[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-051 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
BOB FILNER, California, Chairman
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JERRY MORAN, Kansas
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
Dakota Carolina
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona JEFF MILLER, Florida
JOHN J. HALL, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
PHIL HARE, Illinois GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California VACANT
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
JOHN J. HALL, New York, Chairman
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado, Ranking
PHIL HARE, Illinois MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 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.
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
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.]
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 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
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
distance 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 Administration 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
non-partisan 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 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.
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 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 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 in-laws 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 2\1/2\
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 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 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?
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 mother-
in-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.
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 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.
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.
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
letter-writing 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 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.
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 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 funeral 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. 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. 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. 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 active-duty 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 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.
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.
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.
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, 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 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.
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?
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 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 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 required 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 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.
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.
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 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 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.
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
testimony, 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.
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.]
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 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 2\1/2\ 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 father-in-law, my husband's sisters and their
families. Our family has had decreased participation 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.
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, 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 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!
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.
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 2\1/2\ million Americans including veterans of
every war and conflict are buried in VA's national cemeteries; and
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
then-headstone 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 service-related 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.
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.
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. Murphy 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 & STATISTICS \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1\1/2\ 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
72\1/2\ 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 22\1/2\ 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 impact on
addressing the future burial needs of veterans in the southern counties
of Colorado.
Figure 1--National & State Veterans Cemeteries in Colorado
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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.
Figure 2--Colorado Veterans Corridor
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90-percent confidence
Place Number of veterans Percent of veterans 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Male Under Male Over Female Female Over Total
County Percent 64 64 Under 64 64 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Male Under Male Over Female Female Over Total
County Percent 64 64 Under 64 64 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 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 third-highest
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: ``America the Beautiful.''
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.)
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.
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 Cemetery 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.
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 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.
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
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 81
Area.
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
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.
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Statement by Congressman Joel Hefley, R-CO, to the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee on June 23, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Military Facts for Fiscal Year 2005, by the Greater Colorado
Springs Chamber of Commerce, 2005
Table 2.1--35-County Veteran Population Data*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Number of
County Name Veterans County Name Veterans County Name 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 Anima1,844 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Census 1990 vs. Census
2000 Veteran Population In the U.S. and Puerto Rico
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Area map of potential cemetery sites
Figure 4.1--Cemetery Site Evaluation and Ranking Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nixon Pwr Nixon Pwr Entrance to Pueblo
Required Feature Cheyenne Mt Plant E of I- Plant W of I- East Side Turkey Creek RMK Ranch Chemical Kane Ranch BLM Land Brush Hollow
State Park 25 25 Fort Carson RA Depot Reservoir
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water supply \1\ 4 5 5 1 4 5 5 4 1 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access To Site \2\ 5 3 4 1 5 1 3 4 3 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-site Acreage \3\ 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 1 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Ownership \4\ 5 4 3 1 4 2 5 5 5 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topography \5\ 4 3 3 2 5 4 5 5 1 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aesthetics \6\ 5 4 1 1 4 3 3 4 1 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feasibility \7\ 5 4 2 3 4 3 3 5 3 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Score 32 27 22 13 30 21 29 31 15 26
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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 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.
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.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4.2--Proposed Site # 1, Cheyenne Mountain State Park
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to Land
Water supply site Acreage Topography 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.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4.3--Proposed Site #2, Nixon Power Plant, East of I-25
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to Land
Water supply site Acreage Topography ownership Aesthetics Feasibility Total Score
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 3 4 3 4 4 4 27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4.4--Proposed Site #3, Nixon Power Plant, West of I-25
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to Land
Water supply site Acreage Topography 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.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4.5--Proposed Site #4, East Boundary of Fort Carson
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to Land
Water supply site Acreage Topography 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.
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.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4.6--Proposed Site #5, Entrance to Turkey Creek Recreation Area
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to Land
Water supply site Acreage Topography 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.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4.7--Proposed Site #6, RMK Ranch
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to Land
Water supply site Acreage Topography ownership Aesthetics Feasibility Total Score
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 1 3 4 2 3 3 21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4.8--Proposed Site #7, Pueblo Chemical Depot
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to
Water source 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.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4.9--Proposed Site #8, Kane Ranch
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to
Water source 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
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.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4.10--Proposed Site #9, BLM Land
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to
Water source 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.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4.11--Proposed Site #10, Brush Hollow Reservoir
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to
Water source 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.
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.
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
COLORADO: Veteran Population by Period of Service, by County
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 1990 or later (including Persian Gulf War) No Vietnam Era Service
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State or County Name Total Total serving
Served In Vietnam No Vietnam Era August 1990 or Served September Served prior to
Era service later 1980 or later only September 1980
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado 446,385 8,607 58,577 67,184 52,626 5,951
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams County 34,426 315 4,241 4,556 3,981 260
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alamosa County 1,280 14 138 152 122 16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arapahoe County 50,669 1,271 7,235 8,506 6,481 754
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archuleta County 1,205 4 39 43 34 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baca County 462 0 3 3 0 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bent County 808 21 74 95 65 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder County 22,437 126 2,198 2,324 2,097 101
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chaffee County 2,238 25 135 160 119 16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheyenne County 191 0 11 11 11 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Creek County 1,093 15 66 81 59 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conejos County 750 1 35 36 35 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costilla County 394 4 16 20 16 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crowley County 758 2 96 98 96 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Custer County 594 7 15 22 15 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta County 3,832 26 149 175 133 16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver County 48,558 277 5,760 6,037 5,511 249
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dolores County 217 4 8 12 8 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas County 14,712 366 2,239 2,605 2,079 160
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle County 2,380 29 277 306 274 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elbert County 2,249 18 215 233 182 33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso County 74,992 4,102 18,259 22,361 14,971 3,288
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fremont County 7,788 68 809 877 780 29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garfield County 4,040 30 356 386 330 26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilpin County 617 8 66 74 66 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand County 1,343 14 103 117 93 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunnison County 1,150 6 141 147 133 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hinsdale County 78 0 5 5 0 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huerfano County 1,176 15 102 117 95 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson County 194 2 13 15 13 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County 54,875 597 4,950 5,547 4,664 286
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiowa County 159 5 10 15 10 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kit Carson County 817 3 26 29 22 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake County 704 0 88 88 71 17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
La Plata County 4,290 18 402 420 397 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larimer County 23,269 266 2,536 2,802 2,452 84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Las Animas County 1,844 33 122 155 99 23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln County 736 9 75 84 64 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logan County 2,093 24 173 197 163 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mesa County 14,908 104 1,385 1,489 1,316 69
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mineral County 115 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moffat County 1,514 19 123 142 123 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montezuma County 2,775 15 238 253 238 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montrose County 3,936 46 347 393 325 22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan County 2,260 18 200 218 200 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otero County 2,339 52 218 270 210 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ouray County 471 6 7 13 5 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Park County 2,126 78 244 322 229 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillips County 416 6 17 23 15 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pitkin County 1,113 0 57 57 57 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prowers County 1,037 13 96 109 96 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pueblo County 17,600 182 1,718 1,900 1,577 141
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rio Blanco County 673 0 59 59 57 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rio Grande County 1,361 14 124 138 104 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Routt County 1,555 8 187 195 178 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saguache County 550 3 34 37 34 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Juan County 88 0 4 4 2 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Miguel County 478 0 20 20 18 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedgwick County 346 1 20 21 20 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summit County 1,686 30 267 297 256 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teller County 3,014 102 372 474 319 53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington County 561 3 24 27 22 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weld County 15,156 175 1,564 1,739 1,428 136
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yuma County 889 7 66 73 56 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Census 1990 vs. 2000 Veteran Population in the U.S. and Puerto Rico
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent change
State 1990 Veterans 2000 Veterans +Gain/ -Loss 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%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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. Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 521(b));
of merchandise, fixtures, equipment, and supplies for the use and
benefit of the Veterans' Canteen Service (38 U.S.C. Sec. 7802(h)); for
the construction, acquisition, and operation of medical facilities (38
U.S.C. Sec. 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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 of the donor's specified
wishes. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 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