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

43–051 2009

IS THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS CEMETERY CONSTRUCTION POLICY 

MEETING THE NEEDS OF TODAY’S VETERANS 

AND THEIR FAMILIES? 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE 

AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 2, 2008 

HEARING HELD IN COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 

Serial No. 110–85 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

BOB FILNER, California, Chairman 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

VACANT 

MALCOM A. SHORTER, Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS 

JOHN J. HALL, New York, Chairman 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado, Ranking 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

May 2, 2008 

Page 

Is the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Cemetery Construction Policy 

Meeting the Needs of Today’s Veterans and Their Families? .......................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairman John J. Hall ............................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement of Chairman Hall ........................................................... 43 

Hon. Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican Member ............................................. 4 

Prepared statement of Congressman Lamborn .............................................. 44 

Hon. John T. Salazar ............................................................................................... 6 

WITNESSES 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Hon. William F. Tuerk, Under Secretary 

for Memorial Affairs, National Cemetery Administration ................................ 28 

Prepared statement of Mr. Tuerk ................................................................... 59 

American Legion, Tim Grabin, Department Commander, Department of Colorado ....................................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared statement of Mr. Grabin .................................................................. 50 

Colorado Military Survivors, Colorado Springs, CO, Milly Briseno, Co-Founder ............................................................................................................................ 10 

Prepared statement of Ms. Briseno ................................................................. 46 

Colorado State Board of Veterans Affairs, C. Douglas Sterner, Past Chairman ........................................................................................................................ 19 

Prepared statement of Mr. Sterner ................................................................. 51 

El Paso County, CO, Veteran and Military Affairs, Bud Sailar, Director .......... 17 

Prepared statement of Mr. Sailar ................................................................... 49 

Gold Star Wives of America, Linda Lee-Witt, Member, Peterson AFB, Colorado Springs, CO .................................................................................................. 8 

Prepared statement of Ms. Lee-Witt ............................................................... 45 

Pikes Peak Veterans Cemetery Committee, Colorado Springs, CO, Victor M. 

Fernandez, Member ............................................................................................. 16 

Prepared statement of Mr. Fernandez ............................................................ 47 

Pueblo County Board of Commissioners, Hon. Jeff Chostner, Colonel, USAF 

(Ret.), Commissioner, Pueblo, CO ....................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement of Commissioner Chostner ............................................ 59 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Udall, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 61 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

‘‘A National Veterans Cemetery for the Pikes Peak Region,’’ a Report of 

the Pikes Peak Region Veterans’ Cemetery Project, prepared for the Pikes 

Peak Veterans’ Cemetery Committee, October 2007 ........................................ 63 

Hon. William F. Tuerk, Under Secretary of Memorial Affairs, National Cemetery Administration, to Hon. John T. Salazar, U.S. House of Representatives, letter dated July 11, 2008, providing follow-up information regarding 

VA authority to accept, as a gift, funds for the construction for a national 

cemetery ................................................................................................................ 98 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

(1) 

IS THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS CEMETERY CONSTRUCTION POLICY 

MEETING THE NEEDS OF TODAY’S VETERANS 

AND THEIR FAMILIES? 

FRIDAY, MAY 2, 2008 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL

AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:00 p.m., in the 

Board Room, Academy School District 20 Headquarters, 1110 

Chapel Hills Drive, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Hon. John J. Hall 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hall, Lamborn, and Salazar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HALL 

Mr. HALL. Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience. The 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, hearing on ‘‘Is the U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) Cemetery Construction Policy Meeting the 

Needs of Today’s Veterans and Their Families,’’ will now come to 

order. 

I would ask everyone to please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. 

[Pledge of Allegiance.] 

Thank you all for coming today. I’m sorry my plane was a little 

bit delayed, but it’s wonderful to be here in Representative Doug 

Lamborn’s district. And we’re fortunate to also have Representative 

Salazar joining us. Without objection, he’s been asked to join us on 

the dais. 

The title you’ve just heard, a long but necessary one, ‘‘Is the VA 

Cemetery Construction Policy Meeting the Needs of Today’s Veterans and Their Families,’’ a topic of particular importance to this 

region and throughout the country. 

First a couple of preliminaries. I mentioned Congressman John 

Salazar, from the 3rd District of Colorado and also a Member of the 

Committee, who is, by unanimous consent, joining us on the dais. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

And I would also like to recognize Scott Prestige from the office 

of Congressman Mark Udall from the 2nd District of Colorado, who 

is in the audience and has a statement, which I will ask, without 

objection, if we can enter that into the record also. 

[The statement of Congressman Udall appears on p. 61.] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

2 

So it’s a pleasure to be here with all of you and to bring the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee out into the 

country and actually see people and have them see and speak to 

us and see how we operate. 

Congressman Lamborn was kind enough to come to the 19th District of New York, where I live, the home of the military academy 

of West Point and which I am proud to represent. I’m proud and 

honored also to be in Air Force country, especially since it’s not 

football season. We’ll be working on that. 

I’m also pleased to know that H.R. 1660, a bill that passed in the 

House sponsored by Congressman Salazar—that you are also a 

lead cosponsor. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Yes, I am. 

Mr. HALL. Both of you sponsored or supported legislation to build 

a national cemetery in the southern Colorado region, which passed 

the full House unanimously and now awaits action from the Senate. Mr. Salazar, I know that you, and Ranking Member Lamborn, 

as well as the rest of the Colorado delegation, have worked on the 

VA’s national cemetery policy concerns in your region on a bipartisan basis. I’m glad we’re able to bring this hearing to your State 

where these issues are front and center. 

I also would, parenthetically, tell you that I’m proud that this 

Subcommittee, and the full VA Committee are, if not the most, certainly among the most bipartisan in the House of Representatives 

and in the Congress. We occasionally differ on how to pay for 

things, but we almost always agree on what needs to be done, and 

that is to take care of America’s veterans. 

Last preliminaries: In accordance with Committee rules, I ask all 

cell phones and pagers to be turned off, including mine, as we have 

a lot of business to conduct in a short period of time and we want 

to have as few interruptions as possible. 

Also, out of respect for our witnesses, I ask for the audience to 

please refrain from speaking out of order. This is not—I had to tell 

the folks in my district, too—this is not actually a public hearing. 

This is a Congressional hearing. We have panels of witnesses 

scheduled that will take up the time allotted. But I’m sure you can 

get a few words in with us individually on our way out after the 

hearing is over if you need to do that. 

My thanks to the witnesses for coming today to appear before the 

Subcommittee. The issues, I know, though pertinent to the cemetery policy at the VA, are of the utmost importance to you, and I 

look forward to receiving your testimonies. 

On a personal note, it is a special privilege for me as Chair of 

the Subcommittee to conduct it in my Ranking Member’s district. 

Mr. Doug Lamborn, it’s been an honor serving with him. Moreover, 

it’s an honor for me to be able to address the issues facing veterans 

in or nearby their homes. 

Although my district, the 19th of New York, is thousands of 

miles away in the Hudson Valley, beautiful in a different way than 

the beauty that you see every day here, we share a lot of similarities. We both have one of our Nation’s fine military academies, 

West Point and the Air Force Academy. Also, our district houses 

many prominent military installations. Both places are ones where 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

3 

a high percentage of our Nation’s veterans call home and return 

after their service to live most of or sometimes all of their lives. 

My mother-in-law still goes to the commissary, as her husband 

is buried at West Point. So I understand the magnetism that these 

areas hold for those who graduate from these institutions or serve 

in these communities. I understand also that southern Colorado is 

home to one of the largest concentrations of World War II and Vietnam veterans in our country. 

Since their genesis on July 17, 1862, national cemeteries have 

served as the hallowed resting place for our Nation’s veterans and 

their loved ones. Currently, VA operates 125 national cemeteries in 

39 States and Puerto Rico and maintains over 2.8 million grave 

sites. The annual number of burials is on the uprise, with just 

36,000 in 1973, up to over 100,200 in 2006. Veterans who have 

served in this country’s armed services are buried in cemeteries operated by the States, the VA, the Department of Interior, Arlington 

National Cemetery and American Battle Monuments Commission. 

VA also provides grants to over 69 State veteran cemeteries under 

its National Cemetery Administration’s State Cemetery Grants 

Program that operates in 35 States, Guam and the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

We are here today to examine the adequacy of VA’s current policy, which entails locating national cemeteries in areas with a large 

concentration of unserved veterans, and providing reasonable access to a burial option in the national or State veterans cemetery 

within 75 miles of their residence. As such, VA concludes that new 

national cemeteries will be established in areas with an unserved 

veteran population threshold of 170,000 within a 75-mile radius. 

Under this policy, 83 percent of all veterans are served, the converse of which means that there are at least 17 percent or nearly 

2 million veterans and their families who are underserved by this 

policy. 

The Subcommittee also addressed the VA’s national cemetery 

policy issues during a hearing held on May 8, 2007, wherein I expressed concerns of whether this policy was adequate enough to address both rural and urban locations. Those concerns still stand. I 

also think it’s critical that VA makes sure that there’s plenty of opportunity for public input during any new cemetery policy or location selection process. 

I know that VA is currently conducting its own study of these criteria and has plans to move the percentage of veterans served to 

90 percent by fiscal year 2010. I look forward to hearing more 

about these plans during your testimony. 

In the way of follow-up to last year’s hearing, I would like to be 

updated on the current status of the VA’s national shrine commitment. Lastly, the Subcommittee has been apprised of a situation at 

Greenwood Island, the old Camp Jefferson Davis site and the soldiers’ asylum home in Pascagoula, Mississippi, where veterans of 

the Mexican-American War are buried but whose resting places are 

being eroded by nature and construction. It is reported that some 

of the coffins and/or bodies have become disinterred and have been 

found by local fishermen. Whereas I appreciate the National Cemetery Administration’s (NCA’s) response provided to staff, I would 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

4 

like to know the NCA implications of this situation, if any, and how 

we can remedy this grievous oversight. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Lamborn for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Hall appears on p. 43.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN 

Mr. LAMBORN. Good afternoon. And I would like to personally 

thank you, Chairman Hall, and your staff for agreeing to hold this 

hearing. There is a lot of work involved with bringing Congress to 

southern Colorado, and I appreciate it. 

It is an honor to participate in this important occasion. I remember fondly the field hearing this Subcommittee had on veterans disabilities in your Congressional district last year. It was a productive meeting, as this promises to be. I sure enjoyed and learned 

from the tour of West Point, which also is in your district. 

I know you have a very tight schedule, but I hope your plans 

open up so that you can have that tour of the Air Force Academy 

I told you about, and I’d love to take you on before you have to go, 

but if your schedule permits. 

I would also like to thank all of the witnesses for being here 

today. Their statements will be helpful, interesting, informative 

and deeply moving. 

I want to thank my friend, Representative John Salazar for being 

here. I also want to thank everyone in the audience. You are interested in this issue, and you have come today. We also have students from Aspen Valley High School with us today. 

I want to especially thank my friend, Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, Bill Tuerk, for joining us here today to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs policy for the location and construction of new national cemeteries. 

This is truly a momentous occasion. There has never before been 

a field hearing in this Congressional district on this vital subject 

of a national veterans cemetery. Fortunately, in Under Secretary 

Tuerk, we have the highest-ranking official within the VA who 

works on this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, property honoring a deceased veteran is one of 

our most sacred and solemn responsibilities. These patriots have 

earned a place of honor in our national shrines. Veterans and their 

families are due the tribute and thanks of a grateful Nation. We 

should ensure that the final resting place for those who have given 

so much is accessible to family members and loved ones. This way 

they can come and pay tribute to the service of those brave men 

and women who have borne the sacrifice in defense of liberty. 

We are seeing increased demand on all of our national cemeteries, especially as members of the greatest generation pass from 

our presence. VA estimates that interments in national cemeteries 

will rise from the current level of 2.8 million to 3.2 million by 2012. 

VA also estimates that as early as 2016 or as late as 2020, Fort 

Logan National Cemetery will be at full capacity and they will be 

looking to construct a replacement cemetery. 

Today, Mr. Chairman, we will hear very moving and eloquent 

testimony from Coloradans who are personally affected by the disrfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

5 

tance of the Fort Logan National Cemetery in Denver from the 

Pikes Peak area. 

I believe there is a better way to determine needs than simply 

drawing circles and a 75-mile radius around a national cemetery 

to determine where the most underserved veterans are located. 

There are many other factors that should be taken into account, including travel time to and from national cemeteries, access to public transportation in the area, weather conditions, climate restrictions, and other factors that may affect one part of the country, 

such as the front range of Colorado more than another. 

In addition, VA needs to focus greater attention than ever on demographic trends to determine with increased accuracy where veterans are most likely to live in the future. It is my understanding 

that the 75-mile rule was created many years ago. We are in the 

21st century now, and with the advent of technologies like GPS, it 

is very easy to determine driving distances and times. 

For instance, by doing a simple Google search, I discovered that 

a veteran from Lake George, Colorado, which is about 60 miles as 

the crow flies from Fort Logan, must travel 105 miles by road, with 

a driving time of over 2 hours, not including poor weather or traffic. According to the 75-mile rule, this veteran from Lake George 

is considered served by Fort Logan. I would venture to say that he 

is underserved. 

This example only points out a flaw within the 75-mile rule and 

does not take into account the tens of thousands of veterans who 

live beyond 75-mile radius here in southern Colorado. As this rule, 

in my opinion anyway, is arbitrary and outdated, I propose that the 

Department of Veterans Affairs determine a 21st century process 

for selecting national cemetery sites that takes into account factors 

in addition to veteran population and straight-line distance. 

I would offer my services and those of my staff and even the 

many willing veterans in this district who have been working on 

this issue for over a decade now. I believe that with a little hard 

work we could fine-tune a process that would serve more veterans 

and hopefully the same or perhaps even a lower cost in VA’s current system. 

Since bureaucratic hurdles have made it hard for such a processed change to take place, my friend Representative Salazar and 

I have had to help alert VA to the glaring inequities associated 

with the current process. 

Mr. Chairman, it is for that reason that I was pleased to work 

with you and Representative Salazar to pass H.R. 1660 with my 

amendment out of the VA Committee and out of the House last 

year. This bill would authorize the establishment of a national 

cemetery in southern Colorado, in El Paso County in particular, 

and would greatly benefit the veterans and their families in all of 

southern Colorado. H.R. 1660 represents a major step forward to 

the campaign to establish a national cemetery, and I urge our colleagues in the Senate to take this bill up as soon as possible. 

And Representative Salazar, I’m going to ask you to talk once 

again with your brother, who as you all may know is one of the 

U.S. Senators from here in Colorado. I also hope that all of our witnesses understand that when this legislation is enacted, we must 

always work together to help the National Cemetery Administrarfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

6 

tion within the VA find a suitable location for this cemetery, and 

that this would serve the highest number, therefore, of veterans 

and their families. 

I want to thank everyone once again for being here today, and 

I’m looking forward to the testimony. 

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

[The prepared statement of Congressman Lamborn appears on 

p. 44.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. 

I would now recognize Congressman Salazar for an opening 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. SALAZAR 

Mr. SALAZAR. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I think that most of you may know John Hall. He’s 

a famous songwriter, with the band Orleans, and wrote the songs, 

‘‘You’re Still the One’’ and ‘‘Dance With Me.’’ We appreciate you 

coming to Colorado. What do you think about the snow here in the 

Springs? 

Mr. HALL. I wish I would have brought my skis, and I wish I 

would have had time to use them. 

Mr. SALAZAR. I want to thank both you and Ranking Member 

Lamborn for having this important hearing here in Colorado. 

Let me just take a moment, briefly, to thank all of you in the audience who have served this country and your families. The great 

sacrifice that you’ve made is the reason that we have the greatest 

country in the world, in my opinion. 

I had the opportunity to serve at the tail end of the Vietnam 

War. My father was a World War II veteran. My son served two 

tours right after 9/11. We come from a long line of veterans, and 

I know the sacrifices that your families have made. What we’re 

about to do here is a monumental task that we have taken on. Mr. 

Lamborn, I appreciate your hard work. You’ve truly been a champion on veterans issues, as you have, Mr. Hall. 

This legislation that we’ve been talking about was legislation 

that Congressman Hefley, Mr. Lamborn’s predecessor, had worked 

on for nearly 15 years, on trying to create a southern Colorado 

cemetery. We got together earlier this year, Mr. Lamborn and I 

worked together on trying to provide language that would actually 

create what we call now the new southern Colorado veterans cemetery. 

According to the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan office that provides research and information to Members 

of Congress, there are over 150,000 veterans that are making 

southern Colorado their home. 

The residents of southern Colorado have a long, long history of 

serving in the military. Until recently, Pueblo was America’s only 

city that had four living recipients of the Medal of Honor. Congress 

realized 15 years ago, and recognized Pueblo, Colorado, America’s 

‘‘Home of Heroes.’’ 

During the Vietnam War, almost 10 percent of Colorado soldiers 

killed in action were from Pueblo. Southern Colorado veterans and 

their families have been awaiting for an accessible veterans cemetery for far too long. When they pass away, they deserve facilities 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

7 

that are close to their families. It is wrong to expect a family to 

have to travel hundreds of miles in some areas to find a final resting place for their loved ones, simply because the current regulations do not take rural areas into account. 

I’ve had the opportunity to visit one of the most beautiful cemeteries that I’ve ever seen in my life with Under Secretary Tuerk in 

Georgia. That’s the way that we should honor those who have 

served us. 

During the winter months in Colorado, especially in my district 

where most of it is mountains, the mountain passes are often 

closed. In fact, in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, just earlier today 

there was over six inches of snow. All too often, widows have to 

drive over 700 miles round-trip from Cortez, Colorado, to Fort 

Logan to see their loved ones. 

I was proud to be the author of H.R. 1660 along with Mr. 

Lamborn, which directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery for veterans in southern Colorado. This 

bill would do several things. It would place a veterans cemetery between Pueblo and Colorado Springs. Mr. Lamborn and I agreed 

during our discussions that, rightfully so, it should be in El Paso 

County because we have the largest number of military personnel. 

This is not only an Air Force issue, Mr. Chairman. It is also an 

Army issue. We have Fort Carson right here in El Paso County, 

just on the south side of Colorado Springs. And I’m a little partial 

to the Army because I served in the U.S. Army. 

The House of Representatives has shown strong support for our 

bill by adopting it in a unanimous voice vote on May 23, 2007. Veterans in our district, and veterans service organizations agree that 

a cemetery is critical and that the need will continue to grow. We 

have information that Fort Logan will probably not be accepting 

more burials after about 10 years from now. We’re getting fairly 

full there. 

In a letter of support, the Military Order of the Purple Heart 

wrote, ‘‘The defenders of our Nation’s freedom and their families 

deserve much better. They deserve a national cemetery located in 

southern Colorado where they chose to live out their lives. We 

shouldn’t punish those veterans for where they choose to live. The 

150,000 veterans serving in Colorado served in World War II, 

Korea, Vietnam, and the Iraq conflicts. They chose to make southern Colorado their home. Our Nation should honor that service by 

providing them a final resting place.’’ 

It is not fair for our Nation to force a widow to drive from 

Alamosa over 500 miles round-trip or to drive from Cortez over 700 

miles round-trip. We’re placing a huge burden on the families with 

the added cost of the trip, and with the high price of fuel right now. 

National cemeteries are the final act of gratitude that we bestow 

upon those who served our Nation. They give families comfort and 

inspire future generations by preserving the memory of our heroes 

that are no longer with us. 

I look forward to hearing from my colleagues and the experts 

here with us today, on the current regulations and how we can better improve them to serve more veterans, especially those in rural 

areas. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

8 

It is my understanding under the current regulations, that there 

would never be another cemetery built in a rural area, and actually 

in many States that are sparsely populated, western States such as 

Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado, because of sparse population. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank you for having 

this hearing here today. 

And I want to welcome our guests. I appreciate your being here 

to testify. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Congressman Salazar. 

I ask unanimous consent that the opening statement of Congressman Udall from the Second District of Colorado be accepted 

into the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Welcome to our panelists. Before we move to the first panel, I 

wanted to—in case you’re curious who you’re looking at, there are 

staff who I also want to thank from both sides of the aisle here on 

the dais. We have majority Staff Director and Counsel of the Subcommittee, Kimberly Ross, and Minority Staff, Jon Clark. Thank 

you to our stenographers and recordkeepers, without which this 

would not be an official hearing. 

All panelists, I would like to remind you that your complete written statements have been made a part of the hearing record. So 

please limit your remarks so that we may have sufficient time to 

follow up with questions, once everyone has had the opportunity to 

provide testimony. 

Joining us on our first panel is Linda Lee-Witt, President of the 

Gold Star Widows, and Milly Briseno, an Iraq war widow. 

Thank you and welcome to the table, please. 

Excuse me—Past Secretary of Gold Star Widows. 

Ms. LEE-WITT. I still have to correct you, Mr. Chairman. I am 

a member of the Gold Star Wives of America, and I am a Past Secretary for the local chapter. 

Mr. HALL. Past Secretary of the local chapter and member of the 

Gold Star Wives of America. Thank you. It’s an honor to have you 

before us today. And, Ms. Lee-Witt, you are now recognized for 5 

minutes. Speak into the microphone, and make sure it’s turned on, 

please. 

STATEMENTS OF LINDA LEE-WITT, PETERSON AFB, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, MEMBER, GOLD STAR WIVES OF AMERICA; AND MILLY BRISENO, CO-FOUNDER, COLORADO MILITARY SURVIVORS, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO (IRAQ WAR 

WIDOW) 

STATEMENT OF LINDA LEE-WITT 

Ms. LEE-WITT. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, distinguished 

Members of the Committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Linda Lee-Witt. I am a member of the Gold Star Wives of America and the Administrative Officer of the Retiree Activities Office of Southern Colorado, in the 21st 

space wing, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Springs. My testimony, however, today will be my story as a widow of a veteran. 

My husband, Robert, grew up in a military family. His father 

served during World War II and retired as a major from the Army. 

As a child, Bob lived and went to school all over the world. Like 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

9 

his father, he dedicated his whole career to the U.S. Government. 

He served with the United States Air Force and in Vietnam. After 

retiring from the Air Force in 1978, he continued to serve his country in civil service, in safety engineering at Fort Carson here in 

Colorado Springs, where he deployed with the troops wherever they 

went. 

His passion for the safety of the young soldiers was deep, and he 

identified with what they and their families faced every day. 

He died from a service-connected cancer on November 3, 2004, in 

our home. Due to the weather conditions, which you all saw yesterday. We had a blizzard early in November, and our driveway has 

a steep incline. Due to that, when the mortuary van came, they 

couldn’t get up the driveway to take my husband’s body down to 

the van, and our son had to put his father’s body in a four-wheel 

drive to take down to the mortuary van. 

I wanted my husband to be buried with the full honor and respect that he so deserved, and for months I kept his ashes, not 

wanting them in a civilian cemetery. Eventually, to my regret now, 

I chose to have his remains buried at the National Veterans Cemetery in Nashville, Tennessee. His parents are buried there. All of 

my children are here. My grandchildren are here. Had there been 

an appropriate cemetery in El Paso County, without question I 

would have had his remains here. 

We weren’t a part of the military community at that time. It was 

civil service, and he’d been retired from civil service. So I had really never heard of Fort Logan, and it sounds maybe a little bit 

strange, but I thought Fort Logan was a town somewhere. I didn’t 

know about Fort Logan being a military cemetery, a veterans cemetery. Together as a family, probably we will never be able to coordinate a trip together to Tennessee to visit my husband’s grave. 

I would love for my grandchildren to see how this country honors 

our veterans, when they pass. I’d love for them to see the hundreds 

of headstones, their grandfather’s among them, and know the freedoms and the rights that they have today are because of the men 

and women like their grandfather who were willing to give their 

lives for those freedoms. 

Working with the wives of servicemembers in the World War II 

and Vietnam era, they express how hard it is to make the trip to 

Denver. Some of them with their advanced age, many are unable 

or afraid to drive themselves and they have to ask someone to take 

them. Talking with young widows of today’s war, the hardship for 

them is to take the whole day with young children and visit their 

husband’s graves. 

The logistics involved getting to Fort Logan are trying, and many 

families have a hard time finding Fort Logan, from what I understand. Because of the sporadic unpredictable climate here in El 

Paso County, from late spring to fall, I–25 is often impassable. 

Monument Hill, just north of town, can be treacherous. 

For the widow, visiting the grave site is one of the most important elements in the grieving process. And those first months, the 

loss and the feeling of aloneness is almost like fear. Visiting the 

grave is a way for us—some of us to connect to our spouse. Eventually, an acceptance of the fact that they’re no longer here. For the 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

10 

children, it’s seeing that their parent was given a place of honor, 

a resting place of honor. 

As with my husband, many of our service men and women and 

their families opt to stay and live in Colorado Springs after their 

military service. We have a huge military presence in Colorado 

Springs and it’s rapidly growing, yet we have no national veterans 

cemetery to accommodate them when they’re put to rest. El Paso 

County’s need for a national cemetery is vital to the health and 

well-being of our widows, the dependents and our community. 

It’s my hope that based on the hardships endured by the military 

widows and families in the southern Colorado area and the large 

military presence here, that the VA would grant El Paso County 

a national veterans cemetery. 

Congressman Lamborn, I’d like to thank you for arranging this 

today, and thank you, too, to your staff for the support you give the 

military. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lee-Witt appears on p. 45.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Ms. Lee-Witt. 

Ms. Briseno, you are now recognized for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF MILLY BRISENO 

Ms. BRISENO. Thank you so much for taking the time out to hear 

about our experiences as younger widows. 

At the height of my husband’s 17-year Army career and in the 

13th year of our marriage, our life came to screeching halt. An unexpected massive stoke at the age of 35 took his vibrant life from 

this temporary home and left my three children and me reeling as 

we struggled for direction and purpose in this completely unfamiliar world of loss. My husband’s death was not combat-related, 

but from natural causes. 

My husband’s untimely death came just 1 month after moving to 

Fort Carson. As a young family full of promise and a bright future, 

we never thought to discuss burial plans. I really struggled to know 

how to honor his life as a dedicated soldier, whose career in the 

Army Medical Specialist Corps demonstrated his commitment and 

the restoration and preservation of life. 

To honor him and affirm my family’s identity as a military family, we chose to bury my husband at a national cemetery. We chose 

Fort Logan. Fort Logan was the closest one to our home and my 

in-laws’ home. It has been difficult to visit his grave site, for many 

reasons. We really do want to visit more. My family and my inlaws reside in Colorado Springs, near Fort Carson. The travel distance to such a congested metropolitan area poses great inconveniences from my young family. At the time of my husband’s death, 

my children were 9, 5, and 21⁄2 years old. A trip to Fort Logan involves an entire day’s plans. It is quite challenging at times for the 

children. 

With the weather here in Colorado, we mainly make it to Fort 

Logan, at the most, two times per year. We miss most of our significant special occasions, such as birthdays, anniversaries and 

other holidays, because they occur in the fall and winter seasons. 

As a family, we try to set a goal to get to Fort Logan, at least for 

Memorial Day. The effects of limited visits to Fort Carson have had 

an impact in these first 3 years of grief, not only for my immediate 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

11 

family, but also for my mother and father-in-law, my husband’s sisters and their families who reside in Colorado Springs. 

Our family has had less participation in commemorative events, 

which occur at Fort Logan. We have less opportunities to connect 

with the military’s sensitive and supportive community, which can 

be found among the visitors at Fort Logan. My family may miss out 

on one way to continually affirm their military identity. And personally, I myself have struggled with having less access to an acceptable place to face the reality of grief and process those complicated emotions. 

It is difficult to deal with grief as a younger widow with young 

children. Through my involvement with Colorado military survivors, I have found that a new generation of widows are emerging. 

This new group of widows faces additional struggles in dealing 

with grief because we do not fit the common stereotype. I attend 

a widows’ support group at Fort Carson, which averages from five 

to eight participants, and we meet twice a month. 

Up until recently, I was the oldest one by at least a decade. We 

are finding that we must find a safe place to face our grief, one in 

which we have opportunities to express our emotions of loss and 

pain. That is why we gather together, and that is why I wish we 

were closer to Fort Logan. The small plot of land that I stake claim 

to in Denver holds a vital place in my ability to process my grief. 

My husband’s headstone is an immovable reminder that forces me 

to face the heartache involved in the unexpected ending of his 

earthly story. 

His headstone solemnly stands among thousands of its kind at 

Fort Logan. To most, these pale stones represent so much pain and 

suffering. But to me, they each hold a story. They are just like a 

sea of bookends. The dates engraved on my husband’s headstone 

tell the beginning and the finale of his life. His headstone is a fixed 

mark that causes me to focus on the finale, and the heartache. 

A cemetery is an acceptable place in our society to express one’s 

grief. Young widows find very few acceptable places to deal with 

their loss. With now almost 3 years of learning in the obstacle 

course of grief, I realize the necessity of exercising this heartache. 

It has taken me a long time to come to the understanding that 

heartache is strength training. It helps transform the weakness of 

my faith into a powerful conditioned response to my loss. Once only 

heartache, pierced through with fear, now has become thanksgiving 

that appreciates the work of sorrow. 

Military loss is more complex. It is a traumatic loss, especially 

for young families that face this sudden tragedy. Our society still 

puts expectations on grief recovery. Because of the traumatic grief 

that military families endure, their bereavement is prolonged and 

can be more difficult. It is a lifelong process to learn to move forward with one’s grief. As an organization, Colorado military survivors strives to unite survivors in their loss, and help them find 

strength in a community well acquainted with sorrow. 

My initial connection with one of my dear friends now, also a 

young widow with two young children, was made at Fort Logan 

when I discovered that her husband was buried just two rows away 

from mine. Together we face each day encouraging each other to 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

12 

press on, to remember to have faith in God, and to grow through 

our grief in order to help one another. 

If we were able to be closer to a place that would help us face 

these challenges with greater strength, we could be more effective 

in encouraging a new generation of grieving families. We could accomplish this by affirming their value and assuring them of the 

honored place of appreciation that their loved ones’ treasured stories hold in our community. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Briseno appears on p. 46.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Ms. Briseno and Ms. Lee-Witt. 

You each have a bottle of water in front of you that you may 

open and drink if you’d like, courtesy of the Subcommittee. I will 

just ask a couple questions, and then try and leave more time for 

our Colorado Representatives to ask theirs. 

Ms. Lee-Witt, first, let me express my sympathy to you and also 

Ms. Briseno, and my thanks for your gift to our country and for 

your loved ones, your husband’s gift to our country, and blessings 

on you and them. Also thank you for coming here and for having 

the fortitude to come and tell us your story. 

I know the national cemetery policy is complicated, and that the 

problems that you described exist in many locations, including my 

home State of New York. But, Ms. Lee-Witt, can you tell me more 

about what you and your organization have done to bring a national cemetery to Colorado, and the response to those efforts? 

Please use the microphone. 

Ms. LEE-WITT. As far as Gold Star Wives, Rose Lee is a gold star 

wife, she is on this very Committee in DC. Locally, here, we don’t 

really have a group that meets. We donate to the NALP organization. It’s a non-profit organization. The widows who are involved in 

the government in Washington, D.C., really do a lot there and testify on behalf of military widows. I think Rose Lee was just in Florida for this very—this very discussion on the cemeteries. So that’s 

what the Gold Star Wives do. 

As far as what I do with the Retired Activities Office, I try to 

help widows and retirees. I’m in contact with them and help direct 

them to the people that they need to meet to get what they should 

have in benefits and support. I didn’t know a lot of this, of course, 

again, until after my husband died. So Gold Star Wives is active 

in this very thing, right here in the Springs, and at the base, we 

help the retirees. 

Mr. HALL. Well, thank you. And of course, thanks for the work 

that the Gold Star Wives do. We see Ms. Lee very frequently in 

Washington. 

Ms. Briseno, you mentioned in your testimony the personal 

struggle of having to travel long distances to visit your loved one, 

and I want to thank you for sharing a rather poetic testimony with 

us, of how you’ve had to endure this journey and this tremendous 

inconvenience. It’s a journey, not only a physical one, but an emotional and spiritual one as well. 

In terms of the future, can you describe how an additional cemetery in the region would assist others who may face the same 

issues? 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

13 

Ms. BRISENO. Well, as an organization, Colorado Military Survivors, is a new non-profit here in Colorado Springs. We have encountered many new surviving families in this area. And our hope 

is to advocate for those that need to be closer in order to process 

their grief. And I think my experience with widows and family 

members in this area show that we’re—we’re coming to the understanding that it’s important to be closer, to face the challenges, especially as younger widows. 

We have additional challenges, with the complications of losing 

our loved one, that was active duty especially. I think that families, 

we can encourage families and support them in their grieving process and to continue to move on and show how much we appreciate 

what they’ve done by giving them access to a place that they can 

move forward in their grief. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lamborn, you’re now recognized for questions. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you both for your eloquent and moving testimony. 

Ms. Briseno, you mentioned that your family tries to go to Fort 

Logan at least on Memorial Day, if not more often. Can you ever 

think of examples with yourself, or other people that you worked 

with through the Military Survivors Organization that you’re working so much with, where trips have had to be postponed or canceled 

because of this changeable weather? 

The weather we have here today and yesterday is a perfect example of how our volatile weather can change plans. 

Ms. BRISENO. Well, personally, my husband died on September 

28, 2005. Our 14th wedding anniversary was November 30th. I was 

bound and determined, because it takes a while to get the permanent headstone up, I had gotten word that his headstone had been 

placed. So I had not visited Fort Logan since his interment on the 

28th of September, and that—the day before, it was predicted that 

there was going to be snow. 

My family and I were living with my in-laws. And my motherin-law was terrified that I was going to try and make it up there 

the next day, because I was bound and determined to visit his 

grave on our anniversary. And due to the weather, and also a little 

minor accident with my daughter at school on the day of our anniversary, I decided it was probably not a good day to go. And my 

mother-in-law was quite relieved that I did not try and trek up 

there by myself. I insisted on going by myself, because it was that 

personal time that you need and don’t want to show it in front of 

everybody. 

And I think that that—I decided not to go that day. So I had to 

decide other ways to commemorate the day, without going to his 

grave site. So that postponed my first visit. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

And for either one of you, you talked about a mother with small 

children. On the other end of the scale, someone, a widow or widower for that matter who is elderly, do you know of special needs 

there that might make it difficult to go from this part of the State 

to Fort Logan. 

Ms. LEE-WITT. Well, I deal with a lot of the older widows, Vietnam and World War II era. And many of them are in walkers. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

14 

They are afraid to drive in a metropolitan area. They hate going 

over Monument Hill. We have a lot of accidents on Monument Hill. 

A lot of them are too sick to drive or they’re too afraid to drive anywhere but their little neighborhoods. 

So for them, yes, they have to depend on someone else if they’re 

going to go. I hate to—I’m not that old, but I hate to drive in Denver too. So, yes, that’s a big issue with the older widows, and a lot 

of them have their spouses at Fort Logan. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you both. 

Mr. HALL. Thanks, Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

That was very moving testimony, and my heart goes out to you 

and your families. 

The legislation that we currently have in the House, actually, is 

stuck in the Senate, does several things. 

First of all, it establishes a national cemetery in the southern 

Colorado region, and also requires the Secretary to establish a national cemetery in this county, in El Paso County. It requires the 

Secretary to consult with State and local officials as to the site selection, and it requires a Secretary to consult with government officials in the site selection. It authorizes the Secretary to accept the 

gift of an appropriate parcel of real estate to be used for the cemetery, and it requires the Secretary to submit to Congress a report 

on the establishment of the cemetery. 

It requires the Secretary to add the cemetery to the current list 

of priority projects. As you know, there are six cemeteries on the 

priority list. This will not circumvent any of those. It falls in line, 

it would be number seven. Under Secretary Tuerk, I hope, he 

agrees with that. 

It does not allow the cemetery to take priority over any of these 

current projects. Do you have any objections to any of these proposals, and would you have any objections if the cemetery was selected closer to the Pueblo line, as it might be able to serve more 

veterans and would cover a greater geographical area that would 

serve veterans in southeast and southwest Colorado. Would either 

one of you or both of you address that? 

Ms. LEE-WITT. Since Fort Carson is the—where they’re expanding so much, the southern part of El Paso County would be fine 

with me, and between Pueblo and the Springs, I think would be appropriate. I think if it’s in Pueblo or south of there, it’s going to 

still be just as hard for the El Paso County widows and families. 

Mr. SALAZAR. This does designate that El Paso County will be 

the home. 

Ms. LEE-WITT. Okay. 

Mr. SALAZAR. We wanted to try to move it closer to the Pueblo 

County line, still in the El Paso County so that it would be able 

to serve more veterans, and I think that maybe we could find an 

appropriate gift of land in that area. 

Ms. LEE-WITT. I wouldn’t have any objection to that, as long as 

it’s not going over Monument Hill or having to be the—— 

Mr. SALAZAR. It’s warmer down south. 

Ms. BRISENO. I think traveling aspect, that’s probably the main 

concern, is that it would be accessible, even if the weather was a 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

15 

bit rough, just because—and then being less congested. It was hard 

to find Fort Logan the first time I went, and I think it would be 

easier for families that have even more complications in travelling, 

any families of any age, because it would be more accessible, and 

probably a calmer, quieter place for one to face their grief. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Would either one of you possibly think of 

disinterring the remains of your loved ones, and if we had an actual cemetery close by, bring the remains to this area? 

Ms. LEE-WITT. I would definitely consider that for my family. 

Ms. BRISENO. When I talked with my in-laws, my father and 

mother-in-law, my sister-in-laws, even with my children, my oldest 

one being 12, that was everybody’s first question, is whether we 

would do that. And I think for my in-laws, because of being parents 

and facing additional health issues and concerns, travel is hard for 

them. And we know several families in the Pueblo area of parents 

that, due to their age, it makes it difficult. And so that was the 

concern of my in-laws was if they would—if that would be a possibility for our family. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you both very much. Thank you for your 

sacrifice. 

Ms. LEE-WITT. I’d like to add to that too. I did say that all my 

children and grandchildren are here now, and because my husband’s body is in Tennessee, that also is where I will be buried. 

And that would be a hardship, at that point, for all of my family. 

So I would definitely consider that. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Ms. Lee-Witt and Ms. Briseno. And having 

spent a bit of my life making music in Tennessee, I can tell you 

that Nashville is a wonderful town. I would encourage you, if circumstances allow, to make the trip. Thanks again for your testimony, and you’re now excused. 

We will call our second panel: Mr. Victor Fernandez, Co-Founder 

of the Pikes Peak Veterans Cemetery Committee; Mr. Bud Sailar, 

Director of El Paso County Board of Veterans; Mr. C. Douglas 

Sterner, Former Chairman of the Colorado State Board of Veterans 

Affairs; and Mr. Jeff Chostner, Pueblo County Commissioner; and 

Tim Grabin, Department Commander of the American Legion. 

As before, your written statements are in the record. So feel free 

to confine yourselves to 5 minutes. The yellow light means 4 minutes, and the red light means 5. 

So, Mr. Fernandez, you are now recognized. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

16 

STATEMENTS OF VICTOR M. FERNANDEZ, MEMBER, PIKES 

PEAK VETERANS CEMETERY COMMITTEE, COLORADO 

SPRINGS, CO; BUD SAILAR, DIRECTOR, EL PASO COUNTY, 

CO, VETERAN AND MILITARY AFFAIRS; TIM GRABIN, DEPARTMENT COMMANDER, DEPARTMENT OF COLORADO, 

AMERICAN LEGION; C. DOUGLAS STERNER, PAST CHAIRMAN, COLORADO STATE BOARD OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; 

AND HON. JEFF CHOSTNER, COLONEL, USAF (RET.), COMMISSIONER, PUEBLO COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 

PUEBLO, CO 

STATEMENT OF VICTOR M. FERNANDEZ 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Good afternoon. I’m Vic Fernandez, and I’m 

West Point Class 1959, and I was born in Trinidad, Colorado, 

where my World War II veteran father was intered—or is intered. 

I am a member of the Pikes Peak Veterans Cemetery Committee. 

Thank you very much for coming to Colorado to hear our message. 

I’ll cover three issues. First, why we need a new national veterans cemetery in Colorado. Second, why it should be established 

in the Pikes Peak region. And third, what we have done to assure 

that it is established here. 

Regarding the first issue, Fort Logan in Denver, the State’s 

major national veterans cemetery is expected to reach capacity 

about 2020. Fort Logan National Cemetery is landlocked in a residential area of Denver and cannot be expanded. Because of the 

size, geography, and weather patterns of the State of Colorado, the 

State’s other small, remotely located cemeteries do not offer reasonable service to Denver or the Pikes Peak region. Those are reasons 

why it should be in the Pikes Peak region, and that’s all southern 

Colorado. 

First, the large veteran population of the Pikes Peak region has 

not been properly served by Fort Logan. Fort Logan is located in 

a difficult to find residential section of a major metropolitan area, 

with poor access from interstate and/or other highways. This has 

resulted in surviving spouses and families from southern Colorado 

making the trip to visit the loved one, but failing to find the cemetery. 

Second, in winter, it is especially difficult to get to Denver over 

the topography of Monument Hill and through the weather patterns of what we call the Palmer Divide. Those topographic and 

weather pattern’s hindrances make the Veterans Administration’s 

internal 75-mile rule a useless tool in the State of Colorado, resulting in unsatisfactory service to veterans and their families in 

southern Colorado. 

Third, the Pikes Peak region, with its rapidly growing six military installations is producing veterans at a much faster rate than 

the remainder of the State of Colorado. Many local military complete their service and remain in this area. Additionally, hundreds 

of our local military have given their lives during the global war 

on terror, and were buried in our local cemeteries, these active 

duty Americans need to be counted and properly served by a local 

national veterans cemetery. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

17 

And finally, the service life of Fort Logan can be lengthened for 

the veterans of Denver in the northern—in northern Colorado if 

the Pikes Peak cemetery is established and opens soon. 

So what have we done to assure that a national cemetery is established in the Pikes Peak region? My colleagues and I have 

worked for the establishment of this cemetery for over 10 years. 

Politically, we have solicited and received the backing of past, as 

was mentioned, and present Members of Congress. We have the 

backing of all of the Colorado contingent in the Congress of the 

United States. We have the backing of county commissioners and 

city councils from several counties and cities in southern Colorado, 

including Pueblo and Colorado Springs. We are supported by all of 

the veterans organizations in the surrounding counties, and the 

United Veterans Council of Colorado, Committee of Colorado. 

We have made several contacts with and have carried on letterwriting campaigns to the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs for over 

these past 10 years. To date, we do not consider any of the responses to have been satisfactory. 

We studied the VA regulations. We performed due diligence studies. We have written a comprehensive plan, and that plan is entitled, ‘‘A National Veterans Cemetery for the Pikes Peak Region.’’ 

This is that plan. 

I will give a copy of this to each of you. The plan contains color 

maps, the photos of 10 most viable low and no-cost undeveloped 

sites between Colorado Springs and Pueblo, and a matrix that we 

use to rank these 10 sites. 

In conclusion, in order to provide sufficient burial space for Colorado’s veterans in the future, and to fairly meet the needs of southern Colorado’s veterans, plans for Pikes Peak Veterans Cemetery 

must get under way immediately, and we are prepared to help. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fernandez appears on p. 47.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. And, without objection, I will ask that 

the report you’re giving us be entered into the record of this hearing. 

[The report entitled, ‘‘A National Veterans Cemetery for the 

Pikes Peak Region,’’ appears on p. 63.] 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Sailar. 

STATEMENT OF BUD SAILAR 

Mr. SAILAR. Good afternoon, Congressman. My name is Bud 

Sailar, and I am the Director of El Paso County Veteran Military 

Affairs Office. I thank you for the opportunity to testify and 

present the views of our local veterans and their concerns. Like 

many, we consider the national cemeteries as memorials to veterans who preserved our freedom. 

The future veteran demographics of Colorado will show that the 

Pikes Peak region, with its military installations, are producing 

veterans at a much faster rate than the remainder of Colorado. 

Fort Carson, which is the most popular station of choice, is alone 

on track to go to a population of over 30,000 soldiers, not counting 

their spouses. And when many, if not most of these local military 

complete their service, they remain in the area, which further accelerates the growth of the veteran population here. We also find 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

18 

that a large number of military, who were once stationed here, return here after military retirement. In short, our veteran population is growing at a much faster rate than the remainder of Colorado. 

I myself am a native of Pennsylvania. And when I completed my 

service at the Air Force Academy, I chose to stay here. And my 

family’s here, and I’ve had 26 years living in this area. 

Additionally, we find that it is interesting and very disappointing 

that our large active duty military population is not counted in the 

veteran population numbers used to determine population served 

by national cemeteries. Presently, over 100 burials per week take 

place at Fort Logan. During the next 22 years, according to VA 

data, there will be an additional 40,000 veterans in southern Colorado. Many of these will not be honored in the national cemetery 

because, in that same 22-year period, over 90,000 veterans will be 

buried at Fort Logan. This will more than tax the cemetery usage. 

One of the things that I find really disappointing, or disheartening is in talking to surviving spouses, I find that a lot of the surviving spouses have their spouses’ remains in urns on a shelf in 

their home. 

I recently spoke to one widow, and Ms. Witt referred to it earlier, 

that she did not want to have her family or her husband buried 

at Fort Logan because of her age, and that she could not travel 

there. And it makes it very difficult on those individuals. 

So it is really disheartening to our staff that we see so many surviving spouses that have to hold their loved one’s remains instead 

of being able to make a decision right away, and alleviate some of 

the pain that they have because they’ve already lost the loved one. 

Mr. Chairman, I wish you and Under Secretary Tuerk could have 

arrived in Denver yesterday morning and traveled down I–25. You 

would have had a perfect example of the weather conditions here 

and what families have to put up with. And it would have been a 

firsthand experience seeing what was going on. 

And again, we thank you for coming here. We feel this is a very 

important issue, and that it really needs addressing, especially in 

thanking the numbers of veterans and their families that have 

served this country, and especially the numbers of the younger veterans that we’re losing because of the war on terror. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sailar appears on p. 49.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Sailar. I can tell you that Under Secretary Tuerk did, in fact, arrive yesterday. I chickened out. But he 

tells us that he made the drive and it was truly awful and dangerous. You’ll hear from him in a little while, but thank you for 

your testimony. 

Mr. Grabin, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TIM GRABIN 

Mr. GRABIN. Mr. Chairman, Members of Subcommittee, Honorable Congressmen John Hall, Doug Lamborn and John Salazar, I 

am a native. My name is Tim Grabin, the Department Commander 

of the Colorado American Legion. I am a native of Canon City, Colorado, which is southern Colorado, a long history of family who 

have honorably served over many generations. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

19 

During Word War II, I lost an uncle who was killed in action, 

and he is buried there in Canon City, and perhaps that is the reason he is buried there rather than Fort Logan due to some of the 

transportation situations and crossing the mountains. It is some 

complication. 

I would like to thank you for allowing the American Legion, the 

Department of Colorado, to present its views on the VA cemetery 

construction policy. I’ve endorsed a copy of the resolution adopted 

by our National organization. As part of my written testimony, this 

remains our current position on burial allowances. Burial plots, allowances and establishment of additional, national and State cemeteries. 

I would like to concentrate my remarks on the need for additional cemetery space in Colorado. And hopefully, in the Colorado 

Springs area, serving veterans in southern parts of Colorado and 

other areas. Colorado continues to grow, and new veterans and 

their families are a part of that growth. Historically, because of numerous military establishments in the southern Colorado area, veterans return to Colorado, making Colorado their new home because 

of climate, environment, and strong military support systems in 

place. With the new veterans population growth, will come the 

need for new cemeteries. 

Space for southern Colorado area is the perfect place for a new 

cemetery. As the Department Commander of the American Legion, 

I would like to put our organization on record as favoring the establishment of a new—a brand new cemetery in southern Colorado. 

And we would not favor the Fort Logan satellite concept. 

For instance, during our winters in Colorado, on many occasions 

Colorado Springs is separated and isolated from Denver because of 

inclement weather on Monument Hill. To count on Fort Logan establishment to provide support services during those times would 

possibly delay counsel, the services for those being intered. All support services must be co-located within the new cemetery. We are 

adamant that the location of the south of Monument Hill and located so that the maximum number of veterans be served. 

We want to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to express our views. We want to continue to be a part of the discussion 

and decisionmaking. We stand ready, as an organization of over 2.7 

million veterans, nationwide, to put our strong voice behind the efforts. 

Thank you for the privilege to serve here today for veterans on 

this day. 

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

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Grabin. 

Mr. Sterner, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF C. DOUGLAS STERNER 

Mr. STERNER. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for this opportunity. 

On February 4, 1945, during the Battle of the Bulge, Army Private Harold D. Hissong was killed in action. On learning of his 

death half a world away in the small town of Somers, Montana, his 

mother, Florence Hissong planted a tree at the front entrance of 

her home, overlooking Flathead Lake. Five years later, I was born 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

20 

in nearby Kalispell. And in many ways, I grew up alongside that 

tree, for I could not miss it every time I visited my grandmother. 

As a growing boy, each time I saw it, it stood as a reminder, not 

only of the uncle that I never knew, but of the great price of freedom, of the responsibility passed on to every generation to answer 

its own call of duty. And when my day came, I understood my obligation was privileged to serve my Nation through two tours of duty 

in Vietnam. I was in no small part inspired by the lessons learned 

from a tree planted in honor of a World War II hero. 

Mr. HALL. Excuse me, Mr. Sterner. Is your microphone on? Is 

there a switch? Why don’t you switch with Mr. Grabin? Thank you. 

I’m sorry to interrupt you. 

Mr. STERNER. Thank you. I am—from good to worse. 

Mr. HALL. Whoever has the knob, turn it down a little bit and 

we’ll be fine. 

Mr. STERNER. I have come to learn and understand that memorials are not about those who went before us. Rather, memorials 

stand as an example as a beacon to inspire and guide future generations of Americans. 

The location of our veterans cemeteries is not so much about the 

convenience with which we place our dead, as it is about the convenience that we offer to the families who have lost a loved one, 

and are reminded and inspired by the monuments to their selfless 

service. 

The ethos of a warrior states, ‘‘I will never leave a comrade behind.’’ And no matter where in the world a young man or woman 

falls in service to their country, they know that their comrades will 

do everything in their power to see that they are returned home. 

This ethos is not predicated upon policies established within constraints of budgets and convenience. It is a solemn obligation to 

those who’ve served and have sacrificed. As a nation, we have no 

less a solemn obligation to ensure that the final resting place of our 

veterans be in close proximity to their home. 

Fifteen years ago, my hometown of Pueblo, Colorado, was recognized by the U.S. Congress as America’s Home of Heroes due to the 

fact that it was the only city in America with four sons who are 

living recipients of the medal of honor. It should not be surprising 

that Pueblo would produce four such heroes over three different 

wars in a span of only 24 years. Pueblo is Home of Heroes because 

of these four, but also because of thousands others like them who 

have served with pride and patriotism. 

In the 2000 census, Pueblo numbered among the top 254 largest 

cities in America, number five with the largest percentage of World 

War II veterans. Such dedication to service is endemic to our community, and our community believes strongly in duty, honor and 

country. 

Eight years ago, two of our hometown heroes died within months 

of each other. Bill Crawford, who earned the Medal of Honor in 

World War II was buried at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Carl Sitter, Bill’s high school classmate who earned a Silver Star in World 

War II and the Medal of Honor in Korea was buried at Arlington 

National Cemetery. On April 6, 2007, Jerry Murphy passed away, 

the third Puebloan in less than 10 years to earn the Medal of 

Honor when he received it for his actions in Korea. Although furfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

21 

neral services were held in his hometown, he was subsequently 

transported far south to Santa Fe National Cemetery for burial. 

You see, there exists today no veterans cemetery within 90 miles 

of Pueblo that ensures that Mr. Murphy, or for that matter, Mr. 

Crawford or Mr. Sitter could have returned home for their final 

journey. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the VA 

cemetery construction policy failed these three distinguished heroes 

of my hometown, as well as the people of Pueblo who remembered 

them fondly. It continues to fail the families of our city of 100,000 

citizens, comprising one of the highest percentages of World War 

II veterans in the Nation, and in fact a uniquely high percentage 

of veterans of all recent wars who must travel more than 100 miles 

and navigate the traffic of metropolitan Denver just to pay respect 

to their loved ones buried at Fort Logan. 

Please consider the needs of our city as well as the entire southern Colorado region, remembering our obligation as a Nation to our 

veterans and to their families, and provide the much needed national cemetery in our area so our heroes will rest in peace and dignity where they belong: at home in southern Colorado. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sterner appears on p. 51.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Sterner. 

Colonel Chostner. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF CHOSTNER, COLONEL, USAF (RET.) 

Colonel CHOSTNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman 

Lamborn and Congressman Salazar for having us here today. I’ve 

been involved with this matter since 2003 as a former member of 

the Pueblo Colorado City Council, as Chairman of the Greater 

Pueblo Chamber of Commerce Military Affairs Committee, as 

President of the Air Force Association, Mel Harmon Chapter, and 

the American Legion. I served 22 years on active duty. I retired as 

a colonel in the United States Air Force, and I’m currently a Pueblo County Commissioner. 

This matter is near and dear to my heart, and I’m sure to my 

other colleagues because we’ve had other friends who have fallen 

in combat. And we need to dedicate their service to this country in 

an appropriate way where we can lay their remains. 

In April 1986, I was promoted to the grade of major with my fellow Mayor, Fernando Ribbas Dominici. Two weeks later, he was 

killed over the skies of Tripoli as the last 111 that went in over 

that particular city. In 1991, my wing deployed during operation 

Desert Storm, the Island of Diego Garcia. My wing, the 92nd bomb 

wing, was the only wing to lose a B52 during combat, and I lost 

friends on that particular aircraft as well. 

It’s my view that it is imperative that a new veterans cemetery 

be established in southern Colorado. And by that, I mean in a location south of the city of Colorado Springs. As you know, the closest 

veterans cemetery is Fort Logan National Cemetery. It’s located in 

the Denver metro area. It’s a fine facility, and one of which we’re 

all proud. I have two relatives who lay in that cemetery. 

However, it’s my understanding that Fort Logan is nearing capacity, and there’s a pressing need to establish another veterans 

cemetery, either as an adjunct of Fort Logan, or as a new cemetery. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

22 

I’ve also been informed that there are different Veterans Administration regulations, based on the status of the cemetery. 

Under either criteria, however, we were dismayed to learn that 

the Veterans Administration has recommended a veterans cemetery between Colorado Springs and Denver. None of the participants to the discussions that I’ve been involved with over the last 

5 years ever envisioned a cemetery north of Colorado Springs. All 

believe it should be south of Colorado Springs. 

I would urge that you review the current Veterans Administration regulations regarding status of veterans cemeteries and how 

said cemeteries define the geographical area in which they may be 

placed. In my view, the current regulations do not sufficiently take 

into account location of other existing veteran cemeteries, and the 

ability of other concentrations of veterans to avail themselves of 

the right to burial in the national cemetery. 

This discrepancy is most apparent in the matter before your Subcommittee, in that, as Mr. Sterner mentioned, the next closest veterans cemetery is Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

If you dealt just strictly in geographical terms, a new cemetery 

should probably be close to Trinidad, Colorado, but given the concentration of the veterans, we all came to a consensus that it 

should be at a location south of Colorado Springs. 

Yet, instead of proposing a cemetery that would either be more 

geographically central to the area or closer for other veterans in 

the region, the Veterans Administration recommends a new cemetery in close proximity to the existing one. While it will provide 

more capacity, it does not allow more convenience or availability to 

the region’s veterans or their families. 

I appreciate the ability to speak before you today, and I would 

urge that you alter the regulations. Thank you very much. 

And, Congressman Salazar, as a fellow veteran, I would also 

thank you for your service to the United States. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Chostner appears on p. 59.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Colonel Chostner. 

Thank you all for your testimony, for your service to our country, 

and for your service to our veterans. 

Mr. Fernandez, I’ll start off by asking you, in your testimony, you 

showed us and told us about the plan in National Veterans Cemetery for the Pikes Peak region, which we’ve entered into the record 

here. 

Have you received any feedback on this plan, and do you think 

plans such as yours would serve as a good example for the creation 

of future veterans cemeteries in other locations? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Yes, sir, we have received feedback on it. We’ve 

received feedback from both Senators’ offices, Senator Salazar and 

Senator Allard. We have received feedback from Congressman 

Salazar, of course Congressman Lamborn, and you received testimony today from Congressman Udall. He is also back. Several others have said that. 

This sort of a thing actually didn’t come about by accident. My 

second career, after I finished playing soldier, was as an urban 

planner. And I realize the importance of urban planning to get anything done. We—I reached out to a fellow that I had worked with. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

23 

His name is George Calhoun. He’s a retired West Point officer, 

class of 1954, and he was the actual author of this. 

We on the Committee provided the data, photographs and maps 

that he would need to produce this document, and it was produced 

therefore by him, approved after some slight modifications by the 

Committee. It does have 10 sites, and those 10 sites are in the 

County—we have one site in Pueblo County, one site in Fremont 

County and the others are in El Paso County, and they are all between Colorado Springs and Pueblo, with the exception of one site 

that is east of Colorado Springs, near Schriever Air Force Base. 

That particular site was offered early on, and it is a good site, but 

doesn’t meet the between the cities kind of thing. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. I have 5 minutes total. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, may I request that this booklet be 

handed out so that we can look at those? 

Mr. HALL. Sure, that would be great. Thank you so much. 

We’ll read the report and get back to you with more questions. 

Thank you for your response. 

Also, I wanted to ask Mr. Sailar, in your testimony, you mentioned that 400 active duty servicemembers who were stationed in 

Colorado have died serving this Nation over the last several years, 

but some were buried in their hometowns. 

Can you tell the Subcommittee why these veterans should be 

counted in the numbers for a local cemetery? 

Mr. SAILAR. Because, sir, they have become a large part of this 

community and this county, and a lot of these veterans that were 

buried in other areas not only lost their lives during conflict, a lot 

of them passed away due to the injuries that they sustained in 

combat. So they were not counted as direct combat fatalities. 

This is important. We are finding more and more, especially from 

Fort Carson, there are individuals remaining in El Paso County 

and the Pikes Peak region. After their service, they come back here 

or they just stay here. 

Mr. HALL. So you think a significant number of the 400 would 

have—their families would have chosen to have them buried in a 

cemetery in southern Colorado, were there one in existence. 

Mr. SAILAR. Without a doubt, sir. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

Mr. Grabin, how does the Fort Logan cemetery system currently 

handle inclement weather? Do they cancel interments? Do they 

have adequate indoor facilities for services? 

Mr. GRABIN. As far as—I believe they do have indoor, as far as 

Fort Logan. I’m not as privy at this time to give that report. But 

I know, as far as southern Colorado, when the weather is bad, and 

they do close Monument Hill, we are not able to get over Monument Hill, even if you had a four-wheel drive, there are days, a 

four-wheel drive hearse, you would not be able to get over that hill. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. 

That red light is for me, and I’m going to yield to Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Fernandez, you heard from the testimony of the two widows 

earlier, and they talked about sometimes there are great difficulties in going from here to Fort Logan. You heard their testimony. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

24 

Is there anything you could add to what they said about that particular situation? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Yes, sir, I’ll add two things. 

First of all, we did have a friend of ours pass away in December. 

His name was Colonel Bill Carnahan. Bill passed away about the 

14th of December. And because of the weather patterns and topography, he was not able to be buried at Fort Logan until mid-January. That’s item number one. 

Item number two, I know of at least a dozen families who presently have the ashes of their folks, if you will, on the shelf waiting 

because they want the cemetery so that they can put them in a 

proper veteran—national veterans cemetery here in the Springs or 

nearby. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Mr. Sailar, I was talking to a young Army captain last night, and 

he said that Fort Carson is maybe the most popular place to be stationed in the Army. If it’s not the most, it’s right up at the top. 

With that in mind, will that kind of reputation make the Pikes 

Peak area—make the numbers of veterans here accelerate more in 

the future as people rotate in on active duty or come here, possibly, 

after retirement? 

Mr. SAILAR. Sir, your statement is exactly right. I have friends 

that actually were never stationed in the Pikes Peak region, and 

in having spoken to them, and told them about the area, they’ve 

come out and visited me. They have moved here. And others are 

planning to move here. So this situation is not just for ones that 

are stationed here. They are coming back here because they like 

the area so much and the community is a large veterans supportive 

community. 

There are individuals moving here. Myself and my colleague, Mr. 

Tackett, belong to the National Association of Veterans Service Officers, and we have contacts all over the country. And we get calls 

from veterans—in fact, I got calls just last month from a veteran 

in Florida that is moving to Colorado, who wanted to know what 

the veteran support system was here, because he’s moving here to 

be with his family. His wife had passed away, and so he’s going to 

move here to live with his daughter and her husband. And we’re 

seeing more and more of this, older retirees and veterans moving 

into the area to live with families. 

My father-in-law, he and his wife, he is an ace from World War 

II, P–38 pilot. He’s 88 years old, and we moved them here from 

Kansas. So hopefully it doesn’t come soon, but when the time 

comes, there will be a national cemetery here because all of his relatives, my wife and his daughter all live in this area. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Another question for you, Mr. Sailar. You said that the VA’s 

numbers do not include active-duty military. Could you do a quick 

rough calculation for us on if you did include active-duty military 

and if you included dependents, how would those numbers change 

for the Pikes Peak area? 

Mr. SAILAR. Well, just to give you a quick thing, on Fort Carson, 

alone, over the next couple of years, they expect over 30,000 activeduty members to be stationed at Fort Carson. I’ve heard that 

there’s going to be some other units coming in too. That doesn’t 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

25 

count another 45,000 dependents. Now, there are spouses that are 

eligible to be buried along with their veteran spouse in a national 

cemetery. There are also children that can be qualified to be buried 

in the national cemetery with their father or mother if either parent is a veteran. 

So these numbers, like I mentioned earlier, from the VA data 

itself project over 125,000 veterans will pass away along the front 

rage between now and 2030. That doesn’t count spouses. That 

doesn’t count other individuals moving into the area. So those numbers could double very easily. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

And one last question, before my time is up. Mr. Grabin, you 

heard what was said about the desire for people in Pueblo. We 

heard from a County Commissioner, for instance, and Mr. Sterner 

as well. 

Would those same feelings be echoed by the folks that you know 

where you live in Canon City, which is probably about the same 

distance, but in a slightly different direction? 

Mr. GRABIN. A little different angle. I would personally like to 

share this portion as a representative of the American Legion in 

answering that: ‘‘As to the exact location, we will leave that decision to the planners to determine the best location that will meet 

all the provisions of the law and the requirements for growth, 

space to provide the absolute best setting in terms of view, landscape, serenity for the final resting spot for America’s veterans. But 

we are adamant that the location be south of Monument Hill, located so that the maximum number of veterans be served.’’ That 

would be El Paso County. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

All of you are aware of the proposed sites for the cemeteries, correct? Have all of you been? Is there any preference? 

And I’d like each one of you to answer that, starting with Colonel 

Chostner, if you will. 

Colonel CHOSTNER. I prefer the one that is further south. I’m not 

sure exactly what the name of it is. I’d have to look at it. I’m not 

sure of the exact name of it. Mr. Sterner can refer to that. 

If I could mention, though, Congressman, there are 16,000 veterans in Pueblo County. And if you look at the veterans in Fremont 

County, El Paso County, and Teller County, you’re looking at a significant number of veterans themselves. So in response to your 

question, Congressman Lamborn, there’s a significant population 

south of the El Paso County line that have availed themselves of 

a cemetery, hence my recommendation that it be as far south as 

possible. 

One last thing, Congressman, with regard to the inclement 

weather. I mentioned I had two relatives that were buried in Fort 

Logan. The last one I did was in January of 2003. That ceremony 

was almost canceled because of the weather. And secondly, it was 

held outside, which was not the most appropriate way to commemorate that individual. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

26 

Mr. SALAZAR. You are aware that the legislation that is being 

proposed that we actually passed includes the 29 counties of southern Colorado in order to be able to meet the 150,000 veteran 

threshold. And that is why we thought that it would be better to 

be south of Colorado Springs so that we could address all of southern Colorado. 

Mr. Sterner. 

Mr. STERNER. Yes, Congressman Salazar, and thank you for all 

your great work on behalf of veterans over the years. 

I’ve done some markups on this. I’d like to point out a couple of 

things. 

First of all, in the 29 counties that were identified in H.R. 1660, 

the Rio Grande County was not listed, and yet it falls within that 

area, bringing in another 3,000 veterans. Also locating the cemetery somewhere in El Paso County, or in that vicinity, while it 

would—Chaffee County and Park County are not counted as part 

of the southern Colorado region, but they do fall within the attachment area. Park County population is 19.2 percent veterans, one 

of the highest in the Nation. Chaffee County’s population is 17.1 

percent. So now we’re talking even outside a region of numbers 

well in excess of the 150,000. 

I have done a series of documents that I would be happy to 

present to the Committee showing five different locations, ranging 

from the proposed Douglas County option, which I find unacceptable, to my hometown of Pueblo. Frankly, I find Florence is a very, 

very attractive area, or in that near area between the Fremont-El 

Paso County line. We’ve got open area there. It falls well in attachment area for Colorado Springs, for Canon City, for Westcliffe, for 

Pueblo, and the surrounding areas. That would be my personal 

preference. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Grabin. 

Mr. GRABIN. I don’t truly have a personal preference. I want to 

stay more neutral. I do think that south of Monument, up around 

the Air Academy, is the most beautiful as far as its scenery. Down 

toward the old racetrack, south of Colorado Springs, while we have 

easily accessible, I think that’s a very good location. And I’m not 

so sure as far as out toward Fort Carson, just how that would 

work, but I think that’s something to consider as well. 

Mr. SALAZAR. The old dog track area—— 

Mr. GRABIN. Well, the racetrack. 

Mr. SALAZAR. The racetrack, okay. There is actually property 

there, a sufficient amount. Is it 500 acres. 

Is that correct, Mr. Fernandez? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. The Pikes Peak International Raceway portion 

of that had been sold, and so therefore it’s not available. But there 

are sites on either side of I–25 that are public property. They are 

property of Colorado Springs Utilities, and there is sufficient acreage, approximately 250 acres, and one in close to almost 300 acres 

in the other that would be satisfactory. 

Mr. SALAZAR. And is your preference closer to the Pueblo line or 

somewhere in that neighborhood south of Fort Carson? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Sir, I’m going to have to remain neutral also, 

but I would like to bring to your attention Figure—— 

Mr. SALAZAR. You sound like a Congressman. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

27 

Mr. FERNANDEZ [continuing]. Figure 4.1. Under figure 4.1, we did 

rate these things, and we rated them by availability of water, accessibility, acreage, land ownership, topography, aesthetics, and 

feasibility. And the top sites were the Cheyenne Mountain State 

Park site, which is actually on Highway 115. Second was the Cane 

Ranch, which is free property to us. 

Mr. SALAZAR. And that was my next question. 

Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but can I just have another 

couple minutes? Thank you, sir. 

The Cane Ranch, for example, isn’t it the owner, if I am correct, 

he has agreed to actually donate the property? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. He has done so. The property is now in the 

hands and holding by El Paso County. 

Mr. SALAZAR. And that is which proposed site? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. That is proposed site—it’s called Cane Ranch. If 

you’ll take a look at Figure 4.1, you’ll see that rated 31 points in 

our booklet. 

Mr. SALAZAR. And that is exactly—oh, that’s south of Fort Carson. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. It’s actually outside—it’s outside of gate 1, on 

Highway 115, across—oh, the Cane Ranch, no. Cane Ranch is in 

Fountain. It’s in Fountain. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Well, Mr. Sailar—— 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. It’s south of Colorado Springs. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Sailar, do you have any objection to that site, 

or is that your preferred? 

Mr. SAILAR. Sir, in speaking to a lot of veterans in our community, they want it in southern Colorado, and I have heard them say 

anywhere other than over Monument Hill; Right on the border line 

between Pueblo and Colorado Springs is very preferable to everyone that I have spoken to. And I really don’t believe any member 

of any committee that I am a member of, would object to that. If 

that was the area that was going to be picked, that would be very 

pleasing to all of the members of our military community and their 

families. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you very much. 

And I just want to—just a quick comment. Mr. Sterner, thank 

you very much for helping to author the Stolen Valor Act, which 

the President signed into law last year. We really appreciate that. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Salazar. 

Thank you, all on our second panel, for your testimony and for 

your service to our country and to our veterans. 

And we’re now going to take a recess of about 3 minutes and 

then come back. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HALL. The Subcommittee will return from recess and come 

to order. 

And our third panelist is Under Secretary William Tuerk, Under 

Secretary for Memorial Affairs, National Cemetery Administration 

(NCA), for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

And your entire statement, of course, is in the record, as you 

know, having done many of these affairs. And you’re recognized 

now for your testimony. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

28 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM F. TUERK, UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Mr. TUERK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

And you anticipated my first request, and that is to submit my 

statement and have it printed in the record. I don’t propose to read 

it to you. You and the visitors here who are in attendance have 

copies of my testimony, and it’s available, and you can read it. So 

I’ll summarize some of the points raised in that testimony, and perhaps amplify some other points, particularly in light of some of the 

comments that I’ve heard. 

I commend you and I commend the staff for your foresight in 

making me last, and not first witness. It was useful to hear the 

prior testimony before giving my own, and I appreciated that opportunity. Surely I was going to stay and listen to the testimony 

of the witnesses that came after me, but I’m glad I had a chance 

to hear them before I offered this testimony. 

If I may, just a couple things before I start. 

First, to Ms. Briseno and Ms. Lee-Witt, I want to thank you both 

for your husbands’ service to our Nation. I’m sure I speak for everyone in the room—the members of the panel have already spoken 

for themselves in expressing our appreciation for the service that 

your families have rendered. 

I don’t know if it’s appropriate to do this, but I’m going to do it 

as just a personal note. To both of you ladies, I can tell you, I understand from personal experience your grief, your situation. I understand from personal experience the comfort one can get from 

visiting one’s spouse’s gravesite, and I wish that your spouses’ 

gravesites were more convenient for you. I hope they will become 

more convenient for you. 

Again, I would suggest to you, Ms. Lee-Witt, that when we build 

a cemetery here in Colorado, you certainly ought to consider having 

your husband’s remains reinterred up here. I can tell you, I have 

been to the Nashville National Cemetery, and it’s an extraordinary 

site, a very historic site dating to 1862. I happened to be there at 

an event commemorating the burials of what are called, in sort of 

arcane language, U.S. Colored Troops, African American citizens of 

the north who fell to preserve the union. Many hundreds of them 

are buried in Nashville; it is a very interesting and historic site. 

Believe me, your husband is in a place of honor there. 

Now, if I may, and I’m going to try and do this as quickly as I 

can. But some of these points, I think, bear some amplification. 

First, I’d like to talk just a little bit about the background of 

NCA and what we’re tying to accomplish now—what this formula 

that’s been cited, imperfect though it be. Right now we are engaged 

in the largest expansion in the national cemetery system since the 

Civil War. In a course of about 10 years, we will have opened 17 

new national cemeteries and over 40 State cemeteries. 

Our goal is to provide services to more veterans than are currently served. Our tactic, and we’ve been directed by Congress to 

pursue this tactic, is to identify the areas with the largest populations of unserved veterans and locate new cemeteries there. Consistent with that approach, we have, in the last several years, 

opened up cemeteries in major, major metropolitan areas, Chicago, 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

29 

Detroit, Cleveland, Dallas, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Miami. We are on 

target, right now, to open up cemeteries in other large cities, Sarasota, Philadelphia, other sites. 

This is not to say that the people of Colorado Springs are served 

as well as we like or are adequately served. It’s a matter of ranking 

priorities. Chicago, for example, when we decided to build a cemetery there, had 991,000 veterans living within 75 miles of Chicago, 

veterans who were unserved. Sites that remain to be served don’t 

have numbers quite that dramatic, but I want to make the point 

that our prioritizing system has attempted to locate the Federal 

dollars and to locate the facilities where we can do the most good 

for the most people. 

I do understand there are unserved veterans who are not in 

proximity, even by our standard, to Fort Logan National Cemetery. 

By our reckoning, about 27,000 veterans live beyond the 75-mile 

ring from Fort Logan. And I understand reasonable people can differ on whether that’s an intelligent standard or not. But by that 

standard, just for perspective, there are many other cities with 

many more unserved veterans that have yet to have the benefit of 

a national cemetery, 

In Charleston, West Virginia, for example, there are 154,000 veterans who have no burial option within 75 miles. The nearest national cemetery to the people of Charleston, West Virginia, is West 

Virginia National Cemetery, 142 miles away, over very difficult 

West Virginia terrain. Similarly, in the Chairman’s home State, in 

Buffalo, New York, there are 144,000 veterans living within 75 

miles of Buffalo who have no burial option at all. The nearest national cemetery to Buffalo is 105 miles away, in Bath, New York, 

in south central New York. As in West Virginia, there is difficult 

mountainous terrain to traverse between Buffalo and Bath. 

I don’t offer this except for perspective on where our standards 

have led us. I’ve heard much discussion about the imperfections in 

that standard, and I recognize there are imperfections in that 

standard. We know it is imperfect. We have asked a contractor to 

analyze that standard critically and to perform many other forward-looking activities for us. So that standard perhaps might be 

changed. But one point I want to make to this community is that, 

heretofore, we have been less than encouraging to this community 

using that standard because we took into account the fact that Fort 

Logan was operating just 59 miles north of here. 

We have, however, reassessed the situation in light of one inescapable fact that’s already been cited to you. Fort Logan National 

Cemetery is now interring veterans in its last active area. As one 

of the witnesses testified, it is landlocked. We cannot acquire land 

contiguous to Fort Logan. It is going to close, it must close. We estimate now that in 2019, plus or minus 1 or 2 years, that cemetery 

is going to close. 

And as I have discussed with your delegation, we are looking at 

the situation of cemetery service on the front range in a new way 

now. We are assessing the situation with the assumption that after 

2019 there will no longer be a cemetery in Denver. Looked at from 

that point of view, if one doesn’t take into account the presence of 

a cemetery in Denver, we see that there are some 285,000 veterans 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

30 

in the Denver-Colorado Springs-Pueblo area who will be unserved 

the day that cemetery closes. 

By our standard, 170,000 unserved veterans within 75 miles 

qualifies a location for a new cemetery. Clearly, the front range in 

Colorado would merit a new cemetery under that standard. And 

I’m here to tell you, we are proceeding on the assumption that 

there will be a new cemetery to be located here, a cemetery that 

will succeed Fort Logan, and I’ll get into details about that in just 

a second. But we are no longer of the view that this community 

should not get a cemetery. We are committed to the idea that a 

cemetery ought to come here. 

Now, I can’t promise a new national cemetery here before you 

today. I can promise I will actively advocate for it. And I can advise 

you that I have actively advocated for it with some success. But 

many other players will be involved before a new national cemetery 

can be built here, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 

the next Administration, most importantly, the Congress. I will 

need the Congress’s support to get authorization to build that cemetery and to get funding to build that cemetery. 

But subject to that caveat, I can tell you that the National Cemetery Administration will proceed, and we have already started our 

initial steps. But the point I want to make here is that it’s not so 

much a question of if a cemetery is going to be built here, it’s a 

question of when and where. 

Now, let me talk, for a second, if I can, though I’m over my time, 

Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. HALL. Go ahead. 

Mr. TUERK [continuing]. On the when and where questions. 

First, when. We estimate that Fort Logan will close in about 10 

years. I’ve learned from hard experience over the last couple of 

years, that it’s a 5-year proposition to get a new national cemetery 

open—to acquire the land, to go through all of the environmental 

analysis, to design the cemetery, to construct the cemetery’s first 

phase, not the entirety of the cemetery, but just the first phase, is 

a 5-year proposition. We’re about 10 years out from Fort Logan 

closing. We recognize that reality. We are proceeding now with the 

first steps to get the new cemetery in place. 

What have we done? We have sought and we have pending before the Congress right now a legislative proposal to include in our 

budget a separate line item, which would authorize us to acquire 

land independent of a separate authorization to build a new cemetery, to acquire a land in advance of the precise need for that land 

so that we may start to shop and seize opportunities to acquire 

land as they become available. We had specifically in mind, when 

we requested this authority, this community and a couple of other 

communities that will suffer a similar fate as this one will if we 

don’t get moving now. 

Portland, Oregon, is in a similar situation to Denver-Colorado 

Springs. Our cemetery in Portland can’t expand. We’ve got to find 

a successor site there. San Juan, Puerto Rico is in a similar situation. We’re at the end, the last phase of cemetery development 

there. We’ve got to start acquiring land now so that we can have 

a new cemetery already in place when the old one closes. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

31 

If we get this authorization, and if we get adequate funding from 

the Congress to proceed, we expect, depending on when this year’s 

appropriations bills get enacted, to proceed to start to scout for 

land immediately. Upon getting that authority and getting funding, 

we will start to look. 

The next critical question is where. This Under Secretary wishes 

he hadn’t already popped off on that subject. But I did testify before your senior Senator about 3 weeks ago. Senator Allard asked 

me the question of where I thought the appropriate site might be. 

I did offer in that testimony the view that it seemed to me that 

somewhere between Colorado Springs and Denver would probably 

make sense. Why? That point of view was pretty much governed 

by what I have heard from this community telling me that traversing from here to Denver is unacceptable. 

My thought process was, when Denver’s cemetery closes, the veterans of Denver would have the same point of view if the cemetery 

were all the way down here or south of here. They would have to 

traverse the same traffic that Colorado Springs’ veterans do traveling north. They would have to traverse the same weather. They 

would have to traverse the same highways that the folks in Colorado Springs find unacceptable heading north. 

I offered that opinion based, essentially, on that fact. But it was 

premature for me to have offered an opinion, I think, on where the 

cemetery ought to be sited. If we get the authority we seek, I am 

going to send real estate pros out here to scour the entirety of the 

front range to see what we can find, to see what’s available, to see 

what might be appropriate sites. I or my successor—candidly it will 

probably be my successor—will get recommendations from that 

group of professionals, recommendations that won’t look unlike 

these with the sort of scoring, the sort of charting, taking into account various factors. And at that point, the Under Secretary, after 

having gotten input from the community, will probably, at that 

point, make a decision on where the site ought to be. 

What sort of things will he take into account, will he or she take 

into account? Certainly the size of an available site is very important to us. This will not be a satellite cemetery to Fort Logan. It 

will be a full blown national cemetery that we will want to last for 

up to 100 years. 

We will be looking for at least, least 200 acres, probably, in view 

of the topography here, twice that amount. We will be looking at, 

and we will take into account, proximity of various sites to the veteran population to be served, a factor that I prematurely took into 

account with my testimony and my response to Senator Allard. It’s 

one factor; but it’s only one factor. 

We will look at the quality of the land in question. Does it have 

access to utilities? Does it have access to water? Is it relatively 

flat? Is it free from subsurface rock and fill? That’s an important 

factor to us. 

We’ll take into account, finally, the cost, the cost to buy the proposed site and the cost to develop it. When all of these factors and 

others are taken into account, that’s when a decision will be made. 

And certainly we will take into account what I have heard here 

about the desire to be south of—the hill that I—— 

Mr. HALL. Monument Hill? 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

32 

Mr. TUERK [continuing]. The Monument that I got stuck in on 

the way down from here. Certainly that will be taken into account 

as well. I did not mean to suggest that Pueblo is entirely inappropriate. I did not mean to suggest that southern El Paso County is 

entirely inappropriate. These things will have to be weighed, but 

they have to be weighed, it seems to me, in light of the fact that 

Denver, at the point of decision, will be facing an absence of a cemetery. And there’s a very significant veterans’ community up there 

as well. 

So to summarize and to close out so that I can answer questions, 

subject to the caveat that OMB, the Congress, the next Administration will also have to buy in, we anticipate building a new cemetery 

in this area. When we will build it depends on when we get funding. We will need the assistance of this Committee and other Members of Congress to get the authority and to get the funding to do 

that. 

We must proceed, and I want to make this point clearly. We cannot wait for 10 years when Fort Logan closes to start the process. 

We have no intention of waiting 10 years. There will be overlap. 

Both cemeteries will exist, if for no other reason, that we can’t fine 

tune the construction process to the point that the new cemetery 

opens the day Fort Logan closes. We will get going faster. The two 

cemeteries will, by necessity, both exist simultaneously for a time 

before Fort Logan closes, and we’re going to have to start in the 

next few years. And it is my intention, if we get authority, to start 

as soon as we get that authority, which would be October 1st, if 

we do it on time. 

Where we will go will depend on many variables. But I want to 

reiterate, I’ve learned a lot here about the desires of this community, and I will take them into account. And I will assure that my 

successor takes them into account. 

And I’m way over time. And I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I’d be 

delighted to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tuerk appears on p. 59.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you so much, Mr. Under Secretary. I’m so glad 

I didn’t have to use this. 

Mr. TUERK. I’m glad you didn’t, too, sir. 

Mr. HALL. You can thank Chairman Filner of the full VA Committee for your being able to testify after the other panels. We try 

to do that for the reasons that you mentioned. You answered some 

of my questions with your opening statement, so I’m going to keep 

it short in order for our Colorado representatives to get their questions in while there’s time. 

First of all, you made the point about needing Congress’s help. 

I would—I’m sure you’ve noticed, other people have also, that the 

House has moved on this issue, and on many issues. In fact, faster 

than the Senate. So I think you can count on the House of Representatives to be responsive. 

Mr. TUERK. I appreciate that. I would ask you to speak to your 

colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. 

Mr. HALL. I’ll speak to my brother about running for the Senate. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HALL. You did answer some of my questions, such as the VA 

taking into consideration factors like weather, driving distance and 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

33 

terrain. But I wanted to ask you, how long does it take from the 

beginning of the site selection process to a cemetery opening? 

Mr. TUERK. As I said, it’s about 5 years. Let me divide it into 

two pieces. Once we select and secure a site, it’s generally about 

a 3-year process to get a cemetery open, and I know that sounds 

ridiculous, but it takes time to acquire a site, I’ve learned. It’s a 

difficult possess. It takes time to do the environmental analysis. It 

takes time to resolve all the mitigation issues. It takes time to design the cemetery. And finally, it takes time to get the initial portions of the cemetery open. That’s about a 3-year process. 

From a point where we decide we’re coming to a community, it’s 

probably 2 years before we can buy a site. We can’t just come in 

and make a decision to buy a site. We have to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. We have to do all kinds of environmental analysis on alternative sites. And it chews up much, 

much time. That’s why we need to get started pretty quickly. 

Mr. HALL. I agree, sir. The reason I’m asking this, if it’s 5 years 

on average, and the Denver cemetery, Fort Logan cemetery will be 

full and closed, you’re guessing, around 2019. It’s 2008. If we were 

to make some kind of a quick decision, for instance, have a decision—start the 5-year process by 2010, and have that cemetery 

open 2015, wouldn’t that take some of the pressure off of Fort 

Logan for the remaining time that it’s open? 

Mr. TUERK. Oh, I think it would. I think it would result in Fort 

Logan being open longer, the population from down here, if the 

cemetery were to be located down in this direction, would now be 

going to the new cemetery. And I think Fort Logan would last 

longer. 

Mr. HALL. Maybe we could even move in 2009 to get the process 

started. But anyway, that’s my only question for now. 

Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and that’s exactly 

what my first question was going to be. 

My hope is that if we were to have something moving here, then 

by extending Fort Logan, because there would be less demand for 

the space there, because this would take up some of the demand, 

that would stay open longer to serve the people of the Denver 

metro area. 

So it would be my hope that we could have two cemeteries, at 

Fort Logan cemetery and a southern Colorado cemetery. 

Mr. TUERK. As I tried to express, I think that’s inevitable. There 

will be overlap between the two facilities. Because if I were here, 

I wouldn’t risk an interruption in service. And I’m betting my successor won’t risk it either, won’t risk having a single day where the 

Denver-Colorado Springs community isn’t served. He or she will 

need to get the new cemetery up and moving before the old one is 

closed. And there will be an overlap, and I think the only issue is 

how long. And that depends on whether we can find land, how 

quickly we can find land, et cetera. 

There will be a job ahead dealing with the OMB and dealing 

with the Congress on why do you need to do it now, Mr. Under Secretary? I can hear it coming. Can’t you wait a couple years? We’ll 

have to work through that issue, but we have no more than a 5- 

year window—by the simple arithmetic, we’ve only got about 10 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

34 

years of capacity left at Fort Logan, and it’s going to take us 5 

years to get up and moving at the successor site. We’ve only got 

about a 5-year flex. 

Now, that seems like a long time. But as I have learned in this 

job, in the course of building a $30 million, $40 million cemetery, 

and a cemetery that’s going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars 

over its life, it takes time. It takes time to comply with the statutes 

that we have to comply with, and so it’s only a question of how 

long. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Now, let’s talk about the specific line item that I was so happy 

to work with you on, and to see your Department moving forward 

on, and that is asking for the $5 million. 

Mr. TUERK. And I certainly appreciated your assistance. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. You’ve mentioned Fort Logan. You 

also mentioned Portland, Oregon. You also mentioned San Juan, 

Puerto Rico. That line item is not earmarked for one of either those 

three places. It’s not earmarked for any particular place. 

What assurance can you give us that $5 million would be used 

here in Colorado? 

Mr. TUERK. Well, I guess I can’t give you that assurance yet. I 

don’t have it yet. 

I don’t know, candidly, how much money we’re going to need for 

all three of these communities. For example, in Portland, there 

might be an opportunity to get land for free, at Camp Bonneville 

through the Base Realignment And Closure process. Alternatively, 

we may be buying there. Perhaps there will be opportunities to get 

land here for free, from the Academy or from other sources. 

So I’m not sure how long it will stretch, how far the money will 

stretch. But we will have a start. We will have the ability to transfer money from some of our other accounts, if necessary, from our 

construction account, if we can into that account. And furthermore, 

Congress might further supplement in future years the amount of 

funding that is in that account. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Secretary, let me mention that, for the record, 

on the Republican budget views and estimates that I support, we 

are asking for $20 million for that particular line item. I’m hoping 

that as we go through the total negotiations of the entire budget 

process, that one way or another we can bump up that $5 million. 

Mr. TUERK. Senator Allard and I had that discussion on that 

very point. And I think he is—he is aware of that possibility as 

well. I had to tell him I don’t know precisely what it will take because I don’t know what donations I’m going to get, and I don’t 

know where I’m going to buy land. 

For example, in this community I’m told—and I drove it yesterday to get a sense of the lay of the land at least—that land between Colorado Springs and Denver is considerably more expensive 

than land between Colorado Springs and Pueblo. 

I’ve told you, it is our intention to build the cemetery at the right 

site, not at the cheap site, and we will hope that we will get the 

support of Congress to get enough funding to buy the proper site— 

the site that we all come to agreement on is the appropriate place. 

But what that precise amount will be, what the quantum of rerfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

35 

quired funding will be, as I said to Senator Allard, is right now an 

unknown. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And our veterans deserve that. They need the 

right site, not like you said, a cheap site or something that’s just 

because it’s there, because it’s available. 

Mr. TUERK. The fortunate thing is, it can be the case that a 

cheap site is the right site. Mr. Salazar noted us going together to 

the Georgia National Cemetery at the base of the Blue Ridge 

Mountains, a little bit north of Atlanta. That site was a gift to VA 

by a real estate developer, and it is an extraordinary site. So it 

might be that the ranch, for example, that was mentioned in earlier testimony is an entirely appropriate and beautiful site. There’s 

not necessarily direct relationship between quality and how much 

a site costs. But we will have to scout the sites that are available 

and start to make some sensible decisions on where would be the 

better sites. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you so much for your testimony, for coming 

here, for your answers to my and the other questions. 

And, Mr. Chairman, if we have time for a short second round, 

I certainly wouldn’t mind that at all. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Under Secretary Tuerk. I just appreciated your 

time with me in Georgia and your work on behalf of veterans. 

As you know, our budget continues to tighten up, and tighten up, 

and tighten up. This $5 million line item, in order for it not to be 

considered an earmark, could have a specific place for it to go. In 

other words, it would just be, in general, for the VA. And that’s 

probably the reason that you can’t really say that it would be just 

for El Paso County unless you support earmarks. I personally support earmarks because I live in a very poor district, and that’s the 

only way that I can get the Federal Government to fight for—or get 

Federal dollars back to my district as the budget continues to get 

tighter. 

It seems to me like the logical place for this to happen is really 

the Cane Ranch, which is more than the 200 acres that is your 

minimum. It’s actually a 400-acre block. It’s right at the base of 

Pikes Peak. It’s right next to the gate of Fort Carson, the southern 

gate of Fort Carson. And, you know, in light of our budgetary problems, I would really urge you to look at that site. And, of course, 

like you said, it’s not going to be up to you. It’s probably going to 

be up to your predecessor. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also urge you that in this coming year, 

that we move toward and try to make the needs of the VA heard 

to the VA Committee, so that we can get this process started. I 

agree with you. I think that if—the sooner we get started, the 

longer longevity we’re going to have at the Fort Logan cemetery. 

And Frankly, Mr. Tuerk, I’m a strong believer that people in 

Denver, they’d love to get out here in the country and rest. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SALAZAR. Now, you talk about a monument, Pikes Peak, 

what a beautiful monument to have as your headstone. But I don’t 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

36 

have any questions, Mr. Tuerk. I just wanted to thank you for your 

dedication to the veterans. 

Mr. TUERK. Let me offer this. We will look at that site. It would 

seem it certainly merits a look-see, and we will look at that site, 

and we will look at the other sites in this report. This is good, valuable work, and I appreciate it very, very much. We will probably 

look at other sites as well but I’m happy to go look at that site. 

And if I don’t, the career professionals who will be on staff, irrespective of who sits in the Under Secretary’s chair, will, I think, 

be interested in looking at it as well. 

One of our factors is cost. It’s not our only factor, but it’s not an 

insignificant factor. And certainly, there would certainly seem to be 

some cost advantages there. But still, other questions would remain. Is it proximate to the population? Does it have a water 

source? Are there utilities? What is the topography like? What are 

the subsurface strata like? These are the sorts of things that my 

pros have to look into, because they also weigh on the question of 

cost, specifically on the cost to develop. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Tuerk—— 

Mr. SALAZAR. Can I finish up, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. HALL. I’m sorry, Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. I just wanted to ask you, in this case, for example, 

you’re not really proposing buying a site. Can you actually send 

your planners out to look and see if this would be a site that could 

actually be used as a cemetery? 

Mr. TUERK. I think what I would like to do is look at it in comparison to other potential sites. But that said, sure, if you would 

like me to do that, Mr. Salazar, I will be happy to send them out 

and take a preliminary look. They will make a judgment, I believe, 

looking at that site in relation to other potential sites. But we could 

at least get a feel, early on, whether that site might be feasible. 

Similarly, I’ve heard, perhaps, that the Academy might possibly 

have some sites available. We’d be happy to look at those as well, 

independent of this authority. I still need authority to secure them, 

but I don’t think I’m going to have much problem getting the authority to take possession, as distinguished from buying. So we 

would be happy to look at that site, and I can direct that be done, 

Mr. Salazar, and I will so direct. 

Mr. SALAZAR. I appreciate that. One other thing, I just wanted 

to thank you for noting today that your comment at Senator 

Allard’s hearing was premature. 

Mr. TUERK. I knew I shouldn’t have said that. 

Mr. HALL. We’re going to—since we have until 3 o’clock, roughly, 

have a lightning round, a second round of questions. 

And, by the way, another editorial comment. I don’t call them 

‘‘earmarks.’’ I call them ‘‘legislatively directed initiatives.’’ We had 

a discussion actually, in the Subcommittee about this when we 

were talking about cemeteries last year, during which I said that 

it’s my belief that we, in Congress, are a co-equal branch of government, and that it’s not only our right but our duty to try to represent our constituents, and that both of those gentleman, Mr. 

Lamborn and Mr. Salazar, have been doing a very good job of that 

in Washington. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

37 

Furthermore, I don’t believe that this should be looked at as 

somehow targeting Federal money that’s paid by the taxpayers of 

Colorado to the government in Washington, that somehow the representatives in Congress are trying to bring some of that money 

back here for real needs, for real people to serve, in this particular 

case, to serve the veterans’ community. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. In fact, I think it’s highly constitutional, and 

should not be a dirty word. It’s not a guppy museum. It’s not a 

bridge to nowhere. It’s a real thing that is needed of the community. So, end of sermon. 

I wanted to ask you what kind of public input incurs ordinarily 

in the site selection process. 

Mr. TUERK. We always go to the veterans service organization 

community through forums that they have sponsored on our behalf 

to get the views of local veterans. We have, on occasion, depending 

on the site and depending on the sensitivity and depending on the 

level of controversy, I would anticipate in this community, we—let 

me back away from that statement. 

We have also participated—I have spent many, many hours in 

suburban Philadelphia before township boards of supervisors and 

planning commissions talking to them about various alternative 

sites in metropolitan Philadelphia. 

So we’ve spoken to the people’s elected representatives at the 

very local level on these issues as well. 

It kind of depends on the community. It depends on the level of 

interest and controversy. In some cases, there is much demand for 

public input. In others, there is less, it would seem. But we will do 

what needs to be done in order to get the support of the community. It is essential for us that the community support where we 

go, that the community support the cemetery that is going to be 

part of that community for as long as a century. So we seek that 

out. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. And how do you do that? Is there a 

Committee? Do you have an advisory Committee once you decide 

on a region or an area. 

Mr. TUERK. Yes, that’s one of our mechanisms. We will appoint 

a Director before we’ve even started construction, and ask him or 

her to set up veterans outreach mechanisms, including advisory 

Committees and the like. And yes, we do that. 

Mr. HALL. Is there or is there not a formalized process by VA to 

do that? 

Mr. TUERK. There is no formalized process, no, sir. 

Mr. HALL. So does it vary from case to case, or is it sometimes 

more clear that everybody prefers one? 

Mr. TUERK. It does. It does vary from case to case, and there is 

not a formal process. I have been trying to telescope the length of 

time it takes to open up the six new cemeteries that I’m attempting 

to open up right now. In Bakersfield and Birmingham, Alabama, 

in Columbia, South Carolina, in Philadelphia, and in two other 

sites, Jacksonville and Sarasota, I have been attempting to get 

these sites opened as quickly as possible, basically thinking about 

my dad, who has now passed on, and his generation. I’m trying to 

get sites open as quickly as I can so that they can be of use to the 

World War II generation. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

38 

I have resisted lengthy APA sort of mandated formal procedures 

for securing community input so that we could get moving. That 

said, I have spent a lot of time before local bodies, service organizations, as have my employees, in order to assure that we have a consensus within the community of where to go. And in all the sites 

we have picked in these six sites, the veterans’ community is supportive. 

Mr. HALL. That’s good to know. Would you object to a highly efficient and short community process being formalized? 

Mr. TUERK. My successor will probably be displeased if I say yes, 

but no, of course, we would not object to that. 

Mr. HALL. It might actually help. 

Mr. TUERK. We want community support. 

Mr. HALL. Like the study we just saw, some work has been done, 

in effect for you, by veterans’ groups. 

Mr. TUERK. I would ask the Chair, however, to consider—of 

course, we could conduct more formalized and regularized sorts of 

proceedings. I guess I would just ask the Chair to assess whether 

we lack community support and input under the less formal processes that we’re using now. And I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that we do not. 

Mr. HALL. Today, certainly, seems like there’s plenty of input. 

Mr. TUERK. And these are the sorts of proceedings that we seek 

out. It’s not often that a Congressional Committee conducts a hearing like this. 

But I have stood before some pretty tough bodies of citizens, and 

not just veterans, but also planning commissions, boards of supervisors and the like, getting their buy-in. And I’ve done an awful lot 

of that, and will continue to do that. And I’m sure my successor 

will. Not because the law requires it, but because our approach to 

being an accepted member of a community mandates that we do it 

as a matter of just being smart. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. And my time is about to run out again, 

but on a different topic, how many of the national shrine projects 

have been restored or completed, and when do you think the entire 

project will be finished? 

Mr. TUERK. We’ve had a good year in 2008. The Congress was 

very, very generous with us on funding for national shrine projects. 

Coming into this year, we were better than halfway through, as I 

recall, that original list of national shrine projects. This year, the 

Congress, if memory serves—and I jotted these numbers down 

when I heard your statement because I anticipated you might ask 

about this—if memory serves properly, the Congress fenced $27 

million of operations and maintenance money for us this year to do 

national shrine projects, all of which will be focused on turf renovation, headstone raising and realigning and cleaning. In addition, 

Congress gave us three times what we asked for, if I recall—we 

asked for $25 million, and we got $75 million for minor construction. That is a huge increase, and much of it will be dedicated to 

capital improvement national shrine sort of projects. We’ll be well 

past the halfway point then. 

I do want the make one point, though, about that list. That list 

was a list of projects that needed to be done at that point in time. 

We assess every year the state of our cemeteries, what needs to be 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

39 

done now, what projects should take priority over, perhaps, lower 

priority projects on that original list, and we reshuffle the deck 

every year to make sure that our money doesn’t just go to getting 

rid of projects specified on an old list, but making sure that our 

money goes to the highest priority projects. But we’re making substantial progress. 

Mr. HALL. That’s good. I’m glad to hear that. Therefore, given 

the funding that you received, are you on target for your national 

shrine completion? 

Mr. TUERK. It’s difficult to answer that question because that implies that a certain point in time will be finished. 

Mr. HALL. Would trajectory be a better word? 

Mr. TUERK. Trajectory may be a better word because we will 

never be done with projects that need to be done to achieve and 

maintain national shrine status. Cemeteries need constant attention. Buildings continue to deteriorate. Roofs continue to go bad. 

HVAC systems continue to go bad. Turf goes bad. Headstones move 

over time. So it’s not a static thing that we will ever finish. We will 

never finish. 

I would point out, you’ll see I wear this lapel pin which commemorates and really congratulates my employees for achieving 

the highest American Customer Satisfaction Index Survey scores 

any organization, public or private, has ever gotten in 2009, repeating our achievement from 2003. Toyota came in second. National 

Cemetery Administration came in first. 

Mr. HALL. Congratulations. 

Mr. TUERK. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Why do I bring that up? The public was asked to assess our 

physical plant, our facilities, whether they meet national shrine 

status, and we scored 98 out of 100 on that count. We’re not complacent. We’re not finished. We’ll never be finished, but we’re making great progress, and we will make—we will achieve—shrine status at every cemetery, and many still need work. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Tuerk. 

I’m going to have to stop you there, and turn to Mr. Lamborn for 

a second round of questions. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a two-part question. The first has to do with a study 

that’s being done now. It was supposed to be done yesterday. But 

it has to do, among other things, with the burial programs of the 

VA, and a review of that, as well as some other matters that the 

office of policy and planning was working on. 

When will that be done at this point? 

Mr. TUERK. This is being done by an outside contractor, and is 

being administered by a different office within VA than the National Cemetery Administration. The latest I hear, and I will do my 

best to hold them to it, I’m hearing that a draft will be available 

for us to comment on May 15th. And I’m hearing later this summer 

for a final report. 

The Deputy Secretary and I have been pushing the VA’s Office 

of Policy and Planning in trying to move these folks along. Some 

of these delays were unavoidable. But we want to get this report 

while we’re still in office at VA to use it to start to chart NCA’s 

future course. This it is not the only thing we will use in charting 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

40 

that course. This is a tool, not the tool, that we’ll use to chart the 

future course. 

But it will study many things, including the 75-mile, 170,000 veteran criterion, which I know was controversial here, but which I 

believe probably isn’t any longer because, even under that criterion, we’re going to build a new cemetery here because Denver’s 

closing. But we’re also asking them to look at services we provide. 

Should we offer urban facilities, for example—and there are many 

things we’re asking them to look into. 

Mr. LAMBORN. That’s good. With our limited time, I’d like to 

focus in on that 75-mile rule, with 170,000 veterans being served. 

To me, the current status, the current regulations are sort of wooden. They’re inflexible. They’re rigid. They don’t take into account 

the weather that we have in Colorado, or the Monument Hill, or 

the Palmer Divide, as its called, or Buffalo weather. 

In the Midwest, you know the terrain is easier. In eastern areas 

of this country, it’s more of a congested population. But things like 

travel distance, travel time, access to public transportation, traffic, 

and then, of course, as it’s come up time and time again, natural 

barriers and features, including weather and mountain ranges, are 

really not taken into account. I mean, 75 miles here between Colorado Springs and Denver might take the time it would take 100 

miles to travel in the Midwest. 

So if we said, well, this is the equivalent of a 60-mile difference, 

as opposed to 75, then all of Colorado Springs is left entirely outside of the so-called served area, and would more easily qualify for 

its own area. 

Mr. TUERK. I do understand that point. Again, we’re going to get 

a cemetery here on the front slope in any case, but I do understand 

that point, and we asked them specifically to take such factors into 

account. And it’s not just geographic terrain. 

Let me give you an example that’s very, very different from the 

one you cited. The cemetery which serves New York City is out on 

the end of Long Island. There aren’t any mountains between 

Calverton National Cemetery and the Brooklyn Bridge. But by 

golly, the traffic is something awful. Similarly, our cemetery that 

serves Los Angeles, Riverside National Cemetery, is 65 miles from 

downtown LA. I’ve driven it. It is urban driving the entire time, the 

entire distance, and no place has traffic jams like LA has traffic 

jams. 

We’ve asked them to take into account factors such as that as 

well. That’s part of the travel time equation as well, not just physical impediments, but density of population between here and 

there, and we have asked them to see if they can come up with a 

way that does adapt some flexibility. Though, again, I would point 

out there are communities like Omaha and Buffalo and Charleston, 

West Virginian that even under this standard, would seem to be 

places that can make a good case, even though they don’t meet our 

criterion. 

For example, Charleston, West Virginia has pretty tough terrain 

and pretty lousy roads. Getting from Buffalo to southern New York 

is a pretty tough proposition in the winter. So we have seen these 

problems in the context of many communities, and that’s why we 

directed the contractor to do precisely what you’re suggesting here. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

41 

Mr. LAMBORN. I look forward to that study. And once again, 

thank you for your time. 

Mr. TUERK. You bet, sir. My pleasure. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Salazar, any further questions? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, just a quick one. 

Mr. Secretary, what is the typical cost of creating a new national 

cemetery at this point in time? 

Mr. TUERK. We put that in our written testimony, and I’ll refer 

to that. It is on page 4 of my testimony. There we estimate costs 

to build the initial phase of the cemetery, the first 10-year buildout. 

First, I would point out, we buy several hundred acres. We do 

not develop them all in year one. We take 10-year bites. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Excuse me. Let’s just say that a site, if you don’t 

have to acquire the land, what would the cost be? 

Mr. TUERK. Apart from the land, as we summarized in our testi- mony, it takes anywhere from $500,000 to $750,000 to get through 

environmental compliance requirements. It takes $1 million to $2 

million to conduct master planning and to design a new cemetery. 

It takes $5 million to $10 million, perhaps more, to acquire land, 

but you’re asking me to set that aside. Actually, it cost us more 

than that in Sarasota, for example. We spent $12 million for property down there. Once we have the land, once we’ve done the design and environmental compliance, which is anywhere between $2 

million to $4 million, actual construction of the first 10-year phase 

of a cemetery is a $20 million to $30 million proposition. And then 

each subsequent phase will cost a similar amount of money, though 

slightly less than the initial phase because we only have to build 

an admin building and maintenance facilities in the first phase. 

And then in the second phase, we’re just expanding grave sites. 

That’s what it costs for the first 10-year build out of a national 

cemetery today. And of course, that doesn’t take into account construction inflation, which can be pretty considerable. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Okay. This leads to my next question. Is it legal 

for the VA to take gifts? 

For example, let’s just say that Mr. Lamborn, and Mr. Hall, and 

myself, and all the members of this community were to go out and 

raise funds so that we could begin the initial phase. And maybe we 

could raise $15 million or $20 million toward the construction. Does 

this legislation actually make it legal to accept land as a gift, but 

not necessarily funding for the construction. 

Mr. TUERK. Actually, VA currently has authority to accept gifts 

of land. The land you walked down in Atlanta, for example, was 

a gift. The cemetery we’re about to build in Bakersfield will be on 

land that we will have received as a gift, from Tejon Ranch Company, a large landowner. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Do you have the authority to actually accept funds 

for the construction? 

Mr. TUERK. I do not know the answer to that, Congressman. I’d 

have to ask Counsel. I do know we can accept land, and I know 

VA, the larger entity that I’m part of, can accept gifts and bequests. And many people every year give money to VA in their 

wills. Whether we can accept gifts under this sort of circumstance, 

I’d have to run through Counsel. 

Mr. SALAZAR. I would appreciate if you could look that up for us. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

42 

Mr. LAMBORN. And let all of us know. 

Mr. TUERK. Sure. You bet. 

[The VA responded in a follow-up letter from Under Secretary 

Tuerk, dated July 11, 2008, which appears on p. 97.] 

Mr. SALAZAR. I think that Mr. Lamborn and Mr. Hall, in all their 

infinite riches, would be happy to help. And so would I, in my poverty. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. Tuerk, thank you very much for your testimony. 

I thank everybody here today for being here and thank you, especially, to all of our witnesses on all three panels. 

We will allow 5 legislative days for Members to revise and extend 

their remarks. Of course you can all send, if you would like, a correspondence to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs of the full Veterans’ Affairs Committee at the House 

of Representatives in Washington. That can be done by e-mail, actually, through the Web site, as well as by snail mail. So I’m going 

to encourage you, if there’s something left unsaid that needs to be 

said, then we’ll be happy to wait for that. 

[The Committee does not accept e-mail through the Committee’s 

website, but the public may fax correspondence to the Committee 

at 202–225–2034.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you again for your insight, your opinions and 

your passionate caring and service to our veterans and an attempt 

to resolve these questions in a democratic fashion. 

I’m enjoying my time in Colorado. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Lamborn, for inviting me. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, if we would have the national cemetery here, I want to let you know that there would probably be a 

lot more Democrats in El Paso County. 

Mr. HALL. You’re probably right. Thank you all. 

And the hearing now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:56 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

(43) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John J. Hall, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Good Afternoon. 

Would everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance? 

Thank you all for coming to today’s Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Subcommittee of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs’ field hearing entitled 

‘‘Is the VA Cemetery Construction Policy Meeting the Needs of Today’s Veterans 

and their Families’’—a topic of particular significance to this region and throughout 

the country. 

A few preliminaries: First, I ask unanimous consent, that Congressman John 

Salazar of the 3rd District of Colorado and a Member of the House Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs be invited to sit on the dais. Without objection, so ordered. I would 

also like to recognize any Members or staff representing Members in the audience. 

Welcome Congressman Salazar. It is a pleasure to have you be a part of these 

DAMA Subcommittee proceedings and I know your input will prove invaluable to 

today’s topic. I am pleased that H.R. 1660, a bill you sponsored to build a national 

cemetery in the southern Colorado region passed the full House unanimously and 

now awaits further action by the Senate. I know that you and Ranking Member 

Lamborn as well as the rest of the Colorado delegation have worked on VA’s national cemetery policy concerns in your region on a bipartisan basis. I am glad we 

are able to bring this hearing to your state where these issues are front and center. 

Last preliminaries: Also, in accordance with Committee Rules, I ask that all cell 

phones and pagers be turned off. As we have a lot of business to conduct in a short 

period of time I would like to conduct this hearing with as few interruptions as possible. Also, out of respect for our witnesses, I ask the audience to please refrain from 

speaking out of order. 

I would first like to thank the witnesses for coming today to appear before the 

Subcommittee. I know the issues pertinent to the national cemetery policy at the 

Department of Veterans Affairs or ‘‘VA’’, are of utmost importance to you. I look forward to receiving your testimonies. 

On a personal note, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, it is a special privilege for 

me to conduct this hearing in my Ranking Member’s district, Mr. Doug Lamborn 

and an honor for me to be able to address the issues facing veterans in or nearby 

their hometowns. Although my district, the 19th district of New York is thousands 

of miles away, we share a lot of similarities with Mr. Lamborn’s district (CO–5th). 

For instance both our districts are home to one of our Nation’s fine military academies, in mine there is West Point and in Mr. Lamborn’s, the U.S. Air Force Academy. Also our districts house many prominent military installations and are both 

places where a high percentage of our Nation’s veterans call home. In fact, the 

Southern Colorado region, I understand is home to one of the largest concentrations 

of World War II and Vietnam veterans in the country. 

Since their genesis on July 17, 1862, national cemeteries have served as the hallowed resting place for our Nation’s veterans and their loved ones. Currently VA operates 125 national cemeteries in 39 States and Puerto Rico and maintains over 2.8 

million gravesites. The annual number of burials is on the up rise, with just 36,000 

in 1973 to over 100,200 in 2006. Veterans, who have served in this country’s Armed 

Services, are buried in cemeteries operated by the States, VA, the Department of 

Interior, Arlington National Cemetery, and American Battle Monuments Commission. VA also provides grants to over 69 State veterans’ cemeteries under its National Cemetery Administration’s State Cemetery Grants Program that operate in 

35 States, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

We are here today to examine the adequacy of VA’s current policy which entails 

locating national cemeteries in areas with the largest concentration of unserved veterans and providing a reasonable access to a burial option in a national or State 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

44 

Veterans cemetery within 75 miles of their residence. As such VA concludes that 

new national cemeteries will be established in areas with an unserved veteran population threshold of 170,000 within a 75-mile radius. Under this policy 83% of all veterans are served, the converse of which means that there are at least 17% or nearly 

2 million veterans and their families who are underserved by this policy. 

The Subcommittee also addressed the VA’s national cemetery policy issues last 

year during a hearing held on May 8, 2007, wherein I expressed concerns of whether 

this policy was adequate enough to address both rural and urban locations. Those 

concerns still stand. I also think it is critical that VA makes sure that there is plenty of opportunity for public input during any new cemetery policy or location selection process. I know that VA is currently conducting its own study of these criteria 

and has plans to move the percentage of veterans served to 90% by FY 2010. I look 

forward to hearing more about these plans during your testimony. 

In the way of follow-up to last year’s hearing, I would like to be updated on the 

current status of VA’s National Shrine Commitment. 

Lastly, the Subcommittee has been apprised of a situation at Greenwood Island 

or the old Camp Jefferson Davis site and the Soldiers’ Asylum Home in Pascagoula, 

Mississippi, where veterans of the Mexican American War are buried but whose 

resting places are being eroded by nature and construction. It is reported that some 

of the coffins and or bodies have became disinterred being found by local fisherman 

I appreciate the NCAs response provided by staff, but I would like to know the NCA 

implications of this situation and how we can possibly remedy this oversight. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican Member, 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Good afternoon, thank you Chairman Hall. 

I would like to personally thank you, Mr. Salazar, and your staff for making this 

field hearing possible. There is a lot of work involved with bringing Congress to 

Southern Colorado and I appreciate it. It is an honor to participate in this momentous occasion. I also thank you and your staff for your flexibility and patience with 

the number of witnesses that will present important testimony today. 

I would also like to thank all of the witnesses for being here today, especially my 

good friend, Undersecretary for Memorial Affairs Bill Tuerk, for joining us here 

today to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs policy for the construction of 

new national cemeteries. 

Mr. Chairman, properly honoring a deceased veteran is one of our most sacred 

and solemn responsibility. These patriots have earned honored repose in a national 

shrine. Veterans and their families are due the tribute and thanks of a grateful nation. We should ensure that the final resting place for our great heroes is accessible 

to family members and all proud Americans who come and pay tribute to the service 

and sacrifice of those brave men and women who have borne the battle. 

We are seeing increased demand on all of our National cemeteries, especially as 

members of the Greatest Generation pass from our presence. VA estimates that interments in national cemeteries will rise from the current level of 2.8 million to 3.2 

million by 2012. 

The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) estimates that as early as 2016 

Fort Logan National Cemetery will be at full capacity and they will be looking to 

construct a replacement cemetery. 

Today Mr. Chairman, we will hear very emotional and eloquent testimony from 

Coloradans who are personally affected by the distance of the national cemetery in 

Fort Logan near Denver to their homes and communities. 

I believe that there is a better way to determine need than drawing circles in a 

75 mile radius around a national cemetery to determine where the most ‘‘underserved’’ veterans are. 

There are many other factors that need to be taken into account including travel 

time to and from national cemeteries, access to public transportation in the area, 

and other factors that are more tangible than a large circle on a map. 

However, I know that this problem is not just limited to Southern Colorado; and 

if we held this hearing in many other cities and towns across the Nation that we 

would find these problems and concerns extend to many rural and urban regions 

like Nebraska, New York City, Los Angeles, Buffalo, NY, and many other areas that 

are adversely affected by VA’s somewhat arbitrary rules. 

Mr. Chairman, it is for that reason that I was pleased to work with you and Mr. 

Salazar to pass H.R. 1660, as amended, in the House last year. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

45 

This bill would authorize the establishment of a national cemetery in El Paso 

County and greatly benefit those veterans and families in this fast-growing area. 

This bill represents a major step forward in campaign to establish a national cemetery. I urge our colleagues in the Senate, including Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Senator Akaka of Hawaii to take this bill up as soon 

as possible. 

I also hope that all of our witnesses understand that when this legislation is enacted we must all work together to help NCA find a suitable location for this cemetery that serves the highest number of veterans and their families. I believe that 

this location should be in El Paso County and I will work with you Mr. Secretary 

to ensure that this is the case. 

I want to thank everyone once again for being here and I am looking forward to 

the testimony. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back and welcome you to Colorado! 

f 

Prepared Statement of Linda Lee-Witt, Peterson AFB, 

Colorado Springs, CO, Member, Gold Star Wives of America 

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. 

My name is Linda Lee-Witt. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify 

before you today. I am a widow, and a member of Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. 

which is a non-profit membership organization, chartered by the U.S. Congress as 

a unique organization on December 4, 1980. To be eligible for membership, your 

spouse must have died while on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces or died from 

a service related disability. 

I am also the Administrative Officer of the Retiree Activities Office under the 21st 

Air wing, Peterson Air Force Base working directly with retirees, spouses, and dependants. 

Because of my involvement with Gold Star Wives, and the RAO, I am in a position to hear the frustrations, and concerns of surviving spouses, dependants, and retirees. 

My testimony today will be my story. My husband grew up in a military family. 

His father fought during WWII, and retired from the Army as a Major. As a child, 

my husband lived and went to school all over the world. 

Like his father, my husband dedicated his whole career to the U.S. Government. 

He honorably served our country during the Vietnam War and peace time in the 

United States Air Force. 

After retiring from the Air Force, he continued to serve his country in Civil Service working in Safety Engineering at Fort Carson, where he deployed with the 

troops wherever they went. Whether it was to Kuwait after the Gulf War, fighting 

fires in California, training and educating our soldiers and their commanders on 

safety issues, or investigating accidents and fatalities off and on Base when it involved any of our troops. He had a deep passion and love for this country, for our 

soldier’s and their safety, and he identified with what they and their families faced 

every day. 

He was a true patriot, and a hero. He died from a service connected cancer on 

Nov. 3, 2004 in our home. Because there had been a snow storm, and our driveway 

is up hill, the mortuary van was unable to navigate the driveway to pick up and 

transfer his body to the funeral home. Our son had to put his father’s body in his 

four wheel drive to get down to the van. 

I wanted my husband to be buried with the full military honors that he so deserved. For months after his death I kept his ashes, not wanting his remains to be 

buried in a civilian cemetery, but also wanting his remains close. All of our children 

and Grandchildren live here. We have a very large military presence in El Paso 

County that is quickly growing, yet no military cemetery. Because of the month of 

my husband’s death, it is often not possible to get safely over Monument Pass to 

Denver. Veterans Day, when it would mean so much for my children and grandchildren together as a family, to see firsthand the price that has been paid by so 

many for the freedom and the rights we have today. For them to take part in the 

ceremonies honoring our veterans, and paying tribute to those brave warriors who 

risked their lives for their country and families. To see those who have given all, 

being honored on that special day in a national cemetery, knowing that their father 

and grandfather paid the ultimate price, would be a valuable and inspiring experience for us together as a family. Again, it is not always possible to travel over 

Monument Pass to get to our national cemetery at that time of year. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

46 

My husband’s parents settled in Nashville TN, where two of his brothers still live. 

I finally decided to have his remains buried in the national cemetery there. I regret 

that realistically, we will never all be able to visit the Nashville National Cemetery 

together. Only one of our children has been able to make the trip to see the site 

where their father is buried. The others have only seen pictures. 

Right now, with the war in Iraq, our city is rapidly growing. There are more and 

more troops being stationed here, and more and more new young widows and dependants living here. As it was with my husband, many of our service men and 

women opt to stay, and live in Southern Colorado. In the next few years, the new 

retiree population will be much larger here then it will be in the Denver area. We 

need a national cemetery here, in El Paso County. It doesn’t make sense to build 

one anywhere else in the state with so many of our military bases here in southern 

Colorado. 

As I talk with the widows of the WWII and Vietnam era, they express how hard 

it is to make the trip to Denver. Because of their ages, many must rely on someone 

taking them to Denver because they are afraid or unable to drive themselves. Many 

of them have expressed they were not able to find the National Cemetery at Fort 

Logan when they did go. 

In talking to the young Iraq widows and their family’s, it is clear that it is a hardship for them to take a whole day with young children, to visit their husband’s 

graves. They say that during the grieving process it would be so comforting to be 

able to sit quietly by the graves of their loved ones while their children are in 

school, without having to try to find a babysitter. That due to the distance, changing 

weather conditions so common in our area, and the traffic, they can’t risk not being 

able to get back in time for their little ones. They tell me how important it is and 

how healing it is for their children to see the place where their parent’s remains 

are, so that they can work through their grief, and see how their parent was given 

a resting place among our bravest and best. Hero’s all. To see how our leaders and 

our country honor our fallen hero’s, and to be proud of their parent’s sacrifice and 

dedication to a better and free country for them. 

I would like to quote from President Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural address, March 4, 1865. ‘‘With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness 

in the right, as God gives us to see right, let us strive to finish the work we are 

in; to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who has borne the battle, his 

widow and his orphan.’’ 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and express the 

views of myself and other military spouses, dependants, and retirees on an issue 

very close to our hearts. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Milly Briseno, Co-Founder, 

Colorado Military Survivors, Colorado Springs, CO (Iraq War Widow) 

At the height of my husband’s 17-year Army career and in the 13th year of our 

marriage, our life came to a screeching halt. An unexpected massive stroke, at the 

age of 35, took his vibrant life from this temporary home and left my three children 

and I reeling as we struggled for direction and purpose in this completely unfamiliar 

world of loss. My husband’s untimely death came just one month after moving to 

Fort Carson. As a young family, full of promise and a bright future, we did not 

think to discuss burial plans. I struggled to know how to honor his life as a dedicated soldier whose career in the Army Medical Specialists Corps demonstrated his 

commitment to the restoration and preservation of life. To honor him and affirm my 

family’s identity as a military family, we chose to bury my husband at a national 

cemetery. Fort Logan was the closest one to our home and my in-laws’ home. 

It has been difficult to visit his gravesite for many reasons. My family, and my 

in-laws, reside in Colorado Springs, near Fort Carson. The traveling distance to 

such a congested metropolitan area poses great inconveniences for my young family. 

At the time of my husband’s death, my children were 9, 5 and 21⁄2 years old. A trip 

to Fort Logan involves an entire day’s plans and is challenging at times for the children. With the weather here in Colorado, we mainly make it to Fort Logan, at the 

most, two times per year. We miss most of our significant special occasions such as 

birthdays, anniversaries and other holidays because they occur in the fall and winter seasons. As a family, we try to set a goal to get to Fort Logan at least for Memorial Day. 

The effects of limited visits to Fort Logan have had an impact in these first three 

years of grief not only for my immediate family but also for my mother and fatherin-law, my husband’s sisters and their families. Our family has had decreased parrfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

47 

ticipation in commemorative events which occur at Fort Logan. We have had less 

opportunities to connect with a military-sensitive and supportive community which 

can be found among the visitors at Fort Logan. My family may miss out on one way 

to continually affirm their military identity. I, myself, have struggled with having 

less access to an acceptable place to face the reality of grief and process those complicated emotions. 

It is difficult to deal with grief as a younger widow with young children. Through 

my involvement with Colorado Military Survivors, I have found that a new generation of widows is emerging. This new group of widows faces additional struggles in 

dealing with grief because we do not fit the common stereotype. I attend a widows 

support group at Fort Carson which averages from 5–8 participants. Up until recently, I was the oldest one by at least a decade. We are finding that we must find 

a safe place to face our grief, one in which we have opportunity to express our emotions of loss and pain. That is why we gather and that is why, I wish we were closer 

to Fort Logan. 

The small plot of land that I stake claim to in Denver, holds a vital place in my 

ability to process my grief. My husband’s headstone is an immovable reminder that 

forces me to face the heartache involved in the unexpected ending of his earthly 

story. His headstone solemnly stands among thousands of its kind at Fort Logan. 

To most, these pale stones represent so much pain and suffering, but to me they 

each hold a story. They are just like a sea of bookends. 

The dates engraved on my husband’s stone tell the beginning and the finale of 

his life. His headstone is a fixed mark that causes me to focus on the finale. A cemetery is an acceptable place in our society to express one’s grief. Young widows find 

very few acceptable places to deal with their loss. With now almost three years of 

learning in the obstacle course of grief, I realize the necessity of exercising this 

heartache. It has taken me a long time to come to the understanding that heartache 

is strength-training. It helps transform the weakness of my faith into a powerful 

conditioned response to my loss. Once only heartache, pierced through with fear, 

now has become thanksgiving that appreciates the work of sorrow. 

Military loss is more complex, especially for young families that face this sudden 

tragedy. Our society still puts expectations on grief ‘‘recovery’’. It is a lifelong process to learn to move forward with one’s grief. As an organization, Colorado Military 

Survivors strives to unite survivors in their loss and help them find strength in a 

community well-acquainted with sorrow. My initial connection with one of my dear 

friends now, also a young widow with two young children, was made at Fort Logan 

when I discovered that her husband was buried just two rows away from mine. Together we face each day, encouraging each other to press on, to remember, to have 

faith in God and to grow through our grief in order to help another. If we were able 

to be closer to a place that would help us face these challenges with greater 

strength, we could be more effective in encouraging a new generation of grieving 

families by affirming their value and by assuring them of the honored place of appreciation that their loved ones hold in our community. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Victor M. Fernandez, Member, 

Pikes Peak Veterans Cemetery Committee, Colorado Springs, CO 

Good Morning, Congressmen. My name is Vic Fernandez, and I am a founding 

member of the Pikes Peak Veterans Cemetery Committee. Thank you for coming all 

the way out to Colorado to hear our message, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak for the Pikes Peak Veterans Cemetery Committee. 

I am here today to answer three major questions. 

First: Why do we need a new National Veterans Cemetery in Colorado? 

Second: Why should it be established in the Pikes Peak Region? 

Third: What have you (meaning us) done to assure that a national Veterans Cemetery is established here? 

In response to the first question it is important to know that the State Of Colorado’s major National Veterans Cemetery is Fort Logan in Denver. 

A new cemetery is needed because Fort Logan is filling up fast, and is expected 

to reach capacity between the years 2020 and 2024. However, Fort Logan National 

Cemetery is landlocked in a residential area of Denver, and can not be expanded 

without purchasing the very expensive developed residential land around it. The 

longer period of capacity is contingent on construction of a Columbarium on ground 

already set aside for such a facility at Ft. Logan. 

Because of the size, geography, and weather hindrances of the State of Colorado, 

and the small size and remote location of the state’s other Cemeteries at Ft Lyon, 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

48 

and Homelake, the Veterans Count of The Pikes Peak Region are poorly served, and 

these Cemeteries do not offer reasonable service to Denver and its surrounding population centers. 

This life of service of Fort Logan can be lengthened somewhat for the Veterans 

of Denver and Northern Colorado if the Pikes Peak Veterans Cemetery were to be 

established and open within the next five years. The actual lengthening of lifespan 

is totally dependant upon when the cemetery we propose is established. 

In response to the second question, there are several cogent reasons why the 

Pikes Peak Region is the logical location for the proposed National Veterans Cemetery. 

First, is the fact that the large Veteran population of The Pikes Peak Region and 

southern Colorado has not been properly served by Fort Logan, or the other veteran 

cemeteries in Colorado. Fort Logan is location in a difficult-to-find residential section of a major metropolitan area with poor access from Interstate or other highways. This has meant that surviving spouses and families from southern Colorado 

sometimes have made the trip to visit their loved ones, but failed to find the Cemetery. 

Second, in Winter, it is especially difficult to get to Denver from Southern Colorado because of the Monument Hill geography, and the Palmer Divide weather patterns. These geographic and weather pattern hindrances make the Veterans Administration internal 75-mile rule a useless tool in the State of Colorado. The combination of the geography, weather patterns, and a foolish regulation serve only to assure that the Veterans and their families in the Pikes Peak Region and southern 

Colorado are not properly nor fairly served by Fort Logan. 

Third, the future Veteran demographics for Colorado will show that the Pikes 

Peak Region, with its six military installations are producing Veterans at a much 

faster rate than the remainder of Colorado, where only one small Air Force Base 

exists. Fort Carson, which is the Army’s most popular station of choice, is alone on 

track to grow to a military population over 30,000 soldiers. And when many, if not 

most of these local military complete their service, they remain in the area, which 

further accelerates the growth of the Veteran population here. We also find that a 

large number of military who were once stationed here, return here after military 

retirement. In short, our veteran population is growing at a much faster rate than 

the remainder of Colorado. 

Additionally, we find it interesting and somewhat incongruous that our large active-duty military population is not counted in the Veteran population numbers used 

to determine populations served by National Veterans Cemeteries. This is especially 

telling since approximately 400 of our local military have given their lives during 

the Global War on Terror. While some of these brave Americans were buried in 

their hometowns, many of them have been buried or inurned in our local civilian 

cemeteries. These active duty Americans need to be counted, and properly served 

by a National Veterans Cemetery in the Pikes Peak Region. 

So, what have we done to assure that a National Veterans Cemetery is established in the Pikes Peak Region? 

My colleagues and I have worked for the establishment of a National Veterans 

Cemetery in the Pikes Peak Region of Colorado for over ten years. In that time, we 

have solicited the backing of members of the House of Representatives including 

Congressmen Joel Hefley, Doug Lamborn, John Salazar, and the past and present 

Colorado Contingent. We have also received the backing of Senators Ben Nighthorse 

Campbell, Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar over these years. Additionally, we have 

the backing of County Commissions and City Councils from several counties and cities in southern Colorado, as well as the last two Governors of the State. We are 

supported by the Pueblo Veterans Council, The Pikes Peak Veterans Council, all of 

the Veterans Organizations in the surrounding five counties, and the United Veterans Committee of Colorado. 

We have made personal contact with, and have carried on letter-writing campaigns to the serving Secretaries of Veterans Affairs for these past ten years. To 

date, we do not consider any of the responses from the VA to be satisfactory. They 

appear mostly to be boiler plate responses, written to protect internal VA agendas. 

Politically, working in concert with our past and present elected Congressional 

and Senatorial representatives we have helped write and support House and Senate 

Bills which specifically address the establishment of a National Veterans Cemetery 

in the Pikes Peak Region to serve southern Colorado’s Veterans. The present House 

Bill, written by Congressmen Salazar and Lamborn passed in the House, and was 

sent to the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, where, much to our chagrin, neither the Senate Bill nor the House Bill have been stymied by Senator Akaka. Letter 

writing campaigns to him have not brought any results, as he has not responded 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

49 

to us, and has not placed the Bills on the Committee agenda for discussion and passage. 

Locally, we studied the VA regulations, we have performed due diligence studies 

regarding site selection, land requirements and acquisition, water and environmental requirements, we have done on-the-ground surveys of potential sites, and we 

have written a comprehensive plan entitled ‘‘A National Veterans Cemetery For The 

Pikes Peak Region’’. 

For your information and use, here is a copy of the 2008 Pikes Peak Veterans 

Cemetery Committee’s planning document. It contains color maps and photos of the 

various undeveloped sites, and most importantly a matrix (Figure 4.1) that contains 

the Committee’s ranking of the ten most viable sites. Our conclusions and recommendations are contained in section Five. The Appendices contain 2000 Census 

data, and the VA Fact Sheet on creating a Veterans Cemetery. 

All sites included in this plan are more than 75 miles from Fort Logan, however, 

if this requirement is waived to move the proposed cemetery closer to Denver, we 

would recommend it be sited along I–25 on the Air Force Academy. Of course, The 

Commanders of Fort Carson and The Air Force Academy are precluded from making 

any commitments to us concerning use of DoD land, but since it is already federally 

owned, we know a Veterans Cemetery established in the installation buffer zones 

can be authorized, and can be used to protect against encroachment on these military installations. 

Conclusion 

In order to provide sufficient burial space for Colorado’s Veterans in the future, 

and to fairly meet the needs of southern Colorado’s Veterans, plans for the Pikes 

Peak Veterans Cemetery must get underway immediately. Please do not wait until 

Ft. Logan is full before establishing a new Veterans Cemetery in Colorado. Use the 

plan we have already produced and provided to you as a starting point. And finally, 

please address the need to move the pending Bills for a Veteran Cemetery in the 

Pikes Peak Region through Senator Akaka’s Committee for Congressional passage. 

Thank you! 

f 

Prepared Statement of Bud Sailar, Director, 

El Paso County, CO, Veteran and Military Affairs 

Good afternoon Congressmen. My name is Bud Sailar and I am the Director of 

Veteran and Military Affairs for El Paso County, Colorado. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify and present the views of our local veterans and their concerns. Like many, we consider the National Cemeteries as memorials to veterans who preserved our freedom. 

The future Veteran demographics for Colorado will show that the Pikes Peak Region, with its six military installations are producing Veterans at a much faster rate 

than the remainder of Colorado, where only one small Air Force Base exists. Fort 

Carson, which is the army’s most popular station of choice, is alone on track to grow 

to a military population over 30,000 soldiers. And when many, if not most of these 

local military complete their service, they remain in the area, which further accelerates the growth of the Veteran population here. We also find that a large number 

of military who were once stationed here, return here after military retirement. In 

short, our veteran population is growing at a much faster rate than the remainder 

of Colorado. 

Additionally, we find it interesting and somewhat incongruous that our large active-duty military population is not counted in the Veteran population numbers used 

to determine populations served by National Veterans Cemeteries. This is especially 

telling since approximately 400 of our local military have given their lives during 

the Global War on Terror. While some of these brave Americans were buried in 

their hometown, many of them have been buried or inurned in our local civilian 

cemeteries. These active duty Americans need to be counted, and properly served 

by a National Veterans Cemetery in the Pikes Peak Region. 

Presently, over 100 burials per week are taking place at Fort Logan. During the 

next 22 years, according to VA data, there will be over 40,000 veteran deaths in 

the Southern Colorado area. Many of these veterans will not be honored in a National Cemetery because during the same 22 years, there will be over 90,000 veteran deaths in the Denver area alone. This will more than tax the cemetery at Fort 

Logan. 

f 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

50 

Prepared Statement of Tim Grabin, Department Commander, 

Department of Colorado, American Legion 

Mr Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for allowing The American Legion Department of Colorado to present 

its views on the VA Cemetery Construction Policy and whether it is meeting the 

needs of today’s Veterans and their families. 

I have enclosed a copy of the resolution adopted by our National organization as 

part of my written testimony that was passed by our National convention in Salt 

Lake City in August of 2006. This remains our current position on the burial allowances and burial plot allowances and the establishment of additional national and 

state veteran’s cemeteries. 

Specifically I would like to concentrate my remarks on the need for additional 

cemetery space in Colorado and hopefully in the Colorado Springs area serving veterans in the southern parts of Colorado and other areas not served by a national 

cemetery. 

The population of the State of Colorado continues to grow and new veterans and 

their families are a part of that growth. Historically, because of the numerous military establishments in the southern Colorado area, veterans return to Colorado 

after their tour of duty to retire or to make Colorado their new home because of 

the climate, environment and the strong military support systems in place. This 

trend has continued for many, many years and I don’t see that trend abating anytime soon. With the new veteran population growth will come the need for new cemetery space and the Southern Colorado area is the perfect place for a new cemetery 

establishment. 

I understand there is debate on whether a new cemetery would need to be a stand 

alone national cemetery with its own unique name and its own administration or 

a satellite of the Ft Logan Cemetery in Denver. As Department Commander of The 

American Legion I would like to put our organization on record as favoring the 

brand new concept and we would not favor the satellite concept. I do not believe 

that a satellite could or would adequately address the needs of the veteran or their 

family. For instance, during our winters in Colorado on many occasions Colorado 

Springs is separated and isolated from Denver because of inclement weather over 

Monument Hill. To count on the Ft Logan establishment to provide support services 

during those times would possibly delay or cancel services for those being intered. 

This would not be an acceptable outcome for our veteran heroes. All support services 

must be co-located within the new cemetery. 

As to the exact location we will leave that decision to the planners to determine 

the best location that will meet all of the provisions of the law and requirements 

for growth and space to provide the absolute best setting in terms of view, landscape 

and serenity for the final resting spot for America’s veterans but we are adamant 

that the location be south of Monument Hill and located so that the maximum number of veterans be served. 

In closing we want to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to express our 

views and we want to continue to be a part of the discussions and decisionmaking 

process. We stand ready as an organization of over 2.7 million veterans nationwide 

to put our strong voice behind your efforts. 

EIGHTY-EIGHTH NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION 

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 

AUGUST 29, 30, 31, 2006 

RESOLUTION NO.: 313 

SUBJECT: The American Legion Policy on the National Cemetery Administration 

Origin: Oregon 

Submitted by: Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation 

WHEREAS, The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Cemetery Administration (NCA) was established by Congress and approved by President Abraham 

Lincoln in 1862 to provide for the proper burial and registration of graves of Civil 

War dead; and 

WHEREAS, NCA is currently comprised of 123 national cemeteries in 39 states 

and Puerto Rico, as well as, 33 soldiers’ lots and monuments; and 

WHEREAS, More than 21⁄2 million Americans including veterans of every war 

and conflict are buried in VA’s national cemeteries; and 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

51 

WHEREAS, More than 25 million veterans and Reservists and National Guard 

members have earned the honor of burial in a national cemetery; and 

WHEREAS, Annual interments in national cemeteries have annually increased 

and are projected to increase for the next several years due to an aging veteran population; and 

WHEREAS, Appropriate land acquisition is a key component to providing continued accessibility to burial options; and 

WHEREAS, Operations, maintenance, renovation, and construction funding must 

continually be adjusted to reflect the true requirements of the National Cemetery 

Administration; and 

WHEREAS, NCA administers a program of grants to states to assist them in establishing or improving state-operated veterans cemeteries in locations where there 

are no nearby national cemeteries; and 

WHEREAS, In 2005, there were 61 operating state cemeteries that performed 

more than 200,000 interments; and 

WHEREAS, Congress must provide sufficient major construction appropriations to 

permit NCA to accomplish its stated goal of ensuring that burial in a national or 

state cemetery is a realistic option by locating cemeteries within 75 miles of ninety 

percent of all veterans; and 

WHEREAS, In addition to providing a grave site, NCA provides a headstone or 

marker, a Presidential Memorial certificate, a U.S. Flag, and perpetual care for the 

grave; and 

WHEREAS, The 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act eliminated the thenheadstone allowance of $85, which was paid to all eligible veterans in lieu of a government-provided headstone or marker and now directly provides a standard government headstone or grave marker to eligible veterans anywhere in the world; and 

WHEREAS, VA pays a burial allowance of $2,000 for veterans who die of servicerelated causes. For veterans who were receiving VA compensation or pension, VA 

pays $300 for burial and funeral expenses and $300 for a plot. The plot allowance 

would still be payable to state veterans cemeteries; and 

WHEREAS, If a veteran passes away in a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital, nursing home, or domiciliary, or in an institution at which the individual was 

receiving hospital or nursing care at the expense of the United States at the time 

of death, VA will pay for the cost of transporting the remains to the place of burial; 

however, a veteran who passes away in a State Veterans Home is not allowed transportation cost for the remains to the place of burial by VA; now, therefore, be it 

RESOLVED, By The American Legion in National Convention assembled 

in Salt Lake City, Utah, August 29, 30, 31, 2006, That The American Legion 

support the establishment of additional national and state veterans cemeteries and Columbaria wherever a need for them is apparent and petition 

Congress to provide required operations and construction funding to ensure VA burial in a national or state veterans cemetery is a realistic option 

for veterans and their eligible dependents; and, be it further 

RESOLVED, That The American Legion support restoration of a veterans 

burial allowance and an increase in the burial benefit; along with restoration of the pre-1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act criteria to provide 

eligibility for a government-furnished headstone or marker allowance and 

restoration of the burial plot allowance for all honorably discharged veterans; and, be it finally 

RESOLVED, That The American Legion support action to provide that 

when an eligible veteran dies in a state veterans hospital or nursing home, 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall pay for the cost of transporting the 

remains to the place of burial as determined by the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs. 

f 

Prepared Statement of C. Douglas Sterner, Past Chairman, 

Colorado State Board of Veterans Affairs 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before you today on behalf of my fellow veterans in Southern Colorado. 

On February 4, 1945, in heavy fighting in the Ardennes Forest during the Battle 

of the Bulge, Army Private Harold E. Hissong was killed in action. On learning of 

his sacrifice, half-a-world away in the small town of Somers, Montana, his mother 

Florence Hissong planted a tree in front of the entrance to her home overlooking 

the Flathead Lake. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

52 

Exactly five years later, nearly to the day, I was born in nearby Kalispell. In 

many ways I grew up alongside that tree, for I could not miss it every time I visited 

my grandmother. As a growing boy, each time I saw it, that tree stood always as 

a reminder not only of the uncle that I never knew, but of the great price of freedom 

and the responsibility passed on to every new generation to answer its own call to 

duty whenever the rights of free people are threatened anywhere in our world. 

When my day came I understood my duty, and was privileged to serve my Nation 

during two tours of duty in Vietnam. I was in no small part inspired by the lessons 

learned from a tree planted in honor of a dead American hero. 

I have come to learn and understand that memorials are NOT about those who 

went before; those who either individually or collectively are called to mind by such 

memorials. Rather, those memorials stand as an example, and as a beacon, to inspire and guide future generations of Americans. You see, the location of our Veterans cemeteries is not so much about the convenience with which we place our 

dead, as it is how convenient we make it for those who have lost a loved one to 

be constantly reminded, and inspired, by monuments reflecting their selfless service 

to America. 

The question before the Committee today is, ‘‘Is the VA Cemetery Construction Policy Meeting the Needs of Today’s Veterans and their Families?’’ I 

applaud the goal set forth by the VA in the last several years of locating suitable 

Veterans burial locations within 75 miles of their hometown. As a policy this echoes 

the ethos of the warrior that says, ‘‘I will never leave a comrade behind.’’ No matter 

where in the world brave young men and women in service to our Nation fall, they 

know that their comrades will do all in their power, to and including risking and 

even sacrificing their own life, to insure that every fallen hero will return home. 

For the soldier in the field, insuring that a fallen comrade is recovered and returned home is not predicated upon policies established within the constraints of 

budgets or convenience, it is a solemn obligation to those who served and sacrificed. 

As a nation, we have no less a solemn obligation to insure that the final resting 

place of our veterans be in close proximity to their home, not only out of some moral 

obligation, but also as a sign of respect to the living who remember them fondly. 

My hometown is Pueblo, Colorado, only 30 miles south of where we are meeting 

today. Though it is my adopted hometown, I have come to love it for a unique sharing of the values I hold dear. Fifteen years ago Pueblo was recognized by the U.S. 

Congress as America’s Home Of Heroes due that fact that at that time it was the 

only city in America to have four sons who were living recipients of our highest 

award for military valor, the Medal of Honor. 

It should not however, be surprising that Pueblo would produce four such heroes 

in three different wars over the span of only 24 years. Pueblo is the Home Of Heroes 

not only because of the four men who earned the Medal of Honor, but also because 

of the thousands of others who served with pride and patriotism when duty called. 

The 2000 census reflected that Pueblo, Colorado, numbered among the top five cities 

in America with populations over 100,000, in terms of the percentage of living World 

War II veterans. Such dedication to service is endemic to our community which believes strongly in duty, honor, country, and in the obligation to serve. In 1970 Pueblo comprised only 5% of our state’s population, yet during the Vietnam War of that 

period, Pueblo sons and daughters reflected nearly 10% of our state’s more than 600 

soldiers killed in action. Our city is today, in fact, home of the Colorado State Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Not only do the members of our community believe in personal service, we are committed to remembering all those who have served. 

Eight years ago two of our Medal of Honor recipients died within months of each 

other. Bill Crawford, who earned the Medal of Honor in World War II, was buried 

at the Air Force Academy cemetery, having established a relationship with that institution in the later years of his life when he worked there as a lowly but dedicated 

janitor. Colonel Carl Sitter who earned the Silver Star in World War II and the 

Medal of Honor in Korea, was buried at Arlington National Cemetery, where today 

383 other Medal of Honor recipients rest. 

Raymond G. ‘‘Jerry’’ Murphy was born and raised in Pueblo, and during the Korean war became the third Puebloan in less than ten years to earn the Medal of 

Honor. In later years he chose to live in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where he 

worked in the Veterans Administration to help other veterans. When Mr. Murphy 

became seriously ill a few years ago however, he returned home to Pueblo, to live 

in the Veterans Nursing Home there. 

On April 6, 2007, Jerry Murphy passed away in his hometown of Pueblo. Although funeral services were held in his hometown, Mr. Murphy was subsequently 

transported far south to the Santa Fe National Cemetery for burial. You see, there 

exists today no Veterans cemetery within 90 miles of Pueblo to insure that Mr. Murrfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

53 

1 Unless otherwise cited, all statistics are based upon the 2000 Census, as reported in ‘‘Veterans: 2000, Census Brief,’’ U.S. Census Bureau, Issued May 2003. 

phy or, for that matter Mr. Crawford or Mr. Sitter, could have returned home for 

their final journey. 

In point of fact, the VA Cemetery Construction Policy failed these three distinguished heroes, as well as the people of Pueblo who remember them fondly. It continues to fail the families of a city of more than 100,000 citizens, comprising one 

of the highest percentages of World War II veterans—and in fact a uniquely high 

percentage of veterans of all recent wars—who must travel more than 100 miles and 

navigate the traffic of Metropolitan Denver, to pay respects to loved ones buried at 

Fort Logan. 

Please consider the needs of our city as well as the entire Southern Colorado Region, remembering our obligation to our veterans and their families, and provide for 

a much-needed National Cemetery in our area so that our heroes will rest in peace 

and dignity where they belong—at home in Southern Colorado. 

This concludes my oral statement to the Committee. 

EXHIBITS 

VETERAN NUMBERS & STATISTICS1

As a state, Colorado veteran statistics rank within the median of the overall national numbers. Based upon on the 2000 Census, Colorado ranks 22d in the Nation 

in overall population and 21st nationally in the percentage of adults over age 18 

who are veterans of military service. Specifically, the 2000 Census counted a total 

civilian adult population in Colorado of 3,177,044, of which 446,385 were identified 

as Veterans. As such, Colorado veterans represent 16.5% of the state’s adult civilian 

population, a number that is 2% higher than the national average of 14.5%. 

The burial needs of Colorado’s active duty military personnel killed in the current 

Global War on Terrorism, as well as surviving veterans of wars past, are addressed 

primarily in three of four National or State Veterans Cemeteries as follows: 

COLORADO NATIONAL & STATE VETERANS CEMETERIES 

1. Fort Logan National Cemetery, located in the heart of metropolitan Denver, 

is the largest Veterans Cemetery in Colorado. Nearly 100,000 veterans have been 

buried at Fort Logan since 1889. 

NINE of Colorado’s ten largest cities lie within the 75-mile catchment area of Fort 

Logan, and SEVEN of these NINE comprise the Denver-Metropolitan area with a 

population of 11⁄2 million adult citizens. Two of these nine largest cities border the 

Fort Logan catchment area with Colorado Springs (the 2d largest Colorado City) 67 

miles from Fort Logan and Fort Collins (the 5th largest city) lying 721⁄2 miles from 

Fort Logan. This means that in all, nearly TWO MILLION Colorado citizens reside 

within the catchment area of Fort Logan which, by all estimates, based on current 

burial rates, will reach capacity by the year 2020. 

The southern Colorado city of Pueblo is the ONLY city in the state with a population greater than 100,000 that is totally outside Fort Logan’s catchment area at 

a driving distance of 111 miles from that site. 

2. Fort Lyons National Cemetery is the only other National Veterans Cemetery in Colorado. Located in the eastern plains, the nearest large city is Pueblo, 

which is 15 miles beyond the catchment area at 90.4 miles. Only 11 of Fort Lyons’ 

52 acres have been developed, providing burial for a total of 3,042 eligible veterans 

and family members. Through Fiscal Year 2007, Fort Lyons has buried 2,144 persons and, without expansion in the near future, that facility can accommodate fewer 

than 1,000 additional burials. That reality is critical in light of the fact that this 

is an area of our state that has one of the highest percentages of veterans among 

the population. 

3. The Veterans Memorial Cemetery of Western Colorado is one of two State 

Veterans Cemeteries located in Colorado. Opened in 2002, it adequately addresses 

veterans burial needs on Colorado’s Western Slope and, with a present capacity of 

more than 3,000 burials on the property’s 221⁄2 acres, it will be sufficient to meet 

the needs of Veterans and their families west of the Continental Divide for decades 

to come. Due to its far-west location however, the cemetery’s impact on areas of concern in today’s hearing are virtually nil. 

4. The Colorado State Veterans Center At Homelake is the only Veterans’ 

burial facility located entirely in the area defined as the Southern Colorado Region. 

The grounds of that facility are nearly full and it offers fewer than ten burial sites 

at the time of this hearing. The Homelake cemetery has virtually no current positive 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

54 

impact on addressing the future burial needs of veterans in the southern counties 

of Colorado. 

Figure 1—National & State Veterans Cemeteries in Colorado 

The three operational cemeteries accepting Veteran burials in Colorado are reflected above with the green circles denoting a catchment area with a 75 mile radius. The 29 counties defined in H.R. 1660 as comprising the ‘‘Southern Colorado 

Region’’ are within the area shaded red. 

Figure 1 clearly demonstrates that the city of Colorado Springs, our State’s second 

largest city, lies at the far edge of the catchment area for Fort Logan National Cemetery. Pueblo, our state’s ninth largest city, lies 15 miles outside the catchment area 

for Fort Lyon National Cemetery and 36 miles beyond the catchment area of Fort 

Logan. The desperate need for a national cemetery in this region becomes even more 

imperative in light of the demographics of these two cities, as well as that of the 

rural areas farther south and west. 

COLORADO VETERANS CORRIDOR 

The 2000 Census demonstrated that Colorado as a whole has a Veterans population 2% above the National average. Even more striking is a Veterans demographic for the geographical area that runs from Colorado Springs, south through 

Pueblo to the New Mexico border, and west into the Colorado Rocky Mountains. 

This area, comprising 9 of the 29 counties defined as the ‘‘Southern Colorado Region’’ were found in the 2000 count to have a veterans population far exceeding 

the national average. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.001
55 

Figure 2—Colorado Veterans Corridor 

Counties denoted above in light blue have Veterans populations significantly 

larger than the National average, and those counties shaded in the dark blue were 

found to have veterans populations one-and-a-half times the National average. 

This high proportion of veterans in Southern Colorado is further reflected in the statistics for the two largest cities in the Veterans’ Corridor. 

COLORADO SPRINGS VETERAN POPULATION 

The centennial count identified more than 50,000 veterans living in Colorado 

Springs (nearly 75,000 in El Paso County), a number which at that time indicated 

a veterans population comprising more than 20% of the total civilian adult population of Colorado’s second largest city. Of 250 American cities with a population 

in excess of 100,000, Colorado Springs ranked 5th in the Nation in terms of its percentage of veterans: 

Figure 3—Ten Major Cities with high Veteran Populations 

Ten Places of 100,000 or More With the Highest Percentage of Veterans 

in the Civilian Population Aged 18 and Over: 2000 (Data based on sample. For 

information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error and 

definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf) 

Place Number of 

veterans 

Percent of 

veterans 

90-percent 

confidence interval 

Hampton VA 28,312 27.1 26.5–27.8 

Clarksville, TN 15,319 24.4 23.7–25.1 

Fayetteville, NC 19,060 23.7 23.0–24.4 

Virginia Beach, VA 60,260 21.7 21.4–22.1 

Colorado Springs, CO 51,609 20.2 19.9–20.6 

Norfolk, VA 30,068 19.9 19.5–20.4 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.002
56 

Place Number of 

veterans 

Percent of 

veterans 

90-percent 

confidence interval 

Newport News, VA 24,021 19.9 19.4–20.4 

Columbus, GA* 24,984 19.6 19.1–20.1 

Chesapeake, VA 25,621 18.9 18.4–19.4 

Portsmouth, VA 12,955 18.4 17.8–19.1 

Among these same 250 major American cities: 

• Colorado Springs ranks 3rd in the Nation with the highest percentage (7.8%) 

of Vietnam War and Vietnam era veterans (20,011). 

• Colorado Springs ranks 8th in the Nation with the highest percentage (5.7%) 

of Gulf War veterans (14,650). 

Of further significance is a steady migration of retiring active duty military personnel into the Pikes Peak region, in no small part due to the location of the U.S. 

Air Force Academy, Fort Carson, and other military posts in the vicinity. At a time 

when the percentage of veterans is declining through attrition in most communities 

across the nation, Colorado Springs continues to experience an increasing number 

of military retirees that may, in fact, push the 2010 enumeration well above the already-high percentage revealed eight years ago. 

While northern El Paso County falls within the catchment area for the Fort Logan 

National Cemetery, southern El Paso County including the south side of Colorado 

Springs and popular military retirement areas at Fountain and Security outside 

Fort Carson are beyond the catchment area. Considering that the Fort Logan facility is already overburdened to meet the needs of eight of our State’s largest cities, 

including the Denver-Metropolitan Area, construction of a new National Veterans 

Cemetery south of Colorado Springs would both relieve pressure on the existing facility to the north, and provide a convenient and dignified burial location for the 

many families of Colorado Springs’ significant veterans population. 

PUEBLO VETERAN POPULATION 

Thirty miles south of Colorado Springs and well beyond the catchment area of 

Fort Logan and Fort Lyons National Cemeteries is the city of Pueblo, the only Colorado city with a population in excess of 100,000 residents that has no convenient 

Veterans cemetery. Pueblo is the ninth largest city in Colorado and ranks 242d in 

size among the 254 American cities with populations over 100,000. Pueblo is, however, a city whose populace has risen to the call of duty time and again in wars 

of the past, in far greater numbers than almost any other large city. 

Of the 254 largest American cities: 

• Pueblo ranks 4th in the Nation with the highest percentage (4.2%) of World 

War II veterans (3,201) 

• Pueblo ranks 9th in the Nation with the highest percentage (2.8%) of Korean 

war veterans (2,133). 

As a community the citizens of Pueblo have demonstrated not only an uncommon 

willingness to serve their Nation in time of war, but also an admirable sense of community pride in its sons and daughters currently on active duty, as well as its veterans of past wars. In 1993 Pueblo was recognized by the U.S. Congress as America’s Home Of Heroes due to the fact that is was the ONLY city in America with 

four living recipients of the Medal of Honor. This symbolizes a tradition of valor 

that extends far beyond these four distinguished hometown heroes; more than FIFTEEN Pueblo servicemen have received one of the military’s top two levels of 

awards, more than any Colorado city other than Denver. 

In honor of its Veterans, Pueblo is the site of one of only FOUR National Medal 

of Honor memorials, and is home to the Colorado State Vietnam War Memorial. 

Currently development is underway on Pueblo’s Historic Riverwalk Project for a 

Veterans Bridge to honor local veterans of all wars, as well as those who have 

served in peace time. 

The proudly patriotic citizenry of Pueblo, a city that was once described by a visiting Medal of Honor recipient as ‘‘The most patriotic city in America,’’ have no convenient and appropriate place to bury our dead among their comrades in arms. For 

the veterans who reside in America’s Home Of Heroes, and the surviving family 

members who have gone to uncommon efforts to ensure that their service is never 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

57 

forgotten, the VA Cemetery Construction Policy is NOT Meeting the Needs 

of Today’s Veterans and their Families. 

ENUMERATION 

Nine of the 29 Colorado counties identified as the ‘‘Southern Colorado Region’’ lie 

within the area I have defined herein as the Colorado Veterans Corridor (Figure 

2). Five of these nine counties have veteran populations well above the national 

average (12.7%), ranging from 18.9 to 21.8%. Based upon the 2000 Census, veterans number by county as follows: 

County Percent Male 

Under 64 

Male 

Over 64 

Female 

Under 64 

Female 

Over 64 

Total 

Veterans 

Custer County 21.8% 353 228 13 — 594 

El Paso County 21.4% 51,007 14,902 8,126 955 74,990 

Fremont County 21.3% 5,267 2,135 324 62 7,788 

Huerfano County 18.9% 661 483 35 17 1,196 

Teller County 19.9% 2,204 557 253 — 3,014 

21.0% 59,492 18,305 8,751 1,034 87,583 

The other four counties in this corridor have veteran populations of between 15.7– 

17.7% of the total adult civilian population. Those numbers are reflected as: 

County Percent Male 

Under 64 

Male 

Over 64 

Female 

Under 64 

Female 

Over 64 

Total 

Veterans 

Bent County 17.7% 504 283 18 3 808 

Crowley County 16.9% 581 167 10 — 758 

Las Animas Cty. 16.0% 1,030 733 67 14 1,844 

Otero County* 15.7% 1,352 680 92 15 2,139 

Pueblo County 16.7% 10,001 6,528 837 234 17,600 

16.6% 13,468 8,391 1,024 266 23,150 

*Otero County is NOT listed among the 29 counties comprising the Southern Colorado Region in H.R. 1660, 

but it IS surrounded on all sides by counties that are, and lies within the catchment area of the proposed National Cemetery. 

The remaining 20 counties defined as located within the Southern Colorado Region have an aggregate population of more than 350,000 adult civilians and a veteran population that averages 14.2% of the adult population. A total of 38,254 veterans were counted in these 20 counties in the 2000 census. 

Based upon this data, a total of 148,987 veterans would be directly impacted by 

location of a new Veterans Cemetery in southern Colorado. This exceeds the VA’s 

desired population impact by nearly 150%. More than 50,000 of these veterans enumerated above currently reside more than 100 miles from the nearest Veterans cemetery and a large number of those live more than 150 miles from the nearest such 

facility. 

OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE 

More than 16 million men and women served in military service during World 

War II, more than at any other period in our Nation’s history. Six decades after that 

war the Veterans Cemetery System has become strained by their burial needs. Veterans of that war continue to pass away in large numbers in a daily basis, further 

bringing our veterans cemeteries to capacity or near-capacity. 

In the year 2000 the World War II veteran population numbered 5.7 million, or 

21.7% of America’s veteran population. Those numbers were exceeded only by Vietnam War and Vietnam era veterans which numbered 8.4 million, comprising 31.7% 

of our Nation’s veteran population. The average age of these, our largest block of 

living veterans (those who served from 1964–1975) presently averages 61.3 years of 

age. Within a decade the Vietnam veterans, following closely behind the loss of 

nearly all of our World War II and our 4 million Korean war veterans, will be faced 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

58 

with Veterans cemeteries that have reached capacity and closed to further burial. 

This will be especially significant in the Southern Colorado Region which boasts one 

of the largest Vietnam veteran populations in America. As previously noted, Colorado Springs has the 3rd highest percentage of Vietnam Veterans of any of our 

country’s 250 largest cities. Other areas of Southern Colorado are also populated by 

large segments of the Vietnam War era veterans. (During that war the city of Pueblo lost 58 of its hometown heroes, a death toll numerically exceeded only by Denver. 

While comprising only 5% of Colorado’s total populace in 1970, Pueblo alone suffered 10% of the state’s Vietnam War casualties. Colorado Springs had the thirdhighest number of Vietnam War casualties, with 46 local heroes killed in that war.) 

CONCLUSIONS 

The need for a Veterans cemetery to serve the Southern Colorado Region is obvious. 

1. This region has proportionally one of the highest percentages of veterans in 

America. 

2. Both geographically and demographically, the vast majority of the veterans in 

this region and their families are located far beyond the catchment area of any 

existing veterans cemetery. 

3. Fort Logan National Cemetery, which borders a limited number of these affected areas is already addressing the demands of eight of Colorado’s ten largest cities and will likely reach capacity within little more than a decade. 

4. Establishment of a national Veterans Cemetery in the Southern Colorado Region is not only practical to addressing future capacity problems at Fort Logan 

and expansion and development at Fort Lyon, it is the RIGHT THING TO DO 

for a population that has answered the call to duty in admirable numbers. 

The VA’s goal of locating Veterans cemeteries within a 75-mile radius of a hero’s 

hometown, or that of the family which remembers and honors that veteran, is NOT 

being met for tens of thousands of military veterans in Southern Colorado. This can 

and should be addressed by construction of a national Veterans Cemetery in the 

Southern Colorado Region. 

Furthermore, there are few areas in America that better exemplify the stated vision of the National Cemetery Administration that: ‘‘Every national cemetery will be 

a place that inspires visitors to understand and appreciate the service and sacrifice 

of our Nation’s veterans.’’ 

The Pikes Peak region is not only inspirational with its high mountains and natural wonders, it is home to the U.S. Air Force Academy, the proud tradition of the 

‘‘Mountain Post’’ at Fort Carson, and many other facilities where young men and 

women continue a tradition of service that dates back to the Revolutionary War. 

The patriarch of Colorado Springs, William Jackson Palmer, was in fact a recipient 

of the Medal of Honor for his heroic leadership in the War Between the States, and 

chose regularly to reunite the men of his regiment at his mountain residence in the 

decades that followed the war. 

Pueblo has a history of service and valor that can be matched by few cities in 

America. In traditions of the G.A.R. following the War Between the States which 

inspired programs of reverence for our military veterans, Pueblo is home to multiple 

veterans memorials and regularly hosts public, patriotic programs to honor and remember our heroes. 

Florence, Colorado, just 30 miles south of Colorado Springs and 25 miles west of 

Pueblo is named for the wife of Navy Commodore Byron McCandless, a hero of 

World War I who later designed the Flag of our Commander in Chief, as well as 

the Presidential Seal. His son became one of the great heroes of World War II, earning the Medal of Honor, and his own son, Bruce McCandless, II, continued that tradition of service as a Naval Officer and NASA astronaut, becoming the first man 

to walk in space untethered. 

Such accounts of service, sacrifice, and heroism abound in the Southern Colorado 

Region, a largely rural area with deeply rooted traditions of military service. There 

can be few places so emotionally inspiring and few locations with more awe-inspiring landscape as this area of our Nation. 

Indeed as a veteran myself, I can think of few places I would rather someday lie 

than beneath the towering mountains from which more than a century ago Katharine Lee Bates looked down and, personally inspired by what she saw, penned the 

words that mean so much to every American veteran: 

f 

‘‘America the Beautiful.’’ 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

59 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeff Chostner, Colonel, USAF (Ret.), 

Commissioner, Pueblo County Board of Commissioners, Pueblo, CO 

Board of Pueblo County Commissioners, 

Pueblo, CO. 

May 1, 2008 

The Honorable John J. Hall 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

335 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Hall: 

I am writing to you with regard to the location of a Veterans Cemetery in the 

Southern Colorado region. I have been involved in this matter since 2003, as a 

former member of the Pueblo, Colorado, City Council, Chairman of the Greater 

Pueblo Chamber of Commerce Military Affairs Committee, President of the Air 

Force Association (Mel Harmon Chapter) and the American Legion. 

In my view it is imperative that a new Veterans Cemetery established in Southern Colorado—by that, I mean in a location south of the City of Colorado Springs, 

and preferably in Pueblo County. As you know the closest Veterans Cemetery is Ft. 

Logan National Cemetery, located in the Denver metro area. This is a fine facility 

and one of which we are all proud. However, it is my understanding that Ft. Logan 

is nearing capacity and there is a pressing need to establish another Veterans Cemetery, either as an adjunct to Ft. Logan or a new cemetery. I have also been informed that there are different Veterans Administration regulations based on the 

status of the cemetery. Under either criteria, however, we were dismayed to learn 

that the Veterans Administration has recommended a veterans cemetery between 

Colorado Springs and Denver. None of the participants to the discussion of location 

envisioned a cemetery north of Colorado Springs; all believed it should be south of 

Colorado Springs. 

I would urge that you review the current Veterans Administration’s regulations 

regarding status of Veteran Cemeteries and how said status defines the geographical areas in which they may be placed. In my view, the current regulations 

do not sufficiently take into account location of other existing veteran cemeteries 

and the ability of other concentrations of veterans to avail themselves of the right 

to burial in a national cemetery. 

This discrepancy is most apparent in the matter before your sub-Committee, in 

that the next closest Veterans Cemetery is in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The distance 

between Ft. Logan and the Santa Fe cemetery is approximately 400 miles. Yet instead of proposing a cemetery that would either be more geographically central to 

the area, or closer for other veterans in the region, the Veterans Administration recommends a new cemetery in close proximity to the existing one. While it will provide more capacity, it does not allow for more convenience or availability to the regions veterans. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the Committee, and look forward to 

discussing the matter further on May 2, 2008, in Colorado Springs. 

Sincerely, 

Colonel J. E. Chostner, USAF (Ret.) 

f 

Commissioner 

Prepared Statement of Hon. William F. Tuerk, 

Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, National Cemetery Administration, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today on VA’s national cemetery construction policy and how the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) is working with Congress 

to meet veterans’ and their families’ burial needs, an issue of great interest to Colorado veterans. 

One of NCA’s four statutory missions under title 38, United States Code, is to provide burial for eligible veterans and their eligible dependents, and to maintain those 

places of burial as national shrines. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

60 

NCA currently maintains more than 2.8 million gravesites at 125 national cemeteries in 39 States and Puerto Rico, as well as 33 soldiers’ lots and monument sites. 

Since 1973, when Congress created a National Cemetery System under the jurisdiction of VA, annual interments in VA national cemeteries have almost tripled from 

36,400 to about 100,200 in FY 2007. (We expect to perform nearly 103,000 interments in 2008, a 2.3 percent increase over the number performed in 2007.) Additionally, 69 State veterans cemeteries funded under the State Cemetery Grants Program are operated in 35 States, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

NCA is experiencing an unparalleled expansion that will help to ensure veterans 

are served with a burial option in a national or State veterans cemetery within a 

reasonable distance of their home. The Veterans Millennium Healthcare and Benefits Act of 1999 mandated reports that have served as valuable tools for the Department by providing data for use in our planning processes. Armed with the data generated by these reports, we have been able to plan effectively to meet the burial 

needs of veterans. 

We seek to maintain the highest level of service to our veterans. VA’s goal is to 

increase service delivery by providing more veterans with reasonable access to a 

burial option (whether for casketed or cremated remains) in a national or State veterans cemetery within 75 miles of their residence. VA’s current policy is to locate 

national cemeteries in areas with the largest concentration of unserved veterans. VA 

and Congress have determined that new national cemeteries will be established in 

areas with an unserved veteran population threshold of 170,000 within a 75-mile 

service radius. This policy has enabled VA to focus resources on serving areas in 

which high concentrations of veterans do not have access to a burial option. 

Currently, over 83 percent of all veterans in the Nation reside within a 75-mile 

radius of a national or State veterans cemetery. NCA intends to increase the percentage of veterans served to 90 percent by FY 2010. Strategic initiatives are in 

place to meet this goal. They are: 

• Establishment of additional national cemeteries in unserved areas; 

• Expansion of existing national cemeteries to provide continued service; and 

• Establishment or expansion of State veterans cemeteries through the State 

Cemetery Grants Program. 

Future Burial Needs, Volume 1 of the Millennium Act report, completed in 2002, 

is the most recent demographic study to assist the National Cemetery Administration in its long-range planning. This report assessed the number of additional cemeteries needed to ensure that 90 percent of veterans live within 75 miles of a national 

or State veterans cemetery, and identified 31 locations with the greatest concentration of unmet need for burial spaces. In June 2003, VA transmitted to Congress revised veteran population estimates, based on 2000 United States Census data, for 

all locations identified in the report. From these two listings, 12 locations were identified as having the greatest number of veterans with unserved burial need; all met 

VA’s veteran population threshold of 170,000 for planning new national cemeteries. 

Public Law 106–117 and Public Law 108–109, in tandem, mandated that NCA construct new national cemeteries in locations identified as having the greatest need. 

These locations included Atlanta, Georgia; Detroit, Michigan; Ft. Sill (Oklahoma 

City), Oklahoma; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Sacramento, California; south Florida 

(Miami); Bakersfield, California; Birmingham, Alabama; Columbia/Greenville, South 

Carolina; Jacksonville, Florida; Southeastern Pennsylvania; and Sarasota County, 

Florida. 

Currently, Colorado has two national cemeteries, Ft. Logan and Ft. Lyon National 

Cemeteries, and one VA-funded State veterans cemetery, Veterans Memorial Cemetery of Western Colorado in Grand Junction. The vast majority of veterans who reside in the Colorado Springs area are currently served by either Ft. Logan National 

Cemetery or Ft. Lyon National Cemetery. Currently, NCA projects that Ft. Logan 

National Cemetery will have casket and cremation burial space available until approximately 2019. Unfortunately, there is no land contiguous to the existing cemetery to purchase for future gravesite development. Ft. Lyon National Cemetery will 

have casket and cremation burial space available beyond 2030. 

As I testified this February before the full House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, the 

Denver and Colorado Springs area currently served by Ft. Logan National Cemetery 

has a significant number of veterans, well beyond our 170,000 criterion. It appears 

that Ft. Logan National Cemetery is one of the next large cemeteries that will reach 

capacity on its current acreage. If our FY 2009 budget request is approved, we will 

be able to undertake a new expedited land acquisition process. That new process 

will greatly assist us in providing a successor cemetery to Ft. Logan National Cemerfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

61 

tery and ensuring there will not be a lapse in service for the veterans in the Denver/ 

Colorado Springs area. 

The cost of establishing a new cemetery is considerable. Based on recent experience, the cost for establishing new national cemeteries ranges from $500,000 to 

$750,000 for environmental compliance requirements; $1 million to $2 million for 

master planning and design; $1 million to $2 million for construction document 

preparation; $5 million to $10 million for land acquisition, if required; and $20 million to $30 million for construction. The average annual cost for operating a new 

national cemetery ranges from $1 million to $2 million. Until Ft. Logan National 

Cemetery can no longer meet the burial needs of the region, all veterans residing 

within 75 miles are considered served, and VA national cemetery resources will be 

directed to planning a successor national cemetery. 

The State Cemetery Grants Program, vital to achieving NCA’s burial access goal 

and permitting NCA to meet the needs of veterans in less populated areas where 

the concentration of veterans cannot meet NCA’s criterion for the establishment of 

a national cemetery, can provide additional burial options for Colorado veterans. 

Through this program, VA may provide up to 100 percent of the cost of improvements in establishing a State veterans cemetery, including the cost of initial equipment to operate the cemetery. VA worked with Colorado officials in providing more 

than $6 million to establish the State veterans cemetery in Grand Junction and 

would be pleased to assist the State in exploring this option for the Colorado 

Springs region. 

As the National Cemetery Administration proceeds with construction of the last 

6 of the 12 new national cemeteries mandated by Congress, and as it continues to 

provide grants to the States for construction of State veterans cemeteries, we believe 

it is time to reassess current policies and to think strategically about how we will 

meet the needs of veterans in the future. To do this, VA has commissioned an independent program evaluation of all burial benefits. The evaluation will address 

issues such as: 

• Assessment of VA’s current access policies to include the 75-mile service area 

standard; 

• Adequacy of the 170,000 veteran population threshold for planning new national cemeteries; and 

• Factors influencing veterans’ burial choices such as cremation-only burial sites, 

mausoleums, distance and driving time to a national or State cemetery, family 

practices, religious affiliation and generational differences. 

Following receipt of the report, the Secretary will assess current planning practices and recommend any new strategic goals, policy direction, and planning standards that will position the Department to continue to meet veterans’ burial needs 

in the future. We will be pleased to share this program evaluation study with the 

Congress this summer. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to share with you an overview of NCA’s 

cemetery construction policy and efforts. I look forward to working with the members of this Subcommittee as we jointly meet the burial needs of the veterans we 

are trusted to serve. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

f 

Statement of Hon. Mark Udall, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, thank you for 

holding this hearing to discuss the VA National Cemetery Administration’s policies 

for providing the respectful final resting places that our veterans so deserve. I regret that a conflict in scheduling makes it impossible for me to attend this field 

hearing and express my appreciation and concerns in person. 

In three weeks, we will honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defending 

our Nation, as we celebrate Memorial Day weekend. On that weekend, friends and 

family members of our departed veterans will visit VA cemeteries throughout the 

country to honor the memory of their loved ones. Unfortunately, far too many family 

members will have to travel far too many miles to pay their respects. Even worse, 

the long distance that some veterans’ survivors must travel will prevent them from 

making the trip at all. 

It is particularly appropriate that this field hearing is being held in Colorado 

Springs. Southern Colorado’s population features one of the highest concentrations 

of veterans in the nation, yet the vast majority of veterans in southern Colorado are 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

62 

located far outside a 75-mile radius of the nearest VA cemeteries, Fort Logan National Cemetery in Denver and Fort Lyon National Cemetery in Bent County. 

For nearly a decade, it has been a goal of the Pikes Peak Veterans Cemetery 

Committee, as well as the Department of Colorado Veterans of Foreign Wars, the 

Colorado chapters of the American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and 

the Association for Service Disabled Veterans, to bring a National Cemetery to El 

Paso County. Last year, my colleague in the Colorado delegation, Representative 

John Salazar, introduced legislation that would address this issue. It was my honor 

to join Ranking Member Lamborn and our fellow Colorado Representatives Ed 

Perlmutter, Diana DeGette and Marilyn Musgrave in cosponsoring Congressman 

Salazar’s bill. 

That bill, H.R. 1660, passed the House of Representatives unanimously by voice 

vote, highlighting the support southern Colorado veterans have received from the 

entire Nation for the establishment of a VA cemetery in El Paso County. Unfortunately, this bill has seen no legislative action in the Senate. Hopefully, this hearing 

will raise awareness of the need for a new national cemetery for southern Colorado, 

so that we can ensure all of our veterans receive the recognition they deserve with 

a final resting place close to their own communities. 

Again, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, thank you for holding this hearing and addressing the concerns of our Nation’s honorable veterans. 

f 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

63 

A NATIONAL VETERANS CEMETERY FOR THE PIKES PEAK REGION 

A REPORT ON THE PIKES PEAK REGION VETERANS’ CEMETERY 

PROJECT 

Prepared For: The Pikes Peak Veterans’ Cemetery Committee 

Acknowledgements: Technical assistance provided by the Integrated 

Resources Division, Colorado Springs Utilities 

Authorization to use extracts from the Eastern El Paso County map sheet 

provided by MACVAN, The Map Company, 929 West Colorado Avenue, 

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80905 

‘‘It’s all for the Veterans’’ 

October 2007 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Section 1—Introduction ...................................................................................... 65 

1.1 General ........................................................................................................ 65 

1.2 Background ................................................................................................. 65 

Section 2—Regional Demographic Profile ..................................................... 66 

2.1 General ........................................................................................................ 66 

2.2 Data Baseline ............................................................................................. 66 

2.3 Potential for Growth .................................................................................. 67 

2.4 Summary ..................................................................................................... 67 

Section 3—Creating a National Cemetery ..................................................... 67 

3.1 General ........................................................................................................ 67 

3.2 Site Selection .............................................................................................. 68 

3.3 Environmental Assessment ....................................................................... 68 

3.4 Land Acquisition ........................................................................................ 68 

3.5 Master Planning and Design Development .............................................. 68 

3.6 Contract Document Preparation ............................................................... 68 

3.7 Construction Award and Completion ........................................................ 68 

3.8 The Committee’s Role in the Creation Process ........................................ 68 

3.9 Summary ..................................................................................................... 69 

Section 4—Potential Cemetery Sites ............................................................... 69 

4.1 General ........................................................................................................ 69 

4.2 Cheyenne Mountain State Park (Site 1) .................................................. 75 

4.3 Nixon Power Plant, East Side of I–25 (Site 2) ......................................... 75 

4.4 Nixon Power Plant, West Side of I–25 (Site 3) ........................................ 77 

4.5 East Boundary of Fort Carson (Site 4) ..................................................... 78 

4.6 Entrance to Turkey Creek Recreation Area (Site 5) ............................... 79 

4.7 RMK Ranch (Site 6) ................................................................................... 81 

4.8 Pueblo Chemical Depot (Site 7) ................................................................. 83 

4.9 Kane Ranch (Site 8) ................................................................................... 84 

4.10 BLM Land (Site 9) .................................................................................... 85 

4.11 Brush Hollow Reservoir (Site 10) ............................................................ 87 

4.12 Summary ................................................................................................... 88 

Section 5—Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................... 88 

5.1 General ........................................................................................................ 88 

5.2 The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Position ......................................... 88 

5.3 Counter Arguments to the DVA Guidelines ............................................. 89 

5.4 Grass Roots Level Actions ......................................................................... 89 

5.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................. 90 

5.6 Recommendations ....................................................................................... 90 

Tables 

Table 1.1 Advocates for a Regional VA Cemetery ................................................. 66 

Table 2.1 35-County Veteran Population Data ..................................................... 67 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

64 

Figures 

Figure 4.1—Cemetery Site Evaluation and Ranking Procedure ......................... 71 

Figure 4.2—Proposed Site #1, Cheyenne Mountain State Park .......................... 75 

Figure 4.3—Proposed Site #2, Nixon Power Plant, East of I–25 ......................... 76 

Figure 4.4—Proposed Site #3, Nixon Power Plant, West of I–25 ........................ 78 

Figure 4.5—Proposed Site #4, East Boundary of Fort Carson ............................ 79 

Figure 4.6—Proposed Site #5, Entrance to Turkey Creek Recreation Area ....... 81 

Figure 4.7—Proposed Site #6, RMK Ranch ........................................................... 82 

Figure 4.8—Proposed Site #7, Pueblo Chemical Depot ........................................ 84 

Figure 4.9—Proposed Site #8, Kane Ranch ........................................................... 85 

Figure 4.10—Proposed Site #9, BLM Land ........................................................... 87 

Figure 4.11—Proposed Site #10, Brush Hollow Reservoir ................................... 88 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

65 

Section 1 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 General 

A cemetery for veterans does not appear magically just because of popular demand or because of a demonstrated need for one. Rather, such a cemetery, whether 

funded by the U.S. Government or the state government, will be established only 

after many hours and often many years of diligent work by dedicated individuals 

willing to devote their time, energy and frequently their personal funds to completion of the project. The report which follows provides an account of work by a committee of concerned veterans, working through and with their elected representatives, to secure a National Veterans Cemetery for the Pikes Peak region. 

The purpose of this report is to: 

• Present a review of the work which has been accomplished to obtain a veterans 

cemetery in the Pikes Peak Region 

• Inform and obtain the support of the general public and other interested parties 

and organizations of the need for such a cemetery 

• Identify tasks that must be accomplished in preparation for establishment of a 

veterans cemetery in the Pikes Peak Region 

Note: The term, ‘‘Pikes Peak Region’’ as used throughout this report refers to the 

35 counties located in what can be described in general terms as the southeast 

quadrant of the State of Colorado. 

1.2 Background 

The origin of the idea for a veterans’ cemetery in the Pikes Peak Region can be 

traced to LTG Forester, a former commander of Fort Carson, who raised the issue 

during the 1990–1991 timeframe. Further interest in the idea was expressed during 

the mid and late 1990s, within the local chapter of the Military Officers Association 

of America (MOAA) and The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA). Subsequently, 

both Senator Allard and Representative Hefley introduced bills in their respective 

houses of Congress seeking a National Veterans Cemetery in the Colorado Springs 

area. Action on both bills ended in 2000, however, when the Veterans Administration announced there were requests for six other cemeteries across the United 

States considered to be more essential as well as being mandated by the Congress. 

1.3 Recent Congressional Actions 

Representative Hefley with other members of the Colorado congressional delegation introduced a new bill (H.R. 4907) on March 8, 2006, to direct the Secretary of 

the Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery for veterans in the Pikes Peak 

Region. Senators Allard and Salazar introduced a similar bill in the Senate (S. 

2387) 

Senator Salazar has written a number of letters to the Department of Veterans 

Affairs setting forth his support for a regional veterans’ cemetery. His first letter, 

in April 2005, gave reasons for questioning the relevancy of the VA’s objections in 

2000 to establishment of a regional cemetery. Subsequently, Senator Salazar wrote 

to the VA Undersecretary for Memorial Affairs and cited a number of unique factors 

that should be addressed by VA guidelines for placing veterans’ cemeteries. These 

unique factors, as they pertain to the Pikes Peak Region, include: 

• Future Growth: The current VA guideline sets a threshold population of 

170,000 veterans in a region to create a new cemetery. This guideline does not 

account for the future growth, which should include projected troop increases 

at Fort Carson, which is likely to grow larger in coming years. Growth projections create a different picture of the military and veterans’ presence in the 

Pikes Peak Region than does VA’s most recent evaluation. 

• Travel Time vs. Travel Distance: Colorado Springs is within 75 miles of Denver (straight line distance) but due to traffic it can take more than two hours 

to travel between the two cities. VA guidelines should reflect such considerations. 

• Cultural Realities of Colorado: Even though Denver and Colorado Springs 

are relatively close geographically the community of Colorado Springs is the 

‘‘center of gravity’’ for military and veterans affairs within the state and represents the people and communities of southern and southeastern parts of Colorado together with counties in the San Luis Valley, the Arkansas River Region 

and the Eastern Plains. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

66 

1Statement by Congressman Joel Hefley, R–CO, to the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee 

on June 23, 2005 2Military Facts for Fiscal Year 2005, by the Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, 

2005 

Project Coordination and Support 

Concurrent with meeting and discussions with Members of Congress, the Department of Veterans Affairs and officials at the State and local levels, members of the 

Committee have worked to enlist the support of other veterans’ organizations as 

well as civic organizations in the civilian community. These organizations are listed 

at Table 1.1, below. 

Table 1.1—Advocates for a Regional VA Cemetery 

Colorado Congressional Delegation 

The Colorado Board of Veterans Affairs 

The United Veterans Committee of Colorado 

El Paso County Commissioners 

Fremont County Commissioners 

Colorado Springs City Council 

Pueblo City Council 

City of Fountain City Council 

The Military Affairs Council of the Colorado Springs 

Chamber of Commerce 

Fort Carson Encroachment Committee 

Military Officers Association of America 

Chapter One of the Retired Enlisted Association 

The Armed Forces Top Enlisted Association 

Pikes Peak Veterans Council (with 41 member organizations) 

Pueblo Veterans Council (with over 12 member organizations) 

Section 2 

REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 

2.1 General 

In a statement to the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs former Congressman 

Joel Hefley observed that demographics are the primary driver in determining the 

scope and level of investments at the National Cemetery Administration level. In 

looking to the future, veteran deaths will peak in 2008 at 676,000 with a slow decline thereafter to an estimated 672,000 veteran deaths in 2010. Concurrently, annual internments can be expected to increase from 93,000 in 2004 to approximately 

114,700 in 2010 as new national cemeteries are established. 1

2.2 Data Baseline 

Accepting the validity of Congressman Hefley’s comment that demographics are 

the primary driver in determining the scope and level of investments at National 

Cemetery Administration facilities, a review of the demographic data pertaining to 

the 35-county region’s veteran population is warranted. The principal source of data 

for this examination is the year 2000 U.S. Government census report for Colorado. 

As tabulated on Table 2.1, below, there were 155,501 veterans in the 35-county region in the year 2000. 

Under existing Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) guidelines a population of 

170,000 veterans in a region is required to justify creation of a new cemetery. From 

the population data, above, the number of veterans in the region as of the year 2000 

was not sufficient for such a project. However, DVA guidelines do not account for 

future growth, which, in the case of the Pikes Peak Region is quite likely to continue for the foreseeable future. 

The most significant factor contributing to continuation of the population increase 

is the presence of the large military population assigned to Fort Carson, Peterson 

Air Force Base, Schriever Air Force Base, Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station 

and the Air Force Academy. These installations are home to about 33,000 active 

duty military personnel with an estimated increase of another 5,000 soldiers at Fort 

Carson within the next two years—according to recent estimates. 2

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

67 

3 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Census 1990 vs. Census 2000 Veteran Population In 

the U.S. and Puerto Rico 

Table 2.1—35-County Veteran Population Data* 

County Name Number of 

Veterans County Name Number of Veterans County Name Number of Veterans 

Alamosa 1,280 Fremont 7,788 Montrose 3,936 

Archuleta 1,205 Gunnison 1,150 Otero 2,339 

Baca 462 Hinsdale 78 Ouray 471 

Chaffee 2,238 Huerfano 1,176 Park 2,126 

Cheyenne 191 Kiowa 159 Pitkin 1,113 

Conejos 750 Kit Carson 817 Prowers 1,037 

Costilla 394 La Plata 4,290 Pueblo 17,600 

Crowley 758 Las Animas 1,844 Saguache 550 

Custer 594 Lincoln 736 San Juan 88 

Delta 3,832 Mesa 14,908 San Miguel 478 

Dolores 217 Mineral 115 Teller 3,014 

El Paso 74,992 Montezuma 2,775 — —

Total Vets 86,913 Total Vets 35,836 Total Vets 32,752 

Grand Total 

Veterans 

155,501 

* Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran Data, Census 2000, Colorado by County & Period of 

Service. 

2.3 Potential for Growth 

A comparison of the Census 1990 veteran population with the Census 2000 data 

for the State of Colorado shows an 8.9% increase in the total number of veterans 

during that ten year period (409,932 veterans growing by 36,453 to 446,385 veterans). Using this same growth data and assuming the number of veterans in the 

35-county region will increase at the same rate it is possible to estimate the regional 

veteran population by the year 2010, namely, 155,501 veterans in 2000 multiplied 

by 1.089% equates to 169,340 in 2010 which is within a few hundred individuals 

of the 170,000 veteran threshold required under the DVA guidelines. 3 (See Appendix A for Bureau of the Census population data) 

2.4 Summary 

This examination of the potential for growth within the Pikes Peak Region was 

conducted to provide an estimate of the veteran population at the end of the 2000– 

2010 decade. With an assumed continuation of the 8.9 percent growth rate experienced within Colorado during the previous ten-year period, a regional population of 

169,000 + veterans can be projected realistically. 

Section 3 

CREATING A NATIONAL CEMETERY 

3.1 General 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) creates a new national cemetery 

through a six-step process with each step requiring that congressionally approved 

funds be available. The general process which is provided in a DVA Public and 

Intergovernmental Affairs fact sheet will be summarized in this section (A copy of 

the fact sheet is at Appendix B). 

This summary provides an overview of the different steps with the purpose being 

to promote an understanding of the process with emphasis upon the relationship between the activities of the Pikes Peak Veterans Cemetery Committee and other government agencies. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

68 

4 Fact Sheet: How a VA National Cemetery is Created, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, April 2005 The assessment must result in 

a finding of no significant impact for the site to be considered. Upon receipt of a positive finding, 

the VA makes the results available to the public for a 30-day comment period. After the comment period VA officials make a recommendation to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs who decides whether to acquire the property. 

The six steps consist of: site selection, environmental assessment, land acquisition, master planning and design development, preparation of construction documents and, lastly, the actual construction. 

3.2 Site Selection 

The process begins with identification of a geographic area with a large veteran 

population unserved by a national or state cemetery. Size of the cemetery and the 

number of gravesites will be determined by demographic forecasts. Criteria for site 

selection include: accessibility, available utilities and water, surrounding land use, 

soil topography and shape, aesthetics in terms of appearance and restrictions to development and other factors such as the presence of endangered species and mineral 

rights or easements. Two to five sites are identified. 

3.3 Environmental Assessment 

An environmental assessment document must be prepared for the selected site to 

ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 4

3.4 Land Acquisition 

Land can be acquired by donation, by purchase or through transfer of federal or 

state land to the VA. The value for land which is purchased is established through 

a real-property appraisal. The Department of Justice reviews all of the related real 

property documentation to ensure the contract and title meet requirements for legal 

transfer of the property. 

3.5 Master Planning and Design Development 

After the VA takes title to the land, contract bids are solicited for design of the 

new cemetery. The winning contractor prepares a master plan for development of 

all phases of the cemetery which is followed by more detailed designs for the separate phases of construction. The first phase usually includes the first active burial 

section with the necessary infrastructure for operation of the cemetery. The later 

phases of construction typically include new burial sections, with associated infrastructure, designed to provide burial space for ten years. 

3.6 Contract Document Preparation 

Under a second negotiated contact the contractor prepares plans and specifications that detail all aspects of the phase-one construction; e.g., active burial sections, 

administrative and maintenance buildings, a public information center, committal 

shelters and roads. The documents provide the basis for project construction bids. 

3.7 Construction Award and Completion 

Following completion of the first five steps in the process the VA solicits bids and 

awards a contract for construction of the new cemetery. This process usually takes 

about four months but the actual construction of Phase 1 takes approximately 24 

months. In fact, to complete each phase, land purchases and construction will require multiple congressional appropriations over several years’ budgets. 

Beginning with selection of the site, through the environmental assessment, master planning, design and Phase 1 construction steps, the process requires about five 

years for completion. The follow-on phases of construction will occur over a period 

of many years driven to a large degree by the requirements for burials. 

3.8 The Committee’s Role in the Creation Process 

Although the Committee does not have an official standing in the sense that its 

actions represent the position of or are conducted under the authority of a legally 

constituted organization it does, however, have a role in the creation of a new cemetery by virtue of its contacts with Members of Congress, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, state and local governments, the regional veterans groups 

and the public at large. There are at least three areas in which the Committee 

serves actively in its role as a voice for the regional veterans—individually and collectively. 

• The first area in which the Committee has played and continues to play a significant role in the DVA’s six-step process lies in the identification of an area 

with a large veteran population unserved (perhaps inadequately served) by a 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

69 

state or national cemetery. The Committee’s principal reason for organizing was 

to focus the attention of the DVA and the Colorado congressional delegation on 

the need for a veterans’ cemetery in the Pikes Peak Region. 

• The second area in which the Committee plays a role in the process is through 

its contacts with the Colorado congressional delegation. As indicated in Section 

1, members of the Committee have been quite persuasive in discussions with 

members of congress regarding the need for action at the congressional level to 

introduce the bills necessary to obtain the proper funding. 

• The third area in which the Committee has been active is the identification and 

survey of potential sites for a cemetery. These surveys have been successful in 

locating sites with the physical characteristics required by the DVA. The next 

section will provide the results of the Committee’s surveys. 

3.9 Summary 

The summarization of the DVA’s six-step process in creating a national cemetery 

was provided to promote an appreciation for the activities and events that must 

take place before a cemetery is fully functional. It is evident from the review of the 

process that: (a) creation of a National cemetery will require several years and (b) 

at each step funding must be provided. 

Section 4 

POTENTIAL CEMETERY SITES 

4.1 General 

In addition to their meetings, briefings and discussions regarding the cemetery, 

members of the Committee have also been involved in researching information associated with the physical attributes of the cemetery while locating and visiting potential sites. Committee members gave particular attention to the factors listed below 

during the site surveys. 

• Location: The location should be outside the 75 mile radius from the Fort 

Logan National Cemetery and be accessible from Interstate 25 or one of the primary state highways. Land for the site should be on state or federal property 

or on property that could be obtained through donation, land-swap or outright 

purchase. 

• Acreage Requirements: Using the standards established by the DVA for fifty 

or more years of burials, the requirement for a veterans cemetery in the Pikes 

Peak Region would be 200–250 acres. The surveyed sites met or have the capacity for exceeding the acreage requirement. 

• Water Requirements: Based upon calculations provided by the Colorado 

Springs Utilities office, using an estimate of 50-acre additions every ten years, 

the calculations indicated a requirement of approximately 18 acre-feet per 50 

acres per year. 

• Other Factors: During the surveys the topography and the aesthetics of each 

site were considered in terms of suitability for use as a cemetery. The feasibility 

of using the site was also noted but no definitive information was developed at 

the time. 

Ten potential sites have been identified and a general survey of each site was conducted. The results of the individual surveys, together with the related graphic illustrations, follow. There is no particular priority to the order in which the sites are 

presented. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

70 

Area map of potential cemetery sites 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.101
Figure 4.1—Cemetery Site Evaluation and Ranking Procedure 

Required 

Feature 

Cheyenne 

Mt State 

Park 

Nixon Pwr 

Plant E of 

I–25 

Nixon Pwr 

Plant W of 

I–25 

East Side 

Fort Carson 

Entrance 

to Turkey 

Creek RA 

RMK 

Ranch 

Pueblo 

Chemical 

Depot 

Kane 

Ranch BLM Land 

Water supply 1 4 5 5 1 4 5 5 4 1 Access To Site 2 5 3 4 1 5 1 3 4 3 On-site Acreage 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 1 Land Ownership 4 5 4 3 1 4 2 5 5 5 Topography 5 4 3 3 2 5 4 5 5 1 Aesthetics 6 5 4 1 1 4 3 3 4 1 Feasibility 7 5 4 2 3 4 3 3 5 3 Total Score 32 27 22 13 30 21 29 31 15 

Notes: 1. Figure 4.1.1 Cemetery Site Ranking Procedure—Water 2. Figure 4.1.2 Cemetery Site Ranking Procedure—Accessibility 3. Figure 4.1.3 Cemetery Site Ranking Procedure—Acreage 4. Figure 4.1.4 Cemetery Site Ranking Procedure—Land Ownership 5. Figure 4.1.5 Cemetery Site Ranking Procedure—Topography 6. Figure 4.1.6 Cemetery Site Ranking Procedure—Aesthetics 7. Figure 4.1.7 Cemetery Site Ranking Procedure—Feasibility 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
72 

Figure 4.1.1—Cemetery Site Ranking Procedure—Water 

Criteria: Water availability 

Ranking Position: 

5—Available on-site in quantity required by DVA. Dependability of supply has 

been determined and confirmed. 

4—Available on-site in quantity required by DVA but dependability of supply has 

not been confirmed. 

3—Available on-site but quantity and dependability of supply must be determined. 

2—Not currently available on-site but evidence indicates a supply can be provided 

from an offsite source. 

1—Not available on-site. Whether an adequate supply can be provided from an 

on or offsite source must be determined. 

Figure 4.1.2—Cemetery Site Ranking Procedure—Accessibility 

Criteria: Accessibility 

Ranking Position: 

5—Interstate or National highway not more than one mile from the site. Little, 

if any road construction required to provide access to the site. Required exit 

ramps/interchanges exist. 

4—Interstate or National or 2–4 lane State highways more than one mile from 

the site. Little, if any road construction required to provide access to the site. 

Required exit ramps/interchanges exist. 

3—National highway or 2–4 lane State highway not more than one mile from the 

site. Feasibility of providing an exit ramp from the highway must be determined. 

2—National highway or 2–4 lane State highway not more one mile from the site. 

Feasibility of providing an exit from the highway must be determined. 

1—County road, one-half mile or more in length, provides sole access to the site 

or extensive road construction would be required to provide adequate site access. 

Figure 4.1.3—Cemetery Site Ranking Procedure—Acreage 

Criteria: On-site Acreage 

Ranking Position: 

5—Minimum of 500 acres available on-site. 

4—Minimum of 400 acres available on-site. 

3—Minimum of 300 acres available on site. 

2—Minimum of 200 acres available on-site. 

1—Approximately 100 acres on-site. 

Figure 4.1.4—Cemetery Site Ranking Procedure—Land Ownership 

Criteria: Land Ownership 

Ranking Position: 

5—Owned by Federal, State or Local Government. Could be transferred to VA 

without cost. 

4—Owned by private individual, estate or corporation. Could be transferred to VA 

without cost. 

3—Owned by private individual, estate or corporation. Could be transferred to VA 

with modest cost. 

2—Owned by private individual, estate or corporation. Could be transferred to VA 

but at significant cost. 

1—Determination of actual ownership not established or unwillingness of owner 

to transfer land to VA is uncertain. 

Figure 4.1.5—Cemetery Site Ranking Procedure—Topography 

Feature: Topography—Identification of the landforms associated with the various 

cemetery sites. 

Ranking Position: 

5—Alluvial Plain: Formed from deposits of Earth material from a higher elevation onto flatter land. Presents a relatively even surface which facilitates 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

73 

construction, access and grounds maintenance. Construction costs relatively 

low. 

4—Valley: A low area between hills and/or mountains where a stream may flow. 

Valley floors frequently dissected by ravines caused by erosion which can increase costs in site preparation. Construction costs modest due to topography. 

3—Plains: Low areas of the Earth which have been eroded nearly level or formed 

of flat lying sediments. Surface areas generally favorable for site preparation, 

construction and grounds maintenance. Construction costs relatively low due 

to the topography. 

2—Hill: An isolated elevation in the land, usually no more than 30 meters from 

base to peak. Access, ease of construction and maintenance of the site depends largely upon the degree of hillside slopes. Construction costs can be significant due to topography. 

1—No dominate landform: An individual site may include a mixture of 

landforms, for example, partially alluvial plain with low hills intermixed, bordering on a valley area. Construction costs most significant due to topography. 

Figure 4.1.6—Cemetery Site Ranking Procedure—Aesthetics 

Criteria: Aesthetics 

Ranking Position: 

5—Site has immediate visual appeal. Topography and surrounding land use is 

suitable for cemetery development. High hills or mountains covered with 

trees and other natural vegetation form a back drop with gentle slopes to 

lower ground. Free from distracting visual or noise pollutants. An excellent 

location. 

4—Site consists of generally level ground with no abrupt landforms and a natural drainage slope. Topography and surrounding land use is compatible with 

cemetery development. Background consists of tree lines or low hills covered 

with natural vegetation. Normally free from noise pollutants but low flying 

aircraft or nearby military or civilian activities may create temporary distractions. A very good location. 

3—Site consists of generally flat terrain interspersed with moderate to steep 

slopes where erosion or man-made damage has occurred. Both the topography and surrounding land use is compatible with cemetery development. 

Noise from low flying aircraft or nearby military or civilian activities can 

occur regularly. A suitable location. 

2—Site consists of low rolling landforms with natural drainage. Overall, the topography and the surrounding land use is compatible with cemetery development. Natural vegetation is typical of Great Plains ranchlands. Noise or visual pollutants may be factors. A marginally suitable location from an aesthetics perspective. 

1—Site consists of generally flat terrain with no distinguishing features. The topography is compatible with cemetery development. Natural vegetation consists primarily of low grass or brush and scattered pinion pine, juniper and/ 

or scrub oak trees. Noise from nearby military or civilian activities may occur 

periodically. A poor location from an aesthetics perspective. 

Figure 4.1.7—Feasibility 

Criteria: Feasibility 

Ranking Position 

5—Site has excellent support. 

4—Site has good support. 

3—Site has moderate support. 

2—Site has fair support. 

1—Site has poor support. 

4.2 Cheyenne Mountain State Park (Site 1) 

Location: The site is located in the Cheyenne Mountain State Park. Access is 

from State Highway 115. 

Water: Available on-site in quantity required by the DVA but the dependability 

of supply has not been confirmed. 

Topography: Suitable for construction of a cemetery. 

Acreage: Exact acreage available for the cemetery must be determined but it is 

estimated that 400+ acres could be made available for the cemetery. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

74 

Property Owned By: Cheyenne Mountain State Park, State of Colorado. 

Aesthetics: Former ranch land which has been developed into a state park. Cheyenne Mountain provides a majestic backdrop. 

Feasibility: Approval of a national cemetery site within the park site will require 

action at the state level. A factor which should be considered in locating a cemetery 

within the park is the pending construction of a military museum on the Fort Carson reservation in the vicinity of Gate 1. The three facilities, a veterans’ cemetery, 

a state park and a military museum in close proximity would serve as a strong magnet and a synergistic cultural amenity to all three facilities. 

Comments: The location of the property shown on the map is an approximation. 

A survey will be required to determine an exact location for the cemetery site. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.102
75 

Figure 4.2—Proposed Site # 1, Cheyenne Mountain State Park 

Water 

supply 

Access 

to site Acreage Topography 

Land 

ownership Aesthetics Feasibility Total Score 

4 5 4 4 5 5 5 32 

4.3 Nixon Power Plant, East Side of I–25 (Site 2) 

Location: The site is located on property in the vicinity of the R.D. Nixon power 

plant, on the east side of I–25, on property owned by the Colorado Springs Utilities 

(CSU). Access is from Interstate 25. 

Water: Water is available from wells owned by CSU. 

Acreage: The area under consideration contains sufficient space to create a cemetery of 200–250+ acres. The exact location has not been established. 

Topography: Suitable for a cemetery. 

Property Owned By: Colorado Springs Utilities. 

Aesthetics: The preferred location is on generally level ground which is part of 

the Clear Spring Ranch site. Overall, the site presents a pleasant appearance. 

Feasibility: The property is owned by and under the control of CSU. Use of the 

property for a veterans cemetery must be determined by that organization. 

Comments: The location of the site shown on the map represents only the general area. The exact location must be determined during the detailed site evaluation 

and selection process. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.103
76 

Figure 4.3—Proposed Site #2, Nixon Power Plant, East of I–25 

Water 

supply 

Access 

to site Acreage Topography 

Land 

ownership Aesthetics Feasibility Total Score 

5 3 4 3 4 4 4 27 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.104 43051A.105
77 

4.4 Nixon Power Plant, West Side of I–25 (Site 3) 

Location: The location for the site is in the vicinity but south of the R.D. Nixon 

power plant, on the west side of I–25. Access to the site is from Interstate 25. 

Water: Water in the quantity required is available. Dependability of the supply 

has been confirmed. 

Acreage: The area under consideration contains a sufficient amount of space to 

create a cemetery of 200–250 acres. The exact location must await the results of an 

on-site survey. 

Topography: Suitable for construction of a cemetery. 

Property Owned By: Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU). 

Aesthetics: The site is located on generally level ground with a gentle upward 

slope on the south and southwest sides; however, it may prove to be located downwind from a planned sewage treat plant. 

Feasibility: The property containing the site belongs to CSU and will be available dependant upon the Utility’s willingness to sell. 

Comments: The site location shown on the map represents only the general area. 

The precise site location cannot be determined until a specific site survey has been 

completed. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.106
78 

Figure 4.4—Proposed Site #3, Nixon Power Plant, West of I–25 

Water 

supply 

Access 

to site Acreage Topography 

Land 

ownership Aesthetics Feasibility Total Score 

5 4 4 3 3 1 2 22 

4.5 East Boundary of Fort Carson (Site 4) 

Location: The site is located along the east boundary of Fort Carson and west 

of I–25. It is identified on some maps as the Frontier Village. Access is from I–25; 

however, the road into the area is unimproved. 

Water: The availability of an adequate supply of water and the source must be 

determined. 

Acreage: The area has a sufficient amount of land to provide 300+ acres but an 

exact location has not been established. 

Topography: Suitable for use as a cemetery but construction costs could be significant. 

Property Owned By: Private ownership. 

Aesthetics: Generally flat, hill-top land. No distinguishing characteristics. 

Feasibility: The site is located on private land. Converting it to use as a DVA 

cemetery must await negotiations with the current owner or owners. 

Comments: The area depicted on the aerial photograph of the site shows only 

the very general location. The precise area must be determined during the site evaluation and selection process. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.107
79 

Figure 4.5—Proposed Site #4, East Boundary of Fort Carson 

Water 

supply 

Access 

to site Acreage Topography 

Land 

ownership Aesthetics Feasibility Total Score 

1 1 4 1 2 1 3 13 

4.6 Entrance to Turkey Creek Recreation Area (Site 5) 

Location: The site is located in the vicinity of the entrance to Fort Carson’s Turkey Creek Recreation Area. Access to the site is from State Highway 115. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.108 43051A.109
80 

Water: Water is available in an adequate amount but the dependability of the 

supply had not been confirmed when this report was prepared. 

Acreage: There is a sufficient amount of land in the area to provide 400+ acres 

for the cemetery. 

Topography: Suitable for construction of a cemetery. 

Property Owned By: U.S. Government, Fort Carson. 

Aesthetics: Location is on a military reservation. The overall appearance is of a 

rural setting, in a broad valley, with higher tree-covered ground to the northwest 

and southwest. 

Feasibility: It is considered possible for the site to be acquired through an intergovernmental transfer of property. 

Comments: The aerial photograph shows an approximation of the space available 

for the site. The exact site location must be determined. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.110
81 

Figure 4.6—Proposed Site #5, Entrance to Turkey Creek Recreation Area 

Water 

supply 

Access 

to site Acreage Topography 

Land 

ownership Aesthetics Feasibility Total Score 

4 5 4 5 4 4 4 30 

4.7 RMK Ranch (Site 6) 

Location: The ranch is located in El Paso County, southwest of Schreiver AFB. 

Access is via a gravel road from a state highway. 

Water: There are three working wells on the property. 

Acreage: The ranch consists of 300 (+/-) acres. 

Topography: Suitable for construction of a cemetery. 

Property Owned By: Privately owned by an Army veteran. 

Aesthetics: Gently rolling terrain on the eastern plains of El Paso County. 

Feasibility: If the property is to be used as a veterans’ cemetery the owner would 

be willing to sell it for a reasonable price. 

Comments: The location shown on the map is an estimate. Facilities on the property include a house, four outbuildings, a large generator and a small cemetery. 

Land forms shown in the picture are typical of those on the ranch. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.111
82 

Figure 4.7—Proposed Site #6, RMK Ranch 

Water 

supply 

Access 

to site Acreage Topography 

Land 

ownership Aesthetics Feasibility Total Score 

5 1 3 4 2 3 3 21 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.112 43051A.113
83 

4.8 Pueblo Chemical Depot (Site 7) 

Location: The depot is approximately 12 miles east of the City of Pueblo. Access 

to the depot is from U.S. Highway 50. 

Water: Available on-site and dependability of supply has been confirmed. 

Acreage: The depot can provide up to 800 acres for the cemetery. 

Topography: Suitable for construction of a cemetery. 

Property Owned By: U.S. Government, Department of the Army. 

Aesthetics: Appropriate for the region. 

Feasibility: An area for the cemetery can be provided on the reservation and outside the secure area. 

Comments: The location of the site as depicted on the map of the depot is only 

an approximation. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.114
84 

Figure 4.8—Proposed Site #7, Pueblo Chemical Depot 

Water 

source 

Access 

to site Acreage Topography 

Ownership Aesthetics Feasibility Total 

Score 

5 3 5 5 5 3 3 29 

4.9 Kane Ranch (Site 8) 

Location: The site is located in the City of Fountain at the intersection of Link 

Road and C&S Road. Access can be from either of these two roads. 

Water: Water is available from on-site wells but dependability has not been confirmed. 

Acreage: The ranch consists of 400 acres, as reported, which can be used for a 

cemetery. 

Topography: Suitable for construction of a cemetery. 

Property Owned By: Property was donated to El Paso County for use as a national cemetery. 

Aesthetics: Site consists of generally level ground and a natural drainage slope 

with a potential for a background of trees and natural vegetation. The surrounding 

land use is compatible with cemetery development. 

Feasibility: Ranch may be acquired as a gift from the county for use as a national cemetery. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.115
85 

Figure 4.9—Proposed Site #8, Kane Ranch 

Water 

source Access to site Acreage Topography 

Ownership Aesthetics Feasibility Total 

Score 

4 4 4 5 5 4 5 31 

4.10 BLM Land (Site 9) 

Location: Site is north of the Town of Penrose on the high ground on the west 

side of Beaver Creek. Access to the property is off of Colorado 115 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.116 43051A.117
86 

Water: Not currently available on-site. Whether an adequate supply can be provided from an off-site source must be determined. 

Acreage: 100–150 acres are available. 

Topography: Marginally suitable for construction of a cemetery as the subsurface consists of fractured shale deepening to semi-solid rock. 

Property Owned By: U.S. Government, Bureau of Land Management. 

Aesthetics: Site consists of generally flat terrain with no distinguishing features. 

Natural vegetation consists of low grass or brush and scattered pinion, juniper and 

scrub oak trees. 

Feasibility: Site is located on U.S. Government property. A transfer of property 

between the DVA and BLM may be possible. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.118
87 

Figure 4.10—Proposed Site #9, BLM Land 

Water 

source 

Access 

to site Acreage Topography 

Ownership Aesthetics Feasibility Total 

Score 

1 3 1 1 5 1 3 15 

4.11 Brush Hollow Reservoir (Site 10) 

Location: Site is located on the north-northwest end of the Brush Hollow Reservoir which is located northwest of the Town of Penrose. Access is off of Colorado 

115 onto County Road 123 and County Road F42. 

Water: Water is available on-site. 

Acreage: 250 acres will be made available for a national cemetery. 

Topography: Suitable for construction of a cemetery. 

Property Owned By: Privately owned. 

Aesthetics: Site is on generally level and well drained ground with low hills 

forming a background. Natural vegetation consists of pinion, juniper and scrub oak 

trees. 

Feasibility: Land to be donated if used for a national cemetery. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.119 43051A.120
88 

Figure 4.11—Proposed Site #10, Brush Hollow Reservoir 

Water 

source 

Access 

to site Acreage Topography 

Ownership Aesthetics Feasibility Total 

Score 

5 2 5 4 4 4 2 26 

4.12 Summary 

The purpose in this section was to present the results of the Committee’s work 

in identifying potential sites for a veterans’ cemetery and the concurrent collection 

of essential information related to each site. There was no attempt at this point to 

establish an order of priority of the various sites when considering recommendations 

to Members of Congress or to the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

The preliminary information is considered to be sufficient for conducting further 

research into the suitability of each site. Refinement of the list of potential sites 

must be an ongoing effort so that credible information can be presented to the U.S. 

Government and local authorities as well as to the general public. 

Section 5 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 General 

The need, as well as the desirability, for a national cemetery in the Pikes Peak 

Region has been recognized for a number of years with some action in that direction 

in the early 1990s. In the late 1990s members of the Colorado congressional delegation introduced bills in Congress seeking a national veterans cemetery for the region. The bills did not receive favorable consideration when the Veterans Administration announced that six cemeteries were to be constructed across the country— 

all with a higher priority than the Pikes Peak Region. 

5.2 The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Position 

As a general observation, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has not given 

favorable consideration to locating a national cemetery in the Pikes Peak Region, 

and within the immediate area of Colorado Springs in particular, for the following 

reasons. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING


43051A.121
89 

• The national cemetery at Fort Logan is within 75 miles of Colorado Springs 

which meets one of the DVA guidelines for providing burial service for veterans 

a well as other eligible individuals. • The veteran population within the Pikes Peak Region is not at the level that 

justifies a national cemetery. Namely, the official Year 2000 census revealed a 

population of just over 155,000 veterans in the 35-county region. This is below 

the 170,000 veteran population figure required under the DVA guidelines. • Previously, the Congress had mandated construction of new national cemeteries 

in other areas of the country which had a higher priority than did Colorado 

Springs. This Congressional action has, in effect, tied the DVA’s hands. 

Another unspoken reason for not locating a national cemetery in the Pikes Peak 

Region was, and may still be the lack of any ground-swell of public opinion for such 

a cemetery within the region. 

5.3 Counter Arguments to the DVA Guidelines 

In view of concerns expressed by members of the Committee to the Colorado congressional delegation regarding the DVA position on a national cemetery for the 

Pikes Peak Region, Senator Salazar provided his reasons in letters to the DVA questioning that agency’s previous objections to establishment of a regional cemetery as 

well as its guidelines for locating national cemeteries. 

Senator Salazar cited a number of unique factors in his correspondence to the Department that should be addressed by VA guidelines. These unique factors, as they 

pertain to the Pikes Peak Region, include: 

• Growth: The current VA guideline sets a threshold population of 170,000 veterans in a region to create a new cemetery. This guideline does not account for 

the future growth, which should include projected troop increases at Fort Carson, which is likely to grow larger in coming years. Growth projections create 

a different picture of the military and veterans’ presence in the Pikes Peak Region than does VA’s most recent evaluation. 

• Travel Time vs. Travel Distance: Colorado Springs is within 75 miles of Denver (straight line distance) but due to traffic it can take more than two hours 

to travel between the two cities. VA guidelines should reflect such considerations. 

• Cultural Realities of Colorado: Even though Denver and Colorado Springs 

are relatively close geographically the community of Colorado Springs is the 

‘‘center of gravity’’ for military and veterans affairs within the state and represents the people and communities of southern and southeastern parts of Colorado together with counties in the San Luis Valley, the Arkansas River Region 

and the Eastern Plains. 

5.4 Grass Roots Level Actions 

Faced with the realities of the DVA position regarding a regional cemetery but 

also building upon the support provided by the Colorado congressional delegation, 

the Committee has initiated an active program to obtain a national cemetery in the 

Pikes Peak Region whether working within or around existing guidelines. 

The principal areas in which the Committee has focused its efforts were addressed 

in section III of this report, specifically: 

• The Committee has created awareness in the public sector and at the state and 

national levels of the need for a national cemetery. 

• It has been persuasive in convincing the Colorado congressional delegation to 

initiate the bills necessary for obtaining funding for the project. 

• Potential sites for a cemetery have been explored and surveyed with the results 

showing that at least ten locations within the region meet the criteria in DVA 

instructions for a national cemetery. 

The Committee’s work, as it has been discussed up to this point, is ongoing with 

refinement of specific projects where so indicated; however, a logical question that 

can be asked is, ‘‘What now—what avenues are open to the Committee in its efforts 

to secure a national cemetery?’’ 

The foregoing question is particularly acute when one considers the fact that the 

Committee must rely upon its persuasive ability to accomplish its objects since it 

has no authority to make binding commitments under the umbrella of a legally constituted organization. Secondly, the DVA position, with its guidelines for the creation of national cemeteries, can become an excuse for doing nothing when viewed 

as other than just guidance and not as rules that are ‘‘. . . chiseled in stone.’’ 

The conclusions and recommendations in the paragraphs below provide a vehicle 

for responding to the foregoing questions and observations. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

90 

5.5 Conclusions 

These conclusions pertain specifically to the Pikes Peak Veterans Cemetery Committee, its activities in promoting the need for a national cemetery in the Pikes 

Peak Region and its efforts to secure such a cemetery following the procedures established by the Department of Veterans Affairs (Note: The order in which the conclusions are listed is not indicative of the relative importance of one over the other). 

A. The program or campaign undertaken by the Committee members, collectively 

and individually, to create awareness within the 35-county regional community 

of the need for a national cemetery has been successful as evidenced by the 

organizations that have provided endorsements of the idea. 

B. The perceived reluctance on the part of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

may be attributable, at least in part, to the absence of a ground-swell of public 

opinion for a regional national cemetery better suited to the needs of the community than the Fort Logan and Fort Lyons cemeteries. 

C. The Department of Veterans Affairs guidelines regarding the 170,000 veteran 

population thresholds and the 75-mile separation distance between national 

cemeteries do not take conditions into consideration that are peculiar to are 

unique to a specific area or region. 

D. The 170,000 veteran population threshold and the 75-mile separation between 

national cemeteries guidelines have impacted adversely upon previous efforts 

to secure a national cemetery in the Pikes Peak Region. 

E. In addition to the veteran population threshold and the 75-mile guideline, 

other conditions may prevail within an area or region which should receive favorable consideration by the Department of Veterans Affairs when judging the 

merits of requests for national cemeteries; e.g., travel time to reach a cemetery, future growth potential by the population concerned and cultural issues 

which could, conceivably, determine the extent to which a particular cemetery 

will be used. 

F. The fact that previous actions by the Colorado congressional delegation have 

not been successful in obtaining funding for a regional cemetery should not be 

viewed as justification for inaction in the future. 

5.6 Recommendations 

The recommendations that follow provide a starting point in response to the question, ‘‘What do we do now?’’ while, concurrently, offering a direction of effort to the 

Committee for future programs. 

A. Consider affiliation with a legally organized body with similar objectives as a 

means for giving more visibility and possibly credibility to the Committee’s 

work to secure a national cemetery in the Pikes Peak Region. 

B. Continue to explore and take advantage of opportunities to involve the public 

in the need for a regional national cemetery. 

C. Refine the list of potential cemetery sites in order to give more attention to 

those with the best characteristics while simultaneously eliminating the sites 

with the least potential. Acceptance of this recommendation may serve to enhance the organization’s credibility when detailed analyses of the selected sites 

are provided. 

D. Provide copies of this report to: the Colorado congressional delegation; to individuals within the Department of Veterans Affairs who influence the selection 

of national cemetery locations; and to those other organizations and individuals at the state, county and local levels that have an interest in providing 

this particular service for the veterans not only within the Pikes Peak Region 

but also to the veterans in all of southern Colorado. 

‘‘It’s all for the Veterans’’ 

Appendix A 

Extract from Census 2000 Veteran Data, Colorado: Veteran Population by 

Age, by Sex, by County 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

COLORADO: Veteran Population by Period of Service, by County 

State or County Name Total 

August 1990 or later (including Persian Gulf War) No Vietnam Era Se

Served In 

Vietnam Era 

No Vietnam 

Era service 

Total serving 

August 1990 or 

later 

Served 

September 1980 

or later only 

Serve

Septe

Colorado 446,385 8,607 58,577 67,184 52,626 Adams County 34,426 315 4,241 4,556 3,981 Alamosa County 1,280 14 138 152 122 Arapahoe County 50,669 1,271 7,235 8,506 6,481 Archuleta County 1,205 4 39 43 34 Baca County 462 0 3 3 0 Bent County 808 21 74 95 65 Boulder County 22,437 126 2,198 2,324 2,097 Chaffee County 2,238 25 135 160 119 Cheyenne County 191 0 11 11 11 Clear Creek County 1,093 15 66 81 59 Conejos County 750 1 35 36 35 Costilla County 394 4 16 20 16 Crowley County 758 2 96 98 96 Custer County 594 7 15 22 15 Delta County 3,832 26 149 175 133 Denver County 48,558 277 5,760 6,037 5,511 Dolores County 217 4 8 12 8 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
COLORADO: Veteran Population by Period of Service, by County—Continued 

State or County Name Total 

August 1990 or later (including Persian Gulf War) No Vietnam Era Se

Served In 

Vietnam Era 

No Vietnam 

Era service 

Total serving 

August 1990 or 

later 

Served 

September 1980 

or later only 

Serve

Septe

Douglas County 14,712 366 2,239 2,605 2,079 Eagle County 2,380 29 277 306 274 Elbert County 2,249 18 215 233 182 El Paso County 74,992 4,102 18,259 22,361 14,971 Fremont County 7,788 68 809 877 780 Garfield County 4,040 30 356 386 330 Gilpin County 617 8 66 74 66 Grand County 1,343 14 103 117 93 Gunnison County 1,150 6 141 147 133 Hinsdale County 78 0 5 5 0 Huerfano County 1,176 15 102 117 95 Jackson County 194 2 13 15 13 Jefferson County 54,875 597 4,950 5,547 4,664 Kiowa County 159 5 10 15 10 Kit Carson County 817 3 26 29 22 Lake County 704 0 88 88 71 La Plata County 4,290 18 402 420 397 Larimer County 23,269 266 2,536 2,802 2,452 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
Las Animas County 1,844 33 122 155 99 Lincoln County 736 9 75 84 64 Logan County 2,093 24 173 197 163 Mesa County 14,908 104 1,385 1,489 1,316 Mineral County 115 0 0 0 0 Moffat County 1,514 19 123 142 123 Montezuma County 2,775 15 238 253 238 Montrose County 3,936 46 347 393 325 Morgan County 2,260 18 200 218 200 Otero County 2,339 52 218 270 210 Ouray County 471 6 7 13 5 Park County 2,126 78 244 322 229 Phillips County 416 6 17 23 15 Pitkin County 1,113 0 57 57 57 Prowers County 1,037 13 96 109 96 Pueblo County 17,600 182 1,718 1,900 1,577 Rio Blanco County 673 0 59 59 57 Rio Grande County 1,361 14 124 138 104 Routt County 1,555 8 187 195 178 Saguache County 550 3 34 37 34 San Juan County 88 0 4 4 2 San Miguel County 478 0 20 20 18 Sedgwick County 346 1 20 21 20 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
COLORADO: Veteran Population by Period of Service, by County—Continued 

State or County Name Total 

August 1990 or later (including Persian Gulf War) No Vietnam Era Se

Served In 

Vietnam Era 

No Vietnam 

Era service 

Total serving 

August 1990 or 

later 

Served 

September 1980 

or later only 

Serve

Septe

Summit County 1,686 30 267 297 256 Teller County 3,014 102 372 474 319 Washington County 561 3 24 27 22 Weld County 15,156 175 1,564 1,739 1,428 Yuma County 889 7 66 73 56 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
95 

Census 1990 vs. 2000 Veteran Population in the U.S. and Puerto Rico 

State 1990 

Veterans 

2000 

Veterans 

+Gain/ 

–Loss 

Percent change 

between 1990–2000 

Alabama 434,787 447,397 12,610 2.9% 

Alaska 68,252 71,552 3,300 4.8% 

Arizona 464,023 562,916 98,893 21.3% 

Arkansas 265,055 281,714 16,659 6.3% 

California 3,001,905 2,569,340 –432,565 –14.4% 

Colorado 409,932 446,385 36,453 8.9% 

Connecticut 373,933 310,069 –63,864 –17.1% 

Delaware 80,909 84,289 3,380 4.2% 

District of Columbia 57,874 44,484 –13,390 –23.1% 

Florida 1,719,129 1,875,597 156,468 9.1% 

Georgia 693,225 768,675 75,450 10.9% 

Hawaii 119,256 120,587 1,331 1.1% 

Idaho 116,609 136,584 19,975 17.1% 

Illinois 1,162,158 1,003,572 –158,586 –13.6% 

Indiana 623,098 590,476 –32,622 –5.2% 

Iowa 310,122 292,020 –18,102 –5.8% 

Kansas 280,806 267,452 –13,354 –4.8% 

Kentucky 380,610 380,618 8 0.0% 

Louisiana 404,186 392,486 –11,700 –2.9% 

Maine 159,333 154,590 –4,743 –3.0% 

Maryland 558,613 524,230 –34,383 –6.2% 

Massachusetts 656,850 558,933 –97,917 –14.9% 

Michigan 1,005,699 913,573 –92,126 –9.2% 

Minnesota 489,498 464,968 –24,530 –5.0% 

Mississippi 237,977 249,431 11,454 4.8% 

Missouri 613,859 592,271 –21,588 –3.5% 

Montana 102,536 108,476 5,940 5.8% 

Nebraska 177,852 173,189 –4,663 –2.6% 

Nevada 182,084 238,128 56,044 30.8% 

New Hampshire 141,617 139,038 –2,579 –1.8% 

New Jersey 817,409 672,217 –145,192 –17.8% 

New Mexico 178,022 190,718 12,696 7.1% 

New York 1,707,476 1,361,164 –346,312 –20.3% 

North Carolina 719,458 792,646 73,188 10.2% 

North Dakota 64,772 61,365 –3,407 –5.3% 

Ohio 1,259,535 1,144,007 –115,528 –9.2% 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

96 

Census 1990 vs. 2000 Veteran Population in the U.S. and Puerto Rico— 

Continued 

State 1990 

Veterans 

2000 

Veterans 

+Gain/ 

–Loss 

Percent change 

between 1990–2000 

Oklahoma 377,148 376,062 –1,086 –0.3% 

Oregon 384,189 388,990 4,801 1.2% 

Pennsylvania 1,450,037 1,280,788 –169,249 –11.7% 

Puerto Rico 138,150 146,001 7,851 5.7% 

Rhode Island 118,330 102,494 –15,836 –13.4% 

South Carolina 381,691 420,971 39,280 10.3% 

South Dakota 76,923 79,370 2,447 3.2% 

Tennessee 531,723 560,141 28,418 5.3% 

Texas 1,726,617 1,754,809 28,192 1.6% 

Utah 146,630 161,351 14,721 10.0% 

Vermont 64,814 62,809 –2,005 –3.1% 

Virginia 733,092 786,359 53,267 7.3% 

Washington 653,068 670,628 17,560 2.7% 

West Virginia 210,941 201,701 –9,240 –4.4% 

Wisconsin 532,936 514,213 –18,723 –3.5% 

Wyoming 54,457 57,860 3,403 6.2% 

Total U.S. & P.R. 27,619,205 26,549,704 –1,069,501 –3.9% 

Source: Census 2000, as of 4/1/2000 

Appendix B 

Fact Sheet: How a VA National Cemetery is Created, Public and 

Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

April 2005 

‘‘How A VA National Cemetery Is Created’’ 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) creates a new national cemetery 

through a six-step process. Each step requires that congressionally approved funds 

are available. The steps are: site selection, environmental assessment, land acquisition, master planning and design development, preparation of construction documents and construction. The development, eventual operation and maintenance of 

the cemetery are the responsibility of VA’s National Cemetery Administration. 

Site Selection 

VA identifies a geographic area with a large veteran population unserved by a national or state veterans cemetery. The cemetery’s size and number of gravesites will 

be determined by demographic forecasts. VA canvases the area for sites of the size 

needed and evaluates their suitability for cemetery development. 

Criteria for site selection include: accessibility, available utilities and water, surrounding land use, soil, topography and shape, aesthetic appearance and restrictions 

to development, including factors such as the presence of endangered species, mineral rights or easements. Good roads should be nearby and provide minimal travel 

time from population hubs. Adequate water for irrigation is important. Adjacent 

areas should not be noisy or unsightly. Level to rolling terrain is best, but some 

slope is desirable to permit drainage. 

Two to five sites are identified and advance to the next step in the process. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

97 

Environmental Assessment 

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the top sites are assessed 

to determine the impact of a cemetery on the environment. An environmental assessment document is prepared, identifying VA’s preferred site. The assessment 

must result in a ‘‘finding of no significant impact’’ for the site to be considered. After 

receiving a positive finding, VA makes the results available to the public for a 30- 

day comment period. After that, VA officials make a final recommendation to the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, who decides whether to acquire the property. 

Land Acquisition 

In some instances, land is donated to VA. In other cases, federal and state agencies transfer property to VA at no cost. Otherwise, land is purchased at the fair 

market value established by a real-property appraisal. Before the final sales contract is signed, the Department of Justice, acting on VA’s behalf, reviews all documents to ensure that the contract and title meet all requirements for a legal transfer of ownership. 

Master Planning and Design Development 

Once VA takes title to the land, it solicits bids from architectural and engineering 

(A/E) firms and contracts with one to design the new cemetery. The A/E firm prepares a master plan for developing all phases of the cemetery, and follows with a 

more detailed design for the first phase of construction. The first phase usually includes the first active burial section and the required infrastructure to operate the 

cemetery. Later phases generally include new burial sections and associated infrastructure. Typically, each phase of construction is designed to provide burial space 

for 10 years. 

Construction Document Preparation 

Under a second negotiated contract, the A/E firm prepares plans and specifications that detail all aspects of phase-one construction: active burial sections, administrative and maintenance buildings, public information center, committal shelters, 

roads and other infrastructure. These documents provide the basis for contractors 

to bid on constructing the project. 

Construction Award and Completion 

Finally, VA solicits bids and awards a contract for construction of the new cemetery. The process takes about four months; actual construction of phase one takes 

about 24 months. 

Land purchases and construction require multiple congressional appropriations, 

over several years’ budgets, to complete each phase. In total, site selection, environmental assessment, master planning, design and phase-one construction require 

about five years to complete. 

One of VA’s goals is to provide veterans reasonable access to burial options. VA 

considers reasonable access to mean that a veteran or spouse can have a casketed 

or cremation burial in a national or state veterans cemetery within 75 miles of 

home. Experience and recent data show that more than 80 percent of persons interred in national cemeteries lived within 75 miles of the cemetery when they died. 

To achieve that goal, VA builds new national cemeteries where veterans do not 

already have access. VA also manages the State Cemetery Grants Program, which 

encourages states to build veterans cemeteries in unserved areas. The number of 

veterans within 75 miles of a national or state veterans cemetery with available 

burial space has increased from 65 percent in 1995 to 83 percent today. In 2009, 

89 percent of veterans will have that access. 

VA has built six new national cemeteries since 1997 and is currently constructing 

five new ones. It is also increasing the long-term burial capacity of existing national 

cemeteries by acquiring adjacent land, building columbaria for cremated remains 

where feasible, and using designs that maximize the space available. 

f 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

98 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

July 11, 2008 

The Honorable John T. Salazar 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Salazar: 

At the Subcommittee’s May 2, 2008, field hearing on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cemetery Construction Policy, you asked whether VA has the authority to accept, as a gift, funds for the construction of a national cemetery. At the 

hearing, I indicated that it would be necessary for me to consult with Counsel in 

order to provide an answer to your question. 

VA General Counsel has advised me that the Secretary has authority to accept 

funds designated for the construction of a national cemetery. Such authority is set 

forth in 38 U.S.C., section 8301, which permits the Secretary to ‘‘accept, for use in 

carrying out all laws administered by the Secretary, gifts, devises, and bequests 

which will enhance the Secretary’s ability to provide services or benefits.’’ 

A copy of the document by which the General Counsel sets forth this opinion is 

enclosed. 

A similar letter has been sent to Chairman John J. Hall and Ranking Republican 

Member Doug L. Lamborn. 

Sincerely, 

William F. Tuerk 

Enclosure 

Authority to Accept Gifts of Land or Monetary Donations for the 

Construction of a National Cemetery 

The Secretary is authorized to accept gifts of lands for national cemeteries, and 

gift devises, or bequests made for the beautification or benefit of the national cemeteries. 38 U.S.C. §§ 2406, 240. Relative to this gift acceptance authority, the Secretary has delegated to the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs certain gift acceptance authority for donations made, in any manner, to the National Cemetery Administration for the beautification or benefit of national cemeteries, except offers of 

land. 38 CFR § 2.6(f)(3). The Secretary has retained authority to accept offers of 

land. The Secretary’s authority for acceptance of an offer of land may be delegated 

in writing to another official pursuant to VA Directive 0000, but there is no such 

delegation currently in force. 

Other than 38 U.S.C. § 8103(a)(1) and (2), which authorized the Secretary to accept gifts of land for the construction of a medical facility, or acquisition of a facility 

(including the site of such facility) for use as a VA medical facility, we are aware 

of no other statutory provision that expressly authorizes the Secretary to accept 

land donations. The remaining gift acceptance authorities contained in title 38 authorize the acceptance of gifts: for recreational activities furthering rehabilitation of 

disabled veterans (38 U.S.C. § 521(b)); of merchandise, fixtures, equipment, and supplies for the use and benefit of the Veterans’ Canteen Service (38 U.S.C. § 7802(h)); 

for the construction, acquisition, and operation of medical facilities (38 U.S.C. 

§ 8104(e)); and for the use and benefit of veteran patients or members of hospitals 

or homes, the hospitals or homes themselves, or for use in carrying out all VA laws 

(38 U.S.C. § 8301). 

The Secretary has authority to accept funds designated for the construction of a 

national cemetery. Section 8301 of title 38 permits the Secretary to ‘‘accept, for use 

in carrying out all laws administered by the Secretary, gifts, devises, and bequests 

which will enhance the Secretary’s ability to provide services or benefits.’’ By memorandum dated September 10, 2005, the Secretary delegated this gift acceptance authority under section 8301 (second sentence) to Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and other key officials, to include the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs 

(USMA). Subject to this delegation, the USMA may accept donations made expressly 

for the construction of a national cemetery. Pursuant to internal VA principles governing the acceptance of gifts authorized under the last sentence of 38 U.S.C. 

§ 8301, as approved by the Secretary on September 10, 2005, funds accepted with 

a commitment to use them as the donor specifies will be administered in fulfillment 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

99 

of the donor’s specified wishes. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 8302, monetary funds are 

administered through the General Post Fund in accordance with its rules of accounting and disbursement. 

Office of the General Counsel 

Amanda R. Blackmon 

(202) 461–7665 

June 5, 2008 

Æ 

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING