report of the U.S. Veterans Advisory Commission of March 18, 1968, the "McCurdy Commission."

We concur in the conclusion of the Veterans Advisory Commission that attaining the goals outlined in the President's message require very long range planning and considerable study prior to implementation.

We believe that the fair and effective way for the Federal Government to participate in the burial of veterans is through the historic payments of cash burial allowances (or in the alternative, some form of properly limited income tax credits). The allowances are now provided for by payments made by the Veterans' Administration and under the Social Security System.

Such payments are made equally to all and allow the family to exercise a personal choice in the selection of a local, hometown cemetery of the veteran's faith, of his or his family's own choosing, close by and convenient for visitation not only by comrades, but more importantly, the widow, children, and family.

Implementation can be accomplished by specifically earmarking a portion of the existing allowance for cemeterial space discharging the obligation at a relatively modest one-time cost to the United States.

In connection with reference to the use of donated land or land already in the hands of the Federal Government, for the purpose of establishment of the hundreds of new Government cemeteries necessary to equitably serve every veteran, we suggest that the huge costs of expanding the system are not associated with the acquisition of land.

It is true, however, that land cost could be an important additional item of cost in the vicinity of large cities where prospects for using donated or surplus Federal land are small and acquisition costs extremely high.

The important elements in the astronomical cost inherent in an expanded system are in land preparation and site development and, more significantly, in continuing operation and maintenance in perpetuity.

We thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, for the invitation to express our views. We understand the scope of your studies ahead and renew our pledge of cooperation with committee, staff, and Administrator.

May I say, Mr. Chairman, that, historically, we have shared the view of the Congress and the people of the United States in the establishment and maintenance of our great national shrine at Arlington. We understand its unique character.

We believe it should be maintained and provision made for its expansion in the area which we understand to be existing in the South Post.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. McNitt, what do you foresee 10, 20, 30, or 40 years from now?

Mr. McNITT. In relation to the burial of veterans, Mr. Chairman? Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Not only veterans, but all of us.

Mr. McNITT. I would see this, in relation to this specific problem, that the cemeteries of the United States located in every community of the United States, having well served them over the years and

having inventory to take care of the present and projected population for the next approximate 143 years, have ample facility available to the people of the United States and all of them as well as the veterans for a period much longer than the next 20 or 30 years.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. It has been suggested that plots be set aside in community cemeteries for veterans who have no family.

Mr. McNITT. Mr. Chairman, there are approximately 9,000 active cemeteries serving all of our communities. A great preponderance of them have existing dedicated "fields of honor," as some call them. Other call them the avenue of flags.

In any event they have an area set aside in the community cemetery to honor our fallen comrades. I noted Mr. Adair's comment at the hearing yesterday when he referred to the setting aside of a plot in the existing community cemeteries.

In his district, and he was referring to Fort Wayne, Ind., there are a dozen or more fine existing cemeteries, most of which already have a plot which honors the veteran which is available not only to him, but to his wife, his family-not only the eligibles under the present veterans burial entitlement but all of the family.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. How adequate is the $500 that the Defense Department pays for burial of an active-duty soldier?

Mr. McNITT. In my opinion it is wholly adequate. There has been some recent publicity in regard to the patriation of active-duty personnel killed on the field of battle in Vietnam, and as well, run over by a jeep in Berlin, perhaps.

The policy of the cemeteries of the United States, that is the cemetery association which I represent here today, has been since early 1966, to encourage each of its members, and there are over 4,000 of them represented in these associations, to provide, without cost to the family, interment space and the attendant services for the interment of all active-duty deaths.

Now while most of them, in my opinion, are doing it without cost to the family, there is no cemetery which could not handle that interment within the limits of the $200 which is now available for cemeterial space.

The other $300 you will recall, Mr. Chairman, is made available for the family in connection with the funeral of the deceased. In my opinion the Army, having provided all of the services in relation to the mortuary services required, the transportation, the casketing, the shipping, and everything else, there is no reason in the world why the $300 would not be more than adequate to handle that phase of the service.

Now you have heard undoubtedly of isolated incidents. I have heard of one since I have been here this week where the family was aggrieved and they spent more than that. In one case they spent almost half of it for flowers and in another case they spent a third of it for newspaper obituary notices, which are a form of classified advertising, an expensive form of classified advertising, which is placed in newspapers.

I think those are isolated instances. Undoubtedly there could have been a few abuses by members of mine or some associated industry. But I assure you, sir, those are isolated instances.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Would you comment on the quality of the caskets furnished by our Government for the men?

Mr. McNITT. I feel I am able to comment on that, Mr. Chairman, in that in the little community where I manage a cemetery we have a combined operation; that is, a funeral home and a cemetery similar to very fine property in Fort Worth with which I think you are familiar, Mr. Chairman.

The services provided by the Army currently are in all respects first class, and in my opinion the casket provided by the service is better than most commercial caskets that you will find.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Haley, do you have any questions? Mr. HALEY. I would just like to ask one question.

These veterans that you are talking about making some preparations for space. What provision is made for perpetual care of these gravesites?

Mr. McNITT. Mr. Haley, in the State of Florida

Mr. HALEY. I am not talking about the State of Florida.

Mr. NCNITT. In most of the States of the Union, either by statute or by some form of regulations, cemeteries are required to set aside a portion of the sales price of every cemetery plot, or space, into a perpetual care fund. Now, some States go further and require that fund be deposited in a bank under the supervision, for example, in Texas, of the state banking commission. In my State of California, it is under a State cemetery board, a regulatory board which sends around an examiner just like a bank examiner and he examines those funds to be sure that they are adequate and maintained.

On the average, Mr. Haley, the amount set aside will vary from 12 to 15 percent to a statutory requirement in the State of Wyoming of 50 percent of that price being set aside for that purpose.

The income only, Mr. Haley, can be use for the proper care and maintenance of the property. The corpus can never be invaded.

Mr. HALEY. I am well aware of the requirements of the State of Florida. I think they are very good. In your statement here somewhere you were a little alarmed or a little opposed to national cemeteries and the enlargement of them because of the cost of land. Is that a valid objection?

Mr. McNITT. We indicate, Mr. Chairman, and this is not a unique position of ours, it has been presented in testimony not only here today, but before Interior, as you will recall, and in hearings held by your Hospital Subcommittee in June of 1966. It has been pointed out that, with the possible exception of our highly urbanized areas land acquisition is a very small portion of the cost involved.

The greatest cost is in the preparation of the land and site development and providing the operating facilities and in the long-time perpetual cost of care and maintenance.

Mr. HALEY. What would be the objection, then, of your organization, for instance, if we utilize the battleground at Manassas where we have set up a national memorial and we are going to keep that up anyway-don't you think we could very well set aside certain portions of that for interment of deceased veterans and their families?

The additional cost as far as the land would be concerned would be nothing. We are going to keep it up anyway, at least we hope we are, and the additional cost would be very small, wouldn't it?

Mr. McNITT. Mr. Haley, I think there might be two answers, if we might suggest two answers to that suggestion.

First of all, your comment yesterday, I think, was most appropriate in that some of these monuments and shrines which we now have seem to have evolved a proprietary interest, let us say, of the Daughters of the Confederacy or the Sons of the American Revolution or some other very active or very interested historical group. Perhaps the invasion of that historical heritage on their part might rouse some antagonism.

But, more importantly, I think that the selection process based upon that premise only serves to compound the historical extent of the national cemeteries as we know them today, and it doesn't engender any equitable treatment of the veteran in every community of the United States.

Mr. HALEY. Of course what disturbs me a little bit, as you well know, is I had in a bill whereby the State of Florida was willing to give to the Federal Government a site of land that they own without any cost to the Federal Government.

I realize there would be some expenditure necessary to make it into a national cemetery. However, in good faith the State says, "Here, you can take this land and anytime you want to use it, anytime you think you need it, we will just transfer it to you and you determine that."

As I said yesterday, I believe, the roof fell in when that was proposed. It did not quite go to make a great believer out of me as to the real motive behind opposition to the expansion of the national cemeteries.

Take in my State of Florida, as I say, the only available space now is Fort Barrancas and to move a body from Miami, it takes you about 3 days to get over there, as you know. As a matter of fact, up until the practical closing of Arlington Cemetery you could reach Arlington much quicker than you could Fort Barrancas because it takes about 4 days for the widow and the family of a deceased veteran to get there and have the services and get back home. That, from the standpoint of the family, I think, is quite a strain on them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Fino.

Mr. FINO. Mr. McNitt, do you know of any instance where a cemetery land plot has been subjected to condemnation proceeding?

Mr. MCNITT. Yes, Mr. Fino. In connection with our National System of Interstate Highways I think the U.S. Government has been the only power which has been able to so acquire that type of property. That will vary under the laws of different States.

In New York, apparently the State has the power of eminent domain to acquire rights-of-way of cemetery lands for any other higher public purpose.

In California, they cannot. In other States they cannot.

Mr. FINO. This has had the effect of diminishing the amount of burial land that we have.

Mr. McNITT. In some areas that could be true; yes.

Mr. FINO. I was just curious because going from Long Island into New York on the Long Island Expressway I was not too familiar with the cemetery out there. I think it is Calvary.

Mr. McNITT. I am familiar with the area.

Mr. FINO. The highway goes right through the cemetery and my comment to my wife in riding through was you don't even have peace when you are dead. It is separated and you have burial grounds on both sides of the highway, so apparently they went right through that cemetery. What happens to the interred bodies?

Mr. McNITT. Normally they are reinterred in the same property. If for any reason the property is filled, the division of highways, I would think, in your State, if it was Calvary, for example, would make arrangements with the archbishop for the removal and reinterment of those remains in his other cemetery.

Mr. FINO. I am very naive as far as burial and plots are concerned, and burial grounds. I have not made arrangements to buy my own, so I am not too familiar with it, but you do buy a plot, is that for one person or three persons?

Mr. McNITT. That will vary, Mr. Fino, upon the availability of space in the property. As you know in the national cemetery system, they have provided for multiple interment. That same practice is followed in many of the community cemeteries.

Normally a family either prior to the demise of its first elder or even at the time of that death will acquire a so-called family plot.

Mr. FINO. Which would accomodate how many bodies

Mr. McNITT. It would accommodate anywhere from one to as many members as you want to provide space for interment for.

Mr. FINO. So we do have throughout this country, I assume, burial plots where it is not filled to capacity?

Mr. McNITT. Congressman, there are, as I indicated earlier based on our most recent surveys, somewhere over 9,000 active cemeteries. Interestingly enough, they are comprised of about 65 percent what I would call publicly owned cemeteries and about 35 percent proprietary

cemeteries.

When I say "publicly owned," I think of your State where so many of the cities and some of the counties have their own cemeteries. Some of the States provide their own cemeteries for different purposes.

Then you have a vast number of community cemeteries. Incidentally, they are operated by a local board of dedicated citizens and many Members of this House serve in a public capacity as trustees of those community cemeteries.

They are operated by churches, by synagogues, by fraternal orders. Some of them are operated under a cooperative basis, a small percentage of them, and then there are the other private cemeteries operated on a proprietary basis.

As an average of those 9,000 cemeteries, their average size is approximately 65 acres. Their average remaining life, as I have said, based on the present and projected populations into about the year 2000, are sufficient to provide for the burial of the population of the United States for about 143 years.

Then, of course, there are additions to these properties, as they go along. New ones are established from time to time as community needs rise, and that inventory will be maintained for some time.

Mr. FINO. With the rising cost of living, do you believe that the present burial allowance of $250 is adequate?