
on the calendar. It brings to mind a day in vhich 2403 shipmates
and comrades lost their lives in vhat can best be described as
a snaalc attack. This attack took place vhile the representatives
of the Japanese Government vera in Washington talking peace.
Ha should navar allov the events of that day to be forgotten
or overlooked. That is vhy it is important that H.J. Res. 131
be passed. Mr. Chairman I believe i can explain our feelings if
you vill allov na to read the letter I vrota to the Honorable
William Clay, Chairman Post Office and Civil Service Committee
concerning H.J. Res. 131. It is the Committee Policy for Consideration
of Commemorative Legislation for the 103rd Congress vhich provides
the stumbling block and before I read the letter I vould like to
quote paragraph 2 line (e) vhich sayst
The following types of proposals shall not be reported t
Any proposal providing for recurring annual commemoratives.
The letter reads as follows t
Thank yon Mr. Chairman and I vonld be delighted to answer any
questions
Remember Pearl Harbor — Keep America Alert
99
Pearl Harbor Survivors Association
NatlonoJ Pred<len(
L£E aiLDFARB
ID Brniker Hwd
Em Huiwnr. NJ. 07436
(201) 1187-4333
Honorable NIiUbb Clay
CbairBan Post Office and CItH Service Coamlttee
309 Cannon Office Building
Washington DC 20515
Dear Cbalraan ClBjt
It is vitb Bore sadness then anger that I vrite this letter. It is
inconceivable that vith in excess of 200 hondred co-sponsors vho
have signed on in support of H.J. Resolution 131 you voald::not
perait this bill to be released. I understand the reason behind
your reticence but X find it difficult to understand. The thought
that Bany frivolous organizations vould seek in one' .forn or' another
a "Day of ReBembrance" leaves you vith the conclusion not to have
any. On behalf of the 2403 vho vere killed that Sunday Borning
Decsaber 7 1941 I find it unconscionable that you vould equate
the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association vith the 'Pickle Grovars
Association" or the "42nd Street Ballet Dancers", AD Nauaeam.
Perhaps ay language is slightly strong but perhaps it vill help
Bake ay point.
The reason ve are deterained to pursue the aatter at this tiae
becauss it is nov evident that vs are in the final stages of
our allotted tiae on this aortal coil and ve see no one In the
foreseeable future vho vill labor annually for a National Pearl
Harbor BeaeBbrance Day. I^t the last of us depart and the slogan
"Heneaber Pearl Harbor" vill depart vith us. Mr. Chairman, please
understand our concern - please understand our fear, and please
understand you are our only hope.
Mr. Chairaan, please Join us in oar crusade and please be our ally.
Perhaps it is not fitting but I subscribe to the adage that "for
•very rule there is an exception.
With Buch gratitude
PHSA
Hemember l^arl Harbor — ATw/j America Alert
100
Pearl Harbor Day
FoHynenricK
G
etting our Congress to recognize December 7 as National
Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day is a tou^ task.
Although the Japanese attack there oo December 7, 1941, is one of the
most signi6cant events of this century, the biO to establish an annual com-
mem<H?tion on that date is stalled in a subcommittee with little chance oi
release because of Federal rules governing commemwative days.
HJR 131 has 11 more co-sponsors than the 218 signatures needed to bring
the bill to a floor vote. Even so. Rep. Winiam Clay, chairman of the House
Post Office and Civil Service Committee, has not authorized the bill's
rdease from the Population and Census Subcommittee.
It should be noted that HJR 131 designates Deconber 7 as a working hofi-
day, similar to Flag Day on June 14. It also requests the President to issue
an annual proclamation fining upon citizens to observe the day with ap-
propriate ceremonies and activities.
The United States flag would be flown at half staff that day by all Federal
agencies and interested groups in honor of those Americans who died in the
attack.
Rep. George Sangmeister (D-M<Aenam IL), who is retiring this year from
Congress, said that in the 1970's the sub-conunittee established rules viudu
prohibit commemorative days in the belief that eventually every day would
become a commemorative day.
"However," Sangmeister added, "this is not just another event we are
taiVing about This is an event which changed the course of history for
America and the world."
Interestingly, since the sub-committee's rules were adapted there have
been days set aside for perpetual conmieniarations. This was accomplished
by tacking them onto legislatives bQIs.
Included among the commonoratiaDS are: Federal Lands Cleanup Day;
National Disability Awareness Month, and National Forest Products Week.
Thus, tacking HJR 131 onto a piece of most-pass legislatioi as a rider
could be an alternative course to get the bill out of the subcommittee and on-
to the Hoose floor for a vote.
Tbe idea to officially commemorate December 7 came to be during my
sister's birthday party in March 1990. The next day I contacted Rep. Dennis
Hastert (R-SL Charles, IL) with the suggestion. He sponsored the restrfutian
that named December 7, 1991 as Peari Harbor Remembrance Day.
Since then, I have formed the Foundation for a National Peari Harbo- Day
to push for the eompemraation. I also set up the Pennies for Peari Fund
wtiich raised funds for a bronze plaque, wfaidi I presented to the Peari Har-
bor's Survivors Association at Peari Harbor on December 7, 1991.
Why is this legislation so important? Well, I was 15 years old when the
Japanese bombed Pearl Hart>or. Tliat event left an indelible imi»ession on
me and 18 months later I joined the Marines to serve in the Pacific Theater.
This conunemoration will enable future generations of Americans to
recognize the significance of the date, and be reminded of what can happen
if our country is unprepared to protect our cherished freedom.
Congressman Sangmeisto* recently said: "As a result of the attack, 16V^
million Americans rallied to fight World War n, with 460,000 eventually los-
ing their lives. As a military veteran, it satMfns me to think that the
significance of this event may be kst to fntore generatioos."
101
The Foundation for a National Pearl Harbor Day
920 Chiestnxat Street Ottawa, II- 61350 <815) 433-4429
More than 50 years ago, thousands of our loved ones; Mothers, Fathers, Sisters,
Brothers and Spouses offered the -ULTrMATE SACRIHCE'. giving their Uves for our ' '
freedom. . ^.'i <,"'•.■■ •
Our goal is single minded. It is our intention to petition for the setting aside a PER-
MANENT DAY OF REMEMBRANCE to bestow rightful honor to those who gave their
lives so that we and future generations of Americans might live free.' We simply ask that
our President and Congresspersons join together to designate this PERMANENT DAY OF
REMEMBRANCE Is this too much to ask?
You and I have a choice! The brave heroes of Pearl Harbor did not!! We can choose
to do nothing, or we can choose to write our President, our Congressperson and our Repre-
sentative letting each know how strongly we feel regarding this issue, and instructing each,
as your Elected Representative to support RJ. Res/^/ designating December 7th, of each
year as "National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day."
Please, let your voice be heard today!!! Please help pass House Joint Resolution Bill
#y ^1 Please be aware that there is no financial obligation here; it will not cost the taxpayer
nor will it increase the deficit. It will, however, put a warm glow within you to know that
you did what you could to honor the military men and women who offered the ULTI-
MATE SACRIFICE on that INFAMOUS Sunday Morning, December 7th, 1941 in Hawaii,
by establishing for them a "PERMANENT DAY OF REMEMBRANCE"
Thanking you in advance for your interest and cooperation in this matter, I remain.
Sincerely,
Richard Foltynewicz,
Foundation Chairman
WorldWarll ■ .
Marine Corps Veteran .
102
Editorial
CongrcBS Should Be Gung Ho - No So So
There is no other event like the
bontbing or Pearl Harbor in American
history. It's occurrence shaped our
success in World War 11 and our
ambivalence in the wars or the (iriics and
sixties.
We hope ~ we pray - there will never
be another day like it. And therefore.
Congress should immediately blast
through the regulations prohibiting
recurring days of remembrance and name
December 7. "Peari Haitor Day."
It won't cost us any money. It may
save us a part of our history which
should never be forgotten.
SENIOR
LIFESTYLES
The rationale thai 'if we do it for you
well have to do it for everyone else* is a
so-so. bureaucratic cover. Rest assured,
in the years to come Congress will do it
for everyone else -- as Earth Day will no
doubt be added to the calendar and
. Columbus Day taken off.
It's a matter of being politically
dorrect. Right now, Richard
Koltynewicz's cause is not politically
dorrect. But in our estimation it's
nlorally, historically and vitally correct
- "Hiank you, Richard, for being gung ho
for a cause Coogress should be falling
o«er itself to champion. Keep it up.
Miw's the lime and you're not alone.
-'Susan LcBBOx
President and Publisher
Joseph F. Reagan
Vice Picsident and
■A NATION THAT FORGETS ITS
VBTEnVkNS IS A NATION "niAT, ITSELF,
mil, SOON BE PORQOTTEH
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE
I watched the flag pass by one day,
It fluttered in the breeze,
A your^ Marine saluted it.
And then, he stocd at ease.
I looked at him in uniform.
So young, so tall, so proud,
Wit:h hair cut square and eyes alert.
He'd stand out in any crowd.
I thought how many men like him
Had fallen through the years.
How many died on foreign soil?
Hew many nother's tears?
How many pilots planes shot down?
How many died ar sea?
How many foxholes were soldiers' graves?
No, freedom is not free.
I heard the sound of taps one night.
When everything wcis still,
I listened to the bugler play.
And felt a sudden chill.
I wondered just how many times.
That taps had meant "Amen",
When a flag had covered a coffin.
Of a brother or a friend.
I thought of all the children.
Of the mothers ar>d the wives.
Of fathers, sons, £tnd husbarvls,
Wit:h interrupted lives.
I thought about a graveyard.
At the bottom of the sea.
Of unmarked graves in Arlington,
No, freedom is not free.
Cadet Major Kelly Strong
Air Force Junior Rote
Homestead Senior High School
Itomestead, Florida
August 26, 1981
103
©Ifc iailtt (EimtB
nnnam,. i^m H. IMi I Mw Y»»— I M»i Ow
Sangmeister_pushiiig Pearl Harbor biU
By J«ANN MUSTIt
Staff Wm«r
R«p. George SaogmeUter, D-
Mokena, says it's a tough t>attle to
get Dec. 7 recognized as National
. Pearl Harbor Day.
He said today the bill to estabUsh
the annual comniemoration is
lodged in a subcommittee with lit-
tle chance of release because of its
rules governing commemorative
days.
The Population and Census Sub-
committee of the Post Office and
Civil Service Committee has the
legislation. The subcommittee also
established rules in the 1970s that
prohibit commemorative days on
the belief that every day eventual-
ly would become a com-
memorative day, said
Sangmeister aide David Wilke.
"It's a very stubborn opponent
we're up against," he said. "The
subcommittee is not willing to
budge on this. But there are other
tactics we can use."
Alternatives could Include tack-
ing the bill onto a piece oflnust-
pass legislation as a rider, said
WUke.
"We're certainly considering it,
although Sangmeister is not really
thrilled about doing it that way
because be believes the proposal
will stand on its own and does not
need to be done in the dead of
night," be said.
More than 2.000 Americans were
killed and another 1,000 injured in
the atUck on Pearl Harbor. The
battle precipitated the United
SUtes' entry into Worid War 11.
Sangmeister introduced the
legislation in March.
"I offered It in recognition of the
men and women who served so
faithfully and, in particular, to
honor the 2,400 who died on that
'day of infamy,'" he said.
The bill resulted from efforts by
former World War n Marine
Richard FoUynewicz of Ottawa to
commemorate the day.
The usual procedure is for a bill
to automatically come to the House
floor for vote if there are 218
signatures.
But in this case, Wilke said the
subcommittee Mill not release the
bill t>ecause of the perpetual com-
memoration provision.
"This is not just another event
we are talking about. This is an
event that changed the course of
history for Americans and the
world," Sangmeister said.
He now Is asking his colleagues
on Capitol Hill to co-sponsor the
legislation in a show of strength
because numbers would make for
a better case before the subcom-
mittee, said Wilke.
"Tlie subcommittee's rules can
be justified. But Pearl Harbor is a
significant event in our nation's
history, not a frivolous or trivial
day. That's why Sangmeister is
sort of going against the grain here
to see how his colleagues feel," he
said.
"The World War II guys are the
biggest chunk of veterans out
there. And they're the first to tell
you Pearl Harbor needs to be com-
memorated in some way."
Wilke said the subcommittee has
no provisions for exceptions. Also,
there is a cost associated with
passing commemorative bills.
"It's interesting to note that
since the subcommittee's rules
have been in place, there have
been perpetual commemorations.
But they were set aside in a sneaky
way by tacking them onto bills as
riders," he said.
For instance. Federal Lands
Cleanup Day became a perpetual
commemorative day as a rider in
August 1966. The day is com-
memorated the first Saturday
after Labor Day in September.
National Disability Awareness
Month was perpetually com-
meoiorated in 1988. It is com-
memorated each October.
"Each year, our country com-
memorates National Forest Pro-
ducts Week. I believe we can do no
less for Dec. 7, 1941," said
Sangmeister.
"Pearl Harbor had an extraor-
dinary effect In unifying our coun-
try and I want that to be
rememt>ered. As a result of this at-
tack, 16. S million Americans
raUied to fight World War I! -
406,000 eventually lost their lives.
As a veteran, it saddens me to
think the signiTicance of this event
may be lost to future generations."
Sangmeister Is a memtier of the
House's Veterans Affairs
Committee.
RIdutfd Foltynewia Chalnn«n
Tb« FoundtUon for NsUonal Peart Harbor Dav
_^ 920 Chcjtinut Su '
World Warn Ch«««. D 61350
Marine Corps Veteran
104
APPROVED
Resolution No. 311
DESIGNATING DECEMBER 7 OF EACH YEAR AS
-NATIONAL PEARL HARBOR "REMEMBRANCE DAY*
WHEREAS, on Dece«.bef 7. 1941. the I«perl*l Japanese Navy and Air Focce
actacKed units of the Armed Forces of the United States stationed at Pearl
Harbor. Hawaii: and
WHEREAS, more than 2.000 citizens of the United States were killed and
„ore than I. 000 citizens of the United States were wounded in tne attack on "
Pearl Harbor; and
WHEREAS, the attack on Pearl Harbor marked the entry of the United States
into world War 11: and
WHEREAS, the Veterans of World War II and all other people of the United
States con,n.en.orate December 7 In remembrance of the attack on Pearl Harbor; and
WHEREAS, commemoration of the attack on Pearl Harbor will Instill In all
people of the United States a greater understanding and appreciation of the
selfless sacrifice of the Individuals who served In the Armed Forces of the
United States during World War II: now. therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, by the 93rd National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign
wars of the United States, that we support legislation to designate Decem.,.r
7th of each year as "National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day."
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
OF THE UNITED STATES
NATIONAL HI^AOQUARTE RS
VFMSUILOlNa • KANSAS CITY. MO. Milt
Submitted by Department of Illinois
TO Committee on GENERAL RESOLUTIONS
Resolution No. 311
105
The Foundation for a National Pearl Harbor Day
920 OHestnut Street Ottawa, I I- 61350 (815) 433-442y
REMEMBER PEARL BARBOR AS WE CO TO MEET THE FOE;
REMEMBER PEARL BARBOR AS WE DID THE ALAMO;
WE WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER TBAT THEY DIED FOR LIBERTY;
REMEMBER PEARL BARBOR AND CO ON TO VICTORY.
ODR DEAD
A story cones to my mind that fits, that ■ TITLE .... OOR DEJLOI I
A soldier comes to his Commanding Officer... "Hy friend Isn't back
from the battlefield, sir. Request permission to go and get him.**
"Permission refused," said the officer. "Z don*t want you to rlslc
your life for a man who Is probably dead."
The soldier went, all the same, and, an hour later, cama baclc
mortally wounded, carrying the corpse ot his friend.
The officer was furious. "I told you he was dead. Now I've lost
both of you. Tell me, was It worth going out thero to bring In a
corpse?"
The dying man replied, "Oh, It was sir. When I got to hla, he was
still alive. And he said to me, " Jack. I was sure you'd come."
It Is In thousands of stories such as this that we say Our dead are
not unknown soldiers.
We know who they are and where they seek to go.
Their passage through this life often was accompanied by great
pain. Sacrifice and suffering.
We love our dead.
Let us pray for them upon their graves.
A dally garland of prayers last longer than an armful of roses.
As we approach the Golden Memorial hoxir of the War Veterans, eleven
o'clock. Let us stand for a moment of silence—- — and let there rise
from your heart a prayer beseeching Almighty Cod, the Father of us all,
to grant to the souls of our departed comrades, a peace and glory, be
theirs because of the bacrlflce they .made so other men might live.
Semper Fldells,
Richard A. Foltynevicz, ^^ USMC
"H II Marine Corps Veteran
'Once a Marine, always a Marine"
106
ittawa. Illinois
Saturda/. May 29, 1993 149th Year— 127th Day
Come Visit My Grave
SOURCE: Thankt to Marg« RowiMir of Ottawa for thailng tl>l» poom wttti ua.
by Jim Rolf**, ConunandM,
Plymouth County Ani*ric*n L*£loa -
W*sm*r Poet No. 241, LaMan, Iowa
Dat* unknown
I am a veteran laid under the sod.
I'm In good company, I'm up here with God.
Come to my grave and visit with me,
I gave my life so you could be free,
Today Is Ivlemortal Day throughout this great land.
There's Avenue of Rags, parades and bands.
I can hear music, the firing squad and taps.
Here come my comrades, the Legionnaires, the Biuecaps.
One of them Just put a flag by my stone,
Some day he'll have one by his own.
They say they have plans, other things to do,
Don't put us aside as you would an old shoe.
Come visit my grave In this cemetery so clean.
This Is what Memonal Day means.
There are many of us lying in walieiess sleep.
In cemeteries of green and oceans of deep.
It's sad that lor many who fought so brave.
Now no one comes to visit their grave.
They died so you couid have one whole year free.
Now can't you save this one day lor me?
There are soldiers, sailors, airmen up here.
Who went into battle despite of their fear.
I've been talking up here to ail of those men. ■
If they had to do It over, they'd do it again.
Look, someone Is coming to my grave.
it's my family, for them my life I gave.
My wife, I remember our last embrace.
As I left the tears streamed down your face.
I think you knew the day I shipped out,
I wouldn't return, your life'd be turned about
There's my daughter that I used to hold.
Can it be that you're nearly twenty years old?
Next month Is to be your wedding day.
I wish I could be there to give you away.
My son's here too. Dad's little man.
Always love your county, do for it what yru can.
There Is one thing that really did bother.
Seeing you grow up without the aid of a father. ■
I wish you could ail hear me from up above.
That a father's best gift to his children is love.
And what better way to prove my love to the end.
Is that a man lay down his life for his friends.
I see It's time for you to go home.
Your visit made It easier to remain here alone.
Don't cry honey, you look so sad.
Our children are free, you should be so glad.
Daughter, thanks for the bouquet so cute.
Thank you son, for the sharp salute.
Come again, I forgot, you can't hear me from up here.
But I know you'll come visit me next year.
The Oaliy Tlmes/TOM tlSTAK | ^^pg gn veterans are treated this way.
On this day to remember. Memorial Day.
107
STATEMENT OF
MICHAEL P. CLINE
MASTER SERGEANT (RET)
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND
MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
ON
VA NATIONAL CEMETERY SYSTEM.,
ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY AND
THE AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION
24 MAY 1994
108
IntrodMction
The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (E ANGUS) appreciates the
opportunity to present its views on oversight of the National Cemetery System (NCS), American
Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC); and to comment on H.J. Res 131
Burial Benefits for National Guard and Reserve members with twenty years of service
EANGUS would like to express its graditude and appreciation to the Subcommittee for the
recognition recently extended to members of the National Guard and Reserve EANGUS is
extremely grateful for the action taken, in 1 992, to provide burial Flags and grave markers, as well
as for the recent passage of HR821 by Congress. The action in 1992, in company with the enactment
of HR821, to extend burial in National Cemeteries, now provides full recognition of Reserve
component members for their valuable service.
These recent accomplishments would not have occurred were it not for the persistent efforts of the
distinguished Chairman and members of this Subcommittee. The Association's 67,000 members
commends your efforts to recognize, with dignity and respect, as members of the Total Force
The National Cemetery System
Burial in one of our national cemeteries is the final tribute, of a grateful nation, honoring the memory
and sacrifice of those who served in our Armed Forces. This memorialization is everlasting through
the provision of perpetual care of our national cemeteries It is a benefit available to all veterans and
National Guard and Reserve members who contributed 20 years or more of faithful service; without
regard to gender, race, religious affiliation or economic circumstances A total of 114 national
cemeteries comprise the NCS. In September 1992, 53 of the 1 14 national cemeteries were closed
to full-casket remains NCS is projecting that in six years an additional eleven sites will close bringing
the total to 64 by the year 2000. Nine other cemeteries are projected to close between the period
2000 and 2010 In other words, if the NCS remains on its present course, 65% of the national
cemeteries will be considered closed in the next sixteen years
Nationally, the number of internments for veterans or eligible individuals will continue to increase.
Another annual record of internments, 73,000 is expected in Fiscal Year 1995 - a 55% increase
in the last ten years Similarly, the number of gravesites maintained is estimated to reach 2 1 million
by 1995, a 35% increase in ten years. Since the System's establishment in the Department of
Veterans' Affairs in 1973, approximately 1,014,000 decedents have been interred in national
cemeteries and 5 6 million headstones and markers have been furnished to mark gravesites A total
of 330,000 gravemarker applications are projected for Fiscal Year 1995.
VA estimates that staffing shortages of 244 wage grade employees and 41 general-schedule
employees will exist in Fiscal Year 1995 During the period 1984 to 1995, fijll-time wage grade
employees of the NCS have risen from 830 in 1984 to 847 projected for 1995 - 3% increase VA
estimates that staffing shortages of 244 wage grade employees and 41 general schedule employees
will exist in Fiscal Year 1995
These staffing shortages require that VA prioritize its efforts First priority is given to timely burial.
Second in priority is the enhancement of cemetery appearance and infrastructure, such as maintenance
and repair of the NCS's approximately 400 buildings and 100 miles of road.
The backlog for essential operating equipment remains a critical issue Although VA has pursued an
aggressive service life extension and maintenance program, inevitably, there are eventual limits With
available funding in 1994, the equipment backlog increased to $6.7 million and VA projects an
additional $2 7 million in equipment due for replacement in 1995 Funding requested in 1995 to
reduce the backlog of equipment replacement is $16 million It is noted, with gratitude, that the
House Veterans Affairs Committee recommended the addition of $7 8 million for equipment
replacement.
109
In recognition of the fact that demand for burial in a national cemetery will continue to increase until
well into the next century, the NCS has developed a strategy to carefully manage existing resources
and identify future opportunities to acquire additional burial space The strategy includes (1)
establishing new national cemeteries, (2) acquiring additional land through purchase or donation to
extend the service of existing cemeteries, and (3) encouraging States to provide additional
gravesites through participation in the State Cemetery Grant Program
The first part of the NCS strategy involves opening new cemeteries Since 1987, only one new
national cemetery has been constructed - the San Joaquin Valley National Cemetery in Northern
California, which was opened in June 1992 Funding has been provided for land acquisition and
master planning at five other sites: Albany, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas and Seattle. Construction
funds for the Seattle cemetery are contained in the FY 1995 budget request.
The second part of the NCS strategy involves acquiring adjacent land, thereby ensuring that existing
national cemeteries can remain open In March 1994, the VA announced the purchase of 16 acres
of land adjacent to Ft Gibson National Cemetery in Oklahoma The land, purchased from a private
owner, will yield approximately 10,000 gravesites and allow Ft Gibson to remain open beyond 2030
In Fort Scott, Kansas, the veteran community banded together to purchase and then donate ten acres
of land This will allow the Ft. Scott National Cemetery to give full service to veterans and their
families beyond the year 2030 And, in Port Hudson, Louisiana, the VA has been negotiating with
the Georgia-Pacific Corporation to acquire neariy 12 acres adjacent to the Port Hudson National
Cemetery, which closed in 1992. Alexandria National Cemetery, the only open national cemetery in
Louisiana, is scheduled to close later this year; therefore, the re-opening of Port Hudson will permit
continuing service to Louisiana veterans and families Weare pursuing other efforts to acquire land
for other national cemeteries wherever it is feasible and cost effective to do so
The third part of the stragedy is to utilize the State Cemetery Grants Program to complement the
NCS This program has been very successful to date. Some State officials appear to be taking a
"wait and see" approach on the viability of passage of legislation changing the Federal/State share
fi-om 50/50 to 65/35% funding, as provided for in HR949 Recent requests from States have involved
improvements to existing cemeteries rather than applications for new state cemeteries This program
remains an integral and important part of the NCS strategy to meet the increasing need for burial
space. We must continue to pursue ways to increase the participation of States in this worthwhile
program.
Information System
NCS's information system (computers) needs are critical to its overall operations The computer
system for the Office of Memorial Programs (OMP) is antiquated and often unreliable. According
to the IB, OMP's workload is projected to increase at a rate of 2 to 3 percent per year. For FY
1993, OMP provided 330,345 headstones and markers The FY 1993 total for Presidential Memorial
Certificates (PMC) was 269,489. The procurement of an updated computer support system could
provide an FTEE savings to the system. It is estimated that 3 0 FTEE savings could be achieved in
the PMC program and that a 3 5 FTEE savings could be realized in the headstone and marker
program A new computer system is also necessary to interface with the Burial Operation's
Support System (BOSS) .
American Battlefield Monuments Commission fABMO
The principle functions of ABMC are to commemorate the achievements and sacrifices of the United
States Armed Forces where they have served since April 6, 1917, through the erection and
maintenance of suitable memorial shrines; to design, construct, operate and maintain permanent
American military cemeteries in foreign countries; to control the design and construction on foreign
soil of US military monuments and markers by other US. citizens and organizations both public and
private, and to encourage these organizations and individuals to maintain, adequately, the monuments
and markers they have erected
110
The ABMC administers, operates and maintains 24 permanent American military burial grounds, 49
memorial structures in twelve foreign countries, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
and four memorials in the United States.
Interred in ABMC's cemeteries are 124,912 US War Dead -- 30,921 of World War I, 93,241 of
World War II, and 750 of the Mexican War. Additionally, 6,573 American veterans and others are
interred in Its Mexico City and Corozal American Cemeteries The World War cemeteries and the
Mexico City Cemetery are closed to further burials except for the remains of American War Dead,
still found in the battle areas. In addition to their burials, the World War I and II cemeteries, together
with 3 memorials on United States soil, commemorate, individually by name, the 94,100 US service
personnel Missing in Action or lost or buried at sea during the two World Wars, the Korean War and
the Vietnam War.
The care of these shrines to our War Dead requires a large annual program of maintenance and repair
of structures, facilities, vehicles, equipment and grounds maintenance This care includes upkeep of
131,000 graves and headstones; 53 memorial structures; 41 quarters, utilities and maintenance
facilities; 67 miles of roads and paths; 91 1 acres of flowering plants, fine lawns and meadows; 3
million square feet of shrubs and hedges, and 1 1 thousand ornamental shrubs and trees. The
estimated replacement cost of these structures by AMBC is about three hundred million dollars.
Much of this maintenance and care must be performed by casual labor as the cemetery staffs are not
large enough to provide it adequately on a daily basis.
ABMC's budget authority for the current year is $20,21 1,000 Its appropriation request and budget
authority for fiscal 1995 is $20,265,000, $54,000 more than the current year The expenses of the
AMBC fall into two categories commemoration of the Armed Forces where they have served, and
care and maintenance of the shrines for which ABMC is responsible. Last year, over 75% of ABMC's
Budget Authority went to defray personnel salaries and benefits. The foreign govenunents where our
installations are located armually decree cost of living increases for our foreign national employees
ofat least $400,000.
Arlington National Cemetery
Arlington National Cemetery, the best known of our national cemeteries, is under the jurisdiction of
the Department of the Army The cemetery grounds are on 612 acres of land. Nearly 235,000 service
members and family rest at Arlington There are an average of 16 new burials daily. Including those
on 50 undeveloped remaining acres, there are approximately 76,000 available gravesites. Without
further expansion, these available gravesites will only allow Arlington to remain open until the year
2025. Cemetery officials are therefore considering a new master plan for expansion.
The Cemetery currently employs a staff of 135, with some services performed by outside contractors.
A new complex is under construction. This will house maintenance and other support services.
Approximately 4 million people visit the Cemetery annually.
We have been informed that Arlington, like the NCS has been able to cope with budget restraints.
The aging veteran population can be expected to increase demands, as is expected with the NCS.
This will be an important factor in Congress' consideration of future needs
H..I. Resl31
This Joint Resolution would designate December 7, of each year, as National Pearl Harbor
Remembrance Day President Franklin D Roosevelt characterized the attack on Pearl Harbor as:
" a day that will live in infamy " EANGUS believes it is essential that we keep the memory of
December 7, 1941, alive for the reasons so eloquently stated by the President on that fateful day
Mr Chairman, on behalf of the entire membership of the Enlisted Association National Guard of the
United States (EANGUS), I wish to thank you for inviting us to provide testimony for the record.
Ill
WRITTEN COMMITTEE QUESTIONS AND THEIR RESPONSES
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY
HONORABLE GEORGE E. SANGMEISTER, CHAIRMAN
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
ON BEHALF OF
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DAN BURTON
MAY 24, 1994
HEARING ON THE OPERATION OF VA NATIONAL CEMETERIES
Question 1: In your statement you indicate your intention to reintroduce the upright granite
headstone. Would you give some background on that decision and tell us why VA would
make them available only in private or State veterans' cemeteries?
Answer: On January 19, 1994, Secretary Brown authorized the reintroduction of upright
granite headstones to expand the available headstone and grave marker options for
veterans buried in private or State veterans' cemeteries. This decision was customer-
driven; VA/National Cemetery System (NCS) responding to a need identified by the
Vermont State Veterans' Cemetery in Randolph, Vermont. The reintroduction of upright
granite headstones was initially limited to private and State veterans' cemeteries,
representing 70% of our volume, so that NCS could evaluate the acceptance of upright
granite headstones by the veteran community at a later date.
Upright granite headstones have not been previously used in national cemeteries. Upright
granite headstones were provided, however, from 1941 through 1947 to mark and honor
the graves of America's veterans buried in private cemeteries. They were discontinued in
1947 by the War Department due to low demand which led to high individual cost. During
this entire period only 1 ,895 upright granite headstones were provided.
Since the authorization of upright granite headstones in January 1994, of the 120,000
headstones and grave markers provided, 1 1 upright granite headstones were ordered as of
June 17, 1994; eight for the Vermont State Veterans' Cemetery, the remaining three for
private cemeteries. Demand is low at this time, as upright granite headstones are not
depicted as available on our application form. The new edition of the application form
contains upright granite headstones as an available option. As the new form is circulated
and applicants learn of this option, we expect demand to increase.
Upright granite headstones are identical to upright marble headstones in dimension, weight
and inscription. The type and color of granite stock for upright granite headstones is the
same as that specified for flat granite markers, light gray.
Question 2: As discussed during the panel's hearing, just as in civilian cemeteries,
increasing numbers of families are choosing cremation. With a system as large as VA's,
major items like the construction of columbaria offer the possibility of cost saving through
single design, modular purchases for system wide use. Central purchasing of this type of
columbarium design and placement would achieve bulk purchasing economies and,
therefore, allow placement of columbaria in national cemeteries at reasonable cost. Has
NCS undertaken a review of its design and purchasing system for the purpose of identifying
potential cost-effective methods of providing columbaria at national cemeteries? If
columbaria can be constructed at reasonable costs, wouldn't national cemeteries be able to
serve veterans' burial needs for periods beyond their current closing dates?
Answer: Yes, NCS has undertaken a review of costs associated with columbaria and in-
ground plots. In a comparison of costs, columbarium niches are many times more
expensive than the in-ground plots.
The cost of Columbaria is usually approximately $300-400 per niche. The cost in many
cases cannot be lowered by buying pre-made, bulk purchased columbaria. The pre-cast
honeycomb unit without marble cover is estimated at $50 a niche, yet when the marble
112
cover is added and the entire columbaria unit is adapted to existing terrain features (i.e.
sloping hillside, retaining wall, etc.) the cost rises to $300-$400 per niche. Further, since
procurennents costing more than $25,000 must be competitive, we cannot buy "sole source"
pre-made columbaria unless they are very small yield (48-96 niches). Small yield
columbaria are not feasible at most cemeteries with large cremation demand.
The cost of developing an acre of land for burial purposes is generally between $55,000
and $75,000, including roads, curbs, irrigation, landscaping, and site grading. Thus, when
the land is used for 3'X3' in-ground plots, the cost would be less than $40 per plot, using a
yield of 2,000 plots per acre.
Most of our cemeteries that have high demand for cremated interment are also our largest,
most active cemeteries which also have available acreage capable of providing in-ground
cremain plots. In weighing the cost option, we attempt to use in-ground space before
considering columbaria.
o
84-882(120)
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05983 212 9
ISBN 0-16-046398-X
780
60"463983
90000
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11