U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

82–749PS 2003

H.R. 3423, TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED

STATES CODE, TO ENACT INTO LAW ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN VETERANS AND THEIR

DEPENDENTS FOR BURIAL IN ARLINGTON

NATIONAL CEMETERY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 13, 2001

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 107–18

(

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman

BOB STUMP, Arizona

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama

STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana

JACK QUINN, New York

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

HOWARD P. (BUCK) MCKEON, California

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

JEFF MILLER, Florida

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

LANE EVANS, Illinois

BOB FILNER, California

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas

RONNIE SHOWS, Mississippi

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

PATRICK E. RYAN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

(II)

(III)

C O N T E N T S

December 13, 2001

Page

H.R. 3423, to amend title 38, United States Code, to enact into Law Eligibility

of Certain Veterans and their Dependents for Burial in Arlington National

Cemetery ............................................................................................................... 1

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairman Smith ...................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of Chairman Smith ........................................................ 34

Hon. Lane Evans, ranking democratic member, Full Committee on Veterans’

Affairs .................................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement of Congressman Evans .................................................. 40

Hon. Susan A. Davis ................................................................................................ 3

Hon. John Boozman ................................................................................................. 3

Hon. Jeff Miller ........................................................................................................ 3

Hon. Michael K. Simpson ........................................................................................ 5

Hon. Silvestre Reyes ................................................................................................ 5

Prepared statement of Congressman Reyes ................................................... 42

Hon. Ciro D. Rodriguez ........................................................................................... 6

Hon. Bob Filner ....................................................................................................... 6

Hon. Luis V. Gutierrez ............................................................................................ 7

Prepared statement of Congressman Gutierrez ............................................. 43

Hon. Julia Carson .................................................................................................... 17

The prepared statement of Congresswoman Carson ..................................... 44

Hon. Henry E. Brown, Jr. ....................................................................................... 17

Hon. Howard P. McKeon, prepared statement of ................................................. 44

Hon. Tom Udall, prepared statement of ................................................................ 44

WITNESSES

Eddington, Patrick, Associate Director, Vietnam Veterans of America .............. 25

Prepared statement of Mr. Eddington ............................................................ 62

Garrett, Steven, Deputy Legislative Director, The Retired Enlisted Association ........................................................................................................................ 21

Prepared statement of Mr. Garrett ................................................................. 50

Manhan, Bob, Assistant Director, National Legislative Services, Veterans of

Foreign Wars ........................................................................................................ 20

Prepared statement of Mr. Manhan ............................................................... 48

Metzler, Jr., John C., Superintendent, Arlington National Cemetery, Department of the Army ................................................................................................. 8

Prepared statement of Mr. Metzler ................................................................. 45

Norton, Bob, Director of Government Relations, The Retired Officers Association ........................................................................................................................ 24

Prepared statement of Mr. Norton .................................................................. 58

Schneider, Richard C., Director of State/Veterans Affairs, Non Commissioned

Officers Association .............................................................................................. 22

Prepared statement of Mr. Schneider ............................................................. 53

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Bill:

H.R. 3423, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code to enact into

law eligibility of certain veterans and their dependents for burial in

Arlington National Cemetery ....................................................................... 31

Page

IV

Statements:

AMVETS ........................................................................................................... 65

Disabled American Veterans ........................................................................... 68

The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States

(EANGUS) ..................................................................................................... 69

(1)

H.R. 3423, TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED

STATES CODE, TO ENACT INTO LAW ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN VETERANS AND THEIR

DEPENDENTS FOR BURIAL IN ARLINGTON

NATIONAL CEMETERY

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, DC

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 334,

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Smith, McKeon, Simpson, Brown, Miller, Evans, Filner, Gutierrez, Carson, Reyes, Snyder, Rodriguez,

Lynch, Boozman, and Davis.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SMITH

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Good morning

to everybody. We are meeting today to take testimony on H.R.

3423, to update eligibility rules for burial of Reservists at Arlington

National Cemetery.

Before we begin, I would like to welcome several new members

to the committee from both sides of the aisle. Jeff Miller from Florida, John Boozman from Arkansas, Stephen Lynch from Massachusetts, and Susan Davis from California.

The committee granted Mr. Miller’s request for assignment to the

Subcommittees on Health and Benefits of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee. Mr. Miller is a native Floridian who was elected

to the Florida Legislature in 1998. Prior to that he was a real estate broker and a deputy sheriff. He and his wife are active members in Elizabeth Chapel United Methodist Church. They have two

children and two grandchildren.

The committee also granted Mr. Boozman his request for assignment to the Subcommittees on Health and Oversight of the House

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

Mr. Boozman is an optometrist from Arkansas who took the seat

formerly held by Congressman Asa Hutchison, and before that by

his brother Tim. He and his wife Cathy are the parents of three

daughters. John and his family are actively involved in the First

Baptist Church in Rogers. He also raises Polled Hereford cattle.

John’s background includes playing football at the University of Arkansas, so if we need someone to help us out when we get into

some heavy weather, we can turn to Mr. Boozman.

2

Let me just say that it is very good to have these gentlemen joining the committee, and I want to welcome you. And I just want to

say how happy we are to have you on the committee, and that you

requested it I think is a real tribute. This is a very bipartisan committee, a very activist committee, and I know that we will benefit

greatly from your service on the committee. So welcome.

And I would like to yield to my good friend, Mr. Evans, to introduce our two new colleagues on the Democrat side.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith appears on p. 34.]

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LANE EVANS, RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, FULL COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’

AFFAIRS

Mr. EVANS. They have not arrived yet. When they do—— Thank you. I guess the other night it was almost like a broken

record in a good sense. We got talking about how the chairman of

this committee has been working so hard, and it has really paid off

for us, I think, working together. We got a lot done this year and

got some more work next year.

But I want to state personally, I can’t think of a better working

relationship between a majority chairman and a ranking member.

So have a good holiday, Chris, get some rest.

I do have a little bit more to say. As a former Marine and as a

member of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee since 1983, I know very

well that Arlington National Cemetery is a cherished parcel of this

Nation’s most hallowed ground.

I am confident every member of this committee remains steadfast in their commitment to honor and revere Arlington National

Cemetery on behalf of our Nation’s veterans. Recent events have

made us aware that America’s veterans continue to exemplify the

bravery, courage and conviction that are pillars beneath America’s

freedom and success throughout the world.

Our veterans are heroes. I am pleased that today’s hearing will

examine the current eligibility status for burials at the National

Cemetery.

As introduced, H.R. 3423 would amend the burial rules at Arlington. It would eliminate the current requirement to be 60 years

of age for Reservists who are eligible for retirement pay and otherwise eligible for in-ground burial. H.R. 3423 would also provide for

in-ground burial eligibility for members of the Reserve components

who die in the line of duty while participating in weekend training

or a 2-week training period.

In considering rules that govern eligibility for in-ground burial at

the National Cemetery, we are immediately faced with conflicting

needs. On one hand we must do our best to preserve the Cemetery’s limited space for the men and women whose level of commitment and heroism to this Nation has been considered extraordinary.

On the other hand, we want to make a hero’s burial available to

the most uniformly fair extent possible to all of our heroes who deserve so much in honoring them in this way.

Thus, I turn to our witnesses. I hope the data that can provide

us will help us make the determinations of the longstanding rules

that retired Reservists must be at least 60 years old to be buried

3

at Arlington. Whether the rules should remain intact or whether

we should reform the rule in some major way is a question that

requires considerable thought and consideration.

I am very anxious to hear from our witnesses who have been

kind enough to join us today on such short notice. I know it isn’t

often easy, and I appreciate their efforts to help us make the most

informed decisions available on this important issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Congressman Evans appears on p.

40.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, I say to my good friend.

It has been a very fruitful and a productive friendship and relationship on this committee, as well as with the subcommittee chairs

and the ranking members. We do have a big agenda next year. We

have certainly been able to push and get enacted a large number

of pieces of legislation, and I want to thank you for your strong

support and that of your staff.

I would like to ask our two new members if either of them would

like to. Please do.

Mr. EVANS. It is a great honor to introduce Susan Davis to our

committee. She is a good representative. I get daily analysis of that

because my brother—she is my brother’s Congresswoman. So we

appreciate you coming forward and wanting to be on this committee.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. It really is a pleasure and an

honor for me to serve on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. As many

of you know, San Diego has one of the largest, if not the largest— perhaps Mr. Filner can attest to that—veterans community. And it

is really a pleasure for me to be here and to serve with all of you,

and particularly to join my colleague, Mr. Bob Filner. Thank you

very much.

Mr. EVANS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Would either of our two new members on the Republican side like to say something?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN

Mr. BOOZMAN. I am also honored to be part of this committee.

The Third District of Arkansas also has one of the highest per capita rates of veterans in the country. Also, as the son of a retired

Master Sergeant, again I am honored to be here to represent our

veterans.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MILLER

Mr. MILLER. It certainly is an honor for me to be here and represent the First Congressional District of Florida, which stretches

from Pensacola to Panama City. My district is home to five military

installations and an extremely large veterans population.

While I have not served as a member of the Armed Forces, I

asked to be placed on this committee specifically so that I could

serve my country and the veterans back in the First Congressional

District. I could not be more pleased with my assignment. I look

4

forward to working with all of the members on this committee for

the benefit of our Nation’s veterans.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and

again all of you are very welcome.

H.R. 3423, the subject of today’s hearing, would revise existing

law by eliminating the requirement that retired Reservists be in

receipt of their retirement pay to be eligible for in-ground burial at

Arlington. Reservists must be 60 years old to receive retired pay.

Retirees in this situation who have not reached age 60 are often

referred to as being the gray zone.

This bill would also make eligible for in-ground burial Reservists

who die in the line of duty during inactive or active training. The

bill would ensure access for retired Reservists, such as Captain

Charles Burlingame III, the pilot of Flight 77, which tragically

crashed into the Pentagon on September 11. Indeed, Captain Burlingame, a former Phantom fighter pilot, was one of the first casualties of the terror attacks.

The bill would also change the Army rule which prevented Captain Burlingame, a retired Reservist who was 51, from receiving

full burial rights at Arlington National Cemetery. Fortunately,

Captain Burlingame was eventually approved for burial in his own

gravesite through a waiver approved by the Secretary of the Army.

Captain Burlingame deserves the Nation’s highest honor of burial

at the hallowed ground of Arlington, not only because he gave his

life trying to save his passengers, but because Captain Burlingame

served the Nation in the Naval Reserve for over 20 years, with active duty as well as a combat aircraft pilot for F–4s.

Burial space is very limited, as we all know, at Arlington, and

I appreciate the Army’s interest in maintaining its strict eligibility

rules. Those rules have remained pretty much the same over the

last 34 years, however, but the roles of our Reserve forces have

changed markedly, significantly, profoundly over the intervening

period.

First, Reservists play a major role in the modern total force concept that protects our freedoms. Today we are unable to go to war

without mobilizing Reservists right from the start. It seems to me

to be profoundly inequitable and unfair that Reservists who serve

our Nation for a minimum of 20 years should be ineligible for inground burial at Arlington because he or she had the misfortune

to die prior to age 60.

In addition to such distinguished retirees as Captain Burlingame, this legislation would make eligible members of the Reserve component who die in the line of duty while performing

weekend or 2-week Reserve duty.

Frankly, I see no reason why a Reservist’s eligibility for Arlington should be based on whether that person was or was not in

training status when he or she died in the line of duty. In today’s

military, there is often no practical difference.

The administration will testify today that this legislation will

make 188,000 Reservists eligible for burial at Arlington. This is a

distortion and should not be accepted at face value. In fact, all of

these Reservists are already eligible for burial at Arlington if they

live to the age of 60. Although the Congress does not know how

many retired Reservists die before reaching the age of 60, that inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:33 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 82749.TXT HVETS1 PsN: HVETS1
5

formation is available in Defense Department records. The number

is probably no more than 3,000 to 5,000 annually.

It should also be borne in mind that of the tens of thousands of

retirees who die each year with Arlington eligibility, only a small

fraction of those actually choose to be buried there.

Applying a similar fraction to those Reservists who die before

reaching age 60 would be an accurate portrayal. That is what we

seek to get, an accurate portrayal of the effect of this legislation.

We are talking about a few hundred burials perhaps a year if this

legislation were to become law. Moreover, the Army statement refers to the projection that Arlington will be out of space by the year

2025. However, legislation approved last year will transfer significant land from the Navy Annex to Arlington by 2010, adding as

much as 25 years to the date projected in the Army’s testimony.

These are important facts that should have been included, I

would respectfully submit, in the Army’s testimony.

In closing, let me say that our United States Army sees to it that

Arlington National Cemetery indeed is a national treasure. It is

hallowed ground. But the Army does not write the law on Arlington eligibility. That is something that ought to be reserved and is

reserved to the Congress and this Committee as the committee of

jurisdiction.

We are here today for that purpose, and I look forward to the testimony of all of our witnesses. I yield to my good friend if he has

any further comments.

Mr. EVANS. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Would any other member? Chairman Simpson,

do you have any opening comments?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL K. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you for calling

this hearing today on this legislation. As you know, this came

about because of the Reservist that died and ultimately was granted burial in Arlington Cemetery. I thank you and the ranking

member for your support of our military and our Reservists.

Obviously our Reservists are playing a more and more important

role in our Nation’s defense. This seem to me to be only an equitable and fair piece of legislation; it makes common sense.

While I understand the Army’s concern, the Administration’s

concern for how quickly Arlington National Cemetery is filling up,

it is incumbent upon us, as we did last year, to make sure that we

do everything that we can to ensure that we expand Arlington

Cemetery so it is available as long as possible. And we will continue to work on that to make sure that space is available. But this

seems to be a common sense piece of legislation to me, and the

events of September 11 I think have brought it forward, and I

thank you for holding this hearing today.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chairman Simpson. Ranking Member Reyes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SILVESTRE REYES

Mr. REYES. I want to thank you and the ranking member for

calling this hearing. As I spoke to you on the floor yesterday about

this, I think it is important to get a good perspective on what the

6

recommendations are and make a decision based on just exactly

where we want to go because of the nature of the limitations of Arlington.

So I have a statement for the record if I can insert it.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, your full statement will be

made part of the record.

[The prepared statement of Congressman Reyes appears on p.

42.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rodriguez.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me just indicate that I know

in the past—I have served here 4 years—we have had some discussions on this issue. And now it has come—and one of the realities

is that we really need to provide more throughout the country. And

I wanted to just briefly mention south Texas, both represented by

Congressman Ortiz, Congressman Hinojosa, myself, Congressman

Bonilla, Congressman Lamar Smith out of San Antonio, as well as

the regions. We have over 250,000 veterans, and we only have one

cemetery in San Antonio. As you go south almost 300 miles, we

have asked and worked, and I don’t even represent, you know,

Cameron that has over 300,000 in the county down there, Hidalgo

that has half a million people, that I don’t represent, Nueces County that has almost 400,000 people, and they do not have access to

a cemetery.

I would ask your help and assistance in seeing that we can provide a cemetery in south Texas where we have a large number of

Mexican-Americans that have served this country, and we have

had difficulty in terms of trying to provide access to. I do want to

thank you, because we have expanded the only place where they

can be buried, and that is at Ft. Sam Houston in San Antonio.

That has been expanded.

But we fall in the same category that we have a large number

of people that need and ask to be buried and have difficulty getting

access to. And so as we look at this issue, one of the realities and

the reason why we put stipulations is because we haven’t provided

sufficient, you know, and so I would ask for some help and assistance in that area, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If I can clarify. All of those areas and counties

I mentioned are represented by other Congressmen, not by me, at

the present time.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for bringing

this legislation to us. I would just like to follow up on Mr.

Rodriguez. In San Diego we have cemeteries that are virtually just

about closed for burials, and we have come up with an interesting

concept called satellite cemeteries. We have had offers of donations

from several cemeteries to bury veterans. The VA so far has turned

a deaf ear to us, so this issue may come before this committee.

And I may also add, in your opening statement you mentioned

how important our Reserves are and have become, and we are trying to honor them in death.

7

I would also point out that there are ways to honor them in life.

I had tried to get into an appropriations bill an amendment that

would pay our Reserve units who are Federal employees the difference between their civilian pay and their pay on duty right now,

but that amendment was not accepted. I think we ought to be looking at that. It is not the jurisdiction of this committee, but I look

to this committee because it understands the importance of Reserve

units in today’s military.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Filner. Mr. Gutierrez.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like my statement put in

the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Congressman Gutierrez appears on

p. 43.]

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me just say that we are winding down the

year. I know that I speak for many people on this committee and

in the Congress. This has been a wonderfully productive year here

in the Veterans’ Committee under your leadership and your chairmanship. I wanted to say thank you to you and to our ranking

member, Mr. Evans, for the productivity and the general good feeling that I know all of the members have of coming here and working in the productivity that we have here.

Following up just a little bit on one of the things that I know

that we do, and that we are light-years ahead of the other body—

but I think we have one of those prohibitions about talking about

them like we have on the House floor, so I didn’t say that, you can

strike that from the record—is that we actually get things done

and we are on the cutting edge of stuff.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would like once again, and I have introduced a bill, and I hope all of the members of the committee will

take a look at the bill as we are looking at what we are doing

today, that is updating our needs given the new realities that our

fighting men and women confront, is that we should take a look,

and I hope, Mr. Chairman, we can have a hearing early next year

on my proposal to take care of the life insurance.

I mean $100,000 is not a lot of life insurance, and the $250,000

max is not a lot of life insurance, especially when you take into

consideration all of these folks leaving their private jobs now, and

everybody says, well, they can just go get another life insurance.

Well, we all know even if it is our own home or something that

happens to us, if it happens as a cause of war, these soldiers, if it

is in wartime, their life insurance policy doesn’t cover them. It has

to be a life insurance policy, and I know that we can take care of

that at no cost to anybody here simply by increasing—letting them

increase their threshold. It is—$100,000 is a very little bit of

money for somebody who isn’t going to come back home. We never

want them to use it, but just in case they do, hopefully we can take

a look at that.

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have enjoyed working with

you on every aspect of the Congress of the United States over the

last 9 years. But I have really enjoyed working with you on the

8

Veterans’ Committee under your chairmanship, and thank you, Mr.

Evans, also, my ranking member.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Gutierrez. And we

will continue to work together going forward, because the challenges are very real.

You wanted to recognize the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to welcome

Stephen Lynch as a new member of this committee. He was elected

in October to represent the Ninth District of Massachusetts. He

continues to live in his life-long home in South Boston, and we welcome you here.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted you to know

how pleased I am to be a member of the committee, and I look forward to joining in the committee’s work. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. You have my welcome as well, Mr. Lynch.

I would like to ask our first witness if he would come to the witness table. Mr. John Metzler, Jr., was born in Brooklyn, NY, on

September 12 in 1947. He received his early education in Arlington, VA, and graduated from Wakefield High School in June of

1966. He attended the Pittsburgh Institute of Aeronautics and San

Francisco Community College.

He served in the U.S. Army between 1966 and 1969, with a tour

of duty in Vietnam, serving as a helicopter crew chief. He entered

the Federal civilian service in 1974 as a national cemetery director

trainee at the Beverly National Cemetery.

Since then he has held progressively more responsible positions.

On January 14, 1991, Mr. Metzler was appointed as Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery with duties that included escorting heads of state and military and political leaders from

around the world.

In addition, Arlington conducts more than 5,600 funerals and

3,000 ceremonies annually. His late father, John Metzler, served as

Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery from 1951 to 1972.

Mr. Metzler, you are welcome, and please proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. METZLER, JR., SUPERINTENDENT,

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY, DEPARTMENT OF THE

ARMY

Mr. METZLER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and other distinguished members of the committee. I appreciate this opportunity to

appear before you and discuss the proposed legislation regarding

eligibility criteria for burial at Arlington National Cemetery.

The Secretary of the Army is responsible for the burial policy at

Arlington. I am here today to provide the Army’s comments on

H.R. 3423 and to answer questions you may have. Arlington National Cemetery is our country’s most prominent National Cemetery and honors the men and women who have served in our

Armed Forces.

In fiscal year 2001, there were 3,723 interments and 2,212

inurnments. In this current fiscal year, 2002, we estimate that

there will be 3,800 interments and 2,500 inurnments. Since September 11, Arlington has interred, inurned, or memorialized 62 victims from the Pentagon attack.

9

H.R. 3423 would expand eligibility for burial in Arlington National Cemetery for more than 188,000 Reservists. While we are

not able to anticipate the exact number, we are deeply concerned

that this would broaden eligibility beyond what could be supported

by the current space constraints. This would likely cause denial of

burial privileges for other eligible veterans.

Recently Senators Warner and Stevens introduced legislation

that narrowly tailors expansion of eligibility criteria to authorize

individuals’ interments in Arlington Cemetery for those retired

members of the Armed Forces Reserves, who would have been eligible but for age, who died in the September 11 attack.

The Army received a request for Captain Burlingame’s interment

by his family. To accommodate the burial, on December 12, yesterday, as an exception to the burial policy, to honor the intent of this

proposed legislation, and to spare the family any further grief, the

Secretary of the Army granted an exception to allow the burial of

retired Naval Reserve Captain Charles F. Burlingame III, in a separate grave at Arlington. We believe limiting burial eligibility to

this narrower group is appropriate and can accommodate the limited space at Arlington.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I would be more

than happy to respond to your committee’s questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Metzler appears on p. 45.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for being here and for your

very, very valuable service to the country. You do an outstanding

job at Arlington, and I think that should be underscored in the

record. We are very grateful for the work you do.

I do think that you have somewhat of a difficult job in the position that you espouse today, obviously a consensus position coming

from the Army. But it does raise some serious questions in my

mind. I mean, as I said in my opening statement, when you talk

about 188,000 Reservists being eligible, obviously many of those

Reservists will not die, thank God for that, and an even smaller

subset will choose, having qualified with 20 years of service, to actually having their families inter them at Arlington.

What is a realistic number as to how many additional interments

could be expected if this legislation were to be enacted? We have

seen estimates of 50 per year. Obviously, I do not think that would

overburden the system, especially when, as I said again in my

opening, we have changed. I have been in Congress 21 years. The

total force concept has taken hold completely. We couldn’t afford it

if we had to support an Active Duty Force big enough to meet the

risks abroad.

You know, the Reserve and the National Guard component

makes the difference. It makes it possible. It also, as we all know,

brings in expertise that would be lost. Many of the Reservists and

Guardsmen obviously have served on active duty, many of them beforehand, and have a level of competence that might not have been

achieved either. And we certainly could not have retained the kind

of component or the kind of military capability needed in today’s

world without it. But the number, do you have an estimation?

Mr. METZLER. Mr. Chairman, it would be impossible for me to

tell you a number that would be accurate. I can tell you, though,

that we do receive daily phone calls, weekly correspondence from

10

individuals who fall in this gray zone area asking about their entitlement. Once it is explained to them over the telephone, the majority of people accept that answer and make other arrangements

for burial.

If I could comment on one other item that you mentioned earlier,

sir. The Reserves and National Guardsmen who are mobilized for

any activities, such as what is going on right now, once they are

mobilized they fall in the same category as being on active duty,

and if their death occurs during that mobilization period, they

would be eligible for burial at Arlington Cemetery.

The CHAIRMAN. But if it doesn’t, then again they are right back

in the same situation. You know, they could be a Reservist, but

they die after the fact, they cannot be interred.

Mr. METZLER. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. They cannot be interred. Doesn’t that appear to

you to be unfair?

Mr. METZLER. Well, it also looks at the Reserves as a whole. If

you have Reservists who are never on active duty, under this legislation they would be eligible for burial. They would only be on active duty for training status such as basic training or individual advanced courses. Under this proposed legislation, they would be eligible. Yet individuals who served during World War II who didn’t

have any awards or decorations, who served throughout the entire

World War II process, are still not eligible for ground burial.

Now, every one who does have one period of active duty service

other than for training is eligible for inurnment at the columbarium complex in Arlington Cemetery.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask, should there be anydifference—part

2 of our legislation deals with the Reservist who dies while in a

training exercise. You know, an Air Force pilot in his F–16 dies on

active duty, versus an F–16 pilot in the Reserve component who

dies doing the exact same thing. One can be buried at Arlington,

the other cannot.

Again that seems to be an inequity that is eminently solvable. Do

you support that part of the bill?

Mr. METZLER. There is a process to look at that, if that scenario

takes place. Then the family, if they choose to have burial at Arlington Cemetery, could apply for an exception to policy, and of

course the columbarium inurnment is available as well.

The CHAIRMAN. But they need to apply. There is an obstacle. And

having gone through, as we all have, making arrangements for

loved ones, in my case my parents, my father is buried in a veterans cemetery in Allentown, NJ, it is a difficult time. And when you

are faced with an obstacle at that difficult time, you will find some

other alternative, rather than trying to facilitate something, because it takes time, as the gentleman from California mentioned,

and time is not something that someone who is in the process of

making arrangements necessarily has.

It seems to me that we ought to just nail this down and say there

will be an equal treatment here. I mean, I am somewhat baffled,

especially if space is the issue, as I mentioned again in my opening

statement, we are talking about the Navy Annex, perhaps some additional land from Ft. Myer. Necessity is the mother of invention.

It seems to me that even with procuring that land, we could exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:33 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 82749.TXT HVETS1 PsN: HVETS1
11

pand it to the year 2047 to 2050, and look for even more land and

hallowed ground to inter our heroes.

Mr. METZLER. We are actively doing that, Mr. Chairman. We are

trying to expand the Cemetery and trying to find additional land.

With the legislation that has been passed, to give us the Navy

Annex and the property on Ft. Myer.

While that legislation is in place, we still do not actually have

the land yet. We are working on the number of 2025 for closure

within the current 612 acres of the property of the Cemetery. I do

feel confident that we will get some of this land in the future and

be able to expand the Cemetery. But that hasn’t happened yet, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I am confident, too. But again, if there is an obstacle somewhere, we need to be a part of that process. If you are

running into some problems in obtaining that land, let us know.

But we are at 2001. 2025 with all due respect is all a little ways

away, but I do think that we should be planning to expand it right

into the next half of the century.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, would you yield? I found your numbers to be very persuasive. Mr. Metzler, do you have any problem

with the chairman’s estimates? Do you find them in erra? I find it

baffling, to use the word that the chairman used, that when you

make such estimates of 188,000, you do not have—from your long

experience, a percentage of those who are eligible and actually are

interred, those kind of figures which the chairman used.

Do you find any problem with his methodology?

Mr. METZLER. It is difficult to give you—when you ask for an

exact answer, I would just be guessing. I do not—— Mr. FILNER. Give me a guess.

Mr. METZLER. Well, typically 10 percent of veterans go to national cemeteries overall. 10 percent of the individuals who are eligible for burial go to national cemeteries. In round numbers. Of

those 10 percent, Arlington may receive 8 or 9 percent of those.

The CHAIRMAN. That is assuming again that there are 188,000

that are eligible.

Mr. FILNER. Not everybody is going to die. I find the chairman’s

calculations to be very persuasive. If you have a problem with

them, I would like to hear it.

Mr. METZLER. Well, our challenge at Arlington is to try to keep

the Cemetery open for as long as possible for new burials. Of

course we have done that with the restricted burial criteria that we

currently have.

Mr. FILNER. With less than 1 percent, Mr. Chairman, you persuaded me.

The CHAIRMAN. I see my time did run out. I would like to yield

to my good friend, Mr. Evans.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Metzler, I am planning to offer an amendment

this afternoon to this bill and would like your opinion if you could

give it to us. There are currently several memorials placed within

Arlington Cemetery that honor those we have lost in the events of

national tragedies.

I would like to know if there is sufficient space in Arlington currently if we were to place a memorial honoring the victims of September 11. In other words, we would like to take some time to look

at our most recent heroes that have arisen out of this conflict, or

12

war I guess would be the most appropriate word, and what I would

like to do is something the President has looked at; that is, to look

at permanent memorials to honor those who have died or been injured in national tragedies. Do you have any—— Mr. METZLER. As you are aware, Mr. Evans, there is a provision

within our regulations, if the Congress so directs to put a monument up at Arlington Cemetery, that that would happen.

We are working with the family support group right now. As a

matter of fact met with them yesterday over a couple of issues. And

one of the issues is a proposed memorial in the general area of the

Pentagon complex, and there were several sites offered up. One of

the sites was within Arlington Cemetery.

I believe the family support group right now is leaning toward

a site closer to the actual incident at the Pentagon. One of the proposals that is also being worked right now, but no solution or no

conclusion has been made, is to put up a group marker to honor

all individuals who were lost at the Pentagon on September 11.

Now, the decision still lies with the Secretary of Defense and we

have not had the final word on that, but there are two actions right

now that I am aware of that are working. Whether there is space

or not in Arlington Cemetery, I think I can answer the question,

yes, there is space. It would be up to the Congress as to whether

or not—whether they would want to do that.

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Evans. The chairman of our Benefits Committee, Mr. Simpson.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Metzler, you do a

great job. I do appreciate the job you do out there at Arlington. It

is one of those places that every American ought to go and visit,

because you realize the price that we have paid for our freedom.

Is the primary concern space, not the eligibility requirements

that we are changing, but the fact that that infringes on the space

that is available?

Mr. METZLER. That is the primary item that we are facing right

now is space limitations.

Mr. SIMPSON. So the question of whether it is equitable to expand this eligibility or not really isn’t a question that you have any

problem with?

Mr. METZLER. The space criteria is the main issue that we are

working with.

Mr. SIMPSON. So if we—I mean, I agree with the chairman that

if that is the case then what we ought to be doing is working to

make sure that we expand the space available and we ought to be

doing it now, because as you well know, it takes a while to get

those things done. And while 2025 seems like a long time, it is not

that long. And if we started working on that relatively quickly,

hopefully we would have that space available and expanded by the

year—by the time the current space is scheduled to be expanded

or extended.

So I would hope that if we passed this legislation that whatever

barriers you are running into in trying to get the additional space

you would let us know, because we would be more than happy as

a committee, I am sure, to work with you, to do those things that

are necessary to make sure that we can expand that space.

13

Other than that, I do not have any questions for you. I think that

this is a bill that creates equity in the system, and while I understand your concern for the limited space available there, we will

work with you to make sure that we can get space available to expand Arlington.

Mr. METZLER. Thank you for your support.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from California, Mr. Filner.

Mr. FILNER. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reyes, the ranking member on Benefits.

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Metzler, in your testimony you indicate that there would be

an increase that may exceed 188,000 if this legislation were to be

approved.

Mr. METZLER. I believe that the pool of people that fall in the

gray zone area right now is 188,000 people.

Mr. REYES. 188,000. And as a number of my colleagues have

mentioned, the impact is primarily on the available space that

would be affected by this additional pool?

Mr. METZLER. That is correct.

Mr. REYES. That you mentioned.

How accurate of a data do we have to make these assumptions

or those projections? What is it based on?

Mr. METZLER. The 188,000 come from the number of people who

are currently on the rolls as gray zone Reservists that I am aware

of. To project how many people will die in the future and want burial at Arlington Cemetery from the 188,000 is you—I couldn’t give

you an honest answer.

Mr. REYES. So let me rephrase that. When we talk about the potential impact that it will have, we are talking about not just the

Reservists that we can estimate based on your number, but also

immediate family?

Mr. METZLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. REYES. So is there an average there that we can conclude or

does the 188,000 include——

Mr. METZLER. No. The 188,000 just includes the service member.

It is unknown as to how many of these individuals would be married and have dependents and what that total number would be.

Mr. REYES. Is there an average that we could draw from to make

a calculation?

Mr. METZLER. I am unable to provide that information to you. I

would be more than happy to take that back and see if we can’t

work that back and provide it.

Mr. REYES. If you could do that, that would be helpful for me.

(The attachment follows:)

Burial at Arlington Cemetery

The average that Arlington National Cemetery could draw from to make this calculation for Reservists is 564,000. This is based upon statistics, which estimate two

dependents per married servicemember.

14

Mr. FILNER. Would you yield? We have heard that Arlington has

space until 2025. But how many spaces—how many burial spaces

does that mean?

Mr. METZLER. In round numbers right now we have about 32,000

gravesites in the developed portion of the Cemetery, and approximately 30,000 sites in the undeveloped portion of the Cemetery

within the 612 acres of the land that we currently own.

Mr. FILNER. How many are used a year roughly?

Mr. METZLER. New graves used a year are about 2,100.

Mr. FILNER. I would just point out, Mr. Reyes, based on the testimony, even if everybody died less than 2,000 would choose Arlington, which is less than a year’s burials.

So, space pressure doesn’t sound to me that severe.

Mr. REYES. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Reyes. The gentleman

from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman.

Mr. BOOZMAN. No.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas as well, Dr.

Snyder.

Mr. SNYDER. We Arkansans are starting to take over the committee once again.

Let’s see, Mr. Metzler, I wanted to go back to the mathematics

question here. On the—if I heard, what you said is that currently

about 10 percent of all veterans choose to be buried in the veterans

cemetery system somewhere; is that correct?

Mr. METZLER. That is the average number that we use. In round

numbers, Yes.

Mr. SNYDER. And of that number, 8 percent to 9 percent end up

being buried at Arlington of the 10 percent?

Mr. METZLER. That is right.

Mr. SNYDER. Now, the conclusion of the mathematicians at this

end of the table is that meant that 1 percent then would be

eligible. But I think the universes are different, are they not, because you can’t apply those numbers to the 188,000, because of the

188,000 that we are talking about, they are all eligible for

Arlington.

And on your veterans that die each year, that universe there is

a significant number, such as myself and some of the others, that

while we are veterans would not be eligible for burial at Arlington.

Mr. METZLER. For ground burial, that is correct. Plus if I could

just add one other thing. We have been very active in telling the

story of Arlington Cemetery to as many people as we can about eligibility and who is or isn’t eligible for Arlington Cemetery. So we

have campaigned very hard to get that word out.

Mr. SNYDER. I wanted to pursue the issue to me of fairness and

equity, because to me the issue is bigger than just space. If it

wasn’t just a space problem, whenever Arlington was begun the criteria would have been all veterans with honorable service could be

buried at Arlington by choice, just like they could be buried at the

federal cemetery in Little Rock, Arkansas, which is now full or the

new state cemetery that we just opened a few months ago.

But the decision was made in the early days at Arlington that,

no, we are going to keep this—separate this off. This will be treatVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:33 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 82749.TXT HVETS1 PsN: HVETS1
15

ed different than all other cemeteries. So it is more than just a

space question.

In terms of equity, and I understand, I guess—who used the example if you have a National Guard person or Reservist in an F– 16 and an active duty person in an F–16, they both died, the

inequity.

But it also seems like there is some inequity of the example that

was used of World War II. I think of my uncle, who is dead now,

who was on a ship throughout World War II. The ship was hit by

kamikaze planes. He saw all kinds of stuff, was not wounded,

didn’t qualify under this. And so he was—at the time of his death

he was not eligible for burial at Arlington.

I talked to one of my young staffers this morning n Little Rock

who is in the Reserve. Who—I asked—put it to him: What if he

were driving, you know, home from his weekend training and had

an accident, would he be offended if he wasn’t eligible for Arlington? He said of course not. I would be offended if I was deployed

somewhere and was treated differently.

But it seems to me there is a certain inequity of saying all of our

World War II generation veterans who, God bless them, did not

earn the Purple Heart, did not rise to the level here, but may have

endured 3 or 4 years and some terrible situations, are not eligible

and yet my young staffer who goes once a month would be eligible

if he had a car crash on the way home from—or some accident,

truck rolls over at camp.

I know that is not your job to sort that out. You are at the receiving end of our legislation. But it seems to me it is more than just

a space available question, because we have set criteria to honor

what we think are heroes.

I do not know what the answer is. I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that in order to get at this problem brought about by Captain

Burlingame, that we have got the second provision that deals with

this inactive duty training that basically makes eligible somebody

that has been in the Reserve forces, and I love these guys and

women in the Reserve forces.

Their first weekend, if they have a traffic accident they are eligible, but all of our World War II veterans, all of the Vietnam veterans who served that didn’t get a Purple Heart, are not eligible; all

of the people who are in the Gulf War who didn’t get these medals

are not eligible, yet we are going to say our folks that die on the

weekends are.

I wanted to ask——

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield? Someone who just finished their basic training who died in a traffic accident while on

active duty would be eligible for Arlington National Cemetery. So

I understand.

Mr. SNYDER. It is how you compare equities.

And, you know, I do not want to lay too much on my poll of one

Reservist this morning. But, I mean, I do think most of us do see

differently people who have enlisted for 4 years or 6 years, who

have served perhaps for 6 years or 8 years of active duty versus

those who have made the decision to essentially be civilians and be

in the Reserve component, but have made the decision that they

are going to do it once a month and 2 weeks in a summer.

16

I mean, the Arlington laws have always reflected that difference.

And we may, if we go down this road this afternoon, and the bill

passes and becomes law, we then present some other inequities.

And if I was a member of the Korean War veterans or the Chosin

Reservoir veterans, I would say what about us? What about everybody who served at Chosin Reservoir? Even though they did not

earn a Purple Heart, why are they not eligible for Arlington since

they put up with all that bitter cold and all that?

So I think it may create some other questions.

And I am correct in that, am I not, that eligibility would include

driving to and from the training on inactive duty?

Mr. METZLER. That is my understanding as well.

Mr. SNYDER. Certainly it also includes accidents unrelated to

combat training; most of them I suspect would be traffic accidents

or those kinds of things? Is that a fair statement, or heart attacks

and——

Mr. METZLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SNYDER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Snyder. The Chair

recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McKeon.

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions,

but I do have a statement that I would like to insert in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection your statement will be made

part of the record.

[The prepared statement of Congressman McKeon appears on p.

44.]

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Davis, the gentlelady

from California.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. I suspect that the rest of the

panel may speak to some of the more policy-related issues and the

concerns that a number of groups have, but from a management

perspective, could you clarify for us what are the compelling reasons that—we have talked about space, and that doesn’t seem to

be as much of a concern that—we would have pause to not support

this proposal.

Mr. METZLER. Well, I think Dr. Snyder hit on one of the key elements. There is the inequity between someone who had served on

active duty for a time in combat, or 10 years even, may not have

been in combat. Those individuals would not be eligible unless they

met the criteria of either being wounded with a Purple Heart, Silver Star, Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Service

Cross, Medal of Honor, or have been a prisoner of war, or if in the

case of World War II disabled with a 30 percent rate or greater before October 1, 1949. They would be eligible for inurnment in the

columbarium but not for ground burial.

You take someone who was in the Reserve forces, and they could

be at lunch and have an automobile accident on their weekend

drill, driving back and forth from home or at summer camp and

have activities at summer camp that would cause their death,

whether they are in a training mode or whether they are in a nontraining mode. There seems to be a big inequity there.

Mrs. DAVIS. Are there particular management issues from your

point of view dealing with this?

17

Mr. METZLER. I think once we get a clear set of guidance, then

it would be very easy to apply that clear set of guidance. The Reserves take on a tremendous dynamics right now, because, not only

we talk about weekend drills and we talk about summer camp. I

think they are clearly understood. But we also have the administrative drills that may be done by our Reservists, where they will

go in on a non-weekend for 4 hours to do paperwork. If they were

to be killed during that, I do not know that I can clearly understand whether they would be eligible the way that the bill is currently written.

If someone gets a special detail up to the military base or to the

Pentagon, it is not Reserve duty as we would understand it, or

summer camp. It is not weekend drill. What happens during that

time as well? The Guard and the Reserves use different authorities

to bring people on board. That would have to be sorted out.

Mrs. DAVIS. Are you suggesting that the direction that you are

given by this committee and by the Congress must be clear?

Mr. METZLER. If I was to apply this fairly across the board to all

of the possible scenarios that come about with the Reserves and

Guard, yes, ma’am, I would certainly hope that.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you.

Ms. CARSON. Would the Congresswoman yield? I have a question.

You mentioned that spouses and dependents as a variable in the

amount of space available. I recognize that is a challenge, especially with the growing numbers that you face. Are not the family

buried in the same gravesite?

Mr. METZLER. Yes, ma’am, they are.

Ms. CARSON. They wouldn’t affect the space in that regard?

Mr. METZLER. The challenge was trying to come up with a number. I have no idea how many people would be married or how

many people would have dependents in the number of 188,000.

Ms. CARSON. So they are buried in the same gravesite?

Mr. METZLER. Whoever passed away first would go into the grave

space that eventually would be occupied by the service member if

he didn’t pass away first. That is correct.

Ms. CARSON. Thank you very much. I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Congresswoman Carson appears on

p. 44.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from South Carolina, Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Mr. Superintendent, in reference to the amount of space that is available in Arlington, how

about the other Federal cemeteries around the Nation? What kind

of extended capacity do you see there? I know you said there are

2025 gravesites at Arlington? How is the capacity in the other National Cemeteries?

Mr. METZLER. Mr. Brown, I would be way out on a limb here if

I were to give you an answer there. That falls under the Department of Veterans Affairs, not the Army. I know that they are actively looking to build new National Cemeteries, have built some

in the very past years, and they are larger.

Cemeteries in this region, such as Quantico, have a lot of grave

space availability. But I really can’t answer your question as far as

how far out to the future they go.

18

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Let me further ask the question

then. Is there any available land to expand the capacity that you

have in the immediate connected area around Arlington?

Mr. METZLER. There are. As a matter of fact, we completed a

master plan a number of years ago that looked at 14 parcels of

land that connect to Arlington National Cemetery. We have actively worked on three of these pieces of land, an area within the

Cemetery that currently does not belong to us, referred to as Section 29, the Naval Annex property, which is directly across the

street, and also the property on Ft. Myer, which borders against

the Cemetery wall. We are working right now trying to get and secure this land so that we could expand the Cemetery. There still

is potential for other parcels outside of that.

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Are you getting positive feedback on those parcels?

Mr. METZLER. We are working the issue, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield? Just to point out,

and perhaps, Mr. Metzler, you may want to respond to this, the

DOD conference report, Section 2863(h)(1) requires the transfer,

not later than 30 days after the date of enactment, of that approximately 12 acres. So the Congress is trying to respond to the space

problem. This will be up later on today. So I think that is good

news. If my math is right, that could accommodate something on

the order of 7,000-plus gravesites.

Mr. METZLER. Absolutely. I do want to acknowledge that Congress has been very supportive of Arlington Cemetery in trying to

expand. We are getting there, but it is slow.

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In

light of that, the other parcels that you identified, how much additional capacity would those provide? What is the land acreage?

Mr. METZLER. I would be more than happy to provide you a chart

that shows that. Each piece of property is a little different, but our

overall goal is to try to expand the Cemetery for a hundred years

from the year 2000, and with the inclusion of these 14 parcels of

land we would accomplish that.

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. That was my question. Thank

you very much, Mr. Superintendent.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas,

Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Carson.

Ms. CARSON. I have asked them.

The CHAIRMAN. Did I miss anybody?

Mr. SNYDER. I had a quick follow-up.

Going back to our Reservists, we called this morning to our State

Veterans’ Department in Arkansas with our new state veterans

cemetery. And the person that the bill deals with, who is in the Reserve or Guard forces and has never been on active service, has no

medals or anything like that, but who dies at a weekend drill or

during the 2 weeks training, they are eligible, in fact, starting from

the time they leave their home driving to the training site, because

some people drive quite long distances, as you know, several hundred miles even, they are eligible for burial at our state veterans

cemetery.

19

Is that true within the Federal system?

Mr. METZLER. In the Federal system or the Veterans’ Administration that is true. It is not true at Arlington.

Mr. SNYDER. And apparently at all other veterans cemeteries in

the country there are—Reserve and Guard forces are eligible for

burial, to deal with the situation that the chairman’s bill reaches?

Mr. METZLER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mrs. Davis.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a follow-up question as well. It just addresses, I think, the clarification. I understand that what we are dealing with here is a relatively narrow situation, but what mechanism would be used to try and deal with

the other clarification as well? I was wondering if from the committee, whether or not the issue of trying to clarify from your perspective who in fact is eligible on the different scenarios that we all feel

very much for and would like everybody to be eligible, but understand that there are differences here.

Is there a mechanism? Is this a discussion that you all have had

before? And I am wondering how we might be able to help the Superintendent as he moves forward.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you referring to the age issue? Because once

that is gone, the mere qualification of 20 years of service would

make one eligible for burial at Arlington.

In terms of the Reservist who is performing his or her service,

weekend duty, 2-week duty and is killed while on a training mission, that would be pretty cut and dried as to the eligibility. It is

a little bit more technical as to the commute and what the orders

were as to when, you know, somebody set out from their home

going to say Ft. Dix, for example, in my area where there is a great

deal of Reserve training that occurs there.

Perhaps counsel might want to answer that as well, but my understanding is that if they are on their way to training it is more

likely than not that they will be included in this definition.

The COUNSEL. Mrs. Davis, my understanding is that in the case

of deaths while traveling to or from duty, an adjudication is made

in each case and that that adjudication is based on a set of Department of Defense rules currently in place.

I do not have any reason to doubt Mr. Metzler’s prior characterization, which said that, as I understood it, persons traveling to

and from duty are considered to be on duty. Is that correct?

Mr. METZLER. That is correct; the weekend drills and on the

summer camp, it is very clear. It is the other times that they are

going to duty that there may not be orders. They may be going in

on their own to do administrative work. That is unclear.

The COUNSEL. He has a general counsel that can assist him if

there is a particular case where the rules are not clear.

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. So, am I to assume then that we do address

that and that you have at least enough to go on to follow through

with the families right now? I was hearing something a little different. That is why I asked the question.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Mr. Metzler, I want to thank you for your

testimony, and we look forward to working with you in the future.

We are on the same page when it comes to expanding Arlington.

20

I regret that you do not support the legislation or the Army does

not support it. My hope is that we will pass it, and I think Arlington will be able to handle the numbers of those who die prior to

60 if we were to enact this into law. And if there is any problem

with that, we certainly will work with you on further expansion.

So again I want to thank you for being here.

Mr. METZLER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask our second panel if they

would come to the witness table. That includes Mr. Bob Manhan,

the Assistant Director of The National Legislative Service for Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; Mr. Steven Garrett,

the Deputy Legislative Director of The Retired Enlisted Association; Mr. Richard Schneider, Director of State/Veterans Affairs,

Non Commissioned Officers Association; Mr. Bob Norton, Director

of Government Relations for The Retired Officers Association, and

Mr. Patrick Eddington, the Associate Director for the Vietnam Veterans of America.

STATEMENTS OF BOB MANHAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, VETERANS OF FOREIGN

WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; STEVEN GARRETT, DEPUTY

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION; RICHARD C. SCHNEIDER, DIRECTOR OF STATE/VETERANS AFFAIRS, NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION; BOB NORTON, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, THE RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION; AND PATRICK EDDINGTON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Manhan, if you would begin.

STATEMENT OF BOB MANHAN

Mr. MANHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I address this particular bill, on behalf of the VFW, I

would like to extend a warm and personal welcome to your three

newest committee members, Mrs. Davis and Mr. Boozman and Mr.

Miller. It will always be VFW’s privilege and pleasure to respond

immediately and courteously to any requests you may have regarding Veterans’ Affairs issues.

Mr. FILNER. Do not forget Mr. Lynch here.

Mr. MANHAN. I apologize I did forget Mr. Lynch.

Thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will address the bill,

H.R. 3423.

The VFW has already submitted our written testimony, which

shows that we support the bill very enthusiastically. We support

extending the burial entitlement in Arlington National Cemetery to

Reservists today as prescribed in the bill because we feel it is both

proper and equitable.

Active duty component members who retire for longevity today

are entitled to be interred in Arlington National Cemetery, to include their authorized dependents. That is also true today of all active duty military personnel who unfortunately die or are killed in

a training status.

Therefore, we have no reason not to extend this entitlement

today to the Reserve component who are presently making up a

21

greater portion or a greater slice of our Active Duty Force. And we

expect them to continue to make a bigger and bigger contribution

to the Armed Forces as we go into the 21st century simply because,

the Active Duty Force, is much more complex today than it was

when I was on active duty is certainly much more sophisticated

than when the ‘‘greatest generation’’ served, as Dr. Snyder addressed those who fought in World War II.

Having said that, we share the concern that Superintendent

Metzler presented regarding space in Arlington National Cemetery.

We note that this bill states that the effective date for burial of

certain Reservists in Arlington National Cemetery will begin on the

effective date of H.R. 3423 becoming law. This leads to the closing

point in the VFW testimony, which is the complex, sometimes misunderstood waiver procedure that we have today for interments in

Arlington National Cemetery.

The catalyst perhaps for H.R. 3423 was the very tragic death of

Captain Burlingame, United States Navy Retired Reservist. It was

this committee in the previous 106th Congress, under Chairman

Stump and Mr. Smith, who enacted and had passed in the House

of Representatives in 1999, H.R. 70. This was, in the VFW’s judgment an excellent bill, to codify interments in Arlington National

Cemetery.

The VFW would like to see this committee, sometime in the

second session of this Congress, take up this very important issue

of who may and who may not be interred in Arlington National

Cemetery.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. This

concludes my testimony, and of course, I will answer any questions

later.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Manhan appears on p. 48.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and we will look at that

very seriously. And, as you recall, we got locked into a House-Senate conference committee that unfortunately fell apart at the last

minute. But hopefully we can revisit that going into next year, and

I am sure that Chairman Rockefeller is very keen on doing that as

well. I know that he is.

So thank you for that recommendation.

I would like to ask Mr. Garrett if he would present his

testimony.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Good morning. The Retired Enlisted Association

would like to thank the chairman and distinguished members of

the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee for the opportunity to discuss burial at Arlington National Cemetery.TREA has over 110,000

members and auxiliary, representing all branches of the Armed

Services, including retired, active duty and Reserve.

Regarding H.R. 3423, TREA strongly endorses Chairman Smith’s

legislation to create equity for Guard and Reservists burial eligibility at Arlington National Cemetery. TREA has long supported

the idea of a total force, including equal benefits for all who serve

regardless of their component.

H.R. 3423 would eliminate the age requirement for retired Guard

and Reservists who would otherwise be eligible for burial at ArlingVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:33 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 82749.TXT HVETS1 PsN: HVETS1
22

ton, as well as eliminating active duty status required for those

Guard and Reservists who die while in the line of duty while

training.

Current gray area retirees, those Guard and Reserves who retired but have yet to reach age 60, as well as the current Guard

and Reserve members who died during training periods, are ineligible for Arlington National Cemetery, while their active duty

counterparts satisfy the requirements. Given that over 52,000 National Guard and Reserve service members are currently answering

their Nation’s call to serve on active duty for both homeland defense as well as peacekeeping operations overseas, it seems most

fitting to give the training the Guard and Reserve members perform the appreciation it so rightly deserves.

The duties of the Guard and Reserve, which include pilots, infantry, the elite special forces, military police and numerous other

vital MOS roles, are ready and waiting for their number to be

called. Personally, my First Sergeant told my unit it is not a matter of if, but when, and be packed and ready to go for likely active

duty.

My country can rest assured that we are ready. The duties required of the Guard and Reserve have increased in value over the

years, and will likely continue to increase as the active duty requires more and more support.

Briefly, in regards to the rules of interments at Arlington National, TREA continues to support the codification of all rules governing access to Arlington National Cemetery. The recent situation

regarding Captain Burlingame, the pilot of Flight 77, which

crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, confirms that the

rules are not always well understood. The Retired Enlisted Association strongly recommends that this committee take up the issue of

overall codification of the rules of Arlington National Cemetery at

the earliest opportunity.

In conclusion, the Retired Enlisted Association appreciates the

dedication of this committee. We strongly support H.R. 3423, and

press for its passage. I thank you for your time and this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of our membership.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garrett appears on p. 50.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Garrett, thank you very much for your testimony. Let me say to all of you that are here, we deeply appreciate

on such short notice that you were able to be here and provide your

testimony.

I would like to have added to the record—I am going to ask

unanimous consent—a number of letters that we received from

some of the other associations like the DAV and others who support the legislation but couldn’t be here.

But again I wanted to thank you for making the effort to be

physically present.

(See pp. 68 and 69.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Schneider.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD C. SCHNEIDER

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be

here, and distinguished members of the committee, and I also want

to greet the new people and to say the NCOA, the Non-CommisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:33 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 82749.TXT HVETS1 PsN: HVETS1
23

sioned Officers Association, looks forward to working with you during your tenure on this committee.

You called the meeting for the right purpose, very much, to look

at legislation concerning Arlington National Cemetery. We are

deeply concerned about the need to take care of the retired Reservists, which you eloquently identified in the proposed bill.

It is a national shame that a Reservist who gives of his life, a

patriotic fervor that is unmatched even in the active duty military,

because these Reservist men and women carry on full-time jobs,

and they go to drills, and to—I take exception with the word ‘‘summer camp.’’ they go to learn their mission, to train, and to be able

to execute a wartime mission required of the Armed Forces of the

United States. When they are in these training programs, they deserve every bit of respect that an active duty Armed Forces person

deserves, and we support their inclusion in this legislation as well

as the gray-haired Reservists.

We heard today Mr. Metzler, and I have great respect for Jack

Metzler and the work that he does as Superintendent at Arlington.

I regret the Secretary of the Army, who is the executive agent, or

one of his Under Secretaries were not here to hear the questions

that you asked. I regret that.

I wish that a question would have been asked of Mr. Metzler,

and that question was: Of the people, Reservists that are over 60

years of age, how many of them that apply are buried annually at

Arlington National Cemetery? This number, 188,000, as you clearly

identified, is pie in the sky. And it has nothing to do with the reality of what business will be brought to Arlington by way of respect and honor of people who served in their military Reserve

components.

I would like to address Reserve component burials and the issue

of space limitations. This Nation will never allow Arlington to run

out of space, because we veteran organizations are going to come

pounding on your door. We are going to demand the space.

But you know we are in the 21st century and perhaps it is time

that we started looking at some new ventures from Arlington National Cemetery. We have the columbarium. If you look at them,

they are magnificent layouts of the facility. They take up a footprint in the ground.

Maybe in the 21st century we need to look at architecture at Arlington National Cemetery that blends with the ground, that has

the dignity that should be afforded at Arlington, but goes up vertically, and doesn’t take the ground space that would otherwise be

used for casketed remains.

It is also conceivable in this industry we may be looking at

mausoleums, where we will put casketed remains above ground.

And maybe, maybe we need an advisory group, a blue ribbon

panel, a white ribbon, a gold ribbon, whatever the hell it takes—

excuse me. Maybe we need a panel to look at some of those issues

into the 21st century and to make some of these new recommendations for consideration. And you now, as I think about all of the Reservists out there who have retired, I must tell you, they are all

veterans, and this committee rightfully needs to speak on their behalf for interment at national cemeteries and at Arlington National

Cemetery.

24

And, you know, at some point maybe in the 21st century the role

of Arlington Cemetery under the Secretary of the Army needs to

be defined, and I would leave that for a commission to raise, that

issue and judgment.

But you asked the right question, and we are proud that you did.

We are really, really embarrassed for a Navy Captain who was denied the opportunity to be buried at Arlington, to be denied after

he was an academy graduate, a trained pilot, a wartime veteran,

and he was denied because of age a casketed interment in Arlington, and to be offered—to add insult to injury, to be offered to be

buried in his father’s grave, a Chief Master Sergeant. There is

nothing disrespectful about a Chief Master Sergeant being buried

at Arlington, but a Navy Captain with that kind of a track record

deserves and warrants a grave of his own and should be afforded

the dignity and honor that this Nation would have him afforded.

I am glad that they finally waived the criteria and put him in.

By God, what the hell did it take, a brain surgeon to figure that

one out? They should have done it immediately. I do not know

what our leadership was thinking about.

And that brings us to codification of the rules. And we need to

do it. And we ask, Mr. Chairman, that you take the lead on that

as this committee has done in the past, and we will be here to support you.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schneider appears on p. 53.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Schneider, and we

will. That will be one of the first orders of business going forward

next year, and I do thank you for your strong words and very persuasive words today at this hearing.

Mr. Norton.

STATEMENT OF BOB NORTON

Mr. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member and the distinguished members of the committee, for the opportunity to represent

the Retired Officers Association at this hearing.

If I may digress just for one moment, Mr. Chairman, I would like

to express the deep appreciation of TROA in regard to the great

work that you, the Ranking Member and the other distinguished

members of the committee have done this year for the uniformed

services community and for veterans at large.

I would especially note last night’s passage of H.R. 1291, kind of

a capstone legislation for all of the great work that this committee

has done. And I would just add, too, that with our total force of

active duty, Reserve and Guard deployed at home and abroad performing counterterrorism missions today, this committee’s work is

even more important than ever, and we deeply appreciate the work

that you have done on behalf of these volunteer patriots.

Mr. Chairman, we support passage of H.R. 3423. As my colleagues have indicated, implicit in this legislation is the need to

codify all of the rules.

As you well know from the 106th Congress, H.R. 70 provided a

reasonable framework to do that. [That bill] was passed by near

unanimous vote. The previous version in fact in 1998 was unaniVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:33 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 82749.TXT HVETS1 PsN: HVETS1
25

mously passed by the House. And we strongly recommend that the

committee continue to go forward, not just enacting into law this

particular provision regarding gray area Reservists, which was in

H.R. 70, but the entire codification framework.

There is no perfectly equitable framework for burial at Arlington

National Cemetery, but I would just offer as one example, I think

all of the members of the committee recall, the National Guard

plane that went down just a couple of months ago. Aboard that

plane were active duty pilots, Guardsmen who had been called to

active duty, some were in active duty for training status, some

were in inactive duty training status.

To us, and to most veterans organizations, those distinctions are

artificial. The issue is duty. It is military duty. It is being on orders

to perform duty.

When that plane went down, those Guardsmen who were for

technical reasons only on inactive duty, would have been ineligible

to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Your legislation, H.R.

3423, remedies that situation, and we fully support it, and we

strongly urge the committee to move forward and codify all of the

rules concerning burial at Arlington National Cemetery.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Norton appears on p. 58.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Norton, thank you, too, for your very strong

words, and we appreciate the insight as well as all of you admonishing us to take up the eligibility issue in a more general sense.

Hopefully we get this done very quickly. We are not sure if the

Senate will act, and then we will immediately move next year on

the remainder of the codification.

Mr. Eddington.

STATEMENT OF PATRICK EDDINGTON

Mr. EDDINGTON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Evans, members of the committee. Thank you very much for inviting the Vietnam Veterans of America to testify today. I bring you

holiday greetings on behalf of our National President, and I just

want to take a very quick moment to thank the members of the

committee and the staff, not just of this committee, but everybody

who has been working up here on the Hill during the course of the

events that have taken place during the last 3 months.

You all have had to face some special risks that many of us have

not. It has been very disruptive for you professionally and personally, and we are very, very grateful for you continuing to try to do

the people’s business in the midst of this chaos that we have all

been dealing with. So our hats are off to you, and we thank you

very much.

We are delighted to be able to support this legislation fully. I

wanted to associate myself completely with the comments that

have been made by my colleagues. I would just like to pick up on

a couple of items that were mentioned by some of the members of

the committee, to include Mr. Snyder and some of the rest of you.

I do not think there is any question that we have to reevaluate

the codification issue, and I would urge you, as my colleagues have,

to go ahead as early as possible in the next session. It is an issue

that needs to be addressed relatively quickly in my view, but I also

26

want to address this issue, the issue of space. I do believe that,

with all due respect to Superintendent Metzler, that was largely a

red herring. I think it has been made very clear that space is available, this can be accomplished. This legislation will not significantly impact the space issue at Arlington.

However, we are going to be looking at that issue another 20 or

25 years down the road. We are very relieved to hear you saying,

Mr. Chairman, that you are fully supportive of trying to buy additional land or acquire additional land to take care of the problem.

So we hope that that same process will be used across the country

as the base realignment and closure process goes forward. Our

view is that every facility where we are looking to try to shut down

a base that is no longer needed for our national security program,

that we look at least at a portion of that property to become a national cemetery. So we would urge you to take a look at that.

Again, we support this legislation. We are happy to be here, and

we thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eddington appears on p. 62.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Eddington, for your

comments. And you know previous BRACs we have also looked at,

and even our homeless legislation, and the encouragement that we

have given to the VA. I mean rather than just selling those parcels

of land and getting back some money for the Treasury, we are looking for VA purposes and certainly more cemetery space is a very

real and vital concern as are things like more space to house homeless veterans.

So thank you for your strong support as well. I just have a couple

of very brief questions.

As you know, H.R. 3423 would provide burial eligibility for members of the Reserve who die in the line of duty for both active duty

for training and inactive duty training.

Do you believe we should draw a line and not provide eligibility

for those who die in the line of duty on inactive duty training? I

know that there is at least one member of our committee who may

perhaps offer an amendment in that regard later on today.

Mr. EDDINGTON. Well, I will tell you, sir, that as a Reservist,

someone who served for 11 years in the Guard and Reserve, I have

concerns about making some of the kinds of distinctions that I have

heard here today. I think my colleague Bob Norton really summed

it up very nicely. It is the concept of duty, and I think every single

one of us here would agree that when the Osama bin Laden murderers began to commandeer Flight 77, Captain Burlingame went

on active duty. He was there to defend his passengers. He was

there defending his country. He was doing his duty.

And so I do not believe, the VFW does not believe, and I do not

believe that my colleagues who have spoken to this, that those kind

of distinctions should necessarily be made.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that shared by the panel?

Mr. MANHAN. That is the VFW position. I may have said it

slightly differently, but our 2.7 million members believe that a Reservist in an inactive duty training status should be considered the

same as an active duty person who is injured or killed in the line

of duty.

27

We do support those Reservists who die while in an inactive

training status for interment in Arlington National Cemetery. It is

very equitable, it is fair to what we presently have for the Active

Duty Force.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. The Non-Commissioned Officers would say it is

inclusive for all.

Mr. GARRETT. I guess that I would point out for TREA that it is

my inactive duty training that qualifies me to be called up for active duty service. When I crawl through the dirt, when I sleep outside on inactive duty training during the weekend, it is that that

qualifies me to be called if I am needed.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much. I have other questions, but

because we have a vote and in deference to the other committee

members, I would like to yield at this point to Mr. Evans.

Mr. EVANS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Simpson.

Mr. SIMPSON. I want to thank you all for your testimony here

today, and Mr. Eddington, the last thing I wanted to have was holiday greetings. I wanted to be home a long time ago. But I do appreciate that, and I truly do appreciate all of your testimony, and you

keep on us to make sure that we get the space available for expansion of Arlington, because I think it is the thing that we have to

do. And you can’t wait until the year 2025 and say, ‘‘We are out

of space.’’ We need to start looking now down the road and make

sure.

So I appreciate it. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Snyder.

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to clarify one point. Would my colleague from Arkansas give us the correct pronunciation of your last name?

Mr. BOOZMAN. Boze-man.

Mr. SNYDER. Now I have served with his brother in the State

Senate, and I know serving with Mr. Boozman, that booze is not

related to one of their lives. It is Boze-man.

Mr. BOOZMAN. I have learned to answer to anything.

Mr. SNYDER. I appreciate you all being here today on such short

notice. And let me say, first of all, I agree completely with the first

part of this, that the age 60 versus 52 makes no sense at all. The

person’s military career has been completed and that has qualified

that person. To say, well, we are going to wait until you have a

birthday doesn’t make any sense. It is the second part of that, as

have you heard me discuss before, I think, Mr. Schneider, you very

passionately talked about they are all veterans.

Well, as you know, all veterans do not qualify for burial at Arlington. I think that is the issue we are getting at. For example,

if a veteran who has served overseas gets the combat distinguishing device, that person is not eligible for burial in Arlington. Even

though they may have spent 3 or 4 years throughout World War

II or 2 or 3 years throughout Korea or multiple tours in Vietnam

and seen combat, but did not get a Silver Star or were wounded,

they are not eligible.

So this creates, in my mind, going back to my employee today

who says that I do not think that I should be eligible just because

I have gone out there for my weekend training. So someone said,

28

we can’t draw a line. We do draw lines. We have to draw lines.

Otherwise we just say anyone with any military service should be

eligible for Arlington. Maybe that is what we want to say.

But I do not think that is what we want to say. So we are trying

to talk about where we draw the lines. It is interesting to me, I

have—I think Mr. Filner and I are the two people who keep you

from saying that H.R. 70 passed unanimously because we voted

against it. The reason we did is because it did not have a waiver

policy. It would have taken away all waiver policy. The issue there

is we thought the situation for the—currently, as we learned when

Mr. Spann, if it had not been for a waiver policy, he would have

not been eligible for Arlington.

But it is interesting to me that H.R. 70, which was an effort by

VSOs and veterans groups and the committee to deal with this

issue of codification, did not include this second provision in there

about people on inactive duty training status.

Well, there was a lot of time, literally years, put in on that. So

I have concerns that we are adding that on here on fairly short notice. I mean acknowledging we have called those people on fairly

short notice, and perhaps one way to handle this today is that will

you go ahead with the bill. But one way you deal with our career

versus Reserves and acknowledging that you have said that you

are going to come back first thing in the year to deal with codification, maybe that would be the time to look at this inactive duty

training status, when we have got more time to look at the equities

of it.

I think that we will hear from VFW members who have served

overseas and served in combat but did not get wounded, and that

is the provision that I have concerns about. I mean, I wish we

could take everybody, but obviously it is going to be difficult.

I guess I do not have any specific questions other than you all

do acknowledge that if a person is deployed who is in the Guard

and Reserve forces that they do qualify. We are all in agreement.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Boozman.

Mr. BOOZMAN. I guess the only thing I would ask—I appreciated

your testimony. I know where you all are at. I would ask the panel,

does this reflect the vast majority of the organization that you represent? Is your testimony—is this a contentious thing at all? I

mean, is it 90 percent or 51, 49 percent?

Mr. MANHAN. I will respond to you first, Mr. Boozman. On behalf

of the VFW, when I testify here I speak for our membership, which

is about 2.7 million members. My testimony is cleared before I

present it by my national headquarters, sir. So I am speaking for

the entire organization.

Mr. BOOZMAN. I guess my question was, of the 2.7, is it 1.5 versus whatever the math is, or is it 2.6 versus the math? How many

of those 2.7 agree with you?

Mr. MANHAN. I would like to say in an ideal world, sir, 2,700,000,

but that isn’t so. Dr. Snyder is right. If this bill becomes law, someone will object. Possibly a VFW member.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Are we going to hear from 2 million?

Mr. MANHAN. I would like to think one or two, but we do not

know, sir.

29

Mr. NORTON. Sir, we haven’t had an opportunity to survey our

membership given the short turnaround on the legislation and the

invitation to testify. But I would just point out in general terms

that we support this legislation. We have long supported the codification of all of the rules, and we urge the panel to take up the

broader issue of codification for burial at Arlington Cemetery.

Mr. EDDINGTON. Mr. Boozman, I work for Vietnam Veterans. My

brother is a Vietnam veteran. I cannot recall a time in my life

when I have seen two or more Vietnam veterans in the room who

could agree on any number of issues, but I think on this one most

of our membership would be very supportive and very confident of

that.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I would also concur with that, that I believe our

membership—there will be some diversity, but I think the diversity

will understand. I would just like to comment, Mr. Snyder, I appreciate your view, and I appreciate your perspective, and I appreciate

that you are wrestling with this subject. We are going to help you

with your wrestling, I hope.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield? I thought Mr. Garrett

a moment ago had a very important point, that his inactive training prepares him for the active. If we are talking about someone

who dies doing that kind of service for our country, the whole nomenclature of inactive I think is a very poor way to describe it. It

is not inactive, it just happens to be the way it is defined in law

or regulation. But frankly, it is a very foolish way to describe it,

because it is active. It is a distinction without a difference.

Mr. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I absolutely agree with you. Those

categories were largely set out to distinguish various levels of compensation as well as indirect benefits like housing and so forth.

To us, again, the concept is duty, and if death occurs while in

military service, then those should be the two defining characteristics, and we think that the great generation of World War II, those

who survived like my dad who is a life member of my organization,

would understand and recognize that he was fortunate enough to

live a full life. Had he been killed during the war he would have

been eligible for burial at Arlington.

I would suggest, for example, if a Guardsman were doing checkpoint work at the Holland Tunnel in New York City on inactive

duty and, God forbid, a terrorist trying to wreak havoc killed that

Guardsman, under today’s provision that Guardsman would not be

eligible.

The world has changed. It is different. Military duty is military

duty. We are defending ourselves at home and abroad.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I would like to add one more point. Every death

that occurs on active duty, whether in the Guard and Reserve or

whether it is in the Armed Forces, every death that occurs either

in the line of duty or not in the line of duty, and whether or not

willful misconduct is involved, is—not every death qualifies for VA

benefits. Not every death would qualify for interment in the National Cemetery.

30

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. You have given valuable testimony

and insight. And our markup is at 2 o’clock. Hopefully we will have

this bill ready to go.

We do have a vote. It is about 3 minutes. So again, I want to

thank you so much for your testimony. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

31

A P P E N D I X

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN CARSON

Arlington National Cemetery has been a reminder of our country’s sacrifice for

137 years. Over 260 thousand persons are buried at Arlington, including more than

three thousand eight hundred former slaves, as well as this country’s most recent

heroes, Staff Sergeant Brian Cody Prosser and former Marine captain Mike Spann,

who fell in the line of duty fighting the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. Captain Burlingame, a former Navy pilot and reservist, fell to the actions of aggressors

to this nation—some people question if he belongs in Arlington. This bill will rectify

the issues encountered by his loving family in trying to honor a hero of September

11.

Reservists are full partners in today’s Total Military Force, yet they are sometimes forced to march in the shadow of their active duty brothers and sisters. They

are far more than ‘‘weekend warriors.’’ Their sacrifice to families, jobs, and the country must be recognized in a meaningful way. The ghosts of Arlington will welcome

this Reservist as rightful members of their hallowed ground.

HR 3423 will allow Reservists a final honor in recognition of their sacrifices, no

matter what their age. They too, put on their country’s uniform and served. Arlington National Cemetery may claim no room, but there should always be room for

those who wore this country’s uniform.

Thank you, and I yield back.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN MCKEON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this much needed legislation to the forefront. With the current crisis in America, we rely on our Reservists now more than

ever. While we sit here and exercise the freedoms this great country was founded

on, our Reservists are overseas protecting those freedoms and providing safety, and

it is very easy to take that for granted because we do not see it on a daily basis.

The least we could do is thank them by honoring them with burial rights at Arlington National Cemetery. I look forward to hearing the testimony today, and getting

this legislation passed by Congress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN UDALL

Chairman Smith and Mr. Evans:

Good morning, it is a great honor and pleasure to be here today. Thank you for

holding this hearing on H.R. 3423. I am looking forward to hearing the testimony

of the distinguished witnesses on our panel.

I would like to applaud the efforts of Chairman Smith and the cosponsors of H.R.

3423 to grant full burial rights at Arlington to those who die as a result of enemy

action, but who did not meet the current age and time in service eligibility requirements of existing law. We are all familiar with the recent events surrounding Captain Charles Burlingame and his family’s attempts to have the Captain buried at

Arlington and I hope this hearing gives us a better perspective on how best to avoid

similar situations in the future.

I would like to call attention, however, to a point raised in the written testimonies

submitted by various members of the panel today: the limited burial space, not only

in Arlington, but in national cemeteries all across the country.

In the district that I represent, Santa Fe National Cemetery is currently predicted

to run out of burial space by the year 2008. Numerous veterans from all over the

state have been consistently contacting my office to express their desire for this

shortage to be addressed.

I am thankful that the VA/HUD appropriations bill that was recently signed into

law by the President included funds for planning for a National Cemetery in the

Albuquerque, New Mexico area, but I would like to raise this issue today before the

Committee.

I am hopeful that in the very near future this Committee will look to address the

possible burial shortage not only in my district, but all across the country. The men

and women who have sacrificed so much in defense of liberty and freedom deserve

a burial befitting the dedication of their service.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to offer my remarks and thank you to

the members of the panel for being here on such short notice.

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

STATEMENT OF RICHARD JONES, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,

AMVETS

66

67

68

69

Æ