ment in the crab industry, retirement annuities, and aid to dependent children. 5. Head of family or household: Husband or other person responsible for support of family group. 6. Student: 1950: Employee under age 18 even though he may not have been in school. Appendix C: Text of Senator Bartlett's bill (S. 2102, 89th Cong., 1st sess.). Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Foster, do you have any questions? Mr. FOSTER. If the chairman has no questions, the staff has no questions. Senator BARTLETT. You got off easy, Willard. Mr. BOWMAN. That is good policy. Thank you, Senator. Senator BARTLETT. Thank you. Now we want to talk a bit, if we may, about education. I believe we have I hope we have-I expect we have two witnesses. Is Mr. Gilbertson here? (No response.) Is Mr. Widman here? (No response.) Mr. EUNEAU. We can send for him, Senator. Senator BARTLETT. No. They aren't hardy men, I can tell that. I assume that at another place, at another time, we can secure the desired information. I must say, I will say, I wish they could have stayed. We had intended to call them and had so informed them. I think for the State of Alaska they could have been on hand for a congressional hearing, even if we kept them up 15 or 20 minutes later than they are accustomed to. Are there any further witnesses? Do you have anything more, Iliodor? Mr. ILIODOR MERCULIEFF. No, sir. Senator BARTLETT. I am a bit perplexed as to how to proceed next, because, of course, there will be need for voluminous testimony from the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. I don't know whether we should take it now or later; I don't know. Mr. Baker, are you prepared to make a general statement at this time? Mr. BAKER. I have no prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. But if time permits, I would like to say a few things. Senator BARTLETT. Come on up. STATEMENT OF RALPH C. BAKER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, my name is Ralph C. Baker. I am Assistant Director for Resource Development, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, U.S. Department of the Interior. As yet, the Department has not prepared its formal report on S. 2102, so I have no prepared statement to present; and I am not in a position at all to commit the Department on the technical aspects of the legislation-of the proposed bill. However, I would like at this time to say a few words about the move of the St. George people to St. Paul. This has been much discussed. As someone mentioned earlier, the total cost to the Government presently of maintaining the village of St. George as a separate community is about $250,000 a year. This is because it is necessary, with two communities, of course, to maintain duplicate village facilitiestwo powerplants, two medical units, two water systems, two of everything. I think it has been made clear that we look forward, as I am sure you do here on the Pribilof Islands, to the time when you will assume complete responsibility for the maintenance and administration of your own community. It is not the intention of the Department or the Bureau that the Bureau pick up and leave you at a specific time. On the other hand, we are looking forward to a gradual transition in the administration of the Pribilof Islands to the point where you will exercise the same responsibility for your community as do other people in Alaska and elsewhere in our country, whether this be Unalakleet, Sitka, or Seattle, Wash. It seems to us that it would be most unfortunate and unfair to pass on to you eventually this additional cost of maintaining two communities. It would be unfortunate if a group of 650 people should have to bear the cost eventually of maintaining two powerplants, maintaining two sets of stores, two water systems, two of everything, because obviously if it costs the Government a quarter of a million dollars to maintain two communities rather than one, at some time in the future when you take over responsibility for your own affairs, you would inherit this extra cost also. Moreover, it seems to us that were there one Pribilof community, you would have one church building, one school system, one medical center, and that these could be made far more satisfactory for a larger group than if this effort has to be divided between two communities. This is part of the thinking back of our hope that one day the two communities will be fully merged. We recognize, as you have pointed out, some of you, tonight, that you have a strong attachment for your homes on St. George Island, and this is certainly understood. I think we all have a strong attachment for our place of birth, although more and more the people of the United States have become movers, so to speak-they establish new homes, they leave the place of their birth, and they establish new homes. The loyalty and sentimental attachment which they held for their place of birth is transferred to their new place of residence. I wonder, when Father Lestenkof mentioned the hope of each individual to return to his place of birth on retirement or in old age, whether this actually will continue to be the case. I wonder whether some of the younger people from St. George who are now going to school at Sitka or elsewhere on the mainland, having gone to school outside for a period of years, having perhaps obtained work elsewhere, having learned how the world moves outside of the Pribilofs, I wonder if they will be so anxious to return to their place of birth-except perhaps for visits to renew acquaintances. I suspect that they will develop new attachments and adopt new homes. These are some of the thoughts in the back of our minds in looking forward to a consolidated Pribilof community. We in the Bureau 62-646-66-8 have experienced a great deal of difficulty at times in maintaining the St. George community. You will recall 2 or 3 years ago when your annual shipment of supplies was sent up on the vessel North Star, how the ship was unable to unload anything at St. George because of weather conditions, and finally discharged all of the cargo for St. George in Unalaska. When someone has a misfortune on St. George during the winter, a serious accident which requires special medical attention, it has been necessary in the past on several occasions to have the Coast Guard fly out to St. Paul with a helicopter aboard, assemble the helicopter, fly this to St. George, take the injured person aboard, bring him back to St. Paul, dismantle the helicopter, and take the injured individual to the mainland for medical attention. This, of course, is what the Coast Guard is supposed to do in cases of emergency, and I am sure that is their purpose in life. But to the maximum extent possible, it seems to me that we should look forward to an arrangement where this terrific expense is not so often incurred. This is another reason I think why we would like to see more of the people from St. George moving to St. Paul: The opportunity for better education, for closer contact with the outside world, for a greater degree of communication with the way of life that most of us in the United States enjoy. At the same time, all of these considerations aside, I would like to make it clear that the Bureau has never at any time to my knowledge, had a policy of insisting or of forcing individuals from St. George to move. We hope that as time goes on the people of St. George will see the benefits of joining the community of St. Pail. I suppose that there are many, in my case, at St. George, particularly the older people, who will not want to move, regardless of the incen tives or the attractions that St. Paul has. And I am sure that no one would insist, in fact, that they move. I merely want to point these matters out to you so that there may be a better understanding of the Bureau's position in this proposed consolidation of the two communities. I think I have nothing further to say on this subject now, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Senator BARTLETT. Let me ask you a few questions, Mr. Baker, about my bill, if that is agreeable to you. Mr. BAKER. I will be very happy to do my best to answer the questions, Mr. Chairman, bearing in mind the inability to commit the Department on the technical aspects of the bill. Senator BARTLETT. We understand that, and we will probe deeper into these and the other subjects I mentioned by and by in Was ington, D.C. Let's turn to page 9 of the bill, section 203, subsection (2), who h authorizes the Secretary to provide the er,ployees of the Department of the Interior and other Factory! agencies and their dependents, and tourists and other persons, at reasorate rates to be determined by the Secretary, with such facilities, services, and eun . goment as he deems necessary, including, but not limited to, food, fuel sheiter, transportation, education, and nonemergency medical and dental care. Is this a re-tatement of existing law, Mr. Baker, do you know? Mr. BAKER. I think, Mr. Chairman, that this perhaps is a more specific and more comprehensive statement covering many aspects of the subject. Insofar as tourists go, we have at the present time no specific authorization in the legislation to provide accommodations or services for tourists. This would make it a matter of specific authorization, as I understand the language. Senator BARTLETT. I think possibly that might be the case. But the whole thrust of the paragraph seems to be aimed at providing special services for Federal employees, and tourists and other persons are sort of thrown in as an afterthought. What is going to be done for Federal employees here, what is contemplated may be done that isn't done now? Mr. BAKER. I think that at the present time there is some doubt about the authority of the Department to provide nonemergency medical and dental care to Federal employees on the Pribilof Islands. Senator BARTLETT. Do Federal employees elsewhere receive nonemergency medical care free of charge? Mr. BAKER. Not certainly as a general proposition. Senator BARTLETT. I am just curious. Why should it be so here and not elsewhere? Emergency care would be quite understandable. Mr. BAKER. I think in part this is considered desirable here because of the isolation of Federal employees serving on the Pribilof Islands. Senator BARTLETT. Federal employees here? Mr. BAKER. Federal employees here. Senator BARTLETT. Do they have the benefits of a health insurance program offered by the Federal Government? Mr. BAKER. I really can't answer that, Mr. Chairman. It may be that some of our employees who are serving here could answer that. Senator BARTLETT. Howard? Mr. EUNEAU. Yes, Mr. Chairman. All of the Federal employees brought in from outside I think subscribe to one of the Federal health plans. The local residents did not subscribe to the Federal health plan. Senator BARTLETT. Why not? Mr. EUNEAU. Because of the full coverage by PHS. Senator BARTLETT. You have full coverage now, without charge? Mr. EUNEAU. For the local people; yes. Senator BARTLETT. I mean Federal employees. Mr. EUNEAU. No, sir; we have no facility ourselves. We would get emergency treatment here as of now. We would have to get into Anchorage, the nearest possible, for injury or illness to ourselves or our dependents. Senator BARTLETT. The Public Health Service will not treat you now? Mr. EUNEAU. On an emergency basis. Senator BARTLETT. Only on an emergency? Mr. EUNEAU. That is as I understand the policy. Senator BARTLETT. You say the Federal employees here in town. have taken out Federal health insurance? Mr. EUNEAU. The local residents have not. Senator BARTLETT. When you say "local residents," you mean the Aleuts? Mr. EUNEAU. Yes, sir. Senator BARTLETT. You say Federal employee, they have or have not? Mr. EUNEAU. I have. Senator BARTLETT. It would be foolish for them to do so because they get their treatment free? Mr. EUNEAU. That is right. They had this choice and they don't pay premiums for the insurance. Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Baker, if this is a device and I don't mean that in an unkind way—to give the Secretary of the Interior authority that he does not now possess for promotion of tourist travel, I don't know why it seems to be aimed so specifically at benefits for Federal employees. Mr. BAKER. I believe, Mr. Chairman, it is aimed at virtually all individuals who have occasion to be here on the Pribilof Islands. Senator BARTLETT. Then it isn't something that is especially designed for promotion of tourist travel? Mr. BAKER. No; not entirely. Senator BARTLETT. Let me return to Howard again. What if you have a toothache that wasn't one of those toothaches that drive you to distraction, just a continuing one, that bothers you, but it is not a great emergency. Can you have that tooth pulled here or would you have to go to Anchorage? Mr. EUNEAU. It is a very difficult question, Mr. Chairman. Judgment on that would be made as to whether it is an emergency by the Public Health Service. Senator BARTLETT. The Public Health Service operates the medical facility here and at St. George; is that right? Mr. BAKER. That's right. Senator BARTLETT. And there is a medical doctor at St. Paul and a nurse at St. George? Mr. EUNEAU. That is correct. And a dentist at St. Paul. Senator BARTLETT. Does the Public Health Service supply these services out of funds appropriated to the Public Health Service, or is Public Health Service reimbursed by the Department of the Interior? Mr. EUNEAU. They are reimbursed by the Department of the Interior. Senator BARTLETT. How long has Public Health Service had this obligation? Mr. EUNEAU. Three or four years, Senator, is the best answer that I have. About 3 or 4 years that the agreement has been in effect. Mr. BAKER. I would say longer than that. I would judge 10 or 12 years, Howard, although I can't say exactly. Senator BARTLETT. How was it performed before then? Mr. BAKER. The Bureau recruited medical personnel directly and employed them directly. Senator BARTLETT. I would say amen, personally, to that provision, because it seems completely nonsensical to me to have a hospital here and to require a Federal employee to go to Anchorage or wherever at the possible risk of life, because that which didn't seem to be an emergency might turn out to be one before he arrived there. I understand that the Public Health Service had given consideration to this very problem on a broader scale. |