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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–005 2012

H.R. 3655, THE BEREAVED CONSUMER’S BILL 

OF RIGHTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 27, 2010 

Serial No. 111–93 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Chairman 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Vice Chair 

JOHN SARBANES, Maryland 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

FRANK PALLONE, New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 10 

Hon. Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 11 

Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 76 

WITNESSES

Chuck Harwood, Deputy Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal 

Trade Commission; .............................................................................................. 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Patricia Brown Holmes (Ret.), Chair, Illinois Cemetery Oversight Task Force, 

Partner, Schiff Hardin LLP ................................................................................. 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Paul M. Elvig, Former President, International Cemetery, Cremation and 

Funeral Association ............................................................................................. 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Randall L. Earl, Treasurer, National Funeral Directors Association, Owner, 

Brintlinger and Earl Funeral Homes ................................................................. 53 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of Funeral Consumers Alliance ............................................................ 80 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
(1) 

H.R. 3655, THE BEREAVED CONSUMER’S BILL 

OF RIGHTS 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Rush, Schakowsky, Stupak, 

Green, Barrow, Whitfield, Gingrey and Scalise. 

Staff present: Michelle Ash, Chief Counsel; Anna Laitin, Professional Staff; Timothy Robinson, Staff; Will Cusey, Special Assistant; Daniel Hekier, Intern; Elizabeth Letter, Special Assistant; 

Sarah Kelly, Intern; Shannon Weinberg, Counsel; Brian 

McCullough, Senior Professional Staff; and Sam Costello, Legislative Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection is called to order. 

We are convening for the hearing on the Bereaved Consumer’s 

Bill of Rights Act of 2010 and I want to, before we begin giving 

opening statements, I want to welcome all who are gathered and 

welcome our witnesses for the day, and I want to thank the members of the subcommittee for their presence. 

The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the purposes of an 

opening statement. 

In early July, 2009, horrific allegations of unlawful grave desecration shocked the Nation as news about the unauthorized removal of hundreds of human bodies and the reselling of grave plots 

at Burr Oak Cemetery in Alsip, Illinois, which is in my district, 

came to light, and as chair of this subcommittee and the representative of the first city of Illinois I wasted no time in conducting a 

field hearing in Chicago on July 27, 2009. My primary purpose in 

holding the field hearing was to hear bereaved survivors share 

their feelings of intense loss and bewilderment upon the learning 

of what happened at Burr Oak. I also wanted to learn more about 

their past dealings with Burr Oak, the staff and the red flags of 

gross neglect they had witnessed at the cemetery. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

Upon returning to Washington, any suspicions that Burr Oak 

was an aberration or a mere figment of society’s imagination quickly diminished. A little more than a month following our Chicago 

field hearings fresh allegations of unlawful grave desecration and 

the resell of grave plots at Eden Memorial Park and a Jewish cemetery in Mission Hills, California and the Melwood Cemetery in 

DeKalb County, Georgia also came to light. Thus ushers in a period 

of deep sorrow, grief and loss for some survivors and the loved ones 

responsible for finalizing funeral arrangements and services. These 

very consumers in their state of bereavement become easy selling 

targets for an abundance of unnecessary goods and services that 

get slipped into funeral and burial packages. Consumers also fall 

prey to a host of misrepresentation by managers and sales staff 

that range from bogus claims about what State laws actually require to patently false interpretations of their own written regulations. 

The same bereaved consumers equal free cash for unprincipled 

owners and managers of cemeteries and crematoriums. The question is why. The easy answer is very easy. Sometimes it is just too 

easy for those who are out to earn a quick buck to prey on misinformed consumers. Lacking the experience with the funeral and 

burial section, these consumers cannot be reasonably expected to 

effectively negotiate fair practice, choices and contractual terms 

that apply to burial goods contracts and leases on land on graveyard property. 

Planning for one’s own or even a loved one’s death is typically 

a once-in-a-lifetime experience. It is also compounded by all kinds 

of unpredictability. But just as death often comes like a thief in the 

night, bereaved consumers should not be left wondering who in fact 

was and is the real thief, death or the cemetery sales sources. 

I introduced in September the Bereaved Consumer Bill of Rights. 

Today this subcommittee is reviewing this draft bill in its first 

hearing under new legislative session. This bill is all-encompassing 

and there are many parts to this bill. I have been earnest in respecting existing State laws as I drafted this bill. The bill will authorize both the FTC and the States’ Attorneys Generals and other 

designated State entities to enforce its requirements. 

In closing, I want to thank each one of our witnesses again for 

appearing today and I look forward to this hearing and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Now, I recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. 

Whitfield, for 5 minutes for the purposes of opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Chairman Rush, thank you very much and we 

are delighted that you are having a hearing on this important subject. 

Certainly when families face death and have to find themselves 

making decisions about the disposal of bodies and so forth, they are 

particularly vulnerable. And although we hope that people will act 

in good conscience, unfortunately we find ourselves having to write 

Federal and State laws and regulations to prevent the unscrupuVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:48 Nov 03, 2012 Jkt 076005 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A005.XXX A005

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
3 

lous few from preying on the bereaved as profit centers in their 

state of emotional disarray. Thankfully, almost all funeral and 

cemetery businesses are honest actors who seek to assist the families and never violate the law but as you said, bad actors do persist. Incidents in Georgia, Florida and more recently Illinois indicate a few rogue operators do not respect the law or the same values that we hold. 

Allegations of illegal disinterment are being investigated at Burr 

Oak Cemetery in Illinois. Evidence suggests several of the workers 

may have engaged in reprehensible conduct to desecrate burial 

plots and resell those plots for profit. It is my understanding they 

face criminal charges and could be sentenced to prison time if they 

are convicted. 

In the wake of Burr Oak, the Governor of Illinois convened a 

task force to look into this situation and make recommendations for 

that State. I understand he signed a new law earlier this month 

which makes changes to the regulation of cemeteries in Illinois. 

Similarly, Georgia and Florida responded quickly to their unique 

problems with new State laws. 

So the question really becomes what role, if any, the Federal 

Government should have beyond its current authority. The Commission has the authority to bring action for either violations of the 

Funeral Rule which is about transparency or for violations of unfair or deceptive practices under its General Section 5 authority 

provided the violator was under its jurisdiction. 

Chairman Rush has introduced H.R. 3655 to address problems 

some people have identified in the funeral and cemetery industry 

and we all commend him for taking that action introducing this 

legislation intended to help consumers. While all of us support the 

practice of accurate and meaningful disclosure to consumers, the 

question does arise is the Federal Government the best entity to 

do this or do the States do a better job of it. We do know that all 

States have laws on their books and regulate the industry but as 

the Illinois task force concluded in its report, regulatory oversight 

by State regulators happens to be one of the major problems in 

that incident and so even if we require more disclosure, it may or 

may not stop criminal activity that occurred. Another potential 

problem of expanding the FTC’s role is the perception by States 

that the Federal Government will be the primary entity with jurisdiction, and if that happens will the States have less incentive and 

maybe since all of them have financial difficulty anyway, just step 

back and let the Federal Government do it and maybe the Federal 

Government may not be as effective. 

In addition to required disclosures, the proposed legislation seeks 

to fill the regulatory gap of the FTC’s enforcement authority by 

providing the Commission new authority over non-profit entities 

operating in the funeral and cemetery business. This would be a 

major expansion of the FTC’s enforcement authority and certainly 

should be considered carefully, particularly in light of many other 

industries under the FTC’s jurisdiction that have substantial participation of non-profits. If we want to consider sweeping non-profits under the FTC’s jurisdiction, I believe it would be better to examine it in the context of the FTC’s overall authority as it may 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
4 

have additional implications for State and municipality entities 

that operate as non-profits. 

Chairman Rush, I do commend you for holding this hearing and 

certainly this is an issue that is very important. It has a great impact on our society and we look forward to working with you to try 

to determine a proper course of action. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
5 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 9 here 76005A.001

Opening statement of the Honorable Ed Whitfield 

Subcommittee on Commerce Trade, and Consumer Protection 

Hearing on H.R. 3655, the "Bereaved Consumer's Bill of Rights Act of 

2009" 

January 27, 2010 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The passing of a loved family member can be very difficult. It is 

expected that mourning the loss of someone close can require time to return 

to a sense of normalcy. Unfortunately, before that can occur, arrangements 

may have to be made if they were not previously addressed. Not even the 

best preparation in advance can address every detail that needs attention at 

the time of passing. 

It is in these times of grief that compassion and empathy flow to the 

bereaved from normal people. Unfortunately we have had to write Federal 

and state laws and regulations to prevent the unscrupulous few from preying 

on the bereaved as profit centers in their state of emotional disarray. 

Thankfully, almost all funeral and cemetery businesses are honest actors 

who seek to assist the families and never run afoul of the law. 
6 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 10 here 76005A.002

But bad actors do persist. Incidents in Georgia, Florida, and more 

recently Illinois, indicate a few rogue operators do not respect the law or the 

same values we hold. Allegations of illegal disinterment are being 

investigated at Burr Oaks cemetery in Illinois. Evidence suggests several of 

the workers may have engaged in reprehensible conduct to desecrate burial 

plots and resell the plots for profit. They face criminal charges and could be 

sentenced to prison time if they are convicted. 

In the wake of Burr Oaks, the governor of Illinois convened a task 

force to look into the situation and make recommendations. I understand he 

signed a new law earlier this month which makes changes to the regulation 

of cemeteries in Illinois. Similarly, Georgia and Florida responded quickly 

to their unique problems with new state laws. 

So the question is what role - if any - the Federal government should 

have beyond its current authority. The Commission has the authority to 

bring action for either violations of the "Funeral Rule" or for violations of 

unfair or deceptive practices under its general Section 5 authority, provided 

the violator was under its jurisdiction. 
7 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 11 here 76005A.003

H.R. 3655, introduced by Chairman Rush, seeks to address problems 

some people have identified in the funeral and cemetery industry. I 

commend you, Chainnan Rush, for your interest in putting forth legislation 

intended to help consumers. While I support the practice of accurate and 

meaningful disclosure to consumers, I have concerns with it emanating from 

the Federal government in this industry. All the states have laws on their 

books and regulate the industry. But as the Illinois Task Force concluded in 

its report, regulatory oversight by the state regulators was one of the major 

problems. And even if we require more disclosure, it would not have 

stopped the criminal activity that allegedly occurred, as criminals tend not to 

obey the laws. 

Another potential outcome of expanding the FTC's role is the 

perception by states that the Federal government will be regulating full time. 

This could provide a disincentive - particularly for cash-strapped states - to 

provide any meaningful oversight at the state level. 

In addition to required disclosures, the proposed legislation seeks to 

fill the regulatory gap of the FTC's enforcement authority by providing the 
8 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 12 here 76005A.004

Commission new authority over non-profit entities operating in the funeral 

and cemetery industry. 

This is a major expansion of the FTC's enforcement authority and 

should be considered carefully, particularly in light of many other industries 

under the FTC's jurisdiction that have substantial participation of nonprofits. I understand the policy reason in this legislation: to protect consumer 

regardless of whether the entity offering the service operates for profit or 

not. But proposing an expansion of their authority in a piecemeal fashion 

would establish disparate treatment for non-profits depending on what 

services they offer. For example, universities and colleges have been a 

substantial source of data breeches, but fall outside the enforcement 

authority of the FTC in the data security legislation we passed. Ifwe want 

to consider sweeping non-profits under the FTC's jurisdiction, I believe it 

would be better to examine it in the context of the FTC's overall authority as 

it may have additional implications for state and municipality entities that 

operate as non-profits. 

I commend the Chainnan for holding today's hearing to examine this 

legislation. I think we all agree we want to ensure consumers are treated 
9 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 13 here 76005A.005

fairly in their moment of grief and not taken advantage of by unscrupulous 

actors. I look forward to today's testimony and to hear suggestions howwe 

can accomplish this most effectively. 
10 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, 

Ms. Schakowsky, for 2 minutes for the purposes of opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Rush, for holding this hearing 

and for introducing this important bill and I am glad to be a cosponsor of your bill, the Bereaved Consumer’s Bill of Rights Act. 

I want to welcome our witnesses including two Illinois witnesses, 

the Honorable Patricia Brown Holmes, Chairman of the Illinois 

Cemetery Oversight Task Force and Randall Earl of the National 

Funeral Directors Association who is a funeral director in Decatur, 

Illinois. 

Last year a cemetery in my State, as Mr. Rush has gone into in 

some detail, made national headlines after some of its employees 

horribly violated the dignity of individuals interred at the cemetery 

in the name of nothing more than greed. Last July this committee 

held a field hearing in Chicago where we heard the heartbreaking 

testimonies from families, including some of my constituents who 

no longer knew where to go to mourn their loved ones. One of my 

constituents, Mrs. Rose Herd, went to the cemetery to order 

headstones for her son, daughter and mother and while at the cemetery a worker looked at the map and said ‘‘someone is buried on 

top of the others in that grave.’’ Imagine having to hear that. 

But one of the big takeaways that I had from that hearing was 

something that is mentioned in our briefing paper which is the 

asymmetrical regulatory framework between funeral homes which 

are stringently regulated by the FTC on one side and the cemeteries, crematory and mausoleums on the other which are not, and 

I think that is exactly what our bill would do. It would require the 

FTC to issue rules that would protect the rights of consumers when 

they are facing one of the most difficult times in life, burying a 

loved one or preparing for their own funerals. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing and 

I hope it is the first step toward passing this important bill. I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentlelady and the chair will 

also note that the gentlelady and four other members of this subcommittee participated in the field hearing held in Chicago, and I 

really want to place on the record my deep seated appreciation for 

your participation at the field hearing, each and every one of you. 

The chair now recognizes Dr. Gingrey for 2 minutes for the purposes of opening statements. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling today’s hearing on H.R. 3655, the Bereaved Consumer’s Bill of Rights 

Act of 2009 in order to review the existing structure of Federal regulations that oversee consumer protection of the funeral industry, 

particularly at a time when purchasing decisions are made in the 

midst of grief. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
11 

Unfortunately, we are here today largely in response to incidents 

that occurred at Burr Oak Cemetery in Alsip, Illinois that resulted 

in charges of the unauthorized removal of human remains from 

graves and the subsequent reselling of those plots. As the story 

continued to unravel, shocking details were revealed and my deepest condolences go out to the families of those whose remains were 

desecrated. 

Mr. Chairman, my home State of Georgia, just outside of my congressional district has also been the subject of a national scandal 

on this very issue. Back in 2002, the Tri-State Crematory in Walker County was at the center of a criminal investigation where this 

company failed to cremate the remains of over 300 people and even 

worse than that, they improperly stored the remains, and for the 

families of northwest Georgia that this scandal affected I feel nothing but sorrow for the trauma that they experienced. 

Clearly both of these incidents provide this subcommittee with a 

good reason to review the ways in which funeral services are regulated. Due to rampant abuses within the funeral industry, the Federal Trade Commission issued the Funeral Rule in 1984 to ensure 

more transparency on information that was provided to consumers 

regarding pricing structure in funeral services. According to the 

FTC at a field hearing that Chairman Rush held in Chicago last 

July on this matter, compliance with the Funeral Rule appears to 

be at a good level. 

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3655 seeks to address some of the problems 

that continue to exist within the funeral industry; however, despite 

its overall goal I do fear that H.R. 3655 may be duplicative in nature because the Funeral Rule already addresses a number of these 

regulations and unfortunately this legislation would not have prevented what occurred at either Burr Oak or Tri-State Crematory. 

At the same time, in the aftermath of these scandals both the State 

of Illinois and my home State of Georgia acted swiftly to address 

criminal activity and I commend them for that quick action. As we 

move forward on this legislation I believe we need to focus on the 

existing tools of enforcement. 

I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to hearing from today’s panel and 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Green, for 2 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing 

on your legislation to protect the rights of those who are arranging 

funeral services who are grieving from the loss of a loved one. I 

don’t think anybody on our committee hasn’t gone through that 

with one of our parents or our in-laws and how traumatic it is, and 

our children will have to go through that for us someday. 

Bad actors exist in every industry but the thought that someone 

would mislead and take advantage of a family that has just lost a 

loved one is especially dishonest and troubling. The last thing 

someone wants to do following the death in a family is be pressured into purchasing unnecessary, overpriced services, nor do they 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
12 

want to have to shop around to make sure they are not being 

scammed into drastically overpaying for a service. 

A number of States have laws regulating practices related to funeral services, others have not or do not have updated laws on the 

books. Because of that, we need to set a floor for the rights of individuals planning a funeral and burial. 

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support your legislation, the Bereaved 

Consumer’s Bill of Rights, to develop and issue rules prohibiting 

unfair and deceptive acts and practices for sellers of funeral and 

burial goods and services. This legislation required the Federal 

Trade Commission which currently regulates funeral homes under 

the Funeral Industry Practices Trade Regulation Rule to expand 

that rule to cover other entities involving and providing funeral 

and burial services such as crematories, cemeteries, caskets retailers and headstone and market retailers. 

Mr. Chairman, the incident at Burr Oak Cemetery in Illinois and 

the several others that made news in recent years demonstrate the 

further action needed to be taken to provide peace of mind to those 

who recently suffered a loss. This legislation will provide basic requirements while not interfering with States’ efforts so grieving 

families know they will not be misled or taken advantage of. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for both the bill and 

also holding the hearing, and welcome our witnesses, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

All of us here today at some point in our lives have experienced 

the death of a loved one and have gone through the grieving process. During this painful time, we should be able to take comfort in 

knowing that our loved one’s remains are being treated with dignity and respect. This comfort should be based on trust of the funeral home, the cemetery, the crematory handling the remains as 

well as on the integrity of the funeral service profession as a whole. 

Unfortunately, we have seen instances where this trust has been 

violated in appalling ways. The most recent example being Burr 

Oak Cemetery which has prompted this legislation we are examining today and the previous field hearing this subcommittee held 

in July. 

The desecration of graves and the mishandling of remains that 

took place at Burr Oak Cemetery were despicable and hopefully we 

never see this happen again. I believe we can all agree that no one 

should be taken advantage of during this time of heightened emotional distress. In the case of Burr Oak Cemetery and in similar 

cases in Florida and Georgia the States acted quickly to determine 

what led to these horrible acts and what laws and regulations were 

broken or needed to be improved or put in place to prevent this 

from happening again. This leads me to question whether Federal 

legislation is the most appropriate. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
13 

Again, let me stress that the cases in Illinois, Georgia and elsewhere are terrible and I am pleased that we are examining ways 

to protect consumers while they are grieving the loss of a loved 

one. But I also have to question whether this is an issue best decided by the States who are closer to these violations and in a better position to respond swiftly. While it certainly is important that 

families not fall victim to unfair or deceptive acts related to funeral 

services, it is also important that we examine any detrimental consequences of Federal legislation that may impede on the ability of 

State and local governments’ ability to decide what is best to protect their local citizens. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today as they share their thoughts on what actions should 

take place or be taken by Federal, State and local authorities to address this problem. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, 

Mr. Barrow, for 2 minutes. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I waive. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

And now it is my privilege and honor to introduce the panelists 

who have taken time off from their busy schedules to appear before 

this subcommittee and the chair wants the panelists to know how 

much we appreciate the fact that you have taken time out to be 

a part of this process. I want to begin to introduce you. From my 

left there is Mr. Chuck Harwood. He is a deputy director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection for the Federal Trade Commission. 

Mr. Harwood, welcome. 

Seated next to Mr. Harwood is Judge Patricia Brown Holmes, 

who has been previously mentioned. She is from Illinois. She is the 

chairman or the chairperson of the Illinois Cemetery Oversight 

Task Force. She is also a partner with the Schiff Hardin Law Firm 

and as was indicated, her work resulted in the Illinois governor 

signing a piece of legislation earlier this month, and I really want 

to congratulate you and your committee and the outstanding work 

that you have done for the citizens of the State of Illinois. 

Seated next to Judge Holmes is Mr. Paul M. Elvig. He is the 

former president of the International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association, and seated next to Mr. Elvig is Mr. Randall L. 

Earl who was also mentioned previously. He comes from the State 

of Illinois and he is the treasurer of the National Funeral Directors 

Association and he is the owner of the funeral home, Brintlinger 

and Earl Funeral Homes, in Decatur, Illinois. 

Again, I want to welcome you and it is the customary practice 

of this committee that you be sworn in. Would you please stand 

and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. RUSH. Let the record indicate that the witnesses have all answered in the affirmative. 

And now we will ask that you present this committee with your 

opening statements and you are recognized for 5 minutes for that 

purpose, and I will start with Mr. Harwood. You are recognized for 

5 minutes for the purposes of opening statements. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
14 

TESTIMONY OF CHUCK HARWOOD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; THE HONORABLE PATRICIA BROWN HOLMES 

(RET.), CHAIR, ILLINOIS CEMETERY OVERSIGHT TASK 

FORCE, PARTNER, SCHIFF HARDIN LLP; PAUL M. ELVIG, 

FORMER PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL CEMETERY, CREMATION AND FUNERAL ASSOCIATION; AND RANDALL L. EARL, 

TREASURER, NATIONAL FUNERAL DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION, OWNER, BRINTLINGER AND EARL FUNERAL HOMES 

TESTIMONY OF CHUCK HARWOOD 

Mr. HARWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

subcommittee. 

My name is Charles Harwood. I am the deputy director of the 

Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. 

The Federal Trade Commission extends our condolences as we 

did last summer, to the families affected by the awful events at 

Burr Oak Cemetery. And, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we hope your efforts and the efforts of the agencies and 

organizations in Illinois that have responded to this tragedy have 

provided some comfort for the many families who are affected by 

this tragedy. 

Given the horrific events that took place at Burr Oak Cemetery 

which were examined at the subcommittee’s hearing last summer 

which I had the pleasure to attend, we appreciate the opportunity 

to discuss H.R. 3655. The Commission’s formal views were presented in its written submission. My oral statement and responses 

to any questions are my views and not necessarily the views of the 

Commission or individual commissioners. 

H.R. 3655 seeks to provide more effective consumer protection 

against fraud and abusive practices in connection with the provision of funeral goods and funeral services. The Federal Trade Commission fully supports these goals and we appreciate the subcommittee’s leadership in this area. 

The Commission’s testimony highlights some important, specific 

aspects of H.R. 3655. First, the Commission’s Funeral Rule currently applies primarily to funeral homes. H.R. 3655 would expand 

the Commission’s jurisdiction in this area to cover not-for-profit entities and specifically cemeteries. Second, H.R. 3655 would apply 

new disclosure rules to all such cemeteries and also to third-party 

retailers of funeral goods. Third, in connection with prepaid funeral 

and burial contracts, H.R. 3655 would require new disclosures of 

fees and costs among other things. Finally, the bill would give the 

Commission APA rulemaking authority to promulgate rules to implement the bill’s requirements. To that end, H.R. 3655 would direct the Commission to conduct a rulemaking within 1 year of enactment to extend the key consumer protections in the Commission’s Funeral Rule to cemeteries, crematories and retailers of caskets, urns, monuments and markers. Because the authority contained in the bill includes non-profit members of the funeral industry, the rule promulgated under the bill would reach the vast majority of cemeteries whether they are for-profit or not-for-profit, including not-for-profit cemeteries owned or operated by religious organizations, States or municipalities. In contrast, the current FTC 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
15 

Funeral Rule concerns primarily funeral homes which are mostly 

for-profit entities. It does not reach non-profits. 

The Federal Trade Commission Act under which the original Funeral Rule and subsequent Funeral Rule was promulgated, generally excludes not-for-profit companies from the Commission’s consumer protection jurisdiction. The proposed expansion of jurisdiction provided by H.R. 3655 would enable the Commission to reach 

many more members of the funeral industry. This expanded authority coupled with H.R. 3655’s new disclosure and record-keeping 

requirements makes new consumer protection tools available to the 

FTC and to State enforcers. Finally, as highlighted in the Commission’s written testimony, a number of years ago the FTC committed 

itself to improving compliance with the funerals cost disclosure provisions and during questioning, I would be glad to talk more about 

that. 

But ensuring similar compliance with H.R. 3655 by several thousand newly covered entities will require a commitment of FTC resources. Making available new resources will permit the FTC to 

continue other consumer protection initiatives while also ensuring 

that we can effectively implement and enforce the requirements of 

H.R. 3655. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harwood follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
16 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 20 here 76005A.006

Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission 

For the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

January 27, 2010 
17 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 21 here 76005A.007

Mr. Chainnan and members of the Subcommittee, I am Charles A. Harwood, Deputy 

Director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection. The Commission 

appreciates this opportunity to provide comments to the Subcommittee on H.R. 3655 and 

infonnation on the Commission's law enforcement activities regarding the funeral industry. 1 

The Commission remains committed to working with the Subcommittee to identifY ways 

in which the Commission's rulemaking, law enforcem~nt, and outreach experience can be of 

assistance in considering solutions to the problems highlighted by the horrific events that took 

place at the historic Burr Oak Cemetery in Alsip, Illinois. In particular, the Commission is 

grateful to have an opportunity to discuss H.R. 3655, a Bill that would, among other things, give 

the Commission the authority to regulate cemeteries nationwide. 

The Commission commends your leadership in responding to the problems highlighted 

by the tragic events at Burr Oak Cemetery, as well as the efforts of local and state law 

enforcement and regulatory authorities in responding to this tragedy. By addressing the 

problems aggressively, you have clearly signaled the public's resolute unwillingness to tolerate 

the abusive and appalling behavior that occurred. We are hopeful that your combined efforts 

have brought some comfort to families with loved ones interred at Burr Oak. 

PROPOSED LEGISLATION: H.R. 3655 

We strongly support the goals of H.R. 3655, which are to provide more effective 

consumer protection against fraud and abusive practices in connection with the provision of 

funeral goods and funeral services. H.R. 3655 would direct the Commission to conduct a 

rulemaking within one year of enactment to extend the key consumer protections in the 

I The views expressed in this statement represent the views of the Commission. My oral 

statement and responses to any questions you may have are my own and do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the Commission or any individual Commissioner. 
18 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 22 here 76005A.008

Commission's Funeral Industry Practices Trade Regulation Rule ("Funeral Rule")2 - now 

principally applicable to funeral homes3 - to cemeteries, crematories and retailers of caskets, 

urns, monuments, and markers. The Bill would mandate that a final rule require these members 

of the funeral industry to provide pre-sale price disclosures, prohibit misrepresentations and 

required purchases, and mandate clear contracts that itemize the goods and services purchased 

and their prices, just as funeral providers must now do under the Funeral Rule. 

H.R. 3655 also would go beyond the current provisions of the Funeral Rule to: (I) 

mandate that a final rule require all pre-paid funeral Gontracts to disclose any future fees and 

costs that purchasers may incur, and any penalties for cancellation or transfer of the contract to 

another provider; (2) require cemeteries to disclose their 'V\,Titten rules and regulations in a timeJy 

manner, and provide purchasers with a clear written explanation of the burial rights they have 

purchased, including any repurchase option by the cemetery and any resale rights available to the 

consumer; (3) mandate that cemeteries retain all extant burial records and maps, accurately 

record and retain burial records after the rule takes effect, and make these records available to 

federal, state and local governments; and (4) authorize states to bring enforcement actions for 

violations of any of these rules. 

2 16 C.F.R. Part 453. 

3 The Rule applies to "funeral providers" who sell or offer both "funeral goods" and "funeral 

services." 16 C.F.R. §§ 453.1(i); 453.2(a). "Funeral goods" are goods sold or offered in 

connection with funeral services. 16 C.F.R. § 436.1(h). "Funeral services" are any services that 

may be used to care for and prepare bodies for burial, cremation or other final disposition and 

arrange, supervise or conduct the funeral ceremony or other final disposition. 16 C.F .R. 

§ 436.10). Thus, both funeral goods and funeral services are offered by funeral homes, but both 

also may be offered by crematories that sell urns or other goods, and by cemeteries with 

mortuary facilities on their premises that care for and prepare bodies for fmal disposition. 

2 
19 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 23 here 76005A.009

This testimony focuses on four aspeets ofH.R. 3655: 

• Expansion of the Commission's jurisdiction to include rulemaking and 

enforcement responsibilities with respect to non-profits in the funeral industry; 

• Application of the proposed law and resulting rule to retailers of caskets, urns, 

monuments, and markers; 

• Proposed new disclosures concerning the portability, refundability, and potential 

future fees and costs of pre-paid funeral and burial contracts; and 

• Authorization to use Administrative Procedures Act rulemaking authority. 

First, the rulemaking and enforcement jurisdiction provided for the Commission in H.R. 

3655 would, for the first time, include non-profit members of the funeral industry, including 

most cemeteries. Because the vast majority of cemeteries are organized as non-profits, owned or 

operated by non-profit religious organizations or states and municipalities, such entities are 

estimated to outnumber the nation's approximately 7,500 for-profit cemeteries by at least 3 to l.4 

As you know, the Federal Trade Commission Act generally excludes non-profit companies from 

the Commission' s jurisdiction.5 Indeed, in the Funeral Rule review proceeding concluded in 

2008, the Commission declined to amend the Rule to cover only for-profit cemeteries, in part, 

because of concerns about likely consumer confusion and the limited benefit of such an effort 

4 Compare ROBERT G. E. SMmi, THE DEATH CARE INDUSTRIES iN THE UNH"ED STATES, McFarland & 

Co., Inc., at 23 (1996) (citing estimates of 7,500 commercial cemeteries) with ELIZABETH G. & 

JAMES D. KOT, UNITED STATES CEMETERY ADDRESS BOOK 1994 - 95, Indices Pub!. (J996) (providing 

addresses of "more than 25,000 cemeteries"). A number of states prohibit for-profit cemeteries, 

including New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine. 73 Fed. 

Reg. 13740, 13744 & n.38 (Mar. 14,2008). 

5 See 15 U.S.C. § 44. 

3 
20 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 24 here 76005A.010

when a minority of cemeteries would be affected.6 The proposed substantial expansion of 

jurisdiction would enable the Commission to reach many more of the key members of the 

funeral industry. At least 17,000 non-profit entities, the va~,.t majority of which are religious 

organizations or states and municipalities, would be subject to new disclosure and recordkeeping requirements and the attendant costs of compliance.7 

Second, retailers of caskets, urns, monuments, and markers would be covered by the 

additional rules mandated by H.R. 3655. These retailers would be subject to pre-sale price 

disclosure and itemized contract requirements as weI! as the prohibition on misrepresentations 

6 Fed. Reg. at 13745 (noting that "[t]here would be confusion among the general public as to 

what type of information they could expect to receive and what rights they have to purchase 

goods from third parties. To the extent additional requirements are intended to allow consumers 

to compare costs among cemeteries, the inconsistent application of the Rule to some cemeteries 

and not others could make such comparisons impossible or impractical.") 

The Commission also cited a lack of evidence that commercial cemeteries are engaged in 

widespread unfair or deceptive practices that injure consumers, as required by the Federal Trade 

Commission Act ("FTC Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 57a(b)(3), as a basis tor its determination not to 

proceed with a notice of proposed rulemaking. ld. 

1 We also note that applying such requirements to religious organizations requires a careful 

analysis of the need for such requirements and consideration of possible less burdensome 

alternatives, and could lead to challenges under the First Amendment. 

4 
21 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 25 here 76005A.011

required in the final rule.' The application of the mandated disclosure requirements should 

provide benefits for consumers, but they will entail additional costs for these retailers. 

Third, H.R. 3655 contemplates an expansion of the protections provided by the Funeral 

Rule for purchasers of pre-need funeral arrangements,9 requiring contractual disclosures of any 

additional fees or costs that may be incurred in the future and any penalties for cancellation or 

transfer of the contract. IO These additional disclosures represent a means to alert consumers who 

wish to pre-plan their funeral arrangements to issues involved with prepayment and should 

provide tangible benefits to them. Il Such contractual disclosures would supplement 

requirements for clear, conspicuous, and accurate disclosure of material terms - including costs 

8 The Commission considered a similar proposal during the rule review to expand the Funeral 

Rule's price disclosure requirements to retail sellers offuneral goods, such as caskets and 

monuments, that was suggested to "level the playing field" for consumers. 73 Fed. Reg. at 

13745. At that time, the Commission declined to amend the Rule for that purpose after finding 

insufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief"that third-party sellers of funeral goods are 

engaged in widespread unfair or deceptivc acts or practices" as required under the FTC's 

rulemaking procedures mandated by the Magnuson-Moss amendments to the FTC Act, and 

noting that "third-party retailers have a strong economic incentive to display their prices to the 

public at large because offering a lower price is the primary way they compete against funeral 

providers for salcs offuneral goods, such as caskets." 73 Fed. Reg. at 13745. 

9 Although the Rule does not separately address pre-need arrangements, its price disclosure and 

other requirements apply equally to pre-need and at-need arrangements. 16 C.F.R. § 453.2; see 

also, e.g., 73 Fed. Reg. at 13751. 

10 These two disclosures were suggested during the rule review, but the record contained 

insufficient evidence that abusive practices were prevalent in the sale of pre-need contracts to 

support initiation of an amendment proceeding, as required by the FTC's Magnuson-Moss 

rulemaking authority. 73 Fed. Reg. at 13750-51. 

11 Some have expressed concern about loss or theft of pre-paid consumer funds and the 

adequacy of state laws regulating pre-paid contracts. H.R. 3655 does not address these issues 

directly, but the Bill's additional disclosures may provide benefits to consumers. 

5 
22 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 26 here 76005A.012

- at the outset when pre-need arrangements are made, which is currently required under the 

Funeral Rule. 

Fourth, H.R. 3655 directs the Commission to conduct a rulemaking within one year of 

enactment to extend the key consumer protections in Funeral Rule to cemeteries, crematories 

and retailers of caskets, urns, monuments, and markers. Under the cumbersome FTC Act 

rulemaking procedurcs,12 promulgation of such a rule would likely be a time consuming effort 

and would require a finding that the practices addressed are "prevalent.,,13 The Bill authorizes 

the use of Administrative Procedures Act rulemaking authority, which should permit the 

Commission to meet the rule promulgation deadline in H.R. 3655.14 

The Commission appreciates the Subcommittee's request for comments concerning H.R. 

3655 and welcomes the opportunity to work further with Subcommittee staff regarding the 

proposed legislation. 

12 Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a, empowers the FTC to "prescribe rules which 

define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or 

affecting commerce .... " 

13 In rulemaking under Section 18, the Commission may not issue a notice of proposed 

rulemaking unless it has "reason to believe that the unfair or deceptive acts or practices which 

are the subject of the proposed rulemaking are prevalent." 15 U.S.C. § 57a(b)(3). The 

Commission may find prevalence where available information "indicates a widespread pattern of 

unfair or deceptive acts or practices." 15 U.S.C. § 57a(b)(3)(B). 

14 FTC rulemakings pursuant to Magnuson-Moss procedures typically have required from three 

to ten years to complete. For example, the proceeding to promulgate the FTC's Credit Practices 

Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 444, using Magnuson-Moss procedures took almost ten years. In contrast, 

the proceeding to promulgate the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 310, using 

APA procedures took one year. 

6 
23 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 27 here 76005A.013

ENFORCEMENT 

In developing H.R. 3655, the Subcommittee is seeking to increase consumer protection in 

connection with the provision of funeral goods and funeral services by expanding coverage to 

cemeteries and third-party sellers of funeral goods. As both the Subcommittee and the 

Commission consider how to go forward in this area, the Commission's experience 

promulgating and enforcing the Funeral Rule is relevant and instructive. 

In the first ten years following promulgation ofthe Funeral Rule, compliance with the 

cost disclosure provisions was very low - by one estimate only 25% of funeral providers 

complied. IS In an effort to improve compliance, the Commission in 1994 initiated annual 

enforcement Funeral Rule "sweeps" offimeral homes around the country. The sweeps involve 

staff from the Commission's regional offices, who, posing as consumers, visit all the funeral 

homes in a particular urban or rural geographic area to dctermine whether they are in compliance 

with the Rule's core disclosure requirements. 16 Working in cooperation with the National 

Funeral Directors Association ("NFDA"), the Commission allows fir~1:-time offenders to make a 

IS The Funeral Rule was promulgated in 1984. A Commission-sponsored 1987 study and a 

1988 study conducted by the Gallup organization for AARP indicated that at that time funeral 

providers' compliance with the Rule's core requirement- i.e. to give consumers an itemized 

general price list at the beginning of the arrangements discussion - may have been as low as 23 

percent. See Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Economics Staff Report - An Analysis of the 

Funeral Rule Using Consumer Survey Data on the Purchase of Funeral Goods and Services 

(Feb. 1989) at 20. 

16 To implement the sweeps, staff members from the Commission's regional offices plan and 

coordinate each annual sweep and identifY the funeral homes in the targeted geographic area. 

Typicatly, between two and four staff members conduct the initial sweep, and after a preliminary 

evaluation of the results, they may return for follow-up test shops. The staff members 

coordinating the project then review and evaluate the reports of the test shops and the price lists 

obtained. Staff members prepare letters notifYing violators of the violations that were identified, 

communicate what options the funeral provider has, and follow-up to obtain the information 

needed to determine the amount of the FROP payment and to enroll the violator in FROP. 

7 
24 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 28 here 76005A.014

voluntary payment to the U.S. Treasury and enter into a training, testing, and monitoring 

program known as the Funeral Rule Offenders Program ("FROP"). When two separate testshops show that a funeral provider is violating core Rule requirements, the Commission gives 

the provider the choice of participating in FROP, or undergoing a conventional investigation and 

potential law enforcement action resulting in a federal court order and payment of a civil 

penalty.17 As a result ofthese annual sweeps, compliance has risen significantly from what it 

was prior to 1994.18 Of course, such efforts necessarily entail enforcement costs and decisions 

about enforcement priorities. 

As the history of the Funeral Rule demonstrates, an active enforcement program will be 

essential to secure a reasonable level of compliance with any new requirements. Implementing a 

robust program to enforce such new requirements against several thousand new entities likely 

will require additional resources or the diversion of current resources away from other important 

consumer protection missions. Like all government agencies, the Commission understands that 

resources are scarce and must be used as efficiently as possible. However, increased resources 

would help us meet the demands of providing more extensive protection for consumers and 

would help the Commission effectively implement and enforce the requirements ofH.R. 3655. 

17 When two separate sweep test shops show that a funeral provider is violating core Rule 

requirements, the Commission gives the provider, whether or not a member ofNFDA, the choice 

of a conventional investigation and potential law enforcement action resulting in a federal court 

order and payment of a civil penalty, or participation in FROP. Funeral providers that enroll in 

FROP make payments to the U.S. Department of Treasury equal to 0.8% of their average annual 

gross sales over the prior three years. The NFDA collects a fee from FROP participants for 

administering the program, maintains records on funeral homes that are enrolled in the FROP 

program and makes these available for review by Commission staff. 

18 The overall compliance fate is now better than 85 percent. Since the sweeps program began, 

Commission staff have shopped more than 2200 funeral homes, and referred more than 300 to 

the FROP program. 

8 
25 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 29 here 76005A.015

CONCLUSION 

The Commission appreciates the Subcommittee's interest in enhancing consumer 

protections in the funeral industry, and wishes to thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to 

comment on H.R. 3655. As discussed, the proposed legislation, including its expansion of the 

Commission's jurisdiction, could entail compliance and enforcement costs and challenges, but it 

could also provide meaningful benefits to consumers. 

9 
26 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes Judge Brown Holmes and 

Judge, you are recognized for 5 minutes for the purposes of opening 

statements. 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA BROWN HOLMES 

Ms. HOLMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to be here today to testify about the 

findings and recommendations of the Illinois Cemetery Oversight 

Task Force. I am Retired Judge Patricia Brown Holmes, the chairperson of that task force, and I appear here today in my capacity 

as a private citizen because the task force is no longer in effect because the legislation was passed. 

Mr. Chairman, all of us expect that our loved ones will be treated 

with the same dignity and respect in death as in life and many of 

us believe that the protection of those rights is a duty and a responsibility that is properly entrusted to our Government. That is 

why the citizens of the State of Illinois were shocked in July, 2009, 

when we learned of the horrific events taking place in historic Burr 

Oak Cemetery in Alsip, Illinois, a place where Emmett Till, Dinah 

Washington, and Ezra Charles were buried along with my father. 

According to reports that appeared in print and broadcast media, 

it was alleged that workers at the Burr Oak Cemetery had over a 

period of several years, unearthed hundreds of corpses and then 

dumped them in the weeds in the cemetery or double-stacked them 

in existing graves. The empty burial plots were then allegedly resold to members of the public who had no knowledge that the 

graves were being reused. 

On July 16, in the wake of these appalling reports, Governor 

Quinn signed an executive order forming the Cemetery Oversight 

Task Force and appointed me chair along with 11 other blue ribbon 

panel members. Our task was to examine the circumstances surrounding the Burr Oak Cemetery fiasco and to attempt to conduct 

a comprehensive review of pertinent Illinois laws and the laws of 

other States to recommend policies, laws, rules and regulations 

that should be implemented to ensure the respectful and humane 

treatment of the deceased, and to essentially recommend legislation 

to better protect and serve the people of the State of Illinois. 

The testimony and evidence presented to our task force during 

the 2 months of hearings was shocking. It revealed a systemic failure of oversight and regulation of the cemetery industry in our 

State. The task force concluded that although there were a number 

of laws in Illinois that did address various aspects of the death care 

industry, a regulatory disjunction existed with respect to the operation and management of cemeteries. The task force concluded that 

there was a direct connection between the hodgepodge of regulations governing the death care industry and a lack of regulatory 

oversight that contributed to the deteriorated condition of Burr 

Oak Cemetery and other cemeteries, circumstances that allowed 

the alleged activity to flourish. 

With an eye towards assuring that this historic event did not repeat itself, the report issued by our task force on September 15 set 

forth three primary recommendations. First, we recommended that 

regulatory authority over the funeral and burial practices be consolidated into one department, in our case, the Department of FiVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:48 Nov 03, 2012 Jkt 076005 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A005.XXX A005

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
27 

nancial and Professional Regulation which, in Illinois, currently licenses more than one million professionals in nearly 100 industries. Second, our task force recommended that legislation be 

adopted requiring cemetery management operations to be treated 

as a profession and that only qualified persons be authorized to 

own, operate, or work in the cemetery in our State based on our 

finding that the practice of cemetery management and operation affects the public health safety and wellbeing of our citizens. Third, 

we recommended that our General Assembly amend and consolidate various statutes for the purpose of first, creating a uniform 

system of oversight and regulation, second, strengthening the licensing and regulatory requirements in those statutes and third, 

creating new consumer protections. 

With the passage and signing of the Cemetery Oversight Act on 

January 17, Illinois now has a comprehensive regulatory framework making it a national model for cemetery oversight, establishing new and stricter standards for the care and operation of 

cemeteries. For example, the Act requires licensure for private, 

non-religious cemeteries, the creation of a consumer bill of rights 

protecting consumers purchasing burial merchandise and services, 

and the establishment of a statewide data base that will help future generations locate the remains of a loved one. The new Act 

also prohibits cemeteries from requiring cash payment for services 

and merchandise. It establishes protections for whistleblowers and 

it creates a cemetery relief fund to assist abandoned and neglected 

cemeteries. I am very privileged to have participated in the passage 

of that landmark legislation which is an example of our democratic 

process at its best. 

We look forward to your bill, Mr. Chairman, and hope that it will 

complement the State’s bill and I will answer further questions at 

the conclusion. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Holmes follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
28 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 33 here 76005A.016

Statement of the Honorable Patricia Brown Holmes (ret.) 

Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

January 27, 2010 

Mr. Chainnan and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportWlity to testify about the findings and recommendations of the 

Cemetery Oversight Task Force, which was established by Governor Pat Quinn in response to 

reports that hundreds of graves in a cemetery located just outside of Chicago had been desecrated 

and vandalized. 

Mr. Chainnan, all of us expect that our loved ones will be treated with the same dignity 

and respect in death as in life, and many of us believe that the protection of those rights is a duty 

and responsibility that is properly entrusted to our government. That is why the citizens of the 

State of DIinois were shocked in July 2009 wheo we learned of horrific events taking place in the 

historic Burr Oak Cemetery in the suburb of Alsip, DIinois. According to reports that appeared 

in the print and broadcast media, it was alleged that workers at the Burr Oak Cemetery had, over 

a period of several years, Wlearihed hundreds of corpses and then dumped them in a weeded area 

in the Cemetery or double-stacked them in existing graves. The empty burial plots were theu 

allegedly resold to members of the public who had no knowledge that the graves were being 

reused. 

On July 16,2009, in the wake of these appalling reports, Governor Pat Quinn signed an 

Executive Order fonning the Cemetery Oversight Task Force. Governor Quinn ordered the II 

citizens comprising the Task Force to examine the circumstances surrounding the events at Burr 

Oak Cemetery; to conduct a comprehensive review of pertinent Illinois laws and the laws of 

other states; and to recommend what poliCies, laws, rules, and regulations should be 

implemeoted to ensure the respectful and humane treatment of the deceased. The essential 

purpose of the Task Force was to recommend legislation to better protect and serve the people of 

the State of Illinois. 

I was honored to accept Governor Quinn's request that I chair the Task Force, but fOWld it 

a particularly daunting challenge since both my father and brother are buried in the Burr Oak 

Cemetery. My first thoughts were: "How could this be? Who would dare disturb the dead? 

Wasn't anyone watching?" The Task Force set out to answer these questions, address the 

deficieocies in the State's mechanisms for regulating and overseeing the operation and 

managemeot of cemeteries, and propose solutions to ensure the proper treatment of the deceased 

and their bereaved family members. 

The testimony and evidence presented to the Task Force during two months of hearings 

revealed a systemic failure of oversight and regulation of the cemetery industry in the State of 

Illinois. The Task Force concluded that although there are a number of laws in Illinois that 

address various aspects of the death carc industry, a regulatory disjunction exists with respect to 

the operation and management of cemeteries. ,The Task Force concluded that there was a direct 

connection between the hodgepodge of regulations governing the death care industry and the 

deteriorated condition of Burr Oak Cemetery and other cemeteries. The Task Force also 
29 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 34 here 76005A.017

concluded that the lack of regulatory oversight was likely a contributing factor to the criminal 

scheme that allegedly unfolded at Burr Oak Cemetery. It was the primary fmding of the Task 

Force that without legislative reform and increased oversight of cemetery operations, the events 

that occurred at Burr Oak Cemetery and other cemeteries in the State of Illinois would continue 

to occur, and the same types of tragic stories the public has already heard too many times would 

continue to be told. 

With an eye towards ensuring that this history does not repeat itself, the report issued by 

the Task Force on September 15, 2009 set forth three primary recommendations. First, the Task 

Force recommended that regulatory authority over funeral and burial practices be consolidated 

into the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (the "Department"), which 

currently licenses more than one million professionals in nearly one hundred industries. Under 

existing law, Illinois' regulation of the death care industry is currently divided between two state 

agencies. The Department has jurisdiction over funeral directors and embalmers, while the 

Comptroller has jurisdiction over most other aspects of the for-profit death care industry, 

including laws relating to pre-need cemetery and funeral purchases, cemetery care funds, the 

protection of cemetery property, cemetery associations, and crematories. The Task Force found 

that this segmentation of duties and responsibilities is confusing to the consUmer of cemetery. and 

funeral products and services, and thwarts the uniform and effective application of laws and 

regulations. The Task Force noted that the Department has the highest level of expertise with 

respect to the licensure and regulation of occupations, and therefore determined that a uniform 

system of oversight and regulation should be established under the jurisdiction of the 

Department. 

Second, the Task Force recommended that the General Assembly consider the adoption 

of new legislation - a Cemetery Oversight Act - providing for the licensure of cemetery 

managers and the registration of cemetery employees. The Task Force found that the practice of 

cemetery management and operation in the State of lllinois affects the public health, safety, and 

well-being of its citizens, and should be subject to regulation and control in the public interest. 

Accordingly. it recommended that legislation be adopted requiring that cemetery management 

operations be treated as a profeSSion and that only qualified persons be authorized to own, 

operate, or work in a cemetery in the State of Illinois. 

Third, the Task Force recommended that the General Assembly amend and consolidate 

varions statutes for the purpose of: (1) bringing them under the jurisdiction of the Department 

and creating a uniform system of oversight and regulation; (2) strengthening the licensing and 

regulatory requirements in those statutes; and (3) creating new consumer protections. (A copy of 

the Report of the Task Force may be found at cemeterytaskforce.illinois.gov.) 

In its final report to the Governor, the Task Force proposed a comprehensive regulatory 

framework that would, jf implemented, make Illinois a national model for cemetery oversight. 

With the passage and signing of the Cemetery Oversight Act on January 17, 2010, that day has 

arrived. The legislation that Governor Quinn signed into law less than two weeks ago is based 

on the recommendations of the Task Force, and establishes new and stricter standards for the 

care and operation of cemeteries. As recommended by the Task Force, the new Act consolidates 

the regulation of funeral and burial practices into one agency: the Department of Financial and 

Professional Regulation. The Cemetery Oversight Act also implements the other reforms 
30 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 35 here 76005A.018

recommended by the Task Force, including the imposition of licensure requirements for private, 

non-religious cemeteries; the creation of a consumer bill of rights which sets forth protections for 

consumers purchasing burial merchandise and. entering into burial contracts; .and the 

establishment of a statewide database that will help future generations locate the remains of a 

loved one. The new Act also prohibits cemeteries from requiring that consumers pay for services 

and merchandise in cash; establishes protections for whistleblowers who make good faith reports 

about misconduct at a cemetery; and creates a Cemetery Relief Fund to assist cemeteries that 

have been abandoned or neglected. 

I feel very privileged to have participated in the passage of this landmark legislation, 

which is an example of the democratic process at its best. As a result of the vision and 

leadership of Governor Quinn and the hard work, commitment, and skill of the members of the 

Illinois General Assembly, this legislation will help protect the memories of our grandparents 

and parents. brothers and sisters, role models and heroes - all of those dosest to us. They 

deserve it, and the Cemetery Oversight Act demands it. It is my strong belief that this Act will 

help ensure that a tragedy of the magnitude that occurred at the Burr Oak Cemetery does. not 

happen again in the State of Illinois. 

~~oo ho~", h'" ",,,,red ""= Y'. 

Hon. Patricia Brown Holmes (ret.) 

CH2\8zgsQ6S.1 
31 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY [presiding]. Thank you. 

Mr. Elvig. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL M. ELVIG 

Mr. ELVIG. My name is Paul Elvig and I am with the International Cemetery Cremation and Funeral Association. I am also 

past president of the National Cemetery Regulators Association 

many years ago. 

I would like to thank the chairman, the vice chair and all members of this committee for the interest you have taken, keen interest you have taken in what is no doubt one of the most outrageous 

acts most of us have heard in our lifetime. I have been around this 

business, if you will call it that, for the last 40 years and as a regulator I have looked into consumer complaints from misspelled 

markers on tombstones to the sexual molestation of the dead by a 

very sick person. I share that to show you that there are many, 

many aspects of potential crime, if you will, against the dead. 

Our association, the ICCFA is proud to call ourselves the guardian of Americans’ heritage. We think your interest is showing your 

interest in being a guardian of our heritage in this country. We are 

concerned and we don’t oppose this bill. We support the concepts 

but we certainly are concerned about unintended consequences and 

that is obviously something we always have to look at when we 

talk about new legislation. There are thousands upon thousands of 

cemeteries in this country that are run by volunteer organizations, 

church organizations, community clubs, grange halls, you name it, 

that are running on frankly just nickels and dimes and donations. 

And as we would look at possibly imposing upon those cemeteries 

the guidelines, for example, that the FTC presently has for funeral 

homes, we are talking about increased cost of operation that could 

very well bankrupt already a very shoestring industry if you want 

to call it that. 

Our state regulator in Washington State just shared with several 

of us on our legislative committee that he has had a cemetery come 

into his office, one of these ones I mentioned, and put the keys on 

his table and say we are through. We can’t run this cemetery. Who 

does? And so we would urge that as we would look at legislation, 

as we would look at regulation, we be certain that we not break 

the backs of many organizations who have already been hurt by 

the cremation increase in this country and who are seeing their 

revenue sources literally dry up. That is a major concern to us. 

We have enjoyed in the past working with the FTC and have 

participated in hearings and have offered our evidence but one 

thing I want to mention under the FOIA request we made with the 

FTC, we found that there were 1.2 million complaints filed with 

them on every subject from computer network fraud to you name 

it. But out of that there were only 241 complaints, that is out of 

1.2 million, there were 241 complaints about funeral homes and 

cemeteries and the cemeteries represented even a small fraction of 

that. That was less than two tenths of one percent and so as we 

look to correct problems, we ask that we keep that perspective in 

mind as to how broad are these problems. 

Now, having served as the president of the National Cemetery 

Regulators, I have had the privilege of reviewing State law and it 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
32 

varies considerably. It varies by the State. It varies by the issues 

a State’s faced whether it be a cemetery that is situated in a desert 

scene where there is not normal dirt to make burial, to cemeteries 

in Hawaii, to cemeteries in Vermont that have hundreds of years 

of history. And so having reviewed State law nationwide, I want to 

say that what we are seeing in State statute is custom statute to 

fit a custom situation. So when we do hear about scandals that 

happened right in your State, right in Illinois, the outrage there, 

these folks went to work and they did their job. They introduced 

State legislation to address that issue in that particular community 

under those particular circumstances and so we strongly favor the 

concept that States ought to continue in their role of regulating 

and we certainly don’t want to see States read into any action from 

this committee as saying it has all been handled. That is a concern. 

It really is a concern. Having been a bureaucrat and in State government, I know how easy it is to say somebody else is handling 

the problem. 

I want to conclude by saying this—that there is something not 

mentioned in this bill that I would beg you to consider and that 

would be to federally criminalize the illegal disruption of a human 

dead body that has been buried or brought to a crematory. That is 

such an outrage there ought to be a Federal law against it. There 

is when we look at veterans cemeteries. We have veterans buried 

in non-veteran cemeteries who aren’t protected that way and so I 

would urge that as you refine this bill that you look at criminalizing and putting away these, I won’t use words I want to call 

them, those who would disturb the dead that are lying in peace. 

We can’t let that outrage exist and I ask your help in that. 

Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Elvig follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
33 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 38 here 76005A.019

Testimony by 

Paul M. Elvig 

On Behalf Of 

International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association 

At the Public Hearing on 

H.R. 3655, the Bereaved Consumers Bill of Rights 

Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

January 27, 2010 

GUARDIANS OF A NATION'S HERITAGE 

Suite 100 

107 Carpenter Drive 

Sterling, VA 20164 

Telephone: 703.391.8400 

Toll free: 1.800.645.7700 

Fax: 703.391.8416 

www.iccfa.com 

email: hq@iccfa.com 
34 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 39 here 76005A.020

Chainnan Rush and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We appreciate this opportunity to testifY at this morning's hearing concerning 

H.R. 3655, the Bereaved Consumers Bill of Rights Act. Our testimony supplements 

comments we submitted this past August in conjunction with the Subcommittee's field 

hearing on cemetery oversight conducted in Chicago on July 27, 2009. We respectfully 

request that our testimony be made part of the pennanent hearing record. The 

International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association (rCCF A) was founded in 

1887 and represents approximately 7,300 industry members including nonprofit, forprofit, religious and municipal cemeteries, funeral homes, crematories, monument 

retailers, and related professions including architects, attorneys and accountants. The 

rCCF A is the only trade association representing all segments of the death care industry. 

The members of the I CCF A have been shocked and dismayed over the reports of 

illegal disintennents, mishandling of human remains, and the fraudulent reselling of 

burial spaces at the historic Burr Oak Cemetery in Alsip, IL, and we applaud your 

leadership for investigating the issues involved and sponsoring H.R. 3655. To place the 

Burr Oak atrocity into perspective, the bill makes reference to two other incidents of the 

desecration of graves and the mishandling of remains elsewhere in the United States. 

However, we note than in each case, Florida, Georgia, and of course Illinois, the state and 

local authorities responded quickly and decisively, and new laws were enacted to address 

these heretofore unprecedented situations. We think it fair to ask what role, if any, the 

federal government could have or should have played when state and local authorities 

had the situation well in hand. 
35 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 40 here 76005A.021

The ICCF A supports the concepts and disclosures contained in Section 3 of H.R. 

3655 as good businesses practices. In fact, these rules to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts 

and practices reflect the very same standards contained in the IeCF A Model Guidelines 

that were published over a decade ago and can be accessed on our website at 

www.iccfa.com. The twenty-eight Model Guidelines for State Law and Regulations 

include topics on disinterments, recordkeeping, trust funds, prepaid contracts, written 

price disclosures, and many other aspects of cemetery, mortuary, and crematory 

operation. 

There is no question that the most abhorrent aspect of the Burr Oak investigation 

was the allegedly unauthorized and illegal defiling of graves. We strongly recommend 

that illegal disinterments be made a federal crime punishable as felony and respectfully 

suggest that H.R. 3655 be amended to include this offense. Federal law at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 

1369 currently makes the willful injury or destruction or attempts to injure or destroy any 

veterans' memorial on public property, I.e., a national cemetery, a federal crime 

punishable by fine or imprisonment of not more than ten years, or both. The rCCF A 

recommends that this statute be amended to include veterans' memorials on private 

property, and all cemetery memorials and monuments whether commemorating veterans 

or non-veterans. 

Section 5 ofH.R. 3655 states that its provisions shall not preempt state law "that 

provides protections to consumers of funeral services or funeral goods, except to the 

extent that the provision of law is inconsistent with any provision of this Act or a rule 

2 
36 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 41 here 76005A.022

prescribed under this Act. ... " However, we note that a number of states maintain laws 

that restrict or prohibit certain retailers from selling fimeral and cemetery merchandise. 

The reCF A urges the Subcommittee to amend H.R. 3655 to preempt any state law that 

does not allow all retailers to sell fimeral and cemetery merchandise to the public. 

Section 3 ofH.R. 3655 requires the Federal Trade Commission to enact a trade 

regulation that would cover all sellers of either funeral goods or fimeral services, 

including nonprofit and religious cemeteries. Typically, under an FTC trade rule, we 

understand that violations are statutorily imposed at the rate of$11,000 per violation. 

Frankly, this amount could bankrupt a number of smaller cemeteries that operate with 

volunteer staffs and possibly one or two paid employees. We suggest that a more 

constructive approach to regulating good business practices is by developing FTC 

Funeral Guides, which could then be enforced through Se?tion 5 of the FTC Act. The 

advantage of this approach would also track patterns of misconduct by a business as 

determined by the Guides, rather than imposing fines for isolated, one-event "gotcha" 

shortcomings that sometimes are the approach to trade rulc cnforcernent. In its present 

form, H.R. 3655 would impose excessive penalties for some relatively minor omissions 

of disclosure in a manner suggesting that the punishment outweighs the offense. We urge 

the Subcommittee to reconsider the structure of requiring disclosures, and the penalties 

that would be imposed under this bill. 

We are also concerned that the section 3(c) application to tax exempt 

organizations, including religious entities, raises both constitutional and jurisdictional 

3 
37 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 42 here 76005A.023

issues. The FTC Act limits the Commission's jurisdiction to businesses that are carried 

on for profit, and the FTC historically has not attempted to regulate religious 

organizations or their activities. Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of 

cemeteries in the United States are nonprofit, induding religious, municipal, and fraternal 

organizations, we believe that H.R. 3655 would have a disproportionate impact on these 

entities in ways that would never pass a costlbenefits analysis. In addition, the punitive 

enforcement of a trade rule mandated by H.R. 3655 would have a disproportionate effect 

on small business, which comprise the majority of funeral homes and cemeteries in the 

United States. 

The ICCF A believes that cemeteries and funeral homes are most efficiently and 

effectively regulated at the state level. These entities operate locally in their communities 

and therefore it makes sense to hold them accountable locally. During this . . 

Subcommittee's Chicago field hearing in July, we understand that one witness suggested 

that there may only be ten states with cemetery laws. That is not at all accurate. All fifty 

states have cemetery laws and regulations although some are more comprehensive than 

others. To assist the Subcommittee in its research, we are pleased to provide the 

following link to our website (http://www.iccfa.com/files/StateLawsandRequlations 

2009.doc) for a listing of all state cemetery and funeral home laws and regulations, which 

printed out, the list alone totals nearly 300 pages. There are also hyperlinks within the 

document to read the actual statutes and regulations. We have previously provided the 

Subcommittee staff with this data. 

4 
38 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 43 here 76005A.024

On the federal level, there is no law that specifically governs cemctery and funeral 

home operations. However, these entities must comply with literally dozens of federal 

statutes and regulations that affect their operations from the Departments of Labor, 

Treasury, Justice, Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the 

Federal Trade Commission, even the Federal Reserve Board. A listing of many of the 

agencies and their regulations is attached with hyperlinks. As noted, it is important to 

recognize that Section 5 of the FTC Act already gives the Commission regulatory 

authority over businesses engaging in unfair or deceptive practices, which would include 

cemeteries, funeral homes, crematories, and all related businesses in the funeral services 

industry. 

We respectfully suggest that federal regulations already address most aspects of 

cemetery and funeral home operations including deceptive sales and marketing practices. 

At the state level, the new Illinois Cemetery Oversight Act resulting from the Burr Oak 

investigation provides a case in point at the speed in which local authorities can move 

when confronted with a serious funeral-related issue. Existing state laws are being used to 

charge the four individuals apprehended in the Burr Oak investigation with serious 

crimes, and these defendants are facing multiple counts involving substantial criminal 

penalties if convicted, including incarceration. 

For these reasons, we respectfully suggest that H.R. 3655 should not be critiqued 

as "a solution in search of a problem," but should be reconsidered with an understanding 

5 
39 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 44 here 76005A.025

of the interaction between existing state and federal law enforcement as discussed above. 

The ICCFA looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and its staff to ensure that 

cemeteries, funeral homes, and crematories are held accountable and will always be 

regarded as "Guardians of a Nation's Heritage." Thank you. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Paul M. Elvig 

6 
40 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 45 here 76005A.026

Attachments 

1.) rCCF A Model Guideline: "Disinterment" 

2.) ICCF A Model Guideline: "Record Keeping Requirements" 

3.) ICCFA Model Guideline: "Identification of Human Remains in Conjunction 

with Final Disposition" 

4.) ICCFA Model Guideline: "Prepaid Contracts" 

5.) rCCF A Model Guideline: "Written Price Disclosures Prior to Purchasing" 

6.) List of Federal Regulations Affecting Cemeteries and Funeral Homes 

7.) Curriculum Vitae of Paul M. Elvig 

8.) Signed Witness Disclosure Requirement - "Truth in Testimony" 

7 
41 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 46 here 76005A.027

Disintennent I reeF A http://www.iccfa.comlgovernmcnt-Iegallmodel-guidelines/disinterrnenl 

Home My account About {CCFA Conta<.:t us Search 

1 CAFe CLASSIFIEDs MEMBERSHIP EDUCATION/EVENTS ADVERnSING!eXHIBlTING CREMATION COACHING CENTER 

! DIRECTORIES GOVERNMENT/LEGAL CERTIFICATIONS/AWARDS MUSICUCENSES CONSUMER RESOURces STORE 

1 Home > Government Legal > Mode! Guidelines > DiSinterment 

! 

I 

Model Guidelines for State Laws and Regulations 

:These guidelines are advisory in nature and set out general concepts rather than precise ttatutory ilanguage. The ICCfA is oot .l"&ommendifl9 that the guidelines be codm~ into law as a whole. :Instead, the guidelines are mtended for consideration as a senes of optIons to be selectively chosen ;by interested parties to address p-arth:ularconcerns. 

i Disinterment 

I 

I Developedin 1998 by /he Government end Legaf Affairs Task Force ofthe 

. International Cemetery and Funeral Association 

BACKGROUND 

; General policy of law does not favor disinterment, abSent compelling reasons. However, a cemetery authorky may occasionally receive a request for 

j interred human remains to be disinterred and reinterred within the cemetery or removed from the cemetery. Before the cemetery authority proceeds 

! to honor a dis1nterment request, it should be assured that aM required partieS have provided authorization Of that disinterment has been ordered by the 

! court, 

i DIsinterment procedures should protect the wishes and intent of the: decedent and the respective interests of interment right owners, the next of kin of i the deCedent, cemetery authorities, and the general public. A cemetery authOrity should estabnsh procedures to protect the health and safety of those 

! involved in the disinterment process. 

PRINCIPLES 

1. Human remains interred in a cemetery may be disinterred, refnterred, or removed from the cemetery with the Permission of the cemetery 

authority and wrillen consent from the interment tight owner or successor-in-interest and the pernon(s) who are lawflily authorited to control 

the fmal dispositiOn of the human remains, hereinafter referred to as !he ~authoriZing agent." 

2. The statutory order of priority to control final disposition should apply to disinterment. The individuales) with the highest order or pfiorIty woUld 

serve as the authorizing agent{s} fOr the disinterment If there is more than one indMdual in the same degree of kindred, lhena!! adult parties 

having the same degree of kindred should consent to the disinterment 

3. The order of priority for an authorizing agent could be as foHows: 

a, The person who was designated by the decedent prior to death as the autoorizing agent to control flnal disposition; 

b, The suruMng spouse; 

c. The decedent's surviving children 18 years of age or older; 

d. The de<:edent's sufVlving parents; 

e. The decedem:'s surviving s!hlings 18 years of age or Older. 

4, Prior to performing a disinterment, a cemetery authority shOOd have received authorization for fmal disposition of the dis/metre<! mman 

remains. 

5. The person{s) requ=.·.Ung and authorizing a disinterment shotdd assume financial responsibllity for any fees charged by the cemetery authority 

for perform1ng a disintermerrt aod for any restJltifIg repair or replacement of merchandise that Is damaged during the process. 

6. The cemetery authorlty should be held harmless against subsequent Claims for decomposition of interred hlman remains or deterioration of the 

casket, outer burial container, or other merchandise. A lawful disinterment should not be considered desecration of the interment or of the 

human remains. 

7. The cemetery authority should be hekI harmless when acting In good fatth In connection with the authorized disintenTJent when relylrg upon the 

disclosures and instructions provided by the !nterment right owner and the authorizing agent 

8. \Nhere a dispute exists among al¥ of the interested parties, a cemetery authority Should oot be held liable for refusing to disinter the human 

remains until it receives a court order or other forma! notifICation signed by each of the d"rsputing parties that the dispute has been resolved or 

settled. 

~fI71?(l{)911,02AM 
42 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 47 here 76005A.028

Disinterment I ICCF A http://www.iccfa.comfgQvernment-legallmodel~guidelines/disinterrnent 

9. If consent to disinter cannot be obtained, the human remains may be diSinterred by order of the court having jurisdiction where the cemetery is 

located. 

10. Consent for disinterment shOuld not be required under the following circumstances: 

a. Disinterment and reinterment by the cemetery authority within the cemetery to oorrect an error; 

b. Relocation of human remains from a temporary storage area to a place of permanent interment within the cemetery; 

c. Repositioning of an outer burial container that encroaches an adjoining grave space. 

11. Consent for each disinterment and reinterment should be obtained when raising and lowering human remains to accommodate multiple 

interments within a single interment space. 

12. A cemetery authority, Of person designated by the cemetery authority. should be responsible for performlng any disinterment or reinterment in 

the cemetery it owns due 10 the cemetery authOrity's care and maintenance obilgatioi1. 

13. Permanent records should be kept by the cemetery authority concerning any disinterment, reinterment, or removal from the cemetery. 

14, If a cemetery authority needs to take action to correct any errors that might be made in making an interment, diSinterment. or reinterment in an 

incorrect location, the cemetery authotity should have the right to transfer the human remains to the correct location or to a similar location of 

comparable value, as might be selected by the cemetery authority. The cemetery aulhority shoold have no liability as a result of any error of 

this type, other than the obligation to correct it. 

15. The cemetery authority should be allowed to adopt reasonable rules and regulations for procedures relating to disinterment and reinterment 

providing that such rules and regulations conform with relevant statules. 

Model Guidelines authorlzlng agent cemetery authority diSinterment human remains login or register to post comments 

Membership 1 Education/Events r ICCfA Store I Directories 1 CettiflOltionS/Awards I Government/Legal 

Muslc Ucenses I Advertising & Exhibiting I Classilied I Consumer Resources I About US I ICCFA Magazine 

IcerA Wl\(i! Contact Us I Join Now I Privacy Polley! Site Map I Terms Of Use 

nus WEB SITE IS OPTIMIZED FOR. FIREfOX - DOWNLOAD FREE BY CUCKING HERE 

Copyright 2008 International Cemetery, Cremation ~oh~~~al_(§t'b)iaJ~o5r:j?Jo 1'-aT(~'if:Wj9f_~~"itOO Sterling, VA 201M TelephOfle:(703) 391-8400 

&1171200911:02 AM 
43 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 48 here 76005A.029

Record Keeping Requirements I leeF A http://www.iccfa.comlgovemment~legaJ/model~guidelines/record~kee .. 

Home My account About tcCFA Contact us Sean:h: 

; CAFE ClASSIFIEOS MEMBERSHIP EDUCATION/EVENTS ADVERTISING/EXHIBITING CREMATION COACHING CENTER 

1 DIRECTORIES GOVERNMENT/LEGAL CERTIFICATIONS/AWARDS MUSIC UCENSES CONSUMER RESOURCES STORE 

; Home > Government Legal ) Model Guidelines > Record Keeping Requirements 

'Model Guidelines fot' State Laws and Regulations 

IThese guidelines are adviso!)' ir! nature and set out general concepts ratlrer than precise statutory 

language. The ICCFA is not recommending that the guidelines be codified into law as a whole. 

,Instead, the guidelines are intended for consideration as a series of options to be se!ectJvely chosen 

;by interested parties to address particular concerns. 

1 Record Keeping Requirements i 

: Developedin 1~8 by /he Govemment 8fJd Legel Affairs Task Force Of the 

International CemetetY end Funeral Association 

BACKGROUND 

The necessity to retain dru::umentation relating to funeral aru fina! disposition transactions will vary according to the type of facility, the nature of the 

transactiOn, and the type of information lnvolved, For example, cemeteries open with the intent of lasting forever. Accordingly, permanent records 

shOuld be retained for interment spaces and interments performed. Records of interment right ownership and fmal disposition should also be kept 

permanently. as should thOse records relating to the cremation process, However, records relating to at need funeral arrangements, prepaid 

contracts, or prepaid contract ~rust fond activities need only ~ retained for a limited time period following performance or termInation, 

This guideline is limited to record keeping considerations arising from funeral se!\lice and cemetery transactions speclftcallv related to comrat:ts and 

ftnaldisposition. 

PRINCIPLES 

1. Permanent records should be kept for: 

B. Each interment space sold, including information such as the specific location, interment right ownership, and the endowment care trust 

fund contribution; 

b. Instructions for final disposition of human remam:;; 

c. AothorizafionsforcrematiOns: 

d, Each interment performed; and 

e. Data on each memorial installed In the cemetery. 

2. In the case of a transfer of interment rights between owners, information should be retained permanently pertainlng to su:::h transfer. 

3. Copies of all prepaid contracts and a record of prepaid contract trust fund deposits and withdrawals should be retaioed for a specified t!me 

period fOllowing performance or termination of the prepaid contract. 

4. At need contracts Should be retaIned for a specified time period following performance. 

S. Records may be kept on paper or ina machine-readable form including, but not limited to, computer disks, magnetic tape, miCrofilm, 

microfIChe, or digital Imaging. 

6. The regulatory authOrity should have reasonable access 10 examine required records to determine COmpliance. Records ShoUld be maintained 

in a secure location, which may be separate from the seffing lOcation, provided that the regulatory authority is notified of such location. 

7. Information that the regulatory authority receives from examinations irducling, but nollimited 10, fmancial, accounting, and transactional recoros, 

should be kept confidential, except as required in a lega! proceeding. 

8. The cemetery authority, crematory authority, direct disposer, funeral establishment. or simllar business should be aHowed to adopt reasonable 

rules and regulations for record content am retention, providing that such rules aoo regufations conform with relevant statutes. 

9. The cemetery authority, crematory aut:hority, direct disposer, funeral establishment, or simtlar buSiness should oot be held liable for relying upon 

erroneous information that has been proWled to them by thlrcl parties. 

Mod'el Guidelines intennent rights record!(eeplog regulatory authority Log;in or reg!~ to post comments 

Membership I Education/Events: I ICCFA Store 1 Dlrectories I Certifications/Awards! Government/legal 

8117120091l:02AM 
44 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 49 here 76005A.030

Record Keeping Requirements! ICCF A http://www.iccfa.comlgovernment-Iegatlmode!-guidelines/record-kee ... 

Music Ucenses I Advertising & Exhibiting I Classified I Consumer ResourcEs I About Us 1 ICCFA Magazine 

Kef'A Wlk! I Contact US I Join Now I Pnvacy Polley I Site Map I Terms Of use 

THIS WEB SITE IS OPTIMIZED FOR flREFOX - DOWNLOAD FREE 6Y ruCKING HERE 

Copyright 2008lnternationa! Cemetery, Cremation tofr~~~~_1§;Oo1iaJ~o5~jfgo C~a~1~iiJ)D:I9r_~~eltoo Sterling, VA 20164 Telephone:(703) 391-8400 

8/17/2009 11:02 AM 
45 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 50 here 76005A.031

Handling of Human Remains In Conjooction With Final Disposition 1 •• http://www.iccfa.comlgovernment-Iegal/model-guidelineslhandling-h. 

Home My account About TCCFA Contact us Search i 

CAFE CLAS$IFIEDS MEMBERSHIP EDUCAnON/EVENTS ADVERUSING/EXHIBmNG CREMATION COACHING CENTeR 

DIRECTORIES GOVERNMENT/LEGAL CERTIFICATIONS/AWARDS MUSIC UCENSES CONSUMER RESOURCES STORE 

Home > Government legal > Model Guidelines > Handflng of Human Remains In Conjunction With Final Disposition 

.Model Guidelines tot' State laws and Regulations 

!These guidelines are advisory In nature ~nd set out ge~eral cOflCepts rather than precise statutory ,language. The ICCFA is not recommendIng that the gUldelines be codified Into law as a whole. 

!Instead,theguld~inesarelnteMed.forconslderatlonasaseriesofoptions to beselectlvely chosen lbYinrerested pames to address partlcular concerns. 

1 Handling of Human Remains In Conjunction With Fmal Disposition 

Developed in 1998 by the Government and Legal Affairs Task Force of the 

International Cemetery and Funeral AssoCiation 

BACKGROUND 

All aspects of the final disposition of human remains shOuld be handled with dignity, observing standards of decency, and in accordance with 

applk:ablelaws. 

Fmal disposition can be in the form of burial, entombment, inurnment, burial at sea, scatlering, dispersion Into space, shipment, or delivery of cremated 

remains to a designated person. The steps included inlhe preparation process for final disposition Include, but are not limned to, removal, autopsy, 

embalming. cleansing, dressing. vieWing. visitation. ceremony, cremation, gOO the selection of merchandise, services, and interment rights. The care 

and preparation of human remainS is a process where, due to issues of privacy. respect, and safety, access during: certain procedures Should be 

flm!ted to authorired individuals, and on occasion, immediate famtly members of the deceased. 

At all times, human remains should be treated with dignity. Intentiona! mISconduct in handling the human remains should not be tolerated. Accordingly, 

penalfies for such actions shOuld be suffICiently severe 10 discourage the aclivity and punish thOse who engage In it. 

PRINCIPLES 

1.) Upon taking custody of the human remains, the entity in charge of the final disposition shouk:l verify that the container which encases the human 

remains bears identifICation of the deceased and is accompanied by the proper documentation. 

2.) The cemetery authority, crematory authority, direct disposer, funeral establishment. or related businesses shOUld be held harmless in COflfIeCUon 

with the authorized final disposition, when relying upon the identification and disClosures provided by the authorizing agent and acting in goad faith upon 

the instru::tions of the authorizing: agent. 

3.} If there is a delay in the final disposition. human remains that have not been embalmed or cremated shOuld be held in a refrigeration unit until such 

time as final disposltion occurs. 

4.} In the event thai the cremated remains are unclaimed for a staled period of time, the crematory authority should send a letter by registered mall to 

the authorizing agent. If the cremated remains are unclaimed for a specified period Of time after such written notification is mailed, the crematory 

authOrity Should dispose of unclaimed cremated remains in any proper manner, and be held harmfess for this action. 

S.} The choIce of the entity in charge of the final disposition should be left to the autOOrizlng agent of the deceased. It shOufd be considered unethicat 

and iUegal conduct to engage in Asteering@ practices, where the human remains are directed to a specific cemetery authority, crematory authon1y, 

direct disposer, funeral establishment, or related businesses for payment of a referral fee. 

S.) Persons employed in the proxlmlty of either the deceased or the next 01 kin should conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the SOlemnity of 

the occasion. Unlawful conduct should include physical contact with human remains for purposes unrelated to the prepSfation process and final 

olSposition, mutilation, concealment of human remains that have been illegally disinterred. aOO the acquisition Of sale of human remains or body parts. 

This would not apply to any act performed for a bona fide medical purpose or for any other lawful purpose, 

See Also: HANDliNG OF HUMAN REMAINS IN CONJUNCTION WIlH THE CREMATION PROCESS 

Model Guidelines authorizing agent human remains identificatiOn login or register to post: comments 

Membership I Education/Events I lCCFA Store I Directories I CertificationS/Awards I Govemment/legal 

Music Ucenses I Advertising &. Exhibiting I ClaSSified I Consumer Resources I About us I ICCfA Magazine 

ICCFA Wiki j Contact Us I Join Now I Privacy Policy! Site Map I Terms Of USe 

THIS WE8 SITE rs OPTIMIZED FOR fIREFOX ~ DOWNlOAD FREE BY CliCKING HERE 

81171200911:03 AM 
46 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 51 here 76005A.032

Handling of Human Remains In Co11iunctiQn With Final Disposition I .. http://www.iccfa.comlgovenunent~legallmodel-guidetineslhandling~h. 

8!17/200911:03 AM 
47 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 52 here 76005A.033

Prepaid Contracts I rCCF A http://www.iccfa.comlgovemment-Iegallmodel-guidelines/prepaid-con. .. 

Home My account About ICCFA Contact us Search 

! CAFE CLASSlFIEDS MEMBERSHIP EDUCATION/EVENTS ADVERTISING/EXHIBITING CREMATION COACHING CENTER 

; DIRECTORIES GOVERNMENT/LEGAL CERTIFICATIONS/AWARDS MUSICUCENSES CONSUMER RESOURCES STORE 

Home > Government Lega! • Mode! Guidelines • P~paid Contracts 

:Model Guidelines for State Laws and Regulations 

lThese guidelines are advisory In nature and set out general concepts rather than preCise statutory 

'language. The [CCFA is not recommendIng that the guidelines be codified Into law as a whole. 

,Instead, the guidelines are intended for conSideration as a series of options to be selectlve!y chosen 

JVY interested parties to address particular concems. 

Prepaid Contracts 

Developed by the Government and Legal Affairs Task Force of the 

fnteftl8tionaJ Cemetery and Funeral Association 

The nature of contracUng for cemetery and funeral merchandise and services on a preMed basis is different from most other consumer transactions 

because it involves paying for something today which isn't expected to be received for some period of Ilme--peffiaps decades. Therefore, it is 

important to have safeguards to protect the consumer's interests. 

The transaction is further complicated by the fact that it is designed to be completed only when one of the parties. the purchaser Of a third party 

beneficiary, has died. Consequently, the relatives or close friends of the deceased are the ones who will actuaUy know whether the transaction was 

completed as specified in the prepaid contract.. This combination of htctors creates the potential for misunderstanding about what the deceased 

wanted or expected. The risk of misuMerstanding can be substantia!1y reduced by the use of cfearty-worded, detailed prepaid contracts between 

sellers and purchasers. 

SInce the proliferation of preneed sales is a fairly recent development, there has been little statutory guidance aboUt what provisions should be 

specifically included in the prepaid contract. Certain guidelines shOUld augment general contract disclosures \0 better inform consumers of the nature 

: of the prepaid contract transaction. 

pmNCIPlES 

1, Prepaid contracts shoutd conform to at! applicabla state and federal statutes and regulations. 

2, Prepaid contracts should be written in plain EngliSh, and clearly state the merchandise and services that p!.lfChasers are buying and their prices. 

Use of legal or industry-specific jargon should be aVOided, to the extent possible. 

3. Charges should be itemized. The itemization shoukI be in greater detail than just a recitation of prices. It should include a complele description 

of the services to be rendered and an unambiguous description of the merchandise to be delivered. 

4. \lVhen prices of merchan:fise or services to be deflWred in the future are not guaranteed, or an additional P<IYfIl9nt may be requited in the 

future, a statement to that effect should be included In the prepaid contract and Inltialed by the purchaser. 

5. There should be an explanation of how the purchaser's funds wllJ be protected to assure the seller's performance in compliance with the 

prevailing prepaid contract law. 

6. The contract must clearty state what happens if merchandise is not available at delivruy time and substitution is nece5SaIY. In the event of a 

manufacturer's discontinuation of a model, the description of the merchandise should be sufficiently complete for the autOOrizing agent to make 

a decision, based upon objective criteria. about the comparability of a needed substitution. 

1, No sUbstitution should be possible without the consent of the purchaser, or opon his or her death. the authorlzing agent who lawfully controls the 

fina! disposition of the remains. I-bwewr. the autMrizing agent should not be allowed to initiate a material challJe which is inconsistent with the 

purchaser's wishes, fur the purpose of obtaining a refund, based upon the statutory requirement to adhere to the directions of the deceased. In 

this regard, the prepaid contract could contain a prOvision, which is initialed by the purchaser. either prohibiting any changes, orattematively, 

specifying what mslructions could be modified and by whom. 

8. The seifer may enter into a written agreement with the purchaser of a prepaid contract provid~ for payment of a finance charge on any 

amount due to the seller. The prepaid contract should conform to aU other applicable state and federal statutes and regulations governing 

8117/2009 1I :03 AM 
48 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 53 here 76005A.034

Prepaid Contracts I ICCF A http://www.iccfa.com/govemulent-Iegallmodel-guidelines/prepaid-con ... 

imposition of finance charges. 

9. There shOUld be a clear disclosure of any applicable law allowing for cancellation by the purChaser within the first few days of entering into a 

prepaid contract. The prepaid contract should clearly explain whether and under what terms the prepaid contract may be cancelled, after that 

initial caoceHation period, if arrj. 

10. Regulatory authorities should be encouraged to alloW placement of all required disclOsures together as an addendum to the prepaid contract 

rather than requidng disclosures on the face of the prepaid contract. The following should be required when an addendum 10 the prepaid 

contract is allowed: 

a) The seller should be required to obtain a signature of the purchaser an the addendum, in addition to prepaid contract; 

b) The addendum should be in an easy-tp..read format with pages the same size as the prepaid contract; 

c) The type size should be no smaller than 10 points and the printing should be high contrast for easy readability; 

d) Subheadings to identify groupings Of types of disclosures should be provided for clarity. 

11. The purchaser of a prepaid contract may irrevocably waive and renounce hIS or her right to cancel the prepaid contract. This is essential to 

purchasers trying to satisfy ellgibiUty requirements for Medicaid and supplemental Sectu'~y Income benefits. The waiver and renunciation may 

be included as a provision oflhe: prepaid contract Of made as an addendum, providing that it is sigoed by the purchaser. The irrevocability of 

the prepaid contract should not affect the right of the purchaser to change the provider of the prepaid contract 

12. Copies of the prepaid contract and supplemental material, such as information an credit life insurance and transfer or exchange plans, should 

be provided to the purchaser at the time of the preneed sale. 

13. Copies of the prepaid contract and a.t need documentation should be PfO\'idedtO the authorizing agent at the time of making at need 

arrangements to ensure that the merchandise and services match those specified in the prepaid contract. A ~sl of Items substituted should be a 

written part of the at need documentation 

1:1. Copies of all prepaid contracts and al need documentation should be retained by the seller for a specified period of time after performance. 

15. Upon performance, Of cancellation of a prepaid contract by mutual agreement between the seller and the purchaser, Of upon unilateral 

cancellation by the seller by reason of default of the purchaser, or other vaHd canceHatlon by reason of transfer to another provider, or 

othelwise, the selter should su'omit SuffICient documentation to the trustee to enable wit~rawal of an funds conIn1mted, and aU earnings 

attnbulab!e to the.prepaid contract. 

Model GUidelines preneed prepaJd contract Login or register to post comments 

Membership I Education/Events I lCCFA Store! Directories I Certificatlons/Awards I Govemment/Legal 

MusiC Licenses I Advertising & Exhibiting I ClassIfied I Consumer Resources I About Us I ICCfA Magaline 

ICCFA Wikl I Contact Us I Join Now I PrIvacy Policy I Site Map I Terms Of Use 

THIS WEB SITE IS OPTIMIZED FOR fIREfOX • DOWNLOAD FREE BY CUCKING HERE 

Copyrlght 2008 International Cemetery, Cremation toft¥~;ai_~[b~)aJ~05'. j?Jo'1?a~{i~j)D:f9[~~elg00 Sterting, VA 20164 Telephone:(703) 391·8400 

81171200911:03 AM 
49 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 54 here 76005A.035

Written Price Disclosures Prior To Purchasing 1 ICCF A http://www .iccfa.comfgovemment~legal!model-guidelineslwritten-pri ... 

Home Myaccouf\t About lCCFA Contact us Sean::h 

CAFE CLASSIFIEDS MEMBERSHIP EDUCAnON/EVENTS ADVERTISING/EXHIBITING CREMATION COACHING CENTER 

DIRECTORIES GOVERNMENT/LEGAL CERTIFICATIONS/AWARDS MUSIC UCENSES CONSUMER RESOURCES STORE 

Home > Government Legal > Model Guidelines • Written Price Disclosures Prior To Purchasing 

Mode! Guidelines for State Laws and Regu!ati(lns 

These guidelines are advisory in nature and set out general COl'Icepts rather than predse statutory language. The ICCFA is not recommending that the guidelines be codified into law as a whole. Instead, the guidelines are intended for consideration as a selies of options to be selectively chosen 

by interested parties to address partlcu!ar concerns. 

Written Price Disclosures Prior To Purchasing 

Deve/opedin 1998 byfhe Government and Legal Affairs Task Force oflhe 

International Cemetef)f and Funeral Association 

BACKGROUND 

\NherI consumers conSider contractiflg for cemetery and funeral merChandise Of services, whether on a preneed or an at..need basis, important 

information that may influence purchasing decisions should be avai!able. Chief among this data are truthful and accurate prices given in wrHten form 

priOr to a purchasing decision being made. 

Although the Federal Trade,CommlsSion (FTC) Funeral R.uIe marKiates certain written price disclosures by funeral estabfishments, many related 

entities including cemetery and crematory authorities, and memorial and casket retailers are generally not covered. As a practical matter, many 

volunteer, muniCIpal, religious, and fraternal entities organized under IlariOus state laws would continue to be excluded from the Funeral Rule due to the 

FTC's limited jurisdiction over sUCh organizations. However. state regulatory authorities would not be Similarly restricted in their coverage. 

PRINCIPLES 

1. Sellers of funerals, interment ri9hts and reklted merchandise Of services, including cremation, should provide a written price list of an such items 

offered for sale to a potential purchaser where the purpose of the discussion pertains to the sale of any of these items. Where a large number 

of items are offered for sale Ina category, a range of prices may be used. 

2. The potential purchaser should be allowed to retain a copy of the price list for future reference, which may be combined with olher required 

disclosures, 

3. The price list should be proooed at any location where the meeting between the seller and potential pllfChaser occurs, not solely at the seller's 

place of business. 

4, The price list should contain the name, address, and telephone number of the seller, and contain the effectlve dale of the priCes. 

S. Price Information shoUld be provided over the teleptJ.:Jna when requested by the caller. 

6. For enforcement purposes, a warning should be issued by lhe state regulatory authority for an initial violation. Subsequent violations by the 

same seller should be assessed based on a graduated scale of monetary penalties, 

Model Guidelines FTC funeral rule preneed price list login or registet' to post comments 

Membership I Educaticn/events I ICCfA Store! DIrectories! CertificationS/Awards I Govemment/Lega! 

Music Ucenses I Advertising 8< Exhibiting! Classified I Consumer Resourt:es I About Us I lCCFA Magazine 

ICCFA Wikll Contact US I Join Now! Privacy Policy I Site Map I Terms Of Use 

nilS WEe SITE IS OPTIMIZED FOR FIREfOX - DOWNLOAD FREE BY CliCKING HERE 

Copyright 2008 International Cemetery, Cremation tJi~~~i_~~taA~~Mgo9'a~~W3't39f~~1~OO Sterling, VA 20164 • Te!ephone:(703) 391·8400 

8/17/200911:04 AM 

Insert offset folio 55 here 76005A.036tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 

itatio Regulation 

FEDERAL Rl JLATIONS 

AFFECTING CEMETERIES FUNERAL HOMES 

U.S. DEPT. OF TREASURY fIRS 

IRC Sec. 453C 

IRC Sec. 460 

IRC Sec. 501(c)(13) 

Repeal of Installment Method 

Construction Contracts 

Cemeteries !aX on coTDPrations, cellain trusts elc 

IRC Sec. 642(i) 

IRC Sec. 685 

IRC Sec. 3508 

Rev. Ru184-41 

Rev. Ru187·127 

PLR 199935060 

Perpetual Care Funds 

Funeral Trusts 

Direct Sellers 

Indepe:ndent Contractors 

Preneed Trust Income 

Preneed Sale of Burial Plots 

Preneed Sale of Burial Plots 

PLR 9801027 Preneed Cemetery Merchandise Trust ... /id66fbJlfdoc 

'itatio 

29U.S.C.651,etseq. I The 

29 U.S.C. Sec 151·169 

29 U.S.C Chpt 8 

29 CFR Part 1910, etseq. 

29 CFR Part 1910.1030 29 CFR Part 1910.1048 

29 CFR Part 1910.1200 

29 CPR Part 1926, Sub, P Excavation Standard 

29 CFR 825, P.L. 103·3 I Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 

www,.ilpi.co{nIMSPS/QsbaI1910.UOO.html 

Cilalion 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

42 

15 U.S.C. 1·7 

15 U.S.C. 12·27 

U.S.C. 12101, cl seq. 

28 CFRPart 36 

Regulation 

Sherman Antitrust Act 

ClaytonAcl 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

www.lmminJ:.(ip .. com(Statute$/Sk-SherrrlBnActhtml 

html 

www.,eeoc,eoy/ooljev{adahtml 

EOUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

42U.S.C.1981,el,e,. 

42 U.S.C. 12101, et ,eq. 

,egulation 

Civil Rights Act of 199 I 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

C:\O"""m.n .... "S.mog.18ab1MyOocumft •. "'F'>(I Rell"o"C,,m,2009.>l. 

www.eeoc.iWv/Dolfcv/cra9J.hl.ml wwween9/Wv'ooJicy/Bdahtm.! 

Page 1013 

1nk 

:r8 

Link 

Link 

Insert offset folio 56 here 76005A.037tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 

29 CPR Part 1625 

29 CFR Part 1630 

Citation 

42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq. 

42 U.S.C 9601, et seq. 

40 CFR Parts 280 and 281 

42 U.S.C. 6901, etse". 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seQ. 

40 CPR Part 259 

Q!at!ru! 

15 U.S.C §45 15 U.S.C § 13 

15 U.S.C §1692 

16 CFRPart453 

16 CPR Part 429 

16 CFR Part 433 

16 CFR Part 310 

16 CFR Part 238 16 CFR Part 251 

16 CFR Part 239 16 CFR Part 233 16 CFR Part 435 

16 CFR Part 255 

16 CFR Part 444 

Citation 

16 CFR Part 701 

16 CFRPart 702 

15 U.s.C §1681 

FEDERAL RI JLATIONS 

AFFECTING CEMETERIES FUNERAL HOMES 

ADEA in J::mp.12yment Act __ miJin 02.html 

ADA Title I Emplovment IWWW.e(:01:.£9.Y/llOli(;v/ada...htm1 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Link 

Resource Conversation and Recovery Act bmtiL!...<l.w.luS!ia 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation1 and LiabHity Act of 1980 www.enagov!lawww1aws!cerc!a.html 

Underground Storage Tanks Iwww.eou:ov/swerustlJfed!aws/cfr.htm 

Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988 /lttp:lllaw justia.com/us/codesftitle42/42usc62!!JJtl:m! 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 WWW.epa.9.ovllawsteRslJaws/caa.html 

Medical Waste Standards 

. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

ulation Link 

Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices 

Price Discrimination 

usC&dodd=Clle;+15USC45 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

RemJiation Link 

Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty 

Terms and Conditions IhttD:lIlaW JU5tia,comltlslc.lb'utlelQf16",frlQJ_mairLQ:Z.html 

PreSale Availability of Written Warranty Tenns Ihttp;lflawiustia..;:omfu$!cfr/title16116cfr7' 02.b1SJlJ 

Falr CredltRepoiiiiigAct; 

Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act; 2003 

Red Flag Regulations Pdf 

C:1l:h>ebt!\.moPlllSel!log.'II!ow.!yOocum.n1sV'<I<IR_onColm,200D.m Page 2 of 3 

Insert offset folio 57 here 76005A.038tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 

FEDERAL Rl JLATIONS 

AFFECTING CEMETERIES FUNERAL HOMES 

U.S. DEPT. OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Citation -Reulation Link 

ltional Cemeteries Act of 1973 txt 

38 U .S.C. 2301, et seq. Burial Benefits http:{/www.lawcornel!eduIuscodeihlm!fuscode38/usc.sec 38 00002301--OO0·.nlml 

38 U.S.C. 2401. et seq. National Cemeteries 

38 U.S.C. §90i Allowment for Penalileslor Destruction of 

18 U.S.C. §1369 

Citation 

47 U.S.C. 227 

47 CFR Parts 64 and 68 

National Cemetery Property 

PenafHeifoiOestruction of National Cemetery 

Property 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Teleohone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 imUwww.fccgoy/cgb!oolicyrrCPA.Rules.pf.l[ 

Telemarketine: Ilillp2lw.ww,fg:,IWV/Wcbt'il),td/47cfr:.html 

STATUTES ALSO PROVIDING PRN ATE ENFORCEMENT 

Link 

Citation Link 

15 U.S.C. 107 

15 U.S.C. 12 .. 27 

17 U.S.C. 101,500 

42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. 

42 U.S.C. 21 Civil Rights Act 

www..eeoc.fZay/l)olicv/ada,hnrtl 

Page 3 of3 
53 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Earl for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF RANDALL L. EARL 

Mr. EARL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you very much for the opportunity to present the view of the 

National Funeral Directors Association on H.R. 3655. 

I am Randall L. Earl, a licensed funeral director from Decatur, 

Illinois and have been practicing my profession for 40 years. I own 

and operate the 125 year old Brintlinger and Earl Funeral Home 

in Decatur and serve Burr Oak as well as B and E Crematory in 

also Decatur. We have nine full-time employees and seven parttime employees. We perform approximately 400 funerals a year. 

I am appearing here today in my capacity as an elected official 

of the National Funeral Directors Association. NFDA is the leading 

funeral service organization in the United States and provides the 

national voice for the funeral service profession. One of NFDA’s 

missions is to safeguard the trust and integrity of the funeral profession. In that regard, we strongly support H.R. 3655 and the intent in which it was proposed. However, before I discuss the specifics of H.R. 3655, I think it would be helpful to your deliberations 

to provide some background on our experience with the FTC rule. 

NFDA and its members today strongly support retention of the 

FTC rule as the uniform standard for funeral homes as well as a 

rule that protects consumers served by funeral homes. Since the 

rule was enacted, the marketplace for funeral and burial goods and 

services has changed dramatically. With the introduction of many 

non-traditional sellers, most recently for example, Wal-Mart and 

Amazon.com began selling caskets directly to consumers. When 

consumers do business with these non-traditional providers they 

see none of the protections afforded by the FTC rule when they 

purchase the same goods from funeral homes. It is therefore necessary in our judgment to establish a separate rule as outlined in 

H.R. 3655. 

We believe the rule which is enforced by FTC has benefited consumers by providing basic protections and safeguards to consumers 

who do business with funeral homes. We also believe that the Funeral Rule has benefited funeral providers. Many NFDA members 

have reported that the rule has made them better businessmen and 

women by helping them explain to consumers the cost of all different components of a funeral thereby giving families a greater 

understanding of the cost involved. In addition, to maintain compliance levels funeral homes now offer continuous staff training and 

education that reinforces the professionalism of the funeral home 

staff. As evidenced by the scandals at Burr Oak Cemetery, Menorah Gardens Cemetery, Tri-State Crematory and many other incidents, there is no question that consumers are being injured because cemeteries and other sellers of funeral or burial goods or 

services are not subject to uniform Federal standards or a haphazard and inconsistent set of State laws. 

As a result, NFDA strongly supports H.R. 3655 which requires 

the FTC to establish a Federal rule that applies the same or similar disclosures and standards of practice provided under the Funeral Rule to all sellers of funeral or burial goods or services not 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
54 

now covered by the rule. We are particularly supportive of the inclusion of all non-profit and religious organizations as well as State 

and local political subdivisions. We strongly believe that consumers 

should enjoy the same protections regardless of where or whom 

they purchase funeral or burial services. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

NFDA believes this bill outlines for the FTC a rule that NFDA has 

long argued was necessary given the dramatically changed marketplace and the rise of new and non-traditional sellers who now offer 

consumers many of the same funeral or burial goods or services 

provided by funeral homes but without protections afforded by the 

Funeral Rule. While H.R. 3655 does impose some modest requirements on funeral homes, we believe them to be appropriate and 

consistent with our policy. Finally, while we understand this rule 

might not have prevented the widely reported scandals that occurred at Burr Oak, Menorah Garden Cemetery or the Tri-State 

Crematory, NFDA believes H.R. 3655 will raise the bar for everyone and correct many of the existing problems that led to those situations. As we know, after 26 years under the FTC rule we are better funeral directors for the experience and have a much greater 

awareness that good consumer practices are good business practices as well. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the National Funeral Directors Association on this very important legislation. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Earl follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
55 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 61 here 76005A.039

Mr. Chainnan and members of the Subcommittee, tbank you for the opportunity to present the views of the 

National Funeral Directors Association (NFDA) on H.R. 3655, a bill to require the Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC) to enact a rule to provide certain uniform federal protections and remedies for consumers who purchase 

funeral or burial goods or services from cemeteries, crematories and other third-party sellers, as well as certain 

practice requirements for those entities when selling to the public. 

I am Randall L. Earl, a licensed funeral director from Decatur, Illinois and have been practicing my 

profession for 40 years. I own and operate the 125 year old Brintlinger & Earl Funeral Homes in Decatur and 

Cerro Gordo as well as B&E Crematory also in Decatur. We have 9 full-time employees and 7 part-time 

employees. We perfon11 approximately 400 funerals a year. I am appearing here today in my capacity as an 

elected officer of the National Funeral Directors Association. 

The National Funeral Directors Association (NFDA) represents more than 10,000 funeral homes and 

over 19,000 licensed funeral directors and embalmers in all 50 states. The overwhelming majority of NFDAmember fin11s arc independently owned and operated businesses with fewer than 10 employees and have been 

in the same family for over three generations. NFDA is the leading funeral service organization in the United 

States and provides the national voice for the funeral service profession. 

NFDA has a great interest in ensuring the trust and integrity of the funeral service profession remains 

high in the opinion of the families its members serve. In that regard, we strongly support H.R. 3655 and the 

intent with which it was proposed. 

Page I of 10 
56 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 62 here 76005A.040

However, before [ discuss the specific provisions of H.R. 3655, it would be helpful to your deliberations 

to provide some background on our experience with the FTC Funeral Rule, which currently applies only to 

those who provide funeral goods alld services to the public ... namely funeral homes. 

IN THE BEGINNING 

In its role as the national representative of the funeral profession, NFDA has been actively involved in all facets 

of the FTC's development and implementation of the Funeral Rule. During the original rulemakings and the 

first review, NFDA voiced its opposition to the Funeral Rule. At that time, it was NFDA's position that 

regulation of the funeral profession should remain with at the state level and should not be exercised at the 

federalleve!. 

Nevertheless, the Funeral Rule was promulgated in 1982, became effective in 1984 and has been in 

place for 26 years. Since then, members of the funeral service profession have incorporated the requirements of 

the Funeral Rule into their day-to-day operations. Consumers, when dealing with funeral directors, have hecn 

afforded the protections and intormational benefits provided by the Funeral Rule. 

TODAY 

NFDA and its members today strongly support retention of the FTC Funeral Rule as a uniform standard for 

funeral homes, as well as a rule that protects consumers served hy funeral homcs. However, when the FTC 

Funeral Rule was developed 26 years ago, funeral goods and services were primarily sold ollly by funeral 

directors and. therefore, the scope of the Funeral Rule was limited by the Commission to the sellers of funeral 

goods alld services. 

Since the Rule was enacted, however, the marketplace for funeral and burial goods or services has 

changed dramatically. In addition, subsequent amendments to the Funeral Rule, including banning casket 

Page 2 of 10 
57 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 63 here 76005A.041

handling fees, have encouraged non-traditional sellers to enter the market Most recently, for example, WalMart and Amazon.com began selling cashts directly to consumers. When consumers deal with these nontraditional providers, however, they receive none of the protections afforded by the FTC Funeral Rule. It is 

therefore necessary, in our judgment, to either update the FTC Funeral Rule so it reflects the realities of the 

current marketplace versus the marketplace that existed 26 years ago, or to establish a separate rule that 

addresses all sellers of funeral goods or services, as contemplated by H.R. 3655. If the original intent of the 

Funeral Rule remains valid, conSllmers must be protected from any seller of nmeral goods or services from 

whom they purchase such services or merchandise. 

CONSUMER BENEFITS OF FUNERAL RULE 

NFDA has no empirical data with which to measure how the Rule has benefited consumers by protecting them 

against injurious misrepresentations, unauthorized embalming or forced purchases of unwanted items. It is not 

possible to detonnine the extent to which those subject to the Rule would have engaged in any of these practices 

had the Rule not been in effect. What can be detennined, however, is the fact that the FTC Funeral Rule 

prohibits such practices and, in so doing, provides basic protections and safeguards to consumers. On that basis 

alone, it has benefitted consumers. 

NFDA and its members strongly support retention and strengtheuing of the FTC Funeral Rule, or the 

establishment ofa separate rule, as outlined in H.R. 3655, so that all funeral consumers may benefit from basic 

protections and safeguards regardless of where or from whom they purchase funeral or burial goods or services. 

While the Funeral Rule might not have provided all of the benefits that the Commission predicted in its 1982 

Statement of Basis and Purpose, the Rule has provided consumers dealing with funeral homes the following: 

• A guarantee that the consumer will receive written price lists showing the itemized prices of funeral 

goods and services. 

Page 3 oflO 
58 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 64 here 76005A.042

• A guarantee that the consumer will receive the itemized price lists before selecting any goods or 

services. 

• The general price list given to the consumer will be in a fonnat that allows the consumer to easily 

compare the prices of the funeral provider with any other funeral provider. 

• The price lists will contain mandatory disclosures that will provide helpful infonnation to consumers 

regarding fnneral goods and services they might wish to purchase or decline to purchase. 

• The consumer will receive a written itemized statement of the funeral goods and services he or she 

purchased at the end ofthe arrangements. 

• The consumer will be protected against misrepresentations that might mislead the consumer into 

purchasing unnecessary funeral goods or services. 

• The consumer will not be compelled to purchase any unwanted funeral goods or services. 

• The consumer will be provided the right to bring in third-party merchandise and have the funeral 

provider service that merchandise without any restrictions or fees. 

NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CONSUMER PROTECTIONS 

Unfortunately, while every consumer who buys funeral goods or services from a funeral home is entitled to the 

protections afforded by the FTC Funeral Rule, no such safeguards arc given to consumers who purchase funeral 

goods and/or services from non-traditional, third-pmiy sellers not subject to the Rule. Ironically, a new segment 

of sellers has entered the funeral marketplace since the FTC Funeral Rule was enacted, yet consumers who deal 

with these new providers are not provided any of the protections of the FTC Funeral Rule. 

Therefore, in order to ensure that every consumer of funeral goods and services enjoys these benefits 

and protections, it is necessary to modify the definitions of "funeral provider" and "funeral services." Today, 

tens of thousands of consumers purchase funeral goods and/or services from sellers who are not subject to the 

Page4ofJO 
59 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 65 here 76005A.043

Rule because they do not sell funeral "goods and services." Likewise, many consumers buy from sellers who 

escape coverage of the Rule because they do not offer both funeral ceremonies and the care oflhe body, as 

required to be selling "funeral services." We believe that H.R. 3655 adequately addresses this problem. 

Strengthening the Rule to cover al! sellers of funeral goods or funeral services, or the establishment of a 

separale rule to cover al! sellers, wi II not only benefit consumers who purchase goods and services from nontraditional sellers, but will also benefit consumers who deal with funeral directors. The Commission and the 

FTC Staff have often stated their belief that the pro-competitive and informational benefits of the Rule wil! 

increase as more consumers become aware of the Rule and their rights under the Rule. By expanding the 

protections and benefits of the Rule to al! consumers, and by prohibiting restrictions and handling charges 

imposed by all sellers, the FTC would increase the benefits of the Rule to al! purchasers. In the alternative, !-l.R. 

3655 would require the FTC to extend these safeguards to all sellers of funeral goods or services under a 

separate rule. We strongly support that approach, as well. 

Regarding the issue of the cost that might be imposed on non-traditional sellers jfthe Rule is 

strengthened, the FTC Staff has always found that compliance costs with the Rule are minimal and do not 

significantly raise business costs for funeral providers. Therefore, NFDA sees no reason the same will not prove 

true for non-traditional providers and strengthening the Rule, or estahlishing a separate rule for these sellers to 

cover all transactions involving funeral goods or funeral services, will impose little cost for sellers. 

FUNERAL RULE HAS BENEFITED FUNERAL HOMES, AS WELL 

On the issue of whether the Funeral Rule has benefited fWleral providers, many NFDA members have reported 

that the Rule has made them better businessmen and women by helping them explain to consumers the cost of 

all of the different components ofa funeral. thereby giving families a greater understanding oflhe costs 

involved. In addition, despite the cost of compliance, the Funeral Rule also benefits n.meral homes by 

Page 5 of 10 
60 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 66 here 76005A.044

emphasizing the need for continuous staff training and education, Efforts to maintain compliance levels 

reinforce the professionalism of the funeral home staff by reminding them of the right of funeral consumers to 

the timely receipt of detailed and itemized price infonnation, 

INCONSISTANCIES OF THE FUNERAL RULE 

NFDA believes the restrictive definitions found in the current Funeral Rule arbitrarily provide some consumers 

with Funeral Rule protection while depriving others of that protection, For example, assume a cemetery 

operates a crematory that accepts dead bodies directly from the public, Since the cemetery is presumably selling 

funeral services when it accepts the body and prepares it for cremation, it should be subject to the FTC Funeral 

Rule. If that cemetery required a consumer to purchase an urn, vault, casket or other merchandise only from the 

cemetery in order to have the cremated remains interred in the cemetery, it would violate the handling fee ban 

imposed by the Funeral Rule, 

However, if the cemetery elected not to accept bodies directly from the public for cremation, it would 

not be subject to the Funeral Rule since it would not be selling funeral services, Therefore, when it required a 

consumer to purchase an urn, vault, casket or other merchandise only from the cemetery as a condition of 

interring the cremated remains, the cemetery would not be in violation of the Funeral Rule, 

What could possibly be the rationale for allowing some cemeteries to impose handling fees and tying 

an-angements while prohibiting others from imposing handling fees and tying arrangements based solely upon 

whether they prepare bodies for cremation" The definitions that the FTC developed 26 years ago when the 

death care industry was fairly compartmentalized simply do not serve the interests of consumers today as 

segments of the death care industry blend and cross-over. The definitions employed by the FTC in the Funeral 

Rule must be updated to fit the market as it now exists, not as it existed a generation ago, We believe that H,R, 

3655 adequately addresses this problem 

Page 6 of 10 
61 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 67 here 76005A.045

CO:\1PLlANCE RATE WITH THE FUNERAL RULE 

From every indication, it appears that compliance with the requirements of the Funeral Rule by funeral 

providers is very high. The Funeral Rule undercover shopper campaigns conducted by the FTC and state 

authorities have found a high aggregate compliance level with the cornerstone of the Rule _ ..the distribution of 

the General Price List to consumers. While these compliance rates vary from city to city and year to year, we 

believe the FTC has been encouraged by the findings of the sweeps as compliance levels have remained 

relatively high. 

There is no question that consumers are being injured because cemeteries and other sellers of funeral 

goods or services are not subject to the Funeral Rule or any other unifonn federal standards. In addition. the 

infonnational and pro-competitive benefits that the Rule provides are being limited by the fact that the Rule 

does not protect consumers who purchase funeral goods or services from non-funeral providers. For example: 

(a) While funeral consumers may be reluctant to switch funeral homes, for most cemetery consumers, a 

switch is impossible. If a decedent has already purchased a plot in a cemetery, his survivors have no 

alternatives but to deal with that cemetery. Even if a consumer has not yet purchased a plot, he or she could 

still be irrevocably tied to a cemetery if the consumer's spouse or other family members are interred there. 

The consumer in that case would have a very limited choice: deal with the cemetery or disinter the remains 

of the consumer's ilunily. The superior bargaining position this gives a cemetery is far greater than that held 

by a funeral home. It is quite apparent that the cemetery consumer is in a uniquely vulnerable position when 

negotiating with the cemetery. Clearly, the protectiOtlS alforded consumers by the Funeral Rule should be 

afforded consumers dealing with the cemetery, either through the Funeral Rule or by establishing a separate 

rule, as contemplated hy H.R. 3655. 

Page7oflO 
62 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 68 here 76005A.046

(b) By expanding the coverage of the Funeral Rule to all funeral consumers, or by establishing a separate 

rule, as contemplated by H,R, 3655, the Corrunission would greatly increase informed consumer choice, 

Every funeral consumer would receive a price list prior to purchasing funeral or burial goods or services, 

Moreover, because the Funeral Rule does impose a degree ofunifonnity in price lists that could be adopted 

in the rule covering all sellers, consumers could easily compare prices between traditional funeral providers 

and non-traditional sellers, 

(clOne ofthe principal benefits of the Funeral Rule identified by the Commission is that it protects 

consumers from the economic injury they sustained when they purchase unnecessary products because of 

misrepresentations or lack of infonnation, Unless the Commission finds that consumers who deal with nontraditional sellers are more knowledgeable about laws, regulations and the practical necessities of funeral 

goods and services than consumers dealing with traditional funeral providers, the infomlational benefits of 

the Funeral Rule must be extended to all funeral consumers, We believe that RR, 3655 will accomplish that 

goaL 

(d) During the review of the Funeral Rule, the FTC Staff stated that the "foundation of consumer choice 

under the Rule is the right to purchase only those items the consumer wants or needs, and to decline other 

items," The unbundling requirements of the Rule are violated whenever a consumer is compelled to 

purchase funeral or burial goods or services that he or she did not want or need, Moreover, in the review of 

the Funeral Rule, the Commission further held that imposing a handling fee of any type upon a consumer 

who elects to purchase funeral goods and services elsewhere is also a violation ofthe Rule's unbundling 

requirements, Therefore, whenever a funeral consumer is forced to purchase an unwanted item or is charged 

a handling fee for using an item purchased elsewhere, the Funeral Rule's unbundling requirements are 

Page8ofiO 
63 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 69 here 76005A.047

violated. We believe the provisions ofH.R. 3655 dealing with this issue are velY good, although we would 

like to see stronger and more-specific language requiring cemeteries and other sellers of funeral or burial 

goods or services to accept third-party itcms purchased by the consumer from another vendor. 

COMMENTS ON H.R. 3655 

With that as a background, j would now like to address H.R. 3655. NFDA strongly supports H.R. 3655, which 

requires the FTC to establish a federal rule that applies the same or similar standards of practice to cemeteries, 

crematories and all sellers of funeral or burial goods or scrvices to the public. Most importantly, such a federal 

rule responds to the 21st-century death care marketplace and offers added protections for consumers who deal 

directly with all sellers of funeral goods or services. 

We are particularly supportive of the inclusion of all 501 (c) (3) and religious organizations, as well as 

state and local political subdivisions. We strongly believe that consumers should enjoy the same protections 

regardless ofwhcrc or from whom they purchase funeral or burial goods or services. 

In addition, we are glad to see that the rule would not preempt state laws in this area and even provides 

an incentive for states to improve their existing laws. NFDA has long encouraged our state funeral service 

associations to improve their laws and regulations as it relates funeral homes, cemeteries and all other thirdparty sellers. While some might argue that, without preemption, this rule is redundant. We believe it provides a 

minimum, uniform standard that would apply in states that have few or no laws or regulations governing 

cemeteries, crematories or other t11ird-party sellers. 

In addition, H.R. 3655 gives state Attorneys General the authority to bring actions in federal court under 

the rule. NFDA also supports the requirement that enforcement would be under existing unfair and deceptive 

practices laws and regulations rather than establishing any new ones. 

Page90flll 
64 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 70 here 76005A.048

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, Me. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, NFDA believes this bill outlines for 

the FTC a rule that NFDA has long argued was necessary given the dramatically changed marketplace and the 

rise of new and non-traditional sellers, who now offer consumers many of the same funeral or hurial goods or 

services provided by funeral homes - but withoul the protections afforded by the FTC Funeral Rule. While H.R. 

3655 does impose some modest requirements on funeral homes, we believe them to be appropriate and 

consistent with our policy. 

Finally, while we understand that this rule might not have prevented the egregious, widely reported 

scandals that occurred at Burr Oak Cemetery, Menorah Garden Cemetery or the Tri-State Crematory, NFDA 

believes H.R. 3655 will raise the bar for everyone and correct many of the existing problems that lead to those 

situations. As we know after 26 years under the FTC Funeral Rule. we are better funeral directors for the 

experience and have a much greater awareness that good consumer practices are good business practices, as 

well. 

Thank you [or the opportunity to present the views of the National Funeral Directors Association on this 

very important legislation. 1 will be happy to answer any questions you or the other Subcommittee members 

might have. 

Page 10 of 10 
65 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks all of the witnesses for their opening 

statement and the chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for 

the purposes of asking questions of the witnesses. The chair wants 

to thank at this point the Funeral Consumers Alliance, AARP and 

the National Funeral Directors Association, NFDA, for their support of this legislation. 

I want to start by questioning Mr. Harwood. Mr. Harwood, in 

your testimony you expressed some sound supports of provisions of 

this legislation that expands the FTC’s authority to include nonprofit, municipal and religious cemeteries. Why do you think this 

provision is seen as so essential to this bill? 

Mr. HARWOOD. Mr. Chairman, currently the cemetery industry 

consists of both for-profit entities and not-for-profit entities. In our 

experience, a majority of cemeteries are not-for-profit and the numbers vary but, you know, there are many thousands of not-for-profit 

cemeteries. Some are owned by cities and counties. Some are 

owned by religious organizations. Some are associated with other 

entities. The FTC’s legislation, the FTC law wouldn’t currently 

reach those entities because we have no jurisdiction under our consumer protection authority over not-for-profit entities. 

When we looked at this issue last in 2008 and discussed whether 

we should consider extending some of the Funeral Rule provisions 

to the cemetery industry, we concluded that doing so would create 

an odd regulatory situation because the regulation only reached 

some cemeteries and left out a majority of the cemeteries that 

would otherwise be affected. Secondly, we were concerned that consumers would be confused if some cemeteries were covered and 

other cemeteries were not. Your legislation addresses that concern 

by making all cemeteries subject or potentially subject to the same 

regulation. 

Mr. RUSH. Judge Holmes, this provision of and inclusion of the 

for-profits, and not-for-profits, and municipal and religious cemeteries, and do you have, did you discuss this provision in the topic 

and this provision addresses? Did you have the opportunity to discuss that in your deliberations? 

Ms. HOLMES. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we did and the solution that 

the bill came up with which I think is a great solution, religious 

cemeteries, public cemeteries and cemeteries that have fewer than 

25 burials in the past 2 years are what is called partially exempt. 

So while they may not have to acquire licenses for their individual 

workers, they do still have to comply with various portions of the 

Cemetery Oversight Act, those portions that would be consumer-related. They have to reasonably maintain the cemetery property. 

They must comply with the mapping of their cemetery. They must 

keep an index. They must submit to periodic inspection of the cemetery. They must submit to the Consumer Bill of Rights so they 

must follow all of the Consumer Bill of Rights although they don’t 

have to comply with the licensure rules that the for-profit cemeteries would have to comply with. So we thought that was a really 

good compromise. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

Mr. Elvig, in your testimony you raised some concerns about this 

provision along the lines of constitution and jurisdictional concerns. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
66 

What is your position? Do you agree with Mr. Harwood or do you 

have another position? 

Mr. ELVIG. Well, my position would be different. Our position 

would be different from an angle and that is that when you start 

talking about municipal cemeteries or religious cemeteries, and religious cemeteries can be the gamut from Muslim cemeteries, Jewish, Catholic to Protestant, a variety of religious cemeteries, we are 

talking about certain constitutional protections as to how much you 

can regulate and what success you may have in the courts in trying 

to prosecute in those cemeteries. And so our concern is that as one 

moves through the subject of municipal and religious cemeteries, 

what constitutionality you may have. Could a Federal Trade Commission rule honestly be imposed upon the City of Los Angeles if 

it operated a cemetery, for say. I am dealing with a cemetery in 

Florida that it is publicly operated right now that is in a court 

case. How much jurisdiction can really be held over that Florida 

cemetery? So our concerns are there and it would seem to me that 

there would a lot of homework necessary and for that reason we 

would think that if the FTC was to adopt a rule they should adopt 

it for cemeteries and not a combined one of funerals and cemeteries. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. The chair’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Whitfield for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I want to thank the panel for your testimony today. We genuinely appreciate your taking time to do so. 

Judge Brown Holmes, you may be the most objective person here 

today because you are not a regulator and you are not in the business, and you spent a lot of time looking into this subject matter. 

And it sounds like to me that you all have been quite successful 

in addressing the problem in Illinois, and I am sure you have not 

looked at other States or maybe you have to a degree but just from 

your perspective, do you feel like that a Federal law would be helpful to address some of these concerns nationwide? 

Ms. HOLMES. You know, it is a good question and I have thought 

about that, and I actually do think that a Federal law could serve 

to preempt in States that don’t have regulations right now. The 

kind of disaster that we had in Illinois had there been a Federal 

law that required consumer protection, this may not have happened but we had nothing. We had a very disjointed system in our 

State and so it was the tragedy that brought about the need to get 

in and do the regulation. Quite possibly if the Federal government 

said to States do something about this or here is the rule. The rule 

must be complied with and there is authority with the FTC utilizing these State attorneys general, the state attorneys general 

could then get in and make certain that this type of thing did not 

happen in those States where there is no regulation. We did look 

at some States and what we found is that it was the tragedy that 

then brought about the need for the rule and regulation. I think 

if we get in and have the rule and regulation in the beginning, possibly it stops the tragedy. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to 

read 3655 but I note generally and understanding the chairman’s 

reputation of always having good legislation except maybe on occasion, I am sure this is an effective bill but you seem to be saying 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
67 

that preemption would be important because a lot of these States 

do have different rules and regulations and I don’t believe this bill 

has Federal preemption, does it? 

Ms. HOLMES. No, no, no, what I mean is the Funeral Rule prior 

to the 1984 Act established particular rules. The funeral industry 

has changed as a result of it. There is an opportunity for States 

to opt out if their regulation is better than the Funeral Rule so it 

puts that in the forefront of the minds of the funeral industry. The 

cemetery industry, however I think for some reason what it appears to us has been parsed out. I am not certain why. We didn’t 

investigate why that is but it appears to me and from all of the 

individuals who testified before us the average consumer joins the 

funeral director and the cemetery. They don’t look at them as a 

separate entity, a separate business, a separate industry; but what 

we found and learned is that they are, and it appeared to us to be, 

sort of unusual. One portion of that industry is very heavily regulated and the portion of the industry that is basically almost in 

perpetuity is not regulated. And so it would seem to me that if 

there are some regulations particularly given that it is at that back 

end that there seems to be the most abuse that it would be extremely helpful in drawing attention to the issue and preventing 

this from occurring. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. Harwood, someone in their testimony brought up this issue 

of non-profits and in some instances States or municipalities are 

operating cemeteries, for example. Can the FTC assess civil penalties on another governmental entity for violations? 

Mr. HARWOOD. My understanding and I may have to correct this, 

but my current understanding is that where a municipality functions in a role that would be a businesslike role that we have the 

authority to assess civil penalties in those situations. It is not exercised often. It is obviously not good for intergovernmental relations 

but the authority does exist where necessary to do so. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK, so you can do so then? 

Mr. HARWOOD. Yes, that is my understanding. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, the Funeral Rule that was adopted by the 

FTC was that required by statute or did you all just do that under 

self initiation? 

Mr. HARWOOD. The Funeral Rule dates from 1974 and it was actually initiated, well ’72 actually, it was actually initiated by the 

FTC under its rulemaking authority called the Magnus Moss Act 

rulemaking authority so it was actually initiated by the FTC. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And would your current regulations give you any 

authority over the incident that happened in Illinois at that cemetery? 

Mr. HARWOOD. Well, my understanding is that cemetery was not 

a not-for-profit cemetery so to that extent our authority would 

reach the cemetery. The funeral itself doesn’t contain provisions 

currently that would have addressed the conduct that we are concerned about there, the exhuming of bodies and those sorts of 

things. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Well, thank you. I see my time has expired, 

Mr. Chairman. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
68 

Mr. RUSH. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. 

Schakowsky, for 2 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Earl, do you find what Ms. Brown Holmes has said that people see the whole funeral and burial process as one and I wonder 

if you could describe how that impacts you if there is some things 

that go on at the cemetery level? 

Mr. EARL. Well, I smiled when Judge Holmes said what she did 

because that is absolutely true. Any time there is a situation with 

a crematory, a cemetery, it doesn’t matter what it is we were the 

first to be called. National Funeral Directors Association was the 

first to be called when all of these situations have happened and 

occurred because everyone turns to their funeral director when 

they have this problem. Consumers look to us as funeral directors 

to solve problems. That is what we do and when they call upon us 

they want us to take care of one of the biggest problems they have 

ever had in their life. And when I in my testimony as I am testifying the third-party sellers and all these things that we have 

today did not occur in 1984 when the rule was put into place, and 

so we have a different world out there today to deal with, and that 

is why we feel so strongly that the rules have to be changed. They 

have to be changed to protect the consumer. The funeral homes 

have complied. I mean you have heard the testimony here today. 

The funeral homes have complied with the rule and it has helped 

the profession as a whole but in order to protect the consumer of 

today we have to have new laws to prevent some of the things that 

are happening today. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I just have a few seconds. Mr. Chairman, can 

I ask one more question? 

Mr. RUSH. Sure. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK, it seems as if one of the most basic responsibilities of a cemetery is to keep clear and orderly records that 

reflect who is buried there. Families have to be able to find their 

loved ones. Mr. Elvig, you were saying that someone turned in the 

keys and said as a small cemetery they could not comply with any 

stricter rules. Is it really too much to ask that even for a small 

cemetery that they keep good, retain the records and that they respond to these consumer protections? 

Mr. ELVIG. Congresswoman, not at all, that is not too much to 

ask. As a matter of fact, small, large and middle-size cemeteries 

they have to rely on quality records to know what they can even 

sell and what they can use, where they can put markers. Recordkeeping in cemeteries are not separable. Good records are very critical. I have urged cemeteries and we are seeing an interesting 

trend as they convert to electronic record systems, mapping systems, card file systems, we have asked cemeteries across this country to consider giving their old records that were written in pen 

and ink on cards to archives, the State archives and the likes for 

research but cemeteries need accurate records. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. All right, so what is it that a small, not-forprofit cemetery thinks they could not comply with if we were to 

change the rules and cover them? 

Mr. ELVIG. For example, when you look at the Federal Trade 

Commission’s present rules on funeral homes, on price lists, on disVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:32 Nov 03, 2012 Jkt 076005 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A005.XXX A005

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
69 

closures, on the types of rule they have it would impose—just asking a small volunteer cemetery to come up with a written price list 

for all of the varieties of graves and markers and vaults and liners 

and urns that are available you are talking about a cost, and yet 

if you are only burying 35 people a year you are talking about a 

burden on those cemeteries. I know I have been in them. I have 

audited them. I watch them close. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, 

Dr. Gingrey, for 2 minutes for the purposes of opening statement. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I have to admit I came 

here this morning out of respect for my chairman and my ranking 

member and to make an opening statement and then hopefully to 

catch up on my e-mails but quite honestly this panel is fantastic. 

Each and every one of you has done a wonderful job and I have 

been so interested I haven’t even been able to look at my e-mails. 

So I am going to ask my question of Judge Holmes. Judge 

Holmes, I don’t know if you ever heard of Lewis Grizzard. Of 

course, we are talking about the crematory up in Georgia close to 

my district but I mention Lewis Grizzard. He was a humorist from 

Georgia, a columnist for many years for the Atlanta Journal Constitution and he spent some of his career in Chicago and then came 

back to the great State of Georgia. He died a number of years ago 

far too young but Lewis Grizzard said that nothing good comes out 

of Illinois and particularly nothing good comes out of Chicago. He 

didn’t have the opportunity to meet Judge Holmes, obviously and 

based on your testimony I think that he would have liked you very 

much. 

Let me direct my question to you. You mentioned that duplicative and overlapping regulations for funeral products cause confusion amongst consumers in Illinois. It was an issue your task force 

addressed. Do you have concerns that duplicative regulation by the 

State and the Federal Government could cause similar confusion? 

Ms. HOLMES. No, I don’t because the way I read the House bill, 

I actually thought it was excellent, very concise, to the point, very 

consumer-friendly, very consumer-oriented, and I read our bill and 

they mesh together very well. Ours is a little more stringent, I 

think, and so I would like the opportunity if I were the State I 

would say well, I would like the opportunity to implement our rules 

and regulations because they are stricter but if I were a State that 

had no rules or regulations or if I were one of the States that had 

a hodgepodge of rules that don’t really get to the issue and the Federal Government said to me do something about this, then fine, 

let’s do something about this. I have a friend, and it sort of goes 

to Congressman Schakowsky’s question regarding the small funeral 

home, she—her family owns the South View Cemetery in Georgia, 

in Atlanta, Georgia, very small, owned by a small family. It is the 

funeral, cemetery, I am sorry, it is the cemetery where Martin Luther King was buried before his body was exhumed and taken to 

their foundation, and she runs that cemetery tremendously. She 

has rules. She has regulations. She gives price lists. She follows a 

set of rules that she has imposed, her family has imposed on themselves and it is a beautiful cemetery, and she does it with very little money. So it can be done and the way we view this House bill, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
70 

the way I view this House bill, it is not asking you to do anything 

that you ought not do anyway if you have good conscience and good 

ethics. And I think that if it is imposed on the States to do this, 

if the Federal Government either says here is a baseline, you can 

go beyond the baseline, I think that gets us to a point where the 

States do something and we don’t have to chase the tragedy. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence and I really appreciate the testimony of all the witnesses. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Stupak for 2 minutes for the purposes of questioning the witnesses. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this 

hearing. 

Let me ask Ms. Holmes and Mr. Earl this question if I may. Regulation of prepaid funeral and cemetery contracts in Michigan was 

enacted in 1986. Michigan law regulates the sale and provision of 

certain funeral and cemetery merchandise and services including 

prepaid funerals. All prepaid funeral money must be placed in a 

State-regulated escrow account by the funeral providers so that it 

is available when the funeral occurs. Even with these regulations 

in 2009, there were plenty of scams if you will, concerning prepaid 

funerals in Michigan. How would this bill address the growing 

problem of prepaid funeral arrangements that are invalidated, renegotiated after the death or altered in a way to mislead the customer? Mr. Earl and Ms. Holmes or anyone else, Mr. Elvig. 

Mr. EARL. I will address it to a certain extent. This House rule 

would not pertain to pre-need funerals at all. 

Mr. STUPAK. So even if the money is in escrow there still is—we 

are still going to have problems even underneath this bill? And we 

have people that just embezzled the escrow money and people died 

and the money was gone and we were caught up in the one. We 

had 70 funerals. 

Mr. EARL. The bill would not address that. You are correct. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK, so OK. 

Ms. HOLMES. And our task force did not address pre-need because there was another task force that was investigating pre-need 

but I do think you have hit on another aspect that does need to 

be covered. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK, Mr. Elvig. 

Mr. ELVIG. If I could comment. 

Mr. STUPAK. Sure. 

Mr. ELVIG. I have been a regulator and an auditor. It is very difficult to address because of so many facets to pre-need. For example, divorce, people remarrying and not addressing their pre-needs 

in divorce, cemeteries being dragged in and saying OK, now you 

settle it 20 years later on who gets to use what. It really comes 

right back to what does a State agency do. How does a State regulate unique to its State and that is why we have taken the stand 

that the States probably are in the best position to regulate like 

Michigan. 

Mr. STUPAK. Sure, but then now with the Internet, you know, 

you are seeing more and more of this on the Internet. The marketplace for funeral goods and services has really changed with the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
71 

Internet and more businesses are selling their products on the 

Internet so even if we do have local rules like Michigan, I mean 

you still have those scams but I think the Internet has made it 

easier to bring more uncertainty to this area where when people 

prepay or see a director they think there is some certainty other 

than death that they are dealing with here. 

Mr. ELVIG. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. STUPAK. So how do we deal with that, I guess we still go 

back. 

Mr. ELVIG. I think that first off you have made a very good point 

and the other good thing by the way about the Internet has opened 

up for the consumers still more opportunities to compare shop. 

Mr. STUPAK. Sure. 

Mr. ELVIG. To decide what they really want and that is a concern 

we have that as we look at structuring rules and we look at structuring FTC rule that we don’t close the door on the future that this 

industry will evolve in by consumer demand. 

Mr. STUPAK. Right. 

Mr. ELVIG. We need to listen to those who want to use the services. Well, nobody wants to use the service but when they need to 

use it. 

Mr. STUPAK. Correct. 

Mr. ELVIG. You are right on there. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. 

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman’s time is up. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 

Scalise for 2 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Judge Holmes, in your task force’s work you proposed actual legislation that was adopted in Illinois? Was it specific recommendations that you all proposed? 

Ms. HOLMES. We didn’t write the bill, no. We proposed recommendations. We made findings. We handed those findings over 

to our state legislature. There was Representative Monique Davis, 

Representative Dan Brady and several senators who worked on it. 

Mr. SCALISE. Some legislators were part of the task force and 

they drafted the actual law. 

Ms. HOLMES. So they worked on the—they drafted the actual legislation but they took our recommendations into account. 

Mr. SCALISE. Did they take all of them? Were there any left out? 

Ms. HOLMES. There were a couple of provisions that were left off 

but I am not thinking of what they are right away but they were 

minor in our view. They took every one of our major recommendations. 

Mr. SCALISE. OK and I will include Mr. Elvig and Mr. Earl in 

this, too. As you look at the law now as it stands in Illinois and 

of course you all touched on the fact that there are laws in each 

State but you probably have 50 different variations of the law and 

regulation process, first, would Illinois now be considered model 

legislation or is there a State that has kind of a model law? And, 

you know, and I know in South Louisiana where the district I represent we have cemeteries that are above ground because of the 

water table so, in fact, many of the cemeteries are considered tourist attractions, believe it or not, and so there are different situaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:32 Nov 03, 2012 Jkt 076005 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A005.XXX A005

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
72 

tions there. Are the laws that you see across the country, is there 

a model law that you would recommend or how does it work in 

terms of what you have seen from your research, both Judge 

Holmes as well as other panelists. 

Ms. HOLMES. For our task force we reviewed several different 

States and we took the ones that we thought were—we took sort 

of the best of the best. Florida had a really good law. California 

had a really good law, both born from tragedy. And we consider our 

law now to be a model, a national model because we did take the 

best of the best, and we focused on consumer protection. 

Mr. SCALISE. Gentlemen. 

Mr. EARL. I would just add that we look—the funeral profession 

looks at the FTC rule as being a standard for every State. It is a 

minimum standard for all funeral homes in every State. As has 

been mentioned, if a State has a higher standard they can opt out 

of the rule but we also believe that there should be the same standard for all cemeteries, all third-party sellers, some type of a standard and that is all we are asking for so that there is something. 

There are many States out there that have much better laws than 

what we are talking about but there are some that have none, zero, 

so that is what we are asking for in the bill that you are speaking 

of. 

Mr. ELVIG. If I could just add that your comments are right spoton again concerning the style of burials in Louisiana, above ground 

because of the water and your State statute addresses that, at least 

that is what Fran Mayo use to tell me. She was a regulator in your 

State. Washington State we have Mount Rainier and what do we 

do about scattering cremated remains in that park and on that 

mountain. What about the State of Montana where the grounds are 

frozen a good portion of the year? How do you handle burials and 

holding bodies for burial in frozen grounds? Issues vary State for 

State and that is one of the strong reasons for looking to State answers to its State issues so we would urge that that be kept in 

mind as you look at this bill is the uniqueness of State situation. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair would entertain by unanimous consent extend this hearing for an additional round of questions. Each member will be allowed to ask one question of the witnesses and the 

chair would also like to announce that there is a vote expected in 

about 15 minutes so I think that one additional question should be 

able to give us ample time to get over to vote. 

The chair would recognize himself for 1 minute to ask a question 

of Mr. Harwood. Mr. Harwood, are you familiar with the recent 

sting in Massachusetts of funeral homes by State licensing investigators which has resulted in a 25 percent violation rule with respect to compliance with the FTC’s Funeral Rule? My question is 

that is did the FTC assist Massachusetts at all in those enforcement activities and what is the state of enforcement activities at 

FTC now as it relates to the Funeral Rule? 

Mr. HARWOOD. Mr. Chairman, we learned of the Massachusetts 

sweep or sting when it was reported in the press and we did not 

assist the State in its enforcement sweep. That being said, we have 

historically worked with States that are engaged in funeral enforcement and in each of the last 3 years we worked with at least one 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
73 

State. For example, on the work we have done this year we worked 

with Tennessee. Last year we worked with Minnesota. The year before that we worked with Pennsylvania on enforcement rule. So we 

have a history of working with States. In the case of Massachusetts, they appear to have a law that lets them enforce the Funeral 

Rule without Federal involvement and that is precisely what they 

did here. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. 

Whitfield, for one additional question. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Judge Holmes, I would like to ask you another 

question. Cemeteries frequently have financial difficulties on maintenance at cemeteries and I notice that you indicated that you all 

established a cemetery relief fund in Illinois and would you expand 

on that, and how did you fund that? 

Ms. HOLMES. Well, it is my understanding right now it is not 

funded of course because the bill just passed but it is my understanding that it will be funded by fines that it will be started at 

least by fines that will be levied against individuals who may be 

in violation of some of the rules that will promulgated by the Illinois Department of Professional and Financial Regulations, as well 

as by the licensure fees. So now all cemetery owners will have to 

pay a small fee and what we were told is they are talking about 

grading the fee based on the number of burials or the size and 

acreage of the land, et cetera, and so having some money that I 

think will be the upstart for the fund. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK and that license, that is required of the funeral home as well as. 

Ms. HOLMES. Yeah, the funeral directors are already required to 

be that. It is the cemeteries are not. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Cemeteries. 

Ms. HOLMES. And so the cemeteries will now be required based 

on whether it is private, religious, et cetera, their levels of licensure. I think religious are exempt. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK, thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. Ms. Schakowsky, you are recognized for one additional 

question. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Mr. Harwood, the legislation under consideration today would 

give the FTC the authority to promulgate these regulations under 

the standard process of the Administrative Procedures Act. How 

would this provision impact FTC’s ability to take action in this 

area? 

Mr. HARWOOD. Under the FTC’s current rulemaking authority 

which I referred to earlier as the Magnus Moss Act it takes the 

FTC between 3 and 10 years to promulgate a rule. In fact, the Funeral Rule took longer than that but we had—but we were in the 

learning curve with the Magnus Moss Act at that point. Recently, 

it has taken us between 3 and 10 years. Where we have been able 

to use the Administrative Procedures Act, the Act provided for in 

this rule, this legislation, we have been able to promulgate a rule 

in a year and so this legislation would allow us to do the same for 

I think here. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
74 

Mr. RUSH. The chair recognizes Dr. Gingrey for one additional 

question. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

You know, I do have a question and it is going to be of Mr. Elvig 

but I just wanted to make this comment. We have all seen the horrific views of what is going on in Haiti and how they are dealing 

with the hundreds of thousands of the bodies of the deceased and 

of course they have no choice I don’t think in this situation. We 

have all seen film clips, of course, from the Holocaust and they had 

a choice but, you know, it just shows you how important this subject really is. How very important this subject is that people 

shouldn’t be re-gifted in death and that is basically what was happening in the cemetery in Illinois and even worse in the cemetery 

in Georgia. So I just appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to 

discuss your bill and to have a hearing on it and to get the information from the experts. 

My question, Mr. Elvig, in your testimony you state that ICCFA 

believes that the funeral and cemetery industry is best regulated 

at the State level, not at the Federal level, yet people say and the 

testimony here today that some States really do not have very 

strict cemetery or funeral home laws. A law is made OK, but there 

is very little enforcement by the States, do you agree with that? 

Mr. ELVIG. Well, unfortunately, Mr. Congressman, I don’t agree 

with it. I have been through State laws. I have gotten to know 

most State regulators one-on-one. I have had them call me about 

issues they are facing. They do regulate. They go to where the 

problems are, and they respond to those problems, so I think to say 

that the States are not carrying their weight is not accurate nor 

is it adequate. This issue is Illinois, for example, was addressed at 

that State level and addressed quite well by the Judge and her 

committee. Again, they deserve to be complimented, but again, that 

is reacting to an event and not trying to impose nationwide. Yes, 

the States are regulating. Yes, the States are doing their job. 

ICCFA files presently are full of information that where the States 

are moving on various fronts. Many times they seem to be small 

fronts. The simple issue of what constitutes maintenance in a cemetery. You can argue about that until the cows come home. Maybe 

you could use some cows but eating the grass but whatever the 

case is you are talking about State per State issue that is unique 

State per State and the regulators are doing their job. 

Mr. RUSH. That concludes the questioning portion of this hearing, and that being said the chair asks for unanimous consent for 

testimony of the Funeral Consumer’s Alliance that their testimony 

be entered into the record and hearing no objection, so ordered. The 

chair wants to announce that the record will remain open for 2 

weeks to allow subcommittee members to submit questions to the 

witnesses to round out the attending record, and the chair again 

wants to express his appreciation to the fine testimony of each and 

every one of you. You have contributed greatly to our deliberations 

and to this legislative process and we owe you our heartfelt gratitude for your experience, and your time, and your testimony. 

And now the chair will announce that this committee and this 

hearing is adjourned and thank all the members for their participation. The committee now stands adjourned. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
75 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
76 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 82 here 76005A.049

Statement of the Honorable Joe Barton 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Commerce 

January 27, 2010 

Legislative Hearing on the "Bereaved Consumer's Bill of 

Rights Act of 2009" 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I tum to the technical aspects of this bill, I first want to 

emphasize my deepest sympathy to the families impacted by the 

horrific events that occurred at Burr Oak Cemetery last year, and to 

the families that have suffered because of similar traumatic events 

at other places of final rest. As we hear so often, sunshine is the 

best disinfectant, and often it only requires our attention to prod 

action. So I want to thank the Chairman for his efforts on this 

matter. 

Having said that, I believe it is our job in Congress in this instance 

to be the source of sunshine, and not to enact Federallaw in this 

area. ,As one of our witnesses points out, each of the instances of 
77 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 83 here 76005A.050

cemetery or funeral service fraud or mismanagement met with 

State action. I believe States are very capable of regulating in this 

particular area. States are also equipped to enforce their own laws. 

And even if the States are not always perfect regulators, I do not 

believe we want the Federal government policing in this area as 

well. Are we now bailing out States from enforcement of their 

own laws? Further, some of the alleged mismanagement is based 

on something permitted by State law - such as term leases on 

burial plots or stacked burials and I do not believe it is the 

Federal government's role to overrule the judgment of a State 

legislature on a law that governs solely intrastate activity. 

Beyond these concerns on principle, 1 have specific concerns about 

the legislative language before us. One of our witnesses points out 

that other than addressing the sad state of record-keeping, this bill 

would have done nothing to prevent the shocking events that 

occurred at Burr Oaks. Laws are for the law-abiding, and the 
78 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 84 here 76005A.051

individuals responsible in this case celiainly were not; existence of 

a law is never a guarantee of perfect compliance. 

At least one of our witnesses also points out that a number of 

cemeteries are run by non-profits. The burdens of new federal 

regulations could easily drain these outfits, some of which are run 

solely by volunteers. I am curious what percentage of both the 

cemetery industry and the funeral services industry are made up of 

not-for-profit organizations. 

Further, the FTC promulgated its rule covering the provision of 

funeral services and products without Congressional prompting. 

Accordingly, it appears self-evident that if the FTC believed there 

was widespread fraud in the provision of burial plots, it would 

have the power to address the issue. Moreover, the FTC has never 

been shy about asking us for what it requires if their authority falls 

short. The fact is, the FTC testified in July that it could undertake 

rulemaking procedures if it finds "that the practices addressed are 
79 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 85 here 76005A.052

'prevalent.'" Because the FTC has not taken action, I must 

conclude that the FTC has not found such fraudulent and criminal 

practices prevalent enough to warrant Federal action. 

I have further concerns about the specific provisions of this bill -

for instance, the provisions on preemption, enforcement, and 

notice - but my time is limited and we can address these issues at a 

later date. 

I want to underscore my feelings that what occurred at Burr Oaks 

Cemetery was shocking and inflicted unimaginable and 

unnecessary pain. But my objection to this Federal regulation is 

simple this is not an area appropriate for - or that requires -

Federal intervention and I believe the States are fully capable of 

addressing any regulatory or enforcement gaps themselves. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 
80 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 86 here 76005A.053

Protecting a consumer's right to choose meaningful, dignified, and affordable fnnerals since 1963 

Testimony on Behalf of Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. 

submitted to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

Subcommittee on Consumer Protection 

re: HR3655 

Jannary 27, 2010 

Prepared by Joshua Slocum, Executive Director, FCA, Inc. 

To the Honorable Representatives: 

Funeral Consumers Alliance has been informed there may be some concerns about the effect of 

HR3655, The Bereaved Consumers Protection Act 01'2009, on religiously owned or operated 

cemeteries. As you know, the bill directs the Federal Trade Commission to enact rules holding 

cemeteries (among other entities) to the same standards that funeral homes have had to follow 

since 1984. Under HR3655, religious and nonprofit cemeteries will also be subject to these 

minimum standards, the most important of which are the requirements for cemeteries to give 

consumers accurate written prices, plus the cemetery's rules and regulations, before the sale is 

completed. 

Bringing all cemeteries-for-profit, non-profit, and religious-under the same minimum 

consumer protection standards is vital. Regardless of how a cemetery is legally incorporated, and 

regardless of its faith affiliation, all grieving consumers are enlitled to the same minimum 

protections. Whether Jewish, Lutheran. Catholic, or Muslim, all these families are grieving, and 

all of them are entering into a commercial transaction at a time of sorrow and stress. Whether a 

cemetery is incorporated as a nonprofit operation, or owned by a religious organization, does not 

change the fact that burying a loved one is often costly and confusing. 

Funeral Consumers Alliance can find no legal, ethical, or financial reason why a cemetery's 

corporate or religious status should allow it to avoid furnishing itemized prices and clear 

disclosures to purchasers. We know of no religious tenet or practice that would be violated by a 

requirement to offer accurate information to grieving people before a burial contract is signed. 

We cannot see how such requirements would financially burden such a cemetery-the cost of 

printing and distributing a few sheets of paper containing prices, consumer disclosures, and 

cemetery rules would not exceed a few cents per burial. 

We are also concerned about the potentially greater vulnerability of religious consumers when 

the time comcs to choose a cemetery. Members ofa congregation of any sort have a natural 

33 Patchen Road, South Burlington, VT 05403 0 802-865-8300 0 www.funerals.org 

ofca@funerals.org 
81 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 87 here 76005A.054

tendency to want to be buried "among their own," and the religious affiliation ofa cemetery is a 

common reason consumers choose a burial ground (choosing a veterans's cemetery, or a burial 

ground that's physically convcnient are also common reasons). 

Some religious cemeteries are quite explicit in appealing to feelings of religious duty in 

congregants. The Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles states on its website: 

The final expression of our faith as Catholics is the blessed and sacred burial in 

a Catholic cemetery. It is our opportunity to rest among fellow believers, 

awaiting the resurrection to life everlasting in union with God. 

Burial in a Catholic Cemetery is an aet of reverence and respect for the body 

which has housed our soul during our life in fellowship with Christ. Heavenly 

glory is the destiny for which God intends us. Death is not the end, but a rite of 

passage to eternal life. to full union with God. It is the sacred right, privilege 

and loving duty of every Catholic to choose such a burial [cmphasis added]. 

The church, of course, is well within its rights to characterize its preferred burial in this fashion. 

But Catholic or not. it should be clear to any reader that significant theological pressure is being 

brought to bear on parishioners' burial choices. 

A similar allegiance can be found among members of certain fraternal organizations. The Odd 

Fellows, for example, operate cemeteries in many parts of the country, and a significant numbcr 

ofmcmbers would be expected to choose burial within these properties. 

Families committed to burial in a cemetery owned by their church or fraternal organization are 

especially vulnerable to misleading or unethical sales tactics. Since such families may feel a 

religious or ethical duty to be buried there, they may feel their choice of cemeteries is limited. 

It's easy to see why it's especially important that such families be given clear, itemized price 

lists- if they cannot shop around between various cemeteries, they can at least shop around 

within the cemetery. 

Religious or Nonprofit Status Is Not a Guarantee of Ethical Cemetery Practices 

When we hear the terms "church burial yard." "Jewish cemetery," or "nonprofit cemetery," they 

conjure up images of cemeteries maintained as a religious benefit, a "public good" for 

congregants, without regard to commerce. Sadly, that is not necessarily so. In fact-and largely 

unknown even to most parishioners-the largest Catholic Archdiocese in the country runs its 

burial operations in a partnership with the second-largest, for-profit, Wall Street-traded funeral 

and cemetery chain in the nation. In 1997, the LA Archdiocese (which operates II cemeteries) 

announced it would allow Stewart Enterprises, Inc. to build and operate for-profit mortuaries in 

33 Patchen Road, South Burliugtou, VT 05403 • 802-865-8300 • www.funerals.org 

·fca@funerals.org 

2 
82 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 88 here 76005A.055

its cemeteries. Operating under the name "Catholic Mortuary Services," Stewart Enterprises 

today operates six funeral homes on the grounds of the LA Archdiocese's nonprofit cemeteriesI 

While the Archdiocese and Stewart Enterprises have characterized this partnership as offering 

convenient, one-stop arrangements to minister to the funerary needs of Catholics, promotional 

materials suggest there may be additional motivations. A Glendale, California man sent Funeral 

Consumers Alliance a direct mail letter he received urging him to prepay for funeral and burial 

through "Catholic Mortuary Services." The letterhead includes a stylized Christian cross, and 

lists the names of six Catholic cemeteries in the Los Angeles Archdiocese: All Souls, Calvary, 

Holy Cross, Queen of Heaven, Resurrection, and San Fernando Mission. The letter states, in 

part: 

In order to serve the needs of Catholic families better, the Archdiocese of Los 

Angeles has authorized the construction of mortuaries on land leased at six of its 

cemeteries .... Most importantly, families like yours can now preplan [that is to 

say, "prepay"- cd.] your funeral arrangements ... We will be happy to discuss 

with you in further detail the benefits of preplanning and how the new mortuaries 

will mean better service for Catholic families. 

P.S. Mail the postcard in no later than November 26 to receive a preconstruction 

discount of $200 off preplanned funeral services. 

But the letter did not say that Catholic Mortuary Services is a trade name of the for-profit 

Stewart Enterprises. For all any parishioner would know, this letter, with its religious symbolism, 

came directly from the church. 

Recently, anothcr Los Angeles Catholic sent us a similar flier. Co-branded "Catholic 

Cemeteries" and "Catholic Mortuaries"-again featuring a stylized cross-the bold headline 

reads "Preplan Your Catholic Heritage." The flier features discounts on plots, crypts, and other 

property, with the exhortation "Buy now for BEST LOCATION." And, the discounts are good 

"till November only!!!" One hardly sees the 6-point type that reads "A subsidiary of Stewart 

Enterprises." 

Again, the church may run its cemeteries as it sees tit, but it is important to acknowledge the 

commercial aspect; religiously owned cemeteries may not be solely spiritual endeavors. For 

some churches, the operation of a cemetery is an important revenue stream. While there is 

nothing wrong with this, it would be naIve to assume the ordinary consumer abuses that attend 

commercial transactions would somehow never occur just because the transaction is called 

·'religious." 

I Full disclosure: Funeral Consumers Alliance named Stewart Enterprises as one of four defendants in a case we 

brought alleging funeral and casket industry collusion to limit competition and raise casket prices for consumers in 

violation of anti-trust laws. The suit was liIed in 2005 and remains ongoing. Funeral Consumers Alliance, as the lead 

"association plaintiff' is not seeking, and is not entitled to. any monetary damages. Nine individual consumer 

members join us as plaintiffs. 

33 Patchen Road, South Burlington, VT 05403' 802-865-8300 • www.funerals.org 

·fca@funerals.org 

3 
83 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 89 here 76005A.056

Given the Los Angeles Archdiocese's "encouragement" to parishioners to choose one of their 

cemeteries, grieving families are also unwittingly being encouraged (by direct mail, and by the 

very presence of a "Catholic Mortuary Services" funeral home on cemetery grounds) to spend 

their funeral dollars at a national chain noted for high prices. Ironically, the for-profit mortuaries 

on the grounds of these cemeteries must abide by the Funeral Rule. Who could plausibly argue 

that the family doesn't deserve written prices, itemized choices, and truthful disclosures when 

they leave the funeral home and step into the cemetery to meet with its staff? 

These problems are not restricted to one church, of course; these are merely examples of what 

can occur at any cemetery, regardless of its afJiliation. Similarly, cemeteries that are legally 

incorporated as non profits may actually operate more like big business. In researching her 1998 

book documenting funeral and cemetery problems, former FCA executive director Lisa Carlson 

found two large, national nmeral chains had purchased cemeteries in Wisconsin, even though all 

ccmeteries in that statc must be "nonprofit" by law. In her 1999 testimony before the Federal 

Trade Commission (on behalfofFCA), Carlson noted "In Oklahoma, all cemeteries by statute 

must be run not-for-profit, yet SCI and Loewen [at the time, the 1

5t and 2nd largest publicly 

traded funeral chains] own approximately 25 cemeteries in that state." 

Settled American Jurisprudence Allows Regulation of Religions Cemeteries 

There is no question that the government may enact regulations for the general welfare of the 

public, even if those regulations apply to religious organizations. The US Supreme Court has 

established this doctrine in a string of decisions dating back to at least 1879. In plain terms, the 

court has consistently held that regulations which are enacted neutrally, and which apply 

generally to everyone, do not violate the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause. The only 

exceptions. the Court has noted, are when laws are enacted with the specific intent of limiting a 

religious practice or interfering with its free exercise. This is a small sampling from the Court's 

opinions: 

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere 

with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices .... Can a man 

excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this 

would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of 

the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.-

Reynolds v. United States. 98 U.S. 145 (decided 1879) 

Respondents urge us to hold. quite simply, that when otherwise prohibitable 

conduct is accompanied by religious convictions, not only the convictions but the 

conduct itself must be free from governmental regulation. We have never held 

that, and decline to do so now. Employment Div., Oregon Dept. of Human 

Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (decided 1990) 

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [494 U.S. 872, 8791 excuse him 

from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting eonduct that the State is free to 

33 Patchen Road, South Burlington, VT 05403 • 802-865-8300· www.funerals.org 

·fca@funerals.org 

4 
84 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 90 here 76005A.057

regulate. On thc contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise 

jurisprudence contradicts that proposition - Ibid. 

HR3655, with its direction to the FTC to require all cemeteries to distribute itemized price lists 

and to give consumers free choice in purchase, is clearly of general applicability. It interferes 

with no religious practice or belief. 

Funeral Consumers Alliance believes in the rights of individuals to freely choose a fimeral or 

burial that is meaningful and affordable. For many families, that means a burial in a cemetery 

aligned with their religious beliefs. FCA has advocated fiercely for the rights of religious 

individuals and groups to be free from unnecessary and improper state interference with their 

private funeral and burial practices. But in those cases, state regulatory authorities had 

improperly applied commercial licensing law to the private, commerce-free actions ofreligious 

individuals and voluntary associations.2 

HR3655 would not have this effect. It merely requires that all cemeteries that sell goods and 

services to consumers abide by important, easy-to-implement consumer protection requirements. 

Grieving families of all faiths or no faith are all in the same situation; they are confused, they are 

in sorrow, and they are faced with spending a significant amount of money. All the bereaved 

deserve the same minimal level ofprotection. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Joshua Slocum 

Executive Director 

'These cases typically had to do with state regulatory boards attempting to prevent voluntary burial committees 

fj'Oln preparing and burying their own dead without hiring a commercial funeral home. In each case, there was no 

commercial aspect: no money changed hands. Volunteers offered families the service of private burial, free of 

charge. In each case, the state regulatory boards were attempting to overstep their statutory authority: such boards 

arc typically empowered by statute to regulate only the commercial practice of funeral service (selling funerals to 

the public), not the private, non-commercial activities of families. fhends, and church groups. 

33 Patchen Road, South Burlington, VT 05403' 802-865-8300' www.funerals.org 

·fca@funerals.org 

o 

5