The Department of Veterans Affairs

National Cemetery Administration

Hearing

before the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs

one hundred ninth congress

first session

April 20, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 109-2

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

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

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

u.s. government printing office

washington : 2005

22-357.PDF
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Steve Buyer, Indiana, Chairman

Michael Bilirakis, Florida Lane Evans, Illinois, Ranking

Terry Everett, Alabama Bob Filner, California

Cliff Stearns, Florida Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois

dan burton, Indiana Corrine Brown, Florida

Jerry Moran, Kansas Vic Snyder, Arkansas

richard H. baker, Louisiana Michael H. Michaud, Maine

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina Stephanie Herseth, South 

Jeff Miller, Florida Dakota

John Boozman, Arkansas Ted Strickland, Ohio

Jeb Bradley, New Hampshire Darlene Hooley, Oregon

Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Silvestre Reyes, Texas

Michael R. Turner, Ohio Shelly Berkley, Nevada

Devin Nunes, California Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mike Copher, Acting Staff Director

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance

and Memorial Affairs

Jeff Miller, Florida, Chairman Shelley Berkley, Nevada, 

Jerry Moran, Kansas Ranking

Jeb Bradley, New Hampshire, Vice Chairman Tom Udall, New Mexico

Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Lane Evans, Illinois

 

PAIGE MCMANUS, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II)
CONTENTS

April 20, 2005

 Page

Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Ad-

 ministration ............................................................................. 

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairman Miller .......................................................................... 

Prepared statement of Chairman Miller .................................... 

Hon. Shelley Berkley, Ranking Democratic Member, 

 Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial

 Affairs ...................................................................................... 

Prepared statement of Congresswoman Berkley ...................... 

Hon. Lane Evans ......................................................................... 

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

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD

Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite ............................................................ 

Witnesses

Wannemacher, Richard A., Jr., Acting Under Secretary for 

 Memorial Affairs, National Cemetery Administration,

 Department of Veterans Affairs .............................................. 

Prepared statement of Mr. Wannemacher ................................. 

Beavers, Leslie E. President, National Association of State

 Directors of Veterans Affairs (NASDVA) and Commissioner

 Kentucky Department of Veterans Affairs ............................ 

Prepared statement of Brigadier General Beavers ................... 

Fitch, John H. Jr., Senior Vice President for Advocacy,

 National Funeral Directors Association .............................. 

Prepared statement of Mr. Fitch ................................................ 

Elvig, Paul M., Vice President of Products and Services, and

 Chairman of the Federal Affairs Subcommittee, 

 International Cemetery and Funeral Association (ICFA), and 

 President and CEO of Evergreen-Washelli Funeral Home

 and Cemetery, Seattle, Washington ....................................... 

Prepared statement of Mr. Elvig ................................................

(III) 

1

 1

30

 2

31

3

33

32

4

34

13

43

17

46

19

50
Jones, Richard “Rick,” National Legislative Director, 

 AMVETS .................................................................................. 

Prepared statement of Mr. Jones ............................................... 

POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Hon. Lane Evans ......................................................................... 

Hon. Shelley Berkley ................................................................... 

(IV)

20

57

64

66
HEARING ON THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS’ NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

(1)

U.S. House of Representatives,

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and

Memorial Affairs,

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

 The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller [Chairman of 

the Subcommittee] presiding.

 Present: Representatives Miller, Berkley, Evans, and Udall.

opening statement of Chairman Miller

 Mr. Miller. The hearing will come to order.

 Good morning, everybody.

 This is the first hearing of our Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, and Ranking Member Berkley and I

want to add our personal welcome to each of you for being here this 

morning.

 I’d like to remind everyone that the audio portion of this Subcommittee hearing is being broadcast live around the world via the 

Internet, and also the hearing is being recorded without any additional natural sound in the background for play over our Committee’s 

award-winning website.

 We are meeting today to examine the policy and operational issues 

facing the National Cemetery Administration -- including the State 

Cemetery Grants Program -- as well as the efforts the NCA is taking 

to address the major and minor restoration projects that were identified in 2002 by the Logistics Management Institute.

 I’m pleased to say that it appears that there are no obvious problems with the National Cemetery Administration.

 In fact, in a 2004 survey of government agencies and private organizations, NCA received a higher rating than an agency or organization had ever received -- that being 95 out of a possible 100 points 

-- and 94 percent of the respondents in fiscal year 2004 rated the 

quality of service provided by the national cemeteries as excellent.
 As well, the states seem to be pleased with the State Cemetery 

Grants Program, which Congress made permanent in 2003 with Public Law 108-193.

 However, I would presume there are areas that can be improved 

upon.

 As you may be aware, the Committee, in its Budget Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2006, requested an additional $45.6 million 

for cemetery restoration and repair projects. This is an area where I

have a particular interest, and look forward to working with the NCA

to ensure we hold firm to the National Shrine Commitment.

 I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses here today.

 And at this time, I recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Berkley, for 

any comments she may have.

opening statement of Hon. Shelley Berkley

 Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 And I also want to thank you for holding this hearing on the National Cemetery Administration, as our first hearing of the Subcommittee this Congress. I think that demonstrates the importance and 

significance we place on this issue.

 Our veterans have earned a dignified and serene resting place.

 The written testimony of our nation’s funeral directors and recognition by the 2004 American Customer Satisfaction Index confirm 

that the VA’s National Cemetery Administration has worked with 

compassion and diligence to serve the needs of those who have served 

this nation with great distinction.

 Nevada does not have a national cemetery, but we do have two 

remarkably beautiful state cemeteries, one in Fernley, which serves 

Northern Nevada; one in Boulder City, that serves Southern Nevada, 

the Las Vegas area, which I’m very familiar with and spend a great 

deal of time at that cemetery.

 The Southern Nevada Veterans’ Memorial Cemetery opened in 

1991 and is the second-busiest state cemetery in the nation.

 It currently has 17,000 veterans buried there, and as more and 

more older veterans move to the Southern Nevada area, and we have 

the fastest-growing veterans population in the United States, the demand for burial spaces will continue to grow.

 In order to honor these veterans and their families, we must provide, we simply must provide adequate support for both national and 

state cemeteries.

 I believe that we should be increasing the plot allowance and burial 

benefits provided to the families of deceased servicemembers, and to 

that end I have introduced legislation, H.R. 805, the “Veterans’ Burial Benefits Improvement Act of 2005,” to do so.

 I remember distinctly when I was a candidate in 1997 and 1998 

2
meeting with veterans’ organizations and families who shared stories 

with me of how difficult it was to bury their loved one on the amount 

of money that we allocate.

 We have not kept up with inflation, and the numbers in 1973, 

which were very adequate at that time, simply are no longer adequate now.

 In addition, I am concerned that the VA may be too restrictive in its 

interpretation of who can be buried in a veterans’ cemetery. I hope 

the VA will address whether a state can provide a section of a veterans’ cemetery for those who are veterans under state law or veterans 

of the National Guard or Reserve without active service.

 And again, I want to thank all of you for being here. I’m anxious to 

hear your testimony, and I look forward to it.

 Thank you.

 Mr. Miller. Thank you, Ms. Berkley.

 Mr. Evans?

opening statement of Hon. Lane Evans

 Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 I appreciate your holding this hearing, as well. It’s important for 

us to continually insist that we have the most efficient and well-run 

cemeteries across the world, and I know we do. We do have a great 

cemetery system, part of it in Europe, with our forces.

 So we know how tough things can be, but we want to make it more 

accessible and open to people who don’t often get the time to get out 

to those burial sites.

 So perhaps today we’ll get some people who have been through 

these things and who have an interest in improving and maintaining 

the management, as they do so well in my district.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony of our 

witnesses.

 [The statement of Hon. Lane Evans appears on p. 33]

 Mr. Miller. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Evans.

 Mr. Udall.

 Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 I appreciate the opportunity for this hearing.

 During the last Congress, I introduced a bill called the “Native 

Americans Veterans’ Cemetery Act.” This legislation makes all Native American tribes eligible to apply for state cemetery grants.

 As you know, under current law, only states are eligible for veterans’ cemetery grants. Then Secretary Anthony Principi sent me a 

letter stating he strongly supported this bill’s enactment.

 So when we get to the question section, I’d like to ask you a little 

bit about that and I also want to inquire with regard to the burial of 

rural veterans, because I know that we have many more veterans 

3
that are dying that are from rural areas than from urban areas. I

think the numbers are almost two to one.

 So I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you today, and from 

the Chairman, for doing this hearing, and yield back.

 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.

 I’d like to welcome the first panel to the table today.

 Mr. Richard Wannemacher is Acting Under Secretary for Memorial 

Affairs, and he is accompanied by Daniel Tucker, Director of the Office of Finance and Planning at NCA and Mr. William Jayne, Director 

of the State Cemetery Grants Service.

 For your information, Mr. Wannemacher was named Acting Under 

Secretary for Memorial Affairs on January 31st of 2005. He served 

as Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs beginning in 

June of 2003, and prior to that he was the senior advisor to the Under 

Secretary at NCA, and has also served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

 He served in the U.S. Navy from 1967 to 1969, when he was medically retired after receiving multiple shell fragment wounds from an 

enemy satchel charge explosion.

 Mr. Wannemacher, we welcome you. You may begin when you are 

ready, please.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. WANNEMACHER, JR., ACT-

 ING UNDER SECRETARY FOR MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, NA-

 TIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT 

 OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY DANIEL

 TUCKER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FINANCE AND PLAN-

 NING AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, NATIONAL 

 CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION, AND G. WILLIAM 

 JAYNE, DIRECTOR, STATE CEMETERY GRANTS SER-

 VICE, NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION

 Mr. Wannemacher. Thank you, sir, and good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee.

 I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss with you 

the memorial affairs that are provided by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

 I am accompanied, as you noted, by Dan Tucker, director of the 

Office of Finance and Planning, and he’s also NCA’s chief financial officer, and Mr. Bill Jayne, director of State Cemetery Grants Service.

 I would like to submit my written testimony for the record, if I

could.

 Mr. Chairman, NCA maintains more than 2.6 million gravesites in 

120 national cemeteries. Last year, we provided more than 350,000 

headstones and markers, as well, and issued more than 436,000 presidential memorial certificates honoring our nation’s heroes, the men 

4
and the women who wore the uniform of the United States in defense 

of a free and democratic America.

 At the current time, VA is within the largest expansion of the 

National Cemetery Administration since the Civil War, with 11 new 

cemeteries on the books in the various construction phases.

 NCA’s primary mission is to ensure that the burial needs of veterans and their families are met, and with the annual interment and 

death rates rising, there is going to be 676,000 veterans in 2008 that 

expire.

 As VA deaths increase, as veterans’ deaths increase, and new national cemeteries are opened, NCA projects increases in the number 

of annual interments from the current 93,000 in 2004 to 115,000 in 

2010. This will be an increase of 24 percent.

 We are also meeting the needs of families who have lost a loved one 

while serving overseas on the war on terror. 

 As of March of this year, 273 servicemembers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan have been interred in either a national or a state veterans’ 

cemetery.

 Our ability to provide reasonable access to burial options is a critical measures of the effectiveness of our service delivery. Currently, 

75 percent of veterans reside within 75 miles of a national or state 

veterans’ cemetery, and our goal is to increase this to 90 percent by 

the year 2010.

 I would like to update you on the progress that we’ve been utilizing 

in establishing 11 national cemeteries. 

 Over the next two years, five new cemeteries will begin serving 

veterans in the areas of Atlanta, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, 

and South Florida.

 As directed by the National Cemetery Expansion Act, we are also 

establishing six additional national cemeteries in California, Alabama, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Our goal is to 

open six new cemeteries by the end of 2009.

 We will continue to expand our existing national cemeteries by 

acquiring additional land and completing development projects. We 

have a number of projects underway to expand the life cycle of several 

national cemeteries.

 We’ve also been implementing operational efficiencies throughout 

our system in order to maximize the amount of burial space that we 

can get at our national cemeteries.

 This includes the use of grave liners installed at the time of construction and the greater use of columbaria for the interment of cremated remains.

 Through the State Cemetery Grants Program, NCA funds up to 100 

percent of the cost to establish, expand, or improve state veterans’ 

cemeteries.

 Since the establishment by Congress in 1978, the program has 

5
awarded 140 grants totalling more than $215 million for 62 cemeteries.

 In 2004, state veterans’ cemeteries provided more than 19,000 

gravesites.

 In response to legislation that raised the amount of funding we 

can provide, state interest in the program has increased significantly. Since 2001, 17 new state veterans’ cemeteries have opened in 12 

states.

 With the opening of Idaho’s state veterans’ cemetery, we are pleased 

to report that there’s a national or a state veterans’ cemetery in every 

state of the union.

 Another NCA statutory mandate is to maintain our national cemeteries as national shrines. Our national cemeteries carry expectations of appearance and set them apart from our civilian counterparts. 

 The 2002 congressionally mandated report entitled “National Shrine 

Commitment” provided the first independent study, system-wide assessment of the condition of VA national cemeteries, and it identified 

928 projects with an estimated cost of $280 million to fulfill.

 Through 2004, $77 million of these repair projects and costs have 

been addressed. NCA has completed 89 of the identified projects and 

work has been initiated in 151 additional projects, including several 

large-scale gravesite renovation projects.

 NCA is making steady progress and using multi-faceted strategy to 

address cemetery maintenance and repair needs.

 For example, we’ve established a comprehensive set of operational 

standards to provide guidance and direction for maintaining VA cemeteries as national shrines. These standards provide quantifiable 

goals and expectations that are applied at all of our national cemeteries, both open and closed.

 We also continue to focus on meeting the burial needs of veterans 

as well by fulfilling the maintenance needs of our cemeteries.

 We have also undertaken numerous related projects which I’ve 

highlighted in my written statement.

 These accomplishments include our improvement in timeliness 

of marking graves in national cemeteries; the establishment of a 

centralized training center for our employees, and launching a webbased nationwide gravesite locater system, and formalized a research 

and development program within NCA.

 Finally, we are most proud of the results, as you noted, of our 2004 

American Customer Satisfaction Index Survey. NCA did achieve a 

customer satisfaction rating of 95 out of a possible 100 points for the 

national cemeteries, and this is the highest score ever received by 

either a federal agency or a private organization.

 The outstanding results are a testament to the dedication and hard 

work of NCA’s employees as they serve veterans and their families 

6
during difficult and emotional times.

 I want to thank you for the opportunity to share my views, both 

written and oral, and I stand ready to address any questions or concerns that you may have.

 [The statement of Richard A. Wannemacher, Jr. appears on p. 34]

 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much for your testimony today.

 Several of us have questions.

 I’d like to start off by saying that in your testimony, you had said 

that the number of annual interments are expected to increase by 24 

percent between 2004 and 2010.

 Mr. Wannemacher. Mm-hmm.

 Mr. Miller. And in 2006 this year, you ask for an additional 13 

FTE.

 My question is, in order to maintain your current level of customer 

satisfaction, do you foresee requiring additional FTE as demand for 

your services increases, and if so, are there plans to ramp up those 

levels in the future?

 Mr. Wannemacher. We believe that this year the 2006 budget submission will adequately serve the needs of the National Cemetery 

Administration in the growth period. The 2007 may be completely 

different.

 But the request that we presented and that was accepted by the 

President and submitted to Congress is adequate to serve our needs.

 Mr. Miller. You also talked about 89 restoration projects having 

been completed and 151 other projects underway.

 Of course, there are 928 projects out there, so at this pace, how long 

do you anticipate, given the current pace to finish all of the projects?

 Mr. Wannemacher. With the steady progress that we’ve already 

made, and one fourth of the projects have been completed to date, we 

feel that we’re on a steady scale to be able to complete those by 2009, 

2010.

 Mr. Miller. Are other maintenance projects being deferred because 

of this ongoing work, or is this in addition to your regular work schedule?

 Mr. Wannemacher. This is in addition to regular work schedule, 

sir.

 Mr. Miller. Could you tell us a little about the -- I haven’t had 

an opportunity to go there, but a little bit about the NCA training 

center?

 Some of the Committee members may want to know a little bit 

about that. I think we may make a site visit there sometime in the 

near future.

 Mr. Wannemacher. The Committee is more than welcome.

 I had the opportunity to be out there earlier this year, and we were 

at that time putting together a class of candidates for director train7
ing, assistant director training, and those individuals received the 

best of the best when it came to instruction.

 Bill Jayne from the State Cemetery Grants Program was out there 

to make them aware of the State Cemetery Grants Program.

 Dan Tucker was out there to assist them. Steve Merrill, who is my 

deputy right now, the field director was out there.

 And what we’ve done, we’ve put together courses that assist veterans in -- our employees in meetings the needs.

 We’re also working with the VA Chaplain Service in order to accommodate the work that is required, but also the personal aspect in 

dealing with death and dying on a regular basis.

 Our employees are sometimes just as effective as the families themselves.

 So in developing coping skills, we’re working on that.

 But this training center is going to be more than just training the 

assistant directors and directors. We’re also putting together training to train ground maintenance personnel, cemetery representatives, everyone within the system.

 All of the employees of the National Cemetery Administration will 

have an opportunity to go there and receive training so that they can 

better serve the veterans that we serve.

 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.

 Ms. Berkley?

 Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 I have an absolutely beautiful cemetery right outside my district, 

and I’m there quite often for various ceremonies and for private burials, as well, and I think they do just a remarkable job.

 Since I only have state cemeteries in my state, of course, I’m particularly interested in that.

 If the VA does not receive funding for additional state cemeteries, 

how long do you think it would take for the applications that are currently pending to obtain funding? If we don’t provide adequate funding in this budget, how much longer would be have to wait?

 Mr. Wannemacher. I’ll let Bill Jayne address that.

 But the 2006 budget submission will address the current needs, the 

current pre-applications, but Bill, if you’ll share that?

 Mr. Jayne. Yes, ma’am.

 We have -- step back a second.

 We use a process where we start with what we call a pre-application from the state, and the purpose of that pre-application is to open 

up the lines of communication with VA and to assess these projects, 

whether they’re valid or not, and to refine the scope of the projects.

 Then we go through a process that usually takes, at best, a year 

sometimes two to three years, of in effect perfecting that pre-application, and the states need to meet all of our requirements for a grant 

before we actually award a grant.

8
 So we’ve got 39 pre-applications on hand right now with an estimated cost of about 140 million, but not all of those are ready to be 

funded right now.

 And what has happened over the past few years is that what happens is that usually these pre-applications don’t follow a very smooth, 

predictable course. Some go faster than others. Some take much 

longer than we expected.

 So with that process, in effect, we’ve been able, with the $32-million-a-year appropriation, to address the most important needs of the 

projects that are ready to be funded, the ones that have met all of our 

requirements, and that includes some important expansion and improvement projects such as one we’ve got working right now at Boulder City, where we’re going to put in crypts and columbaria and a 

new maintenance building, that’s more adequate to their workload.

 Ms. Berkley. Thank you for that.

 Let me ask you something. If the state goes ahead and allocates 

money for maintenance but there’s -- but VA funding is not available, 

what happens to the state money? What happens in that case?

 Mr. Jayne. That would be a state matter. If they appropriate money at the state level to operate a new cemetery, and that cemetery 

is not built, I would assume that under the state budget they would 

reprogram that money or something like that.

 Ms. Berkley. Okay.

 If a state wanted to designate -- and I mentioned this in my opening 

remarks -- if a state wanted to designate a distinct portion of a state 

veterans’ cemetery for use by veterans recognized under state law 

but not federal law, under what conditions could that be done?

 Mr. Jayne. Currently, the law authorizes us to only provide a grant 

for cemeteries that are operated solely for veterans as defined under 

Title 38, and eligible dependents and so on.

 So in general, we would probably not be able to assist a state in 

building a facility that would provide services for people who are not 

eligible for burial under Title 38.

 Ms. Berkley. Let me ask you something.

 If the state decides to set aside a small portion of the state cemetery, would the feds have any problem with that, if they paid for it 

and funded it; and do you see any circumstances where somebody 

with the National Guard or Reserve who has served with distinction 

but may not fall into the federal guidelines or federal definition do 

you see any time when it would be appropriate to bury them in the 

veterans’ cemetery?

 Mr. Jayne. Well, your first question about a facility that would be 

built totally with state funds and operated totally with state funds, I

think we’d have to look at --

 Ms. Berkley. Well, not actually all state funds. It would be a similar situation to what’s happening in Boulder City, which is not solely 

9
state funds.

 Mr. Jayne. Right.

 That would be -- the plot allowance issue for operations would be 

a separate question. I would assume that, you know, the plot allowance is payable on behalf of a veteran as defined under Title 38, so the 

plot allowance would not be paid for someone who is ineligible.

 But as far as grant funds for construction, I don’t think we could 

award grant funds, but if the state were to build a separate, adjacent 

facility, I think we’d have to look at the plans to be sure but potentially something like that could be done.

 But maybe perhaps the entire issue of eligibility is one that needs 

to be looked at perhaps by the Committee.

 Ms. Berkley. Okay.

 And if I could have just one more minute?

 Mr. Miller. Sure.

 Ms. Berkley. It’s come to my attention, and we received some inquiries about this, so let me share with you what the inquiry was.

 Is there a uniform procedure, or should there be a uniform procedure for contacting national cemeteries on weekends or holidays in 

order to schedule services for the following weekday?

 I received some information that it’s not uniform throughout the 

United States and it creates some confusion.

 Mr. Wannemacher. Well, it is uniform.

 The funeral directors would contact the cemetery where they normally would contact, and that phone line would link up to St. Louis, 

Missouri.

 We have a hub in St. Louis, Missouri that’s staffed on weekends 

and holidays, and they take care of all of the weekend arrangements, 

and then what they do is contact the cemetery and tell them what is 

planned.

 Ms. Berkley. Okay. Thank you very much.

 Mr. Miller. Mr. Udall.

 Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 As a member who represents a rural district, I’m concerned that the 

policy requiring 175,000 veterans within a 75-mile radius adversely 

impacts rural veterans, recent research showing that veterans from 

rural areas are dying at twice the rate of those from cities and suburbs.

 What can be done to provide a dignified resting place for our rural 

veterans?

 Mr. Wannemacher. The National Cemetery Administration for the 

construction of the national cemeteries, you’re correct, the 75-mile, 

170,000 veteran populations.

 Well, that’s where our State Cemetery Grants Program comes in, 

to address those programs in areas where there aren’t sufficient veterans residing.

10
 But I also want to tell you, Congressman, that National Cemetery 

Administration issues with pride and dignity headstones for every 

veteran’s grave, and those headstones are sent to that cemetery for 

placement.

 We also issue presidential memorial certificates in order to memorialize that individual veteran’s service to his country.

 What our goal is, by 2006 -- or 2009, I’m sorry -- we’ll be reaching 

90 percent of the veterans within 75 miles with either a state or a 

national cemetery.

 But the placement of those individual headstones throughout the 

nation continues to honor with dignity the sacrifice of veterans.

 Mr. Udall. Thank you.

 In July of 2002, some staff from the VA’s Office of the Under Secretary of Memorial Affairs visited New Mexico to do an initial site 

review for a new national cemetery in New Mexico.

 Where in your list of planned new national cemeteries does New 

Mexico fall? What is the timeline?

 I have many constituents who are interested in being involved in 

the site selection process for a new national cemetery.

 Who participates in this process, and what kind of public input 

from veterans do you plan?

 Mr. Wannemacher. When that assessment was delivered, National 

Cemetery Administration was responding to legislation that was put 

forward by Congressman Wilson, and her legislation requested that 

NCA, the National Cemetery Administration, look at burial option 

within the Albuquerque area.

 The Albuquerque area is served by the national cemetery in Santa Fe, and with that, with the Santa Fe, the expansion that’s going 

on out there, we feel that those veterans in Albuquerque are well 

served.

 We did do a study and came up, but there’s no priorities list or 

anything. All we were doing is responding to congressional mandate 

to look into the cemetery.

 Mr. Udall. When you get ready to do a new national cemetery, 

what kind of public input do veterans have? I mean, what is your 

traditional way of doing that?

 Mr. Wannemacher. There will be full public input.

 Once the -- we utilize the Census results, and then those Census 

results are updated through the VA’s Office of Actuary.

 And so when we find a situation, then we go and go to the public, 

we talk to the funeral directors, we talk to veterans service organizations, we talk to everyone, because we don’t want to create something 

that isn’t going to be well utilized within the community.

 Mr. Udall. Thank you.

 During the last Congress, I introduced a bill called the ``Native 

American Veterans’ Cemetery Act.’’ This legislation makes all Na11
tive American tribes eligible to apply for state cemetery grants.

 As you know, under current law, only states are eligible for veterans’ cemetery grants.

 As I mentioned earlier, then Secretary Principi sent a letter to me 

stating he strongly supported this bill’s enactment.

 What action is needed for the VA to provide the opportunity to 

tribes to apply for state cemetery grants; what obstacles do you see to 

allowing tribes to apply for state cemetery grants?

 Mr. Wannemacher. As you noted, Secretary Principi did, and the 

administration did support H.R. 2983.

 This year, we haven’t been asked to respond to your current legislation. H.R. 601.

 What the criteria is is that the individual entity would have to meet 

the requirements for all grants, whether it be a state or territory. 

There are certain criteria, and those are posted within public record, 

Directive -- was it 39? -- 38 CFR Part 39.

 If they meet that criteria, then they would be considered.

 Mr. Udall. Thank you.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Wannemacher, Mr. Jayne, 

and Mr. Tucker, for being here. This Committee and I commend the 

role that you play, along with your staff, in assisting the survivors of 

our servicemembers and veterans. I appreciate your testimony and 

do look forward to working with you in the future.

 You’re excused.

 I’d like to ask the next panel, if they would, to come forward.

 Members and guests, retired Brigadier General Leslie Beavers is 

the president of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans’ Affairs.

 He is a 1960 graduate of the Military Academy at West Point, sir, 

and has a distinguished career in the United States Army.

 His awards include the Legion of Merit, three Bronze Stars for 

valor, two Meritorious Service Medals, Air Medals, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Combat Infantryman’s Badge, the Parachutist Badge, the Department of Army 

Staff Badge, and Ranger qualification, which means he has spent at 

least one week in the Yellow River in my district, in Florida.

 Mr. John Fitch, Jr. is the Senior Vice President for Advocacy for the 

National Funeral Directors Association.

 He has a B.A. from the University of Virginia and an M.A. from the 

Industrial College of the Armed Forces, and a law degree from the 

University of Mississippi.

 Mr. Fitch served nine years as an officer in the U.S. Army with active duty assignments in West Germany and Vietnam.

 Mr. Paul Elvig is here in his capacity as Vice President of Products 

and Services and Chairman of the Federal Affairs Subcommittee for 

12
the International Cemetery and Funeral Association. He’s currently 

the president and CEO of Evergreen-Washelli Funeral Home and 

Cemetery in Seattle, Washington.

 Mr. Elvig has served as executive director of both the Washington 

State Cemetery Board and the Washington State Funeral Directors 

and Embalmers Board, and is a founder of the North America Cemetery Regulators Association.

 Mr. Richard Jones is legislative director for AMVETS.

 Mr. Jones has spent almost 20 years working in various staff positions in the House and the Senate, including several years on the 

staff of this very Committee.

 He is a veteran of the U.S. Army, where he served as a medical 

specialist during the Vietnam era.

 We’d like to welcome all of you today.

 And General Beavers, you may begin.

STATEMENTS OF BRIGADIER GENERAL LESLIE E. BEA-

 VERS, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED), PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

 ASSOCIATION OF STATE DIRECTORS OF VETERANS’

 AFFAIRS (NASDVA) AND COMMISSIONER, KENTUCKY

 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, ACCOMPAN-

 IED BY STEVE ABEL, STATE DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY];

 JOHN H. FITCH, JR., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR AD-

 VOCACY, NATIONAL FUNERAL DIRECTORS ASSOCIA-

 TION; PAUL M. ELVIG, VICE PRESIDENT OF PRODUCTS

 AND SERVICES AND CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL AF-

 FAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE, INTERNATIONAL CEMETERY

 AND FUNERAL ASSOCIATION (ICFA) AND PRESIDENT

 AND CEO OF EVERGREEN-WASHELLI FUNERAL HOME 

 AND CEMETERY, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON; AND RICH-

 ARD “RICK” JONES, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIREC-

 TOR, AMVETS

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL LESLIE E. BEA-

 VERS

 Gen. Beavers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 I have with me this morning also Mr. Steve Abel, the state director 

from New Jersey, and the reason I invited him, he had the largest 

state cemetery operation in all 50 states, so he might be able to answer some of the questions, as well.

 It’s an honor for me to represent the 50 States, the Commonwealths, and the Territories, and I think in my oral comments I’ll 

address some of the questions that have been previously asked, and I

would like to submit my statement for the record.

 Memorial affairs is an area in which the states have been highly 

13
effective participants with the federal VA with the inception of the 

State Cemetery Grants Program.

 I think of all the grant programs that I’ve been associated with as a 

State Director, this is the most effective and the best managed, and I

applaud Mr. Bill Jayne on the cooperation and the coordination that 

he effects with the State Directors. It is a highly effective program.

 I think they’ve also earned the National Cemetery Administration 

award of “excellence” as a governmental agency.

 In our relationship with the national cemeteries in our states, they 

truly are effective, and the veterans are highly appreciative of the 

services that they provide and what we’re doing in the state cemeteries.

 When you look at it over the history of this grant program, 139 

grants have been awarded, and that’s only been an expenditure of 

federal dollars of 215 million, for a highly sensitive and memorial 

service that we’re providing for those who served our country.

 We currently now have 32 states and Guam involved in the cemetery grant program, and it’s allowed us to provide gravesites for 

veterans in those areas where VA national cemeteries are unable to 

fully meet the veterans’ needs, particularly in the rural and remote 

areas of the country, areas that have concentrated military, veteran, 

and retiree populations, such as I address at Fort Campbell in Hopkinsville, our first state veterans’ cemetery in the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky, and I hand-carried with me today the plans for Fort Knox, 

my second state veterans’ cemetery, where I have a high retiree and 

a veteran population in the Louisville area.

 I think the cemetery grant program, the State Cemetery Grants 

Program also serves those moderate sized population areas such as 

Memphis, Nashville, Little Rock, and Las Vegas, so it is a real compliment and a supplement to the national cemetery system.

 I disagree with my federal colleagues about the budgeting for fiscal 

year 2006. The proposed appropriation of 32 million is insufficient, I 

think, to address the 40 pre-applications, which total some 160 million. 

 States have to make a big commitment to receive a grant. We have 

to get the land, often purchased by the veterans’ service organizations, or transfer federal land, like I have at Fort Knox.

 We have to do a full design, which takes A&E front money, as well 

as a commitment in our state budgets to operate these.

 And that’s often the biggest question we get from our general assembly about our commitment to the perpetual care of these state 

veterans’ cemeteries.

 So I strongly think that the State Cemetery Grants Program should 

be increased to 50 million so that we don’t generate a backlog of these 

projects similar to what we had with the nursing home grant program.

14
 I know that they are better prepared to answer that question, from 

our view, as state directors, I don’t think we should hold up these 

projects for lack of funding with that commitment that we’ve made 

with our general assemblies to go forward, and our governors.

 Next, I’d like to address the plot allowance issue, because it directly 

ties into our operational costs. 

 The operational cost, the average we figured for an interment is 

around $2,000 per interment, and our plot allowance of only $300 is 

the only offset that we get in the state for operational costs, which is 

only covering 15 percent.

 The state directors I think would support legislation that’s proposed for an increase in that plot allowance, because it would go directly to offsetting that operational cost, and I know that there’s H.R. 

831 and the one that you mentioned, Congresswoman Berkley, and 

we would support an increase in plot allowance, and I propose that 

that should be $1,000.

 Next, I’d like to address the question about eligibility for interment.

 You know, our nation has an obligation to honor and memorialize the service of Reserve component and National Guard members 

for their military service, as well, particularly since the all-volunteer 

force of 1973.

 Currently, only those Reserve and Guard members who have 

earned veteran status by being federalized, or those that are retired, 

or those who suffer injury or disease from performing training can be 

interred in a national cemetery system.

 If a state inters an ineligible Reservist or Guard member in their 

veterans’ cemetery, then we’re no longer eligible to receive the federal 

cemetery grant.

 We believe it is time to amend the law to include the following provision, and I offer this provision:

 “Any member of the Reserve component or National Guard who 

originally enlisted on or after July 1, 1973 and is currently serving 

or was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than 

dishonorable.”

 I think that amendment in Title 38 would clear up the issue of eligibility for our Guard and Reservists who are serving so well in this 

war on terrorism.

 So I offer that provision for the record.

 In terms of the operational grant, in lieu of plot allowance, then 

I think under the purview of the state cemetery grant program, we 

could have an operational grant.

 Because their program is so well-managed, I would think that the 

cemetery grant program could include an operational grant component for the states, based upon the size and the burial rates, and that 

could be determined about what appropriate level, but with the plot 

15
allowance being increased, then that would be offset with that 

recommendation.

 In terms of burial honors, I’d like to go beyond the State Cemetery 

Grants Program and say it is so important when you attend these 

services, what occurs at a committal shelter.

 This has been a labor of love for me in terms of establishing State 

Cemetery Grants Programs in our state, and I worked on it for four 

years.

 And when we had our first burial of a black NCO E-6, Lemuel 

Graham, who had entered the Army when it was segregated, with 

his distinguished spouse present, and when I was there and we presented her flag and we made our first burial, I knew that we had done 

the right thing.

 Secondly, the second burial that first day on 1 March of 2002 was 

the spouse of a retired Sergeant Major Matosky, the two of them had 

served for 30 years in the military as a team, and the only person 

present was their daughter, who had been taking care of both of them 

for the last five years.

 And the lady’s name was Tedi. She was cremained, and we put her 

in the first columbarium niche, and it happened to be her birthday, 

and the daughter put a little Teddy Bear in the cremain niche. I

knew we were doing the right thing at that moment.

 And that’s why I pursue this program so strongly.

 In attending these, I think the honors that we provide at these services are so important. The two-person detail the DOD is committed 

to from the service that they were in is so important to them. We’re 

fortunate in the Fort Campbell area to get the 101st to support us, 

and the VSOs also do a great job in the burial honors.

 But I think all retirees should get a seven-man detail, and not just 

a two-man detail based upon economics, and I know that’s tough on 

them right now because of their deployment rate.

 So Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee, we 

respect the important work that our colleagues in the federal VA do, 

particularly in this program, and I think we’re answering a service 

to our veterans who served us, and in so doing, we’re giving them a 

dignified and compassionate burial.

 In the states, what I would ask you to be mindful of, we have a fiscal 

crisis, as well, and this operational need that we have is important to 

us, just as you face the federal fiscal challenge.

 So that concludes my comments, Mr. Chairman, and I would be 

available for any questions.

 Thank you, sir.

 [The statement of Gen. Leslie E. Beavers appears on p. 43]

 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, General.

 What I’d like to do is to go ahead and proceed through all of the 

panel if we could, and then go to questions. 

16
 So Mr. Fitch, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. FITCH, JR.

 Mr. Fitch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to present the views of the National Funeral Directors Association on the NCA and the national cemetery 

system. 

 The National Funeral Directors Association represents more than 

13,000 funeral homes and over 21,000 licensed funeral directors and 

embalmers in all 50 states. 

 The average NFDA member is an independently owned and operated business with fewer than 10 employees and has been in the 

same family for over 60 years. 

 The NFDA has a great interest in the national cemetery system 

as our members provide both funeral and burial services for our veterans and their families on a daily basis. As a result, they use the 

national cemeteries and state veterans’ cemeteries very often.

 In a recent survey of our members on this question, we have received an almost unanimous response that our nation’s national cemeteries and state veterans’ cemeteries operate efficiently, effectively, 

and with much compassion for those being buried there, as well as 

their families.

 Our members have found the management and operation of these 

cemeteries to be courteous, flexible, and accommodating to the needs 

of the funeral director and the family members of the deceased veterans. 

 As one of our members from Florida stated:

 “Being in Southwest Florida and with the amount of retired veterans that have come to our beautiful side of the state, we deal regularly with the Florida National Cemetery as well as many times with 

Arlington National.

 “I couldn’t be more pleased with how we are taken care of when we 

call the Florida National Cemetery. Everyone is pleasant, efficient, 

and knowledgeable, and the cemetery is kept up beautifully.”

 An Illinois member stated:

 “We use the Rock Island National Cemetery quite often. In fact, 

I have expressed my desire to be buried there, since I am an eligible 

veteran of the Vietnam War.

 “I really do not know of any way to make improvements. It is impossible to say enough good about the management, the way the families are treated, and the way funeral directors are treated. Please 

encourage the Veterans’ Administration to leave it just as it is.”

 And there are other examples of this in my testimony.

 I use these examples from around the country to illustrate that our 

national cemetery system and its operation and management from 

17
our members’ standpoint is of the highest caliber. Believe me, if it 

was not, they would say so.

 They tend to be very protective of the families they serve, and they 

want to ensure that they are treated with respect and dignity during 

all phases of the funeral and interment.

 I also received just yesterday a letter from Ken Knaus of Palm 

Mortuary who gives his regards, to say that, “The National Veterans’ 

Cemetery in Riverside, California and the Southern Nevada Veterans’ Cemetery provide a wonderful benefit for our women and men 

who have served so bravely and unselfishly.

 “We have assisted thousands of families over the years with their 

burials at veterans’ cemeteries. Families are very grateful for these 

services.”

 And he sends his regards.

 While most of our members are well-satisfied with the services provided them, there are a couple who have said that there may be some 

problems in their areas.

 One member from Texas who uses the DFW National Cemetery 

stated, and I think you addressed this issue earlier:

 “It has been a problem serving our families during the weekend 

hours. Upon the death of a veteran on a Friday evening or on the 

weekends, we cannot make any notification to the national cemetery.

 “This prevents a family from making any gravesite service arrangements until the following Monday, which means the service won’t be 

held until Tuesday or Wednesday.”

 That’s one example.

 One member talked about Arlington National Cemetery and indicated that his biggest concern is the fact that “Arlington National ... 

does not accept cremated remains from the Post Office.”

 “It has presented a bit of a problem in having to send [the cremated 

remains] to another funeral home [in Washington, D.C. area] rather 

than directly to Arlington and thereby causing an additional charge 

that the families have to pay.”

 Finally, the New Jersey State Funeral Directors Association has 

indicated that the ``New Jersey veteran families are underserved by 

the location of the Midatlantic National Cemeteries.

 “Funeral processions from [New Jersey] travel a minimum of three 

hours to the closest cemetery, Calverton, Arlington, or Indian Gap. 

Such excessive travel adds to the cost of the funeral and creates a 

travel burden on families who would like to visit the grave.”

 Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I’ll be happy to answer any questions.

 [The statement of John H. Fitch, Jr. appears on p. 46]

 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Fitch.

18
 Mr. Elvig.

STATEMENT OF PAUL M. ELVIG

 Mr. Elvig. Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Berkley, we 

thank you for the opportunity to be here and say hello from the private and the religious and the municipal cemeteries in America.

 The ICFA has approximately 6,700 members around the country 

and in a few other countries, and our concern is the same concern 

that this Committee has, and that is the obligation that we all have 

in this business, if you will, to provide the services forever. That’s 

something that people just don’t seem to understand. It is forever.

 It’s to that extent and to that end we want to compliment the Chair 

for the special effort being made towards the 900-plus projects that 

need to be addressed in the various maintenance issues of the national cemeteries, and we recognize that this is a type of an ongoing 

issue that you face now.

 We would also like to suggest that possibly you might look at the 

concept of endowed care.

 The private cemeteries, religious and municipal cemeteries have 

addressed this issue of endowment care. That’s where monies are set 

aside and only the earnings, the interest, if you will, is used to maintain a cemetery.

 We have found, I have found, having been the regulator nationally, 

president of the Regulators Association, we have found that it seems 

to be the best assurance that cemeteries will continue to meet the 

community expectations and demands of their cemeteries.

 So we would urge that you might look at that in the future while 

you’re putting together the support you need for this year’s bill on the 

maintenance issues.

 We also would like to respectfully suggest that in the future you 

may consider readdressing the issue of providing veterans’ families 

with a benefit that was stopped by Congress in 1990, and that was 

the burial allowance of $150.

 Many veterans who pass away have already had a spouse pass 

away and are buried possibly in a municipal or private or religious 

cemetery, and to tear that family apart seems almost cruel.

 The veterans’ benefit of $150 which was used kept families together, gave families choices, and frankly, relieved the government, the 

Federal Government, of an ongoing obligation of maintenance that 

we just talked about.

 So we would urge that that be a look at again, as a possibility, to 

provide those veterans’ families that have served us so well with the 

options and the choices they may wish to have.

 Also in 1990, Congress stepped away from the marker -- or shall 

we call it the government marker support -- whereby that if a per19
son did not use a marker that was supplied by the government, the 

family was given an immediate wholesale cash allowance to apply it 

towards whatever method they would wish, whether it be cremation, 

memorialization, or in a crypt, or whatever type of final disposition 

the family may have chosen.

 So we would suggest that, in the future, so that you aren’t faced 

with this issue of all the time coming back with more projects that 

will be needed, we suggest that you visit the subject of endowing, we 

suggest that you visit the subject of reinstatement of the allotment 

for a veteran’s grave, and we suggest that you revisit the subject of 

matching on the memorial cost, the wholesale cost for a family that 

chooses to use something differently.

 We want to compliment the Committee for your attention to this 

issue.

 I know from having spoken to many legislatures and people around 

this country, getting attention paid to those who have gone on before 

us is a hard thing to do, and until you’ve sat and looked in the eyes 

of a family member who has lost someone, you really can’t respect 

what’s going on, and your participation shows it so, so much.

 We thank you for that, and we’re happy to answer any questions 

that you may have.

 [The prepared statement of Paul M. Elvig appears on p. 50]

 Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Elvig.

 Mr. Jones, with AMVETS.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD ``RICK’’ JONES

 Mr. Jones. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Berkley, members 

of the Subcommittee, my name is Richard Jones, AMVETS legislative director.

 Mr. Chairman, we wish you well with your new Subcommittee. 

You are well-staffed, and we want you to know that we stand ready, 

AMVETS and several other veterans’ service organizations, to help in 

any way that you see appropriate.

 As you know, the NCA --National Cemetery Administration -- burial rate has begun to average more than 100,000 interments per year. 

Annual individual burials will peak in 2008.

 If the National Cemetery Administration is to continue its commitment to ensure national cemeteries remain dignified and respectful 

settings that honor our deceased veterans, there must be a comprehensive effort to greatly improve the condition, function, and appearance of national cemeteries.

 AMVETS strongly supports the full Committee’s recommendation 

that Congress establish a five-year $300 million program to restore 

and improve the condition and character of NCA and the cemeteries 

20
as part of the coming year’s operations budget.

 The NCA burial program calls for activation of six new cemeteries. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget has six cemeteries that have advance 

planning.

 We believe the completion of these new cemeteries that are on line 

will represent an 85 percent expansion according to VA of the number of gravesites available in the national cemetery system. That is 

gauged from the baseline of 2001, which almost doubles the number 

of gravesites during the period.

 The National Cemetery Administration really faces two major challenges.

 First is, of course, to provide for the passing generation of men and 

women that defended freedom and democracy in World War II and 

Korea and Vietnam, and I think that, with your with congressional 

help, they’re on their way to doing that.

 The second is to ensure the maintenance of current cemeteries and 

the continued planning, design, and construction of world-class, quality cemeteries that honor our deceased veterans. There’s where they 

need some assistance.

 As mentioned, AMVETS supports an accelerated shrine initiative.

 We’ve spoken previously about the project repair conditions that 

have accumulated over the past several years, and clearly, as any 

public facilities manager knows, failure to correct identified deficiencies in a timely fashion usually results, or often surely results in continued deterioration of the facilities and increasing costs related 

to necessary repair.

 We recommend that Congress and VA work together to establish 

an accelerated time frame for addressing those projects.

 One more point that deserves comment is individual burial benefits used by veterans in church, community, and other private sector 

cemeteries, to include state cemeteries.

 We should not overlook the erosion of these earned benefits, Priority 8 or otherwise. These are valiant men, brave women, who have 

served honorably in the military.

 AMVETS recommends Congress consider several legislative updates, one in particular, H.R. 805, sponsored and championed by 

Ranking Member Berkley. Here we have support for veterans who 

would desire burial in state facilities.

 We would ask that the plot allowance be increased to $745 from the 

current level of 300.

 We would also suggest an increase in service-connected burial benefits from the current level of $2,000 to $4,100.

 And we would note that often these service-connected deaths occur 

out of the normal death cycle, if you would. 

 A normal individual has a certain life period. An injured veteran 

has a certain life period. There are differences there.

21
 We would note that Congress has recognized the importance of 

providing money to those who are killed instantly in combat. Some 

of those wounds are carried on in a shortened lifetime, and we would 

ask that you increase those benefits a modicum, as we said, some 

$4,100. Ms. Berkley’s bill has that figure.

 We would also ask that you increase the non-service connected 

benefit from the current level of $300 to $1,270.

 This benefit was last adjusted in 1978, and today it covers just 6 

percent of the burial expenses. As you know, the inflation factor has 

been enormous over that period.

 To correct the erosion of inflation, we would ask that these benefits 

be indexed into the future to avoid a future erosion.

 Regarding the State Cemetery Grants Program, the program has 

helped develop more than 60 operating cemeteries across the country 

that have accounted for over 19,000 burials of veterans and their eligible family members.

 The program deserves your support and attention. It allows states 

to work in concert with the NCA to plan, design, construct really topnotch, first-class, quality cemeteries.

 And Mr. Chairman, we applaud the Subcommittee for holding this 

hearing. We wish you well in your new duties with this new Subcommittee. We’re pleased to be here before you today.

 And this concludes my statement. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you might have.

 [The statement of Richard ``Rick’’ Jones appears on p. 57]

 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much to the panel members.

 I have a couple of questions.

 Mr. Jones, thank you for all of your hard work and everything that 

AMVETS does to further the cause.

 As one of the authors of the Independent Budget section for NCA, 

you’re aware of the need for the repair at the national cemetery level 

and what this Subcommittee and Committee is trying to put forth in 

this budget year, and I believe that VSOs are very important stakeholders in this particular effort.

 Can you elaborate a little, if you will, on AMVETS or other VSOs, 

what you may be doing to help develop volunteer opportunities out 

there in conjunction with NCA?

 Mr. Jones. Our departments and posts across the nation are strong 

in their volunteer service to the National Cemetery Administration.

 We participate in Honor Guard, we participate in providing the 

delivery of flags to those family members who have buried loved ones. 

We work in conjunction, as best we’re able, with NCA to serve.

 As you know, NCA is very busy. As mentioned just a moment ago, 

the death rate is accelerating, and the burial space, the time of the 

burials are multiple, so there’s a great need for volunteer work.

22
 And we at AMVETS, along with other service organizations, have 

many people who dedicate time and travel and sometimes that travel 

is amazing, when you speak with those people, the hours that they’re 

on the road to get to some of these facilities to provide support to NCA

and support to the family.

 May I just mention one quick story, sir, talking about the sincerity 

of service at NCA?

 Not too long ago, Acting Secretary Wannemacher was at a facility where he noticed beyond the manicured grounds a small woodlot 

that had overgrown, and he looked in there and saw that there was 

a tombstone, the tombstone, was, of course, an unkept grave of a veteran, happened to be an AMVETS member, as I understand it, and 

he mentioned the situation to the personnel of the facility.

 Upon return, the facility had made the changes. They had rooted 

out the undergrowth and cleaned up the facility, and it was amazing 

upon hearing why that had gone unkept for a while. It had simply fallen out of regular maintenance and gone unnoticed. People 

thought that no one really cared.

 But someone did care, because shortly after the cleanup, Secretary 

Wannemacher received a letter thanking him for what he had done 

for their uncle’s gravesite.

 That is the sincerity that goes through the NCA system. Not only 

do they receive a 95 percent rating, they really care, and it’s incredible to see. And that’s just one story among many.

 I didn’t relate it very well, but I wanted to relate it.

 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.

 General Beavers, you talked about trying to establish or have Congress establish a state veterans’ cemetery operational grant program 

to assist states in the operational efforts of those cemeteries.

 Hearing that in these budget times at the state and federal level 

concerns me somewhat from the standpoint that it makes me wonder 

why the states may not be able to continue with their operational efforts as they should. 

 And my question to you is, do you see states balancing their budgets, if you will, on the backs of the operational needs of the state 

cemetery programs?

 Gen. Beavers. Sir, let me address it with several components.

 First of all, we want to maintain, in the state cemeteries, a national 

shrine status, as well, which takes a real commitment, both with personnel, but also with operational costs to maintain the facility. 

 So in my experience so far, my average operational cost for where 

we have a burial rate of roughly one or two a day at the Hopkinsville facility, my anticipated operational cost for this coming year is 

$400,000, and that’s only five employees; and the plot allowance that 

we receive currently of only $300, simply buys the liner for that 

gravesite.

23
 So I get no commitment or no support from an operational standpoint, other than the state appropriated funds that I get for my department.

 So in lieu of an increase in plot allowance to meet that perpetual 

need, which is a burden that the state has accepted, and we face each 

biannual cycle of budget requests, then they obviously are looking 

ahead and saying, ``Okay, if you’re going to put five cemeteries in 

here, what’s going to be our cost annually to operate these?’’ And, you 

know, that will go up each year with inflation.

 So all we’re asking for is some help. That plot allowance currently 

doesn’t support any operational costs, as I indicated, so we’re looking 

at some mechanism, either an operational grant that wouldn’t cover 

the whole operational cost, but just a portion of it, like we do with per 

diem in the nursing homes, where the nursing homes are supported 

by about 31 percent of our cost of operation through the $59 that we 

get a day for the care of a veteran.

 We could have a similar program in the cemetery operation, where 

we could get an operational grant to support just a portion of that 

operational cost, or, in absence of that, with an increase in plot allowance, that would directly offset the operational cost.

 The plot allowance would be the simplest and the easiest way to 

do that.

 Mr. Miller. Please don’t take my questions as negative in any 

way.

 Gen. Beavers. No, sir.

 Mr. Miller. But isn’t that the whole idea of the state cemetery 

program, where the federal government does come in with the grant 

program, offers the ability to establish the cemetery, with the understanding that the state would thereby take the operational cost 

within their budgets?

 Gen. Beavers. That’s true, sir, and I think the commitment is made 

with that third element in the grant process. You have to have the 

land. You have to have your design. And you have to have a commitment in your budget to operate it. But we face that with every 

budget cycle.

 So that commitment has been made on the part of the states to operate them, and it’s a matter that we need some support, some help in 

view of our fiscal crisis with each state, and it varies by state.

 But the plot allowance would be the easiest way to do it.

 Mr. Miller. It sounds to me, though, that the states are not doing 

their part.

 Gen. Beavers. No, sir, I disagree. I think we are doing our part, 

because we’ve increased the number of state veterans’ cemeteries by 

38 percent since 1999.

 We’re committed to this program. We see the value of it, particularly where it addresses rural areas and where we know the National 

24
Cemetery Administration will not be able to put in national cemeteries.

 Mr. Miller. And I’m not being critical of your organization at all. 

I’m talking about the legislatures and the governors within the states 

and the appropriations process.

 Gen. Beavers. Well, it fits into the picture, sir, of a budget where 

you’re dealing with Medicaid shortfalls, you’re dealing with health 

care issues of the state, and you’re dealing with education.

 When you throw state veterans’ cemetery operations in the mix of 

education and Medicaid, which are the big nugget issues in a state 

budget, then we have to fight for that operational cost.

 My experience in my state, in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 

they have not resisted or turned against the support for the operational cost of these. I’ve heard of no state director saying that he’s 

had trouble having that commitment from his general assembly.

 All we’re saying is that, as we go forward with budget crises, plot 

allowance or an operational grant would surely help us to maintain 

these at the national shrine status.

 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, General.

 Gen. Beavers. Yes, sir.

 Mr. Miller. One more thing.

 Mr. Fitch. Yes, sir.

 Mr. Jones. May I just add one thing?

 The plot allowance surely has eroded with inflation. I’m sure that 

when these states gauge what they can afford, part of that calculus is 

what the plot allowance is today and the expectation that Congress 

will retain a certain portion of that.

 So with the erosion of that plot allowance goes also an erosion of 

potential support. As you know, the plot allowance today is $300, and 

that is the same amount of benefit that was provided in 1973.

 Well, it has increased recently. But it’s still only 6 percent of what 

was provided in 1973.

 Mr. Miller. And let the record reflect that I’m not referring to plot 

allowance increases. I was directly--

 Gen. Beavers. Yes, sir.

 Mr. Miller. --talking about the operational program for state cemeteries whereby there would be a federal component in funding of 

that.

 And my questions are just from an informational standpoint. I in 

no way was implying that the plot allowance was sufficient.

 I also would like to say to Mr. Fitch that I contacted Mr. Metzler 

out at Arlington, and they conducted 6,552 funerals last year in fiscal year 2004. Given the large number of services out there, without 

question, there probably have been some scheduling errors, which 

you discussed.

 I would like to say that their response to me was, in an effort to 

25
alleviate some of these scheduling situations, they’ve added to their 

website the current day and three additional days forward of funeral 

information so that anybody can go on-line, check and see what the 

schedule is out there at Arlington. They’ve hired additional 

staff members to assist in funeral arrangements.

 And I’m still wondering a little bit about the issue of receiving remains through the United States Postal Service.

 As you know, after September 11th, they stopped receiving cremated remains because they do not have a special handling facility.

 Certainly, there’s got to be a way to resolve that issue. I don’t know 

how many cremated remains come to the cemetery on an annual basis, but it’s certainly an issue that this Subcommittee can look into 

and see if there’s a way that we can help solve that problem.

 Mr. Fitch. We would also be more than willing to work with Jack 

on solving this problem, as well.

 Mr. Miller. Very good. Thank you very much.

 Ms. Berkley.

 Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Mr. Fitch, when you talk to Ken Knaus, would you say hello for 

me? I will be residing with him in perpetuity when my time comes, 

because I already have a plot.

 He does an extraordinary job, and he’s also a very good friend.

 I’m glad that the chairman -- the chairman actually brought up a 

couple of issues that I’d like to emphasize with my comments and my 

questions.

 I was surprised, because I had received the same testimony regarding the funeral director for the Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery 

that obviously had the problem in getting through on a weekend or 

holidays, and so I was surprised when Mr. Wannemacher explained 

that there was a uniform program or criteria.

 So I would hope that perhaps if a uniform criteria does exist, a uniform procedure, perhaps we ought to communicate that to all of our 

veterans’ cemeteries and funeral directors across the country. Apparently, there’s a breakdown in communication.

 It doesn’t do us very much good, if we have a uniform procedure, if 

people that need to access it don’t know about it.

 So while I think it’s very good that they added more people and 

their website is going to be updated, but, you know if you’re not computer savvy, we may not be able to get that information to the people 

that need it.

 So if I could ask Mr. Wannemacher to give us a better idea next 

time, or perhaps communicate with me how we’re going to be communicating with the funeral directors across the country, that might 

be a good thing.

 Mr. Miller. One, if I might, my comments were directly relating to 

Arlington. They were not relating to any other national cemeteries, 

26
but Arlington specifically.

 Ms. Berkley. I think he was trying to get a hold of Arlington and 

couldn’t. I think that was the issue.

 But nonetheless, it doesn’t matter. If it’s not working in one place, 

it may not be working in another, and if we have the procedure, let’s 

inform everybody that we have the procedure.

 General Beavers, I agree with you that the $32 million is simply 

not adequate.

 The needs are dramatic, and as you know, and according to the 

testimony that I reviewed, veterans’ burials are going to peak in the 

year 2008, I believe, and the $32 million proposed is simply not adequate, and I would hope that we would look into the possibility of 

beefing that up to the $50 million level that has been proposed. I 

think it’s important.

 I also want to talk to you about plot allowance.

 I have reviewed the H.R. 831, the legislation that increases the plot 

allowance that you spoke of, and it goes from 300 to 1,000.

 I have another piece of legislation that Mr. Jones spoke of, and the 

reason for the numbers in my legislation is because it is tied to inflation and tied to what the numbers were in 1973, so it has some sense, 

rather than an arbitrary number which, according to your testimony, 

is approximately half of the cost of the burial, and we 

wouldn’t need the state operational money as much if we had a decent plot allowance that at least, at the very least represented what 

Congress intended initially in 1973, and it makes no sense to me that 

we’re not keeping up with inflation; because we’re not giving anyone 

an additional benefit, we’re just not eroding any of the benefit, either.

 So I would urge all of you to speak to your Members of Congress 

and people you know about H.R. 805. and if you could support that, 

and urge them to do that, maybe we could take care of this. I think 

it would help a lot. 

 I know with perhaps the possible exception of the state of Nevada, 

which is running a rather obscene surplus at this time -- God bless 

the gaming industry -- most states that I am aware of are running 

serious deficits and have constitutional provisions that say that they 

have to have a balanced budget.

 And I quite agree with you, General, that when the veterans are 

competing with the educational needs of their students and their 

school systems that are all hurting, and Medicaid is going through 

the roof, and we have very serious issues on the state level, that unfortunately, veterans’ needs, especially for burials, tends to, in lists 

of priorities, moves further down to the bottom.

 So if we could increase the burial plot allowance, we might be 

able to alleviate the need for additional operational money from the 

states, particularly since most of the states don’t have the money to 

27
allocate, although they will have the best of intentions.

 I know that they agonize over this, but when they have children 

and sick people to deal with, sometimes veterans funding for burial 

of our veterans doesn’t come front and center.

 I like the idea of having an endowment. I’m not sure we’ll be able 

to get that accomplished, but it certainly makes good common sense, 

which may be one of the reasons why it doesn’t get passed this year, 

but it certainly is something that we should explore.

 I was not here in 1990, but it occurs to me you said it’s almost cruel 

that we took away that, that Congress took away that $150 and the 

marker allocation.

 I don’t think it’s almost cruel. I think it’s outrageously cruel, and 

I would like to see that reinstated and will introduce legislation. I’ll 

commit that to you, with the hope that the Chairman will join with 

us, because there’s no excuse for that whatsoever.

 And when I met with the families, as I spoke of in my opening statement, when I was first a candidate, these were the issues that they 

were bringing to my attention. They were painful in 1997. They’re 

totally unacceptable, particularly given the fact that we’re at war 

now.

 One other issue that I wanted to bring up, and I think that was 

General Beaver’s testimony regarding the National Guard and Reservists being buried in the state cemeteries.

 Sixty percent of Nevada’s National Guard is now deployed in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. There’s going to be deaths, and they will, even if 

they don’t make the ultimate sacrifice, they will have served this nation with distinction under extraordinarily difficult conditions. They 

deserve to be buried in those state cemeteries, and I would hope that 

we could make a change and allow that to happen; so I agree with you 

wholeheartedly on that.

 I thank you all very much. It was not only most informative, but 

wonderful, both panels, wonderful. I appreciate your coming and giving your time to us.

 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.

 I would say that budget reconciliation, which was what was going on in 1990, is not an easy process. It’s certainly not pretty to go 

through, and I’m glad that the Ranking Member does agree with me 

that those that were in control in 1990 never should have done what 

they did in the first place.

 I do want to say that I am pleased, as our Ranking Member is, that 

you all came to testify today. It’s very important to us. That’s why 

we made it our first hearing.

 I also want to say thank you to Secretary Wannemacher for staying 

the entire time. You very easily could have got up and moved on to 

something different.

 We are very much appreciative of you staying here. It shows your 

28
personal level of commitment, and the Committee certainly thanks 

you.

 You know, our final gesture to servicemembers and veterans is 

burial in a national cemetery, and we owe them the dignity that they 

have earned through service to our nation.

 Ms. Berkley and I both, and this entire Subcommittee, look forward 

to working with you in the future to ensure that our veterans receive 

a fitting final tribute.

 Representative Brown-Waite, I do want to add, was unable to be 

here. She sent a letter to the Committee.

 As we all do, we were stacked up, she has a statement for the record. 

 [The statement of Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite appears on p. 32]

 Mr. Miller. Also, some of the panel members asked that their full 

statements be entered into the record. That will be done.

 So without objection, and without anything further, this hearing 

is adjourned.

 [Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

29
(30)

Chairman Jeff Miller 

Opening Statement

Oversight Hearing of the National Cemetery Administration

April 20, 2005

 Good morning. The hearing will come to order. 

 This is the first hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, and Ranking Member Berkley and 

I welcome you. I’d like to remind everyone that the audio portion 

of our hearing is being broadcast live throughout the world, in real 

time, over the Internet. Additionally, the hearing is being recorded 

and will be accessible on the Committee’s award-winning website. 

 We are meeting today to examine the policy and operational issues 

facing the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) – to include the 

State Cemetery Grants Program – as well as the efforts NCA is taking to address the major and minor restoration projects identified in 

2002 by the Logistics Management Institute.

 I am pleased to say there are no obvious problems with the National Cemetery Administration. In fact, in a 2004 survey of government agencies and private organizations, NCA received a higher 

rating than an agency or organization had ever received – 95 out of 

a possible 100 points, and 94 percent of respondents in fiscal year 

2004 rated the quality of service provided by the national cemeteries 

as excellent. As well, the states seem to be pleased with the State 

Cemetery Grants Program, which Congress made permanent in 2003 

with Public Law 108-183.

 However, I would presume there are areas that can be improved 

upon. As you may be aware, the Committee, in its budget views and 

estimates for fiscal year 2006, requested an additional $45.6 million 

for cemetery restoration and repair projects. This is an area where I

have a particular interest and I look forward to working with NCA to 

ensure we hold firm to the National Shrine Commitment.

APPENDIX
31
32

Congresswoman Brown-Waite Statement for the Record 

Disability Assistance & Memorial Affairs Subcommittee

April 20, 2005 / 10 a.m. / 334 Cannon

I would like to thank all of the witnesses who are here to testify before the Subcommittee today. Our nation’s veterans are a source of 

pride, and their final resting place should accord them the honor and 

respect they have earned.

As your testimony notes, there is a growing need for the construction of new veterans’ cemeteries in the United States. This demand is 

matched by the ongoing need for restoration and repair of our existing lot and monument sites.

I am eager to hear about the National Cemetery Administration’s efforts, particularly in the state of Florida, where my district alone is 

home to nearly 107,000 veterans. All servicemen and women deserve 

a final resting place that will be cared for and honored by future generations.

As our veteran population ages, Congress must make sure that we 

meet their needs, including their memorial affairs. I look forward to 

working with Chairman Miller and my colleagues on this Subcommittee to provide better care for our veterans. I greatly appreciate 

your involvement and expertise on veterans’ affairs. Once again, I

welcome you to today’s hearing, and look forward to hearing your 

thoughts and proposals. 
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66